Steward requests/Checkuser/2020-10

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search



  •  Confirmed ㄆㄆㄆ, 音樂家浩歌2222222, 1u2i, ㄍ1111, Edstfgg, Sfdhdndfkhtol, 111qqqqqqrfxg

From a technical point of view. --Sotiale (talk) 01:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --Super Wang hates PC You hate, too? 03:29, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


  •  Confirmed 风犬少年的气球 and ColinPan1999 account group

  • No other sleepers found in range used by the above requesting account.

From a technical point of view. Please be sure to link to the local discussion[1] next time.. Oh, good. Thanks for adding. --Sotiale (talk) 03:53, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Will comply next time. --Super Wang hates PC You hate, too? 03:56, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Super Wang: For reference, if SCP-458 has a pattern of PXD, block that account. --Sotiale (talk) 03:50, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sotiale: I was amazed when a local user pointed out after the check that SCP-458 could be PXD. Thank you for the update. --Super Wang hates PC You hate, too? 03:55, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Fishing CheckUser is not for fishing — regards, Revi 16:07, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Symbol wait.svg Doing... --Sotiale (talk) 12:01, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unlikely Unlikely YALONGWIKI, A0950156
  • Unrelated Unrelated 夜玥1

  •  Confirmed Group 1: 陳-礽, 大胖貴圓豬
  • Inconclusive Inconclusive Group 1 and A0950156

From a technical point of view. --Sotiale (talk) 13:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! --Easterlies (talk) 15:06, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Symbol wait.svg Doing... --Sotiale (talk) 11:29, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Confirmed Group 1: GMantanis, Antonios.N.Papadopoulos, Ipogko, Zougrou1989, Ant.papad, KarditsaStud2019, 123Karditsa
  • Possible Possible Antonios1974 and Group 1
  • Unrelated Unrelated Makathid1977, Thanasismasou, Panagiotis Athanasiadis

  • In some cases, the IPs of educational facilities are used.

From a technical point of view. This does not include analysis of behavioral patterns and is based on technical data only. --Sotiale (talk) 12:42, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Symbol wait.svg Doing... --Sotiale (talk) 14:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Confirmed A66772388982, 豚中央19491001号爱国党员

  • This user used VPN.
  • There were no other accounts in this VPN range.
  • It is possible that it is PXD, but I haven't found any clear evidence.

From a technical point of view. --Sotiale (talk) 14:57, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Symbol wait.svg Doing... --Sotiale (talk) 07:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Confirmed Group 1: Sfxscircus, 荃灣聖方濟馬戲團, 聖方濟群眾演員
  •  Confirmed Group 2: 荃劇經濟演員魚跑友, 魚柳包跑友

From a technical point of view. --Sotiale (talk) 07:31, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


@SecurityXP: Hi. It came to SRCU 3 hours after it was posted. I am curious if the discussion was sufficient, and also please explain to me who 愛莎 was and what behavior pattern the user had. Thanks. --Sotiale (talk) 11:57, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. It's a LTA in Chinese Wikipedia(zh:Wikipedia:持续出没的破坏者/User:愛莎). And the request is a periodic task to check his/ her sleeper accounts. --Easterlies (talk) 12:29, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Easterlies: There are no records since 2013 on that page, did the user reappear? And please briefly explain the user's behavior pattern. --Sotiale (talk) 12:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This user has reappear. This user always create a lot of sockpuppet, and make vandalism at TVB actor/actress's article. See related content at zh:Topic:Vv8i4jx2wwpbtwxi. --SecurityXP 00:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol wait.svg Doing... --Sotiale (talk) 02:46, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Confirmed Group 1: Burochtalks, Pureenfanydae, Czechkeith, Partynape, Noisedweeb, Nobeljelly, Kyotolure, Renewunfit, Minorshrew, Banjogeeks, Axesamend, Searcokes, Meantonya66, Pawnviols, Ingeclear, Joanaabeck
  •  Confirmed Group 2: Nadersgni, Snapsbauer

  •  Confirmed Group 1 and 2

From a technical point of view. --Sotiale (talk) 04:10, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • winkThanks! The results was report back.--SecurityXP 05:36, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Millennium Challenge Corporation 214@zh.wikipedia

Symbol wait.svg Doing... It must be true beyond guess.. --Sotiale (talk) 08:22, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unrelated Unrelated Millennium Challenge Corporation 214 and 95撓081784248

  • No other accounts suspected of being Millennium Challenge Corporation 214

This is the first technical information I've seen since doing checkuser on zhwiki. If this user is 坦帕灣光芒460, please let me know. --Sotiale (talk) 08:34, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thanks.--Super Wang hates PC You hate, too? 10:58, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Symbol wait.svg Doing... --Sotiale (talk) 01:35, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Confirmed Group 1: SCP-458, 北见纱和子, 小鸟游雏田, 李建老师, 好好写条目有错吗, 忘了你也忘了怎么爱一个人

  •  Confirmed Group 1 and PXD
  • This user used VPN.

From a technical point of view. Sad, but I couldn't find a new account. And their technical information is not one that can be linked to the last zhwikinews accounts. --Sotiale (talk) 01:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ^^ --Easterlies (talk) 02:59, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


@Super Wang: Hi, could you please explain what their abuse is? --Sotiale (talk) 02:47, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sotiale: Sorry for lacking info. They created Taiwan TV drama articles that are never announced or aired. There's also an LTA performing such action: zh:Wikipedia:持续出没的破坏者/台湾戏剧造假者. All his /her socks are listed at zh:cat:小昌的維基用戶分身. Thanks. --Super Wang hates PC You hate, too? 02:57, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol wait.svg Doing... --Sotiale (talk) 03:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Confirmed Group 1: Oaz01265987, Qaz01471qa1
  •  Confirmed Group 2: Aszx6547a01, A028485268a, Jack8812154

  •  Confirmed Group 1 and 2

From a technical point of view. Enjoy lunch time. --Sotiale (talk) 03:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Tomatoes and eggs for today. Bon appetit. Face-smile.svg--Super Wang hates PC You hate, too? 04:07, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


MoreInfo Additional information needed @Super Wang: It's a little confusing. 3hjte6h3 is X43, but Dkdn4 is 114.27? --Sotiale (talk) 09:00, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sotiale: Some local admins couldn't distinguish X43 from 114.27, because they follow similar editing patterns and share similar accounts names, so this round of check can be of great importance, clearing ambiguous local block reasons once and for all. --Super Wang hates PC You hate, too? 09:06, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol wait.svg Doing... I don't know what the result of this checkuser will be, but I think it may not be appropriate to judge this one result only. --Sotiale (talk) 09:20, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Confirmed Group 1: 滄海77, Janet492, 俏綾, Ahri6279(=based on past data)
  • Unrelated Unrelated Group 1 and T1jtqna6h

  • Unrelated Unrelated T1jtqna6h and this accounts group
  • Unlikely Unlikely Group 1 and this accounts group
  • Looking at the data of accounts in Group 1 and Dkdn4 accounts in the past, they are more likely to be different users(This is based on data to date).
  • T1jtqna6h is also different from Dkdn4.

From a technical point of view. --Sotiale (talk) 10:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I realized the "once and for all" part was hot-headed, but the request itself is nothing personal. After all, sock usage in zhwiki has always been complicated. --Super Wang hates PC You hate, too? 10:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The next time their accounts appear, ask me to compare them again. --Sotiale (talk) 11:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


@Croxyz, Koreanovsky, and Ivi104:. Ok, but Lordluka99 isn't blocked, no doble voting with sockpuppet or (apparently) other violation. The scope of this request is, imho, very similar to fishing. We await other opinions from other stewards… --Wim b 18:11, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Wim b: Lordluka99 isn't blocked yet, we wanted checkuser confirmation so the ban would be official, and couldn't be attributed to hunches and speculations from his point of view. The users behaviour on-wiki and off-wiki are too similar to dismiss, with the added proof of him using his alt-account to share sensitive information that was shared with his primary account alone. Using alt-accounts for badmouthing others and ill-speaking should not be allowed. Please proceed with the CU request, so we can put a stop to such behaviour. The CU rules clearly state: Checks are inappropriate unless there is evidence suggesting abusive sock-puppetry. His behaviour is clearly abusive, and he is using an sock-account to carry out such behaviour. --Ivi104 (talk) 21:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivi104, Croxyz, and Koreanovsky: In summary, does it mean that they are editing the same page using a different account without revealing the account, insulting another user with one account, and doing normal editing with the other account? Could you please tell me if what I said is correct and what other abuses are there? --Sotiale (talk) 02:18, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wim b: The summary is correct. Additional abuses: he is insulting multiple users (not just one), refusing to admit the second account is his even when presented with the evidence above, and such behaviour is causing disruptions in our normal work. --Ivi104 (talk) 02:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Erm.. although I am not Wim b and you pinged them too, I will handle this soon. Ivi104, If you want Wim b, not me, to process it, please tell me. --Sotiale (talk) 02:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sotiale: Not at all, I mistakenly tagged them instead of you, sorry. --Ivi104 (talk) 02:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol wait.svg Doing... --Sotiale (talk) 02:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Confirmed Lordluka99, Nekitip88, Mpizza99, Hrvatkatolik91, Hrvatkatolikdomoljub

@Ivi104, Croxyz, and Koreanovsky: From a technical point of view. --Sotiale (talk) 03:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Same User Agent, in my opinion is  Confirmed --Wim b 16:10, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Reminder: this is 100% technical analysis and does not include behavioral evidence


 Confirmed and locked with other sleepers. --Sotiale (talk) 03:05, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Symbol wait.svg Doing... --Sotiale (talk) 08:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Confirmed Group 1: 荃灣劇組, 柴灣魚柳包, 品學兼優中, 荃灣聖方濟馬戲團

From a technical point of view. --Sotiale (talk) 08:56, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --Super Wang hates PC You hate, too? 10:35, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Symbol wait.svg Doing... --Sotiale (talk) 14:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Confirmed Group 1: Jieminhong, Jieminhung
  • Unrelated Unrelated Group 1 and 艾倫咚咚

From a technical point of view. --Sotiale (talk) 14:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --Yining Chen (Talk) 14:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Minh Châu Trần@vi.wikipedia

@Trần Nguyễn Minh Huy: Hello. The reason it is mandatory to have at least 2 checkusers is to allow each other to monitor and check. So another checkuser can proceed with an investigation if the checkuser thinks it has a good basis. If this investigation should be carried out in meta, we need at least a special reason to conduct the investigation even if there is a local checkuser, or consensus on local wiki. It is difficult to be considered COI just by having 2 checkusers. Could you elaborate on why they become COI or take the relevant steps? Thank you. --Sotiale (talk) 06:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Sotiale, in fact we only have 1 local CU currently active (DHN), the other CU (Mxn) inactive for almost 1 year and he never deal any tasks related to CU requests uptill now. Mxn is also a target of this CU request, and DHN refused to use his tool regarding COI, because, as his statement with rough translation: In the list of accounts you require to CU, there are CUs, bureaucrats, and sysops. Since I am also an bureaucrat and CU, my implementation of this request may also be considered unfair (due to a conflict of interest). Furthermore, if the result is deterministic, I have no right to remove the rights of related accounts. He suggested us to make a request on Meta instead (Do đó, yêu cầu này nên được đưa lên Meta cho các Stewards thực hiện.).
For the background of this case: someone accused that interface-admins group make sockpupet accounts for "pass the buck" multiple community consensus related to RfPs. The proof are: those sockpupets account can view and check the fuction that only interface-admins have rights to use (undelete a user skin). We're considering this problem make extremely bad effects to morales of related users, not to say that it may violated the security policy of interface-admins group (which required 2FA). In the discussion, our community gained consensus about need to perform a CU act right away, but our sole CU (in fact) refused per COI as I presented above. --minhhuy (talk) 06:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Time2wait.svg On hold Discussion regarding this has been raised and is reserved for the discussion. --Sotiale (talk) 07:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also please note that in the local dicussion, we are requesting two different groups for CU. The groups with related to interface-admins is suggested to be process via stewards on here in this section, while the group with normal accounts already have results. --minhhuy (talk) 07:59, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Request withdrawn per lastest responde from local CU. --minhhuy (talk) 08:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then, marking as local handling. --Sotiale (talk) 08:16, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Soapbox Sam@en.wikiquote

Rupert loup (talk) 04:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rupert loup: Hi. We cannot confirm the relationship between IP and account. Could you explain the correlation between Soapbox Sam and TVEBOR in more detail? Making it clear can help with this investigation. Thank you. --Sotiale (talk) 05:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sotiale: Just checking because the succesive edits, I wanted to verify if it was a log out. The IPs and TVEBOR belong to a banned editor from Australia. Rupert loup (talk) 06:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Rupert loup: According to privacy policy, it is not possible to verify the relationship between IP and account. Therefore, what is currently possible is an account-to-account investigation. Please explain me in detail about the relationship between Soapbox Sam and TVEBOR by presenting a link and editing pattern. --Sotiale (talk) 06:16, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sotiale: They have the same interest in politics, both are interested in US Conservative and Libertarian politics. Soapbox started to be most active right after 2001:8003:4000:0:0:0:0:0/35 and TVEBOR were banned for sockpuppetry. Rupert loup (talk) 06:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Rupert loup: Hello. I've reviewed above accounts, and TVEBOR is too old and there will be no data left even if I investigate. So even if I accept your request, I will be unable to confirm anything. Do you know any other suspicious accounts? Or is there any evidence that IP editing is an overt abuse? --Sotiale (talk) 07:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sotiale: The IPs 2001:8003:4000:0:0:0:0:0/35 is harassing me, it has been harassing me during a year now. The other IPs have the same location. Rupert loup (talk) 15:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm recieving harassment right now and an admin have block me for revert the block evasion of TVEBOR, I reported it here, although I'm not sure if that the correct place. I want to make sure that this Soapbox is not part of it. Rupert loup (talk) 17:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

X mark.svg Not done Sorry. In this case, it is not the subject of checkuser. But if you are being harassed elsewhere other than enwikiquote, you can request block from localwiki admin there or ask SRG to global review block. --Sotiale (talk) 04:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Symbol wait.svg Doing... --Sotiale (talk) 10:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unrelated Unrelated 喜欢阿福的某个人, 五等分の三葉, MDFKSean

From a technical point of view. Surprisingly, I can't find any evidence that they are using VPN/OP. --Sotiale (talk) 10:34, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That was surprising indeed. --Super Wang hates PC You hate, too? 10:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CCP GODIE@zh.wikipedia

  •  Confirmed Group 1: CCP GODIE, CCP RUSH, LSP 2050, CCF BS, NCC 1010, Yxh1433, XiaoD Ferry
  •  Confirmed Group 2: Bjturedwind, Histoire des religieuses, フェイト・テスタロッサ, LaLojban, 笔墨胜刀剑, Sokiraon, Narumi Toa
  • Possible Possible 有机交流电灯 and Group 1
  • Likely Likely Зумби and Group 2

  • Unlikely Unlikely Group 1 and 2
  • In most cases it's VPN, but there's also mobile IPs(Group 1).

  • Note Note: This request is for Group 1, so the investigation for Group 2 is not completed.
  • It is highly likely that there will be an additional account, please request again after discussing it local, whether further investigation is necessary or not.

From a technical point of view. --Sotiale (talk) 05:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --Super Wang hates PC You hate, too? 06:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you have any questions after discussing it locally, please contact me. Content that does not violate privacy policy can be explained. --Sotiale (talk) 04:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Lordluka99 (talk) 16:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P.s. Ivi104 agreed to be checked, so please dont remove my request and check him. I logged in.

Lordluka99: Imjustthere has only one edit (deleted) in en.wikipedia in 2012. Is that the correct username to check? --Wim b
No, he meant User:ImJustThere (user ID 25 365 092). --Ivi104 (talk) 16:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for mentioning me. I needed a good laugh. User:Imjustthere 17:11, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide relevant links and translations. Also, provide evidence to prove your claim. --Sotiale (talk) 23:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lordluka99: Please provide information within on-wiki about why both users are the same user. Posting of sensitive/personal information, including their sexual orientation, without their consent is strictly prohibited. If they are the same user, you will be able to present a convincing behavior pattern. --Sotiale (talk) 14:35, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just wondering should hrwp CU requests be subjected to a local discussion like zhwp ones? These checks are clearly premature. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:15, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's quite good idea but nowadays I don't handle SRCU so if Sotiale wants to ask hrwiki to do same, it's up to his discretion :) — regards, Revi 17:57, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's up to Sotiale discretion. Good to standardize procedures for all wikis just to be fair as these hr checks seems premature which is the reason given by stewards to require zh to have a local discussion. Just my 2 cents worth, pardon if inappropriate. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 18:16, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea — as in "Discussion required unless uncontroversial (spambot, LTA, etc - can be strengthened if making low-quality submissions)". That would require stewards discussion tho. Will bring up later. — regards, Revi 20:07, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There was a lengthy discussion about that actually that went the other way to not require consensus from a wiki as a hard requirement. I don't remember where it was (early to mid-2015 though). What concerns me when consensus is required is that the request for CU turns into a popularity vote rather than an objective determination whether the request is based on local policy as well as the privacy / CU policies. That all being said, hrwiki is a bit notorious right now, to say the least, so I would definitely think that treating them with extra scrutiny is justifiable. --Rschen7754 05:55, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

X mark.svg Not done The requester is not providing evidence, so close the request. If you wish to request again, please do so with good reason/evidence. And I haven't received a lot of requests from hrwiki yet, and considering some factors, it doesn't seem like such a condition is needed yet. If I think I need such a condition, I'll suggest it to hrwiki. --Sotiale (talk) 04:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Symbol wait.svg Doing... --Sotiale (talk) 03:28, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unrelated Unrelated Yushifan0819, Ball2

From a technical point of view. --Sotiale (talk) 03:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Super Wang hates PC You hate, too? 03:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Symbol wait.svg Doing... --Sotiale (talk) 03:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Confirmed Group 1: Borschts, InbestFans
  • Unrelated Unrelated Group 1 and Group 3 of previous request (Yage Wu)
  • Unrelated Unrelated Group 1 and Xia'an'an4tt214

  • InbestFans did not use proxies or VPN.

From a technical point of view. --Sotiale (talk) 03:56, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why Inbest cursed "themselves", but thank you very much. --Super Wang hates PC You hate, too? 05:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


@Yining Chen: Hello. Could you please elaborate on their editing tendency? --Sotiale (talk) 11:34, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They both edit the articles about actors and concerts. --Yining Chen (Talk) 11:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Yining Chen: 使用 was registered on 21 March 2015. You mean, AlfredWong925 or anything else? --Sotiale (talk) 11:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I mean 使用 and AlfredWong925 both edit the articles about actors. --Yining Chen (Talk) 11:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Yining Chen: Yes, I already understood it. What I'm curious about is this part you mentioned; 使用 registered recently and 使用 and AlfredWong925 show the similar editing tendency. Or are you referring to creating a page? --Sotiale (talk) 11:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I made a mistake. It should have been "AlfredWong925 registered recently and ...". --Yining Chen (Talk) 11:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a disagreement on local. The discussion doesn't seem to be completely over, can you check back? --Sotiale (talk) 12:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I voted against the request just because there was no discussion then. Now since several users supported it, I think the check can be continued. --Easterlies (talk) 19:50, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol wait.svg Doing... --Sotiale (talk) 03:36, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Confirmed 使用, AlfredWong925

Technically without a doubt. --Sotiale (talk) 03:41, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --Yining Chen (Talk) 11:59, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Symbol wait.svg Doing... --Sotiale (talk) 09:43, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Confirmed Duwin1218, Frog789456

  • This user used VPN or proxies in some cases.

From a technical point of view. --Sotiale (talk) 12:00, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Super Wang hates PC You hate, too? 12:05, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


@Yining Chen: I'm not sure how it is related to Nicoleyeez's promise not to use sockpuppets and Yushifan0819's investigation. Did Nicoleyeez say it had nothing to do with Yushifan0819? --Sotiale (talk) 13:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sotiale: Nicoleyeez has been blocked because he/she used the sockpuppet (User:Bewaterrr). Then Nicoleyeez wanted to be unblocked, so he/she promised that he/she would not use sockpuppet again. But some users think that Nicoleyees may be the sockpuppet of Yushifan0819. --Yining Chen (Talk) 13:24, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Yining Chen: What I'm curious about is whether Nicoleyeez or Yushifan0819 claimed to each other that they weren't their accounts. Did Yushifan0819 explicitly claim that they did not use another account in Yushifan0819's block review? --Sotiale (talk) 13:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sotiale:The answer is YES. Yu denied using a sock account and was unblocked by our local sysop AT. See zh:User_talk:Yushifan0819#2020年10月. --Super Wang hates PC You hate, too? 13:34, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thank you for the answer, Yining Chen and Super Wang. --Sotiale (talk) 13:56, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sotiale and Yining Chen: Yining may have misunderstood something.
Nicoleyeez was first reported by ドラえ (Dorae)'s sockpuppet, Sclssynt, to our local administrator, 蟲蟲飛, that Nico was a sockpuppet of Yushifan0819, which led to a permanent block for Nico and a two-week block for Yushi. Yushi got unblocked for a previous CU on them and Ball2, another user that was reported by Dorae's sock, and the results proved Yushi innocent, but Nico was never unblocked.
Later, Nico evaded the block by creating Bewaterrr, which was found in #使用@zh.wikipedia. Bewaterrr admitted that they were Nico and was only trying to get Dorae to stop abusing reports (thus requesting a CU for Dorae and Scl). Bewaterrr was then blocked indefinitely, and I suggested them to return to their main account (Nicoleyeez) to properly file an appeal.
The sole block record on Nico's account was being a sock of Yushi, which we suspect that was another abusive report by Dorae. With Nico's promise on not abusing socks, the only remaining thing to check is whether Nico and Yushi are in fact related accounts. If not, Nico may have their appeal accepted and get a shorter block period or a direct unblock.
One thing that we noticed is that in a previous CU report, Bewaterrr is only found to be related to Nico, and no other accounts are listed with the two. We are unsure whether this actually indicates that Nico is in fact not related to Yushi as per previous CU records. Therefore, would Sotiale mind to tell us whether the above assumption is valid, or whether another check would be required to verify that Nico and Yushi are unrelated. LuciferianThomasTalk 13:46, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@LuciferianThomas: Thanks for explanation. I think you can refer to this for the answer to your question. What appeared in my investigation means that they are very likely to have used sockpuppets, but not appearing cannot mean innocent. And this also depends on whether they use VPN/OP or regular IPs. --Sotiale (talk) 13:56, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol wait.svg Doing... --Sotiale (talk) 13:43, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unrelated Unrelated Nicoleyeez, Yushifan0819

From a technical point of view. --Sotiale (talk) 13:56, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have forwarded the results to the local discussions. Thank you for your help today. LuciferianThomasTalk 14:03, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


@LClightcat: Hello. There seems to have been opposition in the local discussion, please explain why they objected and what happened afterwards. Thank you. --Sotiale (talk) 03:53, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sotiale:Hello.Because this discussion was rejected due to insufficient evidence, but after supplement, I think it can be transferred. The objector thinks that it is not allowed to apply for verification on behalf of others. Maybe I am a bit rash. Please handle another verification request first. Thank you!LClightcat Talk 04:00, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Sotiale. I am here to help explain the situation of the local discussion and hope to help you decide whether or not to proceed on this report.
Bewaterrr (the user checked in the other report), requested Jasonloi1997 to help submit this CheckUser report. ドラえ, one of the users listed in this CU report, attempted to decline the report, but was turned down by Streetdeck due to conflicts of interests. The report was then declined by Super Wang for insufficient evidence and that he thought the report was used to reolve edit conflicts. Bewaterrr then responded to the rejection of the report in Jasonloi1997's user talk page with some additional evidence and information, which I forwarded to the local discussion page. LClightcat found the new information seemingly sufficient to initiate the CU report, thus forwarded the report to here.
I hope the above explanation is sufficient for your further decisions and actions on this report. LuciferianThomasTalk 05:33, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sotiale: The local discussion is sufficient and the evidence has been submitted. The only objector is the inspected. Please check the user. Thank you.--LClightcat Talk 07:21, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol wait.svg Doing... --Sotiale (talk) 09:21, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Confirmed Group 1: ドラえ, 洛愚蒙聲, Sclssynt, Petrussat, UrbanDeli, Gaseen
  • Possible Possible Group 1 and Betty0099
  • Possible Possible Group 1 and Icanflyee

From a technical point of view. you can think of the past, Group 2. Unlike back then, I was able to get clearer data about Group 1 of this request. But in the case of Possible Possible, their editing pattern must be analyzed locally before deciding. --Sotiale (talk) 10:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. I will forward the message to the local discussion. LuciferianThomasTalk 10:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


@LClightcat: Hi. Could you briefly explain the discussion on local? And the two accounts above(Joey Yung, Jasonloi1997) seem to be quite experienced users, has there been enough discussion? Thank you for your answer. --Sotiale (talk) 03:57, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sotiale:In the local discussion, some people thought that bewaterr asked Jasonloi1997 to help report without any reason, but Jasonloi1997 accepted the request. Moreover, both editors had edited the same item and thought that it was necessary to check users and check sleepers.LClightcat Talk 04:07, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition, Jasonloi1997, the user who was requested to check, supported the check.LClightcat Talk 04:19, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol wait.svg Doing... --Sotiale (talk) 04:35, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Confirmed Group 1: 使用, AlfredWong925, Joey Yung
  •  Confirmed Group 2: Bewaterrr, Nicoleyeez

  • Unrelated Unrelated Group 1 and 2
  • Unrelated Unrelated Group 1 and Jasonloi1997
  • Unrelated Unrelated Group 2 and Jasonloi1997
  • Users in group 2 used VPN.

From a technical point of view. --Sotiale (talk) 05:03, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK,thanks!LClightcat Talk 05:08, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sotiale:Hi Sotiale. Local community would like to know if there is no other accounts in Group 2? Thank you. Itcfangye (talk) 12:51, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Itcfangye: Unless I specifically state that the investigation has not been completed, any investigation that can be done with respect to the account under investigation has been completed once. The only exception is VPN, in which case I must have the account presented so I can fully investigate them. This is because VPNs sometimes automatically switch servers. So, if you have another suspicious account(not investigated) with good reason and if I declared that they used VPN, you can request their investigation again. --Sotiale (talk) 13:04, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Symbol wait.svg Doing... --Wim b 19:00, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inconclusive Inconclusive: Same ISP in 3 different ranges (2 range for Who-Sells-Bricks and 1 for CU71), Same browser and operative system (CU71 has updated that). But, by the last Who-Sells-Bricks's edit and the first of CU71 was passed ~2 months. Imho the ISP, browser and OS are too commons, in this case only a behavior's analysis can confirm that this 2 users are the same person

From a technical point of view. --Wim b 19:25, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


13 more accounts

Due to recent chaotic situation on local discussion page, this request was delayed a few days. These are LTA zh:WP:D17C's puppets blocked locally since last month's check. Please compare them to this round of check, and tell us if they used proxy or VPN. Lastly, we'd like stewards to globally block their IP bands per local CU policy zh:WP:CUP#1. Thank you. --Super Wang hates PC You hate, too? 02:52, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol wait.svg Doing... Ohh, maybe you don't like me? :p --Sotiale (talk) 10:23, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I do XD --Super Wang hates PC You hate, too? 11:08, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Confirmed Group 1: Afoulbawls, AntimccS, Weirsawarty, Wuhanprong, Mitchpark9, Tellsavoid, Laststemp, Wezenaides, Yankstris, Hkga20312315, Hkga20312316, Parkliner2, Limptuxes, Polsreeve, Diodes9, Woesalgae, Krktalk, Broadmaid, Wedgetact, 開心拼盤, Bratzeta, Tintscabby, PMC42157MU
  •  Confirmed Group 2: Wristsalk, NDD214, Signdrugs, Oslodawes, PMC94321, Headaged, Vedasiamb, 馬史史21, M412CC, Merlelaid, Hansmark9, Wawtalk, Monkgauze
  •  Confirmed Group 3: Swashcisco, Wawkrk7
  • Inconclusive Inconclusive Locoshads

  •  Confirmed Group 1, 2 and 3
  • Locoshads is estimated to use IPs allocated to public facilities and devices there.

  • This user used both VPN and regular ranges.
  • See accounts in Group 1 to see if this is the user associated with the before request.

  • Some accounts are locked, but if the main account and its sockpuppets are not confirmed as cross-wiki abuse, do not request lock from SRG.
  • This means that don't request lock just because some accounts are locked; if you want to lock, make sure that this is actually xwiki and request for it.

From a technical point of view. And there won't be any additional requests today, right? --Sotiale (talk) 11:59, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't thank Sotiale more. --Hamish 12:00, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is 'this user' referring to Locoshads? --Hamish 12:05, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sotiale:^ --Hamish 12:05, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hamish: Take a look at the comment about Locoshads. Locoshads is Inconclusive Inconclusive and does not fall under the general comment of this investigation. --Sotiale (talk) 12:08, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Symbol wait.svg Doing... --Sotiale (talk) 11:26, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likely Likely Group 1: Yokw7597, Pinyupyc
  • Unlikely Unlikely A3501418 and Group 1
  • Unlikely Unlikely JingwuHou and Group 1

From a technical point of view. --Sotiale (talk) 11:40, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Φάνης Χατζηπέτρος@el.wikipedia

Symbol wait.svg Doing... --Sotiale (talk) 15:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Confirmed Group 1: Φάνης Χατζηπέτρος, Ο Παναγούλης ο Καλός, Φάνης Χ, Φάνης Χατζηπ.
  •  Confirmed Group 2: Mrfarenheit1234, Justsomeguy123456

  • Unrelated Unrelated Group 1 and 2
  • Unrelated Unrelated Group 1 and N1kolaidhs
  • Unrelated Unrelated Group 2 and N1kolaidhs

From a technical point of view. --Sotiale (talk) 15:25, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Symbol wait.svg Doing... --Sotiale (talk) 12:25, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unlikely Unlikely Ansono o, Stupidbuteasytoremember

  • Lovehksingers account is old, and has been excluded because there is no information to compare.
  • There is not enough data to see them technically, but the data so far are as above.

From a technical point of view. --Sotiale (talk) 12:34, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Yining Chen (Talk) 12:39, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]