Steward requests/Checkuser/2016-05

Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in May 2016, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion.

Requests

Latest comment: 8 years ago43 comments20 people in discussion

Murbaut

Status: Not done

List of users: Murbaut (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Murbaut (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Murbaut (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

CU log
Discussion: no thing

Reason(s): I want to felt become a checkuser in here. I'm trusted, I'm can't shared a any info. You can check myuser before you give me a checkuser Murbaut (talk) 07:03, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

This is not the place for asking for permission. And I can't see that you meet the criteria, so even if the request was places at Steward requests/Permissions it would probably be closed as "Not done". -- Tegel _(Talk) 09:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Graaf_Statler@nl.wikiquote

Status: Done

List of users: Graaf Statler (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Sir Statler (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); ReltatS riS (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Long ago... (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); For old times' sake (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Devil's Revenge (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Arjuna (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Graaf Dracula (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Ilovechersonissos (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

CU log
Discussion: q:nl:Overleg_gebruiker:Graaf_Statler

Reason(s): This user has been heavily disrupting NL-Wikiquote over the last couple of days with a slew of new and old sock puppets. As we don't have local CU I can't block his static IP address for use by logged-in users. This user has a history of this kind of behavior on NL-Wikipedia (see: [1] (which is how I know he has a static IP adress) and [2]. Concrete questions: are there any more sleepers? What are the IP addresses used (send through email). Whaledad (talk) 00:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Sir Statler, For old times' sake, Devil's Revenge, Arjuna and Graaf Dracula are

Confirmed. Long ago... is inactive so I was unable to verify; ReltatS riS IS Sir Statler (redir between userpages), Ilovechersonissos is not a valid username. The IP used is currenntly blocked on nlwikiquote. I found also one more connected account: Hutsefluts, not yet blocked. einsbor _talk 15:45, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for this Einbor. The last edit of my account Hutsefluts was 30-12 2010, so it was also inactive. We only had a big fight. Graaf Statler (talk) 21:07, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Dwaraka King@ta.wikipedia

Status: Done

List of users: Dwaraka King (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Kishna 8 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Kshna2016 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Dass kshna (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

CU log

Reason(s): Both user involved in vandalism and irrelevant page creation. I have given warining and guide, but user seems busy by removing them. Check is there any other accounts that related to them --Antan O 08:30, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

These are all

Confirmed. No other users found. --Stryn (talk) 16:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Power Flower Shower@pl.wiktionary

Status: Done

List of users: Cezareuszek (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Gensonina (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); CardBlansz (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Pan Mrówka (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); AdamsBrianJunior (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Africaaner (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Początkujący użytkownik (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Mam konto zapasowe (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Ip194-149-88-126 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Ann Pacynsky (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

CU log
Discussion: wikt:pl:Dyskusja wikipedysty:194.149.88.126

Reason(s): More nicks: "Wszyscy mamy IP 194 149 88 126", "Ja też mam IP 194 149 88 126", "Moje IP to 194 149 88 126". I'd like to request a CU against these users and the IP address 194.149.88.126. On the next day it was blocked, new accounts started to show up and follow the same edit pattern. Sometimes a block was closely followed by another account creation. Nicknames from "Początkujący użytkownik" onwards have been already confirmed by a steward, I'm putting them here so a full history of this case is kept. There was a suspicion that some of these users correspond to plwikt's LTA Wikinger, see this edit. The next step I'd like to consider is blocking that IP with the "Prevent account creation" option enabled. Regards, Peter Bowman (talk) 21:26, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, apologies for the slowness in actioning your request. I'll take a look at this later today if nobody else gets to it by then. Ajraddatz (talk) 14:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Ajraddatz: should I provide more information? Peter Bowman (talk) 11:57, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

None, just getting to this now. Ajraddatz (talk)

All are

Likely, but using mobile ranges so there's no way to be sure and they are also sharing IPs with a few established users there. Also potentially Ja_też_się_przygotowałem and Cezareuszek, but you should check their behaviour as well. Due to the public nature of the IPs and the large number of ranges being used, targetted blocks will not be effective. Ajraddatz (talk) 23:07, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Stho002@wikispecies

Status: Not done

A CU request involving this account is most likely pending in the next few days. I wish to ask stewards to look carefully at the issues surrounding this case, particularly looking into whether any alleged socks are editing disruptively, or is it a case of the WS sysop community effectively using CU as a political tool (contra CU policy) to aggressively enforce territoriality (involving a great deal of "poking the bear" which does sometimes get a bite back which can be spun into a "personal attack" and used to justify a block)? I ask stewards to also consider the massive overreaction to these non-disruptive edits. The non-disruptive nature of the edits may indicate that it is merely a non-serious local matter for WS to deal with, not requiring CU or any other steward action. The alleged socks haven't even been asked if they are the same person, the "duck test" is sufficient anyway, without need for CU, but yet the WS sysop community once again wants to run straight to stewards to get them to do their dirty work for them (they often seem to express a desire for an IP range block, which is an odd thing to want, unless one's agenda is to exclude as many potential contributors as possible from "their wiki"). I would also like to draw stewards attention to this diff, which, I suggest, is rather an inappropriate suggestion from WS crat Tommy Kronkvist (why would he even bother mentioning it if he sincerely advised against use of these alleged "tools"?) The instructions (above) for making a CU request require the applicant to "Explain the disruption". It will be interesting to see what they can come up with. Surely the purpose of blocking is to prevent disruptive editing, not to prevent constructive editing, and surely blocking is supposed to be preventative rather than punitive. If any of the alleged socks do make disruptive edits, they can be dealt with appropriately. --Stho002 (talk) 05:10, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Please note this diff, whereby crat Dan Koehl says [quote]Ill take the needed contacts regarding this issue, and ask for an IP-range block, unless someone else already did[unquote]. This betrays their real agenda, which is to exclude as many potential contributors as possible from "their wiki". There is absolutely no need for an IP range block, as I edit from a single IP. Also, they cannot know otherwise without being privy to private CU information detailing underlying IPs! An IP range block is an extreme countermeasure to prevent extreme disruption. There have been no such disruptive edits, only constructive edits (most of which haven't even been modified by them, because there is no need). ...Stho002 (talk) 22:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

In fact, I pretty much implore stewards, for the sake of all the future generations of people who may want to contribute to and/or learn from WS, to look at this issue seriously and please not just take the easiest option to making it go away. Wikimedia sites come up high on the list of Google searches, people do look to them for information, so they need to be kept clean of dirty politics whereby contributors are blocked just because others in the community have mobbed together against them to prevent them from contributing useful information, the mob trying to reserve everything for themselves. The core issue here is that certain contributors at WS want to reserve areas for themselves only to edit. I edit widely, which brings me into their "territory", which causes all the trouble, but my understanding of Wikimedia sites is that editors cannot reserve areas for themselves, and that anyone can freely contribute constructively to any article at any time. Please let me know if I am wrong about this, because it is what I am fighting for. If I have contravened policy in any way, while attempting to continue to make constructive contributions to WS, then I apologise and you will find me fully cooperative with whatever you think is best for me to do at this stage. I implore you not to let the WS sysop mob achieve their real agenda, which is to use me as an excuse to try to obtain an IP range block to exclude as many potential contributors as possible from "their wiki". Stho002 (talk) 23:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Not done - checkuser isn't to be used for ridiculous political battles. I will respond in more depth to your post on the stewards' noticeboard. Ajraddatz (talk) 23:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Bioref@wikispecies

Status: Done

List of users: Macarostola miniella (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Targaremini (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Bioref (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Australotarma (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Leptostiba (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Merophyas (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Peaceray (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); NZcat (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); BioLibrarian (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); ZooBank (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

Reason(s): Risk analyzis of collateral damage because of IP-range block: species:User:Stho002 has a history of using socket puppets on the english Wikipedia, where en:User:Stho002 is blocked with an expiry time of indefinite (Abusing multiple accounts: Please see: en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Stho002/Archive). species:User:Stho002 has been blocked several times on Wikispecies, and User: Stho002 is blocked with an expiry time of indefinite (Abusing multiple accounts) on Wikispecies, and has since then been subject of CU: User:BiotaZooBank, Biota and BiodiverseCity: 31 January 2015, User:ZooBank: 31 January 2015, User:BioLibrarian: 10 February 2015, User:NZcat: 20 April 2015 and found to be Sock puppet for User: Stho002. As for now, a CU and an IP-range block has been requested at the Wikispecies Village pump. There is beyond doubt that User:Bioref, User:Macarostola miniella, User:Targaremini, User:Australotarma, User:Leptostiba and User: Merophyas is identical with User: Stho002, but according to recommendations for IP-range block, a CU is recommended in order to analyze risk for collateral damage because of an IP-range block. Dan Koehl (talk) 19:29, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

The most worrying aspect of this situation is the continued lobbying from the WS sysop community for an IP-range block. It betrays their real political agenda (CU is not to be used as a political tool, see CU policy), which is to exclude as many people as possible from "their wiki". An IP-range block is an extreme measure to be used only if a vandal is using multiple IPs. Firstly, although I may technically be socking, I am not a vandal, and they have presented no evidence above for disruptive editing by any of the alleged socks. More to the point, I have no need to use multiple IPs. So, while stewards may be technically justified in taking further measures to exclude me from WS, due to socking, it is nondisruptive socking, and stewards would be playing straight into the hands of the political agenda of a sysop community who have repeatedly seriously abused their powers. For example, this is what crat User:OhanaUnited had to say about User:Dan Koehl: [quote]Regardless of my level of activity, this is not a justification for Dan's unilateral decision process which includes providing a bot flag for an unapproved bot and providing an admin flag for a bot account without going through proper channel (plus many more questionable conduct). In any other major projects, this kind of action would have immediately be desysopped and decratted. Sadly, Dan and his enablers have assembled a critical mass to remove an editor (Stho002) who is not afraid of asking difficult questions. After Stho002 was gone, I have some editors who contacted me privately stating that they have likewise ceased editing and left this project. A few others said in private communication that they also disagree with Dan's actions but never make it public for the fear of reprisal from Dan's group of editors[unquote] At the very least, this clearly demonstrates that User:Dan Koehl is too heavily involved in the wider dispute to have any credibility in making this CU request ...Stho002 (talk) 21:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Also, this CU request has already effectively been considered and rejected by a steward, i.e. [quote]Not done - checkuser isn't to be used for ridiculous political battles[unquote] ...Stho002 (talk) 21:29, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

They aren't using it for political reasons, you were. Proceeding with the check. Ajraddatz (talk) 21:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Quite a few of the listed accounts are stale. The user in question is using one range that I can find. There are some confirmed accounts which remain unblocked on species: Flycatcher007, Pachliopta, Gelechiidae, Noctuoidea, Leiodidae. I cannot disclose the IP, but can discretely block it if needed. I am also in the process of contacting enwiki CheckUsers regarding potential abuse on that project as well. Ajraddatz (talk) 21:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Please clarify. What do you mean by "one range"? I assume you mean one IP? It is most disappointing to see you pandering to an out of control sysop mob, who haven't even presented any evidence at all that the alleged socks are editing disruptively (because they aren't). Stho002 (talk) 22:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

By the way, I can't see any of this making much difference. I will continue to use my unique IP to make constructive contributions to WS, any way I can (and it is technically pretty easy). I will not however exploit any of the many other IPs which I have easy access to, for fear of collateral damage. At least I care about the innocent and don't pander to the guilty. Pity others don't seem to ...Stho002 (talk) 22:11, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind assistance, @Ajraddatz:. We will await the research on enwiki, and further advice on what to do from now. Dan Koehl (talk) 07:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Vandals@th.wikipedia

Status: Done

List of users: Unitedpage (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Fanclub25 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

CU log
Discussion: none

Reason(s): Hi. I am from Thai Wikipedia. I had been a checkuser but I was temporarily revoked because there is one checkuser left on the project. I must make a request to check these users that have vandalized on articles and user pages for some time. Their edit pattern are similar. Please check if they are the same person, and, could I have the list of their sockpuppets? They were also likely to be previous IP vandals. Perhaps on other sister projects too? Octahedron80 (talk) 22:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

They look

Likely. I found also some accounts, that technically can be socks, but it must be checked if their edtions are the same with the pattern. My language skills are not sufficient enough to do so. I found ผู้แก้ไขที่ 1, Boyhuge68, Editor383 and Goodclub25 on common IP and with same UA. Please, look into their contributions. einsbor _talk 10:15, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Positive result. Thanks for info. --Octahedron80 (talk) 13:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

‎ΣΕ ΘΕΛΩ@el.wikipedia

Status: Done

List of users: ΣΕ ΘΕΛΩ‎ (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Αλέξανδρος Δημητριάδης (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Χρήστος Παοκάρα (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

CU log
Discussion: el:Βικιπαίδεια:Μαριονέτα (local policy link)

Reason(s): Clearly a puppet, the question is whose. The two users above are the more likely both having an army of puppets. C messier (talk) 16:16, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Χρήστος Παοκάρα is

Stale. ΣΕ ΘΕΛΩ is a

Possible sock of Αλέξανδρος Δημητριάδης. Ruslik (talk) 17:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Elmju@fa.wikipedia

Status: Not done

List of users: Elmju (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Samak (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

Reason(s): There have been several discussions in Persian Wikipedia that whether this user is a sock or meat of Samak who vote in several RfAs and edit patterns are similar I would like to know that :) Thank you.Diako1971 (talk) 17:49, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Declined; Just looking at edit times, there doesn't seem to be a clear relation between the accounts. Many people vote on those requests, so it can happen that the votes line up sometimes. I don't speak Persian, so if you can provide more detailed evidence I will reconsider. Ajraddatz (talk) 07:57, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Alp Er Tunqa@azb.wikipedia

Status: Done

List of users: Alp Er Tunqa (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); M.XIII (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

CU log
Discussion: ویکی‌پدیا:ایداره‌چیلر بیلدیری تابلوسو

Reason(s): User Alp_Er_Tunqa is blocked in azb wiki; and there are a lot of similarities between these accounts contributions: Alp_Er_Tunqa, M.XIII (Such as same votes and opinions). Would you please check if these accounts belong to one user? --Ilğım (talk) 08:23, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Done. The two accounts are technically different, so any action should be based on behaviour of the accounts individually. Otor tanry is a potential sock of Alp Er Tunga, as well as many IPs on the range that he uses. Ajraddatz (talk) 08:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Tyrredal@no.wikipedia

Status: Done

List of users: Tyrredal (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Tyrredal-1 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Tyrredal-2 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Tyrredal-3 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Stpkn (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

CU log
Discussion: m:Special:Diff/11358928#Checkusers and oversighters on nowiki

Reason(s): I would like to have a confirmation that these accounts are related to the vandlism account Mynas (see Steward_requests/Checkuser/2016-04#Camilla298.40no.wikipedia, Steward_requests/Checkuser/2016-04#BL.C3.86GG.40no.wikipedia and Steward_requests/Checkuser/2015-10#Vandal_accounts.40no.wikipedia). Edit patterns are similar, and all accounts have been blocked. - 4ing (talk) 13:05, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

All

Confirmed as well as Camilla498, Camilla598, Trykksvak, Mynas-19, Finneguri, BLÆGG, Tyrredal-4 and Tyrredal-5 and many others. I do not understand while you have not re-blocked Hovde, which is obviously the socketmaster. Ruslik (talk) 17:04, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

It is definitely not obvious from the edit patterns. - 4ing (talk) 18:27, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

@Ruslik0: The previous CU showed that "All accounts are using a mess of IPs, especially mobile ranges which are shared with many active and obviously good-faith users." Therefore, I have a problam understanding how you can point on Hovde as a sockmaster. - 4ing (talk) 07:51, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

The accounts above use different IPs from the same ranges but Hovde is nearly always present on the same IPs. Hovde also users exactly the same two devices to edit. Ruslik (talk) 08:19, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I've followed up on this per Ruslik's request. I agree that Hovde could be part of the same group; the user agents match in many cases, and Hovde is present on all of the abused ranges. However, there are also some obviously good-faith users who share multiple of the ranges, so it's really up to you to determine based on behavioural evidence. Sorry I can't give a more concrete answer. Ajraddatz (talk) 21:09, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

ChanelQueens@en.wikiquote

Status: Done

List of users: ChanelQueens (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); 20spokesperson (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); 87Stone (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

CU log
Discussion: q:en:Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard#ChanelQueens and Xmen

Reason(s): Disruptive edit warring that may be block evasion. ChanelQueens reportedly quacks like the other two ducks, who are indefinitely blocked and are also known for puppetry at en:w. (Complainant in the above linked discussion is not exactly in good standing either.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

The two older accounts are

Stale, so no CheckUser data is available for them. ChanelQueens and Quotes4more are

Confirmed. There are also a few obvious IP socks: 124.106.251.67, 124.106.241.215, and 124.106.242.185 (all in range 124.106.240.0/20 which can be blocked without collateral). Ajraddatz (talk) 19:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:03, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

MacManTech@wikidata

Status: Done

List of users: Tonye ([[; Special:Contributions/Tonye|contr]] · [[; Special:DeletedContributions/Tonye|deleted]] · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); MacManTech ([[; Special:Contributions/MacManTech|contr]] · [[; Special:DeletedContributions/MacManTech|deleted]] · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

CU log
Discussion: Per local policy, alternate accounts must be declared.

Reason(s): It seems like the MacManTech account was created after Tonye received my warning on his local talk page. The two are engaging in similar promotional/undisclosed COI editing (all related to New York City-related topics), including items on the same (non-notable) organization - d:Special:Undelete/Q20724875 and d:Special:Undelete/Q24084974 (sorry, local admins and stewards only). If these two are the same, then they are in violation of our alternate accounts policy due to the apparent attempt to subvert the warning I had left on Tonye's talk page. --Jasper Deng (talk) 05:39, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Technical evidence suggests that the above accounts are

Confirmed socks, along with MyAlarmCenter, Elitesem1, Internetdotcom --Shanmugamp7 ^(talk) 09:08, 28 May 2016 (UTC)