Steward requests/Checkuser/2014-02

Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in February 2014, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion.

Requests

Latest comment: 10 years ago27 comments16 people in discussion

[email protected]

Status: Done

List of users: Dexterus (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Kt500 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Kolilaria (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); 700tigyra (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Holydent (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

CU log
Discussion: w:bg:Уикипедия:Марионетка

Reason(s): all users are trying to write malicious information in the article w:bg:Цариградски комплекс. The style and way of presenting information on every of theese users is almost the same. --Izvora (talk) 18:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Confirmed: Kolilaria, 700tigyra and Holydent; Dexterus is

Likely related too --- Kt500 can't be checked anymore (

Stale). Trijnstel_talk 22:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

فلورانس@fa.wikipedia

Status: Done

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

CU log
Discussion: w:fa:وپ:زاپاس

Reason(s): as a case in ArbCom the first user was banned for 6 months because of disruptive edits in RfA of someone else. there is another user named SnowBlink which is created two weeks before the RfA and edited during the ban and voted alongside the first user, the way this user talks and edit interests is similar to the first one but It's not enough evidence for duck, so I'm requesting to see are they the same or not. Thank you Amir (talk) 13:40, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Unrelated, no evidences found for sockpuppetry between these two users. Trijnstel_talk 22:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

جنگولک@fa.wikipedia

Status: Done

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

CU log
Discussion: w:fa:وپ:زاپاس

Reason(s): These two users have shown similar disruptive behavior and admin Mahan has blocked them based on en:WP:SPADE (evidences for similarity of their behavior are provided upon request). However, several users have challenged this decision (see for e.g. this discussion (in Persian)) based on some differences in their behavior. To settle the dispute, admin Mahan and I agreed to request for a check user. If needed, check user can be performed confidentially and the result can be emailed to either of us. Regards, Taha (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Noting PL to discussion. Generally if anyone other than an administrator is referring such a discussion to us we would be expecting to see a specific link to a specific discussion where the community is discussing this CU request (think evidence base and citation). In lieu of the case notes, and the general blocks, I am doing it on this occasion. I am needing to discuss the CU results with stewards for another opinion. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Best that we can say is

Possible. A number of similarities, however, the range is busy for your wiki, while we cannot say that it is a sock, we cannot rule it out due to the similarities. It would be a case of trust your judgment and looking to the edits and dealing with the account on its merits and its edits. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for doing this. I'll leave the matter to Mahan and the rest of the admins. I also added the PLs. Taha (talk) 03:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: do you still need to check the socks at fawiki? If not, I think you forgot to take off the flag. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 14:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

D&[email protected]

Status: Done

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

CU log

Reason(s): same pattern of contributions as known vandal D&S. Please see previous request related to this user for more information on him.

ValJor (talk) 12:15, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Unrelated — billinghurst sDrewth 12:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

ZIV [email protected]

Status: Not done

List of users: ZIV 88 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Citadme (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Mathonius Bastard TIME WILL Put on your site (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

CU log
Discussion: Example

Reason(s): It's a new user that appeared when the long term vandal is bloqued from wikiquote.es and makes very similar editions. Fjsalguero (talk) 22:41, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

es.wikipedia has own checkusers but I also know that checks were already run on these abusive accounts. --MF-W 23:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked the user on eswiki. LlamaAl (talk) 01:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

continuing socking @en.wikiquote

Status: Done

List of users: Tarackacarakaketaru (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Chirukane64 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); SurplusMaximum! (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Nobody eats only veggies (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Oh My God! He's Gone! (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); HeartAmiss (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Annie Frank (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); SoruSoruSoru (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Incorrect, you (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

CU log
Discussion: Previous discussion at WQ:AN

Reason(s): Some of these are already blocked, but there appears to be a continuing pattern of trolling, harassment, and good hand/bad hand shenanigans using new accounts. If these are socks then assistance with blocking underlying IPs would be appreciated. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

All related to the Kalki fake accounts from January. Blocking by IP isn't going to be easy, they are in multiple ranges, and there would be collateral damage. Dynamic IP. Locked what I could. You will just need to revisit with new accounts, or send email to stewards

wikimedia.org if you want a ticket, and quieter ticketing. Details of the abuse will be available to stewards to add or refer to, and I have referred to as "Tarackacarakaketaru" — billinghurst sDrewth 15:11, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming and locking the new accounts. Point of clarification: I assume you mean related to accounts that were harassing Kalki, rather than more sockpuppets of user Kalki. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, 'abusive of' — billinghurst sDrewth 00:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Impersonating at hewikiquote

Status: Not done

List of users

CU log
Discussion: no local checkuser policy

Reason(s): A troll has impersonated me in hewiqiquote, and tried to reveal my real name. I blocked the users and hided the actions, and would like to know about the IP address of this accounts in order to take the appropriate legal actions. The User Registration log is here, and I'm referring to the 5 hidden names from yesterday. Broccoli • talk page 10:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Please submit this as an email to stewards

wikimedia.org with the usernames. It is preferable that you send the list of names, and we respond as we can. We won't be able to provide the IP address directly, we can record the details, and you will need to approach User:Philippe (WMF) about coordinating any release of the detail. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Done. Broccoli • talk page 12:21, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Yoel ar C'horr@brwiki

Status: Done

List of users: Yoel ar C'horr (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Sad Edgar (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

CU log

Reason(s): We've just been blocking for one month User:Yoel ar C'horr because what he says on other users is unacceptable : [1]. It seems Sad Edgar could be the same user. Could you please check it ? --Y-M D (talk) 14:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Why do you believe that these users are the same ? We need to establish a link prior to checking. -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 14:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Some more information (like Y-M D, I'm sysop on br.wp) : the user account Yoel ar C'horr apparently was created mainly to disturb the breton wikipedia and to « fight » with an other user in particular (that's why he is blocked right now). Sad Edgar is more constructive but share some similarities (same language style and same manners) and is oppose to the some other user. Cdlt, VIGNERON * ^discut. 15:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

These two accounts are

Confirmed to belong to the same user. Best regards, -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 15:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

نجم القادرى@ur.wikipedia

Status: Not done

List of users: نجم القادرى (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); مكرانى (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); چمن زمان (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); اريب (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); أبو أريب (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

CU log
Discussion: ur:تبادلۂ خیال:تنظیم الارشاد

Reason(s): Sudden supporters for a unknown radical organization. Removing Notability and other tags placed by Admins. Tahir mq (talk) 06:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no explanation of why a checkuser should be undertaken, or what would be done with the results. If the users accounts are abusing the wiki, and operating outside of the wikis guidance, then use the tools that you have to manage their edits. If you need assistance of stewards in a broader sense please explain what is required. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC)