Meta:Requests for CheckUser information/Archives/2014

January

February

sock of 1abacada in meta

1abacada is a cross-wiki vandaler in en/zh/yue wiki. these are suspected sock of this user edited in meta.

  1. 390 wiki (talk contribs deleted contribs logs block user block log CentralAuth AllContribs checkuser)
  2. Ghsjzghg (talk contribs deleted contribs logs block user block log CentralAuth AllContribs checkuser)

Some accounts which have no edits but have login record in meta:

  1. Asdfkagjaga (talk contribs deleted contribs logs block user block log CentralAuth AllContribs checkuser)
  2. 2abacada (talk contribs deleted contribs logs block user block log CentralAuth AllContribs checkuser)
  3. Sahysdgbnrsusn (talk contribs deleted contribs logs block user block log CentralAuth AllContribs checkuser)
  4. 5abacada4 (talk contribs deleted contribs logs block user block log CentralAuth AllContribs checkuser)
  5. 3abacada (talk contribs deleted contribs logs block user block log CentralAuth AllContribs checkuser)
  6. 6abacada (talk contribs deleted contribs logs block user block log CentralAuth AllContribs checkuser)
  7. 1abacada sockpuppet (talk contribs deleted contribs logs block user block log CentralAuth AllContribs checkuser)
  8. Er:stahyhahah (talk contribs deleted contribs logs block user block log CentralAuth AllContribs checkuser)
  9. Wiki1abacada (talk contribs deleted contribs logs block user block log CentralAuth AllContribs checkuser)
  10. Ki ll wik ip edi a (talk contribs deleted contribs logs block user block log CentralAuth AllContribs checkuser)
  11. Agsgrgtahy (talk contribs deleted contribs logs block user block log CentralAuth AllContribs checkuser)
  12. Abkxfk (talk contribs deleted contribs logs block user block log CentralAuth AllContribs checkuser)
  13. 1abacada2 (talk contribs deleted contribs logs block user block log CentralAuth AllContribs checkuser)
  14. 1abacada3 (talk contribs deleted contribs logs block user block log CentralAuth AllContribs checkuser)
  15. 1abacada4 (talk contribs deleted contribs logs block user block log CentralAuth AllContribs checkuser)
  16. Catwalkingcatwalking (talk contribs deleted contribs logs block user block log CentralAuth AllContribs checkuser)
  17. 1abacada5 (talk contribs deleted contribs logs block user block log CentralAuth AllContribs checkuser)
  18. Hatcop (talk contribs deleted contribs logs block user block log CentralAuth AllContribs checkuser)
  19. K1abacada1 (talk contribs deleted contribs logs block user block log CentralAuth AllContribs checkuser)
  20. Sdhjdgjsjsjsfjfgjsfsj (talk contribs deleted contribs logs block user block log CentralAuth AllContribs checkuser)
  21. Akgjsa;hihjgilsagkslahgsklahsiluy (talk contribs deleted contribs logs block user block log CentralAuth AllContribs checkuser)
  22. Aceghijklmnop (talk contribs deleted contribs logs block user block log CentralAuth AllContribs checkuser)
  23. Ajdfjfdjifyikfcifsikfiueryau (talk contribs deleted contribs logs block user block log CentralAuth AllContribs checkuser)
  24. Yestjujgfijxfux (talk contribs deleted contribs logs block user block log CentralAuth AllContribs checkuser)
  25. Hgdhahdjdrjdf (talk contribs deleted contribs logs block user block log CentralAuth AllContribs checkuser)
  26. Agfkjsglahhrgvna (talk contribs deleted contribs logs block user block log CentralAuth AllContribs checkuser)
  27. Hsgjjsjxdj (talk contribs deleted contribs logs block user block log CentralAuth AllContribs checkuser)
  28. .,mjm,cdWQ (talk contribs deleted contribs logs block user block log CentralAuth AllContribs checkuser)
  29. Agfsjfjkkdh (talk contribs deleted contribs logs block user block log CentralAuth AllContribs checkuser)
  30. 輸入您的基本資料 (talk contribs deleted contribs logs block user block log CentralAuth AllContribs checkuser)
  31. N1abacada (talk contribs deleted contribs logs block user block log CentralAuth AllContribs checkuser)
  32. 1abacada6 (talk contribs deleted contribs logs block user block log CentralAuth AllContribs checkuser)
  33. 1abacada7 (talk contribs deleted contribs logs block user block log CentralAuth AllContribs checkuser)
  34. 1abacada8 (talk contribs deleted contribs logs block user block log CentralAuth AllContribs checkuser)
  35. 1abacada9 (talk contribs deleted contribs logs block user block log CentralAuth AllContribs checkuser)
  36. 1axbxcxdx (talk contribs deleted contribs logs block user block log CentralAuth AllContribs checkuser)
  37. M1abacada (talk contribs deleted contribs logs block user block log CentralAuth AllContribs checkuser)
  38. O1abacada (talk contribs deleted contribs logs block user block log CentralAuth AllContribs checkuser)
  39. H1abacada (talk contribs deleted contribs logs block user block log CentralAuth AllContribs checkuser)
  40. 1abacada10 (talk contribs deleted contribs logs block user block log CentralAuth AllContribs checkuser)
  41. 1abacada indefinite (talk contribs deleted contribs logs block user block log CentralAuth AllContribs checkuser)

Probably more socks can be found via a Checkuser here or in loginwiki. And please lock all accounts above.--GZWDer (talk) 10:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

  Done  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:00, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

December

Nocan@meta.wikimedia.org

(Not a checkuser) I think this is {{Fishing}}... — Revi 17:54, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
I file this checkuser request hoping this negative trend be stopped and people are encouraged to BE BOLD and express their views in their original user id instead of creating a (fake id or "alt page") just for posting a comment Mariano Anto Bruno Mascarenhas (talk) 18:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, for me, that's not a valid reason to do a checkuser. And that's really a {{Fishing}}. — Revi 18:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  •   CheckUser is not for fishing We do not run checks like that. It would be nothing more than fishing. The user made it clear on their userpage for what they are using the account. As long as there isn't a strong indication that the user may be using more than one accounts to support ones own arguments (diff links and clear mention of possible socks and why they could be socks), there is no reason to run a check. -Barras talk 21:03, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Usual sock masters in Wikipedias edit articles or comment in their user names first and when they get blocked or do not find enough support engage in sock puppeting. But, the case here is different. Let me explain.
Unlike anywhere in the world, WMF funds two organizations in India through grants. One is the community driven Wikimedia India Chapter and another is staff driven non-Wikimedia organization called Centre for Internet and Society. The last grant proposal from Centre for Internet and Society saw heated debates including scandalous allegations from many potential socks who edited for the first time and disappear after that. Due to the possibility of potential conflict of interest and lack of evidence, the negative trend of engaging in discussion through potential socks has been increasing.
This is a list of some of the potential socks in that grant discussion:
User:DiggyBaby - Contributions Nature of allegation: Claims to know murky details about WMF contracts.
User:OhHellYeahYes! - Contributions Nature of allegation: Propagating misinformation about WMF senior staff’s activities
User:Seekingfbi - Contributions Nature of allegation: Scandalously alleging that a senior staff of WMF has affairs with top officials in the grant receiving organization
It was such an embarrassment that the senior staff had to give an explanation here and the community also condemned the act.
It was seriously noted by the foundation that the General counsel had to post the following opinion:
<quote>“After reading some of the comments above, I feel we are losing sight of some basic principles of communication in our community. The Wikimedia Foundation’s Terms of Use (TOU) encourage that we be civil and polite in our interactions with each other and that we all act in good faith. Everyone must refrain from either “harassing and abusing others” or “posting content that is false or inaccurate.” These provisions help to create the infrastructure, organizational framework and collaborative environment necessary for Wikimedia projects and communities to flourish.
Posting untrue allegations about individuals’ personal lives - such as falsely alleging personal romantic relationships - is harassing and disruptive to those affected and serves only to derail otherwise productive community discussions. False or harassing statements about others also give rise to other legal considerations. I must ask that everyone refrain from making comments that violate the Terms of Use and treat each other with respect.
There is nothing wrong with legitimate debate and disagreement. To the contrary, people should discuss and seek to resolve differing views when possible, especially when those views are held strongly. But we cannot personally attack each other with false statements. As a community, we should not tolerate that.”</quote>
Besides potential socks, an employee of CIS also engaged in the discussion without revealing his affiliation.
It was only after the community discovered this affiliation and raised the question of potential lobbying, he acknowledged his affiliation which could be seen as a potential conflict of interest. This is an evidence why socking will not work the same way in META grant discussions like you see in discussions regarding articles in Wikipedia. Here, the primary modus operandi is to use a secondary user name, usually hit and run, and not appearing in the primary username at all.
At the end of this discussion, CIS received 20% cut in the grants. An employee lost her job and few others got reduced salary.
This left the relationship between WMF, Wikimedia India and CIS very bitter. Vishnu Vardhan, Program Director for Centre for Internet and Society, openly acknowledged the discussion was “walking on fire
As a damage control measure WMF organized the India Community Consultation and sought comments from the community. A day before the event, this comment was posted by User:Nocan .
I didn’t want to name the potential sock master so as not to embarrass people in top positions. Since the checkuser request has been declined saying this is fishing, I am presenting the following evidence as who could be the sock master. This is not a case of fishing.
Please run checkuser tool against User:Visdaviva who could be the sock behin User:Nocan . User:Nocan makes it clear in his user page that:
“Hi, I am a Wikimedian from India. Been contributing for >8 years now. This User ID is created with an intent to ask difficult questions of the Mission and Money in India.”
He says he has been contributing for 8 years but he is not registering this comment from the real username. Page creation history also indicated that it is his “alt page” making it clear he has another page and this is a sock account.
User:Visdaviva also mentions in his user page that he has been contributing since 2006, the same 8 year period.
Please note that the previous grant discussion regarding CIS had User:Ravidreams as the main contributor raising difficult questions which ultimately led to the reduction in funds. User:Visdaviva being the person responsible in CIS was directly affected by these questions.
Nocan’s comment claims he is an active community member. But, the following dig against User:Ravidreams and comments praising User:Visdaviva and line of thought to ensure job security for the CIS staff indicate that User:Nocan could be as well User:Visdaviva .
<quote>“If the rumor mills were to be believed Ravi was secretely promised a job to go behind CIS FDC application & some believe that he is given the Program Directorship because of this qualification. Ravi did do it like a job for two months!? Unfortunately, the selection process, (and the lack of transparency) of the first Program Director of the Chapter DOES make me believe that some part of the rumour could be right.”
“especially after onboarding the Program Director Vishnu, a great intent to serve, contribute and grow the movement and community. (I have seen him in action and I believe that he is talking, walking, eating, sleeping and thinking about the Mission - we need more such people as paid employees.) “
“If we want CIS out of the equation, the existing team under Vishnu can be taken up as WMF contractors for the time being “</quote>
It is entirely up to the Meta Checkusers to decide if this case deserves a checkuser investigation. If you decide so, please do it before December 31st 2014 after which the 90 day period for user log ends.
If you still think this is fishing, I am sorry to say that this trend of socking will continue straining relationships between all agencies and hampering the growth of Wikimedia movement in India. Worse, it will lead to trust deficit among all community members thinking who is who’s sock. Is this the real spirit and culture under which people should discuss at META? Thanks. Mariano Anto Bruno Mascarenhas (talk) 20:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Reviewing the new facts -Barras talk 22:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
  Completed I've decided to run the CU based on the given information and because the data will soon expire. From technical point of view, Nocan (talk · contribs) and Visdaviva (talk · contribs) seem   Unrelated.
For DiggyBaby (talk · contribs), OhHellYeahYes! (talk · contribs) and Seekingfbi (talk · contribs) the data is   Stale and no comment can be made on them.
From technical point of view, there doesn't seem to be a problem with socking. However, the whole thing might be interesting for WMF to review and possible comment on the situation. I will inform the right people about it. -Barras talk 15:28, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
So informed, and thank you. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 15:41, 29 December 2014 (UTC)