Open main menu

Meta:Requests for CheckUser information/Archives/2015

Warning! Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created on 01 January 2015, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.

Crampudder

Status:    Done

The more I consider this and look around the more it seems likely to me that this is a puppet account (meat or sock). Looking at the Commons and en wp contribs they do not come from a new user and have a certain POV (although I can't see the en wp ones). Thanks --Herby talk thyme 17:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree there is suspicious behavior and disruptive behavior at that. CheckUser is   Inconclusive, that is, there are no other socks located on the IP. Tiptoety talk 04:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Raypeckson

Status:    Done

Given that virtually the same offensive edits were made by both accounts here and on Commons in the past couple of days I'm guessing they are puppets. I feel the check might well be justified on the basis that they may not be the only accounts and/or there is a long term abuser underlying these. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 15:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I have reviewed per the rationale given above and because checking the vandal edits it looks like a returning vandal to me with crosswiki habits. Based on edits and technical data, both accounts seems to be related, but they ain't more. Thanks. -- M\A 17:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

SPAs in Stewards/Confirm/2015/Shizhao

Status:    Not done

These users only edit pages related to Stewards/Confirm/2015/Shizhao, and try to let Shizhao lose his steward bit.

  1. GarryWong canvassed a lot of users in different wikis, and already had 3 socks. One of them, Special:Contributions/Maintainwikifree, also opposed Mys_721tx being a steward.
  2. ChrishrursdssPDK put anti-Shizhao contents at the page. This user have no other edits.
  3. URYTOMMY says (s)he deserved Stho002's oppose being heard at Talk:Stewards/Confirm/2015/Shizhao, and have no other edits.

Are these the same user?--GZWDer (talk) 05:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Add one.--GZWDer (talk) 06:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
The first listed account has already been blocked here. From all listed accounts only one, ChrishrursdssPDK, commented on Shizhao's confirmation. Even if they are all related, a CU here would not have any benefit. Maintainwikifree has not voted on any steward election. I see no real purpose in running a CU here. -Barras talk 15:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
@Barras: These users are SPAs and Antigng also suspect ChrishrursdssPDK is a sock. In Talk:Stewards/Confirm/2015/Shizhao#Late Voices Still Deserved Being Heard, Matthew hk is also a victim of canvassing.--GZWDer (talk) 04:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
We know that some of them are socks. We don't need CU to deal with them. The qualification to vote deals with this matter.  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:57, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

  Not done. We've discussed this and we have come to the conclusion that a CU here is not necessary. It is true that the above listed accounts have engaged in disruptive activities. Be them socks or not, the block of them can be justified without the need of technical evidence, as all of them have per engaged in disruptive activities and canvassing to manipulate a community process. Steward confirmations are not votes, but a consensus-building process and the ElectCom has stated that clearly canvassed votes have been discounted from said confirmation. None of the listed accounts have voted in any steward election, so there's also no suspicions of votestacking at this point with the current evidence provided. Having said that, I'm blocking indenfinitely all named accounts here for disruption. -- M\A 12:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Pelayo Calderón

Status:    Not done

See Wikimedia_Forum#Help_with_spurious_checkuser_verification.--GZWDer (talk) 06:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I reject the request for three reasons:
  • a check can prove two users are sockpuppets but it cannot prove they are not;
  • it would be pretty easy to fool a check based on a single-day edits;
  • the original check at es.wiki has been done more than a year ago, some kind of abuse of multiple accounts might cease in a year.
--Vituzzu (talk) 19:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi Vituzzu, I have to agree with your denial. A meta-only checkuser is rather useless, as what I'm looking for is simply a "global" checkuser. I want any of my records, in any project, to be compared with those of Pelayo Calderón, as s/he and me are simply not the same person. Best regards --Discasto (talk) 21:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't think any other kind of check would work but I'm giving this answer as a local checkuser here at meta. Other requests should be handled elsewhere, honestly I'm not sure where but still not here. --Vituzzu (talk) 11:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk page puppet accounts?

I think it might be worth a project CU taking a look at the accounts editing this talk page. If it has been done before - fine. Hoever the last three I've just blocked seem worth reviewing to me? Cheers --Herby talk thyme 14:04, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

  Completed. I've done what I can. Trijnsteltalk 14:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

DLindsley

Status:    Done

I am the Commons CU who has handled DLindsley's sockpuppety on the Commons. As a result, DLindsley has made revenge requests here on meta (e.g., [1], [2], [3]). The Churchgoer100 and Forumsfan800 appeared to support those requests. Both are already blocked as socks, so this is a request for sleepers. Also, why on earth has the master (DLindsley) not yet been blocked here? All meta edits since March have been attacks on me and another Commons admin involved in reporting his sockpuppetry (e.g., [4], [5]). Эlcobbola talk 21:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Added Fileuploader3 and Ausefulwikieditor per [6]. @Glaisher:, it looks like you've handled blocking of the socks and @Bsadowski1:, it looks like you've done some global blocks: could one of you look at blocking DLindsley locally/globally too? Эlcobbola talk 22:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  Confirmed:
Results for you (@Elcobbola, Glaisher, and Bsadowski1:) and the community. Sockpuppets have been indefblocked, as well as the main account.
Best regards. —MarcoAurelio 15:33, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
At the time, I just left a message for the master account and intentionally didn't block it as I saw constructive edits made in the past. And it doesn't look like (s)he has been active after that. --Glaisher (talk) 15:38, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
IMHO: No matter how useful their past editions would be, I think that having an small army of eight socks all of them blocked in several other projects, most of them globally locked, for the activities mentioned above; warrants an indefblock/ban in my book. However if my fellow admins or the community decides otherwise I will accept it. Best regards. —MarcoAurelio 15:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


Nihilo, Citizen www & Zaratustra27

Status:    Not done

The reason why I believe they're all the same user is because his actions on meta and es.wiki are all to try to descredit the actual Wikimedia Ecuador user group proposal. The user Citizen www has created his account and shown an actual knowledge of wiki-editing, when he created Wikimedistas de Ecuador page. Off-wiki, the people signing on that meta page had told me Citizen www is an actual editor of past years, calling him "one of the best editors on Wikipedia" but were unable to tell me his real username. He declares himself "Coordinador Ad Hoc" on his meta page and here, which is almost the same behavior Nihilo had in the past when asking for unblocking on es.wiki here. The ip's are the ones from where he had edited before on that request and here. This is needed also if this should be taken to an outside-instance, because the problem's going off wiki too. --Edjoerv (talk) 21:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

  CU comment: Some technical notes:
  1. Nihilo is not registered at Meta-Wiki, thus can't be checked.
  2. Even if we did a cross-check with eswiki, Nihilo's account at eswiki and eswikinews can't be checked either because his most recent edits are from 2009 and CU data don't last such a long time.
  3. The IPs you mention from the unblock request faces the same problems:
  4. All that remains would be to check if Citizen www (talkcontribs) and Zaratustra27 (talkcontribs) are related.
Multiple accounts are not forbidden unless they're being abused. And talking about the two that are registered in Meta, just only one have editted and I can't see any vandalism or other kind of abuse which may justify using this tool. Unless you can convince us otherwise, I'm leaning towards declining this request for all the problems said above. Maybe ChapCom would be willing to have a look at the issue though. Best regards. —MarcoAurelio 11:06, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
No response from Edjoerv after nearly a month.   Declined. Trijnsteltalk 22:47, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

JP TV show-alike account

Status:    Done

I've noticed this account since it originated from the Japanese Wikiquote, and its naming convention looks quite similar to a local known vandal: naming under a certain local TV show or coined, including a local celebrity, and sometimes sounds defamatory. This account uses global user page so did an edit on meta so that I ask for check on this account. There may be other accounts underlying the same IP address, or hopefully not. --Aphaia (talk) 23:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

One item added. --Aphaia (talk) 05:22, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
And more. --Aphaia (talk) 10:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Results

@Aphaia:   Done, some results for you:

Group 1:

  Confirmed

  • アルカイダジャパン応援団長・松岡修造
  • アルカイダジャパンラグビー部主将・五郎丸歩
  • アルカイダジャパンラグビー部監督・エディ・ジョーンズ
  • アルカイダジャパンサッカー部ユース監督・手倉森誠
  • アルカイダジャパンサッカー部監督・ハリルホジッジ
  • アルカイダジャパン野球部監督・小久保裕紀
  • 池上彰の首都圏ニュース23
  • 池上彰の首都圏ニュースレーダー
  • マリオレーシングギャルズ・インリン
  • 池上彰のニュースセンター首都圏

  Likely

  • 日本イスラム解放戦線代表・うえにし小百合
  • ノーベル賞には一生手が届かない村上春樹
  • 日本新聞教会事務局

Group 2:

  Confirmed

  • 池上彰の首都圏ネットワーク
  • 池上彰の首都圏ニュースセンター
  • 池上彰のニュースセンター845

Group 1 and Group 2 are   Confirmed

Leaving blocks and deletions on your hands. Best regards, —MarcoAurelio 18:57, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Spambot

Status:    Done

Please check these accounts and block the underlying IP range/Open proxy. Defender (talk) 15:50, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

  Done and   IP blocked where possible. No further accounts were found. —MarcoAurelio 18:38, 26 November 2015 (UTC)