Steward requests/Checkuser/2014-01



Please do this check between me and Ασμοδαίος. I agree with the arguments Ασμοδαίος. Pyraechmes is a user that used personal attacks to users (also a few years ago he was banned for for 2-3 years). Claiming that Ασμοδαίος is a sock puppet of mine is also a personal attack. Ογκόλιθος one of the many sockpuppets of user Μέρμηγκας and uses each time different accounts.. and sometimes attacks other users (hiding that he/she is the the same user behind all these accounts). This checkuser [1] gave some group of sock puppets. About this problems (sock puppets of μέρμηγκας/Ογκόλιθος/etc) there is a recent discussion in the greek village pump (αγορά) here [2]. Best regards and happy new year. Ggia (talk) 05:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I am FocalPoint. I have no reason to believe that the two users above are the same person. Quite the opposite. I am sorry that User:Ασμοδαίος did not realize this. Based on behavior, I believe that User:Ασμοδαίος has probably contributed with another account in the past, however, that does not make him a puppet, as (based on behavior) I do not believe that he is using any other account at the moment. --FocalPoint (talk) 00:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

FocalPoint, could you please indicate the account you conside mine, so that it is included in the inquiry? Thanks in advance. Ασμοδαίος (talk) 00:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  Closed Please take this whole discussion back to elWP, and resolve the matter there, then bring forth any queries that you have through administrators. This page is not the place to the have the debate.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


  • Vlantmir, Globex, Chin Hale, Κυριάκος Ζαχ, Δικαιόπολις, Earhonex (all   Confirmed for one user)
  • Jam and Josehensior are aligned with each other,   Likely aligned with Vlantmir

Please note that I for future reference this would be preferable as Vlantmir case as the primary reference.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Bruce Allen Conley@en.wikiquote

Looking now. QuiteUnusual (talk) 16:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
The two user accounts you list are confirmed as technically related. There are no other related accounts. QuiteUnusual (talk) 16:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Leitoxx es.wiktionary

  •   Comment. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV has not violated any eswiktionary policy and is a sysop on enwiktionary. This request seems to be a reaction to Leitoxx's oppose "vote" at a RfP opened by Astonómico02 on the Spanish Wikinews. LlamaAl (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
  •   Not done. You need to provide a valid reason for the CU. Two users who appear to contribute to the same articles is not abuse. These two user accounts both operate across multiple wikis and I see no commonality in their wider behaviour to suggest a link. QuiteUnusual (talk) 11:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Berl Bukh@bar.wikipedia

Are you requesting a CheckUser to confirm the listed accounts are unrelated? If so, that is not a valid use of the tool. QuiteUnusual (talk) 08:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
That was the idea. Because, as I wrote above, personally I think, we did already what needs to be done. We blocked all the high-probability or proofed sockpuppets and an admin resigned as of today. Furthermore, all votes 2013/2014 have been 100% consensus decisions. --Gschupfta Ferdl (talk) 18:04, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

  Declined I do not see how this check would serve to prevent disruption on BarWiki. If the justification for the check could be explained more completely, that may help. -- Avi (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

As pointed out in the above linked discussion, a CU was several times suggesetd from within the Bar Wikipedia, but always rejected. When part of the ruling user group from BAR got also suspiciuos on the DE wiki, a CU on a fraction of the suspicious user names was immediately carried out with success. More arguments for the CU are given in broad detail in the older CU requests from within BAR (which were rejected), although they were much better justified then the successful CU on DE on the small fraction of the user group. In any case the sockpuppetzoo around the blocked user Bua/Bua333/Broadhogg/Schnoatbrax/... have to be included into to list above. Also Franzl has to be included. The CU shall be conducted by the exerienced Stewart from DE who initially had quite a hard time to detect the interconnections of this small part of the sock- and meatpuppet connection. -- 07:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

For stewards to undertake a CU, there needs to be a clear requirement for the checks to be undertaken, not a potential suspicion; or if the accounts are known to exhibit the same problematic editing, then if they meet the blocking criteria there is no need for a CU. I will ask the dewiki CU for some background to any investigations and results they may have. If you are going to do nothing with the results, then there is no need for a CU.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
My decision was primarily based on this statement: "Within the bar.wikipedia we don't see the point, because all high-probability sockpuppets have been blocked already…." The purpose of the CU tool is to "…be used to fight vandalism, to check for sockpuppet abuse, and to limit disruption of the project. It must be used only to prevent damage to any of Wikimedia projects." Holders of the CU privilege do have discretion in making a determination as to whether or not potential disruption exists and whether or not the checking will be used to limit disruption or damage. Here, the case being made implied that there would be no limitation of disruption or damage upon running the check, thus my declination. If it can be shown that there would be reduced damage or disruption to BarWiki, that would be different. Furthermore, as we stewards are individual people and not automatons, should another steward review the existing case and believe that there is potential for damage minimization, they are more than welcome to run the check, and I would respect that decision. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 17:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Roughly 10 to 20 serious bar-wikipedia users including co-founders left this wikipedia becouse of the inbearable atmosphere there. Users are threatned, defamed and bullies. Usually done in concerted actions. Critics or even normal discussions with controversial opinions got totally impossible. Everyone who does not agree with this "group"s principles is attacked immediately severly and personally. In the last time among many many more evidences of suspect, these users have been getting suspicious because of supporting stubb articles about student's fraternities on DE. I do not know if a CU with the purpose of breakink this pupettry-connection would meet your criterions. But if you are interested in the case, it is enough to follow the links I have referred to (but it surely will be a _hughe_ amount of work to read through the whole case). I'll suggest contacting the engaged admins and stewarts from the recent CU on DE (f.i. Liberaler Humanist) for getting a first taste of the whole affair. -- 17:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Then isn't it irrelevant if they are sockpuppets, meatpuppets, or a cabal? If you believe that BarWiki has become dysfunctional to the point of chaos or stagnation, then I believe the next step is to open an RfC on the group's behavior. If you feel that cannot be accomplished properly on the local wiki then meta may be an option, but I see that such a discussion is already taking place at Requests for comment/Acquisition of the Boarische Wikipedia by Sockpuppets, and so I am still uncertain as to how running a new check would help minimize the damage at BarWiki. Measures may well need to be taken, but it doesn't seem that CU will help, unless I am missing something? -- Avi (talk) 17:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. The only thing a further successful CU might accomplish might be a re-solidarization of the non-group users. Which were as a matter of fact divided in heavy arguments in large parts in the course of the "riots" caused by the situation and the ranks spun by the group quite effectively. In part this efficency can be explained by a certain "internat marketing agency" which is the central connection point of the "group" users. This company among other things advertises "guerillia marketing" strategies. "Some" of the group members are also quite well trained in web programing. That this is not a conspiracy theory will be confirmed be Liberaler Humanist and the other engages Stewart of the last CU. But yes again I do not think a sucessful CU might change things dramatically at this stage of affairs. -- 18:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Mhetab Aalam Mhetab@ur.wikipedia

I don't see the value in a CU check, can't it be dealt with on the merits of the argument?  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:39, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
oh, and to note, sockpuppets are not against WMF policy, so a local sock policy would need to be in place to run a check (does one exist?); and there would need to be a discussion in the community about the need for check.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

  Declined Two people agreeing in and of itself is not evidence of sockpuppetry, supporting diffs have not been brought nor has a strong case been made, and, as per above, even were they the same person, no evidence of violation of local policies has been shown. Please resubmit if a stronger case can be made. -- Avi (talk) 15:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Clelie Mascaret@fr.wikiquote

  Not done. Clelie Mascaret has no edit since November 2012, so there is not any information left in the log. Information is only stored for 3 month. -- Tegel (Talk) 15:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
OK, thank you. I'm going to block the IP because it bad contributes but not because it's Clelie Mascaret.--Morphypnos (talk) 16:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

They are entering in confusion@es.wikiquote

  Done, also Están Entrando En Confusión, IYAR 70 and Bluf Bluf. --Vituzzu (talk) 19:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


There has been no discussion at elWP, and as you are not an administrator you are unable to do anything with the data. There is a requirement for administrative discussion with a demonstration that a check is warranted.   Not done  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC)