Steward requests/Checkuser/2014-07



Not sure why you are requesting a checkuser, what is the purpose of running the check? What do you intend to do with the result. Also note that there is nothing we can do with the IP address, it is what it is.  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I suspect particular user has sock puppet(s). The particular user has been warned for not to engage in ‘improper’ edits. Due to his/her ignorance and breach of wiki policy, he\she was blocked for a week. After the expiration of block, editing of dilemma continues with a few users in particular articles. Therefore, I wanted to know whether he/she has sock puppets. If so, action will be taken as per w:ta:WP:SOCK.--AntanO (talk) 09:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  Confirmed that Thilakshan and Arnav19 are socks of each other. As stated earlier the IP address is what it is, there is no need to specifically CU that, you can manage that as is.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for clarification. --AntanO (talk) 20:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I have the results, I will post an update shortly QuiteUnusual (talk) 07:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Due to the use of highly dynamic IP addresses it is not possible to confirm they are linked to a registered account. However, other technical evidence confirms Amt000 is the source of the abuse. QuiteUnusual (talk) 07:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Could you please elaborate on what you mean by 'technical evidence' ?--अनुनाद सिंह (talk) 08:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
No, I'm afraid I can't as it is covered by the Privacy Policy. QuiteUnusual (talk) 08:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I think result is not clear. Can you please tell us clear evidence.☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 10:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
You don't need and I can't release the evidence. I can confirm that Amt000 is responsible for the abuse. QuiteUnusual (talk) 11:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
ok, thanks for your kind information.☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 12:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


  CheckUser is not for fishing No requirement for checkuser demonstrated.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
The basic request is to check whether Werieth@en.wp and Betacommand@mw are a technical match (some people think the documented behavioral evidence still leaves possibilities open) and to find possible sleepers, a routine use of CU, not fishing. If other parts of the request went too wide, they can be left out. Does that help? 04:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
If you have evidence, can you please link the SPI on enwiki? Also, since I see no evidence of sockpuppetry on, I would think a check there would be indeed fishing.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Old SPI here was closed Dec 2013 due to stale CU for Betacommand@en who was blocked since the third arb case in Feb 2012. Behavioural evidence in the SPI was considered otherwise (apparently) enough to justify CU but not enough to block all by itself. Werieth was then blocked as a sock of Betacommand on July 5 (2 days ago) based on additional behavioural matches being noticed around then: some highly tedious discussion is here (the block by Kww is noted at 14:15, 5 July 2014 there). There are some more evidence posts on other pages and I can look for some diffs if you really want them. The issue has been very contentious (3 arb cases, partisan squabbling, etc) and so there is drama spread all over the place. Jasper, if you have CU'd at, would it work for DeltaQuad to show you the en.wp CU data and ask if there is a match? I don't see how a comparison between two named accounts solidly linked by behavioural evidence is "fishing" just because the accounts are on different servers, but this stuff is outside my area. It might be better if I ask DQ or someone else from enwp to discuss things here instead of me. 05:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Jasper isn't a CU on mww. But more importantly, there is no reason for a CU to be run on mww. He hasn't violated any policies there that would require a CU, nor is this is a case of cross-wiki abuse. Legoktm (talk) 06:10, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Sheesh. It sounds bizarre to me that there's not more CU coordination between projects or that SUL accounts aren't subject to global CU, but as I said, this isn't my area. I'll seek advice on en.wp about whether there is anything more to discuss here. Thanks for the responses. 06:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Per Legoktm above, I definitely do not have any final word on this. But what I can say is that should English Wikipedia CheckUsers desire such a check, they would normally request it privately via a mailing list such as the stewards' list or the checkusers' list, or via private messaging on IRC.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Ah, thanks, that makes more sense and is more like how I expected these things were done. DeltaQuad had told me on en.wp that I was the one who had to make the request here, but it sounds like that was a mistaken transplant of local en.wp CU procedure. I guess this situation doesn't come up all that often. I'll pass the info back to DeltaQuad and it's up to him to decide if he wants to continue. Thanks again. 09:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
If an enWP checkuser has an issue, they know of the means to make enquiries; they do not need delegates.  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Well here is what DeltaQuad told me, so it does sound like a mixup over the procedure. Hopefully it'll get sorted. 16:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Personally, I don't agree with the requirement for all requests to see whether two accounts on two different wikis to be conducted only by checkuser request on a private list. Community members should be able to do it also, and then CUs can send each other an email with details. Also, no where in the Checkuser policy does it state that there has to be disruption on a specific wiki, it states "It must be used only to prevent damage to any of Wikimedia projects." While I agree that the IP did not lay down the full list of evidence for the need of the check, a comparison of the information to limit disruption to enwiki would not hurt or be a violation of the privacy or checkuser policy. I will provide the open evidence here, and add some checkuser evidence of the disruption to enwiki privately. It may take a day or two, but i'll get around to it. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 00:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
    Socks are not against the WMF community's rules, such rules exist at individual wikis. As we say in the majority of cases like this, if someone's behaviour is problematic, then local admins have the tools to manage such issues. If a community is looking to enforce a community ban, then that is an interesting counterpoint, but I am not sure that such a discussion to link good edits with a community ban is necessarily something that should be undertaken here, nor am I certain that it is directly preventing damage. That said, I look forward to the evidence being prepared, and the question being asked.  — billinghurst sDrewth
    They were not good edits. It's not just the ban evasion--his entire history has revolved around running unauthorized bots that were full of bugs and damaged articles. The only way to find and fix the damage was for humans to manually inspect thousands of the bot's edits at each occasion, one of the reasons he caused such pain. That happened with Werieth as well. I think the evidence DQ was planning to post was only about behavioural matches between Betacommand and Werieth. Is that what you're looking for, or do you need evidence of bad edits as well? I can pull some diffs for that if necessary. I've also started writing a post about the Betacommand-Werieth resemblances, to save DQ some time. 05:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
OK, here is the post I was working on as a reply to DeltaQuad while you replied. I've marked it "edit conflict" because of that overlap. It's mostly about the behavioural resemblance between Betacommand and Werieth. I can put together a post with some examples of Werieth messing up enwp if you need that, but not tonight.
  • (edit conflict) Thanks, DeltaQuad, I didn't realize I was supposed to post more detailed evidence. Jasper had just asked for the enwiki SPI so I figured it would be looked at there. If it saves you some trouble I'll try to add a few things. The biggest single chunk of additional diffs etc. besides what's visible in the SPI archive is here, reverted from the SPI by an admin because it originally came from an unknown user with obvious an axe to grind (I'm not sure quite how that is justified in enwp policy--we don't have an exclusionary rule as far as I know, and the submitter, Andy Dingley, is an enwp regular in good standing. This is tangential though and I won't bore you with links to some ensuing partisan DR unless you want them.) Werieth himself edit warred[1][2][3][4] to keep that post out of the SPI. I give that context to let you figure out whether you can use those diffs here. I have spot checked some of them (not all) and the ones I looked at are accurate.

    Some more recently discovered behavioural matches were noted in the ANI thread that I linked further up (I'm summarizing from other people's posts there, I haven't checked the statements myself):

    • Werieth and Betacommand both had a habit of skipping the apostrophe in "I'm" and "I'll"
    • Werieth started editing the day after Betacommand stopped.
    • Based on edit times, Werieth and Betacommand both seemed to edit from the same time zone
    • Werieth and Betacommand both were interested in a specific pair of articles, en:Learning Management System and en:List of learning management systems.[5] This last was considered conclusive enough that Kww blocked Werieth, even though Kww has usually been a Betacommand supporter according to other commenters (I don't have a scorecard and my attention in this issue has been directed mostly at Betacommand himself).
    • Enwp arbitrator Salvio Giuliano mentioned on July 8th that arbcom got an email concerning Werieth on July 3rd.[6] (I think that email was also mentioned earlier.) Werieth announced retirement at 12:27 on July 5th[7] and was blocked by Kww at 14:13 the same day.[8] 5 hours later, Salvio found and blocked en:User:Smokestack Basilisk as a CU match for Werieth.[9] Smokestack Basilisk was a sleeper created in July 2008 that stayed quiet til 31 May of this year, except for 2 edits in January 2012 and one in April 2009. Almost all its edits look to have been done using a bot fitting Betacommand's MO.
According to Masem (the admin who handled the enwp SPI), because of the lack of direct (i.e. CU) evidence, the Werieth/Betacommand connection still isn't definite under enwp's AGF (assume good faith) policy.[10] That remaining bit of uncertainty is likely to lead to more wikilawyering and conflict the next time Betacommand reincarnates and his supporters say it was never established for sure that he socked and so we have to AGF. Meanwhile his bots will be messing up more articles. This CU is requested partly in the hope of forestalling some of that.
Let me know if this helps. 10:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
From what you are saying, there is even less reason to undertake a CU as the person about whom you are complaining has now gone inactive, and has been blocked. A CU would now seem to be irrelevant, and you have sufficient detail on that Werieth account to block/manage further accounts. The questions have to be are ... fighting vandalism? (doesn't seem to be) ... to check for sockpuppet abuse? (local wiki rule and usually internal to wiki ... debatable) ... limit disruption of the project? (user retired, and you have CU data). The rules processes at enWP are not relevant to MW, and there has to be a clear reason for you to associate a person indicated as a good editor at MW, with another account at enWP, and demonstrate how this prevents damage at enWP. To me, the case has not been made, so you have your criteria to present an argument.  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:55, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Werieth is currently blocked on behavioural evidence but according to Masem, this is not conclusive. I see future disruption based on that sliver of uncertainty. The amount of wikilawyering that goes into defending this person beggars belief. We can't refute the assertion "Betacommand has never used sockpuppets" without the CU, so there will be more efforts to bring him back into the project as a good faith user who made errors, and we have to AGF about the alleged but unproven socking which he denied many times. There will also be more damage to articles because the bots make too many edits to manually check, so mistakes they make are left in place: this is large-scale, unfixable vandalism that makes me tear my hair out.

Re your points 1) user retired: no, user put up a retirement template but people retire and unretire all the time, many "retirements" last less than a week, returning is the norm (sometimes under a different username). We've had 7 years of Betacommand insanity and it will never stop. People who really retire don't use those templates, they just leave. 2) limit disruption: yes, explained above. Person has his own department (en:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Δ) at enwp drama board with multiple archive pages and sub-pages. The amount of pain and burnout inflicted on some of Wikipedia's best contributors (some of whom have left) from that is tragic. We don't need more. 3) fight vandalism: yes, that's my own interest in this, limiting damage to articles by these damn bots, and accompanying stress to good contributors. The surrounding factional conflict is about media policy issues that I'm not personally worked up about.

It's possible I'm overreacting and if you want I can ping DeltaQuad and SlimVirgin for a reality check. Other times I've felt I was overreacting about this guy, I've been wrong and was really underreacting and should have reacted more (I will eventually somewhere write up some amazing examples). Ultimate solution may have to be put enwp in receivership, throw out all our admins and have meta admins come run the place and stop the nonsense--are you interested? (Kidding). Meanwhile we have to do whatever we can. 20:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC) (edited to fix link).

Woah! Your rhetorical flourishes are not useful, and do not belong in CU requests. Time for you to step back, you are taking this too personally. This is not enWP. You have raised the case, DQ has said that they would come back with components. At this point of time, user is indef blocked, user states retired, and your CU have current IP details, for Werieth. We wait, to see what further there is to demonstrate that a CU request of Betacommand will prevent damage.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
OK. I think I answered your questions--it's just not clear what you're looking for or what you'd consider to be enough. I'm happy to let DQ take it from here. Thanks. 02:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I want to remind that stewards do not perform CU checks at request of unregistered users. So, please, log in if you want to continue this discussion. Ruslik (talk) 19:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I think the stewards perform the checks that they decide to perform. In this case Billinghurst has asked me to wait for DeltaQuad, so I'm stepping back unless more input is requested from me. My feeble venture into colorful writing aside, I'm not worked up over this: the evidence either meets the threshold or else it doesn't. I trust Billinghurst's objectivity and I'm fine with any decision made. 02:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC) Note: I'll be away for a few days starting tonight or tomorrow, but will check here again when I get back. 03:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Volobuev Ilya@ru.wikibooks

  Confirmed. Both accounts are related to each other and to Volobuev Ilya. Savhñ 09:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Mala chaubey@hi.wikipedia

@Hindustanilanguage: And what is the point of the checkuser request? If the accounts are problematic then block them, you don't need a checkuser. The specific purpose of a checkuser needs to be identified.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:14, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
User1 is an admin on the Hindi Wikipedia. Holding undisclosed multiple accounts is itself serious issue to entail a block on Hindi Wikipedia. The purpose of this CU is to confirm the same, more so the efforts to use Wikipedias for popularising / promoting an individual. --Muzammil (talk) 00:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I've been directed by Sanjeev Kumar, admin of Hindi Wikipedia to request CU in the discussion link cited. Naziah rizvi a/c has suddenly gained more momentum after User1 became the admin. --Muzammil (talk) 00:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
@Hindustanilanguage: Is it contrary to an explicit policy at hiWP to have sock accounts? If yes, please link to the policy.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Here is the policy note. Also, here you will a case in which multiple accounts were discussed after CU and blocked on hiWP. --Muzammil (talk) 08:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

  Unrelated  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


What is the purpose of undertaking a checkuser? What you have mentioned can be managed by administrators without needing checkuser response.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
they all had a problem with me. Lolokh and جمشید23 are blocked indefinitly. Rahnama54 was blocked for vandalism and personal attack just for 3 days and his edits is so similar to these users and I think at least one of them is sock-puppet of Rahnama54. Thanks ARASH PT  talk  12:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
If they are problematic, then block them; if not, then they can be left. What you are doing is considered fishing and the issue should be discussed on faWP where administrators can make comment, prior to it being brought here. So at this stage it is premature, and   Not done — billinghurst sDrewth 04:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Trolling behaviour at frWS

Moved and reworded Special:PermanentLink/9364625 after checking with frWS  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  Confirmed Largentineestmorte, Ilipitis, Jouvenceuse, Goelandbleu, Vigieo1, Syndro77, Tournezlestalons, CloneE34, Denetsprogres12, Le dresseur des mots, Les plus fous 100, Tasmerdencore, Vieux garconnet, Fermentateur, Legrandsigle, Lemuriens, Lecolos, Bonvisage, Airdutemps5, Lebonentrepreneur, Droitdetravaillerlesamedi, Resterliberal, Oeilclou, Jaugerons. Blocking at request of admin via #wikisource.  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Look like it didn't stop him/her: [11] Phe (talk) 17:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  Confirmed Elfix 18:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)