Steward requests/Checkuser/2016-02


Németek and others

@DerFussi: For dewikivoyage Would you please link to a policy or discussion that does not allow to multiple accounts on your wiki prior to my publishing any results. Thanks. dewiktionary will need to approach stewards if they have a similar concern, though they will need to again show their policy, but they can join this case if they believe that we have crosswiki issues.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[]
@DerFussi: Rather than start a CU request here, have you considered a direct conversation with the person about your concerns and any relationship between accounts?  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[]
I think, we don't have such policy. (Do all other wikis have that?) And no, there is no one at the moment for that discussion you've asked for. The reasons one can find in all the discussions we had over the last months with the named accounts and in our private lifes: We are just a very small group of active admins and we all have been involved in concerns of wikivoyage over years during the migration to the WMF until now. Most of us have to shift their priotities to private life now urgently, and we just want to clarify the situation for a moment, that new admins can take over. But if there are concerns on meta helping us in that situation, so we have to fit in. No idea, what we can do, if Fussis concerns are qualified. Hope they will not become to reality, the elections started yeasterday. Thanks for your time, --Tine (talk) 09:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[]
The policy is stated here: "Ein missbräuchliches Vortäuschen unterschiedlicher Identitäten kann einen schwerwiegenden Regelverstoß darstellen, etwa bei einer Sperrumgehung, bei der Fälschung von Wahlen durch mehrfache Stimmabgabe oder bei Manipulation von Diskussionen durch Vortäuschen von Mehrheiten, und zu befristeten oder unbefristeten Sperren führen."
Translated: An abusive feigning different identities of the same person may be a serious offense, such as a lock bypass, with the falsification of election by multiple voting or manipulation of discussions by feigning of majorities, and lead to temporary or permanent blocking. --Bernello (talk) 09:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[]
Thanks Bernello. Time to change jobs. ;-) --Tine (talk) 14:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[]
Never trust a beautiful woman ;-)
@billinghurst This IP-ranges and the additional user seems to be related to, or the same user(s) above mentioned:
user:De ausputzers , written with a protected space in between (& nbsp ;)
2003:7A:4778:AD41:89B5:6354:49A4:6C4A 20:17, 17. Okt. 2015 (CEST)
2003:7A:4778:AD41:7C89:2762:52A8:FCAD 20:44, 18. Okt. 2015 (CEST)
2003:7A:4778:AD41:C1D9:C7E8:97D4:C67E 20:45, 1. Nov. 2015 (CET)
2003:7A:4778:AD41:2058:3AB5:2B2C:76B1 09:48, 2. Nov. 2015 (CET)
2003:7A:8526:801D:970:B273:4963:EFCF 09:30, 10. Nov. 2015 (CET)
2003:7A:8500:C884:D538:D40E:89A7:2194 21:19, 13. Nov. 2015 (CET)
Maybe this will help your investigations, greetings --Bernello (talk) 17:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[]
There are usually two distinct reasons to undertake checkuser. 1) Vandals and grouping them to put blocks on the underlying IP addresses, if possible; 2) Where someone is fleecing the system by having multiple accounts, be that to edit separately, or to push a PoV in votes or discussions.

If IP edits are problematic, and you can isolate them to a range then you already have the tools and information to put in blocking on the range (hard or soft). IP edits would generally not be as pertinent for any case about PoV pushing.

So for the case 2) type the WPs have a policy about editing from one account; and there is a generally accepted principle of One person, one vote. I am not certain that a public prod of someone to vote is necessarily an abuse, in fact it would seem unusual to do if trying to fly under the radar. I can also envisage obvious circumstances where you would do it with people with whom there is a close association or relationship. Further, criteria for voting or existing practices for judging the participation for voting have proven effective in preventing or controlling abuse. So I am declining a checkuser at this time. If there is an issue about sockpuppetry, then I would think that it is possible in both the for and against votes, and would rather that it be looked upon collectively towards the end of the process.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:35, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[]

  Closed as inactive since November, 28 2015. —MarcoAurelio 15:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[]

  CheckUser is not for fishing. We ain't allowed to go ahead and check random users or IP addresses and see what appears (re. "any other posibility"). I'm shocked to hear that outing and attempted outing is acceptable at Romanian Wikipedia. Section (4) of Wikimedia Terms of Use prohibits such activities, and anyone engaging in them can face discrectionary santions by the WMF. —MarcoAurelio 18:10, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[]
I removed "any other posibility" from my request. I list only Accipiter Q. Gentilis as he made the same attempted outing as the IP and Pafsanias who, as an admin, agreed with Accipiter Q. Gentilis that the wikipedian who removed attempted outing from his own userpage was guilty of "vandalism" and blocked him. Those two - Accipiter Q. Gentilis and Pafsanias - always have the same positions in different conflicts.--MariusM (talk) 20:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[]
If necessary, I agree with an investigation of mine in relation to mentioned IP address and Pafsanias. --Accipiter Q. Gentilis (talk) 20:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC) P.S. I agree in the same manner in relation with Turbojet. --Accipiter Q. Gentilis (talk) 23:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[]
I agree too, if necessary. However, this has nothing to do with the above allegations about attempted outing and its acceptability at ro.wikipedia, which I must deny. They certainly need a more careful examination, but I’m afraid this is not the right place to enter into such details. Our local community is currently engaged in a discussion of this case at ro: Wikipedia:Reclamații#Încercare de dezvăluire de date personale, hărțuire pe pagină de utilizator, folosirea Wikipediei ca tribună pentru calomnierea unor persoane în viață, calomnierea unui wikipedist. --Pafsanias (talk) 11:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[]
Considering that Pafsanias is trying to become checkuser at Romanian Wikipedia [10], there is a suplimentarry reason to check if he used sockpuppets against Wikipedia rules. Also I add:
  1. the attempted outing made by the anon IP was meantime removed from the talk page of the Wikipedia biographical article, but that edit was reverted and the atempted outing was repeated today by an other user - Gikü [11].
  2. the anon IP is obviously an experienced user of Wikipedia. A newcomer will not known the existence of the format "The biography of a Wikipedian".
  3. At enwiki there was already a discussion (started by me) on this subject, at Conflict of Interest Noticeboard: en:Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_95#Alleged_conflict_of_interest_and_attempted_outing_at_Romanian_Wikipedia. The answers which I received there are confirming that my edits are no reasons to be considered breaking Wikipedia laws about conflict of interest and that attempted outing is not acceptable.
  4. I started a discussion regarding the attempted outings at Romanian Wikipedia - the discussion mentioned by Pafsanias above. Untill now, I am the only one in that discussion who is claiming that attempted outing is unacceptable. I received such answers as: The main purpose of Wikipedia is to gather materials for an enciclopedia. For this there is no need for anonymity, as there is no need for anonymity at Encyclopedia Britannica. There are other purposes (example with google results about en:Jimmy Wales editing his own wikipedia article in order to remove refference about his involvement in pornography) for which anonymity is needed. Anybody claiming the right to anonymity is suspect of having "other purposes", for example to promote an image coresponding self-interest, as shown in the above link, and such situations contradicts the neutral point of view[12] (User ro:Utilizator:Turbojet). In the same discussion Pafsanias himself labeled my complaint against attempted outing as wikilawyering (wikiavocatura, in Romanian language) [13]. Is exactly as I told at en:Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard at English Wikipedia: Any protest against attempted outing at Romanian Wikipedia is considered there as en:Wikipedia:Wikilawyering[14]. Considering the fact that User ro:Utilizator:Turbojet is defending the attempted outing about the same wikipedian as the anon IP, I list also him.--MariusM (talk) 14:54, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[]

For the record, if stewards are seriously considering "discrectionary santions", please reach out to the local community before reaching a decision. Matters are way more nuanced than how they were presented here, but I think people from the community are not getting involved because they don't have any way of gauging the kind of reaction you're contemplating. And we all know that changing a wrong decision is more difficult than reaching the right one in the first place. --Gutza (talk) 21:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[]

For the record, I wrote an e-mail to on the subject of my repeated attempted outings and harassments in 11 January. I tried to solve the problems with discretion but it seems discretion is not possible. But if Romanian Wikipedia community will understand finnally that outing is not acceptable, it will be a gain.--MariusM (talk) 15:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[]

A few comments, since the discussion has gone totally sideways:

  • stewards are tasked with technical implementation of community consensus, and dealing with cross-wiki issues; they don't hand out "discrectionary santions", but have clear policies which state they should not override consensus
  • in section 10 of the said TOU, the WMF reserves the right to enforce the terms of use by disabling the access and/or taking other measures for disruptive users; however, his only happens in certain situations (AFAIK, more often than not, at the request of the community) and the decision is also based upon an investigation.

So instead of concentrating on what might happen if, we should all focus on the subject at hand: should this checkuser be done or not? In my opinion, there are absolutely no reasons for any check regarding Turbojet or Pafsanias. As to Accipiter, if the only argument is that he mentioned the same blog as the anonymous user, this is way too thin to justify a check, especially considering the name resemblance and MariusM's propensity to editing the same subjects the blog talks about, which means that different people could reach the same conclusion independently.--Strainu (talk) 23:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[]

Here the decision that should be done is the checkuser required. It is the actual community consensus of rowiki that checkusers are done by stewards.--MariusM (talk) 00:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[]
Accipiter Q. Gentilis wrote yesterday on his talk page that he will give his full atention on me and retrieved from the archives (2007-2008) several discussions with other attempted outings against me, this fact being new attempted outing [15]. Indeed, in 2007-2008 there were other attempted outings against me (main perpetuator being Gutza), which I didn't want to bring in discussion as I considered an almost forgotten problem (few wikipedians of today were active at rowiki in 2007-2008). Also, Accipiter Q. Gentilis claimed that it was proved that I was of bad faith making the complaint against him at Romanian Wikipedia. "So much shamelessness I didn't seen in over 4 years of being here" (at Wikipedia), wrote Accipiter Q. Gentilis about my complaint regarding attempted outings made by him [16]. He is admin at Romanian Wikipedia, as Pafsanias, and Pafsanias want to become checkuser. If Pafsanias and Accipiter Q. Gentilis are sockpuppets, I believe it is a problem for Romanian Wikipedia to have an admin with sockpuppet also admin--MariusM (talk) 00:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[]
Also yesterday the format „The biography of a wikipedian” was removed from the talk page of the article, but Pafsanias expressed opinion that the format (therefore, the attempted outing) should stay[17]. Regarding my propensity of editing at Wikipedia, I want to underline that after 2008 there is no propensity for me to edit articles at Wikipedia. Look at my contributions at articles mainspaces [18], I had very few edits, no edit wars (zero edits on articles in 2012, 2013, 2014, 2016, 1 edit in 2011, 11 edits in 2015). At the talk page at the article where both Pafsanias and the anon IP want the format „The biography of a wikipedian” to be added, my last edit was in 2010 (while no edit in the article itself). Which are the reasons for attempted outing where there are no edit-wars created by me?--MariusM (talk) 11:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[]

I find this highly disturbing. On EN and DE WP, users who are involved in outing have before been community banned. And here, outing is respected and removing it from your own userpage and talk is vandalism and wikilawyering. 00:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[]

  Declined - CheckUser is not a way for settling disagreements between users. —MarcoAurelio 15:41, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[]

I agree with the checkuser. Pafsanias, against which I made a checkuser request above is actually trying to become checkuser at Romanian Wikipedia[21]. He is clearly attempting to make me quit Wikipedia - he blocked me twice after I made a return at Wikipedia [22] (I am an old wikipedian, who started contributing in 2006, but I had few years of almost inactivity) and is able to make fake accusations of sockpuppetry against me if he will become checkuser. Such accusations will harm not only my Wikipedia reputation, but, considering the repeated attempted outings done against me at Romanian Wikipedia (the community there consider it acceptabile), also the reputation of a real-life person. I trust the integrity of checkusers from here, I don't trust the integrity of Pafsanias, if he will become checkuser at Romanian Wikipedia.--MariusM (talk) 13:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[]
Remember, Turbo,   CheckUser is not magic pixie dust and for that reason I request this be withdrawn. 20:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[]
I already agreed with the checkuser regarding me. I keep my opinion that doing the check is usefull in this particular case.--MariusM (talk) 18:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[]

  Declined - CheckUser is not for dispute settlement, and neither for go fishing. —MarcoAurelio 15:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[]

IP addresses

Another case

Ro.wikipedia encounter a massive campaign of masked vandalism from various IP addresses with common habits (common false edit summary). About this was written in mid-October 2015 at local administrators' noticeboard, but problem is older.

I querried database to retrieve results; there a lot of diffs to check. I have no time to do this, but I checked a part of edits among most fresh cases. Can you check please IP users listed bellow, all of them uses a common false edit summary [to mask vandalism] and almost all their edits already were reverted. Some verified examples:

  • ro edits - first vandalized article then corrected it back (common false edit summary with other vandals)
  • [23]
  • [24]
  • [25] (first vandalized article then corrected; similar edit summary)
  • [26]
  • [27]
  • [28]
  • [29]
  • [30] (obvious vandalism with the same summary)

One more individual example, edit that speaks for itself

Although edits are malicious (obviously), edit summaries are false. In Romanian "Ajustări gramaticale" lit. means "grammatical adjustments"; "Corectat greșeli ortografice" = "corrected orthographical errors"; "Adăugat legături" = "added links".

Raw data:

--XXN (talk) 16:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[]

--XXN (talk) 15:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[]

These are all obviously just independent random acts of vandalism as well as editing tests from the mobile app, as you can notice from the tags on each edit. Use w:Occam's razor. The similar edit summaries can be explained by the fact that these are exactly the standard options an editor gets when attempting to save his changes through the mobile app. They are all just as suspicious as this edit of mine (which is a legitimate and correct "grammar adjustment", as described by the summary) and other non-vandalism anonymous changes described similarly.Andrei Stroe (talk) 11:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[]

  Declined,   CheckUser is not for fishingMarcoAurelio 15:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[]

مریم ایلامی@fa.wikipedia

  • Hi. Please let me know if there is something wrong or missing in my request. MRG90 (talk) 08:17, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[]


There appears to be multiple groups, and not everyone listed shares the same technical evidence.

-- Avi (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[]


  • I strongly support this query. If a very precise reason is needed, it's edit warring here. Abusing alternate accounts in an edit war is grounds for a block on We also need to know if CuldeSac12 abused multiple accounts, because he's an autopatrolled user, so administrative action against a trusted user is more sensible than in the case on single purpose accounts.
  • Please also check user Adelin12, who in 2 days will be auto-confirmed and thus able to circumvent the semi-protection of articles which is meant to stop this sockpuppet farm. --Mihai P. (talk) 12:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[]
Mihaita Geo is   Stale. Other accounts are   Unrelated to each other and to the IPv6 addresses provided. Ruslik (talk) 18:32, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[]


  Unrelated seems trolling to me. --Vituzzu (talk) 15:20, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[]


So, user #1 don't want a template in an article and user #2 adds it? I'm a bit confused here. —MarcoAurelio 17:29, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[]
அன்டன் இது குறித்து மேலும் விளக்க இயலுமா? மன்னிக்கவும் இதனை தமிழ் விக்கியில் பின்தொடரவில்லை. என்ன பிரச்சினை ? அரிஅரவேலன் வார்ப்புரு இட வேண்டாம் என்கிறார், பொன்னிலவன் வார்ப்புரு இடுகிறார், மேலும் இருவரும் ஒரே மாதிரி தொகுக்கின்றனர், ஆனால் இதற்கு எதற்கு CU? அவர்களுடைய கணக்குகளில் இருந்து ஏதேனும் விசமத் தொகுப்புகள் இருந்தனவா?--Shanmugamp7 (talk) 17:45, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[]
Simply I say here. User #1 edits topics on biography and book. Many times it is against en:WP:BIO, en: WP:BLP and en:WP:NB. Therefore I have requested him to follow the procedure, but user #1 expresses his own interpretation and ignores policy/guidlines. User #1 edits same topics as user #2 and advocates each other while ignore BIO, BLP and NB. Long time ago, user#2 edits user page of user #1. When we asked the reason of editing other user page, he expressed that he is friend of him. (our guidance on user page discourage to edit other user’s page). I see lot of similarities such as editing same topics/article, same writing style, advocate particular user, etc. Therefore I assume user#1 can have sock puppet(s). --AntanO 10:37, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[]
  •   Unlikely: technical data suggest both users might not be related. —MarcoAurelio 22:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[]


Only edits on enwiki and they have local Checkusers that will handle this request locally. -- Tegel (Talk) 19:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[]


Done by local checkusers. Ajraddatz (talk) 18:05, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[]


The accounts Manimihan, Zadoboom, Mohaddesan and also Parsweek are   Confirmed to belong to the same user. Ruslik (talk) 19:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[]