Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Steward requests/Checkuser

< Steward requests
This is an archived version of this page, as edited by Sai2020 (talk | contribs) at 09:01, 28 April 2008 (→2 users in tewiki). It may differ significantly from the current version.
To request checkuser access, see Requests for permissions.
Shortcut:
SRCU
This page allows you to request checkuser information on a wiki with no local checkusers. Make sure to specify the wiki on which you want the check to be performed. Note that many projects have local checkuser procedures, and checkuser information on these wikis should be requested locally; see also the Steward handbook.

Please use headers in the format "username@wiki", such as "billy@enwikisource".

Local checkuser request pages:

Cross-wiki requests
Meta-Wiki requests

Requests

vandalpuppets at viwiki

The following accounts behaved the same ways as vi:User:Liebesapfel's socks confirmed in #Several requests about viwiki and vandalpuppets. Please help to identify open proxies used by them as well as related newly opened accounts. More of these socks are coming. Thank you. Tmct 08:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2 users in tewiki

This is in regard to my RfA in tewiki (Voting in progress). I suspect that two people who voted against me are socks. Both the accounts were created after the voting started. The users are te:User:Gopikrishna123 and te:User:మౌర్యుడు‎. The second one has been used only to vote against me. Also the second user name is very closely linked to a disputed heated discussion in which I participated. I am not sure who is the puppeteer (I do not want to accuse somebody) but is it possible to check all the active users and find the puppeteer? Sai2020 04:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Several requests about viwiki and vandalpuppets

We have reasons to believe that vi:User:Liebesapfel is the person behind repeated vandalism attacks against the Vietnamese Wikipedia but have no definite proof. We found a non-proxy IP performing vandalism in the manner of the other attacks. We'd like to know if Liebesapfel has ever logged in from this IP address: 117.5.67.161. Another of Liebesapfel's suspected puppets, vi:User:Phúc Du, made some supposedly constructive edits before starting her vandalism rampage, so Phúc Du and Liebesapfel might also share IPs at some point. DHN 20:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which are these reasons? Could you give us some links? Thanks, —DerHexer (Talk) 20:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • vi:User:Phúc Du and many many other accounts in this category share the same pattern of vandalism. Here are two of them who showed connections with vi:User:Liebesapfel: [1], [2]
  • vi:User:Phúc Du and vi:User:Liebesapfel have extremely similar writing style (this I cannot show you cos' it is in Vietnamese). Liebesapfel contributed mainly in articles on animes and anime-related games. Phuc Du contributed only in articles on anime-related games.

Tmct 20:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Liebesapfel was banned for 6 months beginning in December after a time-consuming controversy regarding content in her user page: she repeatedly added pictures that many users found objectionable: feces, sex toys, swastika, communist flag, etc. The vandalism attacks only started after she was banned.
  • The vandalism consisted of posting large pictures of genitalia in user talk pages.
  • The vandal said "you know who I am" and claimed that she was righting wrongs committed by the admins.
  • During vandalism attacks, Liebesapfel would sometimes log in and write in her user talk page, demurely asking "what's going on" even when nobody said anything to her. DHN 21:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it's of any help, the vandal often uses on his edits summaries "unblock liebesapfel and this will stop" and the alike es:Drini 21:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Done Confirmed relation with Phuc Du. Also direct relations with Liebesapfel, Fate's Palpitation, Jerrymouse, Tmct's phucking mom HAHAHAHAH, Beauty Of The Beast, Phúc Du , Nguyenbabinh, all indefinitely blocked. All the IPs are already blocked as open proxies es:Drini 21:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

vi.wikipedia

Please help to check the IPs used by those socks. The vandal is back. Also, I'd to know newly opened accounts that are related to those above. By looking at "recent changes", I suspect s/he is opening a number of new accounts right now.

Thanks in advance. Tmct 19:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Done on it. es:Drini 21:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
open proxy:
  • 67.228.101.165
  • 202.10.69.11
not yet blocked accounts:
  • Gonewithwind
  • Thienthansamhoi
  • Beauty Of The Beast
  • Worthless stone
  • Tài động
  • HMC333
  • Justice-san
  • N0b0di
  • Chỉ mất vài giây 2
  • Ký tài khoảnhễ
  • Haydoimubaohiem
  • Xauvankieu
  • Ưng Hoàng Teo
  • Thánh Cô
  • Connhangheo
  Confirmed, Liebesapfel, Phúc Du & lots vandal accounts seem to be the same user. Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 21:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

vi.wikipedia again

Please check if these vandal socks used open proxies. Thank you. Tmct 18:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC) I am really sorry for the long list. We have already more than 40,000 open proxies blocked, but we still get dozens of vandal accounts each day spamming obscenity. Tmct 19:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Done checking and blocking, same pattern of multiple vandal accounts. The IPs will show up here: [3] es:Drini 19:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

vi.wikipedia

Those are some of the socks who open accounts just to spam obscenity or nonsenses. Please check what sort of IPs they used. Recently we have dozens more of them each day. We've been blocking a lot of open proxies but it doesn't seem to solve the problem yet.

Thank you. Tmct 14:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Confirmed, but they go over proxies as You said: open proxies You might want to block:
66.197.177.165
205.234.104.30
66.197.241.55
66.197.241.54
If open proxies continue to be a mayor problem for Your project You could think about blocking them, User:DerHexer wrote a script that blocks open proxies, he has done that already for ml.wiki, because they had a lot of vandalism. Just contact him if You want his help, but make sure to find consensus in the community first.
Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 14:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Below is the list of those vandal accounts we got since yesterday. I have scripts to block IPs and we have blocked all those proxy list that we've found so far plus all IPs blocked in en.wiki (those blocked in other wikis are going to be blocked very soon). I've also used the IPs you gave above as search keywords. But it looks like we haven't found the right one. If we cannot blocks these IPs, the vandal will be able to use them again soon. I wish we could check the list ourselves, but people oppose a checkuser in Vietnamese Wikipedia.

I'm really sorry that I have to ask you guys to check this long list, and I totally understand if you say it is too much to do. If you check only a part of the list, I would still really appreciate. Many thanks. Tmct 18:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have a look at them, but please note, that I will not give away IPs that are not open proxies, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 18:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great! We are interested only in blocking open proxies. Tmct 18:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

result

Users that seem to be one (and are already blocked):

(1)
(2)
(3)

Open proxy list:

77.232.68.226
74.208.78.180
213.186.56.29
91.186.30.64
208.53.157.27
91.84.248.29
67.220.207.114
66.79.166.10
69.50.160.154
87.118.98.103
67.159.44.134
69.65.33.41
69.50.210.233
92.48.88.191
75.127.82.18
193.200.193.79
66.79.166.108
72.36.145.138
72.232.82.122
77.100.73.81
74.86.100.130
67.159.44.24
66.79.164.44
208.53.171.212
72.9.247.74
64.210.144.214

Accounts not yet blocked and are:
Of (1):

  • -

Of (2):

  • Caubevachiectau
  • Buoitiecli

Of (3):

  • AnhThangsg
  • 1lannuaroidingu
  • Havanti

Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 19:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 . Many thanks! :) Tmct 21:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rubi64

Copied from [4].

I am requesting a checkuser to confirm that I am, in fact, not Benutzer:Rubi64, as is claimed by single-purpose account user:Jorrit-H [5], and would appreciate appropriate measures against user:Jorrit-H. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regards, Guido den Broeder 07:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: I deferred this case to meta from w:en:Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/de:Rubi64, due to the multi-project nature of it. If possible, I'd imagine it would be appreciated if some sort of notification back (although it's likely I'll keep an eye here, but just in case) regarding the results, perhaps on the case page, or on Checkuser-l, so action can be taken by the appropriate persons. Anthøny 08:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note also my alert at [6] about a group of people 'discussing' nl:Wikipedia events on en:Wikipedia. Regards, Guido den Broeder 10:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully, this request is not forgotten? Guido den Broeder 07:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We don't check such things, since it is non-urgent and there are local checkusers on both projects. Please note that checkuser can not confirm non-identity. --Thogo (talk) 08:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me for not understanding. I was sent here because local checkusers cannot make this check. If the global checkuser does not confirm that the IP's are the same, does it not follow that they are different? Guido den Broeder 10:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The local checkusers can't help this one. All we are looking for is whether or not those are likely the same user. Stifle (enwiki admin) 10:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't they help? They could easily communicate with each other. All of the dewiki checkusers speak English and two of them are regularly available on IRC, so why should that be a problem? --Thogo (talk) 11:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to give the perspective of the de: checkusers: While requests for this kind of confirmation are entirely understandable coming from users who are wrongly accused of sockpuppetry, we don't grant them, simply because it is not possible to make such conclusions with certainty based on the output of the CheckUser tool, and because such requests could easily be abused by deliberately generating misleading "evidence". See also the Checkuser on yourself to "prove your innocence" part in the Unacceptable requests section of en:Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser.
Besides, with regard to this specific case: Someone from en: might correct me on this, but it appears to me that these accusations of sockpuppetry do not have gained significant credibility in the en: community anyway (see also en:User talk:Jorrit-H), were off-topic for the debate they were made in and had no decisive influence on its outcome, and were not used to justify any administrative action against the suspected users. Regards, HaeB 23:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Цуценятко@ukwiki

similiar vandal offensive edits, similiar names --Ilya K 21:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please could You give a bit more info, why was Цуцик blocked, what is the "offensive edit" about? Thanks, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 21:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Confirmed, also multiple other users found (all already blocked). Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 21:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
please also check vandals

--Ahonc 15:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Done, accounts not yet blocked & most likely same user:
  • Rambutan
  • Їжачок
  • Заблокований2
Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 18:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

김종국@kowiki

Considering IP user's recent vandals on the calendar pages at Korean Wikipedia, 김종국 who often claims the change of the calendars is suspicious of editing the calendar pages anonymously on purpose. IP user's edits were in accord with 김종국's own claim. Please let me know whether they are the same user.--Goodgood 11:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like fishing to me. Can you, please, give a more detailed and reasoned explanation regarding the requested check? --FiLiP ¤ 11:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'm so sorry that it looked like fishing to you. That was absolutely my fault and I was too hasty then. Well, 211.214.13.147 at Ko Wikipedia's consistent vandals on the calendar pages like [7], [8], [9],[10], etc...which claimed ko:식목일(Arbor Day in Korea) is still holiday in Korea and vandals at the user pages like [11], [12] offended all Ko wikipedians. BTW, the content that IP user claimsed on the calendar pages are very similar to 김종국 at Ko Wikipedia's [13] which claimed ko:식목일(Arbor Day in Korea) is still holiday in Korea. But now Arbor Day is no longer holiday in Korea since 2006.(you can confirm it in the ko:식목일) Moreover, 김종국's userpage wrote: 법령이 개정되었다고 하던데 난 절대로 이 법령 받아들일 수 없다.(translation:I cannot accept the amendment of the holiady law). Those are reasons that I suspect they are the same user.--Goodgood 09:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Confirmed. Yes, it is highly likely that those are the same users. --FiLiP ¤ 17:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alefbet@fawiki and آقایی@Fawiki in fa.wiki

Hi, I would like to request for a checkuser on the two users, Alefbet and آقایی and 142.206.2.12 seems to be one person and i think they are playing with the system so i want to be sure that you are not same person--Mardetanha talk 19:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You think so?! Many people may think many things. What was the proper reason for asking checkusers? What was the incident of possible abuse? Alefbe 14:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Inconclusive. There's not enough evidence to prove that these users are or are not the same. --FiLiP ¤ 20:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Before checking my account and the account of آقایی@Fawiki, you should have asked for a proper reason. Checkuser is not for fishing. Alefbe 14:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks--Mardetanha talk 20:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alefbe: There's nothing to discuss here, as this request is closed. If you want to personally discuss with Mardetanha, please do so on his own talk page. es:Drini 15:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not discussing the result of user-checking. I'm saying that in giving information, checkusers should follow CheckUser Policy. Are you saying that stewards can violate this policy and nobody should mention it? There wasn't any proper reason for checking my account and User:Dungodung shouldn't have done that. Alefbe 16:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The policy was followed. What point do you think was not? No private information was released. es:Drini 16:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The policy was not followed in the first place. There was no proper reason to check the accounts and User:Dungodung shouldn't have done that in the first place (Checkuser is not for fishing). Alefbe 16:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What part of policy wasn't followed, I ask again? Tell me what section or paragraph. es:Drini 16:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This part. Alefbe 16:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 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.

Alefbe suspected playing with system, checkuser proved there was no evidence.   ok

The tool should not be used for political control; to apply pressure on editors; or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to check a user. Note that alternative accounts are not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of the policies (for example, to double-vote or to increase the apparent support for any given position).

Dungodungo wasn't controlling politically the wiki nor threats were made.   ok

Notification to the account that is checked is permitted but is not mandatory. Similarly, notification of the check to the community is not mandatory, but may be done subject to the provisions of the privacy policy.

It was a public request, nothing to hide. However it's not mandatory a notidication.   ok

Some wikis allow an editor's IPs to be checked upon his or her request if, for example, there is a need to provide evidence of innocence against a sockpuppet allegation; note, however, that requesting a checkuser in these circumstances is sometimes part of the attempt to disrupt.

It wasn't a self-request, so it doens't apply.   ok

Therefore, Dungodungo did not violate the policy. es:Drini 16:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you mean that stewards can check any account, just based on a baseless request by another user? Alefbe 16:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
sorry i am bit late for answer. Before requesting i had talked with some other fawiki sysop then apply the request.and if you can see here some month ago another sysop of fawiki have been SUSPICIOUS to this user and chekuser may found here.so i think no policy has been violated .Thanks for your attention.--Mardetanha talk 17:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I consider this harassment. This is the second time that Meta has performed a Checkuser on me and User:Alefbet on groundless basis. Disagreement over content cannot be used for Checkuser, in this case I have not even edited the same article as the other user in question. In addition User:Mardetanha has just closed my account on the Persian Wikipedia for content dispute, and has clearly used this tool as leverage for pressure. --Aghayee 17:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peterng@zhwiki and Felixpl@zhwiki

zh:user:Felixpl made edit war in Template, details in here, after Felixpl banned he uses Peterng discuss and support Felixpl view. Then, he give three banstars to Felixpl. Sorry for my poor English.--Flamelai 08:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't look like a good enough reason for a check. Can you, please, elaborate? --FiLiP ¤ 22:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Not done while the problem seems to be over and check-user involves privacy concerns.--Jusjih 02:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also

Cooperation requests for: comments (local) (global) · translation

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steward_requests/Checkuser&oldid=975808"