Steward requests/Checkuser/2014-01

Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in January 2014, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion.

Requests

Ασμοδαίος@el.wikipedia

Status: Not done

List of users: Ασμοδαίος (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Ggia (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

Reason(s): A few days ago, amidst a discussion in the talk page of the article on the f.Y.Republic of Macedonia, Pyraechmes said that my contributions reminded him "of an unforgettable friend, user Ggia" ([...] μου θυμίζουν και τον αλήστου μνήμης φίλο χρήστη Ggia). I prompted Pyraechmes to ask for a CheckUser inquiry at the administrators' noticeboard, but there has been no response to this. In Pyraechmes's talk page, however, user Eklogarithmos, repeated a claim user Ογκόλιθος had made in August 2012: "Ασμοδαίος or Ggia, Greek Wikipedia's oldest sockpuppet." (Ο Ασμοδαίος ή Γγια, η αρχαιότερη μαριονέτα της ελληνικής βικιπαίδειας.) [Ογκόλιθος had marked my user page as being a sock puppet of Ggia and wrote in the administrators' noticeboard that "user Ggia created the account of Ασμοδαίος in 2007. It is the oldest sockpuppet in the Greek Wikipedia" (Ο χρήστης Ggia δημιούργησε τον λογαριασμό Ασμοδαίου από το 2007. Είναι η ίσως αρχαιότερη μαριονέτα της Ελληνικής βικιπαίδειας.). I had asked Ογκόλιθος in his talk page to substantiate his claim, and Ggia to withdraw the allegation, but there was no reaction.] Upon seeing this, I took the issue to the administrators' noticeboad and asked for a CheckUser request to be made as a means to disprove these allegations, but there has been no reply to my request. The next day, user FocalPoint, who is also a administrator of the Greek Wikipedia, while participating in the same discussion as Pyraechmes, asked me "Incidentally, have you contributed in the past using a different account?" (Παρεπιμπτόντως, έχετε συνεισφέρει με άλλο λογαριασμό στο παρελθόν;) When I referred him to my message on the Administrators' noticeboard, he insisted saying that, despite having already noticed it and despite the existence of an "obvious difference" between my writing style and Ggia's, he could see no answer to his question. (Ναι τα έχω δει αυτά. Είναι προφανής η διαφορά στην πένα. Δε βλέπω πάντως απάντηση στην ερώτηση αν έχετε συνεισφέρει με άλλο λογαριασμό στο παρελθόν.) I asked him to make a CheckUser request, if he suspects me of having used a sockpuppet, so that he can see for himself that this is not the case; otherwise "to stop repeating unfounded allegations" (Αν υποψιάζεστε ότι έχω χρησιμοποιήσει μαριονέτα, σας ζητώ να χρησιμοποιήσετε το checkuser για να διαπιστώσετε ότι δεν είναι έτσι, διαφορετικά μην επαναλαμβάνετε κατηγορίες που δεν έχουν βάση). He responded implying that this would suffice (Πήρα απάντηση), but a bit later he reiterated his allegations, in a different form: "Nevertheless... since you don't want to be related to your previous identity, you 'd better change these tacticts, as they betray your identity" (Πάντως... εφόσον θέλεις να μη συνδέεσαι με παλαιότερη ταυτότητά σου, καλό θα ήταν να άλλαζες αυτές τις τακτικές που σε καρφώνουν). When another user, Diu, pointed that "any question of this type is irrelevant and disorientating and provokes unneccesary tension" (οποιαδήποτε τέτοιου είδους ερώτηση είναι άσχετη και αποπροσανατολιστική και δημιουργεί αχρείαστες εντάσεις), FocalPoint justified himself arguing that "I am trying to help him. Since he doesn't want his previous identity to come to light, he should learn to behave in a different manner instead of following the same course of action". (Να τον βοηθήσω προσπαθώ. Αφού θέλει να μη φανερωθεί η προηγούμενη ταυτότητά του, θα πρέπει να μάθει να φέρεται με άλλο τρόπο και όχι να ακολουθεί τα ίδια μονοπάτια.) The aforementioned users (Eklogarithmos, Pyraechmes, and FocalPoint) seem unwilling to stop this and will go on saying that my account is Ggia's sockpuppet; I can see no other remedy to this, but to ask for CheckUser information that will prove that this is not the case. I do understand that this type of request is a rather unusual one, but I consider it as falling under what is described by CheckUser policy as "a need to provide evidence of innocence against a sockpuppet allegation" (in this case: repeated sockpuppet allegations). Ggia has consented to me making this request, and he could declare his agreement here as well, if asked, albeit not immediately. Ασμοδαίος (talk) 23:46, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

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 en.wiki 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)

Jam@el.wikipedia

Status: Done

List of users: Jam (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Vlantmir (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Κυριάκος Ζαχ (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Chin Hale (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

CU log
Discussion: el:Βικιπαίδεια:Μαριονέτα

Reason(s): User Jam is suspected being a sockpuppet of actually blocked (for about a week) user Vlantmir, because he seems to have same edit pattern and interests as blocked (as being sockpuppets of the mentioned before user...) user Κυριάκος Ζαχ and Chin Hale... We only need your confirmation in order to apply our local policies...--Glorious 93 (talk) 18:40, 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

Status: Done

List of users: Bruce Allen Conley (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); AllenComedian1999 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); 75.90.244.2 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); 75.90.224.9 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); 75.90.244.100 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

CU log
Discussion: n/a (Users were warned about posting nonsense, the issue of sockpuppetry has not been raised.)

Reason(s): Looks like a duck from "Olive Hill". Nonsense edits and hoax articles began appearing a month ago, initially from IPs and more recently from registered accounts. I would like to confirm this is one user/site before issuing a final warning. (Cf. activity at en.w.) Thanks. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Status: Not done

List of users: Leitoxx (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

CU log

Reason(s): The two user do contributions on articles in words of portuguese and same edits.— The preceding unsigned comment was added by Astonómico02 (talk) Le ito xx 18:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Status: Not done

List of users: Berl Bukh (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Saxndi (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Mugglschoas (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Matthias Klostermayr (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Luki (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Werddemer (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Grantla (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Joe Watzmo (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Zwentibold (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Gschupfta Ferdl (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

CU log
Discussion: Requests for comment/Acquisition of the Boarische Wikipedia by Sockpuppets (Note: Particularly, the Bavarian Wikipedia doesn't need the advice of a blocked notorious multi-sockpuppet player and of well-known meta discussion accounts.)

Reason(s): To stop rumors from outside the Bavarian Wikipedia. (Within the bar.wikipedia we don't see the point, because all high-probability sockpuppets have been blocked already and all votes 2013/2014 have been very, very clear - in fact consensus decisions(!) The high-probability sockpuppets never had any relevant influence on any vote in the last three years and never voted in 2013/14. The list above literally contains all users who voted 2013/2014, plus a new power user. If possible, please include user Schmei. He was checked already unrelated two times during last year, therefore I added him as eleventh user in the list, but you see him in the code only.) --Gschupfta Ferdl (talk) 07:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

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. --178.191.131.211 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. --91.115.116.202 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. --91.115.116.202 18:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Mhetab Aalam Mhetab@ur.wikipedia

Status: Not done

List of users: Mhetab Aalam Mhetab (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Dr. Alan Godlas (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

Reason(s): The User Mhetab Aalam Mhetab was warned for on his two articles for Notability, and Commercial Advertising.

User Dr. Alan Godlas comes in for the favor of both mentioned articles. Which we suspect as a Sock-puppet. Tahir mq (talk) 06:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Status: Not done

List of users: Clelie Mascaret (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); 87.231.33.222 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

CU log
Discussion: Clelie Mascaret & 87.231.33.222

Reason(s): Good day, Setwards. At the end of 2012, I temporary blocked Clelie Mascaret because she had inserted texts violating the copyright and without interest and not notable quotations (cf. q:fr:Wikiquote:Critères d'admissibilité des citations). Today, I perceived an IP which contributed in the same way. Also the IP and the user are perhaps one and the same person. Mes salutions cordiales, Morphypnos (talk) 15:49, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Status: Done

List of users: They are entering in confusion (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); El TIEMPO te pondrá en tu sitio LLamal - PROMETIDO (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

CU log

Reason(s): This user is a LTA case, who has disrupted Wikimedia projects for almost a decade. I would like to know the underlying IP or IP range to block it in order to prevent further abuse. Regards, LlamaAl (talk) 17:44, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

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

ChristosMavrotas@el.wikipedia

Status: Not done

List of users: ChristosMavrotas (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Artemispapadakis (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Γιάννος Βασιλείου (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

CU log
Discussion: w:el:Μαριονέτα

Reason(s): User ChristosMavrotas participated in a discussion concerning ΕΙ-E.N.D. article, during which, after he (possibly) saw that he hadn't had any support from other users, preferred to use as a sockpuppet user account Artemispapadakis, who's the only user, until now, who shares his opinion... Also, another strange fact, that makes me believe that he's a sockpuppet of the mentioned before user, is that his only contribution until now in el@wiki was his agreement with ChristosMavrotas's opinion... Then, user ChristosMavrotas started acting like the cause he was defending was the winning one in the discussion ([3], [4])... Using a sockpuppet in a public discussion is, of course, forbidden by local policies, so we only need a confirmation to take action against this user... Thanks in advance and apologies for any English mistakes...Glorious 93 (talk) 20:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

PS. The same can be said about user Γιάννος Βασιλείου which seems to be a meat puppet as he's behaving like the mentionned above disussion never took place...--Glorious 93 (talk) 18:01, 17 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)