Steward requests/Checkuser/2016-01

Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in January 2016, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion.

Requests

Xuser2016@ta.wikipedia

Status: Not done

List of users: UnnamedWikiReturns (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); UnnamedWiki (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); 65.49.68.202 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); 65.49.68.154 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); 103.21.166.2 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); 103.21.164.15 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); 103.21.164.19 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

Reason(s): The user (Xuser2016) has been requested to a sysop for removing an IP block, and the IP was 103.21.166.2. Even though, The particular IP was not block. The page w:ta:விண்டோசு 10 was vandalized several times until I protect the page from IP users that resulted to come up with UnnamedWikiReturns and UnnamedWiki users and both have been blocked for 6 months and infinitude. The blocks were done by me and another sysop whom has been requested for unblocking. All of these users' writing styles are similar and they edit on similar topic. During unethical edits, couple of proxy IPs (65.49.68.202 and 65.49.68.154) were used for vandalism. Could you do cross name check for these users and IPs. --Antan O 05:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I have requested the user to clarify that usage of more user IDs, sharing same IPs, but user denies. However, 103.21.166.2 has removed warning messages at user's talk page of UnnamedWiki. As per request, 103.21.166.2 is unblocked. Is there any possibility to have same IP for multiple usage? --Antan O 07:39, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

The association between UnnamedWikiReturns and UnnamedWiki is obvious and we do not match users to IP addresses. Ruslik (talk) 18:51, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Arifys@map-bms.wikipedia

Status: Not done

List of users

CU log
Discussion: not

Reason(s): because I wanted to check out the new user who abuses his or her account and duplicate accounts. In map-bmswp my own, and no bureaucrat, but I am active at there. Thanks Arifys (talk) 13:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done - This page is to request CU actions from stewards. For gaining checkuser status, please review Checkuser policy and then, after you meet the criteria (local election, at least 25 votes etc), you can request the right on SRP. -Barras talk 13:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for inform Arifys (talk) 15:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Confidential

Status: Not done

Courtesy blanked. See previous revision.

—Marco Aurelio 17:53, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

알래스카나@ko.wikipedia

Status: Not done

List of users: 알래스카나 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); 증즐가 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Borake (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Jangga0118 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); 9rada (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Hwarotbul (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); 푱양 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); 정현규 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); 내땅 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); 아로마틱 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

CU log

Reason(s): I want to know whether these users in above are sockpuppet of ko:사용자:Unypoly. See ko:위키백과:다중 계정 검사 요청#Unypoly의 다중계정. Kevinjeong (talk) 14:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Declined Project has local checkusers. —Marco Aurelio 14:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

아라운하@ko.wikipedia

Status: Not done

List of users: 아라운하 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); 아리울 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); 알타리 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); 인꿘 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); 철수와영희 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); 슐레지엥 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); 210.117.76.175 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

CU log

Reason(s): I want to know whether these users in above are sockpuppet of ko:사용자:Unypoly. See ko:위키백과:다중 계정 검사 요청#Unypoly의 다중계정. Kevinjeong (talk) 14:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

This page is for requesting CheckUser information on a wiki with no local CheckUsers. Korean Wikipedia has 3 CheckUsers and local request was done by IRTC1015. --Sotiale (talk) 08:46, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Declined —Marco Aurelio 14:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Alec_Smithson@lmo.wikipedia

Status: Not done

List of users: Alec Smithson (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); 79.17.200.145 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

CU log
Discussion: [1]

Reason(s): The IP, wrote a protest for the changes and Alec Smithson, a minute after, approve his statement. Alec is the editor of the article, and some Wikipedias (fr, it, lmo) think that the article is a hoax. Possible alteration of the Consent Sciking (talk) 22:36, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Declined. We are not allowed to directly link users and IP addresses in this cases. See the privacy policy and the access to nonpublic information policy for details. —Marco Aurelio 14:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Okalinov@bg.wikipedia

Status: Done

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

CU log
Discussion: bg:RfAA (English translation via Google), bg:Sock puppetry rules (English translation via Google)

Reason(s): An editor has asked the administrators on the Bulgarian Wikipedia to block these two user accounts plus an IP address (which I'm not including in the request for obvious reasons), claiming that there seems to be a single person behind them (while not a formal policy, our rules forbid using sock puppets to create an illusion of a wider support for certain position). The requesting editor had previously engaged with the other users in lengthy edit wars on several problematic articles on Bulgarian football teams (mostly bg:ПФК Черно море (Варна) and bg:ФК Владислав). The edit wars between these editors actually go back at least as far as 2013, and I've seen amongst the personal attacks and harassment from that time even vague threats of physical violence. I expect that the two user accounts indeed belong to different people, if only because there are enough hot-headed people around when the topic is football. But since the two accused editors also have responded positively (at least on words) to my requests for de-escalation, it's rather difficult for me as administrator to give a final decision on the first editor's request for blocking on grounds of sock puppetry -- without this check. Many thanks in advance. — Luchesar V. ILIEV • T/C 13:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Additional information needed rather clarification. If you think both editors are unrelated ("I expect that the two user accounts indeed belong to different people"), why are you asking for a check? From your statement above it is not clear to me why an edit war between this two very editors can be solved with a CU query. Best regards. —Marco Aurelio 18:03, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Marco, let me rephrase it, indeed.

User Rebelheartous requested help from the administrators, because of a conflict between him, from one side, and Okalinov, Vtd and a bunch of IP's, from another. Rebelheartous, who is an active editor from eight years and thus has plenty of experience, expressed his belief that behind this group against him is a single person, who tries to gain the upper hand in the conflict by creating the false impression that his/her point of view has much wider support. This is something explicitly forbidden by our rules of conduct concerning the use of sock puppets, which is why Rebelheartous requested that Okalinov, Vtd and the IPs be blocked for abuse.

Okalinov and Vtd, in turn, claim that they are totally different people, who merely share the same point of view. I may or may not have reasons to believe them, but in the end it's their word against Rebelheartous's judgement, and I prefer to base my decision on something more solid than someone's words or beliefs. I shouldn't have indeed shared my own expectations from the CU either, because being expectations and not facts they are just as irrelevant.

To summarize, the CU can help, and in fact is the only way to determine if Okalinov and Vtd are in breach of the rules against the unfair use of sock puppets in conflicts. This suspicion has been raised by an experienced member of the community who has followed the conflict for years now, so I have little reason to reject his request outright. At the same time, however, as administrator I cannot impose the blocks he requests unless I have solid proof that there *is* in fact a breach of the rules, i.e. a case of sock puppetry.

I hope I've managed to make the case more clear now.

Cheers, — Luchesar V. ILIEV • T/C 20:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I should've probably added that user Vtd has already been blocked once by another administrator for his aggressive behaviour, and I have reasons to believe that he (less likely she) has also been behind the threats of physical violence in the past, made from an IP address. While the link with the IP can only be guessed, it'll certainly help to determine if there's also a case of sock puppetry involved. — Luchesar V. ILIEV • T/C 20:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

System don't let me check. I receive repeat "Session error. Please try again" message. —Marco Aurelio 16:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I continue to receive this error message. No check performed by me. Leaving to other stewards. —Marco Aurelio 16:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Unrelated--Vituzzu (talk) 16:18, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to all! — Luchesar V. ILIEV • T/C 16:26, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeti2016@ia.wikipedia

Status: Done

List of users: Julius Tominius (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Yeti2016 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Joao Fernandez (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Alfonso Martinez-Ramirez (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Pedro A. Bermudez (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Alessandro Trompone (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

Reason(s): Julius Tominius and Yeti2016 were confirmed by enwiki Checkuser as sock of globally banned user Tobias Conradi. After Yeti2016's account was blocked, four new users was created at iawiki, two of which (Joao Fernandez and Alfonso Martinez-Ramirez) have edits similar to Yeti2016. These may be new socks of this user and should be globally locked. Another two accounts currently have zero edits, but I also suspect them as socks. --GZWDer (talk) 07:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

All

Confirmed --MF-W 14:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)