Steward requests/Checkuser/2013-12

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Requests

Rtava@bs.wikipedia

Status:    Done
List of users
Rtava (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Nj.K.V. (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

Reason(s): I've assumed that this user is sock-puppet of previously blocked user Nj.K.V. User Rtava has same interest, same articles (about Bosnian medieval royalty), even grammar errors are the same as user Nj.K.V. He is making so called sneaky vandalism putting false statements in various articles and inventing proofs for those claims. --C3r4 (talk) 19:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

As an administrator at bs.wiki I second this. -- Edinwiki (talk) 12:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Proofs? In bs.wikipedia one proof was questioned: "Ban Kulin, son of ban Borić". But I show it in a Google ebook: "Banus Culinus, Borichii filius" in Latin means "Ban Kulin son of ban Borić" in English, so I didn't invent it. Second, the blocked user never mentioned this or any other references I used. Rtava (talk) 12:55, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Inconclusive Inconclusive as no comparative data available. Though I do note that there are two unused accounts created on the same IP and other similarities. Leaving them at the moment. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
I was specifically asked was one of the other accounts Ideabeach. It is. Personally, I don't count them as socks until used, hence why I didn't specify the account, though when asked, it is appropriate to confirm the check. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer. It was very helpful.--C3r4 (talk) 18:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Extended content

== Checking == Hi Billinghurst, thank you for your check here. As you said: (there are) two unused accounts created on the same IP and other similarities, is that means that those accounts which are you checked are made from the same IP address and what exactly means other similarities. That user which is perhaps the same as user on en.wiki Ideabeach. I have no clue who to proof this, nor is my field of interest medieval history (on bs.wiki I rather writing about chemistry, geography etc.) but I have some clues that this person falsifying history making himself as descendant of Bosnian royal family (there is also private web page and facebook group but it's irrelevant to the subject). There were similar case back in February 2010 where user:Amsal@bs.wiki had battle at the same subject but then user:NJ.K.V. (as you said similar but not quit sock-puppet of nowadays user:Rtava) is blocked 'cause of other vandalism and inappropriate behavior. Just answer me what to do and is there any rule or any procedure to make this sneaky vandal stopped. Best regards--C3r4 (talk) 14:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Following your question about a specific account, I have updated the CU commentary. It is a bit of a situation of chicken and egg to get increased CU surveillance,, however, if there are ongoing and specific issues of long term abuse (vandalism and suspected sockpuppetry), then in a language of your choice, we need to have written a lucid narrative of the issue. I feel that we are currently snapping at flies, which makes it hard to do checkuser, and to get stewards to start recording a case. At this stage, stewards are not maintaining cases of long term for bswiki, and that is probably due to that missing narrative, and once that is created then the stewards have the meta archives, and our private archives where non-public detailed data can be maintained. [Note: Stewards are reticent to keep non-public data unless there is a demonstrated reason that it should be maintained, and it sounds as though we are approaching that from your above explanation] — billinghurst sDrewth 15:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Billinghurst. I would like to request that you record a case, since the user continues with disruptive editing on bs.wiki. In the following I can summarize a few details that might be usable. You stated that Ideabeach is another account that was used by the same person (or at least from the same IP address). Ideabeach was blocked for disruptive editing and personal attacks against various admins. He also used another sockpuppet Reaubilya which was also blocked for similar behavior, and if I remember correctly was also suspected to be a sockpuppet. It is no coincidence that all these accounts, including bs:User:Rtava, have vandalized the same (and/or similar) pages, mostly about en:Ban Borić (bs:Ban Borić) and topics related to the Bosnian royal family. If we look at the dates of the contributios we see that Reaubilya has started editing at 6th of October and was finally blocked around the 15th of October. Ideabeach started editing at June 22nd, and was blocked around 15th of october. It is no surprise that on the 17th of October the user started editing with a new account Rtava on the 17th of October, after receiving an indefinite block on en.wiki. From the edits we can also see many similarities if we look at the changes of the article Ban Borić: bs.wiki and en.wiki. These changes have been reverted on en.wiki because the user used original sources and the proposed changes did not receive any consensus. The same story applies for the articles on bs.wiki, including previously seen personal attacks on other users but also revert wars.
I personally see enough reasons for a block, but it would probably be better to do this globally but also to record a case so that this user can be identified more easily in the future. -- Edinwiki (talk) 09:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Update: Because the user continued with personal attacks against other users I had no other choice than to block him indefinitely. However, like I said, it might still be useful to record a case for possible future abuses. Regards. Edinwiki (talk) 14:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to write some introduction to this case. It's back to February 2010 (as I mentioned), but even before that date there were same case on en.wikipedia when multiple sockpuppets found. After his block on en.wikipedia, he's moved on bs.wikipedia with same intentions. Whole discussion was on several pages here some of them: Wikipedia:Čaršija/Arhiva_22#Ja_ne_znam_.C5.A1ta_da_radim..., Razgovor_sa_korisnikom:Nj.K.V. and even here. After some turbulent days and discussion, he's finally blocked due abuse and violent behavior. Nowadays, it took five days until I realized that is something wrong with this new user Rtava. After I made some comments, I decided to write above to CU. Most of his edits could be identified as original research, and finally reverted. It could be some leftovers but it will be cleaned in normally wikipedia editing process.--C3r4 (talk) 10:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Any further investigation on hold. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Done there is no further information to be provided, beyond to note that case notes have been prepared. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Amieg@fa.wikipedia

Status:    Not done
List of users
Amieg (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Eyingewers (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Espiral (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
بیکار (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Elitp (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
  • CU log
  • Discussion: User was found to have near 25 suck poppets here.

Reason(s): He is now coming back and taking part in an edit war.

--Kazemita1 (talk) 22:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deferred Deferred to have an admin or bureaucrat confirm the request, and further explain the purpose of CU request.— The preceding unsigned comment was added by Billinghurst (talk) 04:09 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Not done no follow up, closing as insufficient need demonstrated by wiki. Please lodge a new request by admin or bureaucrat if required. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Lacberto@zh-yue.wikipedia

Status:    Not done
List of users
Nopektro (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Iedomeneo (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Pangal (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Jrquas (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Reason(s): Globally locked user Lacberto trying to bypass the lock. See also the history of zh-yue:成在基, zh-yue:男性連帶 and zh-yue:姜義錫, in which the users listed here continue to add poorly translated (possibly machine translation) contents to the page.--William915 (talk) 06:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
What would checkuser be useful for, when you already established this on behavioural evidence? Please simply block such users. --MF-W 14:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Actually I want to have those sock puppet accounts globally locked as well, for which I think more evidence is needed.--William915 (talk) 02:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Some of these accounts have significant number of contributions on other projects and therefore are not suitable candidates for global lock. On the other hand, global account Pangal does not exist. Ruslik (talk) 19:00, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Just check and lock(if applicable) Iedomeneo then.--William915 (talk) 02:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Not done Sounds retributive, not issue management. Sounds like this is account management at a local level, and is not a global issue. Please note that most sock policies are local policy implementations (there is no global policy about general multiple accounts for a user). — billinghurst sDrewth 11:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Respeto@de.wiktionary

Status:    Done
List of users
Respeto (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Borg (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Nordmann (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Reason(s): Two reliable users expressed their strong opinion that Respeto, Borg and Nordmann were sock puppets. These three accounts did recently vote in a poll. Clarity would be very helpful here. --Kronf (talk) 22:21, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 Confirmed Respeto, Borg (local only), Cheflektorin, Nuzák, Nordmann (local only), Bedsten, BS-USB. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:51, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Charles12@global

Status:    Not done
List of users
Charles12 ([[
Special:Contributions/Charles12|contr]] · [[
Special:DeletedContributions/Charles12|deleted]] · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Reason(s): Crosswiki spambot with no SUL, maybe a global IP block would be helpful? Rschen7754 09:10, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
If someone wants to engage in this futile exercise, he is at liberty to do so, but I stopped the usage of this username now. --MF-W 22:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Let us see if it goes away. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:35, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

W. Frank@en.wikivoyage

Status:    Done
List of users
W. Frank (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Alice (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
118.93nzp (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
MmeLePetomaine (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Reason(s): I am admin on en WV and I want to request a CU on a team of socks. There has been many heated debate regarding whether users 1 and 2 are the same person. There is much reason to doubt the same, as has been documented by various admins in the debate. I strongly suspect user 3 as sock of user 1 as well because of very similar behaviour and same editing style and editing area/interest. User 3 knows everything about whats been going on wiki lately even though xe recently joined us. User 1 was blocked on wiki for a short period for disruptive editing, and block discussion can be found here. User 1 was previously blocked on Wikipedia back in 2008. --Saqib (talk) 10:01, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
I personally believe there's grounds for a check, though I doubt that sufficient evidence has been presented above. Both the first two users have been blocked on en.wikipedia for socking, but back in 2008. Let me see if we can present better evidence for running a check. --Rschen7754 10:14, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
w:en:Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-10-30/News and notes#The search engine problem indicates that users 1-3 are at least collaborating extensively, if they are not the same. --Rschen7754 10:22, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
The reason why I suspected user 4 is because the user account created on 22 November, and reverted edit of user 3. and interestingly it was mentioned by user 3 ten days ago. I noticed behaviour of user 5 is also very similar.The user 1 is using different proxy ranges dedicated to his different accounts. --Saqib (talk) 11:04, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
I do not think that there is any grounds to check Neotarf. --Rschen7754 11:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Why I suspected User:Neotarf to be sock of user 1 because of very similar behaviour and editing area and some proof is provided : user 5 have no account on WT under username Neotarf so why he said he's editing there?, user 5 is against the CU on Frank, and user takes so much interest in time and date format as Frank do. --Saqib (talk) 12:09, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Back in 2008, the top two accounts were confirmed to be sockpuppets on en-wiki (there's some leeway as it seems Alice was a legitimate alt-account due to threats supposedly received as part of a very contentious topic area (Northern Ireland/"The Troubles", however, the two later tag teamed in the area. SirFozzie (talk) 11:25, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
118.93nzp has been blocked several times as an anon, you may guess something just having a look at its name.
Those accounts are unrelated by CU (though W.Frank and Alice share something which is currently shared by ~10% of computers), I must underline they never edited at the same time nor the same day. If we had a sockpuppeteer steward, well, it would likely behave and being seen by CU the like them.
MmeLePetomaine is the "most unrelated" one.
Inconclusive Inconclusive--Vituzzu (talk) 12:50, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Vituzzu: I apologise for coming late to the party, but I have only just become aware of this discussion.
Are you saying that my account is unrelated to any of the others you checked or just that it is inconclusive?
I'm afraid I don't understand your comment: "If we had a sockpuppeteer steward, well, it would likely behave and being seen by CU the like them." May I trouble you to clarify and explain this comment, please?
Is there a reason that you left out the other accounts that were specifically asked to be checked here?
Why were the accounts that were most linked by their peculiar interests and editing patterns (User:Peterfitzgerald, User:Cjensen, User:Ypsilon, User:SpendrupsForAll, User:MmeLePetomaine) omitted? --118.93nzp (talk) 00:23, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Because no evidence was provided to check those accounts. We can't just ask for accounts to be checked when we feel like it, Fishing CheckUser is not for fishing. --Rschen7754 00:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Mahsa87@fa.wikipedia

Status:    Done
List of users
Mahsa87 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Ali4984 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Kpunw (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

Reason(s): All of the mentioned users share the same area of interest on some historical articles (Alexander the Great, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Xerxes II). They attempt to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions and distort consensus. They use multiple accounts to create an illusion of support and they contribute to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts:

  1. Trying to make a consensus to move Alexander the Great article to Alexander of Macedon: (Ali4984, Mahsa87, and Kpunw)
  2. Trying to make a consensus to add a POV tag to Mohammad Reza Pahlavi article (Ali4984, Mahsa87, and Mahsa87)
  3. Trying to deceive and mislead editors by changing "خشایارشای دوم"transliterated as "Khashayarsha-ye dovvom" to "خشایارشا دوم"transliterated as "Khashayarsha dovvom" by one account and making the opposite by another account: (Ali4984, Ali4984, Ali4984, Ali4984, Mahsa87, Mahsa87, and Mahsa87)
  4. Trying to pose as a neutral commentator (Ali4984 and Mahsa87) 4nn1l2 (talk) 21:46, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Gardmanahay@hy.wikipedia

Status:    Not done
List of users
Gardmanahay (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Pandukht (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
  • CU log
  • Discussion: There's no policy on CheckUser in hy:wp as it is relatively small WP
Reason(s): Creating an illusion of support in discussions.--Δαβίδ (talk) 16:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Please provide diff-links or so which can prove this. --MF-W 17:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Please lodge a new request if required. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Roya hamidinejhad@fa.wikipedia

Status:    Not done
List of users
Ir92 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
User:Luispedros@commons (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Reason(s): I think (wp:duck)the owner of this username is user:پارسا آملی (global blocked troll with lots of sockpuppets in fa.wiki, en.wiki, commons &... ) after last blocking in fa wiki he made new sockpuppet with same edits on the articles. Please checking this user name (Roya_hamidinejhad) and tell me other sockpuppets. Thanks alot MehdiTalk 19:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
It does not appear that you have linked to the ostensible sockmaster's account above. Please list which accounts for which you believe you have local fawiki evidence of sockpuppetry. Note that having multiple accounts on one project does not mean that violations occurred on other projects. Furthermore, the Wikimedia Commons has its own CUs and issues need to be addressed first locally. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 20:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Time has passed and no response. Please reopen if necessary. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:55, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Sanela@wikidatawiki

Status:    Done
List of users
Sanela ([[
Special:Contributions/Sanela|contr]] · [[
Special:DeletedContributions/Sanela|deleted]] · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Pemebe ([[
Special:Contributions/Pemebe|contr]] · [[
Special:DeletedContributions/Pemebe|deleted]] · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
NowProperty ([[
Special:Contributions/NowProperty|contr]] · [[
Special:DeletedContributions/NowProperty|deleted]] · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
NowItem ([[
Special:Contributions/NowItem|contr]] · [[
Special:DeletedContributions/NowItem|deleted]] · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Script on a mission ([[
Special:Contributions/Script on a mission|contr]] · [[
Special:DeletedContributions/Script on a mission|deleted]] · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Reason(s): These all were engaging in similar editing (unauthorized bot tasks of similar kinds). It is against the local alternate accounts policy to evade the block of one account using a sock, but we're not 100% sure that they are the same.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
The accounts that I could check are confirmed to each other. --Bsadowski1 (talk) 08:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Are there any other accounts?--GZWDer (talk) 08:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
There is one legitimate user operating the accounts. They will be contacted privately. --Bsadowski1 (talk) 10:34, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not trying to be antagonistic, but why isn't that information being released now? The user operating these accounts is in violation of our sockpuppetry policy, and of our bot policy, and should be held accountable. I'm not saying that person needs to be blocked, but the Wikidata community has the right to decide what to do with them. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 17:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Bsadowski1 may not be at liberty to release the details because of the user's local privacy laws.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
This sounds like bogus. --MF-W 21:00, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Personally, I think the local community should know who the master of the accounts is, as this is a violation of local policy, barring any extenuating circumstances. I am not aware of anything in the privacy policy that would prevent this disclosure. Or perhaps another option would be disclosing it to the local OS team, as there are (obviously) no local CUs. --Rschen7754 02:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
If so, then why not reveal the account?--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Where there is uncertainty the stewards are expected to act more conservatively and on this case at this time you should respect our judgement on the matter. The primary account is not being abused, and you have been notified of all secondary accounts, and it is my understanding that one of the stewards is doing follow-up om the matter. The matter is ongoing for stewards. Have some trust people. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't think anyone wasn't having trust here, billinghurst. We've all got bits of our own, and know how annoying it can be to be needlessly second-guessed. Rschen, Jasper, and myself just asked for some clarification after Bsadowski skirted over a fairly significant point. None of us was saying y'all need to throw someone to the pitchforks straight away, if you think more good can be done for now by talking privately. Now, given another week or so, I think it's reasonable for us to expect either a disclosure of the username to the local community, or a thorough explanation of why this will not be done; but this was just a procedural question, which I thank you for now answering. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 10:56, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

יונית4@hewikivoyage

Status:    Not done
List of users
מור207 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
יונית4 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Joel21 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
רוטר נט. (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Reason(s): Similar edits.

Thanks, Dekel E (talk) 20:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Fishing CheckUser is not for fishing Blind requests are not going to get done. If the edits are problematic then block them. If they are not then leave them. If there is more to the situation then please provide a reason why a checkuser should be done with a resulting benefit. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
There is no fishing here. " רוטר נט." is our local Troll. He always return with a new puppet. Dekel E (talk) 18:34, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
You have not explained how a CU is useful, nor explained why it should be done. If the user is problematic, then block them, you don't need to have a CU undertaken to manage a troll. Otherwise please justify your request, rather than the reasoning (or lack of it) as above. There is meant to be rigour to each request made here. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Why do you think I He? Why do not you ask the Hebrew Wikipedia ? יונית4 (talk) 13:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
dekel, enough with this. Matanya (talk) 13:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Kolega2357@sh.wikipedia

Status:    Not done
List of users
Kolega2357 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Reason(s): I am not have sockpuppet on sh wikipedia, I am blocked with a false reason that I sent email via Wikipedia system user Rjecina2. I am not sending anything email via Wikipedia user Rjecina2. Best Regards. --Kolega2357 (talk) 16:36, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Please prove that you are actually accused of sending emails. The block reason does not contain such a thing. --MF-W 18:19, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

https://sh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Razgovor_sa_korisnikom:Kolega2357&diff=1748290&oldid=1747498

Nemoj ni slučajno pokušati glumiti žrtvu jer vrlo dobro znaš što si mi poslao s svoje službene wiki email adrese.

Da me wikipedija još uvek zanima zabio bi ti blok na razdoblje 6 mjeseci i onda kada bi ga Ripper ili bilo tko drugi maknuo išao bi na metu po zadovoljštinu

Do not accidentally try to act the victim because you know very well what you sent me to their official wiki email address.

To me Wikipedia is still interested you will get block the period of 6 months, and then when it OC Ripper or anyone to unblock you. I will go to the satisfaction of the Meta Wiki

--Kolega2357 (talk) 09:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

To me this is a local issue, and needs to be managed locally. There are clearly other issues existing here for such an accusation to have been made; and even if we do make the check of you, how is it going to change the result (noting that our undertaking a CU of you alone will not prove anything). You, the person blocked is now asking for a CU of another person without the community requesting it, in conditions of which we are unaware. It is an edge case for a check, see checkuser#Use of the tool. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:22, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
You are unblocked at shWP, so please continue to resolve this at that wiki, and those admins can make a request if they desire. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Maria Sidorova@sl.wikipedia

Status:    Done
List of users
Maria Sidorova (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Znanostintehnika (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
149.126.146.96 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Roman Markovic (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Ninadolin (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Nazarin12 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

Reason(s): Suspicious activity in a deletion discussion at sl:Wikipedija:Predlogi za brisanje/Svarogov. An article about a minor local celebrity was created by the user Maria Sidorova who is apparently the subject's PR agent (according to her Facebook page). After one of the admins opens a deletion request due to notability issues, the author doesn't participate in the discussion, but several newly-registered users suddenly spring up and oppose deletion with vague arguments in the line "he's definitely notable" and similar overall tone. The pattern is also interesting in that their activity never overlaps, i.e. the next user always registered after the last one posted their comment. The same pattern is followed by ru:User:Nazarin12 in the deletion discussion at :ruwiki (here), so I'm including his :sl account in the check, despite him not editing at :slwiki (yet). The same non-logged-in IP posted in both :slwiki and :ruwiki discussions.

PS: just to be clear, user Janezdrilc that also opposed deletion is a trusted user and not included in this request. — Yerpo Eh? 10:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 Confirmed the five user accounts identified above are all associated; there is clearly no checkuser required on the IP address, so not considered in the investigation results. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. — Yerpo Eh? 13:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Κυριάκος Ζαχ@el.wikipedia

Status:    Done
List of users
Κυριάκος Ζαχ (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Globex (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Chin Hale (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
GiannisKourbelis (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Earhonex (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Vikipedi-Wiki (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Vlantmir (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Reason(s): All these users contribute in the same field with the same manner. It appears Κυριάκος Ζαχ created the other accounts. User Globex was blogged however the other accounts continued the contributions violating the ban (if they are the same user). If they are, the puppets will be blocked permantetly and the original ban will become longer. C messier (talk) 19:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Technical evidence indicates the following:

-- Avi (talk) 19:50, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Zzdxp@zh.wikipedia

Status:    Not done
List of users
Zzdxp (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
22gecuowu (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
LASTC (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Iwtd44 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
59.46.72.247 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
116.255.241.111 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
121.199.61.86 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
111.85.196.199 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
111.85.194.115 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Reason(s): This guy kept uploading Copyright violation photos on wiki commons. Then posted those photos on zh:宋茜,en:Victoria Song,es:Victoria Song,fr:Victoria Song,ja:ビクトリア (中華人民共和国の歌手),ar:فيكتوريا_سونغ,ko:빅토리아_(가수),pt:Victoria Song,vi:Victoria Song,th:Victoria Song.Znppo (talk) 13:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
zh.wikipedia has local checkusers. Please contact them. --MF-W 17:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


Andromeas@el.wikipedia

Status:    Done
List of users
Andromeas (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Eklogarithmos (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Ογκόλιθος (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Reason(s): It is suspected that all these accounts belong to the same person. User Eklogarithmos was blocked after making serious (unproven and vague) accusations, implying that there are administrators who receive money for their contributions. It is believed that he continues to contribute under a new account (Andromeas). We would like to confirm whether there is a violation of his block so that we can act accordingly. Another sysop has already marked Andromeas' user page as being a sock puppet of Eklogarithmos (though Andromeas denies that). I checked their contributions and there are indeed many similarities between these three accounts (similar topics & editing style).

Thank you in advance, --Dada (talk) 17:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Ογκόλιθος is Unrelated Unrelated.
Below is a list of socketpuppets of accounts closely associated with from the checkuser point of view with Eklogarithmos:
 Confirmed
Skylax30
Geraki
Έξι γκόμενες αφράτες
Possible Possible
Archive Lena
RouValentine
Egiannoutsou
Βαγγέλης Φίλος
NKPapadopoulos
Fralence
Tsenos2
Artemispapadakis
Con marcon
Andromeas
ΑΝώΔυΝος
Ruslik (talk) 19:05, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I would like to ask another checkuser to get involved and confirm the relationship of

Eklogarithmos
Skylax30
Geraki
Έξι γκόμενες αφράτες

The reasons are that:

Geraki is highly unlikely to be Eklogarithmos. Very old user, admin, attacked by Eklogarithmos, different interests, different style and other personal characteristics
Skylax30 is very unlikely to be Eklogarithmos. Different interests, different style.
Έξι γκόμενες αφράτες is possible

Thank you. --FocalPoint (talk) 22:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The results indeed look very surprising. To make sure that they are really robust, I would also like to request an additional check by another steward, if possible. Thanks, --Dada (talk) 23:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

:-)
Some notes that must be taken on account:
On evidence based on geolocation: Any steward doing checks on users from Greece, should have in mind that almost every greek ISP assign the same IP blocks to any adsl connection in Greece. So every IP will be reported to be in "Athens" although the actual connection can be in a town hundreds of kms away. Geolocation should never be taken on account if the result of the report is "Athens". Even "Thessaloniki" in some cases can mean just "Northern Greece".
On evidence based on IP: At least half of my activity comes through the transparent proxies of the public administration network. I guess Skylax is also using the same network, as many other users accessing Wikipedia at work from their public offices. Of course, personally I am also editing from home which is on another network. It would be a nice question if Eklogarithmos is using the same public network, as we evidently knew that he was based in Germany at least until some time ago.
Since it is reported that Eklogarithmos and Ογκόλιθος are "unrelated", although it was almost admitted by himself that they are the same person, I can say that he has learned how to cover his tracks, so any check user will be inconclusive. We must stick on the duck test.
-Geraki TL 08:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
This result was based on an exact match of both IP and UA string. Of course, it is possible that it is because of the same public network. However, from the checkuser point of view your contributions are indistinguishable from those of Eklogarithmos and Skylax30. Ruslik (talk) 12:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I struck some conclusions above. It seems that checkuser tool is useless in this case. You will indeed need to rely on behavior evidence. Ruslik (talk) 15:27, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
  • {{inprogress}} The results are being reviewed. -- Avi (talk) 14:35, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
    After further review, I agree that the technical evidence that exists regarding Geraki and Skylax is Inconclusive Inconclusive for various reasons, including those listed above, and should not be used to infer a link between the two accounts. Behavioral evidence will be necessary to confirm or refute any such link. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 15:35, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
    I supervised the whole process and can confirm that it's not impossible but very unlikely that Geraki and Skylax30 are the same accounts. Without evidence for same edit patterns and abuse of these accounts, we cannot complete this request. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 16:09, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steward_requests/Checkuser/2013-12&oldid=24929196"