Steward requests/Checkuser/2014-04

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

Hi Taranet, Could you please tell us for what reason you are asking for the CU, as i can see all the above accounts are blocked indef. Is there any continued disruption?, what will be your further action with the CU data?--Shanmugamp7 ^(talk) 14:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Dear shanmugamp7, as a sysop on fa.wiki I need to know if there is a relationship between the user and vandalist IPs. The IPs have made lots of vandalism and personal attacks.

More IPs with the same edits and comments personal attacks on the same day:

• 218.38.253.72 (talk · contribs)
• 86.26.31.192 (talk · contribs)
• 113.162.244.212 (talk · contribs)
• 126.125.167.191 (talk · contribs)
• 122.117.237.105 (talk · contribs)

--Taranet (talk) 15:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Just so you know, CheckUser can not be used to make a connection between a user and an IP which seems to be your primary goal here. John F. Lewis (talk) 15:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

As John said CU is not for checking the connection between ip's and users. If the ip's are doing disruption you can very well manage it with your administrative tools. If they are continuing disruption using accounts please link them here. "just to know the relationship" is not a valid reason for CU and read this too--Shanmugamp7 ^(talk) 16:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

1) my request was not for 'fishing' or 'just to know the relationship', but for 'personal attacks', 'Circumventing sanctions', and 'vandalism'. but 2) It's right that the CU request is about IPs so there's possibilty of information release. (Although the checkuser policy doesnt forbid information releasing completely but says 'Generally, do not reveal IPs. Only give information such as same network/not same network or similar. If detailed information is provided, make sure the person you are giving it to is a trusted person and will not reveal it himself/herself.')--Taranet (talk) 16:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind, we will continue using wp:duck.--Taranet (talk) 17:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree that you are asking CU because of 'personal attacks', 'Circumventing sanctions', and 'vandalism' but what will be your action after getting the data. It should be effective, it shouldn't be for the sake of knowing the relation. Simply saying "What are you going to do with the CU data as all the accounts are locally blocked and the ip's can also be handled locally". --Shanmugamp7 ^(talk) 17:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Marking it as not done, since the user has withdrawn. Please feel free to request again if they are continuing the disruption and there is an effective need for the CU data.--Shanmugamp7 ^(talk) 17:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) User:کولاک and user:محک are not blocked. Also, user:مکری11 won't stop sending me and some other admins emails about not having that much suckpuppets (which wp:duck shows that they are 99% suckpuppets) and not being guilty. The situation got worse after these personal attacks.--Taranet (talk) 17:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I can confirm Taranet request here, it is a legitimate request Mardetanha ^talk 18:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Done. پپوله , قنبرقلی , نقده ای, Memorylike, مکری11 are Possible sock puppets. محک, Adil1986 and کولاک are Unrelated. Those ip address's are not related to any of the accounts. Thanks--Shanmugamp7 ^(talk) 18:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you.--Taranet (talk) 07:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Having the same arguments as another is not a criteria for a checkuser request. How is the activity disruptive? Is there block evasion? Is there an attempt to pervert a vote of the community? There has to be a valid reason for a checkuser that normal administration cannot manage, it is not CheckUser is not for fishing. I don't see that you are a checkuser and able to act upon any information.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:49, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok. Nevermind. The reason was that they both create an account this month and they only contribute in voting against the merge of two articles, using similar expressions. Thanks for your time.... Xaris333 (talk) 16:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: FYI, Marking this as Not done--Shanmugamp7 ^(talk) 18:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Iberism Soon has one sock - D. CAIX. asunto. Other accounts may be related to it or may be not. ZIV88 account does not exist. Ruslik (talk) 16:38, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Ruslik. I will block the accounts as they are clearly related to Citadme. LlamaAl (talk) 16:45, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

• KerajaanMalaysiaLembab [stalktoy] – [cross-wiki edits]
• MuslihatKerajaanMalaysia [stalktoy] – [cross-wiki edits]
• PenipuanBesar [stalktoy] – [cross-wiki edits]
• KonspirasiMH370 [stalktoy] – [cross-wiki edits]

Vandal keep inserting his claims in multiple articles. For evidence, please refer to deleted user history. Believe the IP is from Britain (possible student?) as previous similar vandals since block. Suspect is familiar with Wiki syntax & proxy IP. As MS do not have IP checkuser, current approach is to block user as and when it is detected. Need assistant to block the IP if static / assistant to monitor vandal at MS. Yosri (talk) 07:28, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• SiapaNakTanggungKosMH370 [stalktoy] – [cross-wiki edits] Yosri (talk) 02:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'm dealing with this (request should be for the Stewards, will move it shortly) QuiteUnusual (talk) 11:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

All these accounts are the same person but they are not using a static IP as it changes occasionally. It is a British broadband IP in a busy student town so you could be right that this is a student. A range block won't be effective so you can only block the accounts as they appear, sorry. QuiteUnusual (talk) 12:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The master accounts are probably stale, but the new sock (SHIROKABE) is showing a pattern consistent with the others (cross-wiki hat collecting and copy/pasting).--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Request withdrawn, behavorial evidence was strong enough.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)