Steward requests/Checkuser: Difference between revisions

Edit links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Browse history interactively
← Older editNewer edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Tmct (talk | contribs)
34 edits
→‎Rubi64: forgotten?
Line 259: Line 259:
:{{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. [[User:AGK|<font color="#2A8B31">'''Anthøny'''</font>]] 08:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
:{{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. [[User:AGK|<font color="#2A8B31">'''Anthøny'''</font>]] 08:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
:Note also my alert at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts] about a group of people 'discussing' nl:Wikipedia events on en:Wikipedia. Regards, [[User:Guido den Broeder|Guido den Broeder]] 10:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
:Note also my alert at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts] about a group of people 'discussing' nl:Wikipedia events on en:Wikipedia. Regards, [[User:Guido den Broeder|Guido den Broeder]] 10:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Hopefully, this request is not forgotten? [[User:Guido den Broeder|Guido den Broeder]] 07:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


===Цуценятко@ukwiki ===
===Цуценятко@ukwiki ===

Revision as of 07:52, 21 April 2008

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

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: [1] 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 [2].

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 [3], 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 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 [4] 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]

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 [5], [6], [7],[8], etc...which claimed ko:식목일(Arbor Day in Korea) is still holiday in Korea and vandals at the user pages like [9], [10] offended all Ko wikipedians. BTW, the content that IP user claimsed on the calendar pages are very similar to 김종국 at Ko Wikipedia's [11] 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 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]

See also

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

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steward_requests/Checkuser&oldid=966956"