Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Meta:Requests for CheckUser information/Archives/2024

< Meta:Requests for CheckUser information‎ | Archives
Latest comment: 15 days ago by Pppery

Лёд ХІХ

Some users pointed at Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Sumerian that there are some users did same behavior on creating multiple RFL pages for dead languages, and use harassment words in discussions, one user even think that they are "same user", which I'm not sure whether this is true. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:33, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

The following are confirmed:
All blocked. I did not check Sdf as the behavioural evidence is weaker. – Ajraddatz (talk) 04:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Superpes15 (talk) 16:43, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

美好的一天從這裡開始

Very strange editing patterns on User talk:今好きになる, maybe typical LTA on JAWP. Requesting checking for block evasions.--Lemonaka (talk) 00:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

  Likely and blocked for block evasion. — xaosflux Talk 01:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
@Xaosflux excuse me, any possible sleepers? Lemonaka (talk) 01:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
All blocked:
花火が上がる (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • CentralAuth • AllContribs • checkuser • investigate)
LTAGNSN (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • CentralAuth • AllContribs • checkuser • investigate)
ムカついちゃうでしょ？ざまあ (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • CentralAuth • AllContribs • checkuser • investigate)
ポーズ決めて アップしよう (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • CentralAuth • AllContribs • checkuser • investigate)
原神是支持伊斯蘭國的組織 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • CentralAuth • AllContribs • checkuser • investigate)
原神 塔利班 伊斯蘭國 哈瑪斯 夢幻連動 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • CentralAuth • AllContribs • checkuser • investigate)
原神が新型コロナウイルスを蔓延させる (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • CentralAuth • AllContribs • checkuser • investigate)
Zhongli Protestors (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • CentralAuth • AllContribs • checkuser • investigate)
– Ajraddatz (talk) 01:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
@Lemonaka see other response; I stopped when I saw I was overlapping Ajraddatz so as not to generate extra checks. — xaosflux Talk 01:53, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
@Xaosflux  Done, lock requested as lock evasion. Lemonaka (talk) 12:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
:This section was archived on a request by: Lemonaka (talk) 12:53, 11 February 2024 (UTC) Lemonaka (talk) 12:53, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Dan Polansky

While it isn't strange for two users to comment on the same discussion a few times, it is strange that whenever Dan Polansky is involved in some sort of "controversy" (I use this in quotation marks for the lack of a better word), AP295 is also involved often in the same threads – at least since AP295's first edit on Meta-Wiki on Jan 18, 2024, such as Requests for comment/Global ban for Guido den Broeder and now Stewards/Confirm/2024/Vermont.

Both users are also blocked on en.wiktionary (Dan is blocked for racism while AP is blocked for disruptive edits/trolling), though AP is also blocked on en.wiki for w:WP:NONAZIS and trolling. The "commenting on the same discussion" also applies to the English Wikiversity, such as v:en:User talk:AP295#Block on Wikipedia, v:en:User talk:AP295#Allowed vs. prohibited and several on v:en:Wikiversity:Colloquium which makes me suspicious that there is either some sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry going on. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 09:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Check decision made - please move the commentary elsewhere. And it might be best if both "sides" avoided talking to each other, this doesn't seem to be productive. – Ajraddatz (talk) 00:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
We don't even live on the same continent, afaik. And Dan and I only barely seem to get along, let alone conspire to influence meta. Frankly you seem sour from our conversation in the thread you linked above, which I withdrew from. At any rate you got your way and I had no real dog in the race to begin with, so kindly find someone else to bother. You had been scolded [1] for your behavior in that thread too, I seem to recall AP295 (talk) 09:13, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
"so kindly find someone else to bother" – oh, I'm sorry for "bothering" you. I didn't know a CU request needed a response (obviously nothing preventing you from such) and was considered "bothering"... --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 10:13, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Seems like you just took the occasion to dig through our linen baskets, though my articles are quite unsoiled, objectively speaking. I thoroughly resent the insinuation that I'm a "nazi", which is an egregious defamation. AP295 (talk) 22:45, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
  Support @SHB2000 and @Vermont I'm going to file this request, however it's exist. These two users have very similiar editing patterns, for example, filibustering during discussion or after being blocked, etc. Also, they both tried to put pressure on stewards after user being banned globally and so on.
In addition, this should be filed on SRCU for a cross-wiki case instead of a meta case. Lemonaka (talk) 09:55, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
I think I made it pretty clear in Vermont's stewardship thread that I intended my comments as feedback, explicitly abstaining from a vote. Vermont was not even involved in the global ban RfC, though you were, as was SHB2000. Hang it up. AP295 (talk) 23:13, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Very interesting, 🤔. You are trying to confuse us. I said both of you stressed the stewards who imposed the ban, one in planespotterA320 case, another in Guido case. Anything not right? Lemonaka (talk) 00:00, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
  • I don't think there is enough evidence to justify a check here. Looking at their timecards (Dan Polansky, AP295) shows very different editing patterns that would be pretty impossible for a sockmaster to maintain across years of editing activity. I am also not sure that both participating in similar discussions and agreeing with each-other is sufficient evidence of similarity or abuse of multiple accounts. That said, I am not commenting on the quality of their contributions here.   Not done – Ajraddatz (talk) 17:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: – Ajraddatz (talk) 04:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Seawolf35

Seawolf35 is a new account created about a year ago. They have started an RfC Requests for comment/Global ban for Slowking4 (2)

IP 119.59.127.124 is globally locked. Nonetheless the IP has a single edit to Requests for comment/Global ban for Slowking4 (2), making a number of changes to the original post made by Seawolf35. [2]

"This user is currently globally blocked. The global block log entry is provided below for reference: 06:48, 6 April 2024: EPIC (meta.wikimedia.org) globally blocked 119.59.126.0/23 (expires on 6 April 2025 at 06:48) (Open proxy/Webhost: See the help page if you are affected)"

As a result, anyone reading or closing the RfC, it will look like the edits were there from the beginning, and that everyone had a chance to see them before commenting. In fact, it was made several weeks after the RfC was opened, after all the votes had been made. There is nothing in the RfC to indicate that any changes were made to the original post, or who might have made them.

The IP edit was made 16:50, 12 April 2024. A few hours later, at 23:47, 12 April 2024, Seawolf35 showed an interest in other global locks made by the same user:EPIC. [3] Janni Rye (talk) 18:19, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

@Janni Rye You need to drop the stick, I assure you I am not that IP. I do a lot of SRG reporting and I have reported some of the accounts that got locked, that is why I had an interest. Such a check that you have requested, would be a violation of global Checkuser policy, which you evidently didn’t bother reading. Seawolf35 (talk) 18:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Don't you want to know who is trying to disrupt the RfC?
Don't you want to know who is making stealth edits to deceive the people who close the RfC?
Don't you think that it would be more fair to add changes to the original RfC at the beginning, instead of at the end when everyone has commented already?
Did you stop being concerned about sockpuppets? Janni Rye (talk) 19:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
How the fuck does adding links to a by-default minuscule section deceive people?

Did you stop being concerned about sockpuppets?

And I thought you said that a potential sockmaster saying that an editor is not them is definitive proof? Aaron Liu (talk) 20:24, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
IPs should not be connected to an account no matter if the IP is a VPN or alike. A09 (talk) 14:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
  Not done we are never going to report that a username=an IP address. — xaosflux Talk 14:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: * Pppery * it has begun 04:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Slowking4

Culturefan4 is a new account created on March 16 and their only edits have been on Requests for comment/Global ban for Slowking4 (2). Besides the similarities in username, they claim to be one of their fans (and deny they are Slowking4), but I generally find it very hard to believe that they are not the same user (or are meatpuppets). --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 07:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

If there is going to be an attempt to dox users with low edit counts, why not do ALL the low edit accounts that have been questioned, and not just badger the oppose votes. User:Seawolf35 ==> User:Naleksuh also User:Werieth / User:Betacommand Janni Rye (talk) 16:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
And here I was beginning to think the drama was at a low level. Go ahead, run the check. Seawolf35 (talk) 16:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
@Janni Rye Exciting, your words of Betacommand reminded me of something happened previously. This request is not anything could be considered as doxxing, instead an attempt to stop consensus hijacked by sockpuppets. Lemonaka (talk) 10:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
I agree with Lemonaka. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 20:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
@Minorax Lemonaka (talk) 02:57, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
  Not done: though Culturefan4's account was created to support Slowking4 in this RfC, and they're certainly a sockpuppet of someone, I don't think there is sufficient evidence to warrant a comparison with Slowking4. This isn't consistent with Slowking4's usual communication style. Thanks for the report, it is good to have more eyes on this regardless of whether a check happens. Regards, Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 16:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: * Pppery * it has begun 04:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

User7076

Hi, I receive thanks from accounts that vandalize. I have already reported the vandalism done by a first account (for info @EPIC:), then the new accounts vandalize in the same way on several projects (Meta, bnWP, Commons, MediaWiki). We need to know if these vandalisms come from the same person who thanks me for removing identical vandalism. The first reported account will be blocked along with the other accounts. Cordially. —Eihel (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

ศุภฤกษ์ นราวงษ์ and Baguz median are   Unrelated from a technical POV. Did not compare to User7076, as I don't find enough indicating that they would be related to the other two. EPIC (talk) 21:48, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: * Pppery * it has begun 04:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta:Requests_for_CheckUser_information/Archives/2024&oldid=27441988"