Steward requests/Checkuser/2011-07

 Confirmed. Jafeluv 19:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

• Could you please check this new pt.wikipedia user, Harley1, with same behavior in Plastic article? It may be against Portuguese Wikipedia rules, because it may be a use of sockpuppet to forcce an opinion (as above), and while the main account is blocked to edit this article. Eamaral 00:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Likely fr33kman 02:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• And still another one: Pngp, again with same kind of edition in plastic at pt.wikipedia. He has also combined edition with user Alavanca at pt:Lâmpada fluorescente and a user page with no content (just "Page of user pgnp"). Eamaral 19:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

 Confirmed fr33kman 05:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The two named accounts are  Confirmed. No comment in regards to the IP addresses. --Bsadowski1 07:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Please also check the following account: LoJeday (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser). Trijnstel 19:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Also  Confirmed. --Bsadowski1 19:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Another one.... RichJedi (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser). Trijnstel 21:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

 Confirmed as well. Jafeluv 21:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• Please, check also Jedibot. An update on abuse filter might be needed.” T_ele^s (T_{alk @ C S}) 21:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I would say  Confirmed. --Bsadowski1 21:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• Dirt Diver (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date ^(alt) • CA • gblock • ST • lwcheckuser)
• Abigor (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date ^(alt) • CA • gblock • ST • lwcheckuser)
• Unknown vandal, offensive usernames hidden, [11], particularly [12]

In Requests for comment/Abigor, conclusive checkuser evidence identified the acknowledged Abigor sock, Dirt Diver, as using the same access and device as a vandal, and he was blocked. This request is a courtesy to him in recognition of his prior service as a meta administrator. This is not a request for investigation and conclusion, as is normal here, for the RfC conclusion is not challenged and it is now moot. Even if it were found that Abigor was not this vandal, he would remain blocked for other reasons. Rather, Abigor has requested the raw checkuser evidence on which the conclusion was based, because he claims the vandal (or at least the third with the highly offensive name) could not have been him. He has agreed to public disclosure, which is therefore allowed per Privacy policy. Abigor has admitted prior deception, so this request is not based on a belief that he is telling the truth, but rather on recognition that an exploit, that successfully created the vandal evidence, is not impossible. Abigor, real-life, would need to know for his own security. The evidence would tell him what computer was used and when, it would enable him to investigate the situation himself.

Unless there is sound contrary reason, a user found to have socked and who suffers a sanction or adverse disclosure as a result, and who agrees to public disclosure of the otherwise private evidence, should be provided this, if there is any checkuser willing to satisfy the request. (I suspect the Foundation is under a legal obligation, but let's hope that's moot.) I recommend providing it publicly, so that there be nothing hidden about this, but it could be provided privately to him.

It has been argued that a privacy problem exists if Abigor is not the vandal, but vandalism spoofing another user is much more serious than ordinary socking, and there is no protection for such vandals, policy again allows disclosure as needed. So if Abigor is the vandal, disclosure is allowed because he permitted it, and if he is not the vandal, justice and equity require disclosure.

Please provide Abigor or the community with the requested evidence. Thanks. --Abd 03:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Not done Sorry, but it has to go here. Thx. fr33kman 05:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, are you asking for all CUs related to the Abigor account on meta, or on other projects also? fr33kman 05:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The Abigor account is included for completeness, but the central request relates to the acknowledged sock Dirt Diver and the alleged vandal, conclusively identified as Abigor ("conclusive" means that the evidence is strong enough to create a presumption allowing action.). For information about the vandal, see the links. I can't definitively identify the account for obvious reasons! It is not necessary to provide "all activity," only the specific activity that linked Dirt Diver and the vandal. A checkuser may decide to not disclose all CU activity re Abigor, per se. What Abigor needs is that vandal activity, and because an exploit might involve compromise of Dirt Diver's account, activity for Dirt Diver. --Abd 16:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Either way, there seems nothing for the stewards to do here, but only for local checkusers. fr33kman 05:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Not having either checkuser privilege or local admin access, I cannot tell if a local checkuser request, anywhere, will be adequate. Given the consensual nature of this request, and the possible cross-wiki checking needed -- I can't tell -- this is the best place to first make this request. I could ask the two steward/checkusers, who provided evidence here on meta, to provide that evidence to Abigor, or, as suggested, go to all the other places. Finishing this here could be simplest, for sure. Hence I am reverting the change to status and request that this remain open for a reasonable time to see if any steward is willing to do this, before other options are explored. I will, however, notify the two commenting steward/checkusers, perhaps they, having already looked, will make this moot. This request is not based on any mistrust of them. Thanks. --Abd 16:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
• Notices, personal requests: Dferg, Herbythyme. --Abd 16:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The answer is no. If you want an investigation, contact the relevant people (or the WMF directly). The stewards themselves will not satisfy this request. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I'll recommend that to Abigor if it's necessary. --Abd 23:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The issue is that the projects that need CU'ing in this request have local checkusers and so the requests must go there. fr33kman 21:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem here is that multiple wiki checkuser results may be involved, because there may have been cross-wiki activity, so this could be simpler for a steward to do than to go for a set of individual requests. Ideally, the steward and local checkuser who already responded in the RfC will simply provide what information they already found, and they've been asked, as I noted above. However, if there is no response here, or otherwise from them, in a reasonable time, then the other routes will be explored. Thanks. --Abd 23:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment Whether or not it'd be simplier is not a concern; policy must be followed. Best of luck and let me know personally if you get no where. fr33kman 05:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• Plain and out right refused. fr33kman 02:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The following users are  Confirmed:

• 交通大学
• 化学工作者
• 南工隐士
• 重庆中央工专
• Wiki cathy
• 山城小路
• 电机系

--Jafeluv 21:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! --Mrseacow 07:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Please check again. --Wiki_cathy

 Confirmed:

• sulutil:Alomé
• sulutil:AX2+B
• sulutil:Solonos
• sulutil:Jdx2
• sulutil:Aud179
• sulutil:Jeandefoix
• sulutil:Yakax
• sulutil:Jxwww

Stale: Jdx

--Shizhao 07:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Shizhao. In fact, there is no user called Jdx@frwiktionary, even if the nickname we give to this user is "Jdx". -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 09:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

 Confirmed: Huangwenkuei, Volkker, Liuopoiu

Stale: 韦荣光, 韦一民. Ruslik 12:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you.--Zhxy 519 12:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment: This request was opened by ElectroStatic Jolt. The accounts above were already blocked - w:en:WP:DUCK.” T_ele^s (T_{alk @ C S}) 16:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I`m not ElectroStatic Jolt.--187.37.110.251 17:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Not donefr33kman 05:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment: This request was opened by ElectroStatic Jolt. The accounts above are already blocked.” T_ele^s (T_{alk @ C S}) 16:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I`m not ElectroStatic Jolt.--187.37.110.251 17:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Not done fr33kman 05:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

 Confirmed:

Fahim chowdhury

Uddin c

Sk khan

Asif akbar1

Faisal chowdhury1

Faisal chowdhury

Bfdc

Ruslik 18:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much. — [ Tanvir | Talk ] 18:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

 Confirmed and also;

• Camila CA

fr33kman 05:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

This is basically a request to pin three IP addresses on a single username. I don't believe this is within policy, so it is refused. fr33kman 05:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Doing... fr33kman 05:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

 Confirmed and also;

• Clarice C. Carvalho
• ALINE MACIEL ¹

It took a bit of checking and crosschecking (there were changing user agents involved), but I managed to confirm this request. The user in question resolves to many, many ip addresses but a range block is not possible so I'll not provide any information here. fr33kman 05:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

It's ok. Thanks for this fast answer.” T_ele^s (T_{alk @ C S}) 05:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome fr33kman 06:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

All five are Unrelated from a checkuser point of view. Jafeluv 17:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. However, there are off-wiki canvassing posts about the above zhwp votes in http://forum.hkgolden.com (en:Hong Kong Golden Forum), teaching the readers how to by-pass the checkuser mechanism of Wikipedia. Previously I suspect the person behind these accounts comes from Hong Kong. --Mewaqua 17:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)