Steward requests/Checkuser/2016-04

Read CU for detailed information on how to be elected as a local CheckUser. Ajraddatz (talk) 03:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

There are indeed two Confirmed groups of accounts:

• The first group: BLÆGG, KLIPPLØK, KLOPPLØK, Lovelyspeed, Hovde, Lovelywart, Lovelydinner, Lovelysausage, Lovelysteak, Mynas-19, Lovelyfishes, SuperOddleif, Lovelymeal, SugKukk, Lovelysupper, Redigeringskrigeren, Lovelyarts, KLÆPPLØK, BLÆKK, Sjikanekonto.
• The second group includes: Good friend down the street, Tingelingelingeling, Quickfire Runde, David Ulvingsen, Waiting on the fire, Reisefeber, Solidaritetsmenneske, Bedriftskatalog, To figure, Håndfull, Det ville seg slik da..., Morgendagens søsken, Toppen av treet, Wasn't expecting that, Marianne Johansen Vikestrand Johnsen, Øverstehylletakk, Grønn drue uten stein, Mandag 7. mars 2016, It's a little bit funny, this feeling inside, Jobb i morgen, Vinterens problemer, Endre Johansen Kleppeby, Ullent, Like toy soldiers, You'll be falling in love oh oh, Laughing in my life, World and värld, Den ble vist på TV i 1997, Greier og ting og saker, Jeg hater snø!, Andy Johnson Charlie, Kjernekar, Smakløst brød med jarlsbergost, From my life, Manglende CAPTCHA-svar, Sammenblanding av ord, Brokker i hvitløk, Fredagskveld, Stor dag, Godt nytt år!.

I am not sure that these lists are exhaustive. Ruslik (talk) 13:56, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ruslik0: Thanks a lot for your swift response. The first group should definitely be connected to a previous case (Mynas), based on edit pattern and username similarity. However, I would be surprised if Hovde (an account recently unblocked after being blocked for 8-9 years) is connected to this vandal. How "confirmed" is this connection, based on the CU data? - 4ing (talk) 19:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

It is a very firm identification: exactly the same IP and UA string. Ruslik (talk) 19:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ruslik0: I'm not a technical expert, but I guess this implies that the accounts are editing from the same network and with the same OS/browser - not necessarily the same computer? - 4ing (talk) 20:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

It means that they are indistinguishable as far as checkuser is concerned. Ruslik (talk) 20:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Tagging as done so it can be archived. Ajraddatz (talk) 07:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll work on this request. —Marco Aurelio 14:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Result is Inconclusive Inconclusive from my point of view. Technical data is unclear on the relationship between this two accounts as far as my knowledges permit me to interpret. The users also operate from a series of IP pools which appears to be popular in the zone, and they ain't the only users using them, so it makes this a bit difficult. If another steward wants to review my findings should feel free to do so. —Marco Aurelio 15:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@MarcoAurelio: please check User:Arifuzzaman Masud..I have doubt he is one of the account control by শাহাদাত সায়েম

....this new account has no edit only supporting শাহাদাত সায়েম in disscussion about importer rights request by শাহাদাত সায়েম.....I want please review it again.★ Seth ^talk 14:34, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@MarcoAurelio: please also check this rights request page history...this two accounts editing difference is only 7 minutes...I think this account create for only support শাহাদাত সায়েম in arguments.★ Seth ^talk 14:40, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if another steward could do it this time, so my first results are reviewed too. @Avraham: would you like to? —Marco Aurelio 14:44, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll give it a shot. -- Avi (talk) 05:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd say that Kawsar natore (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser ) is Unlikely Unlikely to be related, while they are all on a large pool, Kawasar's technical data is different during editing times that overlap the other two. Arifuzzaman Masud (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser ) only edited on one day, but the timing and technical evidence are such that it is Possible Possible that Arifuzzaman is also শাহাদাত সায়েম (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser ), but, as MA says, it isn't conclusive. In this case reliance on behavioral evidence will be necessary. -- Avi (talk) 06:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@Avraham: after oposed and comment on শাহাদাত সায়েম (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser ) request...He repiled me 10:26 (UTC) ....after 6 minutes 10:32 new account created Arifuzzaman Masud (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser ) and after 3 minutes he supporting শাহাদাত সায়েম (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser )..Why new users supporr him???? they has no many edits or experience..... Kawsar natore (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser ) is an inactive user....He active শাহাদাত সায়েম (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser ) need supports in any arguments. After @NahidSultan: bro opposed and my oppesed this account support him.....,,,In Support Comment this account tell that Support for Shadat bro.....This User new,,,how can he support???How can he know him??? Please check it.★ Seth ^talk 09:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

What we can do, as stewards, is provide our interpretation of the technical evidence that may or may not link accounts. While that is helpful, it is often preferable to make the decisions based on behavioral evidence. My interpretation, as provided above, is that it is possible, that Arifuzzaman Masud and শাহাদাত সায়েম are related, but it is also possible that they merely share the same IP pool and the timing of their edits is a coincidence. Native Bengali speakers and users of the project would have a better understandning as to the relationship between the two based on both timing and content of the edits. Kawasar, on the other hand, we can say is most probably NOT a sockpuppet. A meatpuppet, who knows? People cam, and will, continue to use off-wiki channels to communicate, and we have no on-wiki way to prevent that. All we can say about Kawasar is that it is unlikely that the same devices and editors ran that account together with the other two. Your better bet now is to get BnWikiB to start deeper investigations into Arifuzzaman Masud and শাহাদাত সায়েম . -- Avi (talk) 15:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

In other words, Pixiedust CheckUser is not magic pixie dust. —Marco Aurelio 15:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed Ruslik (talk) 17:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Hola @Iñaki LL: lo siento pero desde aquí no te podemos ayudar. Desde Meta solo nos ocupamos de las verificaciones en proyectos sin verificadores locales. Para solicitar una verificación de usuarios en la Wikipedia en inglés puedes acudir a Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations . Un saludo, —Marco Aurelio 14:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Note Note: This is not a vote. CU requests will be judged by the merits of its reasons, not by counting votes. Also, I'm unease performing this check, as it'll have the side effect of revealing a user IP. —Marco Aurelio 18:40, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Technical evidence suggests that the above mentioned users are unrelated. RadiX ∞ 02:17, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Use of the CU tool to prove "innocence" is highly discouraged and hardly even performed. —Marco Aurelio 18:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

@MarcoAurelio: no problem, we hare resolved :) Thanks --Sciking (talk) 13:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay. —Marco Aurelio 10:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Results are Inconclusive Inconclusive and show no overlapping IP. Besides, technical information obtained is not exactly consistent with standard updating of software over time. Anyway, behavioral evidence is key in determining either sock or meat puppetry. RadiX ∞ 13:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

All Confirmed, same person as that last request. no:Spesial:Bidrag/CamillaPå is the only unblocked account of this pattern that I can see in the results. All accounts are using a mess of IPs, especially mobile ranges which are shared with many active and obviously good-faith users. I could provide a list of all accounts with my own judgements of likely or unlikely for you to sort through, if you'd like to see which ones match the pattern. Ajraddatz (talk) 14:34, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response. I think we'll leave it with that for now, the main outcome of the CU is the connection to the previous case (which again is connected to the Mynas case). - 4ing (talk) 07:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• Talk archives
• Steward requests archive/Checkuser

• Noindexed pages