Steward requests/Checkuser/2019-01

• Chengmorgan is Stale.--MCC 214 # aut viam inveniam aut faciam 06:49, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
• [1] and [2],add Choasppp and Cynthia liu123。--MCC 214 # aut viam inveniam aut faciam 09:34, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Done, For Picksve, 反赤共復民國, Topsun888, Choasppp, Cynthia liu123 the CU evidence is inconclusive. All other accounts confirmed. No other unlocked sleeping account. Linedwell ^[talk] 19:14, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks User:Linedwell. Reported back.--Cohaf (talk) 19:21, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

• @Linedwell:Sorry to reopen thus but can I seek a quick clarification, is this account linked to the confirmed group RegisterZ (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date ^{(alt )} • gblock • ST • lwcheckuser ). They made an unblock request immediately after the results are out. Thanks--Cohaf (talk) 19:23, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@Cohaf: No problem. I checked but I can't link it to any of the previous accounts. Regards, Linedwell ^[talk] 19:32, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@Linedwell:. Thanks much!--Cohaf (talk) 19:33, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

• Ang hope find more sleepers if there have.--MCC 214 # aut viam inveniam aut faciam 11:42, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
• 某個中國人,Yesisyes,Stopwrite,Rofovo and 2018a1010 are Stale.--MCC 214 # aut viam inveniam aut faciam 10:42, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Noted.--Cohaf (talk) 10:44, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
• Inconclusive Inconclusive from my POV. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 13:37, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks MarcoAurelio. Reported back.--Cohaf (talk) 17:20, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Not done Do not see any reason for checkuser. If an account misbehave, just block it. Ruslik (talk) 19:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Umm...Ruslik...Is there some reason to perform a CU other than someone abusively and obviously using multiple accounts? GMG ^talk 01:55, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Not done - no check needed here. That account hasn't edited in nearly a month, so checking it would not assist in preventing any abuse. – Ajraddatz (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Comment. No local consensus to check, they have clear editorial disputes with the rest and send the 2 to zhwiki AIV but was declined and ask to engage in village pump discussion. However, they don't wish to engage in meaningful discussion at village pump and wow, here they are. Forumshopping indeed.--Cohaf (talk) 15:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Comment No, we have local consensus to chack because some administrators in zh RFCUHAM agree to check due to their editing habit are similar and we are already discussed in the disscussion page. Iswjy1mcb (talk) 22:57, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment@Iswjy1mcb:. May I understand which zhwiki administrator agreed to the check? And may I know what consensus there are. In addition, it'll be wise to use the preview button rather than editing a sentence 10 times. Best Regards,--Cohaf (talk) 23:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Let me make this clear: No administrators were involved in local discussion, and forum shopping is not allowed at Meta. Your request is likely to be rejected. --Super Wang on zhwiki (Share your opinions) 00:27, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @Cohaf: Sanmosa agreed to check Iswjy1mcb (talk) 02:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Sanmosa is NOT an administrator.--Cohaf (talk) 02:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Comment Comment @Cohaf: It is suspected that MTR 558391 is used for vandalism and Shek Ming Fai for normal editing, checking for sleepers is needed. It looks like a duck to meIswjy1mcb (talk) 03:15, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
      • My goodness. You reported to AIV and an administrator told you to start a discussion at Village Pump and determined it as a content dispute but you didn't. And now you are at meta saying the same. What grounds are there for a sleepers check? I will strongly encourage you to drop the stick before I push for sanctions for forumshopping at zhwiki. If you want the check, fine go ahead, but I request the steward to check this account also to make sure it isn't a good hand bad hand account and they seems to have very similar interests to the above 2 as well as editing tendencies. --Cohaf (talk) 03:29, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
      • Why on earth are you so stubborn, Iswjy1mcb? Stewards will not check until a local consensus comes into being. Why not follow zh.wiki administrator's advice? Do you think you are superior to admins or what?! Stop your rudeness. --Super Wang on zhwiki (Share your opinions) 09:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
• Could a steward or meta admin close this request as premature and lacking consensus from local discussion? Alex Shih (talk) 09:38, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @Alex Shih:. I would rather the closing reason being invalid, forum shopping, SNOW and disruptive checking. But yes, this needs to be closed by a steward as soon as possible. I'm not sure whether a meta admin could do it or not.--Cohaf (talk) 13:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
• Not done - checkuser isn't a weapon to use against the other side of a content dispute. – Ajraddatz (talk) 16:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• @Bbb23: as enwiki CU who conducted the check that this is a crosswiki issue. Possibly commons also, see SUL of accounts.--Cohaf (talk) 10:10, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, even if it is not zhwiki, local discussion is always preferred since we are not expert on all the local projects and your fellow editors might be able to detect new CU target. Will do in few minutes after I am done with other stuff. — regards, Revi 12:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I duck blocked all and had discussed this case with community members offline so I think we did all we could here. The rest really require a CU to ensure all is taken care off. If there is a range, do feel free to do a checkuser block. Thanks.--Cohaf (talk) 13:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

• I request that a CU block should be imposed at the same time because of Autoblock #31 concering User:AndyUSWCAX. Since he has a history of copyright violation on zhwikiversity, I would argue thet it is necessary. --Mend My Way 05:48, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Now my fellow sysop had concurred a check is necessary, I hope we can have the results soon. Thanks!--Cohaf (talk) 06:34, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Done - all three accounts are Confirmed, no sleepers. – Ajraddatz (talk) 03:11, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ajraddatz:. Thanks, is there any range to be blocked?.--Cohaf (talk) 03:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

At this stage I think the account blocks should cover it. There has been no further abuse since the request was filed. – Ajraddatz (talk) 03:59, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ajraddatz: Thanks so much, appreciate your help for this. Will go through the accounts to see any SRG requests need to be filled or not. Thanks anyway --Cohaf (talk) 04:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Done there is inconclusive technical evidence. Please use behavioural evidence to evaluate next steps. – Ajraddatz (talk) 03:58, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Confirmed. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 18:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks MarcoAurelio. Reported Back.--Cohaf (talk) 18:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Done all accounts are Confirmed, no sleepers found. – Ajraddatz (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

• I'd throw swear words at you if not for urbanity's sake. This is a repetitive request. --Super Wang on zhwiki (Share your opinions) 01:13, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
• I would like to find out whether MTR 553891 is used for vandalism and Shek Ming Fai for normal editing or not due to frequent editing on such articles. It looks like a duck to me Iswjy1mcb (talk) 01:54, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
• Sorry for disturbing, as this is a disruption made by Iswjy1mcb, per IAR, I should rapidly close it. Explanation is made in zhwiki RFCUHAM. Sæn mō sà 03:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
• Side note: this one is a repeated report of the above one. Sæn mō sà 03:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
• Please view it as a withdrawal. Many thanks. Sæn mō sà 03:47, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
• Not disruption Iswjy1mcb (talk) 03:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • BOOMERANG, OP block for DE locally.--Cohaf (talk) 04:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
• Side note: Iswjy1mcb is blocked in zhwiki for 24 hours. Sæn mō sà 04:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• Sorry for disturbing, as this is a disruption made by Iswjy1mcb,per IAR, I should rapidly close it. Explanation is made in zhwiki RFCUHAM. Sæn mō sà 03:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
• Please view it as a withdrawal. Many thanks. Sæn mō sà 03:47, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Not disruption Iswjy1mcb (talk) 04:04, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • BOOMERANG, OP blocked for DE locally.--Cohaf (talk) 04:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
• Side note: Iswjy1mcb is blocked in zhwiki for 24 hours. Sæn mō sà 04:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
• Side note 2: Techyan turned down the request locally per zh:WP:DISRUPT. --Mend My Way 04:48, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • And Techyan is also the one who blocked Iswjy1mcb. Sæn mō sà 06:32, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment Anonymous Comment: Have you to look for further evidence? You should mean discussion here which has occured at appropiate section below: see Cross-wiki LTA vandal for understanding such situation. 86.126.100.159 16:01, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

• I added the name of Centurrion, a new user with a very similar pattern of behavior. Some other sleepers or active accounts may also be found. --Pafsanias (talk) 23:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
• ValydinDD added for the same reasons. Please see the complete (?) list of known sockpuppets of BAICAN XXX. --Pafsanias (talk) 13:22, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@Pafsanias: Indeed for some purposes. Does really the accounts are related to BAICAN XXX? If they are same person, please provide additional consensus details as to convince stewards to assist check for others, otherwise this CU action wouldn't be so accurate for Community's privacy rule. 86.126.112.251 17:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

BAICAN_XXX is Stale. Wikiobai, Centurrion and ValydinDD are Confirmed to be the same user. Additional socks are Thingorest, BAICAN X, Paltini, Successore and Grreuglisse. Ruslik (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Ruslik, for your useful information. However, the account BAICAN XXX has been blocked globally by MarcoAurelio on December 30, 2018. The last contributions seem to be those of December 28 (some other edits have been deleted afterwards). It is hard to believe that this account appears to be stale. Sorry to insist, but for us it is very important to clarify the relation between the main sockpuppeteer and the newer sockpuppets. --Pafsanias (talk) 23:23, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

The last edit on rowiki was on 14 April 2014. Ruslik (talk) 20:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I see. You probably mean that you cannot carry out any crosswiki checking. Let me put it a little bit differently, then. BAICAN XXX is globally locked as of December 30, 2018, for crosswiki vandalism. Nevertheless, we have strong reasons to believe that the edits made by User:Thingorest on Wikidata belong to the same person, therefore representing an evasion of the global lock. Am I wrong? May I ask for a check concerning those two accounts (BAICAN XXX and Thingorest) on that particular Wikimedia project? Should I submit a separate request? Thank you once again for your kind help. --Pafsanias (talk) 21:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment Comment in Response to @Pafsanias: If it is possible, the meaning of reference results as per Ruslik0 might have been revealed. I think it not need second check. Please leave it in order to see benefits of both cross-wiki checking and such actions as well; also you known claim what you requested evidence than other option did you agree. It so never forget to mention that response advice. 86.122.247.207 17:39, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Confirmed on roa-rupwiki. Ruslik (talk) 20:32, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you!--Mihai P. (talk) 21:15, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

@Alex Shih: Is it related to a long-term vandal? RadiX ∞ 01:02, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

@RadiX: I don't think that was suspected, but I wouldn't be surprised if the findings have some overlap with some zhwiki LTA? Pinging original filer Techyan for more input. Alex Shih (talk) 01:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Nope. It isn't a LTA case. Just a normal CU @RadiX and Alex Shih:.--Cohaf (talk) 03:21, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

It looks like a duck to me. I think that may not warrant a check. Should you have more information on this, please feel free to add it. RadiX ∞ 04:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

@RadiX:. Sorry I'm not into this case and now read the files, the filter, a local sysop feels it's duckable, I also concur with this assessment. The local sysop just wish to do a sleeper check. No comment on that per say.--Cohaf (talk) 04:30, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Ok then. I think they can just be blocked as vandalism only accounts. File another CU request in case a sleeper check is needed. Thanks, RadiX ∞ 02:11, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

@RadiX:Noted with thanks.--Cohaf (talk) 02:13, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Results

• Confirmed group I:
• 暖城2016年02月06日
• Vengence2018
• Lhrediedilcy
• Expertiaman

• Possible Possible group 2:
• Warmercities
• Hactlcpslaat

• It is Possible Possible that group 1 and group 2 accounts and Dragoon17cc are related.

RadiX ∞ 00:33, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

• RadiX,HKGSINSINLHR relationship on list of users?--MCC 214 # aut viam inveniam aut faciam 08:44, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Mr./Mrs. MCC214, You behaviour had made me wonder if you have any basic communication ability in English...
  • Dear stewards, I wonder if User:HKGSINSINLHR has any technical relation to above 2 groups because their contribution seems similar to Dragon17cc, and it seems that this account had been left forgotten during the check. --云间 守望 15:16, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
• @WQL: Sorry, my fault. It is very Likely Likely that HKGSINSINLHR and group 1 are related. RadiX ∞ 03:51, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @RadiX:Noted and report back.--Cohaf (talk) 03:53, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks to RadiX for doing the check. --云间 守望 04:26, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Could you please explain what is the grounds for checking? Vandalism? (only two of the listed accounts are currently blocked) Is there any concerns about bad-faith editing? Is there evidence that they are related to a long-term abuser? RadiX ∞ 02:58, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

• @RadiX: Just replying for the LTA part, nope. --Cohaf (talk) 03:22, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @-revi: User name of 1 seems similar in pattern to OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOObnm1234. Just in case it isn't LTA only. And they are from Malaysia, the 1st few account, can there be a link, I think it's weak but worth a look--Cohaf (talk) 06:03, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
• RadiX, this user is not listed on zh:WP:LTA at this time. However, because they had done disruputive edits (per FrankD666, one of the targets once claimed himself to be a sysop, patroller and rollbacker for no reason), since they all claimed that they comes from Malaysia, putting his Youtube channel links on user pages. Ngjunkaiha and Sadakohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh all claims that his name is Ng Jun-kai(黄浚凯) or including his name into usernames, so I think it worth a look, same to Cohaf. --云间 守望 15:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Doing.... RadiX ∞ 02:20, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

From a technical point of view

• Group 1: Sadakohahaha and Sadakohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh: Confirmed
• Ngjunkaiha and Group 1: Likely Likely
• ??pyphp?? and Group 1: Likely Likely
• Ngjunkaiha and ??pyphp??: Possible Possible
• 哈哈者 and others: Unrelated Unrelated

RadiX ∞ 03:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

• @RadiX:. Thanks, reported back.--Cohaf (talk) 03:39, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
• Thanks and I will report to other sysops locally then. --云间 守望 04:31, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on Chinese Wikipedia is de facto must have (and cannot be None) unless you have a good reason not to. I don't see a good reason not to require it. Please discuss it on zh:WP:RFCUHAM and get back to us after then. — regards, Revi 19:16, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

@-revi:Isn't self requested CU not allowed no matter what, the requestor is basically requesting to do a CU on themselves, the 2nd account was indef blocked locally as a sock to the 1st account which is currently just serve 1 week sock block. --Cohaf (talk) 01:53, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Global CheckUser policy doesn't explicitly prohibit this practice (It says "some wikis" might allow it), but I usually don't do this kind of self-requested checks, as the policy says, it is too prone to abuse. — regards, Revi 08:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

@-revi:According to zhwiki w:zh:WP:CUP

有一些计划允许编辑者自主提出对本账号的IP地址进行查核,例如在被他人指责使用傀儡时证明清白。但是在这种情况下,很多时候请求本身可能会是扰乱行为的一部分

Translated

Some projects allow users to carry out self checks to prove innocence if there are accused of socking, but normally this is seen as DE

. 2 points, you are the steward so you decide whether is this disruption or not, and can you give us your assessment. 2nd, as given in the link below, the 2 accounts are confirmed in a CU earlier this month by MarcoAurelio. Do we have to continue this? Thanks much! Best Regards,--Cohaf (talk) 09:14, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

• @MeritTim: Per local consensus, requests for providing evidence of innocence for yourself would not be approved in most time. --云间 守望 04:37, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
• Updated. But it was the previous discussion.MeritTim (talk) 04:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
• Note to Stewards the link provided by our dear friend above is discussion for Steward_requests/Checkuser/2019-01#MeritTim@zh.wikipedia in which MarcoAurelio had confirmed the relationship between account 1 and 2 (referring to then and now). --Cohaf (talk) 05:00, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
• I feel it is Possible Possible is MEAT of MeritTim(Responsibility330),also this case is similar to zh:Wikipedia:用戶查核請求/2018/1#At_sb's_disposal_&_disposable and zh:Wikipedia:用戶查核請求/2018/2#It's_gonna_be_awesome.--MCC 214 # aut viam inveniam aut faciam 05:59, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
  • It may be useful to investigate the two accounts' edits regarding the page name issue of zh:Niconico靜畫. - まっすろな未来 (talk) 12:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

NOTE: SRCU is not a place to investigate editors' behavioral data: SRCU is strictly for requesting (and delivering) CheckUser data. — regards, Revi 21:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

With ^ and Cohaf's discovery of prior case, declining. — regards, Revi 21:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Not doing check right now but No comment with respect to IP address(es). Please note that checks cannot be run on an IP address under the CheckUser policy. — regards, Revi 10:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

@-revi: Maybe you can check on the registered account listed? CyberTroopers (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Doing... for registered accounts only --Alaa :)..! 13:21, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Completed..

• Confirmed Febydhani Pribadi, Rheynapril, Egawijaya, Sariningrum
• Unrelated Unrelated Arthadwhmd

---

--Alaa :)..! 13:29, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you User:علاء for the effort. CyberTroopers (talk) 09:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Not done We do not associate specific IP addresses with user accounts. Ruslik (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Completed..

• Likely Likely 李典諺, Oval face
• Possible Possible 李典諺, 郭宜睿

---

However, there's no enough data sample, so make your decision with behavioral data ---Alaa :)..! 21:10, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

• Add.--MCC 214 # aut viam inveniam aut faciam 07:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
• What goes around comes around. What a pathetic user. XD --Super Wang on zhwiki (Share your opinions) 07:55, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

It's quite useless to include zhwiki pages/diffs into SRCU since we don't read Chinese. Just include summaries of the discussion. Doing... nonthless. — regards, Revi 12:12, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Note : so is it possible for any steward to help conclude this case, from cuwiki revision 29699 (yes, you see how uncivilised people ruin the community)--1233 | Questions?| This message is left by him at 07:16, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

@-revi: are you still on it? RadiX ∞ 17:40, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

@RadiX, I think I told you not (offwiki), but just in case. — regards, Revi 13:33, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Doing... --Alaa :)..! 21:11, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Confirmed (No sleepers) --Alaa :)..! 21:28, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

• Talk archives
• Steward requests archive/Checkuser

• Noindexed pages