Wikinews:Requests for CheckUser

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
(Redirected from Wikinews:RFCU)
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Shortcut:
WN:RFCU
WN:CU

This is the place to request sockpuppet checks or other investigations requiring CheckUser privileges by people with those privileges.

Operating Guidelines[edit]

Copied in part from Wikipedia's CheckUser – this seems like a good CheckUser policy to begin with.

Introduction[edit]

CheckUser is an additional right that is granted to a small number of administrators. It is a delegation of a developer right that gives limited access to server logs of edits. Uses include identification of sockpuppets, block evasion, and use of open proxies. All usage of the privilege is logged and results may be shared with other projects via the private checkuser-l mailing list. The mailing list is covered by the Foundation's privacy policy, and checks may be executed as a result of reports from other wikis where vandalism or other disruption has occurred.

Caveats[edit]

  1. Due to the effort involved, difficulty of interpretation of results and privacy issues raised, checkuser is a last resort for difficult cases. Use other methods first.
  2. Obvious sock puppets may be treated as such without using checkuser.
  3. Please do not list cases involving non-disruptive "throwaway" accounts that are only used for a few edits.
  4. Data is kept for a limited time so we cannot compare against accounts that have not edited recently.
  1. Block evasion: may be listed where the problem is ongoing.
  2. Routine 3RR violations: do not list unless there is (a) an ongoing problem (b) reasonable doubt as to whether or not sock puppets are being used, and (c) disruption of editing that can't be addressed any other way.
  3. Vandalism: only for ongoing serious vandalism.
  4. Vote fraud: only where (a) there is reasonable doubt as to whether or not the votes are valid (b) the vote or discussion period has closed, and (c) the possible sockpuppet votes actually affect the outcome of a decision. Provide a link to the closed vote and discussion.

Procedure[edit]

  • List your request in this section.
  • Clearly indicate the usernames or IP addresses you suspect. This is not the place to post long disputes over the merits of the check. If a compact, reasonable request, with the necessary diffs, cannot be made, then post it on WN:ALERT.
  • Use *{{Checkuser|USERNAME TO BE CHECKED}}
  • You must clearly lay out the evidence for sockpuppetry.
  • You must explain how your request fits the policy above.
  • Sign your request.

Outcome[edit]

  • Responses will be cursory in nature in order to comply with Wikimedia privacy policy; supporting data is not provided.
  • Results are not always clear due to the internal organization of some ISPs, and the fact that technically savvy users sometimes deliberately edit from unrelated IPs.
  • Responses to CheckUser requests will be placed beneath your request. Old requests will be archived. Please check back here for responses.
  • Possible outcomes: Artículo bueno.svg Confirmed, Likely, Symbol possible vote.svg Possible, Symbol unlikely.svg Unlikely, Symbol unrelated.svg Unrelated, or Symbol unsupport vote.svg Inconclusive.

Archives

Requests[edit]

Immigration 'lawyers'[edit]

  • Immigrationlawyerla (talk · contribs) was a no-brainer to block for spamming, but Kevinbecker1 (talk · contribs) didn't spam a link; instead, xyr non-English contribution looked to be the same advert in Spanish. would prefer a quick (simple) CU on this pair to shake any other spammy socks, and confirm Kevinbecker1 can be perma-blocked. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Artículo bueno.svg Confirmed--Cspurrier (talk) 21:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Troll on AAA[edit]

This user has been trolling at AAA, and shows obvious stylistic similarities to the blocked user on whose behalf xe's spewing vitriol. --Pi zero (talk) 08:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment I'd suspect time delay between block and this new account appearing may render local CU inconclusive. Whether the person undertaking CU can make the case for checks elsewhere is something I'll leave them to on the closed mailing list. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Comment — I'm pretty sure it's the same person. Same peculiar convoluted writing style. I'd be very surprised if it was two different people. — Gopher65talk 14:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Two similar vandals[edit]

These two fairly recent vandals have both used words that could be interpreted as death threats. We should know whether there's technical evidence linking them. (I'm also unsure who to inform of possible death threats but, now that there are two and they're so close together, I have a desire to report it to... somebody.) --Pi zero (talk) 00:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Rangeblock check[edit]

Per issues Antandrus is having with cross-wiki stalking/harrassment, could a Checkuser confirm there's no collateral damage on the suggested rangeblocks? (See linked talk). --Brian McNeil / talk 02:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

DoneThere are no non-abusive edits from those ranges. There are however several auto-created users who appear to be unrelated. --Cspurrier (talk) 03:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Have already implemented one of the blocks, but not seen Antandrus' stalker on the 208 range yet. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:40, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Kittiesonfire[edit]

Our multi-socking pal professes to have returned (see IP edits). Would appreciate the usual check for sleepers. There is one suspect username recently created which I'll pop in, too. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 08:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Done Sorry for the delay. No current socks associated with that ip.--Cspurrier (talk) 00:48, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Multiple, suspiciously similar, new users[edit]

Noted the following users, with too-similar pattern on usernames. Does a CU to get an IP address show them all originating from a single source? If so, would propose blocking all bar first registered. Only reason I could see not to do so, if suspicions confirmed, would be if IP owned by an educational institution and browser idents differ sufficiently to conclude originate with separate computers behind a proxy. Given name component of new usernames looks like pulled from a list would not be surprised if this is bot activity. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Artículo bueno.svg Confirmed Ip belongs to a dedicated server provider. Either a bot or a private proxy --Cspurrier (talk) 23:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the prompt check, I feel blocking all — and the IP, since it's static — would also be appropriate. I'm going to undertake the former. --Brian McNeil / talk 23:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Batch of spam accounts[edit]

We've had quite a few spam accounts just lately characteristically creating pages with the spam information in the page name, typically with lots of spaces inserted to avoid abuse filters. This was a particular prolific bunch all at once, which I just finished cleaning up. --Pi zero (talk) 21:48, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Artículo bueno.svg Confirmed They do seem to all be the same, but the ips are all over the place. It looks like they are using a large collection of compromised systems to edit. Other than adjust the abuse filter, it doesn't look like there is any thing we can do. --Cspurrier (talk) 02:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Sharp troublemaker[edit]

This seems to keep cropping up, with the usual allegations of administrative abuse, and a flurry of misleading mage redirects/moves. Concerned that, unless nipped in the bud, will further disrupt the project. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Done No fresh socks--Cspurrier (talk) 23:42, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Phone-number spam[edit]

A complete list of these is provided below at #List (phone-number spam).

Lots of accounts popping up today; new ones get created after others are blocked, so it appears they're not coming from a small set of IPs. Would be nice if we could do something more effective than playing whack-a-mole with them.

... list of 17 that day ... 

--Pi zero (talk) 16:04, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

... 
It seems the accounts are using various IPs, which are being globally blocked by a steward in Meta as the accounts are reported. —Alvaro Molina (✉ - ✔) 03:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Good to know. --Pi zero (talk) 03:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
... 
    • For the record, if within a week, no local checkuser responds, then I will perform these checks within my steward capacity. Trijnstel (talk) 19:27, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
... 
Symbol unsupport vote.svg Inconclusive I have had a quick look at some of the accounts and IPs. There's some overlap but I'm not finding enough commonality to warrant rangeblocks. Trijnstel: I'm okay with a steward or another CU taking a second look to make sure I haven't missed anything. Thanks for the stewards/meta-folk for handling this spam quickly and stopping it from spreading cross-wiki. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
... 

I think we should set up abuse filter that blocks for 24 hours if phone numbers, the words "Norton", "MSN", or "AOL" is used, and/or special characters are found. PokestarFan (talk) 19:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@PokestarFan: I would agree, except that I don't know how to do abuse filters. I perforce figured out the one that was keeping me from doing administrative work on archived articles about Liverpool, but other than that I've never tangled with them. My feelings toward abuse filters are dominated by disapproval of the design decision that made them yet another specialized thing that requires a specialist to operate, and what time I don't pour into Wikinews review is poured into developing tools to bring more wiki tasks within range of nonspecialists (where all wiki tasks should be, by wiki philosophy). --Pi zero (talk) 19:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
@Pi zero: Ok. And we have more spambots. Check WN:AAA. PokestarFan (talk) 19:29, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


Also, I am creating 1 list ob bots to be used in multiple pages. PokestarFan (talk) 19:29, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@PokestarFan: There are only two pages we've been listing them on. A shared list seems like a lot of trouble to go to for just two pages. --Pi zero (talk) 19:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
@Pi zero: Don't worry, I'm creating said list. PokestarFan (talk) 19:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

List (phone-number spam)[edit]

February 20, 2018[edit]

February 19, 2018[edit]

February 18, 2018[edit]

February 17, 2018[edit]

February 16, 2018[edit]

February 15, 2018[edit]

February 14, 2018[edit]

February 13, 2018[edit]

Update the list

IPs creating gibberish[edit]

I have seen a look at the block log, and it looks like several IPs are vandalizing. Are they connected? PokestarFan (talk) 02:12, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews:Requests_for_CheckUser&oldid=4306162"