Steward requests/Checkuser/2025-01

Requests

Byne Walter@pt.wikipedia

Template:Not done Ptwiki has local checkusers who can do this. Please submit a request at pt:Wikipédia:Pedidos a verificadores instead. EPIC (talk) 19:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Mirkazım Bəy@az.wikipedia

All accounts Template:Confirmed. No likely sleepers found. EPIC (talk) 22:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

OiOiOi2025@no.wikipedia

All Template:Confirmed along with Birk Fejerslev and T.Bunny555. Also found 1866A2024-32429 who might be related, but it's not certain. EPIC (talk) 22:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Alright! Thanks for your help. This doesn't really resolve anything, but at least it's confirmed that these are likely the same individual. Ty! EdoAug (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Wildcursive@zh.wikipedia

This, nor the zhwiki SPI, meet the diff/links requirement. General topic assessments make it difficult for stewards that don't speak the language to easily review and see your concern to justify the check. -- Amanda (she/her) 10:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I see. On hold this request and will discuss with the community. Thanks. --SCP-2000 10:55, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

This has been sitting on hold for quite some time now, so at this point I am closing it. Please feel free to submit a new request once you are ready. EPIC (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Dervişli@tr.wikipedia

Template:Not done.

1. We do not check users on their own requst.
2. When a wiki has local checkusers, stewards can only perform checks in emergencies. Otherwise, please ask the local checkusers to take care of it. EPIC (talk) 11:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi @EPIC Local inspectors said they were busy in real life and could not inspect at the moment, so I created an inspection request from Nurdan, it has been almost a month. Dervişli (talk) 11:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but the first point still applies, and I don't see that the local checkusers have consented to us performing a check anyway. EPIC (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I understand, thanks. Dervişli (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Mirələmoğlu@az.wikipedia

Mirələmoğlu is Template:Confirmed to Маммадзада and to Mirkazım Bəy. Scnekti is Template:Unrelated from a technical point of view.

With that being said I can't find any obvious reason as to why Xanoğlanoğlu Pünhan might be related (which is why I didn't check them for now), and they didn't come up in the checks I performed. Could you explain further? EPIC (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I think we can close this case. Sincerely, Gadir (talk) 11:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Closing as resolved then. EPIC (talk) 12:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Rastinition@zh.wikipedia

It's a bit unclear what this request is asking for, but the way I see it, it seems that you want us to check Rastinitionn and the IP to determine the relationship to you and possibility of sockpuppets. Anyways, I'm marking as Template:Not done for three reasons.

1. This request was not posted by a local SPI clerk.
2. Template:Fishing and IPs will not be connected to accounts.
3. We do not check users on their own request.

With that being said Rastinitionn is also already locked for impersonation. EPIC (talk) 10:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Eissink@commons.wikimedia

Unfortunately this request cannot be processed, mainly for two reasons. First one being that Commons has local checkusers, the second being that both users were locked long ago and thus the data from them is long expired. With that being said, looking at the past data from CU wiki I can't find an obvious technical connection between them, and they were both locked for different reasons each (Eissink was locked as globally banned while Wwikix was locked for cross-wiki abuse), so I can't see any obvious reasons that they are the same person. EPIC (talk) 15:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi @EPIC, thanks for looking into this.

So the old CU data does not confirm a connection between Eissink and Wwikix? My suspicion is that the additional accounts belong to Wwikix, and Eissink just got caught in the cross fire. As you can see, Eissink is not appealing the block but only the connection to the sockpuppets in the category, and the category on Commons is created in May 2023 because "the Stewards say this is the case". Commons CU's therefore might not be able to help here. Ciell (talk) 16:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Here's what I think might have happened:

• In May 2023 an admin on Commons advises to get a CU about a group of sockpuppets, suggesting they may be connected to Eissink;
• Another user requests the CU on Meta for "global ban evasion by Eissink / Wwikix". The forward slash in the title, and in the question below the accounts, can mean they are the same ("Eissink, also known as Wwikix"), or might mean the requesting user is in doubt who to connect the sockpuppets too ("either/or");
  • The steward notices that the admin on Commons was only suggesting a connection with Eissink and advised to get the CU because they weren't sure. Let's also notice the user who did the original research back on Commons, looking for matching behavioural pattern across the sockpuppets, did not mention Eissink or Wwikix in his original posting;
• The steward then looks as login info, and these match for the accounts. However, Eissinks account is not listed among the other sockpuppets, neither is Wwikix;
• Back on Commons, a user who reads the conclusion of the Steward, "checkuser information on Login wiki do match", and creates a category to keep track of the sockpuppets of Eissink - since this name was in the title of the request on Meta. All accounts in the cat get the template they are sockpuppets of Eissink because the connection is there according to the stewards.

I have asked the admin on Commons to share the reasoning why they originally connected the sockpuppets to Eissink. Also, I think it would help to know if both the accounts of Wwikix and Eissink were included in the review by the steward did (if they can still remember, I don't know if a login lookup is logged). Ciell (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree with this interpretation: Looking back into the loginwiki logs, I cannot find CheckUser actions for either of both, Eissink and Wwikix, during that request in 2023. I can only see that the socks were checked. Unless Teles has other information on that, I cannot see a clear connection between Eissink and Wwikix which is why I would suggest to distinguish these two cases/users. Best, —DerHexer (Talk) 08:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

If there remains uncertainty, could the lwcu log entries be dumped on cuwiki? The nlwiki CU's would like to give their analysis, as we are the most familiar with both users, but right now we find insufficient technical or behavioral evidence to establish a link between these accounts. XXBlackburnXx (talk) 09:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Template:Ping Done, see [1]. EPIC (talk) 09:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @DerHexer for pinging. I don’t have access anymore to CU wiki, nor login wiki. I almost never store information on my personal computer; I prefer to store on CU wiki when required. So, I don’t have more technical infornation to share. It’s possible that I have read the case assuming that both accounts were already linked to each other by the way it was requested; I can’t remember for sure. I remember though that I was prepared to deny the checking at first for lacking reason, but then it was added and I considered enough for at least checking. Information on login wiki as far as I recall was clear enough to directly link the accounts. I just can’t remember whether only one account could be linked or both. Again, sorry for not helping much. It’s been some time and I don’t have access anymore. —Teles «Talk ˱_{C L @ S}˲» 11:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

If the conclusion is that there is no obvious connection between Eissink and Wwikix, could this perhaps be re-closed then? In either case there isn't anything for us to do here, as there won't be any checks we can perform in this case so there's only past data to rely on. EPIC (talk) 12:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

@EPIC that may be the best option if nothing can be retrieved from logs and it wouldn’t really change anything, unless the user is thinking about asking a ban lift. From someone that don’t follow closely these socks, I don’t think their edits are that much different on Commons, but I can’t say it’s enough to hit the duck test. I wouldn’t mind if categories on Commons are fixed so these accounts are not linked anymore, even though I would like to have a look on logs. Maybe @Multichill or @Jeff G. have something else to add? —Teles «Talk ˱_{C L @ S}˲» 12:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

So, based on the given LWCU log entries and behavioral analysis, this seems to be Wwikix all the way, so the locking was appropriate. But the alleged connection to Eissink is incorrect and should perhaps be updated both on Commons and in the lock reason (though I don't have a strong opinion on the latter) until there's compelling evidence that Wwikix == Eissink, which is not the case here or anywhere on cuwiki. The statement 'Template:Tq' (which is not even true) does not constitute substantiated evidence.Template:PbWe can indeed perhaps close this request since there's nothing left to do here - it's up to Commons admins to fix this misunderstanding. XXBlackburnXx (talk) 14:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts y'all, and for the second (and third, and fourth...) pair of eyes! I'll take the result back to Commons and make the necessary corrections. Ciell (talk) 17:36, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

(LWCU) Anticapinyalice, Nathan2718

Unfortunately the LWCU data for both users has expired so there is no data for us to compare with. However, there is past information from one of the accounts on CU wiki, and the other edited frwiki as recently as today, so you will simply have to rely on local data for this case. EPIC (talk) 17:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

@EPIC, i've already done that but in my opinion it's not sufficient to exonerate our LTA because of the time between the local logs on fr .

However i don't understand how data could be expired ? Anticapinyalice has contributed today on french Wikipedia, Nathan2718 has contributed today on Nathan2718. What i ask, if possible, is to compare those to logs wich i can't do as a local CU on fr.wikipedia. Le chat perché (talk) 17:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

@Le chat perché both accounts registered more than 90 days ago and loginwiki only stores the IP from account registration, not from every login. There is of course data on local projects where they are active, but no longer any data on loginwiki. If you believe they should be checked on Wikidata, you should ask Wikidata CU. If there is xwiki abuse in multiple projects, you can request a global lock at SRG. Johannnes89 (talk) 18:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

蒙古天驕@zh.wikipedia

The discussion link seems to be broken. And has there been any recent changes to the clerks system? --Sotiale (talk) 11:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorry. I fixed the link already. Because of the community’s consensus and we want to have the CU result ASAP, so I submitted this request directly. This does not imply any change of the clerk system. Thanks. -Manchiu (talk) 15:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello all. I have been requested to comment here about the status of the clerk system. Currently, there are only two active clerks on zhwiki (3 after Feb. 12th as I will return from WikiBreak, according to my zhwiki user page) from five clerks when the clerk system was originally established. I have recognized the need for additional clerks and will work closely and actively with the clerk team on seeking prospective clerks to join the team. This check is primarily endorsed by community; I support this sleeper check as well, noting the necessity given 夏土贤's frequent sock creations since Dec. 23 of last year. --$\int$（☎） 02:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

They're Template:Likely the same person. There are several sleepers, those I found being Fdcsjd, Custthedown, 刘生堂, 挚爱小哆, Ehrijrf, Es119es and 塔林呼恒. EPIC (talk) 06:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Futurolog21@az.wikipedia

Template:Possible but Template:Inconclusive, based on the previous check on Futurolog21. They share the same ISP, but not the same range(s). I found some other accounts in the check, though none of them are blocked. With that being said, the data from the last check was not documented anywhere and therefore I don't have much technical data to go by, except the log actions from the previous check. Therefore, this result isn't certain. EPIC (talk) 17:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Carinanegurici13@ro.wikipedia

Template:CU request Template:Quote From a technical point of view. --Sotiale (talk) 08:58, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Donwun@zh.wikipedia

Template:CU request Template:Quote --Sotiale (talk) 09:06, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

TALIŞOV@az.wikipedia

Template:Likely. Since the data from TALIŞOV has expired I only checked Mirkazım Bəy and Qəzənfər1747. EPIC (talk) 17:03, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Mirkazım Bəy@az.wikipedia

All of them are Template:Likely to each other. Template:Ping Pinging for results as I was asked to do so. EPIC (talk) 10:31, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Fafreecca@ro.wikipedia

They're both Template:Confirmed to each other. No other accounts found. EPIC (talk) 16:47, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

安竹@zh.wikipedia

First of all, they are Template:Confirmed. And even though I investigated their ranges widely, I couldn't find the hidden account. And the ranges they use are normal ranges that are used by a lot of users, so I didn't block IP ranges because it seems like too much collateral damage would occur compared to the creation of their accounts. --Sotiale (talk) 07:40, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Kone718@zh.wikipedia

Template:CU request Template:Quote --Sotiale (talk) 14:51, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

SPM straight A+@zh.wikipedia

Template:CU request Template:Quote From a technical point of view. --Sotiale (talk) 14:57, 31 January 2025 (UTC)