Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Sealle

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
If you are creating a new request about this user, please add it to the top of the page, above this notice. Don't forget to add
{{Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Sealle}}
to the checkuser page here. Previous requests (shown below), and this box, will be automatically hidden on Requests for checkuser (but will still appear here).
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.

Sealle

[edit]

Status: open • view • edit • history • watch
Filed: 10:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results

[edit]

I ask for a check because a check in the Russian section showed that it is the same person. [1]. I ask you to check as soon as possible. Logs gradually disappear because the participant does not take action. --Yuri Krestinichev (talk) 10:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note that VLu pings Sealle from time to time on Commons, and Sealle deletes files per VLu's nominations: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] (which seems to be clear en:WP:SOCK violation). Also, there is reasonable doubt that the user VLu is the author of this file, as Sealle claimed in his RfA on ruwiki that his name is Sergei, not Vladimir (which is somewhat confirmed by comments on ruwiki admin noticeboard from users who know Sealle in person), so fake licensing from socks might be involved. Adamant.pwn (talk) 10:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
+ [7] --Yuri Krestinichev (talk) 11:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the real Лушников Владимир Александрович (author of File:Ольга_Юрьевна_Васильева.jpg) was contacted by the Russian Wikipedia member outside Wikipedia and he confirmed that he does not have a Wikipedia account, which means that VLu must be an impersonator. Adamant.pwn (talk) 11:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Adamant.pwn: the diff you gave above is a side theoretical comment by Carn on the sockpuppetry and stuff. Maybe you meant some other diff to "was contacted by the Russian Wikipedia member outside Wikipedia"? --NeoLexx (talk) 11:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the link, thanks. Adamant.pwn (talk) 11:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, colleague may have made a little mistake. [8]] I think he meant this. --Yuri Krestinichev (talk) 11:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Right. [9] Contacted by a ArbCom member. "- Vladimir Alexandrovich, could you tell please if you have a Wikipedia account and if you used it at the end of 2020? - Hi! I don't have any account." --NeoLexx (talk) 11:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Info Sealle has had for years an established reputation of a tough - sometimes rough - yet devoted to the project and responsible administrator, both at Commons and at ru-wiki (where he is an administrator as well).
This is why the checkusing results became a shocking surprise to many, see discussion at the Russian administrators' noticeboard.
Nevertheless the conclusion was pretty straightforward:

From the point of view of checkusers, some edits from accounts VLu and Sealle have been accomplished by the same person at least some periods of time.

С точки зрения ЧЮ правки с учётных записей VLu и Sealle как минимум в отдельные промежутки времени совершались одним и тем же человеком.

It was even suggested that Sealle became a target of some sophisticated frame-up for some reason. The explanations from checkusers practically refute such version:

Let's put it that way - theoretically everything is possible but it needs to be a very, very well organized setup. At the level "to be renting a neighboring apartment for a few months, to hack the target Wi-Fi, to know for sure all numerous devices being used to edit Wikipedia, their settings and their time of usage.

Скажем так - теоретически возможно всё, но это должна быть очень, очень хорошо организованная подстава. На уровне "на несколько месяцев снять соседнюю квартиру, взломать WiFi, твёрдо знать все многочисленные устройства, которыми пользуется для правки Википедии, их параметры и время их использования".

Not every usage of an alternative account is necessarily malicious (thus a sockpuppetry to prevent). And any Wikimedia subproject may have its own set of rules on that. From the point of view of ru-wiki the fact of VLu and Sealle appertaining to one person and being used in a sockpuppetry violating way seems currently confirmed.
From what could be a sockpuppetry from the point of view of Commons: for instance DR request placed/discussed from one account and confirmed from the other: 1, 2, 3. Also impersonating a living public person (as VLu) who has been contacted by ArbCom members and claimed he never had a Wikipedia account nor Commons contributions. Hence this checkusing request. --NeoLexx (talk) 17:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  •  On hold - I'm placing this on hold to discuss handling with other CUs. Note, however, that CU results on unified accounts are valid across projects; if ru.wiki CUs found Sealle and Vlu to be related, that would be true everywhere. Accordingly, there is likely no purpose to a CU on the Commons unless the ru.wiki results are disputed or otherwise in need of additional input (which does not seem the case). The proper Commons venue for this issue would likely be an administrator noticeboard to begin the COM:DEADMIN process. Эlcobbola talk 19:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I opened a request: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Sealle deadmin discussion--Ymblanter (talk) 20:21, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I added three more users based on this reply per that request.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 06:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The relationship between Sealle and VLu is Confirmed, as is Kuull (note that Kuull was not checked directly, but was found in the VLu check. A distinct check for Kuull would have been Declined, as no evidence of abusive use of that particular account was provided, or indeed apparent--e.g., all of Kuull's deletion/speedy requests were handled by non-Sealle admins.) SeleznevPavel and Kuzakalep are, of course, Stale, but would have been likewise declined. Эlcobbola talk 21:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.
    Subsequent requests related to this user should be made     above, in a new section.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.

Sealle

[edit]

Status: open • view • edit • history • watch
Filed: 13:59, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results

[edit]

Reason: This IP troll reverted Bidgee, which was exactly what Sealle wanted. Sealle also reverted Bidgee to a revision by one of the IPs.

See Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#User:Sealle. I personally haven't had many interactions with Sealle, I don't know them very well, I can't say if Sealle is actually behind the IPs. But I have seen so much stupid shit in my time here (including LTA admins and trolls reverting themselves) that I think a CU is warranted, even if only to clear the air. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 13:59, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, this is just too much. I'd say the master of those IPs is the cross-wiki vandal The Biggest Critic. I think this is proof enough that the vandal is behind the harassment, not Sealle. Unless you're saying Sealle is the vandal, but I don't think that's possible. pandakekok9 14:16, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's most likely the IP took advantage of Sealle's warning and trolled out of it. Both Sealle and Bidgee are victims here. pandakekok9 14:17, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Quite possible. But I've seen stranger behaviour from trolls. I'm not betting any money on any outcome. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:05, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if CUs would connect a registered account to an IP address, which they won't, it may be a bit of a stretch to say that a user who speaks Russian and uploads own photos from Moscow is suddenly showing up in Australia. GMGtalk 14:41, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@GreenMeansGo: been there, done that. Also, if checkusers effectively can't work with IPs, why do we still allow IP-editing? Any registered user could make vandal edits as an IP and never be connected to the main account. Either way, if the IPs and account are unrelated, a CU should be able to state that publicly. If there is a (possible) relation, perhaps the WMF could handle it. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:05, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the IP was kind enough to vandalize AN enough for me to narrow down a couple ranges. Maybe that solves that at least for a little while. GMGtalk 15:07, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Declined: 1) COM:RFCU clearly says "The privacy policy does not allow us to make a check that has the effect of revealing IP addresses"; 2) Sealle makes no secret about being in Russia; checking against Austrialian IPs would not be expected to yield useful information; 3) We do not run CUs "to clear the air"; and 4) COM:RFCU also clearly says "Checkuser is a last resort for difficult cases; pursue other options first" Ephemeral trolling by throw-away IPs is not a "difficult case," and I see no genuine attempt to consider other options. Эlcobbola talk 15:07, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Elcobbola: why does the form even allow adding IPs if you can't do anything with them? Also, aren't you allowed to run such checks and report any found abuse directly to the WMF without making any result public? (I'm asking, I'd think this would be allowed) - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:30, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
IPs can provide us with additional behavioural evidence; IPs can assist in determining historical ranges, and appropriate ranges for range blocks; etc. You conflate a mere inability to connect publicly an IP to an account with inability to "do anything with them." Information is not devoid of utility merely because it has aspects that flow only in one direction. Your request was declined for multiple reasons; we, of course, could non-publicly report abuse through appropriate channels. Эlcobbola talk 17:02, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, clear. I was just curious. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:43, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Elcobbola: Maybe I was overcautious filing this request. Or maybe we'll regret at some point not having done this check. I just don't know, but I accept the request being declined. I'll note however: the first reason to decline shouldn't be a reason to decline, only a reason not to make any results public. The second reason is not so good, if there is abuse, it would make perfect sense. It would possibly even make it easier to confirm whether or not there is a relation. The third reason, I'll give you that one. The fourth reason, I disagree. I don't think this is "ephemeral" ("something which lasts for a short period of time", interesting word choice), this troll knew exactly how to push everyone's buttons. This is not a bored high school kid who just discovered Commons. No way. They severely upset Bidgee (who I hope won't leave forever) and managed to get Sealle to walk right into their trap (assuming Sealle is not the troll), the consequences of which are not yet clear but depending what Sealle says next could, worst case, eventually lead to a desysop. No unexperienced troll achieves that. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 12:43, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't an inexperienced troll; it's a cross wiki troll that followed them here from English Wikipedia [10]. Their en.wiki talk page was protected 10:59, 11 March 2020, and the disruption on their Commons talk page began at basically the same time. GMGtalk 13:06, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.
Subsequent requests related to this user should be made above, in a new section.


Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Sealle&oldid=696661590"