Eptalon

So all of you say we cannot include IPs to CU. The directly goes against the very top of the page that says we can

CheckUser is the process of checking information about two or more users (including named users and IPs). Special users are able to check if two or more accounts have been used from the same computer. These users also see User agents. This can help them decide if two accounts are related in the way described above. It is also possible to see if a user is editing from an open proxy. On this page, users can request some users or IPs to be checked. Good reasons should be given for why a checkuser is needed; you should provide links which show the questionable edits, etc. Questions should usually be created so that they can be answered by yes or no. Responses will be short in order to comply with Wikipedia privacy policy. Sensitive information (like the IP addresses used by an account) are usually not reported. The results are not always clear, and a decision should not be made only on the basis of checkuser results.

If that is wrong, they it needs to be updated and corrected. If it is correct then statements on simple talk need to striked out and apologized for. Thanks, and be well! - PDL^{Talk to me!}_{Please don't eat da 🐑!} 09:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Please look at this policy,
Esp the section about releasing such information. Eptalon (talk) 12:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
I am aware, however, it has repeatedly been said to us to not put IP addresses on the RFCU page, however, the wording at the top says "On this page, users can request some users or IPs to be checked" which directly contradicts statements like this one Wiki: Simple talk#Checkuser requests "Let me add to that that as checkusers, we are forbidden from linking usernames with IP adresses; we can't comment on IP addresses. So, only named accounts please... Eptalon (talk) 20:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC)Reply" that you made. Thanks, and be well! - PDL^{Talk to me!}_{Please don't eat da 🐑!} 22:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I am not a checkuser and am not familiar with the procedures of doing checkuser work. However, could it be that CUs can look into IPs and possibly take action, but just not comment on any of it? -- Auntof6 (talk) 00:53, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
@Auntof6 Yes, they cannot comment due to the privacy and such referenced, however, the issue is just a contradiction in the WP:RFCU header vs. what is being said to us, as referenced. (being told we cannot put IPs up for CU against an account name), when the heading says we can. Thanks, and be well! - PDL^{Talk to me!}_{Please don't eat da 🐑!} 00:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
@PotsdamLamb: I understand that. I was asking the person who actually has checkuser rights. Because if they can check but not comment on said check, then it seems that wouldn't be a contradiction: people could ask, but they wouldn't get actual feedback on it. -- Auntof6 (talk) 00:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
@Auntof6 That is what I am saying. They have told us they cannot comment on it, which is understandable. I am sure we also all know it as well. The problem is Eptalon made a statement on Simple Talk "Let me add to that that as checkusers, we are forbidden from linking usernames with IP adresses; we can't comment on IP addresses. So, only named accounts please... Eptalon (talk) 20:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC)Reply" So yes it is a contradiction by him saying to only use named accounts, when the header says we can put both usernames and IPs up for checking. If IPs, then yes, they cannot comment on it, however, as has happened, when it goes on the board and we see the IP was blocked with whatever reason, then we know it was correct (depending on who made the block). So while they cannot directly comment on the IP, with a CU blocking it, that is basically a comment, just not said. Thanks, and be well! - PDL^{Talk to me!}_{Please don't eat da 🐑!} 01:02, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I think the one RfP you just deleted was not a duplicate. They had a different name. It was like the 3rd or 4th word in. I thought they were the same at first glance too. Thanks, and be well! - PDL^{Talk to me!}_{Please don't eat da 🐑!} 09:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I’m not sure what to do with this article. The creator has been bringing over a lot of complex articles from ENWP filled with errors like this one and moves on. Thoughts? Thanks, and be well! - PDL^{Talk to me!}_{Please don't eat da 🐑!} 06:50, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I am not a linguist, but likely this is a valid topic. I have two concerns, though:
• over here, no one is going to look for it with that title, hopefully there's a simpler term
• If there's on hint at the user trying to simplify (after some time), it would probably fall under 'copied from another WP, little sign of simplification'.
If in doubt, nominate for regular deletion? (Like I did with two articles just a short time ago) - If nothing else, it will show what the community thinks, and an admin can then close it accordingly. Eptalon (talk) 06:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
That was my thought. This editor hasn’t been simplifying some of them. I’ll keep an eye on it until tomorrow and see what happens. I don’t know what templates they are trying to call either where it says the BIG BOLD etc. Btw, one of the ones you just deleted was recreated right after you deleted it. Different IP though as it doesn’t show being created previously under that ip. Thanks, and be well! - PDL^{Talk to me!}_{Please don't eat da 🐑!} 07:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Do me a favor, and create an RfD, rather than nominating as quick-deletion. This will give us more input, it might also create a precedent for similar cases in the future. Eptalon (talk) 07:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Ok thanks. Thanks, and be well! - PDL^{Talk to me!}_{Please don't eat da 🐑!} 07:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

This IP comes up as a mobile user in Switzerland but they have made a lot of articles (stubs) in less than an hour for someone on a phone. They seem to also be overlapping in the territory of where this editor is at, as well as following me around and working on the same things I am (right after I make a change). The concern is the IP, which I’m not asking you to make any comment on but I am asking you to look into the suspicious behavior please.

Thanks, and be well! - PDL^{Talk to me!}_{Please don't eat da 🐑!} 07:30, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

That's unlikely (haven't had a look), that IP doesn't doesn't create accounts. Eptalon (talk) 07:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Ok. It’s just really suspicious behavior to me. I don’t see it as a proxy on proxyio but I know some bots have created tons of stubs. That’s why I was inquiring. Thanks for looking into it. Thanks, and be well! - PDL^{Talk to me!}_{Please don't eat da 🐑!} 07:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
If you look at their contributions, you will see that many of them are small fixes, here and there... Eptalon (talk) 07:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
I see what you are saying. Thanks. Thanks, and be well! - PDL^{Talk to me!}_{Please don't eat da 🐑!} 07:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

 

Hello, Eptalon. You have a new email! Please check it at your convenience.
Message added 19:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC). You can take off this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

--Ferien (talk) 19:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

[redacted]

It's a sockpuppet of an LTA vandal.

Kk.urban (talk) 18:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  Done, the username was eligible for lockhide from stewards as well. --Ferien (talk) 18:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

 

Hello, Eptalon. You have a new email! Please check it at your convenience.
Message added 01:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC). You can take off this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

MathXplore (talk) 01:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)