Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Archives/2009

Samlaptop85213 and friends

All above vandalised the Bop It article with changes such as "I love vandalism" and "Block me please". 92.15.33.16 has even admitted to being the Samlaptop guy (backed up by IRC evidence). Is it possible to do a user agent comparison between the various IPs?

In addition, a YourWiki checkuser has offered to provide information as the same person is registered on one of their wikis as well. Chenzw  Talk  11:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A very basic question: What good would it be to know that one or more of these actually were Samlaptop; both the Samlaptop account is blocked, and reading your comments above, most of the single IPs will be blocked as well. So what do you expect to gain from running a CU? --Eptalon (talk) 11:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it is indeed that these IPs are him, we can apply a range block to stop him from coming back. Unless some action is taken, it appears that he will constantly be back to vandalise. Chenzw  Talk  12:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Toddst2 and Samlaptop85213

Call it a hunch, but Toddst2 asking for admin after two edits seems like Samlaptop85213 may be back with a SOCK account. fr33kman t - c 01:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope this is definitely not Samlaptop85213...--Eptalon (talk) 08:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added another username. Please confirm whether or not this user is either connected to Toddst2 or Samlaptop85213. Thanks, Razorflame 03:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Forring and Toddst2 use the same IPs, they are likely the same user. --Eptalon (talk) 08:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A further name added: Merlspiers...same behavior as Toddst2 and Forring...might be back for another round. Thanks, Razorflame 03:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merlspiers is completely unrelated to any of the above: Different user agent, different ISP, different Geographical region. --Eptalon (talk) 08:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SpoonWarrior‎ and YogurtSpoon

Userpages go a long way to making it seem the same person. I deleted an article yesterday called Yogurt Spoon and then today these two users were created. -Djsasso (talk) 17:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the same user to me. --Eptalon (talk) 20:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Umm... what is the point of this CheckUser, exactly? We have no reason to block either one, so I don't see the use. TheAE talk 04:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An anon has been adding pictures of spoons to articles. It might be the same person as these names. I agree that the request should contain the IP addy of the anon for confirmation. fr33kman t - c 04:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phentos and 134.161.227.84

Reason: Both have recently pushed the same POV on Christianity. Shapiros10 22:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely. Majorly talk 22:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sinofdreams and MySpaceMan1

A small hunch tells me that this is Kalajan, but his socks try to stay away from me. This one, like Sinofdreams, went to me automatically. He apologized for all of actions, but still, socks are not acceptable. I told him to prove that he can edit constructively on another wiki. But, he's not welcome here at all. SimonKSKContradict me... 23:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Likely they are the same. Majorly talk 15:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sinofdreams and YouAreTimeZones1

Kinda obvious. block evasion. Went to my talk, said I was Kalajan, said, "I HATE YOU". Too obvious. SimonKSKContradict me... 18:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um...yes,kinda.. Blocked for block evasion..--Eptalon (talk) 18:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elohssa, password, AA, Hairy

Vandalism-only accounts, all created at the same time. --Werdan7T @ 03:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given they are probably all blocked (either as bad username, or vandalism-only), what exactly do you expect from running a CU? - We can do no more than block...--Eptalon (talk) 11:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done - No further action needed. Chenzw  Talk  11:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:76.113.184.45 and IPs on the Simple English Wikipedia

Hi there all. I would like to request that a checkuser from here check this IP address against two IP addresses,

for the same kind of vandalism and I want to make sure that there are no more IPs on either project that will continue to engage in this kind of vandalism. Please compare your results with the CUs on the English Wiktionary. I have started a request there as well. Thanks, Razorflame 22:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser can show that a given user uses a given IP, for a certain time; the normal way there would be to say I have users A and B, are they the same. - I can of course look up what users these IPs belong to, but as to privacy policy, I would not be allowed to reveal this info here. Therefore, please clarify:
  • What users do you expect to be involved in this
  • What kind of vandalism you are talking about.
In very broad terms, questions to CheckUsers should be answerable by either yes, or no. --Eptalon (talk) 22:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They look the same and they look open proxyish. They've been replacing pages with vandalism and annoying in user talk pages and they've edited half an hour apart, which is close enough to be suspicious. I think I've saw this exact range vandalise many times in other (unrelated) wikis.
Because there's only IPs, I don't think a CU would be necessary.
I don't he's comparing users with IPs and I'm pretty sure no users would be involved in this. - Æåm Fætsøn /ˈaɪæm ˈfætsən/ 02:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind about this request. Sorry for bringing it up. Cheers, Razorflame 02:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A1a2s, Emach1s

Due to the time of creation of Emach1s and the similarities of the last two characters (ie: a hunch) fr33kman t - c 19:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Add my username to the list to check. AndyCrogonka (talk) 20:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very odd comment - probably something attention-seeking based by the sockpuppeter. However, this will need to be checked too, and a range check may be needed. Lingamondo (talk) 20:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hai guiz I iz a sockpuppet lol. A1a33 (talk) 20:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment Like OMG No wai can I joni the convo??? AndyzBot (talk) 20:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More socks. SimonKSKContradict me... 20:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I blocked the A1a33 and AndyzBot because even without checkuser it was obvious. -Djsasso (talk) 20:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A1a2s is still not blocked... SimonKSKContradict me... 20:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed: They are all sockpuppets of A1a2s. The AN discussion can now be closed accordingly. Majorly talk 20:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(<-) I haver blocked A1A2s (and all IPs used) for sock farming for 6 months. --Eptalon (talk) 20:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is the next name: A1a4s (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log)). Regards, Barras (talk) 21:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OBJECTION! I am a good user that assumes good faith and you treat me like crap! A1a4s (talk) 21:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But you know that you do twice vandalism!? And you know that your username is like A1a2s? Barras (talk) 21:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OBJECTION! Names can be deceiving darling and I am not this A1a2s guy of what you speak. A1a4s (talk) 21:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are A1a2s, because ever since you got here, you have been disruptive. SimonKSK 21:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done There are between 5 and 10 users, who share (currently) 3 IP addresses (from roughly speaking 2 networks). All those listed above are in the pool. --Eptalon (talk) 22:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the next one: A1a6s (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log)) Barras (talk) 13:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Similar user name; geolocates to same geographical region, IP is different to known offenders thouh. Therefore: I would not be quite as sure this really is the same user as those above.--Eptalon (talk) 14:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GWa2S (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log)) same kind of vandalism like A1a4s. Barras (talk) 17:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done It is a possibility (same geographical region, same browser version as a1a4; "similar subnet") --Eptalon (talk) 17:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nitin 13s: due to similar username fr33kman t - c 04:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Papajohns, PapaJohns78

As Papa Johns78 was blocked a few days ago for a promotional username, trolling and socking, I think it likely Papajohns is the same user. Toliar (talk) 07:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both users use a different Provider (and different IP ranges); they are therefore unlikely to be the same user.--Eptalon (talk) 09:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Freddy, Ornamentalfun

Given Ornamentalfun's user talk, there's a good chance he's banned user Freddy, per WP:AN#Reversion of edits ("Yes there is a rule that dates should not be linked out of context" and "calling anyone who disagrees with him a vandal, defending his work by saying "duh" a lot") and WP:AN#Freddy?. Toliar (talk) 07:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Freddy's ban was in 2007; this is too far back to yield any results for Freddy - the comparison with Ornamentalfun can therefore not be done. --Eptalon (talk) 09:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Based on behaviour, it is certainly him. He shares the same IP range blocked in 2007 as Freddy, so it's likely they're the same. Majorly talk 16:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kalajan and Primo

I hope that I am wrong that and that this user is not a sock. Both went to WP:PW and both seem experienced. SimonKSKContradict me... 18:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any evidence you this...? I don't see the need. TheAE talk 18:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed Kalajan = Primo. Majorly talk 19:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kalajan and XXFireBladeXx

I have a hunch that this user is Kalajan based upon the interests that it has and how experienced the user is already. Please confirm. Thanks, Razorflame 03:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fishing? SimonKSK 03:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. Same intersts, therefore, possibly the same user. Razorflame 03:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not Kalajan, but it is Sinofdreams. Majorly talk 03:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sinofdreams, PapaJohns78, Pills4

Reason:All have harassed me and were socks of sins at enwiki. SimonKSK 22:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For sins/PapaJohns see below; Do you have anything more "tangible" against Pills4, that "has harrassed me at another WP"? --Eptalon (talk) 22:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Other than they have same editing patterns (capitalizes all words}, and is a sock of sin at en? No. Pills might be fishing, a little bit, but it seems to concidental that when Sins came, they came. SimonKSK 22:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I checked Sinofdreams, who is related in some way to Pills. Majorly talk 22:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Likely they're all the same user. Majorly talk 22:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kalajan and Papa Johns78

Both are accounts that were involved in the same sockpuppet case over at the English Wikipedia, so therefore, I would like to make sure that this isn't a sockpuppet of Kalajan. Cheers, Razorflame 17:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added sinofdreams to the list, not sure what checkuser will show since he is probably using proxies. But papa johns78 showed up right after we protected the kalajan talk page, and then sinofdreams showed up right when we blocked papa johns 78. -Djsasso (talk) 18:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Papa Johns78 and SinofDreams are possibly the same user (using the same ranges); Kalajan is unrelated, as far as I can see though. --Eptalon (talk) 18:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, btw, I unblocked Papajohns78 and SinofDreams; as far as I can see they have done nothing wrong. --Eptalon (talk) 18:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Beg to differ. Check the history of my talk. SimonKSK 21:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kalajan and Tess Cramphorn

Same kind of behavior and editing styles make me suspect that this user is a sock of Kalajan. Cheers, Razorflame 20:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably an impersonator, different countries. Majorly talk 20:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kalajan and Hazardous Matt

Hi there all. These were confirmed sock accounts over at the English Wikipedia, and both have been created here. They are most likely the same user, but I believe that it should be checked just in case. Cheers, Razorflame 20:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know Kalajan was a confirmed sock account on en but I don't see where you got Hazardous Matt from? -Djsasso (talk) 20:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Has Hazardous Matt made any changes here or, specifically, acted in a way contrary to SOCK? Soup Dish (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Got HazardousMatt from the en:WP checkuser case against him. All of the evidence you need to perform the CU is on that page. Razorflame 20:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unrelated. Majorly talk 20:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you mad! I'm never making a sock again, Matt is a strict guy that likes to help people. I'm not like him, I'm... Well I'm not him. He dosen't exist I think, If he is here it's to supervise me. I'd honestly be very excited if he were here.  ←Kalajan→  15:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well the checkuser results came back unrelated, so we know you're not him. His account was likely created via CentralAuth, having made no contributions. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, he made his account to supervise me, as he was strong on helping me, and he made his account the day I did, he knew I was changing brand.  ←Kalajan→  15:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Razor, did you ever look at Matt's account? SimonKSK 21:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did look at his account. It was the timing of his arrival that caused me some suspicion. Cheers, Razorflame 20:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, when you talked about Matt and Kalajan, you said that "These were confirmed sock accounts over at the English Wikipedia." Matt has never been blocked, so this implies that you never even looked at his account. SimonKSKContradict me... 20:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eh...mispoke. I looked at Kalajan's userpage, and saw Hazardous Matt's username there and even a signature, so I made the assumption that they were related in some way. Sorry about that. Anyways, I know they aren't now. Cheers, Razorflame 21:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, just making sure. >.> I'm watching you... SimonKSKContradict me... 21:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I can actually build on this a little. Over on EN Kalajan claimed he highlighted my old signature, liked the colors he saw, and proceded to draw up several example signatures that he tried to push on me. He never took them off of his Sandbox page. However, since I had signatures for others on my sandbox over at EN I didn't feel justfied in removing them. Hazardous Matt (talk) 21:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Finding this was a surprise. Anyway I realize the suspicion as I did join around the same time. I've never vandalized (and have no intention of doing so) and try to keep my nose clean. I just view from work where our procedures don't allow me to browse online for sources to help build articles. Check my contribs, you can see an article from my EN sandbox I'm copying over, etc. Hazardous Matt (talk) 22:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: I did not join to supervise Kalajan. I thought about joining to secure my username and possibly look at some projects that had less drama than EN. In fact, Kalajan sought me on this wiki. Okay. I'm done. :) Hazardous Matt (talk) 22:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A slew of editors

Too similar of usernames and too similar of edit patterns. I believe that all of these users are socks of each other. Razorflame 02:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After deleting what looks like a bunch of spam, I am wondering if this is a class project. -Djsasso (talk) 03:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a class project to me. I'd say a checkuser here is probably  Unnecessary. SteveTalk 04:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done ChalermkwanXX acciunts are realted to classproject Thailand. There is not enough evidence to link the others to justify a check. --Eptalon (talk) 10:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tharnton345 and Teenly

OK, so I strongly believe that Tharnton and Teenly are the same person. For one, they are both around the same age. Two, Teenly on SWT opposed Tharnton's ban because he was 9 and grownups make mistakes too while thoroughly sounding like Tharnton posting. In addition, Teenly came here knowing how to edit etc and jumped right into the swing of things which makes me suspect socking more. ѕwirlвoy ₪ 17:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being around the same age is not a good reason to believe they are the same. She hasn't opposed the ban either, only questioned why people were discussing age. In addition, she's been around since October. This hardly warrants a check imo. Majorly talk 17:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done The two users mentioned are not related. --Eptalon (talk) 17:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify, before I consider approaching the Checkuser Ombudsman, that you carried out a check based on the above "evidence"? Soup Dish (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't see anything wrong with the request. No privacy issues were violated in the performance of this checkuser, so nothing should be wrong with this. Razorflame 19:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ombudsmen deal with privacy violations, and nothing else. It's up to the other checkusers to decide if they're violating or not. I probably wouldn't have checked personally. Majorly talk 19:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're right, of course. I just find it hard to believe a check was carried out on such evidence. Though it's not worth bringing this before the community as it's not worth risking losing a CU right now! Soup Dish (talk) 19:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not Teenly. TurboGolf 05:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, I think Teenly is from continental Europe, and I'm from the British Isles. TurboGolf 05:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A  Not done? What's the result? TurboGolf 05:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its done, but we're not related. But does that mean I'm gonna be indefblocked? TurboGolf 05:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Try to put all your questions in the one post. But to answer your question, the check was done, but as you are not him, no action will be taken. Kennedy (talk) 08:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(<-) Clarifications: Yes, I ran a check. The privacy policy however deals with revealing information more than actually running the check. More clearly: the check revealed that Tharnton has no socks. There are a number of editors that use the same range as Teenly, but please note: having multiple accounts is not forbidden, as long as they are not used in voting, which is not the case here. Also note: CU is not about witch-hunting. --Eptalon (talk) 10:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas D. Rand and 64.24.44.207

Undid a change by a user that undid one of his own changes. I have suspicions that these users are related. Cheers, Razorflame 20:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done The two are not related; different browser, different OS, different IP. --Eptalon (talk) 20:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stopthenoiseplease and Disney Anon

As per contributions to Teletubbies (which was the Disney's first choice of article when he came here. --Gwib -(talk)- 22:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - claims to have created The Mighty B! episodes on ENWP. A quick check reveals w:User talk:Cartoons4Life over there, with similar edits. --Gwib -(talk)- 22:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The users are not the same (different IPs); perhaps two users with similar interests? --Eptalon (talk) 22:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BasicEnglish and Simple11

Similar names, and similar edits (which I sniffed out through another sock of his, Saheel11). - Æåm Fætsøn /ˈaɪæm ˈfætsən/ 09:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Not exactly similar edits. If it is really him, he would have gone for either my or Creol's talk page. Chenzw  Talk  09:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I would be very surprized to see either of them try for my page any longer. --Creol(talk) 13:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not Sahel11, but Special:Contributions/Handsleep. Anyway, between all of them, they're making deliberately misplaced edits. - Æåm Fætsøn /ˈaɪæm ˈfætsən/ 09:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done No similarity in editing patterns and not very likely the real Simple11s are going to be a bother again. --Creol(talk) 13:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hfhfdhfdhfhgdh and the "Disney Anon"

See the first user's talk page for evidence. Shows similar behaviour to that of the Disney Anon. Chenzw  Talk  06:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - Yep, thats him. --Creol(talk) 13:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Issue and others

Some IP user must have created all of this new user accounts in a series of 3 minutes. --§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 02:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • (User creation log); 01:56 . . Ahmed95 (Talk | changes) New user account
  • (User creation log); 01:56 . . Hahahoho (Talk | changes) New user account
  • (User creation log); 01:54 . . S2 angela (Talk | changes) New user account
  • (User creation log); 01:54 . . Galebreeze15 (Talk | changes) New user account
  • (User creation log); 01:54 . . Ji-in (Talk | changes) New user account
  • (User creation log); 01:54 . . Jieum1029 (Talk | changes) New user account
  • (User creation log); 01:54 . . Sue (Talk | changes) New user account
  • (User creation log); 01:54 . . Dh6es (Talk | changes) New user account
  • (User creation log); 01:54 . . Sonyoonjun (Talk | changes) New user account
  • (User creation log); 01:53 . . Dalermhndi (Talk | changes) New user account
  • (User creation log); 01:53 . . Kmj (Talk | changes) New user account
  • (User creation log); 01:53 . . Amino (Talk | changes) New user account
  • (User creation log); 01:53 . . Issue (Talk | changes) New user account
There's more too. ѕwirlвoy ₪ 02:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non issue. CU request is premature. Nothing to see here. Goodnight. Synergy 02:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
agree. My belief is that it may be a class project. Either way (talk) 02:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered and Jonas Rand

I would like to request a checkuser to check these two usernames to see if they are the same user. I noticed DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered editing stuff around User:Jonas D. Rand and I want to make sure that DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered is not a sockpuppet of Jonas Rand because Jonas Rand is currently banned from this community. Thanks, Razorflame 17:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there is a ENWP DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered, editing there since late June 2008. His account was also created automatically, which suggests Unified Login rather than a manual creation, which would be more suspicious. --Gwib -(talk)- 17:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. I'm terribly sorry to have caused this trouble. I'm not Jonas Rand and I've put a note on my en user page to confirm that I am the same user in both places. And a couple of others I think. Can't someone look at my account and verify that it's a unified login thingy? Apologies again, didn't mean to worry anyone. DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 18:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we can probably chuck this in the archives as a {{notdone}}. (Also here). --Gwib -(talk)- 18:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is this thing still alive or am I cleared? I'd quite like to tidy up my pages in its aftermath a bit, but obviously not if it still active. Thanks and best wishes DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 22:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC) (accept no substitutes)[reply]
I can definitely confirm that you are not Jonas; wrong part of the Globe. Sorry. --Eptalon (talk) 22:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for that. (Sorry for the slow reply.) I'll tidy up my pages a bit sometime ... :) Best wishes DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC) (accept no substitutes)[reply]

FastReverter and ChristianMan16

wikiquote:User:StaticChristian tells me that these users may be the same. TurboGolf 16:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This request is ridiculous. StaticChristian has been checked a number of times, so if he was CM16, it would've shown. There is also no behavioural pattern whatsoever. No evidence is provided in the link. I'd advise a decline. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
StaticChristian is FastReverter. I would say they most certainly are not the same; just Static/FR being disruptive yet again. Majorly talk 16:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we got no proof to say it even was SC that said it. I'll admit it's likely, but it could be anyone trying to cause a mess here. Archer7 - talk 16:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not him. I chose that name because I am a christian. Also we are diffrent people in diffrent places at diffrent ages. 'Checkuser is not for fishing. VandalFighterFR(V) Bad warning? 16:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I now you are a Christain, and I thought that in the first place, but I then didn't think you picked that name just because you were a Christain. TurboGolf 16:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if I was CM16, how could I edit as him if I was blocked as ShockingHawk. VandalFighterFR(V) Bad warning? 16:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You two are both on the East Coast of USA. TurboGolf 17:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As are dozens of other editors here I'm sure. Either way (talk) 17:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is absolutely ridiculous! You have no proof to go through and breach the privacy policy with me. Why do you have no proof? Cause it's not true. Don't you have better things to do thing create meaningless Checkusers? Maybe I should get Alison involved? She and know be better than anyone.-- CM16 MLB  18:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alison is currently retired. Lingamondo (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, that means nothing on a case-by-case bases, or would you rather me get bulletproof, the one wikipedian that knows me the absolute best?-- CM16 MLB  18:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry ChristianMan16, this one won't be carried out. Archer7 - talk 18:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Archer.-- CM16 MLB  18:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I have any view on whether you are or not, but if you have nothing to hide, surely you won't mind a checkuser? Lingamondo (talk) 18:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As Synergy would say, it's policy not to have it. Yotcmdr✼ Merry Christmas ! ✼ 18:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I would mind, but I'd rather not as it would breech the privacy policy.-- CM16 MLB  18:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK then. I would like to close this as an obvious no. TurboGolf 18:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done --Creol(talk) 02:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Charlottewebmedia and Disney Vandal

Same user as the one below. Their editing pattern is almost identicle. Obviously has registered accounts to get past autoconfirmed. -Djsasso (talk) 23:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fact I just found that en.wiki already blocked this one en:User:Charlotteswebmedia -Djsasso (talk) 23:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed: also found TheRescuers (talk · contribs) Majorly talk 23:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smiles and Disney/Teletubbies Vandal

Just happened to show up after I blocked the IP for vandalizing teletubbies articles and makes some of the same edits. Their editing history also suggests that they are the same editor. -Djsasso (talk) 17:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is indeed the case, Smiles and another account blocked for sockpuppetry.--Eptalon (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Antoinette and Snow funn at tall

Gut instinct. Looks suspiciously like a sock, creates RFA within half an hour of registering. Seems to have some of the same tone as Snow funn at tall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shappy (talk • contribs) 14:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:AGF I'm inclined to think this is premature without evidence.  GARDEN  14:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Adding all of these fake checkuser requests will be very helpful to the campaign to ban me. Snow funn at tall (talk) 14:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was indeed a sock, but not of Snow funn at all. Majorly talk 15:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tardisrepect and User:Snow funn at tall

It is only a feeling. Both accounts have odd edits. Snow funn at tall created (a) copyvio(s) and mades different other odd edits 8 e.g. on RfA's). And of course, s/he is for me a voting account. Tardisrepect has voted too. S/he seems also to be a bit offensive. I belive that the creation of these odd RfA (for me) was the revenge for my notes on the RfA's here and here. It is just a feeling. Other thoughts? Regards, Barras (talk) 20:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser is not for fishing. I feel it is grossly inappropriate that Barras is trying to have my privacy invaded. Barras has been following me around RfAs for some time, and has begun a campaign against me after I nominated him for admin in good faith. But this is clearly over the line. Snow funn at tall (talk) 12:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but the evidence here really isn't substantive enough, in my opinion, to run a checkuser. Provide some detailed evidence, some diffs of potential sockpuppetry, but "It is only a feeling." is not sufficient I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Snow funn at tall (talk) 13:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Only that I said it: Sometimes is a feeling a really good think. Regards, Barras (talk) 11:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Freddy

I believe these are all socks of the notorious vandal Freddy. They all fit his pattern of editing.MKil (talk) 18:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)MKil[reply]

Confirmed: also Amazingstays (talk · contribs), Amazingstay (talk · contribs), BoxingWear2 (talk · contribs), Popedude (talk · contribs) and others that are globally locked. Majorly talk 19:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Socks blocked/tagged. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ciaran UK and Tharnton345

I believe these two users to be the same based upon his reverting of Bluegoblin7 on Wikipedia talk:Community Portal. Thanks, Razorflame 04:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? How? Majorly talk 12:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Edits such as this and this. Seems to be quite obvious; CU is probably not needed. Chenzw  Talk  13:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would disagree. A checkuser is necessary to confirm if this is indeed a sockpuppet of Tharnton345. While it might be obvious, the check should still be carried out to make sure that it is indeed a sock of Tharnton345. Cheers, Razorflame 05:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The two users are clearly different. Note however, that Ciaran has been blocked for other issues, though. Since all we can do is block, I guess this resolves the issue. --Eptalon (talk) 13:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kalajan or Sinofdreams and 80.58.205.38

I believe that this is Kalajan or Sinofdreams because of this edit. Thanks, Razorflame 16:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quack quack. If it's obvious, no need for a check. Majorly talk 12:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that you are referring to the duck test, right? Razorflame 19:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We don't know if it's Kalajan, it could be Sinny trying to be him. SimonKSK 17:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Kruzkin and Mr. Kruzkin Returns

Thanks, Razorflame 20:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, same IP address.--Eptalon (talk) 20:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

84.13.214.148 and Tharnton345

Per this I think it may be Tharnton evading his ban again. - Æåm Fætsøn /ˈaɪæm ˈfætsən/ 06:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quite obvious, no CU needed, IMO. Chenzw  Talk  12:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

75.119.224.0/20

Just wondering if a CU can check the above range for any collateral damage. Cheers, Goblin 20:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Collateral damage? Please specify. Chenzw  Talk  12:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Basically if there were any legitimate users caught up in the range, but the moment has probably passed now ;) Thanks, Goblin 12:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

92.11.104.197 and Samlaptop

This IP is making the same type of edits as Samlaptop, and based on his editing pattern, such as adding I love vandalism to pages, I believe this IP to be Samlaptop's. Thanks, Razorflame 18:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Likely to be him. Blocked accordingly. Majorly talk 18:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ismouton and JamesManes

Both making same exact same edit to Solaris and using exact same argument at to why. fr33kman talk 23:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't approve of this. The editors (probably unrelated) were correct in what they did. No check is needed. TheAE talk 23:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is wrong is using rollback on non-vandalism like that. Even if it was the same person, I can totally appreciate why they are doing that. Majorly talk 23:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had reason to be concerned that it was vandalism due to the wording of the edit summaries (profanity and insulting users); and then another account performing the exact same edit within seconds of the first account doing so. Concern that it might not be vandalism is why I asked the editor to discuss, rather than revert it again. fr33kman talk 23:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GLFan151 and guess who?

Before I vomit. SimonKSK 18:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to do over here, account is SULed and has been blocked on EN as a sock. Chenzw  Talk  01:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PickingGold12 and Tharnton345


Reason: Just a hunch, but i've been monitoring and it seems very Tharnton like. RfA as first edit, then pointless userspace edits, before nomming someone for RfA. Cheers, Goblin 23:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is not my main though. PickingGold12 (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Want a hint? PickingGold12 (talk) 23:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is this some kind of game? - At the moment I see no reason at all to do a checkuser here...--Eptalon (talk) 23:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why need to cheat when its obivous? PICKING PickingGold12 (talk) 23:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to guess there's not much point adding vandalism warnings? I'll leave it to the admins. FrancesO (talk) 23:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yum5Yum5 and LostRule

Reason: Both edited Enfield Island Village before it was deleted and both seem to be vandals. Kennedy 11:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they are the same person. Check the diffs for details. Lostrule actually reverted Yum5Yum5's edit. Chenzw  Talk  11:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per the CU results, they are different people (different IPs)--Eptalon (talk) 11:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah well, thought we had a couple of socks on... Kennedy 11:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderboy4 and Samlaptop

This user is exhibiting the same behavior as Samlaptop did in the past. The first thing he did when he came here was open an RfA. Therefore, I believe that that is sufficient enough evidence to support a CU of this user. Thanks, Razorflame 23:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Initiating an RfA is a very common thing for newbies to do, as they don't yet understand the role of an administrator. This happens nearly every day on the English Wikipedia, so I don't think a C/U is necessary. –Juliancolton (talk) 23:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But as their first edit? Come on...even I knew better than to apply for adminship as my first edit :P. Razorflame 23:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I've seen this dozens of times throughout the wikis. –Juliancolton (talk) 23:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it was me, I'd mark this as Declined - not enough evidence to warrant a checkuser, but that's just me. SteveTalk 23:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, then. If you don't think that enough evidence was presented, then sorry for even posting this. Cheers, Razorflame 23:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sexplosion696969 and SEXPLOSION6969

Seems obvious but I'd like confirmation in case they create more of them. fr33kman talk 19:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm puzzled. Both accounts have been blocked and encouraged to create a good username, so how would it be useful to confirm they're the same at this point? Toliar (talk) 19:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't know how checkuser does its bit, but I'm assuming that the account creation would show the IP address of the creator?? I just want to knwo in case they keep creating more so a hard block can be considered. My thinking is that it could be different people that just happen to have created very similar usernames (unlikely I know, but AGF is very big on my agenda). I don't know if checkuser can be used at this point or not; I've never had the bit :) but they have both edited the same article, so some IP address should show up fr33kman talk 19:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done There is a big chance this is the same user, even if the IPs don't match. --Eptalon (talk) 19:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'm a big one for AGF, perhaps too much :) fr33kman talk 20:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the reasoning now. Toliar (talk) 23:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm a stickler for evidence :) I figured that someone else might have seen the block or the user-creation log on decided to create another one :) fr33kman talk 23:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Relucio and Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila

An admin at enWP shows these accounts to be the same person (here) and I think that based on the edits it is the same here. fr33kman talk 21:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it very much looks like it. --Eptalon (talk) 23:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'll block Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila (talk · contribs) and start a discussion on the other. fr33kman talk 23:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thekohser and Jonas D Rand

Thekohser has similar writing styles and the same self-righteous attitude and becomes active just as Jonas posts on TRMs talk page. Kennedy (talk) 08:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but don't be ridiculous. Do you not realise who Thekohser is? A quick check of his recent posts on Wikipedia Review, in a thread started by AmericanEagle, will show this in Thekohser. Checkuser clearly not needed Soup Dish (talk) 08:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I don't read Wikipedia Review, so that piece of information passed me by. I will have a look now. Kennedy (talk) 08:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thekohser is Greg Kohs, see en:MyWikiBiz who has been vocal in his criticism of Wikipedia and Jimbo Wales for many years. Jonas D. Rand is a child. Greg Kohs has been covered in various third-party reliable source publications about his thoughts on Wikipedia and Wales, Jonas has not! The above IP address geolocates to New York, Greg is pretty open about where he lives Soup Dish (talk) 08:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Fair enough. I did not know that. Kennedy (talk) 08:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, "writing style" and an "attitude" are now sufficient grounds for violating the Internet privacy of a contributor to a Wikimedia Foundation project? Seems rather rude and invasive to me. And, fancy that, no apology to me on my Talk page. -- Thekohser (talk) 22:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh quit trying to provoke people. Just walk away. -Djsasso (talk) 03:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll say exactly as I said to Jonas: You are deluded if you think I am going to apologise to you. Kennedy (talk) 08:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


UPAS83, 121.54.64.36 and Ricardojose20027

Report originally from WP:VIP diff by Griffinofwales. Pmlineditor  Talk 10:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardojose20027 was blocked several months ago as a vandalism-only account. The other two have edited the talk page of Ricardojose20027 but have otherwise not been unconstructive (and have also not edited in several hours). No check user is necessary as 1) This is almost certainly the same user, and 2) They have not done any vandalism. I would not object to a preventative block if an admin felt so inclined, but I do not think a block (or checkuser) is necessary. EhJJTALK 14:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: Thanks, however, for bringing this to administrator attention. If there was any more vandalism from that account, I would definitely have blocked them both for a long time. EhJJTALK 14:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added info and possible longer term abuse: This IP 203.111.235.50 has been around awhile and has been repeatedly blocked for copyright violations (many of which are still up on the site, I'm going to go through and tag anything I can find). After the most recent page the IP created I warned it and was looking at it's contributions/block log. When I checked out this template I found it [on the english wikipilipinas site ]. When looking [at the history] to see when it was created on that site (to make sure they didn't copy it from US) I noticed a familiar user name [Ricardojose200027] who appears to be fairly active on that site since May. The site includes what appears to be all of the articles the IP copied over here for example List_of_programs_broadcast_by_National_Broadcasting_Network compared to the version on that wiki at the time [[1]] or DXNP-TV compared to [[2]] complete with the missing image with the same name that wasn't imported over. While this alone is obviously not total evidence that they are the same people it Quacks enough that I would be very surprised if they were not at least related. Jamesofur (talk) 05:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Griffinofwales and Mythdon and numerous open proxies

Griffinofwales and Mythdon are the open proxy vandals. They are trying to gain sympathy and show a need for more admins so they can pass RfA. The community deserves to know how they have used open proxies in this way. 64.191.74.5 (talk) 09:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the related discussion on ANI. --Barras || talk 11:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I informed the two users about this. Barras || talk 11:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am innocent of all accusations. I urge the checkusers to reject this, and if possible, see if this IP is in fact the real "proxy vandal". Mythdon (talk • changes) 12:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not done. No evidence, no proof, no nothing. Initiator of this request blocked. Majorly talk 12:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the initiator is the real person behind the proxy vandalism. Must be the attacker that first showed up when I joined. Mythdon (talk • changes) 12:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User 99.155.153.29

Flooding lots of pages with info about the 350 organization. --Peterdownunder (talk) 07:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What will a check achieve here? Majorly talk 12:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANDREORAGE

Appears to be the same user posting questions on talk pages inappropriately. I'll warn one user account, then it'll come back with another name. UNOWEN may or may not be related, but the other formatting of the signature here is similar to Edson's signatures. Either way (talk) 17:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, these users originate from the same IP, and looking at the user agent are probably the same user. In total there are 13 users/IPs that might be related. --Eptalon (talk) 17:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. For tagging purposes, do you have an estimation as to who is the master here? Thanks, Either way (talk) 17:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ILMSEASON2 and ILMSEASON1

If you look at the changes of those users, these users are making test edits to their talk pages, which are edits that make them look like the same person. User talk:ILMSEASON1 and User talk:ILMSEASON2 have just been deleted. Mythdon (talk • changes) 20:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a pretty obvious thing to me...I don't think a checkuser is needed. Either way (talk) 20:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DUCK - both blocked. Barras || talk 20:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to use the duck test. I think a checkuser is needed to prove that these are the same person. Mythdon (talk • changes) 21:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (show/hide) 22:27, 16 August 2009 ILMSEASON2 (Talk | contribs | block) New user account ‎
  • (show/hide) 22:42, 16 August 2009 ILMSEASON1 (Talk | contribs | block) New user account ‎
  • Both created today in a short time. Both created exactly the same page. At all: Both are the same. Barras || talk 21:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They didn't do any abuse. --Bsadowski1 (talk) 21:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please undo your block. Two accounts is not disallowed. Only using them to SOCK is. fr33kman talk 21:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The deleted contributes: Wikipedia is not a free webhost. Barras || talk 21:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even look at their edits, Barras? They were sandboxing an article. Majorly talk 22:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because you have checkuser privileges, could you please check the users to see if they're the same person? Mythdon (talk • changes) 21:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done; It is obvious but just having two accounts is not a voilation, nor are their edits. Let's wait until the actually commit an offense. fr33kman talk 21:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think checkusers should check all reasonable suspicions, but I can't make you check, and trying to make you would be harassment. Mythdon (talk • changes) 21:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(<-) I unblocked both of them; I did run a checkuser, but I think the results are not relevant here, unless it can be shown one or both of them committed a blockable offense.--Eptalon (talk) 21:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On what grounds did you run a checkuser? What is your justification for doing so? Either way (talk) 22:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the following reasons: 1) it was requested, and it would be useful in assessing block times if offense could be shown 2) The CU policy is not about running such tests, it mostly deals with the modalities of revealing the information. (Which isn't necessary, for the moment) --Eptalon (talk) 22:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But offense was not shown. We shouldn't be running checkusers if there is no offense (i.e. abuse of those multiple accounts) taking place. Either way (talk) 22:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The account edits aren't actually at all problematic. It looks like they were sandboxing an article, which isn't in any way a problem. Please don't be so hasty to take action next time. Nothing needed to be done here. Majorly talk 22:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bambifan101 and User:63.3.5.1

Looks like another Disney vandal sock; recently started vandalizing. Pmlineditor  Talk 18:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IP is temporarily blocked (8 hours). Barras || talk 18:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed. Not much to be done though. Majorly talk 18:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a range that can be blocked for one or two weeks? Barras || talk 18:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. It would need a /10 which is not possible, and besides, this vandal uses a wide range of ranges. Majorly talk 18:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK! Thanks. I changed the block to 72 hours. Barras || talk 18:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working with Wikipedia:Abuse reports, and I'm about to contact the ISP that's responsible for this IP. It was brought to my attention that BF101 was also vandalizing the Simple EN Wikipedia. Is there any more information someone here could provide that would help out? Thanks. Netalarm (talk) 19:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JANUSROMA

I would like to know if JANUSROMA is the same user as PINEAPPLEMAN/their sockpuppets. Exert 01:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They look unrelated but not certain. Majorly talk 14:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two sides of the US, Florida and California? --Eptalon (talk) 14:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comppro and Parker1297

Both users create an RfA after <10 edits. I'd also like if Parker is checked with Aleksa Lukic. Pmlineditor 16:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any relation between the two, nor with any other users. Majorly talk 16:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Parker and Aleksa Lukic live halfway around the world. Shappy talk 16:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MotherElf and ShappiSecondz

Similar style of vandalism, calling users "c**t"s. Time to put an end to this. Shappy talk 14:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed - open proxy IP blocked earlier for one year. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they're the same, on an open proxy. But the IP is hardblocked - I don't understand how the ShappiSecondz account was created, as it was done after the IP was blocked. Majorly talk 14:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hsdgfisbdiwer dsufhusd

The IP vandalized and I gave it a final warning. At about the same time, the account was created and it undid 3 of my edits. I suspect that they are the same. Griffinofwales (talk) 05:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IP blocked for 2 weeks, account indefinitely by Fr33kman. Griffinofwales (talk) 05:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your diligence! CU unneeded at this time. fr33kman talk 05:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but keep an eye out. The user may come back and I'm not going to be around (think dynamic IP). Griffinofwales (talk) 06:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They match --Eptalon (talk) 06:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WaltDisneyPictures0888 and the Disney Anon

Repeated POV pushing towards RKO (whatever that is) on Disney related articles suggests that this is the Disney vandal. Please verify. Chenzw  Talk  14:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One blocked, the other not editing for 9 months, what exactly do you expect me to do there? - CU logs reach back three months, at best...--Eptalon (talk) 15:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's because of the Disney Vandal aka Bambifan. Barras (talk) 15:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it were bambifan: The first account is indef blocked, the other has not edited since late 2008,...--Eptalon (talk) 15:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aspies burnt to death and others

I request the release of IP information for these accounts with the intent of formulating a targeted rangeblock to protect this project from further disruption, and formulation of a complaint to the Internet Service Provider... in accordance with bullet 5 in the section titled Access to and release of personally identifiable information of the Wikimedia Privacy Policy. The article being vandalised is Asperger syndrome and it's talk page. The edits are in the deleted history. Thank you for your time, NonvocalScream (talk) 04:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These IPs do in fact originate from the same subnet ("Class C", a /22 would be exact). All geolocate to Monroe, Louisiana (a city of about 50k people, third largest in Louisiana). I will gladly send the IP addresses themselves by email, but I will not reveal them here. --Eptalon (talk) 06:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, no need; ALL accounts are now blocked indef, so IP's not needed. fr33kman talk 06:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please send them by email. I will still let the ISP know. Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 13:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know if these are the same user, and the range they are editing from. As, I wish to perform a range block. Exert 06:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, the ones below are not related to the ones above; their IPs are completely different. The last Hagger.. is completely unrelated to all of them. --Eptalon (talk) 13:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pinkgirl34 and GoPhish13

Both created the same page Panteha Golizadeh. Should be the same user, I think. Barras (talk) 21:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I think a check isn't needed. I blocked both accounts per en:WP:DUCK. Barras (talk) 13:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gorila

Both accounts were created at the same time, and the edits do not overlap, although they do come close. Both accounts were created here, and the similarity between the usernames is incriminating. Griffinofwales2 (talk) 16:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good news: some IPs do indeed overlap; bad news: these IPs are also used by about 3 other users (so forget an IP-based block). --Eptalon (talk) 22:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uckfay Ouyay Obbygay

These two users appear to be the same, based on their edits. They both vandalized Bluegoblin7's userpage relating to his RFA. I would like to know if they are the same user and if there are anymore accounts. Exert 16:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uckfay Ouyay Obbygay (talk · contribs) has blocked sock FT2's puppy (talk · contribs) and now-blocked Slumdog Trillionaire (talk · contribs) The Rambling Man (talk) 16:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DUCK - no need for a check imo. If more users appear, we can block them. Checkuser is not for fishing. Barras (talk) 16:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
""Fishing" is broadly defined as performing a check on account where there is no credible evidence to suspect sockpuppetry. Performing checks without evidence is inappropriate. Checking an account where the alleged sockmaster is unknown, but there is reasonable suspicion of sockpuppetry is not fishing. A checkuser need not suspect who is behind the abusive behaviour of an account before checking, but they must suspect there is abusive sockpuppetry. Please note that a check coming up negative does not mean that the original basis for the check was invalid." - en:Wikipedia:CheckUser I don't think that is considered fishing. Exert 16:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whilyach

Single purpose account. Started a discussion about a banned user, judging by the edits it could be the banned user they mentioned in the discussion. Just a hunch really. Exert 01:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd check to see if this is Tharnton345. fr33kman talk 02:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unconfirmed Whilyach's only recorded edit is from a cell/mobile phone, and Tharnton's info is too old, and in any case, doesn't seem to match with info in the log. Majorly talk 15:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slooteht Kcab Nil Bogeul Bevig

Slooteht Kcab Nil Bogeul Bevig's only edit was to Bluegoblin7's RFA, in support of him. Even though the edit was in support of him, I believe that it could be Analysis Retentivus(Snow funn at tall), trying to cause disruption to his RFA. Since, he knows that new users votes generally do not count. I would like to know if it is Analysis Retentivus, and if there are anyother accounts. Exert 16:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed Majorly talk 16:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis Retentivus

Analysis Retentivus (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log)) The appearance of this user started out at commons involving a copyright violation with editors from here, and was then brought onto SWEP. Both of the accounts at commons and SWEP were created on the same day. Because of the behavior of this editor they were blocked for trolling, and it seems they may be a sockpuppet. I would like to know if there are anyother accounts. Exert 16:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - I'm not a CU, but the same will happen because CheckUser is not for fishing. Please find more evidence and give that, or find a user to check with. Regards, Goblin 16:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman![reply]
Users who make their first edits to troll us are often checked, especially if they are voting in an RFA. I checked this one, and it looks like it is banned user Snow funn at tall (talk · contribs). Majorly talk 16:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, fair point. And yes, the two users do seem related from a non-CU point of view (edit types, writing style etc). Goblin 16:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw![reply]

Administrator note: Can we let the checkusers issue the not done finales... it is getting confusing, not the first time. I usually stop monitoring a thread when it hits a "not done"... and move along. I always monitor thread starts so I can block if the CU wants us to block, should they not prefer to do it themselves. NonvocalScream (talk) 01:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scream, this is over a month old. Majorly talk 01:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have failed. These threads are anti chronological. Please, may I have a trout now? NonvocalScream (talk) 01:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Relucio and Mk32 and 203.111.235.50

Reason: Lot's on edits to the same types of pages and (frankly) just a hunch. fr33kman talk 03:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first is no longer in the logs; and the second and the third don't match. Sorry. --Eptalon (talk) 08:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ice Age lover and Bambifan101

Reason: Blocked on en as "an apparent sock". So far, not caused any trouble here as of the time of this post, so consider this more of a notice than a CU request. I'll let some admin more familiar with this user decide what needs to be done. EhJJTALK 03:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked per confirmation of sock on enWP, auto-account creation here and editing history. fr33kman talk 04:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RMH3D_is_back_again and User:RHMÈDComoReturned

Similar type of usernames; one engaging in personal attacks against Barras and the other commenting on his TP. Pmlineditor 11:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think checkuser is needed. Seems rather obvious. Both users have been blocked anyway. Chenzw  Talk  13:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksa Lukic, Comppro and Masha Ashner

Comppro request as one of his/her first edits sysop rights on simple and tried it on en, too. Later he tried to get the admin tools from meta (see [3] and [4]) Well, it not the start with a comment/ vote on a RfA, but it is a RfA. Best Barras (talk) 17:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated. Majorly talk 18:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taracka Dragon Emperor and 76.125.253.169

The account vandalized Deskana's user page and my talk page back awhile. The IP vandalized my talk page today, and created an attack page(their talk page) back in April about Deskana at en.wp. I would like to know if the IP and account are the same user, and if there are anymore accounts. Exert (talk) 14:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed - there's also Taracka X Zarbon (talk · contribs). Majorly talk 14:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksa Lukic and Masha Ashner

Contribution pattern looks very similar, especially RFA voting. Gut instinct. Meetare Shappy Cunkelfratz! 20:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed. Majorly talk 20:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PMDrive1061 and Pmdrive1061

I might be barking up the wrong tree here, but these usernames are identical after all. The former has been a good contributer so far, the second is blocked for just going on a mass vandal spree. Wanted to check by CU before causing any collateral damage, though have have removed PMDrive1061's rollback as a precautionary measure and left them a note. Thanks, Goblin 10:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy![reply]

One geolocates to California, the other to the UK; I would say it is unlikely they are the same. --Eptalon (talk) 12:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah there is a 0% chance of them being one in the same. PMDrive is the most helpful admin I have ever worked with at EN. If you search his name up at EN you will see that he has atleast 10 editors with names very simmilar to his.--Gordonrox24 (talk) 12:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Er, Goblin... it's blatantly obvious it's an impersonator. Why did you remove rollback, and request this check? Please restore it immediately. In fact why was the check even carried out? He's not stupid enough to create a sockpuppet with an almost identical name. Majorly talk 12:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It appears you haven't removed rollback, but you haven't even informed him of this. Majorly talk 13:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PMDrive1061 cannot be a sockpuppeteer. He is a very good user and certainly, the account Pmdrive1061 is not his sockpuppet. Pmlinediter  Talk 14:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
← I'm going to overstep my authority a bit and mark this as  Not done. Epic fail. :) –Juliancolton | Talk 15:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it obviously was done, per Eptalon's comments. It needs no action though. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(note) Just reversed my reversal of BG's block. Apparently didn't see that it was a vandalism-only account :P Chenzw  Talk  15:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yeah; I mean "no action taken". –Juliancolton | Talk 15:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you know what they say: Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.  :) Nope, that other doofus wasn't me. I was just alerted to this over at EN and I thought I'd weigh in for a laugh. Regards, the one and only PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abnormal surge of new users

...and many more until...

Log entries can be found here. This is indeed worrying if these users are used in a sock attack. Should blocking be made if confirmed as socks?

These look like bot-created accounts to me. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 June, 23 or so accounts created between 0428 and 0433 UTC, from varying IPs but geolocated the same; more worryingly we missed the 23 or so created between 0419 and 0424 UTC on 1 June... A check on just one of these created on 1 June shows User:Harryweasley shares IP with User:Hellybelly. I am pushed for time here so could admins deal with appropriately - I suspect we have a sock farm brewing... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's fine - they all resolve to a university, so it was probably a class all creating accounts. Majorly talk 12:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Freddy

I believe these are all socks of the notorious vandal Freddy. They all fit his pattern of editing. In fact, he essentially admits it here: http://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kremlinerr&diff=prev&oldid=1550135.MKil (talk) 14:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)MKil[reply]

Blocked all three indef. No need to report them for a CU if it's so obvious - just use AN or VIP. Regards, Goblin 14:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. In the past I've been told to come here to report him. As long as he's gone, that's all that matters. At least, he's gone for now, he'll certainly be back, unfortunately.MKil (talk) 15:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)MKil[reply]
I'm pretty sure Listlistlist is him, too. It has the same type of edits favored by Freddy.MKil (talk) 16:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)MKil[reply]
 Done The Rambling Man (talk) 17:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My name is the master of all of the 6's and A1a2s

Our User:My name is the master of all of the 6's is indef-blocked at en (SUL account list) for being a sock of a user (en:User:Pickbothmanlol), also identified as en:User:A1a2s, who is indef-blocked here (User:A1a2s) (SUL account list - and globally locked) for sock abuse. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 04:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that seems like the most logical correlation :) Nice catch, Philosopher :) Cheers, Razorflame 06:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done All socking confirmed via SUL, no checkuser needed. User blocked and tagged. Chenzw  Talk  09:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello all, I ran a quick CheckUser test. Of what I saw, both A1a2 and My name is ... use different ISPs - so unless A1a2s, as we know him here changed ISPs (for which I have no evidence), I would say those two users are different from each other. --Eptalon (talk) 17:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm investigating this. The account on enwiki is operated by the same person on Simple, so unless the enwiki checkusers got it wrong, they have simply moved to a new ISP. This user clearly is a sockpuppet, and aren't even trying to hide it. Majorly talk 18:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All done. No evidence matches, they removed my autoblock. A1a2s is still blocked, by I am not. Thank ya. My name is the master of all of the 6's (talk) 16:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User now indef-blocked for other reasons. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 17:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chairstyle and Simple11s

Looking at the user's contributions and the fact that all of them were made shortly after the account was created suggests that he could be back again to wreck havoc. Chenzw  Talk  10:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the duck test can be used here. Majorly talk 14:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - Tagged and blocked. Chenzw  Talk  15:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NEENJAH and 169.227.253.124 and 169.227.253.125

Reason: All three users have vandalized similar pages during the same times [5][6] with the same kind of edits (i.e. change "pussycat" to "vaginacat"). Seems pretty obvious, but figured a CU can't hurt to confirm. EhJJTALK 17:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

en:WP:DUCK. Also the range is so small that blocking the two IPs is far more efficient than a rangeblock. I don't think a full check is necessary. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Full check done. - short answer: yes. --Eptalon (talk) 18:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's a big difference between NEENJAH having his user page vandalized by an IP or vandalizing it himself, as far as whether we should welcome him or indef block him. Just wanted to make sure, but I agree with PeterSymonds that this one was kind of obvious and certainly doesn't need a rangeblock (I checked /24 and didn't find any other IPs except these two that looked suspicious). Thanks guys! EhJJTALK 18:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eager Pilot and Snow Funn At Tall

User's 2nd edit is to support CM16's unblock, and 1st edit is to post a picture of Jesus on his userpage. Evidence is just circumstancial, but I believe something is up. Meetare Shappy Cunkelfratz! 01:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think CM16 is silly enough to be blatant like that. At best it's a trolling user like Snow Funn at All. Either way (talk) 02:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you formulate your request clearly please: "Find all the other identities 'Eager Pilot' is using" is fishing, not something CU was made for...--Eptalon (talk) 07:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Either way, that it's probably a troll sockpuppet (not from CM16). ~``~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shappy (talk • contribs)
I'd be inclined to agree that it is Snow funn at tall. Majorly talk 19:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Arbeitmann

Sludge Monster, new user, made its first edit as an attack on me. If you take a look at Arbeitmann's edits and compare that editors attacks to Sludge Monster's and look at the closeness in time the disruptive edits were made, you'd be wondering. —Mythdon [talk] [changes] 07:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added Whattowear, also good chance to be same person. James (T|C) 07:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sludge Monster and Wattowear are related; Arbeitmann is completely unrelated.--Eptalon (talk) 09:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. —Mythdon [talk] [changes] 20:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a possibility that Griffenofwhales (talk · contribs) is related. —Mythdon [talk] [changes] 23:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bambifan101 sock request

Those are a couple of the most recent accounts blocked as Bambifan101 based on the duck test. I was wondering if it was possible to check for to assist in an ongoing communication with his ISP (you can see some conversations (from Bambi) about that communication in the history of User_talk:PMDrive1061. If you aren't able to find any xff data then don't worry about it, additional IP data is likely not to be helpful enough to legitimize giving out the info (though if you want to check if its caught by our recent range blocks feel free :) ) James (T|C) 21:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bambifan101 is too old to worry about, and the other do not carry XFF data. Sorry. --Eptalon (talk) 21:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yea the bambifan one was more just to show who they were related to, thanks for the check. James (T|C) 21:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible spamming sockpuppets

I noticed these users and their very similar writings. I believe there is more but I don't know the names. Refer to their user talk pages. --Bsadowski1(Talk|Changes) 08:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sockfarm, each of them (except IMPVictorianus, which no longer is in the logs) has a number of accounts, operating through a proxy. Blocked the variious accounts found. Farming socks, are we? --Eptalon (talk) 21:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Batch of impersonations of Administrators

These users popped up about a day or so ago, and are seeming to be impersonating administrator usernames, which is against the username policy. I think that these are all related. --Bsadowski1(Talk|Changes) 04:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In total, two IPs from the same class B network (the first two numbers of the IPv4 address are the same). As far as I could tell, all accounts are blocked; so there is little to do here.--Eptalon (talk) 11:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another batch of Jimmy vandals

Thanks in advance. @Kate (talk) 04:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget Plant Stranger (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log)). --Bsadowski1(Talk|Changes) 05:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All done from the same IP Address (DSL from Auckland, NZ); see below. --Eptalon (talk) 22:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More Jimbo Wales vandals

Here is another batch of these Jimbo Wales vandalisers. Seems to be another IP range they're using; as Eptalon blocked a previous range. --Bsadowski1(Talk|Changes) 05:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very briefly: All geolocate to Auckland, NZ; and have the same ISP (DSL) - First and third use the same "IP"; seconds seems unrelated. --Eptalon (talk) 22:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Pages

Both accounts are blocked indef by Bsadowski1.On the 22nd these accounts were created and made a few inappropriate pages. I know one of these pages was Lower mantle, but I am not sure of the others. My tagging's of them for QD are in my deleted edits somewhere. The articles all had similar names. I was wondering if indeed these accounts are socks, and if the IP behind them should be blocked as well.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 22:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When looking at the Special:BlockList, you can see I blocked them, and then you can also see the autoblocked number. Notice that there weren't two sets of numbers and only one. --Bsadowski1(Talk|Changes) 22:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 (change conflict) WP:DUCK and as long as it isn't ongoing it isn't really needed to check, imo. Just two which are the same per the edits. IP is with the account block autoblocked. --Barras (talk) 22:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see. Thanks Brad and Barras.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 22:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo Wales vandal accounts

a few days older:

The accounts are all blocked. They all did vandalism in realtion to Jimbo Wales and were created after each other. I think it would be good to get the IPs to block a reange that this stops. After I protected the article about Jimbo, they were a bit more creative and went to other pages to vandalise in realation with Wales.

Thanks --Barras (talk) 20:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this looks like a sock farm, I took care of blocking the well over 20 users (of 32 possible IPs blocked). Thanks for noticing --Eptalon (talk) 22:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 3rd Jesus Christ

I suspect these are related in some way. I also believe it's the Jimbo Wales article vandaliser. --Bsadowski1(Talk|Changes) 23:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, sorry; The 3rd Jesus Christ has about 5 accounts (all from the same IP address, all blocked); BibleMan is completely unrelated. --Eptalon (talk) 23:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plastic Ballet Lounger

I suspect there are at least 3 others from this IP, I also believe there is a good chance they are related to Wizard of Old/Bible Man given how actions. Because I have already submitted an isp abuse report for Bible Man (no response yet but not surprising) I may ask to have access to the CU information for a followup report if it continues. Jamesofur (talk) 22:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second two are  Confirmed by CU to be socks of each other and other already blocked accounts, first one is  Confirmed to be a Bible Man/Wizard of Old sock but not using the IP of the first one. However, all these pass the duck test as all being related to each other. Thanks for bringing this to RFCU! Even though DUCK was met, a CU showed other accounts that had not been used yet. fr33kman talk 23:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Samlaptop

Tagged by Liverpoolfan as a suspected sock of Samlaptop. A CU would be helpful as this isn't really a duck. Pmlineditor ∞ 10:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's Sam. DLuux only had one edit and you need more than that to consider if it's him or not. You need more behavioral evidence. --Bsadowski1 10:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just put it here because of the tag... Pmlineditor ∞ 10:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The tag has been removed. Pmlineditor ∞ 10:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bible Man

I blocked the above 3 accounts (with account creation blocked) as Vandalism Only Accounts and suspected socks and would like confirmation if possible.

Background: The Bible Man was the first (and worst vandalism whys) and as soon as he was about to be blocked Flying-Fish (the 2nd account) was created. That account immediately made a superfluous comment that was reverted and the account warned. As soon as the account was warned Two-tone (the 3rd/final) account was created and made and began to edit (both dog and Bsadowski1's talk page after he reverted. Given the quick and serial account creation and the lack of useful edits from all 3 accounts I then blocked them all with a bit of the duck test, allowing them all to edit their talk page if they so desired. Jamesofur (talk) 23:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed, also User:Wizard Of Old (blocked now) fr33kman talk 00:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Omparkash, Ali Rana and SufiSkeptic

I've doubts of some users over here. Kindly check if all those operated by a sockpuppet. Also, please see this. Saqib Qayyum (talk) 04:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done at this time. I will keep a very sharp eye on this situation but am not sure a CU is correct at this time. fr33kman talk 09:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin J. Robinson

Reason: Came here and did the exact same thing as the new awarder and spammed multiple talk pages with barnstars and did nothing else. -DJSasso (talk) 12:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked him indefinately now since he is blocked as a sock puppet on en. If you want to confirm or deny the relation thats up to you. -DJSasso (talk) 13:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not related but had a load of socks anyway, all blocked. Majorly talk 17:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandals

One account created, one page vandalized, one warning given, and then a new account created. I'm pretty sure they are the same person abusing multiple accounts.--Gordonrox24 | Happy Holidays! 01:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of them have been blocked as vandalism-only accounts and also Wikipedia:DUCK. --Bsadowski1(Talk|Changes) 01:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough.--Gordonrox24 | Happy Holidays! 01:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if it looks, sounds like one... Majorly talk 20:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But the S.Y.S.O.P.P.E.R one looks like the "Batch of impersonations of Administrators" ones below. --Bsadowski1(Talk|Changes) 22:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huik01

This one may be a bit tricky to some but...

The account TwoBitTitan was created and shortly after commented at the Huik01 ANI thread [7] [8]. (just four minutes difference between the creation and the edits).

The account Huik01 is currently blocked (see here).

While some may not agree, and while editors who join this Wikipedia learn about these pages quicker, it is obvious to me that these are related based on the fact the this account is created and minutes later comments in a Huik01 thread while the editor is blocked. —Mythdon [talk] [changes] 23:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion isn't going to last long, we don't even share the same ISP. TwoBitTitan (talk) 15:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And how do you know that..? Griffinofwales (talk) 16:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Run a check on this account and Huik01's account. I have nothing to hide. TwoBitTitan 16:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a sockpuppet for me. considering edits and style of sentences and etc etc..--Sinbad (talk) 18:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. This is why we have CU (where socks are likely but not obvious based on non-CU data). A quick check will hopefully provide some useful info. EhJJTALK 20:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are unrelated. TwoBitTitan is, however, Digital-Terror, an editor who was trolling us the other day, so should be blocked. Majorly talk 20:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I never would have thought TwoBitTitan had any relation to Digital-Terror. But still, thank you. —Mythdon [talk] [changes] 20:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Huik01 is indef blocked now. --Barras talk 20:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC) My bad, sorry. Unblocked. --Barras talk 20:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, you should reblock and set the reblock to expire when the original block would have expired. —Mythdon [talk] [changes] 20:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One/two hour(s) left. My bad block, the rest is left out because I made this bad mistake. --Barras talk 20:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Central United Church Sarnia

Just a look at the usernames and their edits maever, you should reblock and set the reblock to expire when the original block would have expired. —Mythdon [talk] [changes] 20:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One/two hour(s) left. My bad block, the rest is left out because I made this bad mistake. --Barras talk 20:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Central United Church Sarnia

Just a look at the usernames and their edits makes it obvious that these are related. A check won't hurt. —Mythdon [talk] [changes] 23:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a checkuser but I would say no, this appears to be just someone confused about the policies and not socking. You will notice that the original user was softblocked for the username. This means they were specifically told that they can and should make a new account following the rules, so seeing one is not a surprise. It is of course obvious that they do not totally understand why they were blocked in the first place but this is usually our fault for explanations or simplicity not theirs. James (T|C) 23:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I see no point in checking this. I think it's a misguided newbie, nothing malicious. Majorly talk 20:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dave Ingram and others

Duck test probably applies but compare the contribs etc. Ta, Goblin 20:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy![reply]

I am also concerned that these are the same users. Whether they're are being disruptive in their editing is irrelevant. If they're abusing multiple accounts, they shall by all means be blocked indefinitely with only the master account being allowed email and talk page editing allowed. —Mythdon [talk] [changes] 21:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that they are fairly quacky for sure but if we want to be clear a CU may not be out of the question. I do tend to worry that its a bit more of a misunderstanding then it is abusive sockpuppetry though. I know I've seen people in the past who truly thought they HAD to create basically single purpose accounts to work on new articles and that could be the case here. I would disagree with you Mythdon however. Being disruptive is in fact highly relevant, just plain having multiple accounts is not abuse and not sock puppetry. If you use those to try and pretend you are multiple people (voting, trying to defend the others etc) then you create a problem. In a case like this however I think talking to them to try and find what they say would be a much better move then indefinitely blocking them without comment after we find evidence they could be the same people (likely in opinion). James (T|C) 00:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They are the same, but Paul Gallo is too old to check. Majorly talk 20:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Archives/2009&oldid=9884297"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Archives/2009, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.