Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Archives/2010-2013

Possible vandalism sockpuppets

These possible sockpuppets registered on the same day and vandalised on the first edit. I think these are the same user, but not sure. There might be sleepers also. --Bsadowski1(Talk|Changes) 00:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed to be the same but couldn't find any strong relations with any previous vandals. Did find one extra User:Car_Go_Go. James (T|C) 00:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep (edit conflicted) Majorly talk 00:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More Andreisme socks

Can someone check if this user has the same ISP as the other ones? :) --Bsadowski1(Talk|Changes) 03:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed one more blocked as well James (T|C) 03:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added another to check to make sure (and to weed out any possible other socks). I blocked it based on Wikipedia:DUCK. --Bsadowski1(Talk|Changes) 05:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed 1 more blocked, thanks James (T|C) 18:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added another one that just popped up. See its reverted edit. --Bsadowski1(Talk|Changes) 02:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Confirmed tons of socks of course but all already block and/or locked. James (T|C) 05:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Santa Claus of the Future

This account does not resolve to any currently known user account. We'll have to AGF on this one Peter, sorry. fr33kman talk 06:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pusyforlife

Pretty sure that this is Pickbothmanlol (see deleted contribs). ···Lauryn 23:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done No evidence from CU to support this. fr33kman talk 01:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, strange. Thank you, fr33kman. ···Lauryn 01:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas Brothers Sockpuppets

Same pattern of username, editing at the same time (vandalism). Thanks. Nifky^ 12:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done I'd put these in their own sub-heading as there is no ' case to place them in the Jonas Brothers socks. However, they are the same as each other. Also included are others (Help123, Changeforgood). data is available if you wish to issue an ISP report. fr33kman 14:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done ok I checked but nothing interesting and really didn't need to :). James (T C) 05:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I apologise for the time waster. Cheers, Lauryn Ashby (d) 05:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clothy and 66.2.70.5

[1] [2] The IP was blocked for being a sock of Bigidozen and then Clothy made a similar edit about the governments of Belgrade and Serbia a few hours later. I suspect it is POV as it was reverted before but am not sure. 97.103.130.129 (talk) 14:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CUs have  Confirmed this. IP and account blocked. Pmlineditor ∞ 13:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yourarmy 22, Trueissue and others


Reason: Similar editing patterns in Ghost, Toilet, Toast and Demon. Nifky^ 06:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Confirmed! All same socker. This is the "Jimmy Wales" vandal and the "Ghosts eat toast". Please report such edits to WP:VIP right away, and please ask for CU also. I've range blocked, but more will be coming. fr33kman 06:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New suspected sock

I was really suspecting that this was the real Pickbothmanlol, but... Holly.murphy (talk · contribs) looks very similar to that Santa Claus of the Future guy. Please checkuser him. --MisterWiki (talk) 19:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And sometimeswethink (talk · contribs) too. Too similar userpages (this one "never look back"). --MisterWiki (talk) 20:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to disappoint you, the two users are not related; in addition, Holly.murphy only has one account, with one IP. --Eptalon (talk) 23:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please check

I want to know if they are in the same range, and the IP privately please. I want to formulate a range block, and draft an ISP report. Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 19:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, not in same range by any means. Duck-wise, clearly the same IP-hopping, open proxy editor though. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, all resolve to same country but three different ISPs. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dear me, then I don't want the IP privately. I don't want to draft three ISP reports. (I don't have a template for this letter, I type them all personally) Thank you for checking. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 20:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Schweizerfreund

This user may be related to these collection of IP's, see more info and interesting reading here. Mr. Berty (seasons greetings!) talk/stalk 08:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Schweizerfreund/Michael Kühntopf edit from the same IP (Which belongs to one of the few big Swiss ISPs, and is assigned dynamically). Having more than one account is not forbidden, though. --Eptalon (talk) 09:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

92.48.84.227

Resolved.

Seems to be a sock πr2 (talk • changes) 17:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, he's somehow been able to edit this page even though he's blocked. Perhaps he's a user who has an IP block exemption? Also, I'm requesting some protection on AN for the vandalized pages Purplebackpack89 17:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, IP block exemption doesn't works for the IPs. He hasn't been blocked with the talk page protected. --Diego Grez let's talk 17:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. The talk-block was fixed a couple mins ago by Fr33k. If this guy is a vandalizing open proxy, there can only be one punishment for him Purplebackpack89 17:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...Which is a block? or checkuser not needed? πr2 (talk • changes) 17:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. --Diego Grez let's talk 17:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No what? πr2 (talk • changes) 18:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser is not for fishing. You have to have a person you think its a sock puppet of. -DJSasso (talk) 17:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He's been blocked for a very, very long time. I say we just leave it that Purplebackpack89 18:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mythdon

The IP user mentioned Mythdon. The chance that a random IP knows about Mythdon is slim. πr2 02:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flimsy reason to check. Does not matter anyway as it is blocked now as an open proxy. Either way (talk) 02:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done. I doubt Mythdon would ever do that. And it's also fishing. There's no evidence that he has abused multiple accounts. --Bsadowski1(Talk/Changes) 02:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now there is evidence that Mythdon has sock(s). πr2 01:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So? Still has got nothing to do with that anon mentioning him. Chenzw  Talk  02:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For privacy reasons, checkusers should not be done based on mere gut reaction or suspicion, but only if there is a good reason to suspect abuse. This is because IP addresses can determine locations fairly accurately, and users who are not causing problems should reasonably expect their locations to be private. The goal is not go be "out to get" people; it's to determine correlations if somebody is causing serious problems on the wiki. Kansan (talk) 02:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ICOOLJAM and SuperSpyMiller

They all write in caps, one wrote on another's talk page (Super on ICOOL's). PiRSquared17 21:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need a better reason than this. So what if they do? They seem to be friends/relatives who are both young in age. That would explain why they are writing on each other's talk pages and why they write in caps. No abuse appears to be going on right now. Either way (talk) 21:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree! No checkuser needed fr33kman 01:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saeedrags and Imsaa

Per the edit summaries at http://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Riaz_Ahmed_Gohar_Shahi&diff=prev&oldid=2125212 and http://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Riaz_Ahmed_Gohar_Shahi&diff=2146706&oldid=2146691 ; they edit the same article (Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi) and its talk page. He is a sockpuppet at enwp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Iamsaa/Archive , en wikiquote http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:AN#Checkuser_request:_Iamsaa . http://toolserver.org/~vvv/sulutil.php?rights=1&user=Saeedrags and http://toolserver.org/~vvv/sulutil.php?rights=1&user=Imsaa show they are both sockpuppets that denied the fact on User talk:Lauryn Ashby. Nifky^ 10:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is a checkuser needed? This one might seem pretty obvious here. Either way (talk) 10:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request

They have all vandalized. PiRSquared17 20:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Three of them resolve to what looks like a public library, in Illinois; one does not exist. All from different IPs --Eptalon (talk) 20:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New request

PiRSquared17 03:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why? They're obviously related. Oweneton was editing as the IP and then registered an account, albeit for what looks like the wrong reasons. If he continues to create copyright violations/spam, then he'll be blocked. Lauryn Dirty little secrets 03:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Lauryn. This is an obvious one and not worth checking. Additionally, there is no abuse going on. Also, in the future, when report, please explain why you think a check is needed. Just listing 2 users is not enough. Either way (talk) 03:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 (change conflict)  (sorry for removing your comment) PiRSquared17 03:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A CheckUser is not needed for this. Also the fact that CheckUsers generally do not comment on IPs. --Bsadowski1(Talk/Changes) 04:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Usernames

 PiRSquared17 (talk)  03:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason? fr33kman 03:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They were created at about the same time. Two of them have "Jimmy" in their usernames.  PiRSquared17 (talk)  03:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Not valid reasons. Multiple usernames (accounts) are allowed as long as they are not used for abuse. If abuse is suspected, re-ask, with evidence. fr33kman 03:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2k10 usernames

Edited userpages in within same time, Beau2k10 edited blood cell which was reverted by me. Nifky^ 13:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed James (T C) 13:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Audi152, 18Weaver, and Sinofdreams

This may be seem a bit late and strange, but I was looking at my userpage history and I found this. This translates into "Hello friend, I hate you, Sinofdreams and many more (Kalajan). By this, it's fair to assume that Audi152 is Sins. Now, 18Weaver reverts the post, and warns Audi152 5 times for the same post he reverted. 18Weaver's first post was on my userpage. I know this is late, and Sins will probably not abuse them anymore, but I just want to be sure. SimonKSK 21:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am very sorry to deceive you, but checkuser logs only go back a certain time (roughly, half a year); As these guys haven't edited in that time, I am unable to fulfill your request. --Eptalon (talk) 21:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Awww, shucks. Well, if he does start abusing again, then you'll still be able to stop, so it's all good. SimonKSK 21:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bigig

Block globally for abusing mult. accts. I tagged him with the "suspected sockpuppet" due to his global block, but I'm not sure who he's a sockpuppet of. I would assume Bambi, though Purplebackpack89 20:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I could not name any user, there is what looks like a global range block on the address used.--Eptalon (talk) 21:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

76.166.187.218/Sdfghjkl

Sdfghjkl was indef blocked for vandalism. 76.166.187.218 has edited many of the same pages as Sdfghjkl, and recently edited Sdfghjkl's talk page Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 14:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Smells like a duck. There is no reason for a check. -Barras (talk) 14:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't 76... be blocked for more than 31 hours, then? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 15:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Juans

I want you to compare Juan4’s talk page that was recently deleted with Juanfu’s talk page that I tagged for deletion this afternoon. I believe that they are almost exactly the same, no? That, combined with their similar user names, lead me to believe that they are linked. Requesting a IP check Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 20:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have any kinds of abuse here? - having multiple accounts is not punishable, if it isn't abused in some way...--Eptalon (talk) 20:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Creating bad/promotional/nonsense pages on their talk pages Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 20:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done, per spam creation. The users both edit from the same /16 range and use the same UA. Those, most likely the same user. I will leave it to others to block or not. -Barras (talk) 21:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. -DJSasso (talk) 12:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hofincons

Quack. --SEPTActaMTA8235 14:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you ask him to stop? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Madrock1

The same person made all of the Madrock accounts. Because vandalism has been especially bad here today, please checkuser for OTHER newly made accounts. —This lousy T-shirt (talk) 18:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked all three accounts, no others found. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HighTones/Alo

I suspect that Alo and Thao are socks (adding inappropriate images). HighTones did the same at Template:Height. Sleepers? --SEPTActaMTA8235 12:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is need of a check, all accounts are blocked. Jon@talk:~$ 12:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fishy, but. HighTones seems to have used a different strategy, so I'm not sure if he's related, though I'm pretty sure Alo and Thao are the same people. --SEPTActaMTA8235 13:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The users have been blocked by a checkuser with the comment "Abusing multiple accounts". Our checkusers surely know when/how to check in those cases and the comment in the block is clear. If they are already blocked by a cu with such a reason, then there is no need for a request here. Case closed. -Barras (talk) 13:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WAbaseballDE

They both added internet slang/spam/useless stuff to Ninja, within minutes of warning both users. Also edited Tom Cruise in a similar way. --SEPTActaMTA8235 (talk) 17:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - Caught another one. Users blocked. Thanks for the report. -Barras (talk) 17:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Benniguy (Iamandrewrice)

Self-admission. Check for sleepers. --SEPTActaMTA8235 (talk) 13:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - First account too old for checks and I don't see a relation between those accounts. -Barras (talk) 13:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Picture Perfect Prince

LouisPhilippeCharles (LPC, I'm From England, etc.) is a globally blocked user. Picture Perfect Prince just created an article substantially similar to one on the English Wikipedia with the same topic, which had been mainly edited by LouisPhilippeCharles. Kansan (talk) 18:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm kind of curious as to this user. Did any abuse any occur on this wiki? I see a lot of good content work... Taking into the account the content work, if we could keep any socks blocked would it benefit us to remove the global block locally to allow him to continue the content work? I don't know the full story though.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 20:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know global blocks could be removed on a per-wiki basis... Griffinofwales (talk) 22:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah we can disable global blocks locally.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 23:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Only seems to work with IPs... never mind me then.

  • Without any proof of abuse (double vote in RfXs, RfDs etc), there is no need for a check. I just want to remember, that it is allowed to have more than one accounts as long as they aren't abused. Won't declineit now (haven't really looked into it yet), but it doesn't look like there is need for a check. -Barras (talk) 09:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I would note that two accounts are only allowed if they don`t edit the same pages....these two have edited the same pages. -DJSasso (talk) 15:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, I haven't looked in deep into this yet. I currently don't have the time to really take care of it. But there are also some other people with checkuser access you could take a look. I just commented here after reading here. If there is really no other cu around to take a look at this, I do it coming weekend. Sorry, just busy right now. -Barras (talk) 22:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User is blocked on English Wikipedia. wiooiw (talk) 04:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't make much of a difference... We always have some blocked users from enwiki around here. As long as there is no abuse here, I don't care much and wouldn't run a cu. -Barras (talk) 09:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just marking as  Done - accounts have already been blocked. Forgot this request. -Barras (talk) 13:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 1988 and Trenten

Suspicious behaviour here. The one and only...Mr. Berty! talk~stalk 18:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We need more evidence than one diff link. --Bsadowski1 01:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think this all a mix up...o_0. *flees the scene, once again.* The one and only...Mr. Berty! talk~stalk 07:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Strange group of editing from India

Three of four have edited extensively over the past few days focusing on the Apostolic Fellowship Tabernacle, its pastor Sam P. Chelladurai and search engines. Content generation has verged on spam/advertising regarding the church, church pastor and the search engine Bluve/Zeekinfo. (Two names for the same search engine.) Editor(s) has probably violated WP:COPYVIO. I know that there were prior deleted versions of Sam Chelladurai before the current one, but I do not have access to them. Could someone do a checkuser to see if these are the same person? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 07:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The named users are not the same user. They could be meatpuppets however so it might be worth keeping an eye on their edits for spam. -DJSasso (talk) 12:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 12:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Riffic

Though there is a user named Riffic on EN, the Riffic here has made one edit, and it's to weigh in on the highly questionable GNAA topic. I'd feel better if we made sure he wasn't a sock of Lugurr, LiteralKa, or other people involved in the GNAA debacle Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 23:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To me, it seems there is not enough evidence to support a check based on the privacy policy and the meta checkuser policy... edits are not similar across the many Wiki we have. Also, the account is unified. I recommend against a check. Thank you, Jon@talk:~$ 03:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since the account is unified, and the EN account is long-standing, it is unlikely that it is a GNAA sock. Therefore, I withdraw the request Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 03:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
this is a fishing expedition and it is unlikely to find any evidence of any wrongdoing. (go ahead, google me plz) Riffic (talk) 04:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DIsclosure: I internet from multiple locations including att wireless, dreamworks animation and time warner/road runner in los angeles california. there are probably other accounts logging in from my ip space but I only edit from this account.
 Not done A check will not be done. I see you are a good editor on English Wikipedia on SUL. --Bsadowski1 05:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, since I don't see a relation between them. I just saw the block. --Bsadowski1 03:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User Nawlinji

I Want to be confirmed user and dont want to get blocked

Nawlinji 11:03, 22 Febuary 2012
That's not a reason to run a check. -Barras talk 19:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I changed my mind, smelled too bad actually. Confirmed sock. -Barras talk 19:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Daehtunhguod

Appears to be stalking an editor here, and was blocked on EN for socking as well. There may be sleeper socks around, not to mention that the vandalism around here seemed to be worse than usual. Chenzw  Talk  12:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nah not a sockmaster here. -DJSasso (talk) 12:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

89.178.124.206 and Janitor Joe

Both accuse each other of socking. Were engaged in an edit war at Tamara Toumanova. Chenzw  Talk  13:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - We don't link between accounts and IPs. It looks like the appreciate actions have been taken. I doubt that someone will revert themselves and then accusing themselves of socking. -Barras (talk) 15:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ali999, Ali020, Ali908

This is mainly a Quack, but the underlying effect and what seems to be a potential sock farm may need looking into. Similar names, similar dates created, creating fake articles of a similar nature around the same topic (One Time India's series and other productions). The three listed certainly are quacking loudly here, but there seems to be a whole lot more that haven't quacked yet. --Creol(talk) 08:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've done a check here this morning already, the results can be viewed on my local block log, and also here and here. It was a quite big sock farm. -Barras talk 10:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since there is that request here, there were some new socks this afternoon, now blocked. I issued another block that hopefully helps to stop this. -Barras talk 15:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NolaPola

I thought the main account might have been hijacked when it started running amok today @ about 21:20 UTC. But it appears it's also been indef-blocked on enwiki. It might not even really be worth the check, since they're both vandal accounts. The user appears to have jumped accounts after a final warning for disruption. Osiris (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Rumppushin

Edits, especially to Joseph Stalin are very, very similar to edits from User:TheUltimateWarrior, whom I blocked the other day for vandalism (along with other issues, including file uploads after being asked to stop). Duck-wise, they almost have to be the same person. Kansan (talk) 20:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed: TheUltimateWarrior = Rumppushin. I will leave the action/decision to you here. -Barras talk 22:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I indeffed the second account and reset the existing block for the first one - some, if not most, of his edits are useful, so I'd like to give him another chance. Kansan (talk) 00:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will98789

Style of editing is similar to 84.242.84.186. Recreated ogopogo page 20 minutes after previous deletion. Please investigate and confirm if both users are the same, so appropriate action can be taken in the event of sockpuppet abuse.-- Tdxiang 07:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tanglei

This spambot is definitely related to Tanglei5738 at en.wikipedia and perhaps also to Tanglei8017 at en.wikibooks. I'd like to know if the en.wikibooks account is also a spambot. Please investigate this account and share the information with the CU's at en.wikipedia and en.wikibooks, if possible. I'll request the same on those wikis (see here for the CU request at en.wikipedia and here for the request at en.wikibooks). Thanks in advance, Mathonius (talk) 18:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the usual. I did the necessary stuff. -Barras talk 18:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Mathonius (talk) 18:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dilek2

Yesterday, I removed a large number of edits from newcomer Magnolia that added complex material copied directly from the English Wikipedia -- more specifically, from recent revisions that had been reverted. I was sure it was the same person as Dilek2, because all of the content Magnolia was adding was material that Dilek2 had been edit-warring over on articles on the English Wikipedia. Now both users have logged in here. I questioned Magnolia about it, but they have denied the connection. Dilek2 has existing blocks on enwiki, trwiki and dewiki (where he is blocked indefinitely as "the foreskin troll"). Osiris (talk) 15:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have done a checkuser; the problem is that the evidence I got is useful for supporting either story; yes, look at what happened in Circumcision where one reverted/added the text of the other. I still think it is too early to draw conclusions; both are new here, and rather than WP:BITE, we shouild be welcoming and helpfuil. If they really are the same user, we will get more than enough evidence to block them later on, if their edits become problematic. As to the subject of the articles: We always claim WP is not censored...--Eptalon (talk) 16:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Johnhartvig

Posting the same comment on Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2013/Daniel Niazi. --Mark91it's my world 16:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank's for noticing.I have removed the comment made by the IP in the deletion discussion. I have also run a checkuser on the user. Please note however that I am not able to comment on the outcome, as it would let people directly associate a username with an IP.--Eptalon (talk) 19:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Duck quacking

This user is quite young and several editors on English Wikipedia (myself included) tried to help him understand the rules. He showed promise and joined an adoption program before completely flouting his adoption agreement and I recently endorsed his one year block. He has also been blocked on Wikisource and Wikinews and has a lengthy list of warnings on Commons. On English Wikipedia, he repeatedly made edits from the IP address 74.131.177.233 (Sock Puppet Investigation). Now that IP address is making vandalizing edits to Simple Wikipedia and Starship9000 is providing warnings, including "If you do it again, i will report you." This seems like a clear cut case of Starship9000 acting as a full fledged sock puppet. Andrewman327 (talk) 06:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christian2941 and friends

Per impressive page history and LTA case, please see if a rangeblock is feasible so as to stop future socking. Chenzw  Talk  09:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ran a checkuser, and yes they use the same IPs and user agents. I also blocked another account of them that I found; thanks for noticing. :) --Eptalon (talk) 12:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Duck quaking into a megaphone"

Request

First is the original editor of Nicola Pfund, RfD at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2013/Nicola Pfund. Hex, IP, and Tri27 have all voted/commented at the RfD. All four accounts have only been used for this one article, either creating it or voting at the RfD. No other activity. Is this suspicious enough to look into? Rus793 (talk) 19:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disappoint you, those are not related, I see no connection between Tri27 and the others --Eptalon (talk) 21:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yasir Mushtaq

This user has been vadalizing a user space draft (User:Mar4d/2014) of another user while logged out. 182.186.64.102 first tagged it with a speedy deletion tag (that exists on English Wikipedia) and latter redirected it to a mainspace article that didn't exist. After doing these disruptive edits the IP asked for this page to be deleted at User:RHaworth 's talk (at English Wikipedia). RHaworth is the admin who has blocked most of this user's socks and also deleted the same pages as User:Pakistan Celebrations/2013 that he first tried to add to mainspace and then to userspace with each of his sock at English Wikipedia. This user uses two different IP ranges that geolocate to same geographic location. More recently this user while logged out tagged User:Mar4d 's same draft with sockpuppet tag. He has case page at English Wikipedia also. -- Smsarmad (talk) 16:05, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • The users are fairly new (created 15 decenember and 20th december), and while such editing is problematic, I think this does not yet warrant a block. As to the IP's, the checkuser policy does not allow me to disclose information that allows to associate an IP with an username, execpt in special cases. I think we should talk to the users, before taking further action; even if it turns out they are the same, there is little we can do at the moment. Let?s try not to BITE newcomers. --Eptalon (talk) 21:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Archives/2010-2013&oldid=9884296"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Archives/2010-2013, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.