Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser: Difference between revisions

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
JW1805 (talk | contribs)
8,263 edits
Line 13: Line 13:
===={{user|Starways Common}}====
===={{user|Starways Common}}====
Possible sockpuppet of banned user {{user|Zephram Stark}}. Recent sockpuppets were {{user|TheCat'sMeow}}, {{user|Buster Hawthorn}}, and {{user| لæmäļ al diη}}. Edits to [[Guarana]] and [[Guaranine]] articles. <b>[[User:JW1805|JW1805]]</b> <small>[[User talk:JW1805|(Talk)]]</small> 03:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Possible sockpuppet of banned user {{user|Zephram Stark}}. Recent sockpuppets were {{user|TheCat'sMeow}}, {{user|Buster Hawthorn}}, and {{user| لæmäļ al diη}}. Edits to [[Guarana]] and [[Guaranine]] articles. <b>[[User:JW1805|JW1805]]</b> <small>[[User talk:JW1805|(Talk)]]</small> 03:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Confirmed'''. And [[User:BBQ Cheddar Bunnies]] as well. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 04:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


==Completed requests==
==Completed requests==

Revision as of 04:16, 24 March 2006


    Read this first

    This is the place to request sockpuppet checks and other investigations requiring access to the Checkuser privilege. Possible alternatives are listed below.

    Requests likely to be accepted

    Code Situation Solution, requirements
    A Blatant attack or vandalism accounts, need IP block Submit new section at #Requests for IP check, below
    B Evading blocks, bans and remedies issued by arbitration committee Submit case subpage, including link to closed arb case
    C Ongoing, serious pattern vandalism with many incidents Submit case subpage, including diffs
    D Vote fraud, closed vote, fraud affects outcome Submit case subpage, including link to closed vote
    E 3RR violation using sockpuppets Submit case subpage, including diffs of violation
    F Evading blocks, bans and remedies issued by community Submit case subpage, including link to evidence of remedy
    G Does not fit above, but you believe check needed Submit case subpage, briefly summarize and justify

    Requests likely to be rejected

    Situation Solution
    Obvious, disruptive sock puppet Block, no checkuser needed
    Disruptive "throwaway" account used only for a few edits Block, no checkuser needed
    Checkuser on yourself to "prove your innocence" Such requests are rarely accepted, please do not ask
    Related to ongoing arbitration case Request checkuser on the arbitration case pages
    Vote fraud, ongoing vote Wait until vote closes before listing, or post at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets
    Vote fraud, closed vote, did not affect outcome List at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets
    Other disruption of articles List at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets
    Open proxy, IP address already known List at Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies
    You want access to the checkuser tool yourself Contact the Arbitration Committee, but such access is granted rarely


    When submitting a request

    • If submitting a new case subpage, use the inputbox below; if adding to an existing case subpage, see WP:RFCU/P#Repeat requests.
    • Choose the code letter that best fits your request. Provide evidence such as diff links as required or requested. Note that some code letters inherently require specific evidence.
    • When listing suspected accounts or IP addresses, use the {{checkuser}} or {{checkip}} templates. Please do not use this template in a section header.
    • You may add your request to the top of the #Outstanding requests section, by adding {{Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/CASENAMEHERE}}. If you do not, clerks should check for pages in Category:Checkuser requests to be listed and will do this for you.
    • Sign your request.


    After submitting a request

    Privacy violation?

    this header: view • edit

    File a Checkuser Request
    Cases are created on subpages of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case.
    If you require help or advice, ask at Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser.

    If a case subpage already exists, edit the existing page instead, either adding to the currently open section (if the case is not yet archived) or adding a new section to the top (if the case has been archived). When editing an existing case, be sure to list it here or add Category:Checkuser requests to be listed to the subpage.

    If creating a new case subpage, add the name of the main account (or "puppetmaster", not the sockpuppet!) in the box below. Leave out the "User:" prefix. Do not remove the text in the box, add the name to the end only (that is, append the name to the existing text). Then press "Request a checkuser" and you will be taken to a page where you can fill out the request.

    Example: if you want to request a checkuser on User:John Doe, enter the text:
    Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/John Doe

    <inputbox> type=create editintro=Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Inputbox/Header preload=Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Inputbox/Sample default=Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ buttonlabel=Request a checkuser bgcolor=#F8FCFF width=50 </inputbox>

    Indicators and templates   (v  · e)
    These indicators are used by Checkusers, SPI clerks and other patrolling users, to allow easier at-a-glance reading of their notes, actions and comments.
    Case decisions:
     IP blocked  {{IPblock}}  Tagged  {{Stagged}}
     Blocked but awaiting tags  {{Sblock}}  Not possible  {{Impossible}}
     Blocked and tagged  {{Blockedandtagged}}  Blocked without tags  {{Blockedwithouttags}}
     No tags  {{No tags}}  Blocked and tagged. Closing.  {{Blockedtaggedclosing}}
    Information:
     Additional information needed  {{MoreInfo}}  Deferred  {{Deferred}}
    information Note:  {{TakeNote}}  In progress  {{Inprogress}}
    Clerk actions:
     Clerk assistance requested:  {{Clerk Request}}  Clerk note:  {{Clerk-Note}}
     Delisted  {{Delisted}}  Relisted  {{Relisted}}
     Clerk declined  {{Decline}}  Clerk endorsed  {{Endorse}}
    Self-endorsed by clerk for checkuser attention  {{Selfendorse}} CheckUser requested  {{CURequest}}
    Specific to CheckUser:
     Confirmed  {{Confirmed}} Red X Unrelated  {{Unrelated}}
     Confirmed with respect to the named user(s). no No comment with respect to IP address(es).  {{Confirmed-nc}}
     Technically indistinguishable  {{Technically indistinguishable}}
     Likely  {{Likely}}  Unlikely  {{Unlikely}}
     Possible  {{Possible}}  Inconclusive  {{Inconclusive}}
    no Declined  {{Declined}} no Unnecessary  {{Unnecessary}}
     Stale (too old)  {{StaleIP}} no No comment  {{Nocomment}}
    crystal ball CheckUser is not a crystal ball  {{Crystalball}} fish CheckUser is not for fishing  {{Fishing}}
     CheckUser is not magic pixie dust  {{Pixiedust}} magic eight ball The CheckUser Magic 8-Ball says:  {{8ball}}
     Endorsed by a checkuser  {{Cu-endorsed}}  Check declined by a checkuser  {{Cudecline}}
     Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely)  {{possilikely}}


    Outstanding requests

    Starways Common (talk · contribs)

    Possible sockpuppet of banned user Zephram Stark (talk · contribs). Recent sockpuppets were TheCat'sMeow (talk · contribs), Buster Hawthorn (talk · contribs), and لæmäļ al diη (talk · contribs). Edits to Guarana and Guaranine articles. JW1805 (Talk) 03:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Completed requests

    ThoMas (talk · contribs), Rgulerdem (talk · contribs), 216.248.123.161 (talk · contribs), 128.255.45.117 (talk · contribs), and 216.248.123.156 (talk · contribs)

    I would like to know if ThoMas edited from any of the IPs (known socks of Rgulerdem) or whether the two users shared any other IPs. This edit strongly argues the two usernames are the same, but I would like solid evidence (because Rgulerdem is objecting that they are only a "friend of mine"). Superm401 - Talk 05:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    More info: IPs and ThoMas were blocked on grounds of block evasion (and gaming 3RR, which was what Rgulerdem was originally blocked on). Also WP:POINT by using socks to disrupt Wikipedia. To a far lesser extent, civility as well, but this is not very evident in the socks' behaviour. NSLE (T+C) at 07:55 UTC (2006-03-20)
    • Confirmed. ThoMas is a confirmed sockpuppet of Rgulerdem. As for the IPs, I'm not comfortable revealing who is editing with what IPs unless there is serious vandalism, but it would not be inappropriate to assume that edits from IPs that match Rgulerdem's editing style are in fact coming from him. It is important to remember that checkuser is secondary evidence; the primary evidence is the similar editing pattern. Essjay Talk • Contact 08:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. I went through the contribs first, and that satisifed me. I only came here when Resid protested so strenouusly... Superm401 - Talk 09:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not true. He is a different user. As I explained before on my talk page, he is a friend of mine and new to Wiki. He was trying to help me to fix the destruction and vandalism caused by Metta Bubble (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in the page Wikipedia:Wikiethics. I helped him in doing so. All my edits shows that, I used IPs but I used them explicitely. I singned all my talks even when I was using anonim IPs. There is no single incident you can show that I edited but did not sign. I do not use suckpuppets, I do not need it, I do not like that idea. Your conclusions miss all those and apperantly not true. Resid Gulerdem 22:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    PoolGuy (talk · contribs) and GoldToeMarionette (talk · contribs)

    PoolGuy disputed the removal of a section of content from Pet peeve, and rather than continue revert warring over its inclusion, instead created List of Pet peeves. This new article was nominated for deletion; during the discussion, GoldToeMarionette spammed over 80 users advising them to "vote" to keep the article. This vote-stacking spam is GoldToeMarionette's only contribution thus far to Wikipedia. android79 13:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Frankly I don't see how the individual(s) in question are engaged in significant (e.g. pattern) vandalism or there is reason to believe that sockpuppets are being used to evade a block, ban, or 3RR, or to otherwise violate policy (such as to vote multiple times in a poll or to otherwise appear to represent a wider opinion in discussion than one actually does). A simple review of user contributions seems to demonstrate that.
    Thanks for all your efforts. Wikipedia benefits by all your good work. GoldToeMarionette 05:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This is wikilawyering. Using a sockpuppet to "rally the troops" on an AfD discussion is not kosher. android79 12:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    After reading Wikilawyering I see that this is not relevant either. It appears that you are attempting to justify action contrary to Wikipedia Policy by claiming that even though there is no violation of Wikipedia Policy, somehow you believe that my IP must be investigated because you don't like my posts. Per Wikilawyering I have not engaged in imploring any legal technicalities, instead, I have clearly illustrated that your CheckUser request is baseless.
    Per CheckUser and the Wikimedia privacy policy on that page, unless someone is definitely violating policy with their actions, revealing their IP, whereabouts or other information sufficient to identify them is likely a violation of the privacy policy. Resorting to the inaccurate claim of Wikilawyering appears to remove the possibility of a definite policy violation.
    I have been unable to find a policy violation for Wikipedia:not kosher and there is no adopted policy on vote stacking. I would like to apologize to the Admins here for this request adding to the backlog in Requests_for_CheckUser. GoldToeMarionette 05:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Confirmed. GoldToeMarionette is a sockpuppet of PoolGuy. Jayjg (talk) 05:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Excuse me, can you please inform me what the basis was for your completion of a CheckUser on me? I don't see the basis for you doing this in Wikipedia Policy. Based on the requirements in the green box at the top of this page, there is no basis. Thank you. GoldToeMarionette 20:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Jimboiain (talk · contribs)

    This user has a very similar pattern of edits on Talk:Clive_Bull to the already blocked ZoeCroydon (talk · contribs), Brucethebiggaybear (talk · contribs), ._Westminsterboy (talk · contribs), and 160.83.32.14 (talk · contribs). There are similar comments by 160.83.73.14 (talk · contribs), Rolandaslondon (talk · contribs) and 84.13.95.110 (talk · contribs) on the same page and none of them offer any coherent argument as to whether the new revision of the page has any real flaws.Minglex 17:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    I personally said that I do not like the whole 'flow' of the new article. Why change a whole article that flows well for a new version written by ONE person that doesn't flow well and a lot of people don't like. 84.13.84.22 18:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Also I work with a number of people who work in the same office. We are all alowed to be ourselves I hope! Why are you banning people because they use the same internet connection in their office????84.13.84.22 18:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    You share an office with the 160.xx.xx.xx ip? Because according to your whois, you resolve to Great Britian while the 160.xx ip resolves to New Jersey in the US. --Syrthiss 19:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Dude we are only two people. There are others out in internet land who have been adding stuff too. I mean man! This guy is saying that everyone that disagrees with him is a sockputtet. You should ban him! 84.13.84.22 20:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, I have also been blocked. I work here and me and the other secretaries edit the clive bull article and the Iain lee one. This wiki stuff is getting stupid because they don't understand most companies have one email address. Joanne was blocked on Wednesday and none of us could edit. Is there an offical place to complain, we work for a tv station so that might make them sort this situation out. 160.83.32.14 09:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

    Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Clive_Bull"

    Probably the best place to complain would be to complain to the manager of the tv station where you all work, and let management know that this Joanne person is causing problems with the rest of you editing Wikipedia. That would surely get things sorted out. --(uninvolved person just trying to be helpful) Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 11:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    NoToFrauds (talk · contribs) and his (possibly) many alter-egos & Chai Walla (talk · contribs) and Adityanath (talk · contribs) and his/their respective possible alter-egos

    Hello, I was recommended to stop by here by PseudoSudo (talk · contribs). Here is the current list of sockpuppets that are worth checking in on. There may be 2 or possibly 3 individual users here, each with their respective sockpuppets. It's hard to distinguish the them. They are using their sockpuppets to boost concensus in voting and discussions, and to avoid WP:3RR, also to avoid other punishment for other policy violations such as WP:PA, revealing personal identity details of rival disputants on talk pages, and others (below):

    This username may be involved with either of the two, but unlikely..

    Thanks for your help. For more info see bottom of my talk page. Hamsacharya dan 19:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The mentioned users have been building up false discussions on a number of pages; check the contibs of the newer accounts. The most blatant example is Talk:Mahavatar Babaji#Vote.
    User:82.15.17.152 (who is currently serving a 24-hour block for blanking warnings on his talk) has signed his contributions as User:NoToFrauds ([1], [2]) and User:No to Nutss (a non-existent user, [3]), User:Priyanath ([4], check the right of the sig), and has actually flip-flopped the signature of a comment ([5]). ~ PseudoSudo 22:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, Priyanath is just Priyanath, and nobody else. I noticed that NTF added my name to the right of his signature where you point out above, but the signature and posting was his. (for a time, I was ignorantly typing 'Priyanath' after the four tildes - it looks like NTF cleverly imitated my mistake). I think that someone needs to look at all sides of these revert wars, sockpuppetry, and personal attacks. It shows no sign of letting up.Priyanath 07:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Confirmed for both. TroyVaughn/NoToFrauds/82.15.17.152 are all the same editor. Adityanath/Baba Louis/Chai Walla are also the same editor as each, though not the same as ToryVaughn etc. Note, Adityanath claims that other editors were simply working at the same place, and using his/her computer,etc.[6] Jayjg (talk) 05:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would like an independent review of this. Yes, the three of us were travelling together and sharing a laptop from hotel and cybercafe. However, we are now in separate locations and this should be verifiable, as should the fact of our changing location while travelling. I could do it myself using just nslookup and whois, but we had no reason to keep a list of our IP addresses as we travelled. —Adityanath 17:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Jayjg - thank you very much for bringing this out into the open finally. I have been hounded ceaselessly by these two for weeks. I have documented a long list of their violations on my talk page, not the least of which is sockpuppeting. I know I am biased in asking this, since I have been the primary disputant with them, but pending a full investigation, and based on their long list of offences, I would like to nominate them for banning from Wikipedia. Please tell me if I need to take further action independently, such as petitioning an arbitration committee?? Thanks. Hamsacharya dan 19:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    80.90.39.72 (talk · contribs) and Rose-mary (talk · contribs)

    Rose-mary uses a dynamic IP, and prefers not to log in, but she always pushes the same PoV on Phaistos Disc. If she violates 3RR again, it would be useful to have it established that this is the same user. Septentrionalis 20:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Bitola (talk · contribs) vs 62.162.188.223 (talk · contribs)

    I believe that the IP is a sockpuppet of User:Bitola to evate the 3RR on Bitola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Bitola has stated that he lives in the FYROM and that is where that IP originates. I think it is obvious that they are the same person, but I'd like to be sure so that I can report him for a 3RR violation. --Latinus 23:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Jbamb (talk · contribs) Alpha269 (talk · contribs)

    Alpha only showed up to basically battle and fight for an article about Jbamb to be kept, and pushed the fight to the point he was banned. Jbamb did not comment on anything to do with his AfD or DV, and only showed up on the WP:AN AFTER Alpha was banned. Seems like sockpuppets to me. Mike (T C) 03:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Timeline: Article John Bambenek sent to AfD. After a colorful discussion loaded with various forms of puppetry on all sides, the article was deleted. User:Alpha269 requested a DRV, which ended with the article remaining deleted (despite spamming by Alpha on many newly minted admins' talk pages). Then, for whatever reason, Alpha269 takes it to the noticeboard. After everyone more or less reaffirms the deltion, Alpha recreated the article (redeleted again), and started an illegitimate RfC, located here. After a spate of incivility, continued disruption in several places (including putting The New York Times on AfD - seriously), I blocked him (with the unsurprising calls of "Wiki-terrorism!" on his talk page).
    Coincidently, the subject of John Bambenek happens to be User:Jbamb, who was mum on ther whole ordeal until I blocked Alpha. See the same AN thread. Incivility and accusations of Administrative abuse out of nowhere. It seems to me that they are the same fellow. Requesting Check User. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Diffs: AfD of the New York Times: [7], AfD of John Bambenek [8], RFC by Alpha269 [9], Alpha's posts to the WP:AN [10], Jbamb chims in AFTER the block of Alpha269 [11], Sample of the request placed on new admins talk pages by Alpha269 [12]. Also if you look at Alpha269's contribs he only contributes to AfDs and to things associated with the Bambanek AfD, DRV and RFC. Mike (T C) 04:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll accept permanent banning if we are on checkuser on the condition that Onthost and Gustafson are permanently banned if I'm not. -- Jbamb 15:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    IPs which may have been involved include:
    • 12.203.38.138
    • 130.126.138.6
    • 130.126.139.135
    • 130.126.139.14
    -submitted by Will Beback 05:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd also like to point out that this request is not being made with policy, that no vandalism, vote stacking, or other behavior has been alleged. That being said, I want this issue put to death so that people realize there isn't sockpuppetry (I'm tired of being accused), and that the incivil admins who continue to disregard all policies and guidelines will be reprimanded for their disruption of the community. -- Jbamb 21:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    user:Alpha269 has in fact engaged in vandalism, such as nominating the New York Times for deletion, as well as other disruptive behavior that has resulted in his being blocked by an admin. -Will Beback 22:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, forgot about that NYT thing, that was a pretty dick thing to do. But the idea that taking an AfD to Deletion Review, than to RFC is disruptive I find intriguing. Particularly in the light of Jeffrey Gustafson's known f!@#% you attitude. -- Jbamb 01:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I am asking for this checkuser. Also if this checkuser comes back positive, Jbamb will be would be evading a block. Mike (T C)
    You are taking away from my time in making an encyclopedia. And correct me if I am wrong, I thought Alpha's block was one day. -- Jbamb 03:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Highly likely: CheckUser indicates that Jbamb/Alpha269 are responsible for the IP edits and are most likely sockpuppets. Jayjg (talk) 05:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What does "most likely" mean, either we are or are not using the same IPs. -- Jbamb 16:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sockpuppet checking is an art, not a science. They're definitely using those IPs to edit, and it's most likely they're the same. The latter means I'm at least 90% certain they are the same individual. If I were 100% certain I would have simply confirmed it. Jayjg (talk) 17:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    ._JamieHughes (talk · contribs) and related accounts

    Several accounts popped up on Iain Lee and Clive Bull related to a purported "coming out" on the air. I've indefblocked all of them except the underlying ip (which atm is caught under the autoblock)...but I'd like confirmation if its possible. I feel they are all a bunch of socks, but I'd hate to have blocked legit editors who just happen to be bandwagon-y. Accounts are ZoeCroydon (talk · contribs), Brucethebiggaybear (talk · contribs), ._Westminsterboy (talk · contribs) and 160.83.32.14 (talk · contribs) (who suspiciously goes silent when the blocks are enabled). All of their edit histories show similarities, not only focused on the articles above, but also vandalization of Olmec. Syrthiss 15:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Hello, I know that 3 of the people mentioned above work in the same organisation and we like to edit wiki while we are working. Is that a crime? Two of my work collegues were banned from wiki simply because they said they didn't like the changes at the clive bull site. That is very unfair. So you just block people on a bandwagon??? How do we make an official complaint? Editors should have been more throurough before banning everyone. 160.83.73.14 09:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    You are welcome to complain about my blocks at WP:ANI, tho be advised that I already started sections there asking for review of my blocks. I don't block people on a bandwagon, I block people who appear to be perpetrating a hoax. I can say with confidence that if your coworkers registered new accounts and contributed positively to wikipedia (ie don't all edit Clive Bull with a remarkably similar style concurrently) that they would be welcomed. Condsidering another of your 'coworkers' User:Jimbolain (hmm funny that its an amalgam of "Jimbo Wales" and "Iain Lee") just blanked this section, I don't really forsee that happening though. --Syrthiss 13:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Medule (talk · contribs)

    Request on WP:RFI, copying over here to verify suspected sockpupets, to allow appropriate action to be taken. Petros471 17:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User Medule has been for over a month repeatedly making changes to the pages History of Croatia, Croatia, Medieval Croatian state, Dalmatia, Hvar, London Pact, Battle of Vukovar, and others related to Croatia by removing any mention of the words "Croat" or "Croatian" and substituting them with either "Slavic" or "Serb and Croat" etc.; or by adding information which are widely viewed as Serbian nationalist propaganda sometimes supplying external links to organizations such as the Serbian Union Congress as evidence. The dispute was tried to be resolved on the corresponding discussion pages by a number of Croatian contributors to the Wikipedia but to no avail. The user won't give up. In fact, after the protection of Croatia page imposed because of his controversial edits, he has turned his attention to the aforementioned pages and possibly others related to Croatian matters. The situation is further aggravated by the suspicion that Medule may be using the following sockpuppets User:KHasek, User:Bzezen, User:Clavell (as of March 15 2006), as well as anonymous IPs 195.252.84.xxx or 195.252.85.xxx (195.252.86.175 (talk · contribs), 195.252.84.184 (talk · contribs), 195.252.85.237 (talk · contribs), 194.106.187.133 (talk · contribs) etc. // EurowikiJ 10:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Confirmed. KHasek and Clavell are sockpuppets of Medule. Bzezen appears unrelated. Jayjg (talk) 06:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the following users may be Medule as well: User:Purger, User:Purqer, User:Purrger, User:Pirkovank. --AHrvojic 05:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Apreacherofiar (talk · contribs)

    Shares consistent vandalism with Zuzzzu (talk · contribs), Syzzamundo (talk · contribs), Rozgred (talk · contribs), Jonnox (talk · contribs), Woolwich Matt (talk · contribs), Intheiderem (talk · contribs) and Godofbiscuits12 (talk · contribs) on the Briefs and article.Minglex 23:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC) Rozgred (talk · contribs) has admitted to using socks on their talk page *(INCLUDING Godofbiscuits12) and a shared IP address. I don't think Jonnox and Woolwich Matt are from the same IP though. --Keltus3 13:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    0waldo (talk · contribs) & 199.174.149.1 (talk · contribs) & 24.232.247.81 (talk · contribs) & 24.214.176.87 (talk · contribs)

    1. User:0waldo has been repeatedly harassing me via Wikipedia then via my website and now a new message on my talk page here from an anon IP 199.174.149.1 (who appeared to sign as User:Hemihead). I suspect they're both the same user.
    2. Some harassment in Habackman's talk page by 0waldo and other IPs that I suspect are sockpuppets.
    3. There is also suspicion here that User:0waldo and User:24.232.247.81 are the same user.
    4. User changed his IP to post harassing messages on my talk page at: [13] and [14].

    Please investigate. Thank you. - File:Ottawa flag.png nathanrdotcom (T • C • W) 06:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The 24.214 IP was confirmed as him by Essjay, and he was reblocked for that. You'll have to ask about the others. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 05:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Imacomp (talk · contribs) and Skull 'n' Femurs (talk · contribs)

    Can we have a check on Imacomp (talk · contribs) and Skull 'n' Femurs (talk · contribs) again please. This was checked at [[15]] but It would be useful to confim the assessment. SnF was recently banned based on a statement of intent to systematically remove well-referenced information from Wikipedia and Imacomps behaviour is tending tow indicate that it's the same person. Most notably is an increasing use of edit summaries to convey personal attacks. If there is a corroboration of the previous check then I'll report over on WP:AN/I for an enforcement of the ban. ThanksALR 15:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:ALR that will be user:lightbringer again will it? Imacomp 12:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Can I just highlight that this requirement has not gone away, Imacomps conduct on a number of Freemasonry related pages could be construed as being disruptive, there have been a number of complaints of personal attacks and edit summaries are increasingly used as vehicles for those attacks. There appears to be general consensus amongst regular users of these pages that Imacomp is a sock of SnF.ALR 15:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    thanks for running the check anyway.ALR 22:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Ratgirl056 (talk · contribs) and Oneforthetruth (talk · contribs)

    There are likely others as well; there is an attempt to stack a vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Crook with newly created sockpuppets, would be nice to know who the puppetmaster is so this can be swiftly curtailed. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:baku87

    Hello Fred, we haven't talked before but I was hopeing you could help me with a problem, since I saw your name on the list of those with check user abilities. I suspect user baku87 may have atleast one sockpuppet if not two, which are druffc and Johnstevens5.

    The problem really started when baku87 brought up outlandish POV charges against the Military of Armenia article. Soon he was joined by druffc and just today by Johnstevens5. What makes me suspect that he may have sockpuppets is how the first edits druffc and Johnstevens5 made were on the talk page to the Military of Armenian article. Also, if you check out baku87 contributions, you will see that he has had contact with Johnstevens5 at a time when Johnstevens5 doesn't even have his user page set up. Also, druffc knew about edit summary, something that most new users do not learn after only a couple of edits. Please look into this, thank you in advance!--Moosh88 03:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Moved from my user talk page. Fred Bauder 16:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No obvious association between the accounts. Ambi 07:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    GoldToeMarionette (talk · contribs) and TheBringerOfPeace (talk · contribs)

    The latter's only edits (see [16]) are to object the former's block. Please check if they are sockpuppets of each other. --Nlu (talk) 06:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, and they've already been blocked. Essjay Talk • Contact 21:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    FARVA (talk · contribs)

    Has the same editing style and targets the same people for harassment as User:Eat At Joes and User:SteveInPrague, who were both blocked for abuse. All three of these accounts are suspected "DickWitham" sockpuppets. Master Of RSPW 13:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    ...but only by Master Of RSPW aka Chadbryant (see below). --FARVA 03:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    At the request of JDoorjam, I am adding to the current RFCU on FARVA (talk · contribs) - he should be checked against the following accounts:
    Thank you for your cooperation. - Chadbryant 04:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That the three users listed above are the same person: Quite Likely
    • That these people are Chad Bryant's long-term nemesis: Likely
    • The degree to which CheckUser was needed to find this out: Not in the slightest
    Kelly Martin (talk) 02:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Jim16 (talk · contribs) and 66.17.116.148 (talk · contribs)

    It is my belief that Jim16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 66.17.116.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) constitute the same person. While most actual vandalism is done by 66.17.116.148, neither engages in constructive editing. Further, each user is in the habit of "blanking" vandalism warnings (and anything else, for that matter) from the talk page and, most notably, from the other user's talk page. If my suspicion is correct, an extended block may be warranted for both accounts following the next case of vandalism by either. RadioKirk talk to me 19:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    "Blanking" of vandalism warnings since the original request

    By User:Jim16 to User talk:66.17.116.148, here, and by User:Jim16 to User talk:Jim16, here, here, here, here, here and here.

    Why this request is valid

    This user is under the impression per User:William M. Connolley that he is allowed to blank his talk page, and might argue that warnings to not vandalize his talk page are, therefore, inapplicable. It is expected that CheckUser will demonstrate a history of blanking warnings, including against vandalism to Wikipedia articles, and of vandalism itself (usually when the user is not logged in, to present a façade of innocence). RadioKirk talk to me 21:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Buster Hawthorn (talk · contribs) and Palmetto State (talk · contribs)

    Suspected sockpuppets of banned user Zephram Stark (talk · contribs). Please see here for complete list of past sockpuppets. Recent ones include: Urban Designer (talk · contribs), ZathrasOne (talk · contribs), Mark Breeder (talk · contribs) . JW1805 (Talk) 01:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Declined requests

    If you add more information and would like the request to be considered again, move it back to the "pending" section

    Innatheism (talk · contribs)

    At the AfD discussion for Innatheism, a number of entries seem to have sock-puppetry tendencies: very similar arguments ('approached by Innatheists in the street'), extremely low edit-counts, and IP addresses that seem to be in one or more series. The possible puppets are 81.79.157.77 (talk · contribs), 81.79.238.57 (talk · contribs), 85.210.59.216 (talk · contribs), 88.109.78.41 (talk · contribs), 88.109.184.204 (talk · contribs), 88.110.27.34 (talk · contribs), 88.111.37.190 (talk · contribs), Tenth_User (talk · contribs), ToMySurprise_81 (talk · contribs) Jumbeaux_lafeet (talk · contribs), and Hellmonkey42 (talk · contribs). Bucketsofg 20:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC) Request withdrawn. As Jayig points out it is now moot. Bucketsofg 15:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Article has been deleted; does it really matter any more? Jayjg (talk) 06:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Bescn (talk · contribs)

    I suspect this user is a sock-puppet used to evade 3RR on Persian people and other articles. The user seems too familiar (expert level) with wiki and wiki tags/codes for a newbie who just joined wiki. --ManiF 08:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    A sockpuppet of whom, and where specifically has he violated 3RR? Jayjg (talk) 06:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Corax (talk · contribs) and 64.40.60.106 (talk · contribs)

    Request checkuser to see if there is evidence of connection in what might be a case of wikistalking, trolling, and vandalism occuring on 15 March or thereabouts. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 07:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Problem has subsided. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 14:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So this one can be removed from the list, then? Jayjg (talk) 06:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    S14235325235 (talk · contribs)

    Squidward vandal, assuming IP is using open proxy, CheckUser would be of use to determine proxy status -- Tawker 01:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Not sure I understand, can you explain exactly what you want? Jayjg (talk) 06:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • This was an account used by the Squidward vandal, who is known to use compromised proxies and/or zombie computers to carry out rapid-fire vandalism (see Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse/Squidward). I believe what Tawker is requesting is that the underlying IP address used by this account be disclosed so that it may be appropriately tagged and blocked. Best regards, Hall Monitor 22:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Axiomm (talk · contribs)

    There is something very strange about Axiomm (talk · contribs). His/her fourth edit was a vote on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Christopherlin, his third edit created Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Yahooligans which seems to be nonsense without content or context, and his other edits are creation or recreation of nonsense content articles like Humbierto. Maybe a sock for a prevously banned troublemaker? Thatcher131 12:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see any specific policy violation concerns here; did you have a specific banned editor in mind? Jayjg (talk) 23:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Adityanath (talk · contribs) / Baba Louis (talk · contribs) / Chai Walla (talk · contribs)

    Jayjg (talk · contribs) incorrectly identified us as sockpuppets. [17] This is understandable as we were travelling together and connecting from the same hotels and cybercafe. [18] We have now returned to our own homes and it should be easy to verify that we are not sockpuppets. Please actually check the data and clear my name. —Adityanath 20:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Enough. The constant complaining about this in an attempt to game the system has become disruptive. Either file a Request for Arbitration or drop it. Next time I see anything about this coming from your account, I'm blocking you for disruption. Essjay Talk • Contact 23:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    201.252.215.190 (talk · contribs) and User:NoToFrauds (talk · contribs)

    - I believe they are the same user. Please confirm. Thanks.Gator (talk) 22:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    We do not routinely confirm user's IP addresses without specific examples of policy violations. Please check the expanded header on this page, and specify policy violations that justify a check. Essjay Talk • Contact 23:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser&oldid=45215147"