Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:15, 23 April 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

Purge cache

Checkuser clerks assist with maintenance of the page but do not directly respond to checkuser requests. If you need help, post at Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser.
Responses will be brief in order to comply with Wikipedia's privacy policy. Likewise, the privacy policy often prevents us from running a check which has the effect of revealing IP addresses.
Due to technical factors, results are not always clear.
Check back regularly to see the outcome of your request.
Checkusers and clerks do not generally issue blocks. You may need to do this yourself or submit a request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Case subpages are typically archived several days after a checkuser responds.
More procedures at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Procedures.

Privacy violation?

If you feel that a checkuser has led to a violation of the Wikimedia Foundation privacy policy regarding yourself, please refer the case to the Ombudsman commission.

this header: view • edit

File a Checkuser Request

This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference.
Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump.

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}}
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}}	Unrelated {{Unrelated}}
Confirmed with respect to the named user(s). No comment with respect to IP address(es). {{Confirmed-nc}}
Technically indistinguishable {{Technically indistinguishable}}
Likely {{Likely}}	Unlikely {{Unlikely}}
Possible {{Possible}}	Inconclusive {{Inconclusive}}
Declined {{Declined}}	Unnecessary {{Unnecessary}}
Stale (too old) {{StaleIP}}	No comment {{Nocomment}}
CheckUser is not a crystal ball {{Crystalball}}	CheckUser is not for fishing {{Fishing}}
CheckUser is not magic pixie dust {{Pixiedust}}	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

Munckin

Munckin (talk · contribs) Indef blocked by Curps, edits display the telltale sign (backslashes before every apostrophe) of a broken open proxy, which should also be indef blocked per WP:NOP. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Declined. Already dealt with below. Mackensen (talk) 21:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skinmeister and Rennix

It is suspected, based on editing style and voting-stuffing on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_shock_sites_(fourth_nomination), that Skinmeister (talk · contribs) and Rennix (talk · contribs) are the same person. (The most recent indicator that Skinmeister is a sockpuppet is that he/she made a sarcastic comment about getting "another" 24 hour block, when he/she had never been blocked before from that account by that point. Please conduct a CheckUser to check whether these accounts are sockpuppets of each other and of any other account. --Nlu (talk) 11:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added the IP that he is using to influence votes as well. There is a boatload of evidence that these are the same person. One is that Rennix has only really posted at articles/votes that Skinmeister has an interest in, specifically 2 of the AfD votes on List of shock sites. Not only that, but it's pretty obvious that Skinmeister uses Rennix to "get back" at other users by using very abusive language in his edit summaries: [1], [2]. Also, Rennix uses a tactic that Skinmeister (editing as 86.128.222.36) does, which is readding votes taken away by admins. Here is 86.128.222.36 doing it and here is Rennix doing it. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 16:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Likely. Mackensen (talk) 21:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim_sunni, Muslima_sunnia, and others

I would like to invite you to read Complete background in a nutshell which can be found here. Complex Vandalism and delibrate Revert War on this Wikipedia-NPOV Compliant version (written by a NEUTRAL, non-Muslim and non-Al-Ahbash party Tearlach), to replace it with a partially and promotionally written version was started precisely on April 07, 2006 by the above users. These user have also been using Wikipedia to insert hidden links for link-framing to drive more traffic to their group's web-sites. Consequently, I request that an investigation should be conducted to track all the SockPuppets. Thanking you in anticipation. Sincerely, McKhan

ZoeCroydon

Kerry ( work IP address for DB) (talk · contribs)
Joanne ( work IP address for DB) (talk · contribs)
Peter ( work IP address for DB) (talk · contribs)
Uni student (talk · contribs)
Johntheclivefan (talk · contribs)
Sockpuppets of ZoeCroydon (talk · contribs)

All these editors are new accounts that oppose a neutrality and cleanup edit to the article Clive Bull (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) on grounds such as 'poor wording' and 'flow'. The article is deadlocked due to 3RR constraints and the accounts refuse to work with other editors to correct the problems they claim to have. There is a strong possibility that these accounts are indefinitely blocked vandal, hoaxer and puppetmaster User:ZoeCroydon, who has a considerable sock farm, largely proven by previous CheckUser, which was also used a month ago to create illusions of a false consensus on this very same issue (as well as on Iain Lee).

Apart from their shared but otherwise unique opinions, they also share a similar style of writing, knowledge of obscure Wikipedia "rules" such as WP:AGF and WP:RPA despite being focused on one article [3], and the first three accounts share the same interesting typo in their bizarre names (the unnecessary space after the opening bracket), suggesting rapid account creation using copy-and-paste. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Alternatively, the space after opening a bracket may be a habit.) --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've started investigating this but results will take some time to complete. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the users with IP for DB are working in the same organisation. People who work in the same organisation are not sockpuppets.

Note: Unistudent and is a university student and some of his roomates use his computer.

This does not make them sock puppets, and they have a right to contribute. 147.114.226.175 12:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The vandal has used this defence in the past. See this edit from a confirmed sock. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Banning has an agenda to change the Clive Bull article. I ask to produce examples of the vandalism he says there is? 147.114.226.175 13:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Continually reverting an updated version of the Clive Bull to a dated one with no valid reason is vandalism. Minglex 08:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sampa & Peyman.a

Sampa (talk · contribs)
Peyman.a (talk · contribs)

The article History of Azerbaijan has been attacked by these two users and a number of anonymous IPs for a couple of month now, and as result got protected yesterday. I suspect that these 2 user accounts are sockpuppets, all they do is revert the article to a very old POV edit. Please check the history of the article for IP addresses used to vandalise the page, the list is long. Grandmaster 06:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it seems that the two users are trying to avoid the 3RR by switching accounts. --Khoikhoi 06:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern_section_of_the_nation

Eastern_section_of_the_nation (talk · contribs)

We believe this is blocked user MuslimsofUmreka getting around his block. He is acting in the same manner and trolling for an edit war on Islamism. Kyaa the Catlord 14:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VQHernandez and Anderson12 (and other Lightbringer Puppets)

Please check to see if User:VQHernandez uses an IP close to 21.68.240.98 (the IP of many banned Lightbringer socks). I think we may have yet another [[User:Lightbringer] Puppet on the Freemasonry pages. This is a long time POV vandal abuser. In this canse he seems fixated on proving that Freemasons supported Hitler, or something like that. In any case, it forms part of his pattern to attack a section on Freemasonry during the Hollicaust, and try add a particular citation ... these edits may help you see what I mean: this edit by User:Anderson12 was made way back when - Anderson12 was subsequently banned for being a Lightbringer Sock. Then there is this edit by User:Keystrokes - also shown to be a Lighbringer sock. Now User:VQHernandez wants to make suspiciously similar edits: here, here, and here.

For informaion on User:Lightbringer and his army of socks, Please see: Lightbringer Thanks Blueboar 23:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Might be, might not be. Similar MO to Fyodor Dos (talk · contribs) and starting to display common characteristics. Initially no edit summaries, familiar with referencing on the first edit, which indicates someone used to editing. And now an edit summary saying 'there is nothing to discuss', seen that before from LB.ALR 10:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Declined requests

Kroche14 and ip adress 208.96.78.122 (Pubdownunder as well)

Kroche14 (talk · contribs) 208.96.78.122 (talk · contribs) Pubdownunder (talk · contribs)

Both of the first two listed have virtually identical edit histories, the IP address often being used to blank or remove information from pages, specificly articles created by Kroche14 that have been tagged for deletion or to remove copyright violation tags from pages created by Kroche14 after he has been warned not to do such. User Pubdownunder has only two edits, both to my talk page, to create comments that were later resigned by by user Kroche14. Even if ip 208.96.78.122 is not Kroche14, then ip 208.96.78.122 is a repeat vandal, as it has removed copy vio tags from Judith Woodsworth and Rand Dyck (both articles were created and almost solely edited by Kroche14. Tomb Ride ^{My Talk} 17:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Declined. There doesn't seem to be any doubt that they're the same user. Absent a serious violation we're not going to out someone's IP address. Mackensen (talk) 20:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vigilant

Vigilant (talk · contribs) possible sock of
Friendly Neighbour (talk · contribs)
Why you so hawny? (talk · contribs)
Sue me Jeff (talk · contribs)

Accounts fall within an IP address range controlled by Sean Crandall of megapath.net. Address posted for these accounts appears in the edit summaries of all these accounts, 64.139.4.129 (talk · contribs). This IP Address is also associated with several MediaWiki breakins and DOS attacks on InterWiki servers. Account appears to be a sockpuppet used for vote fraud and perpetual 3RR reversions of various accounts. All of the accounts associated with this address also appear to be used for this purpose. No constructive edits for these accounts, a large number of perpetual 3RR and talk page trolling and disruption. Why you so hawny? (talk · contribs) and Sue me Jeff (talk · contribs) blocked by user Guanaco (talk · contribs). Accounts appear to exist solely for vote fraud and disruption. Several Afd comment pages with votes appearing from multiple accounts User:Vigilant and Friendly Neighbour (talk · contribs) and possibly others. Cannot locate a single article produced by these address ranges or accounts contributed by these accounts.

* Include the reason for the investigation with links to the arbitration case(s) or other discussion.

* You must lay out clearly the evidence for sockpuppetry.

* You must explain how your request fits the policy above.

Can anyone spot which elements of this complaint are missing? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller? Vigilant 07:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They seem to exist solely for disruption and vote fraud. TempusFugit 06:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC) Log Excerpts from MediaWiki Interwiki site linked to Wikipedia:[reply]

ACCESS_LOG

Buffer Oveflow Attacks of PHP Server by this address

ip-64-139-4-129.sjc.megapath.net - - [31/Mar/2006:11:02:09 -0700] "GET /index.php?title=Special:Recentchanges&amp%3Bamp%3Bamp%3Bamp%3Bfeed=rss&amp%3Bamp%3Bamp%3Bfeed=rss& amp%3Bamp%3Bfeed=rss&amp%3Bfeed=rss&feed=rss HTTP/1.1" 200 37443 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; Google Desktop)" ip-64-139-4-129.sjc.megapath.net - - [31/Mar/2006:11:02:13 -0700] "GET /index.php?title=Special:Recentchanges&amp%3Bamp%3Bamp%3Bamp%3Bamp%3Bfeed=rss&amp%3Bamp%3Bamp%3Bamp %3Bfeed=rss&amp%3Bamp%3Bamp%3Bfeed=rss&amp%3Bamp%3Bfeed=rss&amp%3Bfeed=rss&feed=rss HTTP/1.1" 200 37686 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; Google Desktop)" ip-64-139-4-129.sjc.megapath.net - - [31/Mar/2006:11:02:16 -0700] "GET /index.php?title=Special:Recentchanges&amp%3Bamp%3Bamp%3Bamp%3Bamp%3Bamp%3Bfeed=rss&amp%3Bamp%3Bamp %3Bamp%3Bamp%3Bfeed=rss&amp%3Bamp%3Bamp%3Bamp%3Bfeed=rss&amp%3Bamp%3Bamp%3Bfeed=rss&amp%3Bamp %3Bfeed=rss&amp%3Bfeed=rss&feed=rss HTTP/1.1" 200 37959 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; Google Desktop)" ip-64-139-4-129.sjc.megapath.net - - [31/Mar/2006:11:02:20 -0700] "GET /index.php?title=Special:Recentchanges&amp%3Bamp%3Bamp%3Bamp%3Bamp%3Bamp%3Bamp%3Bfeed=rss&amp%3Bamp %3Bamp%3Bamp%3Bamp%3Bamp%3Bfeed=rss&amp%3Bamp%3Bamp%3Bamp%3Bamp%3Bfeed=rss&amp%3Bamp%3Bamp%3Bamp %3Bfeed=rss&amp%3Bamp%3Bamp%3Bfeed=rss&amp%3Bamp%3Bfeed=rss&amp%3Bfeed=rss&feed=rss HTTP/1.1" 200 38262 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; Google Desktop)" ip-64-139-4-129.sjc.megapath.net - - [31/Mar/2006:11:02:23 -0700] "GET /index.php?title=Special:Recentchanges&amp%3Bamp%3Bamp%3Bamp%3Bamp%3Bamp%3Bamp%3Bamp%3Bfeed=rss&amp %3Bamp%3Bamp%3Bamp%3Bamp%3Bamp%3Bamp%3Bfeed=rss&amp%3Bamp%3Bamp%3Bamp%3Bamp%3Bamp%3Bfeed=rss&amp %3Bamp%3Bamp%3Bamp%3Bamp%3Bfeed=rss&amp%3Bamp%3Bamp%3Bamp%3Bfeed=rss&amp%3Bamp%3Bamp%3Bfeed=rss&amp %3Bamp%3Bfeed=rss&amp%3Bfeed=rss&feed=rss HTTP/1.1" 200 38595 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; Google Desktop)"

ERROR_LOG

Attempts to locate magic numbers and override .htaccess settings by this IP address.

[Sun Apr 16 12:03:37 2006] [error] [client 64.139.4.129] client denied by server configuration: /wikidump/.ht

[client 64.139.4.129] PHP Notice: Undefined offset: 1 in /wikidump/includes/MagicWord.php on line 222

[Sun Apr 16 12:22:35 2006] [error] [client 64.139.4.129] File does not exist: /wikidump/layout

[Sun Apr 16 13:10:59 2006] [error] [client 64.139.4.129] client denied by server configuration: /wikidump/.ht

[client 64.139.4.129] PHP Notice: Undefined offset: 1 in /wikidump/includes/MagicWord.php on line 222

The following address(65.214.44.139) resolves to Boston... Can't keep your DoS, hacking stories straight?! How DID you ever get to be chief scientist? :P Vigilant 07:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[client 65.214.44.138] PHP Notice: Undefined offset: 1 in /wikidump/includes/MagicWord.php on line 222

[Sun Apr 16 17:26:23 2006] [error] [client 64.139.4.129] client denied by server configuration: /wikidump/.htaccess

[client 65.214.44.138] PHP Notice: Undefined offset: 1 in /wikidump/includes/MagicWord.php on line 222

[client 64.139.4.129] PHP Notice: Uninitialized string offset: 0 in /wikidump/includes/Parser.php on line 2724

[client

64.139.4.129] PHP Notice:  Uninitialized string offset:  0 in /wikidump/includes/Parser.php on line 2724

[client 64.139.4.129] PHP Notice: Uninitialized string offset: 0 in /wikidump/includes/Parser.php on line 2724

[client 65.214.44.138] PHP Notice: Undefined offset: 1 in /wikidump/includes/MagicWord.php on line 222

[client 64.139.4.129] PHP Notice: Undefined offset: 1 in /wikidump/includes/MagicWord.php on line 222

[Sun Apr 16 23:16:23 2006] [error] [client 64.139.4.129] client denied by server configuration: /wikidump/.htaccess

TempusFugit 06:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff, you are truely a strange, strange person. Does EVERYONE on the 'public internets' try to break into your machine?

User:Sue me Jeff was indeed my first Wikipedia account, which got a username block on its first day of existance (BTW not by User:Guanaco as claimed by the accuser but by another admin). I did not hide the fact, see [4]. I have nothing to do with all the other usernames listed (or any other facts he lists) by an account which was specially created to accuse me. I suspect that User:TempusFugit is another sockpuppet of Jeffrey Vernon Merkey who has been indefinitely blocked as User:Gadugi (and many sockpuppets listed by me on my talk page [5]) for legal threats, editing the article on himself and vandalism. His other active account at present is User:Sint Holo. This user is known for using several IP numbers so I suppose he created the new account with an untainted IP number but most probably one belonging to COMCAST Utah netblock. The probable reason is revange because already five sockpuppets of Jeff Merkey have been blocked thanks to my documenting his Wikipedia activity. Friendly Neighbour 21:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add the information that user Sint Holo has been indefinitely blocked by Jimbo Wales himself as a sockpuppet of the banned user Gadugi. Because the accuser (TempusFugit (talk · contribs)) has not tried to hide that he is Jeffrey Vernon Merkey (=Gadugi) by providing info from logs of a site Jeff Merkey operates (Wikigadugi.org), I believe TempusFugit should be blocked as well. Friendly Neighbour 08:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff, if someone is breaking in to your piss-poor clone of Wikipedia, CALL THE FBI! Sounds like a federal offence. But it is not, and will never be, a problem for the real Wikipedia. Also, you are banned from here. Go away. --Vryl 00:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CheckUser. I discussed this situation with Danny at the Wikimedia Foundation and it was relayed that they will be removing the odious postings and harassing dialgoue from these users. I am compiling the full report on the behavior of these accounts for Danny to review. I am also putting together the lexicon translator for English to Cherokee for chr.wikipedia.org and 50% of all donations are being forwarded to Wikimedia for support of Native American Articles and Wikipedia on behalf of our people. At present, we are translating all of the English Wikipedia content from the XML dumps into the Cherokee Language over at the wikigadugi project with a lexicon translation program we are donating to Wikimedia Foundation, and giving the source code and libraries to Wikimedia for support of the Native Cherokee Wikipedia. If these harassing folks keep posting inappropriate materials to my talk page, stalking me and disrupting my work, or posting legal threats, please do wikipedia a favor and block them from doing so in the future and get them off this site. Thanks. Sint Holo 02:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jeff. I'd like to point out that you cannot BUY your way on wikipedia. It is, by its very nature, a collaboration. Wikigadugi is where you can BUY your viewpoint into existence. You are indef blocked for a multitude of reasons, please go play in your broken fork. KTHXBYE Vigilant 05:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff, what's inappropriate in adding links to an archives you yourself created? Anyone can check that it was my only input to your talk page. I also never deleted one dot from the page. You did. Friendly Neighbour 05:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need for a checkuser. Why you so hawny? (talk · contribs), and Sue me Jeff (talk · contribs) are usernames blocked for username violations so if the users concerned are now using non-bogus usernames, there's no problem (in contrast to Jeff's blocks, which are aimed at Jeff himself because of Jeff's atrocious disruptive behaviour), Whether or not Vigilant or FriendlyNeighbour are engaged in other forms of bad behaviour on Wikipedia is a job for some other Wikipedia admin page, not this one. --Aim Here 15:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well. there is some sense in this user check. The only two active accounts Jeff Merkey wants checked are Vigilant and me. I'm not Vigilant and I'm glad this will be proved beyond any doubt. Friendly Neighbour 16:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can see the amount of pending checkuser requests here. There are only a few users on WP able to checkuser and they're obviously oversubscribed. I'm pretty sure you and Vigilant could care less about being checkusered but I don't see why Jeff should waste admin time with a request that, even if he proves it wouldn't, in itself, warrant anyone being blocked from Wikipedia. As for that supposed hack-attack, if it's true (and Jeff's a big fat liar so I wouldn't put it past him to falsify evidence of this sort) that's a job for Jeff's network administrator, for the culprit and his ISP, and in extreme cases, for law enforcement - not for Wikipedia admin and certainly not for this page. --Aim Here 18:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The accuser, TempusFugit has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of the banned Gadugi (in real life Jeffrey Vernon Merkey). Friendly Neighbour 18:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The accused Vigilant was also blocked indefinitely for "Sole purpose to harass banned user, Jeff Merkey" (which sounds like an oxymoron to me). Anyway, it seems I am the last non-blocked account named in this request which makes it probably moot. Friendly Neighbour 05:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Declined. Mackensen (talk) 21:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

67.166.115.221 (talk · contribs)

Sockpuppet IP for banned user Jeff Merkey - Gadugi (talk · contribs) - Waya sahoni (talk · contribs) - Sint Holo (talk · contribs) and many more. IP is a Utah Comcast block that Jeff has used repeatably. --Jerry (Talk) 04:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved request, as it had been placed in the wrong section. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 09:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This request seems pointless. We already know the IP number. Against whom should it be compared as there are presently no other suspected ublocked sockpuppets of the banned User:Gadugi (Jeff Merkey)? However this IP number should be simply blocked for posting legal threaths. I've already asked for this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. The problem is I did not create a new section for this so it may be not very prominent. Friendly Neighbour 10:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Declined. Mackensen (talk) 21:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cunado19's sockpuppet

Cunado19's sockpuppet (talk · contribs)

This account was created to insult User:Cunado19 during an ongoing discussion. The user page was a deliberate personal attack. Thank you for your time and attention. MARussellPESE 15:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit vague; what's the reason for the checkuser, and who are we checking against? If we know it's an attack account, then we wouldn't be checking against Cunado19; is there someone else you have in mind... Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 05:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry — first timer mistake. Thought one could see what this IP address is and see if it hits anybody else's. Jeffmichaud (talk · contribs) has been engaged with Cunado, and me frankly, across a number of pages, so he's a possible candidate. Sorry for the inconvenience. MARussellPESE 13:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Merecat as User:71.212.31.95

Merecat (talk · contribs)
71.212.31.95 (talk · contribs)

Could someone please do a checkuser on User:Merecat? This discussion gives me reason to believe that he is using User:71.212.31.95 as a sockpuppet. Thanks. Kevin Baas^talk 20:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Declined. No evidence of policy violations and we don't reveal IP addresses except under special circumstances. Mackensen (talk) 00:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JimTS (talk · contribs)

It's been noted recently that all of this user's edits are to AfDs. This, I think, gives an inference that this might be a vote-stacking sockpuppet. I therefore request a CheckUser to see if that's what this user is, so that appropriate actions can be taken if he/she is. --Nlu (talk) 01:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Declined. If he's obviously just here for the voting then mark his votes accordingly and the closing admin will discount them. No policy violations have been alleged. There's nothing to be done here. Mackensen (talk) 23:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haham hanuka (talk · contribs), 62.0.118.79 (talk · contribs), 207.232.8.4 (talk · contribs), 85.250.100.4 (talk · contribs), 85.250.168.182 (talk · contribs)

Haham hanuka seems to evade his block time and again, this time from IP 62.0.118.79 and several other IPs. The 207 IP I am more doubtful about. Can you check them all out? gidonb 13:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. Please read the policy, above. Declined. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 12:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello UninvitedCompany, please state what part of the policy led you to believe that this RFCU should be declined. Regards, gidonb 12:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The policy is that we only fulfill requests that meet the fairly narrow criteria listed in the policy. Which of the criteria do you think this request meets? The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

149.68.168.147 (talk · contribs) and 149.68.168.138 (talk · contribs)

Suspected sockpuppet of Zarbon (talk · contribs) who has been blocked and is using various IP addresses to bypass the block. Placed on checkuser per User:Nlu. Kafziel 16:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's already moved on to 149.68.168.138, and I'm assuming he can cycle through most of that netblock, since most of his other sockpuppets are in that block. Everything from those IPs appears to be Zarbon at least in terms of editing the same articles he edits in the same way he does. 4.89.242.158 22:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Declined. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 12:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why??? Kafziel 13:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the policy above. This doesn't meet it. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 01:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In what way? As I stated above, an admin asked me to post this here so she could be absolutely sure before blocking this IP. Just because he moved on to another IP doesn't mean that he won't be back - if you look at the history of all of his IP address contribs, you'll see he cycles through them. I'm not the one who wrote the whole "editing the same articles in the same way" stuff. The IP address I asked about (149.68.168.147) is clearly tagged and linked with actual proof. If that's too much effort, here you go.

What's the use of this page if not to link an IP address with an established Sockpuppeteer? In fact, what's the use of this page when everyone has to wait days for a reply, just to get summarily denied without explanation? Kafziel 11:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The use of this page is to deal with hard cases, where it is not clear whether sockpuppetry is going on, and where the answer to that question has significant ramifications. The criteria are deliberately narrow due to a consensus that privacy concerns govern except in the most egregious cases. You have to substantiate that the user is disrupting the site in an way that can't be dealt with using any other means as per the criteria listed. If someone is clearly being a pest from multiple IPs, just block them, don't list them here. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There, was that so hard? Why couldn't you just say that to begin with? Obviously, most of the people who are posting users to this page are spending a good amount of their time trying to improve Wikipedia, and in my case I specifically said that an admin asked me to post that IP address here before she blocked it. It wouldn't kill you to have enough courtesy to offer more than a "declined". Kafziel 14:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to be difficult or discourteous. This is a fairly new page and we're getting dozens of inappropriate requests, so I'm merely being brief. The majority of the the requests placed here don't meet the criteria, and I'm puzzled as to why people even post them since the page header makes the criteria pretty clear. I have tried to tighten up the wording somewhat on the front matter to help prevent such misunderstandings in the future. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:NostraDogbert

NostraDogbert (talk · contribs)

Voting on the Which Lost-related Wikipedia articles should we keep? on the second day from the first edit, the Voting was the third edit of the user, with the first and second edits have nothing to do with the Voting. the user said "I am new to Wikipedia", when I was new to wikipedia I would have never known to go to Discussion pages and write somthing that was deep in the code of the long page. Wikipedia has the policy of One User, One vote and thats it. --muhaidib-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 17:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Declined. Doesn't seem like a serious issue. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - really? then I guess it's ok to make more then one account to vote. thanks for the time --muhaidib-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 02:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - If there are multiple new accounts voting together, that might be more interesting, especially if they visit multiple articles together. One throwaway account for one vote is no big deal compared to the real problems floating around on a daily basis. (just my opinion) Thatcher131 03:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - But a CARFUL person won't do that because they would know that it would get suspicious --muhaidib-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 18:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        In which case it's not serious enough for Checkuser. One sockpuppet casting one vote on one article talk page fails to meet policies 1, 3 and 8, and possibly 9, as shown at the top of the page. Thatcher131 04:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Completed requests

JohnnyCanuck and VaughanWatch

JohnnyCanuck (talk · contribs) was recently blocked indefinitely by User:Curps as a "sockpuppet used abusively," presumably as a likely sockpuppet of VaughanWatch (talk · contribs) or Eyeonvaughan (talk · contribs), with which you gracious checkuser-enabled people are no doubt familiar by now. JohnnyCanuck has asked me to place a request here to check if he is or is not a sockpuppet of VaughanWatch; you may take this, I feel, as a request from him.

I have doubts that he is a sockpuppet, but I am not totally sure. The reasons for which I doubt he is a sockpuppet I would prefer to keep out of public (lest it educate VaughanWatch on how to make better sockpuppets). The reasons to think that he is a sockpuppet involve mostly his adding sockpuppetry tags to User talk:pm_shef and User talk:Theonlyedge, just as Leotardo (talk · contribs) had recently been doing, and a large involvement with Elliott Frankl and its deletion debate and subsequent deletion review (now archived), which VaughanWatch and others were also involved in. Curps may have something to add, I'll leave a message on his user page. Mangojuice 04:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we're digging into VaughanWatch socks for the 10000th time, can I toss AboveToronto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in? pm_shef pointed this user out as doing the same kinds of edits the VaughanWatch-collective did, and this user's only edits have been to two Vaughan-related articles. I'm not familiar with the situation well enough to judge for myself. --Syrthiss 17:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Likely. Mackensen (talk) 20:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No More POV Please

No More POV Please (talk · contribs) has suddenly appeared from nowhere with some knowledge of wiki culture (etc). I suspect there to be some connection somewhere, owing to similatirities in both editing interests and POV, similar mistakes in style and similar visiting places, and to other things like general timing (two have been away for two years) and recent editing timing. I suspect MacPhersonAndy (talk · contribs) least as being a sock, but it seems possible. But it doesn't seem likely that No More POV Please (talk · contribs) and Bluegold (talk · contribs) really are different people. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 01:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I compared this and this and was suspicious, so Bel air (talk · contribs) can be added. Sea horn (talk · contribs), who's edited Harp may be another, see this. Interestingly, Talk:Harp, Talk:Dál Riata and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle Ages have all had edits where single quotes were double-escaped (i.e. \\\'), evidently some hopeless script kiddie I've requested a block of the unblocked anons used, 72.232.33.146 (talk · contribs) and 84.245.75.24 (talk · contribs), used only for scripted updates and vandalism. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He ~~edited~~ may have edited again as 67.15.0.68 (talk · contribs), which has since been blocked by Angr. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 16:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To which could be added 72.21.56.146 (talk · contribs) and 72.232.89.58 (talk · contribs), both banned by Shanel. But as these are all open proxies and throwaways, I don't see much point myself. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These pair of users should not be entertained with their request. I did very little or nothing to these users, maybe just to hurt their pride a little. Maybe I just picked a provocative name that's getting under their skin (a name I must reconsider in light of their reaction, see Irish language page and Irish language talk page). If you study my edits, you will see that there has been no violation or vandalism on my part. My IP address never starts with 6 (as stated above)and always begins with an 8, and it varies from time to time. And User:84.245.75.24, I have traced to Slovakia, not local to me, and was most disgusted at some of it's edits. A complete storm in a teacup. Thanks No More POV Please 00:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, there isn't much room to doubt the use of bad faith socks among the 5 users, but I readily admit the possibility than one or two may just be coincidences. However, on Talk:Irish language I asked MacPhersonAndy (talk · contribs) if he was No More POV Please (talk · contribs). The reaction was interesting to say the least. Here's another opportunity, No More POV Please (talk · contribs), do you deny you are a sock? Admitting it now and saving hard-working wikipedians some distraction will go some way to compensating for the misdemeanors. If you aren't, I fully apologize for the accusation. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 01:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There you go again Calgacus, alway having the last say. Actually don't know what it is, but there is something about I like, true! In a court of law the defendant always gets the last say, and that's me. It's you and your friend Angus McLellan who are wasting good Wikipedian time, as the outcomes of these 'investigations' can be uncertain to say the least. So you took the charges, now up to administration, and I believe the reasons for your case are flawed. No More POV Please 02:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it is. You shouldn't be worried if you are innocent. I offer you again the chance to deny sock puppetry. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 02:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There you go, last word again. i am not worried, maybe you are! No More POV Please 02:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah yeah. Answer the question please; you only have a short opportunity, just say "no, I am not". - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 02:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, I have to now retire. yawn! No More POV Please 02:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angusmclellan, I see 2 new addresses added, 72.21.56.146 (talk · contribs) and 72.232.89.58 (talk · contribs). Anyone looking at this spat could have used these to up the temperature on this topic. I am not buying! I'll say no more! No More POV Please 19:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Calgacus, what's come over you? I got an email today about this. I know we had our differences, but this is something else! I don't have any puppets, and I am nobody's puppet either. See you on the boards Calgacus. Administration, please sort this out! Thanks! Bluegold 00:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, why don't you get your other names "sent emails" so they can demonstrate on this page even more similarities in style. At least you have denied it, unlike your alleged socks MacPhersonAndy (talk · contribs) and No More POV Please (talk · contribs). It may be coincidence that you are listing users in exactly the same linked format (as you all do elsewhere too), and that you both refer to the checkers here as "administration", but if it is, then I apologize. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 22:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know what a sockpuppet was until today. I didn't know what a checker was until you mentioned it. Whizz! I'm learning fast! Now aren't you Calgacus and Angus McLellan often on the same page, maybe you 2 are sockpuppets to each other. Certainly you behaved like so on the Irish language page referred to above. Also I believe Angus McLellan has used bare IP numbers to make comment on certain pages. Does that make him/her a sockpuppet. BTW what's the violation anyway. Read the rules at the top of the page, you are supposed to make specific charges in relation to the use of the claimed sockpuppets. I see none! Bluegold 22:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Specific charges have been made. The charge is relevant and pertinent because on many occasions you and your socks have distorted the balance of consensus on particular pages (e.g. Harp, Irish language, Dál Riata) to try to push a Irish nationalist POV, and have purposefully misled people, having one back up the other, pretending one is Scottish, one English, one American and one Irish to try to fake neutrality. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, I take very great umbrage about the use of your words 'Irish nationalist POV'. You are sinking very very low in my estimation by such remarks. In fact you have revealed to me a lot about yourself and your mask has now slipped. I adhere to the principle that all Wikipedian editors should strive for the highest standards possible. -Bluegold 23:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bluegold (talk · contribs) has recently edited Finnian of Moville as 83.70.239.65 (talk · contribs). Compare the recent edit history of that page with this and this. As Bluegold is the more prominent of all the socks, Bluegold rather than No More POV Please (talk · contribs) should probably be identified as the sockmaster. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 02:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also to note, I found yet another instance of multiple-socks backing each other up in a wiki talk page. On Talk:Migration Period art, Bluegold uses Bel air (talk · contribs) to back himself up. Compare Talk:Irish language where No More POV Please (talk · contribs) has MacPhersonAndy (talk · contribs) back him up, or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle Ages where Raspitin (talk · contribs) is made to back up Bel air (talk · contribs); compare Talk:Harp where most of his socks are used. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 03:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay! Am I not allowed to have any friends on Wikipedia? I'll cede one of the names mentioned above is a friend and workmate of mine, he joined to give me some support when he saw what I was up against. I am not going to tell who he is because that is private and in any case it's none of your business! Everything he wrote is of his own construct. Now you have a nice little bunch of friends that you call on to give support when needed, This so called teamwork of yours is doing damage to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is for everybody, not just you and your mates. I won't mention the names of your team here, only except Angus McLellan as mentioned earlier, there are at least 2 more, I don't want to go down your vicious little road. Though the edits Calgacus refers to on Finnian of Moville are not my edits, they are still perfectly good edits. I will continue to edit wisely, and to be honest, I am only writing here so that other Wikipedians can see my response, and not for you. -Bluegold 16:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protests to the contrary, confirmed that Bluegold (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been engaged in sockpuppetry. The following accounts have been blocked indefinitely as such:

MacPhersonAndy
An-gabhar
Bel air
River run
No More POV Please
Raspitin

Bluegold should consider himself very firmly warned that this kind of behavior is unacceptable. In addition, I've blocked him for 48 hours. Mackensen (talk) 17:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HK30

HK30 (talk · contribs)

There is reason to believe that this is a sockpuppet of User:206.61.48.22 and/or User:Giovanni33, created to avoid violating WP:3RR. Please note that I do not feel that Giovanni33 is involved but do believe the anonymous user to be related to this new user. Rationale/evidence can be found at the history page and talk page for Christianity. Thank you... KHM03 (talk) 18:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was just coming here to make the same request. Giovanni33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been shown to use sockpuppets before. BelindaGong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), as established by Usercheck, and Freethinker99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), as established by signing as one editor, forgetting he was logged on as another, having pretended that the other was a brand new editor with no connection to him. Both those socks began their career on Wikipedia by saying on the talkpage that they agreed with him, and then reverting to his version, when he had run out of reverts, or while he was blocked.

We also suspected Kecik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and MikaM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) of a connection to Giovanni, as Kecik's seventeen article edits contain sixteen reverts to Giovanni, and his talk page edits are 100% supporting Giovanni, or voting for what Giovanni votes for, on different articles that he'd be unlikely to find by himself as a new user. Usercheck showed no connection, however. The same with MikaM; the account seems to exist for the purpose of reverting to Giovanni, voting for Giovanni's version, on multiple articles, but the usercheck found no connection. All five editors continued to ignore 3RR, after it was brought to their attention. (Not just an accidental slip into a fourth revert, but as many as eleven a day.)

There were also, some time ago, two brand new editors that appeared when Giovanni had not edited for a few days. RTS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) turned up after Giovanni had been absent for about two days (I think), said on the talk page that he agreed with Giovanni, and then reverted to Giovanni's version seven times, if I remember rightly, despite multiple warnings and pleas. I reported him at WP:AN/3RR, and he was blocked. Immediately after, brand-new NPOV77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appeared, and reverted to his version, saying in the edit summary that he was aware of the rules and had two reverts left. Having typed up lengthy explanations of the rules for RTS, and polite requests, in an effort to AGF, knowing quite well that he was a sockpuppet, I acted on instinct, and blocked NPOV77 immediately, even though I was involved in the article. (Blocked for sockpuppetry, not for reverting.) I then reported it at WP:AN/I, to get a review of the emergency block, and got a lot of support from fellow admins. I didn't ask for a usercheck, because there was a backlog at the time, and I knew that since the person I (and others) suspected had been caught before, he was aware of IP checks; and since he hadn't edited in the previous few days, I thought he might be away from home, perhaps in a hotel, and taking advantage of an unconnected IP address to get as many reverts as possible, knowing he'd be blocked if he made four, but that we were more lenient towards new users.

Another point, these sockpuppets and suspected sockpuppets are in disagreement over article content with me, User:Str1977, and User:KHM03. The two recent suspected socks, RTS and NPOV77 seemed to have chosen their names as a variation on Str1977. Has the new editor based his name on KHM03? The pattern of reverting, the language used in the edit summaries, etc., are 100% consistent with the pattern we've already seen. There could also be a connection with Trollwatcher (talk · contribs), John1838 (talk · contribs) and J1838 (talk · contribs) though I think that's less likely. Trollwatcher has as his apparent purpose keeping an eye on how Christians treat new users who disagree with them, and is directing people to [spam removed], which attacks several Christian editors by name (me, KHM03, Str1977, Storm Rider, DJ Clayworth, and Tom harrison). John1838 and J1838 are the same user. Like Trollwatcher, there was no evidence of wanting to contribute to Wikipedia. He just wanted to build "case studies" about the behaviour of KHM03 and others. His John1838 user page was deleted as an attack page, so he registered a new account as J1838, and his new user page was deleted as well. Much of the material is now found on the new website which Trollwatcher is advertising.

P.S., at this moment, HK30 has now reverted five times under that name, plus possibly three times as User:206.61.48.22. Three of the reverts have been since I informed him of the rule (which of course he was already aware of, in my opinion). AnnH ♫ 19:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment: This is not a valid CheckUser request in my opinion because the user already admitted on his/her talk page that the anon IP is his/hers, and he used it before he created an account and did not know about the 3RR rule. After he recieved the warning message, he apologized and agreed to follow that rule. I see that he has so far. So, this user check serves no purpose at this point. Also, rehashing ancient history about me, even though its said above that I'm not involved, is also not appropriate here as I have no connection to this other than the fact that this user shares a similar POV, it seems. Certainly all the speculations above about other users and when I was away for a few days (I'm often away!), it a bit funny. Such speculations it seems to me is not warrented for their negative predjudical effect it has, and its not fair. Anyone can be creative and try to connect tenuous leaps of logic and speculate openly in such a negative manner without any evidence (incuding bring up things in the past that have been proven to be wrong), but such is not fair and its an exmaple of assuming bad faith. Giovanni33 02:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to clog up this page, but I would urge that the check still be carried out. Giovanni has a history of massive edit warring and sockpuppetry to get his way. The BelindaGong account showed up shortly after he registered, reverted immediately to his version, continued, like him, to violate 3RR when warned (i.e. not an accidental fourth revert having lost count), followed him to several other pages to vote for what he was voting for, to revert to his version, and to support him on talk pages, giving the impression of consensus. The two accounts pretended to have no connection to each other, despite being repeatedly asked. Finally, after a user check showed that they were the same, he then said she was his wife. Then, while he was blocked, the Freethinker99 account turned up, said he was new and had read the talk page and agreed with Gio, began to revert to his version, several times, and then answered a question addressed to Gio on Gio's talk page,[6] forgetting he was logged on as Freethinker, hastily changed the signature,[7] and then, since we had seen it, said that in fact he did know Gio, and had let him use his computer while Gio was showing him how to use Wikipedia. The whole of Talk:Christianity/Archive 24 is devoted to the issue of Giovanni's sockpuppetry.

As the user has agreed on his talk page that the IP address is his, there is no need to verify that. I would still request a usercheck, however, as there is a disturbing history of brand new editors turning up to support Giovanni, and as two of them have been shown to have an IP connection, and as two others show from their contributions that they are on Wikipedia for the purpose of reverting to his version, as HK30 is using similar arguments, similar behaviour, and similar edit summaries, as he is showing non-newbie familiarity with terms such as "NPOV" and "pushing a POV" (despite claiming that he wasn't aware of the 3R rule), and as he has now, a few hours after registering, started voting at an AfD. The claim that he wasn't aware of the rule is unlikely, given his obvious familiarity with Wikipedia, and the fact that he made his last three reverts plus two talk page contributions after I informed him of the rule on his talk page, so that orange bar would have been flashing up on his screen for every single edit, until he went to his user talk page. Thank you. AnnH ♫ 10:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a fishing expedition of sorts. As I've said the digging up of questionable history, only parts of which are true, is a rather lame attempt to justify further user checks without sufficient probably cause. Its not true that this user has the same style, and comments in the edit summaries and elswhere--at least not anymore than almost anyone else. Its clear this is part of an agenda, a vendetta based on the fact that I've been in various content disputes over POV's with Musical Linguist, so she has an axe to grind, hence the pasting of the above ancient history, which Im frankly not even going to bother to refute, except to point out that past user checks proved I was innocent, and BelindaGong is my wife, who I offered to prove (but no one cares that its true); the other user was my friend I was introducing to Wikipeadia, and I used his computer while at his house to respond ONLY to a commment on my own talk page. Again, all this is rather irrelevant. I just think its inappropriate to make this about me, again. But, if you want to check on me again (I guess they will keep checking anytime there is anyone who is not a Christian), then I will continue to be proven innocent. Its a wild goose hunt. Giovanni33 02:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:HK30 has been indefinitely banned - see WP:AN/I

In this users defense, he/she was new and did not originate that site or spread it. He seems to just want a response from the users who it is about, in effect alerting them, and having the real problem it talks about openly discussed. I also note that the user, after being notified of his vio for the 3RR reverted himself so as not to violate the rule, and promised to follow the rules. I think he/she is a good user and that this bann is not just, esp. not indefintitely. Giovanni33 02:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:HK30 is confirmed as a sockpuppet of User:206.61.48.22 and User:Mercury2001. There is no match between them and User:Giovanni33. BTW, HK30 was first blocked indefinitely by one admin, then for one month by another admin, so the block will drop off in a couple of weeks. That should probably be sorted out. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xebat

Xebat (talk · contribs)
Hello and welcome!

I am Zanyar.

Zanyar in Kurdish language means scientist! But in fact it is just my personal name and does not necessarily mean that I am a scientist. However some of my friends who like me think and say that I am!

This user is a confirmed sock puppet of Zanyar,
established by CheckUser, and has been blocked indefinitely.

See contribs — page moves — all logs — block log

These users are active in the pages related to Iran and Kurds. I think both User:Zanyar and User:AbdulRahman are sock puppets of User:Xebat (previously known as user:Diyako). User:Diyako had previously contributed in Persian Wikipedia by using three usernames (Diyako, Dalaho, and Daneshdust) in controversial pages. Bidabadi 17:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Zanyar only seems to edit when Xebat is blocked, which he is right now. If so then we have a block evasion. --Khoikhoi 18:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just block evasion. It's deception [8] [9]. Bidabadi 18:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But Xebat is currently blocked for 1 month, how is it not block evasion? --Khoikhoi 18:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ofcourse it is block evasion. I'm saying that it is also deception (by impersonating several users in controversial pages). Bidabadi 18:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. --Khoikhoi 18:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely that Xebat is related to the other two. On the other hand, AbdulRahman is a sock of Zanyar, and has been blocked indefinitely. Mackensen (talk) 18:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Israelbeach aka Joel Leyden

Israelbeach (talk · contribs) is the main account, here are the suspected sockpuppets:
Bonnieisrael (talk · contribs)
Davidstone (talk · contribs)
Nancetlv (talk · contribs)
Achlasaba (talk · contribs)
IP 147.237.73.201

These usernames have been used to circumvent 3RR on Ra'anana, to vote against deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel news agency and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joel Leyden to garner "support" for edit wars, and general bullying of anyone who disagrees with Israelbeach. I'd like to have proof that Israelbeach is a sockfarmer so that action can be taken to block him and his puppets for violation of 3RR, a tactic he is bound to continue using. --Woggly 19:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved notice as it had been placed down in the completed section Syrthiss 02:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inconclusive. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 03:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, CheckUser results are Inconclusive. Looks more like meatpuppeting than classic sockpuppeting. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Munckin

Munckin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This edit appears to have been made through a poorly configured open proxy, as it introduced unintentional \'\'\'backslashes\'\'\' into the text. Please determine the IP address used for that edit and block it indefinitely as an {{openproxy}}, thanks. — Apr. 21, '06 [11:11] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Done. Mackensen (talk) 11:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goat211 & Goat212

Goat211 (talk · contribs)
Goat212 (talk · contribs)

Repeat vandalism has gotten this user both accounts indefinitely blocked. He/she just keeps making more, usually with "goat" in the title. Operates similar to the "Wikipedia is Communism" vandal. I've confirmed both these accounts and am suspicious of more. Suggest investigate in more detail. Rlevse 16:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The IP address used, 206.176.84.3 (talk · contribs), is well known for vandalism. (It's a school IP from South Dakota.) I've blocked for a month to keep the sockpuppets at bay, as there wasn't much of use coming in off the IP, and no legit users that I can find. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 10:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gamahucheur and CriticAtLarge

Gamahucheur (talk · contribs)
CriticAtLarge (talk · contribs)

Unsurprisingly, the rude first user got barred from posting for 8 hours due to violation of the 3RR, and then a new editor pops up on the article to change it AGAIN, despite consensus being against such changes. This new user, CriticAtLarge, proposterously has never edited before today, and never touched any article but the one in dispute: Ahmed Osman. Joey 21:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 10:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JamieBattenbo and StabiloBoss

JamieBattenbo (talk · contribs)
StabiloBoss (talk · contribs)

As the userbox and sockpuppetry paranoias lead to ridiculous accusations [10] [11] please verify that JamieBattenbo and StabiloBoss are not even from the same country as ROGNNTUDJUU! and I. De mortuis... 14:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, those were ridiculuous accusations all right. Sockpuppeting is probably the fastest way to destroy your credibility around here. Editorializing aside, those users are likely not your sockpuppets. Mackensen (talk) 15:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me

Please can someone verify that I am not a sockpuppet of User:Hamish Ross but that I am the same user as User:Gypsy Eyes. It would stop a lot of accusations. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.146.55.85 (talk • contribs)

note this in relation to a discussion on WP:AN Syrthiss 16:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed that the IP in question is indeed the puppetmaster of GypsyEyes (or the other way round, take your pick). No directly verifiable connection between these users and Hamish Ross. Mackensen (talk) 11:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theonlyedge and Pm_shef

The issue with Vaughan below and his (suspected) sockpuppets are claiming these two users are the same person by continuing to drop sockpuppet notices on the two pages. This was what caused the below user(s) to get blocked, and therefore causing sockpuppetry to circumvent blocks. Please check just to have concrete evidence. — Deckill e r 03:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mind having this evidence, but I'd like to point out that on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Strelchik (second nomination), the first such sockpuppet allegation actually claims that Theonlyedge is pm_shef's father. Mangojuice 12:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was marked inconclusive below (in completed requests). Syrthiss 20:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pm_shef

Theonlyedge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Pm_shef (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

1. After User:Pm_shef writes that he will abstain from editing articles related to Vaughan politics, and confirmed that abstention at 05:55, 11 April 2006 here,"Theonlyedge" goes after Pm_shef's longtime Vaughan target (who he nominated for the AfD a month prior) a few hours later, at 22:02, 11 April 2006 here. Coincidence?

2. The name of Pm_shef's father's company is simply The Edge. It is involved in anti-racism, which we know Pm_shef/ Corey Shefman has been involved in too, both personally and through his edits. The Edge sounds a lot like The Only Edge... a coincidence? See main link to his father's bread-and-butter for 25 years: [www3.sympatico.ca/theedgeq/]

3. Roughly 50% of all Theonlyedge's edits are also articles that Pm_shef has edited. Compare Pm_shef's contributions to Theonlyedge's contributions.

4. Both accounts in question were created within 5 weeks of one another; Pm_shef on Oct 31 2005, TheOnlyEdge on Dec 11 2005.

5. 4 hours after Pm_shef nominates this article for deletion (which he ultimately lost), Theonlyedege comes around and does NOT vote Keep or Delete but rather, after two consecutive Keep votes, adds a comment that the article should be shortened to 2 or 3 paragraghs. This was Shef's way of cutting his losses. See original AfD Keep debate: [[12]].

6. Both users are from Thornhill, as they have both have edited the article on Thornhill and are obsessed with their politicians.

7. Both are obsessed with adding positive POV edits to their favorites Susan Kadis (as well as Michael Di Biase) and negative edits/blanking to their political competitor Mario Racco and political opponents Anthony Reale, Tina Molinari and Josh Cooper.

8. Why did Pm_shef / Theonlyedge create this article? So that he can control it. He can keep it down to 2 or 3 sentences and maintain control over content.

I hope this is enough evidence, but if you want more, I can find more. Theonlyedge, as I see it, is the sockpuppet that does the dirty work for Pm_shef. He comes out of hibernation when needed, like a trusty administrative assistant. Leotardo 12:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leotardo's comments are endorsed by a couple of admins at WP:AN/I - we don't recall seeing such suspiciously similar behaviour by two verifiably different users before. If confirmed Pm-shef is in deep trouble. Just zis Guy you know? 11:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inconclusive. Note that Leotardo has been blocked indefinitely for massive sockpuppetry. Mackensen (talk) 11:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okey-doke, thanks. Time to nuke the entire walled garden, I think... Just zis Guy you know? 11:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

64.231.242.202 & 69.156.148.61

64.231.242.202 (talk · contribs)
69.156.148.61 (talk · contribs)

see the end of this section for a sorted list of users extracted from the various naratives

64.231.242.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 69.156.148.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) have been launching personal attacks [13] and vandalism against pm shef. I suspect they are being used by Eyeonvaughan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is currently blocked for personal attacks, or VaughanWatch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The IPs resolve to Bell Canada. Although they have been blocked for 24 hours, if Checkuser finds they are being operated by VaughWatch, this should help admins block new IPs that launch similar attacks and may be evidence in what seems like the inevitable ArbCom case. Thatcher131 05:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please also look at

67.71.84.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

67.70.149.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

69.156.150.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

which are making personal attacks against pm_shef (talk · contribs) and are from the same Bell Canada range. Thatcher131 03:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Westernriddell (talk · contribs) is a related issue. Suspected sockpuppet of User:Eyeonvaughan. Similar edits under 64.228.149.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 69.156.150.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Edits consist of accusing User:Theonlyedge and User:Pm shef to be sockpuppets of each other, just like the mother account. Also, Westernriddell has less than ten edits, half fo them to AfDs over five months old (some of which he supported claims made by Eyeonvaughan), with the rest being immediately after the block on Eyeonvaughan being put into place. Although this is a somewhat obvious case of sockpuppetry, I decided to put it here to be "just". Also, see the above request for more information relating to this case. User:Pm shef asked me to request this checkuser as a somewhat neutral party. — Deckill e r 03:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also include 67.70.148.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 67.71.84.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 67.70.150.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 67.70.151.196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) & 67.70.149.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) who have all been adding or reverting to the sockpuppet tag and like the above have made few if any other edits. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 03:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

67.71.85.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is also doing the same thing. Thryduulf 08:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only edits by 64.231.172.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) are to vote on the Simon Strelchik AfD and complain about Eyeonvaughn's block. Thryduulf 08:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved here from above, once I realized there is already a request going on. Eyeonvaughan is the subject of an ongoing RFC in which massive sockpuppetry has been suspected and confirmed, but not yet linking Eyeonvaughan to any. A related user, VaughanWatch (talk · contribs) was found to have a large number of sockpuppets via RFCU recently. The remaining suspected sockpuppets for Eyeonvaughan from the RFC are as follows: CasanovaAlive (talk · contribs) Hars Alden (talk · contribs) Hars Aldenn (talk · contribs) Jazzabelle (talk · contribs) Partzhair (talk · contribs) UndergroundRailroad (talk · contribs) and 67.71.84.110 (talk · contribs). A connection between VaughanWatch and Eyeonvaughan is suspected as well; a list of confirmed sockpuppets of VaughanWatch may be found at the RFC. Furthermore, some recent activity suggests sockpuppetry between 69.156.150.188 (talk · contribs), 64.228.149.140 (talk · contribs), 64.231.172.2 (talk · contribs), Eyeonvaughan (talk · contribs), and Westernriddell (talk · contribs): all have made a rather bizarre unjustified assertion that Pm_shef (talk · contribs) and Theonlyedge (talk · contribs) are sockpuppets of each other, and some have tried to force sockpuppet suspect tags onto their user pages. Obviously, some of these users have differing IPs, but the activity is still suspicious; I would like to know if those IPs are related somehow. Mangojuice 12:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hawaiired (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is also worth taking a look at - their only contribution has been to remove all the allegations of sockpuppetry and IP votes from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Strelchik (second nomination) Thryduulf 15:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the evidence of sockpuppetry against Pm_shef (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) : 1. After Alan Shefman's son User:Pm_shef writes that he will abstain from editing articles related to Vaughan politics, and confirmed that abstention at 05:55, 11 April 2006 here, "Theonlyedge" goes after Pm_shef's longtime Vaughan target (who he nominated for the AfD a month prior) a few hours later, at 22:02, 11 April 2006 here. Coincidence?

2. The name of Pm_shef's father's company is simply The Edge. It is involved in anti-racism, which we know Pm_shef/ Corey Shefman has been involved in too, both personally and through his edits. The Edge sounds a lot like The Only Edge... a coincidence? See main link to his father's bread-and-butter for 25 years: [www3.sympatico.ca/theedgeq/]

3. Roughly 50% of all Theonlyedge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edits are also articles that Pm_shef has edited. Compare Pm_shef's contributions to Theonlyedge's contributions.

4. Both accounts in question were created within 5 weeks of one another; Pm_shef on Oct 31 2005, TheOnlyEdge on Dec 11 2005.

5. 4 hours after Pm_shef nominates this article for deletion (which he ultimately lost), Theonlyedege comes around and does NOT vote Keep or Delete but rather, after two consecutive Keep votes, adds a comment that the article should be shortened to 2 or 3 paragraghs. This was Shef's way of cutting his losses. See original AfD Keep debate: [[14]].

6. Both users are from Thornhill, as they have both have edited the article on Thornhill and are obsessed with their politicians.

7. Both are obsessed with adding positive POV edits to their favorites Susan Kadis (as well as Michael Di Biase) and negative edits/blanking to their political competitor Mario Racco and political opponents Anthony Reale, Tina Molinari and Josh Cooper.

8. Why did Pm_shef / Theonlyedge create this article on a previous opponent? So that he can control it. He can keep it down to 2 or 3 sentences and maintain control over content.

I hope this is enough evidence, but if you want more, I can find more. Theonlyedge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), as I see it, is the sockpuppet that does the dirty work for Pm_shef. He comes out of hibernation when needed, like a trusty administrative assistant. Leotardo 20:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The odd "administrative assistant" comment above (made by VaughanWatch/Eyeonvaughan previously), repeated insistance that user:pm_shef and user:Theonlyedge are sockpuppets and other contributions by Leotardo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are making me very suspicious that the account is operated by the same person as VaughanWatch.

Sorted list of users

This is a sorted list of all the suspected sockpuppets VaughanWatch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) of whom checks have been requested in this section, the ones bolded are particularly active. A definitive answer (even if this is inconclusive) for each one would be very helpful.

64.228.149.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
64.231.172.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
64.231.242.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
67.70.148.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
67.70.149.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
67.70.150.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
67.70.151.196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
67.71.84.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
67.71.84.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
67.71.85.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
69.156.148.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
69.156.150.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
CasanovaAlive (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Eyeonvaughan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hars Alden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hars Aldenn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hawaiired (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Leotardo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Jazzabelle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Partzhair (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
UndergroundRailroad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Westernriddell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Many of the above users are repeatedly insisting that Pm_shef and user:Theonlyedge are the same. This is covered in a separate request further up this page. Thryduulf 08:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not just those users Thryduulf, but admin as well. The following comments are copy and pasted from AN/I here about Pm_shef after I posted evidence of sockpuppetry: "That appears to be rather damning evidence. I've never seen any two verifiably unique users have that much in common. — Apr. 20, '06 [10:20] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

I completely agree. So what do we do? I suggest an indef-block for Theonlyedge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and a week for Pm_shef (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Just zis Guy you know? 11:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Martin has already conducted a sockpuppet check a week ago, and all the found sockpuppets were blocked. I wasn't one of them. Stop wasting admin time, guys, and stop this harassment. Leotardo 17:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heaven knows you're right about wasting my time. Confirmed that Leotardo is amongst a multitude of VaughanWatch socks. I'll be going round blocking. Mackensen (talk) 01:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Johnc1

Johnc1 (talk · contribs) possible sock of
Waya sahoni (talk · contribs)

If you want socks of Waya Sahoni aka Jeffrey Vernon Merkey, check Sint_Holo (talk · contribs · logs) and his IP address [[15]] and TempusFugit (talk · contribs · logs)

Inconclusive. He appears to be blocked indef in any case. Mackensen (talk) 15:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JohnC1 is John Cornsilk from http://www.cornsilks.com and http://www.network54.com/Forum/237458/

He aint no friend of WS... I have tried to get John to be more constructive: http://www.network54.com/Forum/237458/message/1144654153/Are+you+JohnC1+on+Wikipedia-

You will see there that he admits to being JohnC1. Hilariously, he thought for a bit that I was Jeff Merkey. Me, currently banned as for 'stalking' Jeff. Ha Ha... --TwoVryl 15:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pro Lick

These are all possible sockpuppets of Pro-Lick (talk · contribs), who was earlier confirmed as the same user as Halliburton Shill (talk · contribs), among others. They are bascially fixated on the same couple of edits in Abortion and Partial-birth abortion, and just keep reverting without discussion. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BrushLimpcow (talk · contribs) Confirmed

Ingralamb (talk · contribs) Confirmed

NColemam (talk · contribs) Confirmed

O.P.Nuhss (talk · contribs) Confirmed

M.E.Rhekt (talk · contribs) Confirmed

Donpediac (talk · contribs) Confirmed

DPG (talk · contribs) Confirmed

Treeeeeez (talk · contribs) Confirmed

Also, all of the following are confirmed:

Yummy Yum Yum (talk · contribs)

UnbornBabyHater (talk · contribs)

Andbuck (talk · contribs)

Annalina (talk · contribs)

Chad Rocks (talk · contribs)

JohnJHoward (talk · contribs)

TJVengeance (talk · contribs)

T J White (talk · contribs)

A Citizen (talk · contribs)

Aynull (talk · contribs)

Ban.wma (talk · contribs)

Undermined (talk · contribs)

Now, just need to block them all and tag them. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 07:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Daniel5127 (talk · contribs) and 71.138.167.72 (talk · contribs)

Potential impersonation/vandalism reversion fraud. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 04:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed. The user is logging out to commit vandalsim, then logging back in to revert it. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 04:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Germen and User:Xorox

A concern was stated on my talk page by user:Netscott [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anonymous_editor#Concerns_about_Xorox] that User:Xorox might User:Germen using proxies. User:Germen was recently blocked for one week for constantly evading recent 3rr blocks using proxies/IPs and for being very disruptive. During the time of the block, Xorox was created. This evidence may be needed in a further ruling against Germen and there is no other method of concluding whether this is him. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed. Xorox is a sockpuppet of Germen. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 02:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JohnDoe5 (talk · contribs)

It's pretty much certain that JohnDoe5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a sockpuppet of someone, but although it looks like Jason_Gastrich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) again, the editor sharing the revert binge on List of unrecognized accreditation associations of higher learning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and thus the editor who avoided that all-important fourth revert, was JJay (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log). I would be very sad if it was JJay, since I have thus far viewed him as completely honest. To set my mind at rest, and because if it is Gastrich the ban timer meeds to be set again, could you please confirm? Thanks Just zis Guy you know? 19:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed. JohnDoe5 is a sockpuppet of Gastrich. Mackensen (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Just zis Guy you know? 22:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two more:

Head_Like_A_Hole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I_gotta_say_it (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sherman_W. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Northmeister (talk · contribs) and 1010011010 (talk · contribs)

See Wikipedia talk:No original research. It is suspected that the latter is a sockpuppet of the former, to evade 3RR and to manufacture consensus on a policy page. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 18:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Mackensen (talk) 23:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rajput case

Dmcdevit asked me to look into a pile of suspected sockpuppets related to the Rajput dispute, specifically Comte De Boigne, Saubhag Singh, Hukum singh, Dhruv Singh, Dhruv singh, Raj tilak, Banke.

DPSingh socks: Shomu, Hukum singh, Addul, Jamwal, Kalhana, Inayat Bhati, Jmawal, Inder Singh, Anveshan, IP 202.138.112.252. All blocked.
Dhruv Singh, Dhruv singh, Raj tilak and Banke appear to be single-purpose accounts created for this dispute. All blocked.
Saubhag Singh: apparent role account, created only for this style of edit. Could be a cohort or using a compromised machine.

OghuzRaider (talk · contribs)

This account is a suspected sockpuppet of User:-Inanna-. See Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of -Inanna- for a list of 35 other anonymous addresses and accounts employed by this person. Activity by this user is consistent with that if -Inanna- but official confirmation is needed. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, quite. That was the basis of my indef block. Mackensen (talk) 19:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Gastrich (talk · contribs)

At the Bob Cornuke (Gastrich related) article SYITS (talk · contribs) white washes criticism.

Alyssa1440 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) white washes accreditaion at the LBU article at 01:02, 3 April 2006
Jayson Marx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) white washes accreditaion at the LBU article at 00:58, 3 April 2006
SYITS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Makes his only of the day[16] at 00:50, 3 April 2006
Neil Bonetti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) white washes accreditation at the LBU article at 0:37, 3 April 2006

These others are suspected or confirmed socks. Arbusto 02:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three of the four listed here have been blocked already as socks. Mackensen (talk) 02:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the fourth, he is not a sockpuppet. Mackensen (talk) 02:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please, do (talk · contribs)

Possible Gastrich sock, listed separately because he requested unblock, which is atypical, and I have unblocked. Contribs follow Gastrich pattern: communication does not. May be meat not sock. KillerChihuahua^?!? 04:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't really follow the usual pattern. Check was inconclusive. Let the fellow edit. Mackensen (talk) 05:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop war! (talk · contribs)

New user, very little ammount of edits. Put Daniel Brandt article up for deletion part of reason "As this guy does not want an article about himself on Wikipedia" [[17]], I think it could be brandt or close support that may of in past been banned IP is probably 70.245.238.114 [18])
Check to see if this could be user:Daniel Brandt --Adam1213 Talk + 01:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC) Also they are a vandal User talk:Stop war! and just now blocked for 1 hour (ban should be extended) --Adam1213 Talk + 01:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC) indef blocked so no need --Adam1213 Talk + 01:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9A (talk · contribs) & Daniel Brandt (talk · contribs) & Stop war! (talk · contribs)

User 9A just listed Daniel Brandt's article for deletion AGAIN stating Daniel wants it deleted, user is new as of today. Also User Stop war was investigated as a sock of Daniel so I'd like to check 9A against him too. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_12#Daniel_Brandt for latest AFD of the article. Mike _{(T C)} 03:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9A (talk · contribs) and Stop war! (talk · contribs) are highly likely to originate from the same source.
There is no IP evidence tying these accounts to Daniel Brandt (talk · contribs)

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 12:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Rose-mary is the user Gator1 blocked indefinitely for threatening to write an editor's real-life employer. She then wrote Gator1's real-life employer, an and caused serious trouble. Even before the block, Rose-mary usually posted anonymously from a 80.90.* dynamic IP, from Luxembourg. This anon is pushing the same PoV from the same range.

Any actual block should probably be undertaken by somebody from the WP:AMDB list, which was created for trolls like this. Septentrionalis 17:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rogerman, TheDookieMan, and CaliforniaDreamlings

Rogerman (talk · contribs) TheDookieMan (talk · contribs) CaliforniaDreamlings (talk · contribs)

The three users all seem to have the same agenda - "exposing anti-semitism." It is most blatant at Joseph Sobran, but has occasionally spilled over into other articles such as LewRockwell.com, Billy Graham, and other articles where anti-semetism can be exposed. It is believed by myself that Rogerman is the chief account, and that the other two are the socks. Specifically, take a look at the recent history for Joseph Sobran, where the accounts come close to WP:3RR before a new one sweeps in and attemps to insert the POV in as well. In the arguments on the talk page, the signatures all format the same (four tildes and then a repeat of the username). I was instructed by User:Katefan0 to bring this here, so hopefully this will help in the resolution of this issue. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 16:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly encourage admins to execute this checkuser as soon as possible. These accounts have been used to edit war at several articles, and I think their use is suspicious. It could be that these accounts represent meatpuppets rather than sockpuppets, but I think we need to know this in order to know how to proceed with dispute resolution. Cheers, Dick Clark 17:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed as meatpuppets per email. Checkusers can feel free to contact me and I can discuss this privately. Those accounts have been indef blocked. Syrthiss 20:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leyasu

Could somebody make sure that these are the same user? The IP address claimed at WP:AE that they were [19]; however, I don't think Leyasu has said anything about their IP addresses. Leyasu is currently under a block for evading the 1RR set by their arbcom ruling (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Leyasu. The IP address has also been used to revert a page more than once in 24 hours. [20] [21] I am requesting a CheckUser because Leyasu has been blocked four times already (with the blocks ranging from 48 hours to a week) for violating their arbcom ruling. If Leyasu evaded the block by an IP address, they would presumably be blocked again (probably for a week), which would be the fifth block; and then the maximum block length for Leyasu would increase to one year. I just want to make sure that this anon really is Leyasu rather than an impersonator/impostor, so that any future blocks will be given fairly.

I added the other two IPs to the list based on messages copied over to WP:AE by Deiz and Ryouga. [22] [23] --Idont Havaname (Talk) 21:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Highly likely. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prin

Yellow (talk · contribs)
Cumbi (talk · contribs)
The_Man%27s_Plans (talk · contribs)
R.Madhavan (talk · contribs)
Jathu (talk · contribs)
Possible sockpuppets of Prin (talk · contribs)

This troll uploads images violating copyrights, awarded himself fake barnstars and testimonials, blanks copyright warnings and notices from his user page, vandalised my user page and wages disruptive edit wars in the article of Ajith. He has shown himself to be unwilling to enter into civil discussions to dispute resolution. Instead he resorts to name calling on his user page. He has managed to evade blocks using alternative IP addresses such as:

Editing styles are consistent. Never signs off with tilde. Interchangeably edits user pages of his aliases. Anwar saadat 13:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Confirmed. And User:Jathu as well. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cantus

I believe User:Cantus is avoiding his reverting and editing restrictions using anon addresses. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cantus 3 for the arbitration case. He was also banned yesterday for 24 hours. One of the IP addresses edited Developed country and another edited List of countries by total area. Both articles have been reverted to non-concensus and Cantus' versions. Joelito 02:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: editor concerns have been indicated on the AN ArbCom enforcement page here. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 05:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Khoikhoi

User:Khoikhoi is acting under two usernames, the same as this : [[24]]. We have the proof there that it's him who owns the page. Arthur 23 April 2006

@@ Line 22: / Line 22: @@
 It is suspected, based on editing style and voting-stuffing on [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_shock_sites_%28fourth_nomination%29]], that {{user|Skinmeister}} and {{user|Rennix}} are the same person.  (The most recent indicator that Skinmeister is a sockpuppet is that he/she made a sarcastic comment about getting "another" 24 hour block, when he/she had never been blocked before from that account by that point.  Please conduct a CheckUser to check whether these accounts are sockpuppets of each other and of any other account.  --[[User:Nlu|Nlu]] ([[User talk:Nlu|talk]]) 11:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 :I added the IP that he is using to influence votes as well. There is a boatload of evidence that these are the same person. One is that Rennix has only really posted at articles/votes that Skinmeister has an interest in, specifically 2 of the AfD votes on [[List of shock sites]]. Not only that, but it's pretty obvious that Skinmeister uses Rennix to "get back" at other users by using very abusive language in his edit summaries: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Rennix&diff=prev&oldid=41803737], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Rennix&diff=prev&oldid=48552441]. Also, Rennix uses a tactic that Skinmeister (editing as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=48567210 86.128.222.36]) does, which is readding votes taken away by admins. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_shock_sites_%28fourth_nomination%29&diff=prev&oldid=48558312 Here] is 86.128.222.36 doing it and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_shock_sites_%28second_nom%29&diff=prev&oldid=35291536 here] is Rennix doing it. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]</sup> 16:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
+*'''Likely'''. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 21:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 === Muslim_sunni, Muslima_sunnia, and others ===

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards