Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser: Difference between revisions

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 321: Line 321:
==={{User|220.245.180.133}}===
==={{User|220.245.180.133}}===
{{User|220.245.180.133}} has conducted a low intensity but disruptive edit war at [[Jonathan Sarfati]] and is suspected of being a sock of Sarfati or {{User|Agapetos_angel}}, or of being staff of [[Answers in Genesis]] [http://www.answersingenesis.org/], Sarfati's employer. [[User:FeloniousMonk|FeloniousMonk]] 00:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
{{User|220.245.180.133}} has conducted a low intensity but disruptive edit war at [[Jonathan Sarfati]] and is suspected of being a sock of Sarfati or {{User|Agapetos_angel}}, or of being staff of [[Answers in Genesis]] [http://www.answersingenesis.org/], Sarfati's employer. [[User:FeloniousMonk|FeloniousMonk]] 00:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

==={{user|Locke Cole}}===
In regards to the on-going edit war on [[PhpBB]], it seems that Locke Cole is tag-team reverting to remove some external links along with some IP users. Locke Cole's user page says he's from Washington, and the ISP for a couple of the anon IPs is also. Please check to see if there is a connection between Locke Cole and any of :
* {{user|67.42.93.179}}
* {{user|67.42.85.2}}
* {{user|131.30.121.23}}
* other named accounts that may be involved
Thanks. -- [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] [[User talk:Netoholic|@]] 09:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 09:13, 16 February 2006

This page has a backlog that requires attention of one or more users with Checkuser permissions.
(please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared up)


    Read this first

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

    Requests likely to be accepted

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

    Requests likely to be rejected

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


    When submitting a request

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


    After submitting a request

    Privacy violation?

    this header: view • edit

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

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

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

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

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

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


    Enter requests below:

    Wiggins2 (talk · contribs), California12 (talk · contribs), and Jason_Gastrich (talk · contribs)

    It is suspected that Wiggins2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), California12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are sockpuppets of Jason_Gastrich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (see list of suspected Gastrich socks). This diff [1] shows four reverts within 24h by 207.200.116.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), Wiggins2, and then an edit by Gastrich. If Wiggins2 was posting from IP 207.200.116.11 then that is a clear 3RR violation and Wiggins2 should be blocked. If Gastrich was also posting from the same IP address that is clear proof that Wiggins2 is a Gastrich sock; that is important because the edit history of Wiggins2 consists minaly at this point of solicitations to vote in AfD debates of articles created by Gastrich and his acknowledged sock Big_Lover (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I take on board the points above that there needs to be a good reason: I believe this is a good reason, per policy, to check these contribs. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 09:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It is also possible that they are socks of Gastrich follower "Uncle Davey" usenetposts.com (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), especially since some of them use the same user page text "you can call me..." and sign comments with two dashes " --username" as Uncle Davey does.

    Whoops ... I should've read the above entry when making this request. I'm now merging the two.

    Jason Gastrich has been involved in an extremely disruptive attempt to influence a the outcome of a dozen AfDs over the past week. His tactics have included "campaigning" via Wikipedia talk by finding like-minded individuals through userboxes, posting a call to action on his Ministry website telling people to come here and vote Keep on these AfDs, and he also sent out numerous emails through Wikipedia to get people to come here and vote Keep. This all qualifies as an extreme abuse of process. I am asking for the Checkuser because Wiggins2 started doing the exact same thing Jason Gastrich had been doing, namely, spamming lots of different talk pages with requests to get people to come to the AfDs and vote keep. If you look at Wiggins2's contributions you will see that they are almost entirely AfD keep messages posted to various people's talk pages. Here is a full list of all of the AfDs that have been attacked by Jason Gastrich and his various sockpuppets and meat puppets:

    --Cyde Weys 18:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There is now an RfC open against Gastrich for this, a series of revenge nominations of known atheists (including the first President of Angola, FFS!) and sundry other issues. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 19:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    After discussion on WP:AN/I of the wiggins2 afd disruption I've blocked that account for 48 hours. Seeing that it seems to be plausibly linked to a much larger campaign, I'm heading towards the conclusion that this guy should probably be given the bum's rush from Wikipedia, so I would like to see the results of the checkuser so we can be sure of whom we're dealing with. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    See also this where someone called "Jason Gastrich" boasts about the success of "Our latest ministry, Wiki 4 Christ". Wikipedia isn't a place for spiritual ministries to operate. I am going to block this fellow Gastrich's main account for twenty-four hours with immediate effect pending discussion of what we do about this. I'd like to get agreement, ideally, for an indefinite block of this user and all socks in the hope that we can deter Gastrich from trying to bring his ministry to Wikipedia. . --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    These: [2] and [3] show absolutely classic Gastrich-pattern behaviour: a nicely flattering article on a Christian university which omits the key facts that (a) it is unaccredited and (b) it sells degrees (i.e. it's a diploma mill).
    The Hastings user page claimed he's from Australia. I'm willing to bet his IP isn't an Australian one, but rather similiar to a Jason Gastrich IP. Arbustoo 02:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect that at least some of them are being run by Usenetpostsdotcom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Uncle Davey), a long-standing possible meatpuppet Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 22:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Likely sockpuppet of Zephram_Stark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). See above (Peace Inside (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) and here for a mostly complete list of Zephram's identified sockpuppets. Carbonite | Talk 22:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible Batzarro (talk · contribs) socks

    Batzarro (talk · contribs) seems to be involved in a dispute with zanimum (talk · contribs) over which images are allowed on userpages and which are not. Several accounts have surfaced, all following Batzarro's reasoning, WP:POINT-making and choice of words. I believe that all of the following accounts are related to Batzarro:

    I believe the latter two accounts have been created by Batzarro to impersonate and possibly incriminate zanimum. The wording Kooorooo has chosen on User talk:Kooorooo is out of character for zanimum, and is consistent with Batzarro's choice of words. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 11:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Add zanee (talk · contribs) to the list. -- user:zanimum
    And the 15 25 other socks in Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Batzarro... Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 22:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Running Batzarro's IPs through http://www.apnic.net/apnic-bin/whois.pl , all but one of the IPs in the suspected list are registered to Irshad Deen who actually works within Sri Lanka Telecom Internet. Can anyone double check me, to make sure I'm correct in this lookup? I presume this is only an accomplice, but nevertheless, we should follow through. -- user:zanimum

    Curps tells me I'm correct with ID'ing the ISP, but that actually the contact to complain to. -- user:zanimum

    He's upto 42 sock accounts/IPs now. -- user:zanimum

    I believe he's backed down now. -- user:zanimum

    Baphin (talk · contribs) and JohN (talk · contribs)

    These new users immediately jumped on List of Freemasons and have repeatedly made uncited edits (Baphin added a whole section or Turkish Freemasons whose only verification is in Turkish, and rather than add the cite, he violated WP:NPA and tried to start an argument with me rather than address the legitimate citation problem. Usually, the individuals who do this have an agenda rather than a desire to increase knowledge. So, I would like to have this user sock-checked against KJVTRUTH (talk · contribs) and Lightbringer (talk · contribs) in particular, but he very well could be someone else.

    User JohN, most notably, in an edit comment saying "removed president as redundant" he also added two uncited entries, and his edit comments are indicative of KJVTRUTH (talk · contribs), although I believe that KJVTRUTH is a sock of Lightbringer (talk · contribs). He also decided to start an argument rather than solve the problem, so I would like him sockchecked as well. A quick look at the history for List of Freemasons will show the extent of the issue.

    If they are Lightbringer socks, they need to be indefinitely blocked as per ArbCom ruling. MSJapan 14:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    GodsWarrior (talk · contribs) ConservativeChristian (talk · contribs) 24.5.28.255 (talk · contribs)

    One anon and 2 brand new users appeared and started editing Evolution without discussion, inserting religious POV. User:24.5.28.155 first, then User:ConservativeChristian 3 reverts, and User:GodsWarrior appeared to make a 4th revert. JohnDO|Speak your mind 07:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    May be related to the recent Christianity vandal. You may want to add those to your request if you also think so. 68.39.174.238 01:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Purtilo (talk · contribs) 152.163.100.10 (talk · contribs) Vitam (talk · contribs) 128.8.128.33 (talk · contribs) 205.188.117.7 (talk · contribs) 66.92.151.249 (talk · contribs)

    As usual, whenever John Lott reaches a semi-stable state of temporary aggreement, the puppet patrol returns with their agressive reverting to their "not verifiable" (IOW - false), uncited version (without, as expected, any discussion). Can someone please verify if this is, in fact, a definitive use of sock puppetry or merely meatpuppets. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Bensaccount (talk · contribs) 84.228.107.148 (talk · contribs)

    Are these one and the same? If so, the anon ip is being used to evade a 48 hour block and both accounts should be blocked for 48 hours (it's a static ip) - if not, it's just a coincidence on Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view, jguk 14:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    67.171.70.101 (talk · contribs) AJ Haskell (talk · contribs)

    Both of these accounts appear to be socks of User:Andrew Lin, who is indefinitely banned (see this Rfc). Andrew has used numerous puppets in the past, and I wouldn't be surprised if there are more out there. Jersyko talk 01:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Jeffrey Barlach (talk · contribs)

    A new account, Jeffrey Barlach, appeared yesterday for the apparent purpose of making attacks on Essjay (talk · contribs).

    Essjay has filed an RFArb involving Jeffrey O. Gustafson (talk · contribs); the case has not yet been accepted. I'd like a sock check on Barlach to see if he's a sock of JOG, a sock of some other recurring nuisance, or (perhaps most likely) some random annoyance trying to stir up trouble. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think it's Jeff; I think it's Rainbowwarrior1977. The most recent RW77 sock was Brandonfarb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), so that will probably be the only one that will have recent IP activity. We have done sockchecks on RW77 before, so if the Arbitration Committee maintains records of past Checkuser results other IP useage will be in there. (If not, I'd specifically like to request maintaining whatever we have available, as I don't see this problem dying anytime soon.) Essjay Talk • Contact 18:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no central log. Some of us keep records of some CheckUser results, though sporadically. I keep wishing I'd kept old checks when an old problem shows up again ... - David Gerard 08:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    24.68.242.147 (talk · contribs)

    Ok, from the highly-POV edit summaries, this one I do think is a Lightbringer (talk · contribs) sock. --SarekOfVulcan 15:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The Belvedere posters

    The "Mrbelvedereposter" accounts have been around for some length of time solely for the purpose of inserting nonsensical text into articels along with a pic of "Mr Belvedere". I request they be CheckUsr'd to see if there are any non-standard sockpuppets of his or if he's using some IP addr along with them. Thanx 68.39.174.238 01:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I had a look into these. They appear to be one person harassing User:Mike Halterman. There's a pile of other names too. Expect a list to show up in the block log this evening - David Gerard 08:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The following accounts seem to follow a similar agenda and/or AfD voting pattern:

    Thanks, --MarkSweep (call me collect) 09:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    We like to call that "voting pattern" The War On Blogs and pretty much anyone on wikipedia seems to have an "agenda". Femmina 15:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:MARMOT

    The following acounts have extremley similar writing styles and editting patterns as well as a history of "dealings" concerning User:Cool Cat. I have reason to believe they perhaps may be sockpuppets of the blocked MARMOT.

    many thanks, --ZeroTalk 15:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Brazil4Linux (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Brazil4Linux has come on IRC complaining that he was blocked for using sockpuppets to evade 3RR, but has not engaged in this behaviour. There was no checkuser evidence for this. I'm sorta posting this for him, though he didn't understand what CheckUser is when I tried to explain it.

    --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 14:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Which you will note is why I blocked that account. The others were editwarring on articles Brazil4Linux was arguing on. All appeared during B4L block periods to continue edit wars.  ALKIVAR™ 21:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

    Congressional staffers from this IP have been featured in news reports, talked about on the ANI and summarized here. I think a sock puppet check is essential, considering the seriousness of the vandalism and Wikipedia credibility. Thanks, —This user has left wikipedia 16:38 2006-01-29

    Copied over from the noticeboard: It might be useful if someone with SQL access to the database could generate a list of all non-empty contributions histories from 143.231 accounts; there's potentially 65,535 other IPs that might have been engaging in this. Hopefully there weren't many IPs from the range doing this, but this is indeed potentially troublesome. Antandrus (talk) 17:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Copied over from the noticeboard: I would suggest a similar check be run on 156.33.*; if House staffers are doing something, there's a good chance they've told some of their Senate buddies to try out the same thing. (Perhaps only a 156.33.195.* check would be needed on the Senate side; I'm not that great at deciphering IP allocations.) Also, 143.231.* is used by the House as well, though I'm not sure in what capacity. --Aaron 17:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Copied over from the noticeboard: A user has just heard this story on TV in Massachusetts. This is a big thing. Mushroom 17:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    143.231.249.141 is the only ip that has edited from 143.231.*, not including deleted edits. As for 156.33.*, see User:Phroziac/156.33.0.0/16 ips that have edited --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 16:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Issue reported to the board. Anthere

    The faster we block everyone / revert every single POV edit, the better chances we have of receiving good headlines. —This user has left wikipedia 18:40 2006-01-29

    Checkuser shows about a dozen users coming in on this ip. Most are not political edits. Fred Bauder 18:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Just for the record, I was wrong, no vandalism from registered all those users, I reviewed all 16 of them:
    • 8 are good faith editors
    • 6 have no edits
    • 2 show interest in politics but still good faith editors
    That's a relief =D —This user has left wikipedia 19:22 2006-01-29

    Possible use of socks in content dispute

    There is currently something of a content dispute/edit war going on at the talk pages of the articles List of sovereign states and Gallery of sovereign state coats of arms (I am involved in it), as documented on the administrators' noticeboard and requests for page protection. The dispute probably started a month ago, when the coat of arms of the disputed regions (Abkhazia and South Ossetia) were first removed. User:Renata3 was the first to (cautiously) bring up the possibility of sockpuppetry. The user seems to have a very dynamic IP: he almost certainly uses the 212.72.135.x and 212.72.156.x ranges, while I'm 90% sure of 24.165.12.148 and 70 to 80% sure of 80.83.131.10. Of the IP's, only 80.83.131.10 has edited on articles other than the disputed pages. 80.83.131.10 is also the only IP whose contribution history predates the content dispute. These IP's have probably had the effect of avoiding 3RR, although it's impossible to say that they have been used for that purpose (I doubt they are). The IP addresses involved are:

    The involved registered accounts are:

    The three accounts have all surfaced in the last few days and have all only made edits to the disputed articles. The "remover" has said that Pirveli is his account, while he has denied being Irakliy81 or Geodave. If these two IP ranges, the two separate IP's and the three accounts belong to the same user, they would have allowed him to dodge 3RR and to appear to represent a wider opinion in the discussion than he actually does. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 22:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Nowdign (talk · contribs)

    He only made one edit (to my talk page), but its characteristics were consistent with a broken proxy. The underlying IP should probably be blocked. --GraemeL (talk) 20:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Aidepolcycne (talk · contribs)

    Definately the Communism vandal. However according to (Someone whose name I forgot, check that talk page), this accounts style of backslash escaping contribs suggests its a PHP proxy, which probably should be found out (Hence this request) and blocked incase he tries to use it again, or someone else does. 68.39.174.238 00:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalismbuster (talk · contribs)

    OK, this dude has been extremely active (3 out of 5 total edits) with the section on Mr Belvedere poster on VIP/LTA. I request he be CheckUsr'd to see if he is the same as MBdP. I would also cite that the person behind these sockpuppetries likes to edit that section of that page, witness Mrbelvedereposter11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s sole contrib. 68.39.174.238 00:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Wikipaedia_is_Dictat0rship (talk · contribs)

    This account blanked the featured articel with some "Communist manifestoe" about "right wing influence", highly suspiscious of the Communism vandal; however he kept referring to the "United MilkMan Front". I request this user be CheckUsr'd to see if MilkMan = The Communism vandal, so they can be merged and understood as such. 68.39.174.238 02:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    MMSimon (talk · contribs), MMSGuy (talk · contribs)

    This user left this message on admin noticeboards [4].

    You've had your fun with me, now I'm going to have my fun with you. I have placed 30 nihlartikles throughout wikipedia, and your job is to find them. Be careful, over half of them have graphics and look very unassuming.

    Assuming he's serious not blowing smoke, perhaps checking this user's IP and comparing to users with the same/similiar IPs creating articles might be helpful. Calton | Talk 05:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    What, you think I'm dumb enough to post them all from the same IP? Sorry, I put a lot of work into this challenge, and you're not going to clean out 30 hoax articles that easy. Checkuser is too easy. Work a bit harder, assclown. - MilkMan
    What, you think I'm dumb enough to post them all from the same IP? Since you don't seem very bright, yes, I do. Next question? --Calton | Talk 05:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    WinterMan (talk · contribs), Guizarres (talk · contribs)

    Both display the backslash bug, which almost always mean they came from a misconfigured open PHP web proxy, which should be blocked before it causes damage. Both accounts are already indefinitely blocked. cesarb 01:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Fg2 (talk · contribs) and Freshgavin (talk · contribs)

    I think these are two accounts used by the same person based on various things on their respective talk pages (answering questions on each other's talk pages, for instance) and the way they interact on various pages (not to mention the somewhat obvious username link: Freshgavin and Fg2 (perhaps "Freshgaving2"?)). "Both" of them are voting on a proposed MOS change for Japanese articles, which seems unfair if they are both the same person. Thanks for your time. --nihon 08:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Dschor (talk · contribs)

    See WP:AN#Template:User pedo. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 00:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: Now an involved party in an ongoing arbitration case: [5]. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 01:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Results, edits on his own account Fred Bauder 04:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Kingjeff (talk · contribs)

    Kingjeff nominated an article for the WP:FAID football article improvement drive a couple of weeks ago and got upset when it was taken off the list, according to the AID rules, after nobody else voted for it. He put it back on and it immediately attracted a vote from Hargreavesfan (talk · contribs), a user whose only previous contribution had been to vote on another poll the same way that Kingjeff had, five minutes after Kingjeff had cast his vote.[6] As I write, more than half of Hargreavesfan's contributions have been votes.[7]

    Since then, several new people have shown up on the FAID, and it's heading towards the point where it will become a farce. A suspiciously high number of these appear to be Bayern Munich supporters from the USA and Canada, which fits with Interiot's tool's suggestion that Kingjeff is based in the Americas, assuming a normal work/school day.[8] So far we have:

    Please could you check these out to give us an idea of which, if any are sockpuppets? Thanks, CTOAGN (talk) 10:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Hargreavesfan is a definite sockpuppet of User:Kingjeff. Kingjeff is in Canada, and User:Kaiser23 is on the same ISP, but they appear to have never used the same IP, and thus this is insufficient to prove sockpuppetry.
    It appears that User:Afrosheen, User:TwilaStar, User:SpandX, User:Caponer, User:Skurrkrow, User:Jhohenzollern and others are all the same user.
    User:Jack o lantern is unlikely to be either, since the IP is outside the US. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 04:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Will the sockpuppets be blocked? Conscious 13:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for doing this, but please could you list all of the sockpuppets linked to Jhollernzollern? We'll need to know who they are so we can discount votes from any of them. CTOAGN (talk) 15:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Juicedpalmeiro, suspected sock of User:Almeidaisgod

    Almeidaisgod (talk · contribs) has been known to make personal attacks, edit war and use sockpuppets to bolster his POV pushing by evading WP:3RR. Previously identified sockpuppets: Flavius Aetius (talk · contribs) and Brian Brockmeyer (talk · contribs) (previous checkuser: [9]). This evening I noticed that User:Brian Brockmeyer had removed the sockpuppet tags generated by this earlier checkuser [10], which I restored -- and that another user, User:Juicedpalmeiro had reverted me [11] and added a barnstar [12]. (Brian Brockmeyer then charmingly called me a cunt on my talk page for restoring the tags.)

    Beyond this behavior, the two accounts seem to edit similar articles, particularly University of Miami Brockmeyer edit scrubbing criticism and Juicedpalmeiro edit, also concerning criticism; University of Notre Dame (BB edit JP edit and Miami Hurricanes Football BB edit JP edit. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 03:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: New potential sock, CaneMan (talk · contribs), showed up to edit Miami Hurricanes Football (first edit, where he calls people "idiots"), as well as University of Miami in much the same manner as the other accounts (here again about the criticm section [13]). Additionally, despite the fact that I've never spoken to this person and we edit no articles in common (so far), he took it upon himself to leave a message at User talk:Rangerdude suggesting that I'm an abusive administrator [14], but only after I blocked User:Brian Brockmeyer. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 12:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Humanun Genus and User:Lightbringer

    User:Humanun Genus is a suspected sock of User:Lightbringer MSJapan 04:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    OMG Lets rape Shanel (talk · contribs) and NC VANDAL LOVES SHANEL!!! (talk · contribs)

    The user is making threats to an admin, and I have strong reasons to believe that he's using irc lurking on the channels Shanel is on (because the usernames correlate to waht it's being discussed on the #wikipedia-en-vandalism channel at the moment) and I need more information in order to consider possible courses of action. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 22:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like the same vandal as the previous huge dump of usernames from Fred Bauder. I'll compile a list of suspect usernames. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 00:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lir socks on Talk:Wikipedia

    Can someone find out what IP-adresses/range this desperate guy is using for all his socks posting on Talk:Wikipedia, and then do the right thing with them. Thanks. Shanes 02:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • I second this. In addition, a checkuser on some of the users recently blocked for being Lir whose sole contributions consisted of adding Lir's page to the Wikipedia article would be in order. I have reason to believe that they are not Lir, and may be another user attempting to get Lir's site added to the spam blacklist. These include User:ITV, User:T1000, User:Tricooon, and possibly some others. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 21:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    CerealBoy (talk · contribs)

    Judging by this edit, CerealBoy (talk · contribs) is vandalising through an open proxy. Presumably someone with Checkuser should query for the IP address and permanently block it. Jkelly 22:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    208.54.15.129 (talk · contribs), MikaM (talk · contribs), Freethinker99 (talk · contribs), and Kecik (talk · contribs)

    I suspect that these may be sockpuppets of Giovanni33 (talk · contribs)/BelindaGong (talk · contribs), who were checked before and found to be the same. I believe Giovanni33 is using these accounts to violate the 3rr on Christianity, and to evade his block for 3rr violations. Related evidence that Freethinker99 is Giovanni33 is this change on Giovanni33's usertalk page: [15] Tom Harrison Talk 15:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The same user group is showed up a block on Adolph Hitler and started to aggressively pursue a particular POV. All of these accounts are about 1 month old (roughly equivalent to User:Giovanni33) and have less than 100 edits. Given the amount of trolling, it might be best to protect both Adolph Hitler and Christianity to give [[User:Giovanni33] some time to cool off. Jbetak 20:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Giovanni33 has emailed me several times, claiming each time that he is the husband of User:BelindaGong and even stated that he would fax copy of ID's to me as proof. Regardless, these other "editors" are another matter...Giovanni33, BelindaGong and Freethinker99 are all currently under a 48 hour block and this will expire in about 24 hours.--MONGO 05:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Dussst (talk · contribs)

    I have reason to believe that Dussst may be the indefinitely blocked user Bourbons3 (talk · contribs). Bourbon3 was blocked for copyright violations on 15 January 2006, and his response was "**You've just lost a valuable editor to the Userbox project, JACKASS - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» T | C". Dusst first edited on 16 January 2006, and his second edit was to add himself to the Userbox project. Also note the format of his current signature: • | Đܧ§§Ť | • T | C. I don't want him to think I'm targeting him because I oppose his opinions on userboxes, but I came across this today. Maybe there's some sort of logical explanation for the coincidences? -- nae'blis (talk) 16:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Thetruthisknown (talk · contribs)

    Anotherblogger (talk · contribs) was banned earlier today for threatening to DDOS attack wikipedia if he wasn't allowed to make a particular edit to Perverted-Justice.com. Throughout the day, he had been making this edit repeatedly, despite being reverted by a number of users, since consensus was against this edit. Shortly after he was banned, Thetruthisknown (talk · contribs) continued to make the edits, leading me to suspect that Thetruthisknown (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of a banned user, and should also be banned. Fieari 22:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    220.245.180.133 (talk · contribs)

    220.245.180.133 (talk · contribs) has conducted a low intensity but disruptive edit war at Jonathan Sarfati and is suspected of being a sock of Sarfati or Agapetos_angel (talk · contribs), or of being staff of Answers in Genesis [16], Sarfati's employer. FeloniousMonk 00:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Locke Cole (talk · contribs)

    In regards to the on-going edit war on PhpBB, it seems that Locke Cole is tag-team reverting to remove some external links along with some IP users. Locke Cole's user page says he's from Washington, and the ISP for a couple of the anon IPs is also. Please check to see if there is a connection between Locke Cole and any of :

    Thanks. -- Netoholic @ 09:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser&oldid=39856554"