Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by FARVA (talk | contribs) at 15:07, 17 March 2006 (→‎{{user|FARVA}}). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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:

    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

    Guess again Jerkwad,if you track down my IP s mate,you ll find that i ve edited in hotels in Santa Cruz,MElbourne and Colombo.

    I have used many sockpuppets.

    I want Ashida Kim's page to be deleted. Thank you 203.222.148.158(Batzarro Sockpuppet)

    He just posted this comment, in a weird place in the middle of this thread. This IP's indef now, but he says he's "Lloyd John Peterson Lloyd", presumably it's actually just "John Peterson Lloyd". Searched the name, and previous vandalism to Ashida Kim came up, including the IP 222.165.174.109, which I've yet to block. -- user:zanimum

    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. 24.5.28.155 (talk · contribs) first, then ConservativeChristian (talk · contribs) 3 reverts, and GodsWarrior (talk · contribs) 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]

    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]

    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]

    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 [1].

    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]

    Just curious if anyone is ever going to check this one as it's been a month now. --日本穣 18:31, 6 March 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: [2]). This evening I noticed that User:Brian Brockmeyer had removed the sockpuppet tags generated by this earlier checkuser [3], which I restored -- and that another user, User:Juicedpalmeiro had reverted me [4] and added a barnstar [5]. (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 [6]). 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 [7], but only after I blocked User:Brian Brockmeyer. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 12:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Also: UMclassof06 (talk · contribs), which, along with some of the above accounts, is being used to influence a consensus-measuring vote on the University of Miami page, see [8] · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 22:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Same pattern: Onward_ND (talk · contribs) · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 14:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Anybody? Bueller, bueller?  ;) · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 17:32, 7 March 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]

    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), 69.107.21.3 (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: [9] 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]

    MikaM acknowledged here that the IP address 69.107.7.138 was his/hers. 69.106.243.31 is probably the same person, as it's a very similar address and the edit is one which MikaM wanted, according to discussion on the talk page. MikaM, who is fully aware of 3RR, reverted twice recently (to Giovanni33's preferred version), and then 69.107.21.3 reverted three more times. I asked MikaM on the Christianity talk page to state whether or not he/she was behind those last three reverts, but he/she refused to answer, saying that an earlier sockcheck had shown that he/she was not a sockpuppet. That check, of course, was to see if MikaM was editing from the same IP as another registered user: it did not prove that future edits would always be made logged on.

    This shows a strong connection between the three IP addresses.

    Additionally, Kecik reverted three times (to Giovanni33's preferred version), and then there was a revert from an IP address. I asked Kecik both on the Christianity talk page, and on his/her own talk page, to state whether or not that edit came from him/her, but so far, there has been no response.

    Giovanni33 has been shown by a sockcheck to be BelindaGong. Having been exposed, he now claims that she is his wife. That may, or may not, be true. If it is true, they set up an elaborate pretence about not knowing each other, even to the messages they sent to each other on their talk pages. Her very first edit was to revert to Giovanni's version. She and he, even when we did not know their connection, reverted well above three times per day, despite numerous warnings. We were reluctant to report newcomers. After they were finally blocked, they were more careful, but still did six a day between them. They also took two votes on talk pages. The contributions of BelindaGong, MikaM, and Kecik show that their purpose on Wikipedia is to agree with Giovanni and to revert to his version. Freethinker99 pretended to be a genuine newcomer while GiovanniBelinda was blocked, reverted to his/their version, and then answered a question which had been addressed to Giovanni on Giovanni's talk page, while logged on as Freethinker99. He then logged on as Giovanni33, and changed the signature. He/they then tried to claim that they knew each other and that Giovanni just happened to be at Freethinker's house, and Freethinker had allowed him to use the computer, but had forgotten to log off as Freethinker.

    All in all, there is a very disturbing pattern of new users with no prior history at Wikipedia arriving and coming to all the pages he edits, agreeing with him on the talk page, reverting to his version, claiming consensus where none exists, and following him to other articles and voting for whatever he votes for. AnnH (talk) 13:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    All in all a very disturbing pattern by older users such as yourself, who are attacking any new user who happens to agree with Giovanni. I'd appreciate if you would stop making the accusations against me and the other new users. I consider it a personal attack and in violation of Wiki culture. You seem to follow me around and instigate this by snide remarks, and insinuations. It's harmful and distracts everyone attention away from the editing work we come here for. Instead it only creates a frezy of personal accusations, and attacks. Many users are convinced that this is primarily motivated by POV disputes (not just new users who feel this way), steming from the Christianity article. We have already lost good new and old users as a result, who left protest over the witch-hunts against anyone who agrees with User:Giovanni33 POV. Its time for this to stop. Btw, your descriptions of the events regarding Giovanni, Belinda, and Freethinker are biased and not completely accurate. MikaM 02:42, 17 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), et al

    User:220.245.180.133, User:220.245.180.134, User:220.245.180.130, User:203.213.77.138, User:58.162.252.236, User:58.162.255.242, User:58.162.251.204, User:58.162.252.58, User:58.162.245.148, User:Dennis Fuller, User:Phloxophilos have conducted a low intensity but disruptive edit war and POV campaign at Jonathan Sarfati and Answers in Genesis and are suspected of being socks of Sarfati or Agapetos_angel (talk · contribs) or of being staff of Creation Ministries International, [10], Sarfati's current employer and formerly known as Answers in Genesis. FeloniousMonk 00:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    220.245.180.133 is a major regional South East Queensland proxy for an Australian ISP (tpg.com.au). TPG are high on the second tier of ISPS, and have many thousands of customers in the region served by this proxy (and the similarly numbered twins). Including me - Alex Law 08:53, 24 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]

    Master and Commander (talk · contribs), Wiki4Life (talk · contribs), 128.12.20.66 (talk · contribs)

    Master and Commander is accused of being a sockpuppet of Wiki4Life, and of being one of the persistent ip vandals at Matthew Vassar. The ip above has been used by Master and Commander to vote on an afd, and the M&C logged in and fixed the signature to apply to himself (which doesn't seem sockpuppet-ish behavior to me). I'd just like to be able to confirm or deny. The active accusation is that M&;C and W4L have both voted on a couple AFDs as socks of each other. Thanks! --Syrthiss 15:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Top Drawer (talk · contribs), Repartee (talk · contribs), Bottom Drawer (talk · contribs)

    I don't think checkuser is needed, as it's fairly obvious that Top Drawer is a sockpuppet of Repartee by looking at their contributions. Nothing but vandalism and nonsense. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 17:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    A CheckUser should still be done to weed out other sock puppets. --Nlu (talk) 19:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Good idea. This user has been quite persistent and there certainly might be other sockpuppets. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 22:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I've compiled a list of potential sock puppets for this user. See Repartee (talk · contribs) for details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yankees76 (talk • contribs)

    User:Bottom Drawer, another suspected sockpuppet of Repartee, has shown up today with the same vandalism behavior. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 19:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    DueDiehcal (talk · contribs) and others

    These users are constantly involved in Edit Wars, and frequently support each other. Please check if any of them are sockpuppets of each other. If they are, they may have used the sockpuppet(s) to avoid 3RR yesterday. DueDiehcal (talk · contribs) is particularly suspect, because after coming into existence, DueDiehcal immediately started to engage in Edit Wars and even defaced an opposing user's page.--Endroit 02:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Three civil rights editors

    These three users popped up in the last few months - two added extensive timelime data to civil rights movement pages (of which at least one line, concerning Bobby Bland, was completely bogus) and the third completely rewrote Montgomery Improvement Association. The reason these three are suspicious is that Benjamin Gatti (talk · contribs) has just been put on probation by ArbCom (about 40% my doing), violated that and is blocked for a week, and knows I largely compiled Timeline of the American Civil Rights Movement. After posting the timeline info (not to the Timeline article) user Mitchumch e-mailed me -- I responded on his Talk page, as I only send my e-mail address to admins. My question is, are the three sock-puppets of user benjamin Gatti, and if so did editing with userid Mitchumch constitute evading a properly-placed block? Simesa 06:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Zero0000 (talk · contribs) editwar on Amin al-Husayni

    • Zero0000 (talk · contribs) has maxed out on his 3 reverts per day [11], [12], [13]. Within minutes an Anon editor from Norway made his first Wikipedia edit. He knows how to revert and use the same edit summary style used by Zero0000 (talk · contribs). This user usually edit from Australia but have been editing from places in Europe (such as Belgium) recently.
    • cybbe (talk · contribs) edits from Norway and is known to help Zero with the exact revert war on this subject (see this diff: [14] [15]

    Update: It is 100% a sockpupet of cybbe (talk · contribs) Zeq 14:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Irpen (talk · contribs)

    In a sort of "bet" between User:Irpen and User:Alexander007, I was sent out by Irpen self ([16]) to make a request to demonstrate Alexander that he uses no sockuppets. Could someone be gentle with these two users? Neigel von Teighen 23:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible Sockpuppet

    An edit war broke out recently on the Wayne Gretzky article. One anon. IP 66.254.232.219 continuously rv'ing long standing wording and avoiding warnings from RasputinAXP and even a 24 hr block from GUY. During his attack he was "backed-up" in his arguements by Onward ND. 66.254.232.219 returned from his block and began his revert war again(breaking 3RR in the process) Again, his statements were backed up by Onward ND And again the IP user was blocked by GUY. It has been observed that during 66.254.232.219's blocked periods... Onward ND(normally a very frequent contributor) was dormant as well.

    Could a Check User be done on:

    It is quite likely that are the same person. Thank You Mr Pyles 23:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    BigBear

    BigBear (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) posted an uncivil warning on User Talk:Plover [17] with a comment stating that it is from User:Jason Gastrich. If this is a sock it is significant in the light of the ongoing Arbcom case, if it isn't then somebody is deliberately impersonating Gastrich. It is possible that this account may, if it is not Gastrich, be related to the many Gastrichnnn impersonators above - if so it probably establishes them an attempt to smear rather than meatpuppets. Gastrich certainly has enough enemies, although I think those who are active on Wikipedia (e.g. User:WarriorScribe) are not stupid enough to try this. Guy 16:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This is an important RFCU because Gastrich is now claiming that he hasn't edited Wikipedia in weeks and all of these latest socks are really netstalkers impersonating him and trying to get him in trouble. And I'm actually somewhat open to this idea. --Cyde Weys 16:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It might also be worth checking whether these accounts are consistent with a single person:
    It's not impossible that some of them might be "Uncle Davey" - Usenetpostsdotcom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - since he has exhibited behaviour external to Wikipedia which indicates that he may be sufficiently naive to attempt this. It's also not impossible that they are in fact Gastrich, since he is undoubtedly technically competent, but Fred's reply to my query re "not found" above suggests they are not on a common ISP so that could be way out.
    Apologies, I know this is a lot of work, but I think it's important to be fair; there is no doubt that astrich has used socks, but that is different in degree from running a massive sock farm. Guy 16:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, note that Davey resides in Poland. SO if a significant number resolve to that area then it is Davey. JoshuaZ 03:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    King_Blinger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), tendentious repeating previous Gastrich edits
    Bannana_Peel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), complaining about identificaiton of likely socks (which Gastrich has done before)
    Juicy_Juicy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Gastrich language, Gastrich-type edits, created vexatious RfC against Arbustoo, states what is claimed by Gastrich to be WarriorScribe's real identity
    Jack_White1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Use of cuss-words makes this an unlikely candidate, and in any case blocked for multiple violations of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL but might be worth checking. Just zis Guy you know? 23:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Jimmy Lee Wallace (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Gastrich language, Gastrich-type edits (verbatim repeats of earlier Gastrich edits in one case) first edit was to nom a notable atheist to Afd with dismissive and misleading summary. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sam Tindell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) again. As above. First edit also an afd, but of a User page (User:Arbustoo, who Gastrich has had issues with.) KillerChihuahua?!? 01:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Todd Rockwell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) He must be going through a baby naming book or something. As before. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    LaShanda_Martinique (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) As before, identical edit, misleading Gastrich edit summary. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Frank Corleone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Identical edit, complete with misleading Gastrich-style edit summary. Justin Eiler 15:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Vrray9000@yahoo (talk · contribs)

    Vrray9000@yahoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Randallrobinstine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) both have very similar vandalism patterns. Randallrobinstine was indefinitely blocked on December 29, 2005. Both users have a history of changing images on various webpages. For instance both users have edited Image:That '70s Show logo.png to say "That K-Jo '70s Show" or something to this effect. Both users have also vandalized identical pages (notably That '70s Show and Adult Swim) and all vandalism relating to television and video games in some form.

    This is kind of moot now as Vrray9000@yahoo has been blocked. If there is time however, I'd still like to know as I am curious if my suspicions are true. --11:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
    It's too long ago to associate with User:Randallrobinstine. However, the same IP continues to vandalise without being logged in : 69.76.206.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

    SuperDeng (talk · contribs) and Woohookitty (talk · contribs) and DMorpheus (talk · contribs) and Ksenon (talk · contribs) and Constanz (talk · contribs) and Victory Day (talk · contribs)

    I need someone to check the ips of all these people because Constanz (talk · contribs) and DMorpheus (talk · contribs) and Ksenon (talk · contribs) andConstanz (talk · contribs) have accussed me of creating Victory Day (talk · contribs) as a sock pupet which I havent. I believe that either Victory Day (talk · contribs) acctually is a person who agrees with me or that Victory Day (talk · contribs) was created by one of these Constanz (talk · contribs) and DMorpheus (talk · contribs) and Ksenon (talk · contribs) and Woohookitty (talk · contribs) people to disscredit me. So if someone would please check the ips of all of us and tell us what country of origin all the ips are from It would really help.

    (Deng 19:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

    The problem here is that Deng has no EVIDENCE that any of us created this account. We have evidence but not enough to request a checkuser here, which is why we haven't. But he has zilch. None. And I'm not even involved in the debate at Eastern Front (World War II) nor have I said that he used socks. In fact, I said I don't think he did. I said there was evidence he might have, but again it's so little that I didn't bring a request. He's basically looking for what amounts to a block CheckUser with no evidence. I told him that this was the place to request a CheckUser check but not in this manner. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 19:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to see this evidence but more importantly I would like someone to show the ip of Victory Day and me to prove that we are not the same person and most likely not even from the same country. After that has been done I would like someone to check the others ip who would gain from diss crediting me and see if they are from the same country ass Victory Day and if so from the same city as well.

    (Deng 00:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

    User:Medalstats is User:Them medals is User:Wintermetal

    See this page for details and evidence. --Jared [T]/[+] 22:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to summarize, it involves POV pushing and vote stacking by:

    Thank you,--Kalsermar 14:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems obvious to me they are sockpuppets of each other. They all were created for making medal count edits and pushing the same POV. The evidence listed is pretty convincing if you ask me. It should also be mentioned that the very first edit by Them medals and the very first edit by Wintermetal were both supportive comments in a topic created by Medalstats. King nothing 2 19:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    A quick look at their contributions will reveal that after Wintermetal was blocked suddenly Medalstats resumed editing after not having made one single edit in 11 days.--Kalsermar 22:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Anderson12 (talk · contribs) and WMMrgn (talk · contribs)

    Very likely socks of Basil Rathbone (talk · contribs), who is in turn a sock of Lightbringer (talk · contribs). Lightbringer's information is no longer available because of time of last edit, but Basil's information is similar. Lightbringer has been banned from editing any Freemasonry related articles by ArbCom ruling, and the edit patterns of WMMrgn and Anderson12 are the same as Lightbringer/Basil's. I would love to put this on AIV, and get it sorted out right away, but there's no precedent to do so. MSJapan 21:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Would reinforce the need for this, the contributions from Anderson12 are almost identical to BR and frankly now getting in the way of any sensible edit to the main article.ALR 14:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Second that - in addition to ranting in the talkpages and attacking other editors, User:Anderson12 have deleted the sockpuppet warning on his userpage and copied the userpage of User:Giovanni33. He also insists in reinserting a link to a scratchpad created (partly at least) by User:Basil Rathbone (known sock of Lightbringer) and removing comments from other editors pointing to the likelyhood of him being a sock - see here bottom of his edit), here, here and here. A check-user will let people calm down, no matter if the result show him to be a likely sock or not.

    He's just pretty much confirmed that he is Lightbringer/ Basil Rathbone et al with the latest entry to the talk page. [2 Mar 06] Can we have him blocked iaw Arbcom ruling. Thanks.ALR 13:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Ati3414 (talk · contribs) / 67.170.224.36 (talk · contribs)

    Suspected to have jointly violated 3RR. See WP:RFM. --Smack (talk) 07:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    New Rock Star (talk · contribs) vs. Gothic Hero (talk · contribs)

    Suspected sock puppetery by New Rock Star. Gothic Hero's account was made today, but has only been used to continue edit wars on articles that New Rock Star has been edit warring on, and would otherwise violate 3RR by continuing on his own user name. The users also have the same style of writing, and Gothic Hero has almost gone about signing is messages as New Rock Star.

    User is also believed to be using the Gothic Hero account to provoke users into violating 3RR, henceforth resulting in them being banned and their POV pushed onto articles in violation of Wikipedia's three core policys (WP:CITE, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV).

    As such a check user is asked for to confirm wether this suspicion by myself and the 3RR board is true, or wether it is not. Ley Shade 14:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    (Edit) Since this was authored it has come to light that New Rock Star is using other sock puppets to violate 3RR rules, and to anomynously drw support on AFD pages and Straw Pools. A list of supposed users that where all created and greated one after the other in succesion with the Gothic Hero account are:

    Please also check these user names, as this user is believed to be deliberatly violating policy this way. Ley Shade 07:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    80.90.38.207 (talk · contribs) vs. Rose-mary (talk · contribs)

    Please confirm that this anon is the same as Rose-mary (talk · contribs), who has a habit of editing Phaistos Disc as an anon on a dynamic Luxembourg IP. She's heading towards a third consecutive 3RR violation, so her identity may make a difference to the block. Septentrionalis 16:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Leyasu (talk · contribs) and marnues (talk · contribs)

    Taken from this section:

    Please check myself and this user to dismiss the foolish claim that i am a sockpuppet of anyone, or that this user is a sockpuppet of mine. Ley Shade 17:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Space Cadet (talk · contribs) and Tirid Tirid (talk · contribs)

    The reason for this suspicion: A report shows how closely the two cooperate. The paragraph "Then something really unusual happens..." alone provides enough insight.

    The reason for check user charges:

    • suspicion on deliberate evasion of Three revert rule: Space Cadet reverts for three times ([18], [19], [20]), then Tirid Tirid [21]
    • suspicion that they tried to create the illusion of broader support for positions (see esp. paragraph 2, 3, 7 of [22])
    • suspicion on evasion of punishments for revert warring, by using more than one user account to continue the same revert wars that made Space Cadet face a week-long block (see Space Cadet's blocklog, cf.Tirid Tirid's contributions and Space Cadet's)
    • on suspicion of double-voting in at least four cases
    Case 1:Space Cadet[23], Tirid Tirid[24];
    Case 2: Space Cadet[25], Tirid Tirid[26];
    Case 3: Space Cadet[27], Tirid Tirid[28];
    Case 4 (yesterday): Space Cadet[29], Tirid Tirid[30]

    For these reasons, an IP check might be interesting. Matthead 18:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    A bird in the hand (talk · contribs)

    Pretty obvious sockpuppet of banned user Zephram Stark, based on edit history. Some of his past sockpuppets were: JW1805 (Talk) 21:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    See Category:Wikipedia:Suspected_sockpuppets_of_Zephram_Stark for near-complete list. --JW1805 (Talk) 21:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:153.19.48.103 and User:Molobo

    I've blocked User:153.19.48.103 as a presumed sock of User:Molobo evading his 3RR ban on Września, and extended Molobo's ban because of it. Molobo protests his innocence; evidence on way or another would be useful William M. Connolley 19:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I support William here. Molobo was previously blocked for block evasion, specifically when he posted his comments on WP:AN3. The suspected IP and Molobo edit the same pages. Also, Molobo admitted in the past that he logs in and logs out to edit Wikipedia as he finds fit. --Ghirla -трёп- 10:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Zarrocks (talk · contribs)

    Just seconds after this person registered their account, he or she began creating nonsense or otherwise non-notable articles en masse in 2-minute intervals (i.e. Soap Bubble Laundromat, Samveg Saxena, Strawberry Smoothie, Yoga Booty Ballet, Zero X Posur, et cetera) and then repeatedly began asking me to unblock one of their IP addresses. This activity is borderline disruptive, and I suspect that this is not a new user for reasons which should remain obvious. Hall Monitor 20:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Further research suggests this may be the same person as ?? (talk · contribs). Hall Monitor 20:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Jobe6 (talk · contribs)

    User was indef blocked for a page move and confesed he was WoW, was a formally trusted user, had one sock Naja_Haje (talk · contribs) which was also blocked for vandalism indef recently and I want to find out does Jobe6 has another socks from what ever IP he was using. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 23:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Another possible sock might be Moochoopork (talk · contribs) Moe ε 01:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Poss sockpuppets of indefinitely banned user Irate (talk · contribs) aka IanDavies (talk · contribs)

    Irate (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned, and IanDavies (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned for being his sockpuppet. Now we have Ian Davies Friend (talk · contribs) - that seems like one strange username for someone who is not Ian Davies to choose to me, but perhaps I'm wrong. — ciphergoth 00:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

    Update: he has now created another user: Ian davies friend (talk · contribs). — ciphergoth 21:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: another user HECTOR (talk · contribs) has turned up with a very similar editing style.
    See also IP addresses 213.94.183.148 (talk · contribs), 86.41.196.171 (talk · contribs), 83.71.72.67 (talk · contribs) — ciphergoth 17:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Eat At Joes (talk · contribs)

    I suspect that this user is the latest in a LONG line of "DickWitham" sockpuppets (which are almost all infinitely blocked), with the same editing style, same types of edits, personal attacks, etc. He is probably using IP addresses in the 166.102.104.* and 166.102.89.* range (both subnets assigned to the Milledgeville, Georgia modem pool for Alltel.net. - Chadbryant 04:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    ksenon (talk · contribs)

    ksenon (talk · contribs), Backnumber1662 (talk · contribs) and Victory Day (talk · contribs) are all the same person and checking their ip will show that they are all posted from the city or atleast from the same country.

    Ksenon can not win a dispute he is in so he created Backnumber1662 (talk · contribs) to post his pro nazi views and also made Victory Day (talk · contribs) to disscredit me.

    Check the ips and you will see that they are all from the same city and/or country

    (Deng 00:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

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

    Can we have a check on Imacomp (talk · contribs) and Skull 'n' Femurs (talk · contribs) again please. This was checked at [[31]] but It would be useful to confim the assessment. SnF was recently banned based on a statement of intent to systematically remove well-referenced information from Wikipedia and Imacomps behaviour is tending tow indicate that it's the same person. Most notably is an increasing use of edit summaries to convey personal attacks. If there is a corroboration of the previous check then I'll report over on WP:AN/I for an enforcement of the ban. ThanksALR 15:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    Axiomm (talk · contribs)

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

    FARVA (talk · contribs)

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

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

    At the request of JDoorjam, I am adding to the current RFCU on FARVA (talk · contribs) - he should be checked against the following accounts:
    Thank you for your cooperation. - Chadbryant 04:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't seen such paranoia since the 1950s. I can assure you that I am not the people who Mr. Bryant believes me to be. At the request of Eat At Joes, I am asking Mr. Bryant to go fornicate himself with a large stick. --FARVA 15:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Master Of RSPW (talk · contribs) and Chadbryant (talk · contribs)

    They seem so much alike and just happen to have the same agenda. When Chadbryant is 'away', Master Of RSPW is right there to continue on instead of Chadbryant. Master Of RSPW seems to wave around certain Wikipedia policies and rules that Chadbryant has recently been warned against doing, as if Master Of RSPW felt personally offended by Chadbryant being warned. He acts in exactly the same manner that Chadbryant has been known to do. He places sockpuppet tags freely on other use pages, but gets offended when someone does the same to Master Of RSPW even though there are valid suspicions. Chadbryant acts in exactly the same way, adding sockpuppet tags to other pages, yet being offended when people accuse him of having sockpuppets.

    NOTE: To the person who does the CheckUser - If they don't turn up a complete match, please check to see if Master Of RSPW is editing from behind an open proxy or a very public place. If it turns up to be a very public place, please note that Chadbryant claims to be from Salt Lake City, Utah, so any public place in or near that city should be very suspicious. tv316 14:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    NOTE: I theorize that the IP for Master Of RSPW will most likely be one for a ComCast Cable site somewhere in the USA or from an anon service called SecureIx. I also wish to point out that it is easily verifiable through a glance at Google's Usenet archives that the Id 'Master of RSPW' was one that Chad used for a while on rec.sport.pro-wrestling some years back. He also had a live Journal blog (now removed due to posting of personal information) with the Master of RSPW Id. TruthCrusader 15:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    NOTE: The numerous amounts of vandalism that Master Of RSPW has placed on pages since his creation should warrant enough suspicion to validate this CheckUser request. In addition, it should be made clear that one reason for this suspicion is Chadbryant's past behavior of having used "Master Of RSPW" as a moniker/handle in several locations on and around the Internet, including Google Groups which "Master" is attempting to use as a source to justify his rampant sockpuppet tagging on one particular account. This sockpuppet tagging, along with the tagging of other accounts as sockpuppets, matches almost word-for-word and account-for-account the (invalid and vandalistic) sockpuppet tagging which Chadbryant has engaged in. A quick check of the User Contributions of both parties may confirm this. Chadbryant Master Of RSPW. It also must be said that during the times "Chadbryant" was blocked, "Master Of RSPW" was active. --166.102.89.76 03:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    NOTE: I concur all of the above statements. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nashville_Municipal_Auditorium&action=history as an example. --Zpb52 03:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    NOTE: Master Of RSPW is not my sock, and that at this point, it is most likely being operated by someone who has responded above with deliberately misleading speculation. A CheckUser will be my vindication. - Chadbryant 09:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    NOTE: Taking Chadbryant's word that he is not running a sockpuppet would be a misleading and incorrect course of action. By that logic, anyone who has had or will have a CheckUser request can come on this page and say "It's not me, trust me, so you can stop now" just as Chad has done. He has a history of lying, both on rec.sport.pro-wrestling in Usenet as well as many other places both on and offline -- and, as stated above, his "vindication" may turn out to be nothing more than an anonymized service. All indicators point towards him; granted, in a court of law it would be circumstancial evidence, but this is far from a court of law, isn't it? --FARVA 14:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    64.192.107.242 (talk · contribs) et. al.

    Still fairly new to Wikipedia so I hope this is the right place for this. Here is a list I have compiled of what I believe to be one busy vandal. I don't know if they're related to a known vandal but there are a lot of sockpuppets here. Most of the edits from all these accounts relate to similar articles; in fact, it's hard to find an article edited by only one of the accounts below. Very few of the edits are productive. Most of them are attempts to get Wikipedia to conform to this person's own ideas, regardless of the positions of others or official Wiki policies or guidelines (for example, unnecessary changes, redirects, or pagemoves to American English spellings vs. British. Almost all of the accounts have been used in a manner that violates WP:SOCK. Tons of multiple votes, strawman arguments, evading blocks, the works. Sometimes reverts his/her own vandalism in an apparent attempt to make one account seem more legit. Has also nominated his/her own ludicrous articles for AfD, probably to avoid PROD or speedy deletion. Many of these accounts have been accused at one time or another of being sockpuppets; some are blocked or banned, but most are not. The edits are usually to pages having to do with very large numbers, language, and evolution. In total there has been a lot of vandalism, but most of it is minor enough that no one bothers warning him/her most of the time, and even when they do, the warning is often deleted from the user page. Generally flaunts admin authority and consensus votes. Has used the phrase "on wheels!" to vandalize. I found these accounts just by clicking around in contribution pages etc. I could be wrong about a few of them, but I am convinced that most of these are the same person. -Big Smooth 18:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    IP addresses
    Usernames
    NOTE: since I posted this, this person has continued with the same M.O. - for an example see here [32]. In addition, I believe based on edit history that DecadeZone (talk · contribs) is yet another puppet account. -Big Smooth 01:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    RendezvousSingh (talk · contribs) vs 10 000 thundering typhoons (talk · contribs)

    These two users have been POV pushing and edit warring at Rajput. As they have been reverting to the same version and RendezvousSingh is close to being an obvious sock, I think there is good reason to believe that they are in some way "related". If they are, then there's a violation of WP:SOCK as the RendezvousSingh account has been used to avoid the 3RR. Also, if it's not too late, can you please check whether they are one of the users banned in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rajput. Thanks. --Latinus 18:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    RandallR (talk · contribs), VrrayMan (talk · contribs), and Randallrobinstine (talk · contribs)

    VrrayMan (talk · contribs) was blocked indefinitely earlier today for merciless vandalism. The user RandallR (talk · contribs) has edited many of the same articles and made virtually the exact same edits to said articles earlier this week. RandallR, by the sentence placed on the userpage, admits to being Randall Robinstine, who (obviously) was the accountholder for Randallrobinstine (talk · contribs), which was indefinitely banned in December 2005 for the exact same edits on the exact same pages as the two other screen names. Vrray9000@yahoo (talk · contribs) (also banned indefinitely) is also guilty of the same practices, and it is obvious that screen name coincides with VrrayMan. I do all of this, because the only one of these accounts that is still active is RandallR, and it needs to be blocked indefinitely in order to prevent the same behavior in the future. --Zpb52 04:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Nallina (talk · contribs), Sussex Cables (talk · contribs), Photocopying and tea (talk · contribs), Orlintz (talk · contribs), OWL-FELLS (talk · contribs), Kebulo (talk · contribs), and Wickerwae (talk · contribs)

    All of these users blanked Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy within a short time of each other.

    • Nallina (talk · contribs), 09:38, 10 March 2006: Blanked page and added deletedpage tag; no edit summary.
    • Sussex Cables (talk · contribs), 09:40, 10 March 2006: Blanked page and added deletedpage tag; edit summary "remove offensive text; the bot is stupid."
    • Photocopying and tea (talk · contribs), 09:41, 10 March 2006: Blanked page and added deletedpage tag; edit summary "remove offensive page; it's grossly offensive, and too POV."
    • Orlintz (talk · contribs), 09:42, 10 March 2006: Blanked page and added deletedpage tag; edit summary "Remove offensive images; Wikiadmins are obscene."
    • OWL-FELLS (talk · contribs), 09:43, 10 March 2006: Blanked page and added deletedpage tag; no edit summary.
    • Kebulo (talk · contribs), 09:44, 10 March 2006: Blanked page and added deletedpage tag; edit summary "remove offensive text; not vandalism."
    • Wickerwae (talk · contribs), 09:44, 10 March 2006: Blanked page and added deletedpage tag; edit summary "remove offensive text; not vandalism." —Wayward Talk 11:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Keystrokes (talk · contribs)

    Healthy eating (talk · contribs)

    Can be be checked against Basil Rathbone (talk · contribs)? He's a known sock of Lightbringer (talk · contribs). Ardenn 19:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    A request User:Paln

    Anonymous editor has accused another user Paln as a sock-puppet of Deepak, most likely of the user User:Deepak gupta on a talk page, namely, Talk:Terrorism in Kashmir in the section named Deletion of referenced material. I request for examination of the matter in its entirety. If the charge of sock-puppetry is proved, I request for initiation of appropriate steps. In case, the charge turns out to be false, I request for initiation of suitable measures against the accusor as in my humble opinion, false accusation of this nature violates several basic principles of wikipedia, including Wikipedia:No personal attacks and is also highly disruptive behavior. I am doing this in the long term interest of the Project. --Bhadani 15:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Bhadani seems to be doing this is incredibly bad faith and especially when the situation has already passed a month ago. He's only doing this because he's angry over other issues that he can't seem to settle. The sockpuppet accusation is not a personal attack, it's an accusation editors make every day based on the evidence of a user's contributions (look at the list on this page). A new policy just can't be introduced that he claims "suitable measures" that should be taken against the accusor.
    The user who was accused and I have already settled this and Bhadani's only doing it a month later because he is looking forward for revenge. Extremely bad faith and as I said before, it doesn't even have to be Deepak but it could be a sock of other editors, some who have used them before, that wanted to make the situation worse. But Bhadani, bringing this up at a later date just to make it worse after it's already been settled, violating WP:POINT and disrupting wikipedia for revenge or because you can't settle simple issues, is bad faith and similarly I think that the appropriate measures should be taken against this bad faith in the long term interest of the project. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 16:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that shouting against me is not going to help. As such, I would request for an expeditious enquiry into the matter to resolve the issue, as in my opinion, blaming without basis threatens the wiki-policies of good faith. I do not have any intention or reasons to take revenge. I am stunned that AE, after accusing someone of being sock-puppet, is directly taking a stand that I am doing this in bad faith. Actually, I want to simplify and sort out the matter by proper examination of the real facts – my intention is that the matter should be resolved and the wikipedians should know the real facts. The contention that users sometimes call other users as sock-puppets is not going to help, as I am talking of a specific instance. New or old, a month old or a year old, is irrelevant, as the fact requires proper enquiry by a CheckUser. It is not something, which is going to make the Project tumble down like a house of cards: we have seen the worst cases, and have weathered many storms – this is a very simple enquiry and may take few minutes only. I once again request the persons vested with the necessary tools and authority to investigate the matter, as in my opinion such a serious charge by an established editor-administrator against another user is highly deplorable, and sets a bad precedence and gives negative signals. I will not reply to further accusations against me here – as I have faith in the judgment of the wiki-community and the persons vested with the required tools and authority to impartially investigate the matter. --Bhadani 10:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well Bhadani, that's exactly what it seems like when you show up a month later having a completely unrelated dispute with me and decide that you are going to do something like this. I am however satisfied with the accusation because getting rid of someone who is an abusive sockpuppet is for the better of the community. Even the user who was accused later settled this with me already saying that he would have acted in the same way. Now I hope it doesn't turn out to be him because then I will know that it was another related editor trying to make trouble by using a sockpuppet. I really don't know what you will get out of it, since the person who was "charged" already agreed that he would have done the same and identifying a sock who is a not helping the project is in good faith. Cheers --a.n.o.n.y.m t 14:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Melissadolbeer/SallyGold/Bacchiad

    Is

    any of the following:

    ?

    (apart from Bacchiad these are all very obvious socks of each other)

    (SallyGold and Dwho are the most recent)

    Thanks,

    This is needed for an arbitration case.

    --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 17:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Licinius

    Licinius (talk · contribs) is pushing an eccentric view in edits to the Football article. To this end, he/she appears to be using multiple sockpuppets to vote in polls at Talk:Football. He/she claims that several editors use the same PC. However the "users" concerned appear to have cooperated on several articles to a very close degree, and even edit each others' user/talk pages. I have warned him/her/them and have grouped them under Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Licinius. The suspected sockpuppets include: User:J is me, User:The man from OZ, User:130.130.37.6, User:60.225.200.50 and User:60.225.202.61. User:60.225.200.50 has also tried to portray User:CambridgeBayWeather as my sockpuppet.[33] Grant65 | Talk 11:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Add to these User:60.225.217.77, User:60.225.218.137 and User:NSWelshman. Grant65 | Talk 23:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Jim16 and 66.17.116.148

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

    New "blanking" of vandalism warnings

    By User:Jim16 to User talk:66.17.116.148, here. RadioKirk talk to me 23:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    VEQTOR (talk · contribs) and Jplache (talk · contribs)

    In AfD discussion on Veqtor, article author seems to have gotten support from a new registrant, {{|user|Jplache}}, whose first two edits were argumentatively opposing deletion. Most times sock-puppetry doesn't matter. But in voting AfD discussions it does. Bucketsofg 22:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Ahem: AfD is not a vote. Just zis Guy you know? 22:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't know that. I've edited my contribution accordingly. (Thanks!) Bucketsofg 22:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    VEQTOR and Jplache appear to be the same person. 82.68.21.14 is the IP address they've been using. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 02:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User: Tombride and User:63.226.214.125

    These two users have edited This Bike Is A Pipe Bomb to change their genre from folk-punk to folk. In addition to being an edit without any merit in my opinion and the opinion of another user (which suggests the same user is making the edits) their edits seem to be a way to get around WP:3RR. Furthermore, the anon has edited this article similarly in the past and had their edits reverted, and has done the same with Against Me! at one point. I also find it interesting that Tombride's last edit before today was in July 2005, which makes me think he/she is the same user as the anon because that seems like more than just a coincidence. The Ungovernable Force 05:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:40 Days of Lent

    Could we have a checkuser on this fresh user? From his editpattern (going straight to Freemasonry related pages), POV (attacking masonic editors), opinions (asking / demanding that only non-masons can edit said articles), and apperant knowledge of previous incidents, I think it is likely that he is a sockpuppet of User:Lightbringer (since it is a long time since Lightbringer was here, a check can be done against other known socks, such as User:Basil Rathbone). WegianWarrior 10:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    JanKees (talk · contribs)

    In the NiMUD article, Young_Zaphod/Eggster/many-Pittsburgh-anons was blocked for multiple 3rr offenses and vast amounts of incivility. After he was blocked for a week, JanKees (allegedly a friend of his, and not him) started making reverts, and has done 3 within 24 hours, or 4 if he's the same person as the blocked guy. His comments are vaguely similar to Young_Zaphod's (using same arguments as justification for reverts), but has been acting civil. You guys already confirmed a bunch of sock puppets of his [34], I'd like for you to compare JanKees with the other IP addresses. Since the blocks were for specific IPs, I assume that this new user is probably on one of the other computers in the same lab, which is not blocked. A majority of his other edits have been made by:

    Thanks, sorry to bother ya by the way. --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 12:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    user:BTR

    Seems like a possible sockpuppet for user Bcorr. A mysterious user page (the users says describes himself as "aka Stealth Technology"), only edit past user page has been to recruit user:deeceevoice (whom I had a previous arbcom case against) to the Ron Dellums page. This is very odd behavior. Bcorr has been active on the Ron Dellums page and logged in anon to bug me last week. My guess is that this is Bcorr but I expect that BTR has a minimal login history.

    -Justforasecond 01:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kilbosh

    As per perculiar voting patterns on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strampop, could someone please check if any of the following are socky, please?

    Thanks, Proto||type 16:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Leyasu and 86.143.127.4

    A new anonymous IP 86.143.127.4 just showed up, and its first and only edit was to make the same revert that User:Leyasu was blocked for revert-warring over multiple times today. [35] Can an admin with CheckUser please investigate if 86.143.127.4 is the same as Leyasu? flowersofnight (talk) 20:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Second sock puppet from Leyasu

    Further evidence seems to show that it is a sock puppet of *Leyasu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a similar IP has emerged to 86.143.127.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log).. 86.143.125.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) this IP is using the same tactics and editing patters as 86.143.127.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), they are reverting articles to versions which Leysau was recently blocked for pushing, an editor who is already on Wikipedia Parole.

    Gothic Metal [36][37][38][39][40]

    and Moi Dix Mois [41][42][43][44][45]

    Aswel as vandalising an article which 3 or more regular users have been discusing on the talk page and reworking. This sock also uses tactics which Leysasu has used in the past; refusal to discuss any issues on the talk page with other editors, and calling everything "vandalism" that doesn't apply to "last edit by leysau".

    Heavy metal music; [46][47]

    -Deathrocker 20:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Third sock puppet from Leyasu

    3rd suspected sock, see another cases above..

    Only edits by Anonymous IP 81.157.88.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) are reversions of various articles to verisons by Leysau's version (who is currently blocked).

    Moi Dix Mois; [48]

    Gothic Metal; [49]

    Sergeybakh (talk · contribs), Markdanil (talk · contribs) and various IPs

    It certainly looks like these two users are sockpuppets of the banned user Roitr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and his identified sockpuppets Tt1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Alexr23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - notice the clear pattern in contributions by these and

    This user has previously caused a major wreck to various articles, including but not limited to

    Comparative military ranks of World War II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views),
    History of Russian military ranks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ,
    Navy ranks and insignia of the Russian Federation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views),
    Air Force ranks and insignia of the Russian Federation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ,
    Army ranks and insignia of the Russian Federation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    and some articles had to be protected or semiprotected in order to stop his vandalism. --DmitryKo 22:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible User:Robust Physique socks

    Vandalised Galactic Civilizations II: Dread Lords page, warned, ignored warning, blocked for 3 hours. After block, continued vandalism. Blocked for 24. Another 2 accounts with no other edit continued the same pattern of vandalism. Semi-protected page. I began to be vandalised at my user page and user talk page by 6 different accounts with no other edit, again, identical each time. All within, maybe 5 minutes. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 06:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    A few more suspicious accounts created the next day:

    Bescn (talk · contribs)

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

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


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

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

    See this discussion at AN/I: I think there is enough evidence to request a CheckUser. Unfortunately it's too late to check for User:DW, User:JillandJack, User:Angelique and so on, but it would be interesting to know if there is a connection between these users:

    I would also like to know if this user is somehow related, since he has been accused of being a sockpuppet of DW:

    Mushroom (Talk) 21:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

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

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

    Frankly I don't see how the individual(s) in question are engaged in significant (e.g. pattern) vandalism or there is reason to believe that sockpuppets are being used to evade a block, ban, or 3RR, or to otherwise violate policy (such as to vote multiple times in a poll or to otherwise appear to represent a wider opinion in discussion than one actually does). A simple review of user contributions seems to demonstrate that.
    Thanks for all your efforts. Wikipedia benefits by all your good work. GoldToeMarionette 05:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This is wikilawyering. Using a sockpuppet to "rally the troops" on an AfD discussion is not kosher. android79 12:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Jimboiain (talk · contribs)

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

    Hello, I was recommended to stop by here by PseudoSudo (talk · contribs). Here is the current list of sockpuppets that are worth checking in on. Sysop Bearcat (talk · contribs) has affectionately referred to some of them as "them Vaughan freaks" in Sysop talk page for CambridgeBayWeather (talk · contribs). There may be 2 individual users here, each with their respective sockpuppets. It's hard to distinguish the two.

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

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

    The mentioned users have been building up false discussions on a number of pages; check the contibs of the newer accounts. The most blatant example is Talk:Mahavatar Babaji#Vote.
    User:82.15.17.152 (who is currently serving a 24-hour block for blanking warnings on his talk) has signed his contributions as both User:NoToFrauds ([50], [51]) and User:No to Nutss (a non-existent user) ([52]), and has actually flip-flopped the signature of a comment ([53]). ~ PseudoSudo 22:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Harassment by Johnny the Vandal socks

    Please run a check against these accounts. As this person is making a habit of harassment and vandalism, our privacy policy explicitly states that we may publish personally identifiable data collected in the server logs regarding these attacks. Please do so. Hall Monitor 22:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

    Diffs: AfD of the New York Times: [54], AfD of John Bambenek [55], RFC by Alpha269 [56], Alpha's posts to the WP:AN [57], Jbamb chims in AFTER the block of Alpha269 [58], Sample of the request placed on new admins talk pages by Alpha269 [59]. Also if you look at Alpha269's contribs he only contributes to AfDs and to things associated with the Bambanek AfD, DRV and RFC. Mike (T C) 04:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser&oldid=44218974"