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 85.101.91.116 (talk) at 21:19, 6 May 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


    Read this first

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

    Requests likely to be accepted

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

    Requests likely to be rejected

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


    When submitting a request

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


    After submitting a request

    Privacy violation?

    this header: view • edit

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

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

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

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

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

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


    Outstanding requests

    -Inanna-

    I believe that this user is a sockpuppet of the permabanned User:-Inanna-, mainly due the fact that Inanna wants it to look like there is a campaign to harass me. Look at the user's contributions: they don't make any edits until yesterday when Inanna's IP leaves a message on his/her talk page. —Khoikhoi 16:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Show the comparison! Do NOT ban the people by slandering!

    Digi Wiki

    Suspected new embodiment of anon puppetteer from User:Mikkalai/arkven#Alphabetic list `'mikka (t) 03:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Karatekid7

    Karatekid7 (talk · contribs) blocked indefinately. Sockpuppet use to circumvent block. 212.138.47.17 23:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    really what is the point of blocking IP addresses that I am not on now? Simple fact is the initial block was unfair then I am indef blocked for being a sockpuppet of an indef blocked user. I am not actually that bad an editor, and blocking me makes me more determined to come back. TheKarateKid7 00:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I admit to being a sock puppet of KarateKid7, I have started a discussion on this at WP:ANI --TheKarateKid7 02:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Just in case here you go: [1], It is looking like this issue may be resolved elsewhere. --TheKarateKid7 04:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Current sock puppet listing : [2] Previous sock puppet usercheck : [3] recent 3RR : [4] another recent 3RR : [5] - multiple 3RR violation, uncivility, and sock puppet useage to evade two permablocks + 3RR. Karatekid7 is already permabanned. John79 is also permabanned. 216.155.95.163 13:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    216.155.95.163 thanks for your contributions, I assume you are also 212.138.47.17 and TheMadTim. Good investigative work, however anyone could read the evidence you have provided by simply reading my userpage. --TheKarateKid7 19:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    RGLE is a small group, all things considered (2 relevant hits on Google, and that's about it), and, therefore, considering the number of editors listed above who are not only editing and reverting, but making the same types of edits and reversions, some of them, if not all, have to be the same individuals. MSJapan 14:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Regular Grand Lodge of England has had numerous valid requests for citation put on it a number of times, and after this notice was put in at 3RR Noticeboard, other accounts immediately pop up, avoiding 3rr issues. Vidkun 17:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Suspected socks at Vlachs of Serbia

    They revert war attacking Greier. --62.57.67.224 13:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: Greier (talk · contribs) is probably a sockpuppet of the permabanned Bonaparte (talk · contribs). —Khoikhoi 14:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Also note that I have a personal contact with two apparent distinct users User:Aldux and User:Telex, for months now. Unless the "suspected socks" are language freaks, I can't understand how someone can be speaking 8 or so languages fluently and simultaneously... Finally, take a look here and again here, and then read counter-attack and diversion... NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 14:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Suspected socks at Talk:Iranian peoples

    This is currently a vote going on at Talk:Iranian peoples, as to whether to include a certain ethinc group. I highly suspect that the last 2 users are sockpuppets of the above anons, not sure which one is which however. Both of the last 2 users only have 2 edits - one to their user page, and one to Talk:Iranian peoples. I suspect that these users are using sockpuppetry to get what they want. —Khoikhoi 04:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Deathrocker

    Deathrocker is suspected of using socks to violate core policys on the Children of Bodom article [6]. Deathrocker has a known history of using sockpuppets, his most recent one month block for using the sock puppet Comment to disrupt and vandalise the ANI board. Other cases have been shown including the bragging of using anons to vandalise UserPages of Admins and Users that have blocked or been in content disputes with him.

    Deathrocker is also currently held in a arbirrition case [7], his second arbirrition case for the harrassment of users using socks and vandalism. The user has been noted by admins Idont, Tony and Sceptre as baiting me [8], and has been warned by sceptre for Incivilty and Personal Attacks [9].

    Deathrocker has also used the anons in several instances of Wikilawyering on the ArbCom case. The first instance was to have the case annulled, when this failed, he tried to have Sceptre's admin powers revoked, and when this failed, attempted to have me banned from Wikipedia so that my statement doesnt count.

    We request this check user to see if Deathrocker is using the anons to bait people into violating paroles and policys and to violate core policys himself, and if he is, so this can recorded as evidence in his Arbirrition Case. If he isnt, then the user can be dealt with seperatly with no recourse upon Deathrocker. Ley Shade 02:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Neither the anons nor Mike are me. This user is the only person who has suspect that I'm any of these people... Leyasu violated his ArbCom parole, claiming one of the anons first post was "vandalism" and threatened him or her [10]

    Leyasu has recently been warned about Labeling good faith edits as "vandalism" yet he continued to do so in relation to this noob, I'd take this users words with a pinch of salt, they have a history of causing trouble on Wikipedia [11] shows the user has 6 violations of ArbCom parole.

    Recently this user was found guilty of using several sockpuppets to edit articles while blocked. user:Idont_Havaname, user:Deiz and Tony and others are here discussing Leyasu's use of sockpuppets [12] which were used to attack users and revert articles while Leyasu was banned. [13]

    Check the history of the anons, non of them edit the ArbCom case against myself, this is a deception by Leyasu (who is well known for that). Leyasu is commiting Slander on this very page, my ArbCom case is because I reported a sock that had a similar IP to ones already found to be Leyasu. I'm not there because of "harassment", "using socks" and "vandalism"... here are clear personal attacks by Leyasu, claiming that I'm a "vandal"... this is slander, this is against the law and Wikipedia policies.

    I will however, notify this Mike guy about this latest attack by Leyasu, and see if we can get him here for comment.

    (Note - the DeathrockerComment account was not a "sock" an admin allowed me to use it over a month ago, after a comment was needed on a case, check the archives I do not have a "history of using socks".. though Leyasu has been found guilty of using of using numerous socks before [14]) - Deathrocker 07:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    (Note - Mike5193 is not a sock. I am Michael Lyons, and I dont know who the the other guy is. Leyasu is confused or something. Bye bye — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike5193 (talk • contribs)


    FERS

    I suspect that FERS (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of Charly (talk · contribs).Although there is a small chance they may indeed be two seperate people, the suspicion centers around a request for deletion that may be influenced by sock puppets. The main pages are at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concepción Heredia-Rosas and Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Concepción Heredia-Rosas, with examples of the hoax pages at Concepción Heredia-Rosas, Gueroust Palace and Talk:Gueroust Palace. I just have a little gut feeling about it :-) Charles 19:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    JuliannaRoseMauriello

    • This user claims to be the star of a popular children's television series, Lazytown. Their editing was perfectly helpful at the beginning, as they helped bring attention to the private content included. Recently, this user has taken it upon themselves to edit more controversially, on topics outside their realm of expertise. All that is asked is that we confirm or deny that this editor has edited from New York state (where she has attended school), California (where she attended the Daytime Emmys), or Iceland (where her series films). -- Zanimum 14:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    RunningMan

    User:Irate was banned indefinitely by Jimbo Wales in August 2005. Since then he has returned under a number of new usernames before being discovered. User:RunningMan appears to be the latest of these, displaying the same traits as the others. For example:

    • Getting involved in edit wars on controversial topics, such as Harry Stanley. (Compare with User:IanDavies's contributions at Talk:Traditional counties of England.) This time, it resulted in him describing User:Dibble999 (who is a police officer) as a member of a "violent criminal gang" [18].
    • A tendency to make personal attacks. (This time on User:Dibble999: see here and here.
    • Curious interpretations of what is meant by "vandalism". For instance, he removed a message from his talk page [19], which was a polite request to stop personal attacks. Compare with here or here, for instance.
    • A large proportion of edits are to articles about Liverpool and the surrounding area. Some of them are to articles which (other than stub sorting, categorising, copyediting, etc.) only Irate etc. has contributed to (e.g. St John's Gardens).
    • The slightly cryptic content of the user pages, each in a similar vein.

    --RFBailey 11:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Are there any recently identified sockpuppets? Essjay (Talk • Connect) 13:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The bottom of this page from David Gerard's user log shows the last few to be blocked by him (he has dealt with this user several times in the past); other admins may have blocked others since. I've also seen a lot of this user, and agree that the editing pattern is stunningly similar. Aquilina 15:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Is further evidence required? Aquilina 15:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Irgendwer

    Alfrem (talk · contribs) was banned from Libertarianism by ArbCom on 13 July, 2005 for repeatedly removing the sentence "Libertarianism is a political philosophy" from the lead of the article despite consensus. Irgendwer began editing on 7 October, 2005, and after making approxmately 20 edits to various political articles, began to repeatedly remove the term "political" from the same sentence in the lead of Libertarianism. Irgendwer has already been blocked for 3RR once for this, and shares many mannerisms and turns of speech with Alfrem. Alfrem has mentioned in the ArbCom case to use the IP 80.131.0.46. --rehpotsirhc █♣█ ▪ Talk 15:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Are there any recently identified sockpuppets? Essjay (Talk • Connect) 13:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to my knowledge. --rehpotsirhc █♣█ ▪ Talk 14:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Jake the wiki (talk · contribs)

    Lightbringer is banned by ArbCom from editing articles relating to Freemasonry, and so far this new editor has done only that. See also Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Lightbringer File:CcoacrestB.PNG Ardenn 02:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Up to his usual POV agenda bashing. He also seems to be using the IP: User:24.64.223.203. Note the use of the term "Masonic Editors" in his complaints (especially in the edit summaries). This is typical. There is another Check user request on him below. Blueboar 23:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Nikitchenko

    Last month I and at least half a dozen other users received from JimmyT a barrage of very serious abuse, personal attacks and wrongful claims of wiki rule breaching (so that our talk pages could be covered in pages of WP:NPA WP:Civil and vandalism warnings which according to wiki policy we aren't to remove). These were all fuelled because of edits to Scientology related articles as he is an admitted scientologist and objects to wikipedia policies regarding POV edits. He was subsequently banned indefinitely. JimmyT claimed to be American. Within days it continued (allbeit in a slightly different and certainly more toned down way) from a new user UNK - again an admitted scientologist claiming to be from Korea. About 2-3 weeks ago he too was banned indefinitely as it was found he was a sockpuppet of JimmyT. Now, "coincidently" we have another admitted scientologist and "friend" of UNK; Nikitchenko this time claiming to be a Russian based artist who was born in Japan (strange but that's his story) and, again, both wikipediatrix and I (moreso than the the others this time) are finding ourselves targets. Again, more subtle but consistently being hassled about every edit, calling mediation committees, and generally making life difficult. To me it all seems too coincidental - especially as he says he lives in Russia but wrote on my talk page that he is a close friend of UNK's, who was allegdedly Korean. Are you able to assist with a checkuser if possible please? Thank you in advance, this is my first request of this nature so apologies if it is not procedure. Please let me know if you require more information. - Glen TC (Stollery) 01:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:VaughanWatch redux

    YoungWebster has been making highly biased edits to some of the same articles disputed by the whole VW crowd (note, for example, allegations at Susan Kadis that the Thornhill Times folded "due to lack of interest in its excessively partisan approach"), and 64.228.149.67's only known WP contribution to date was to my talk page, again accusing the editor who reverted that comment from Kadis' article of being a sockpuppet of User:pm_shef, which seems to be their favourite new tactic of late. I reluctantly understand if you guys want to wash your hands of the whole thing at this point, but I also can't really block either of them without more solid evidence than I have. Bearcat 02:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Given the extent of VW's proven sock puppetry, would it be appropriate to simply ban new suspected accounts (based on their edit behavior) based on community consensus at AN/I (or is that against policy)? Thatcher131 13:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I'd say you're on pretty safe ground there. Mackensen (talk) 02:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wouldn't be opposed to doing that if there's a clear consensus, but I'm reluctant to act unilaterally in that regard. As much as possible, I'd prefer to act on solid evidence; barring that I still wouldn't be comfortable editblocking unless one or two other administrators actually looked at their edit histories and agreed with my assessment. Given the way I was targeted for attack by the VW brigade throughout the whole mess, I'm really not willing to act without backup. Bearcat 00:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lightbringer, aka User:Fyodor Dos, User:JKWithers, and a host of other socks, particularly including Jake the wiki (talk · contribs).

    User:Jake the wiki follows the edit pattern of Long Term Abuser: Lightbringer who was banned from editing any article relating to Freemasonry. A supposedly new user, who immediately heads to Freemasonry related articles and shows extensive knowledge of the edit history and controvercies of the articles in question. He has specific areas that he attacks: statements that Freemasonry is not a secret society, any mention of Freemasons being killed in the Holocaust, any refutation of religious criticisms. He hides his attacks behind misleading edit summaries (in this case, picking up on legitimate concerns by other editors that the article is too long and that certain sections should be summarized). See: this edit, and those immediately prior to it. When asked to discuss his edits on the talk page, he did post a topic header on the subject, (see: Introduction section of talk page) but his responce to criticism was to claim that his changes are blocked by a "cabal" of Masonic editors (the fact that he ascerts this when, as a new user, he has not experienced such blocking is yet another example of typical Lightbringer behavior). he ends his reply with the Religious POV statement: "Masonry was defeated at Calvary", which also fits the Lightbringer mode. Finally, several Lightbringer socks have used IP addresses from Shaw Communications in BC, Canada. Examples include:

    User:Jake the wiki used the IP address User:24.64.223.203 for one of his edits here. I ran a check, and that is also a Shaw Communications address. Blueboar 17:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    ZoeCroydon

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

    Apart from their shared but otherwise unique opinions, they also share a similar style of writing, knowledge of obscure Wikipedia "rules" such as WP:AGF and WP:RPA despite being focused on one article [20], and the first three accounts share the same interesting typo in their bizarre names (the unnecessary space after the opening bracket), suggesting rapid account creation using copy-and-paste. --Sam Blanning(talk) 08:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I've started investigating this but results will take some time to complete. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Declined requests

    Node ue

    Recognized on Talk:Moldovan language that he uses socks. He may have others accounts as well with the same IP from Phoenix, Arizona. --80.179.227.167 18:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Node ue

    It must have been Telex (talk · contribs). I bet with you that User:Telex is User:Node ue. His IP must come from Phoenix, Arizona. Multiple accounts is strictly forbidden.--80.179.227.167 21:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Do not feed the trolls - this IP (likely an open proxy) is a sockpuppet of permabanned User:Bonaparte (see User:Bonaparte/sockpuppetry). Please check me.. you'll find we live on different continents. Telex 21:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    B.Wind

    They claim to be "two editors who work together at a Miami-area college", which unfortunately might cause a loophole/false positive. Editing styles and edit summary styles are very similar, and they are tag-teaming in a dispute. --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 22:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      • I am nobody's sockpuppet. I was the one who brought BW to Wikipedia in the first place. While you're checking my current work IP, don't forget to check the one I shared before a system upgrade at Miami Dade College earlier this year: 147.70.242.21. 147.70.242.39 23:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Completed requests

    User:Visions1965

    Monicasdude is currently in an ArbCom hearing, where the Proposed decision is likely to result in Monicasdude being banned from the deletion process. A finding of fact will probably find that Monicasdude is uncivil, which Visions1965 certainly is. While Visions1965 only currently has 3 edits, 2 of those are viciously defending a link to http://www.angelfire.com/wa/monicasdude in Bob Dylan, an article Monicasdude has edited a significant amount of times, and the account could certainly be used in the future to bypass any remedy placed on Monicadude by the Arbitration Committee. Visions1965 actually knew on his second edit ever that "You and your weird friends may hate the guy who runs it," despite never even editing a project or even article page. In addition, Visions1965 was created at 13:56, April 27, 2006. Monicasdude started editing that day at basically the same time, with a short break around the time when Visions1965 was created. --Rory096 18:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Utter nonsense. Run CheckUser. Please. Probably somebody's sockpuppet, given the vendettas that are going on, but not mine. Looks to me more like somebody who wants to stir up trouble for me, given the clumsiness of it. And "viciously"? Come on. Why isn't that a WP:NPA violation? Monicasdude 14:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    70.84.56.166, et al.

    I don't know if this is a case of simple puppetry or something complex re-incarnation, but here's what happened - there's vote-stacking going on at the AfDs of Rationales to impeach George W. Bush. See 2nd nom and restarted AfD. The issue was subsequently blown up at the admin's noticeboard as well, under three subject headings.

    Just hours ago, 70.84.56.166 has been mass-spamming user talkpages to try and swing the consensus on the restarted AfD and undermine the discussion. merecat is currently blocked for a similiar instance, and is under your ArbCom file. This RCU, if completed, may be useful as evidence in presentation for the case. While I'm going through the user talkpage of 70.84.56.166, I'm surprised to find that it is tagged with a allegations of more editors (two which previously underwent ArbCom), so I guess a checkuser on all of them aganist this IP is recommended to check for re-incarnations. - Mailer Diablo 10:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • 70.84.56.166 (talk · contribs) has been used in the past by a guy from Texas who prefers not to register, for lack of a better name we refer to him as the anon Texan (*see User:Stbalbach/anontexan). User:Anon Texan is just a redirect to Stbalbach's evidence page since he refuses to register. He is pro-Bush and ocassionally makes POV edits but is rarely this disruptive. Rex and BigDaddy haven't posted since November so a CU would be impossible. It is concievable that the anon Texan is a registered user such as Merecat or someone else but my hunch is that he is not. Thatcher131 11:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Likely than the Anon Texan and merecat are the same user. It's patently obvious that merecat is evading his block to spam talk pages (including mine, damn it all). Based on talk page evidence, I wouldn't disagree that they're tied to BigDaddy777, but we don't have records going back to October. [edit] Actually, I'm not sure about the BigDaddy connection. But he and the Anon Texan are definitely the same user. Mackensen (talk) 11:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Further talk page spam coming from 67.15.76.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), which is Houston-based Everyone's Internet, the other ISP of the anon Texan. I suppose this is merecat too but can we nail it down once and for all? Sorry. Thatcher131 11:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    John Reid imposters

    Etc, etc, etc. This is a request under item 8 above, vandalism. User:John Reid has, for the last week or so, been under a constant vandalism assault on his User and Talk pages from a chain of attack accounts. The bulk of them can be found at Category:Imposters of John Reid. I selected a random couple to list above, but there are many, many more listed in the category.

    I would mainly like to know if there is an established user behind this assault. This appears to be a very personal vendeta, not just random vandalism. And while John has been holding up well under the assault, I would like to see if something can be done to identify the user responsible before it starts to wear John down. TexasAndroid 14:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've blocked indef an IP address associated with much of the attacks. I have a suspicion regarding the identity of the user; said user appears to have left Wikipedia and is not presently under any sanction. Therefore, I'm not going to out him until I'm sure. Mackensen (talk) 12:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you very much. We'll see if the IP block does much good, but even if it does not, at a minimum, it is good to finally know what this is all about. And to know that the person that John was suspecting is innocent of these actions. Good to be able to lay the blame in the proper direction. Thank you again. - TexasAndroid 13:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you; it's good to know another user is probably innocent. The test edits don't bother me much but they do burn up other editor's energies. John Reid 22:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Lady Jane Grey (talk · contribs)

    I believe that Lady Jane Grey (talk · contribs) is a sock puppet of Braaad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Recent request to unblock a known IP used by Braaad as well as an account creation date at the same time that the rest of his sock puppets were shut down would be an amazing coincidence. McNeight 22:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined for lack of supporting evidence. Essjay Talk • Contact 02:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Lets try this again. Lady Jane Grey (talk · contribs) uses the same IP address, 68.115.72.93 (talk · contribs), exhibits the same abusive personality traits, as well as the same fascination with userboxes that Braaad (talk · contribs), 68.112.201.90 (talk · contribs), T`sitra Yel Darb (talk · contribs), Vinnie von Go (talk · contribs), and Henry the Eighth (talk · contribs) have had. I suppose I could just assume bad faith and slap a suspected {{Sockpuppet}} tag on their user page and notify administrators that he is trying to get around past user blocks, but without a CheckUser that wouldn't hold very long. McNeight 03:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Inconclusive. Records don't go back far enough to check the other users mentioned. If you can provide a reference that shows IP's used by this user (a previous checkuser, in particular) I can compare the results against that. Essjay Talk • Contact 05:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    [21] is a link to the previous CheckUser performed against Henry the Eighth (talk · contribs). McNeight 17:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    [22] also displays more information about what was going on. McNeight 18:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Inconclusive. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 05:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Zarbon

    Zarbon has admitted to using many different IP addresses to bypass blocks in the past (see his talk page and his list of sockpuppets). It appears that he uses Wiki-star to edit Dragon Ball Z articles and upload copyvio images (as he does as Zarbon) while Zarbon is blocked, which is often. Wiki-star has the same issues with civility in his discussions[23][24], the same paranoia [25][26], the same poor grammar, and the same inconsistent formatting of indents and bullet points. Zarbon has claimed to have started the Brendan Filone article, and since Andymack1986's only edit was the creation of that article (just days before Zarbon registered) it stands to reason that they are one and the same. Zarbon is currently listed on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct and it would be helpful to identify his sockpuppets for the purpose of the inquiry. Kafziel 14:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Andymack1986 is far too old for extant IP evidence. Absent a serious policy violation we don't comment on actual IPs. Finally Wiki-star is likely not a sockpuppet of Zarbon. Mackensen (talk) 20:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow. Kind of scary to imagine that there's more than one of him. Thanks. Kafziel 22:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Licinius (again)

    I suspect that Mr nice guy is a new sockpuppet of Licinius, who was blocked after being found to have made illegal and unethical use of other sockpuppets.(here) User:Mr nice guy is now pushing the same, eccentric POV as Licinius in edits to Football and in comments at Talk:Football. They have both worked on other pages also. Grant65 | Talk 07:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    From the looks of it, seems to be Licinius. I've blocked both IPs for six months each, as they were hosting a massive sock farm, and will contact the University of Wollongong about use of thier IPs to vandalize. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 02:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    TheMADTim

    TheMADTim (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) is either a way-too-obvious sockpuppet of TheMadTim (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log), or a really evil sockpuppet of KarateKid7 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log). I'd like confirmation on which. He's obviously a sockpuppet of somebody, though, so he already has an indef block. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 19:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Retau

    Xebat (talk · contribs), formerly known as Diyako (talk · contribs) is currently blocked for a durration of two months for continued personal attacks. I have reason to believe that Retau (talk · contribs) is the same person, mostly because he has created politically-motivated categories, and seems to be pushing pro-Kurdish independence stuff into articles, similar to the behavior of Xebat/Diyako. Zanyar also seems to be involved. —Khoikhoi 06:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Calgacus

    I suspect that Gaelicmichael talkcontribs is a sockpuppet of Calgacus talk contribs, who has backed up [[User:Calgacus|Calgacus] for example on Talk:Scottish_Gaelic_language, thereby assisting in an attempt to push a POV that suits user [[User:Calgacus|Calgacus]. The aggressive style is consistant between the two users, and Gaelicmichael seemed to appear when Calgacus wasn't getting broad backing. I am very sure one is the sockpuppet of the other. See here Talk:Scottish_Gaelic_language. ---Bluegold 17:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Investigators, please carry out Bluegold's request. As this user intends only to disrupt wiki, he will probably get permabanned eventually. This post, in which Bluegold is carrying out his threat to be "leaner and meaner" after coming back from his sockpuppetry ban (see Talk:Bluegold), will make it easier when he eventually comes before a WP:RfArb, saving other users the wasting of their wiki time which this user causes. Please also note that this user is attempting to remove his confirmed sockpuppet tag. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 17:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi. I know it takes up time, but this user is making public allegations against me. He made the allegation on Talk:Irish Wikipedians' Noticeboard, and unless the allegations are officially disproved, my reputation will have a shadow cast across it, and doubtless Bluegold will continue to spread the accusation. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 17:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Strange Mackensen how your name popped again! I know that they are sockpuppets. Highly impossible sounds Highly suspicious, and why did you deal with it so quickly? Bluegold 18:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Yes, strange that one of a half-dozen people with access rights ran the request. I ran it because you've been running around the 'pedia claiming he was socking. He's not. Now leave it be. Mackensen (talk) 18:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, I'll leave it there, but you are not fooling me. Bluegold 18:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Because you don't need to use Checkuser or to do any sneaky stuff. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe that's Calgacus, who knows? I remember from somewhere that Calgacus is in fact a Michael. I see Angus McLellan that you have edited out some of your last comments, so I will add to edit. I have the perfect right to report anyone whom I am suspicious of for engaging in sockpuppetry. Good job you don't run Wikipedia! Bluegold 18:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually I removed the comment as a possible invasion of privacy. This request is closed. Mackensen (talk) 18:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Joestieg

    Veyklaver (talk · contribs) was recently indefinitely blocked for impersonation of User:Veyklevar. Veyklevar has been attacked in the past by Joestieg (talk · contribs) (whose commercial spam he reverted), who has been linked by a previous checkuser to Ukiemob (talk · contribs) and 24.61.27.114 (talk · contribs). Both of the latter two accounts have been used again to delete evidence and attack Veyklevar. I believe that Veyklaver (talk · contribs) is likely to be part of the same group of sockpuppets, and a checkuser would be of evidentiary value in pursuing remedies against that group (policy 8). (I previously posted a description of the vandalism/harassment to WP:AIV, where it was ignored; the problem began at the beginning of February.) Choess 04:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    UCRGrad

    I have compiled evidence of the sockpuppetry here.

    UCRGrad seems to be using these sockpuppets for POV pushing, personal attacks on talk pages, and edit wars on University of California, Riverside. A few days ago I tried bringing it up on RFI, and Petros471 said I had enough grounds for requesting a checkuser. I wasn't sure, but since then there have been multiple personal attacks and incivility (check the RFI link for examples) and accusations of bias and sockpuppetry on me and others coming from these users, in addition to a few more edit wars and heated talk page discussion. A checkuser would definitely help clear things up, especially if arbitration is requested against UCRGrad, which seems likely at this point given the number of users supporting it.

    To be fair, these are the editors that UCRGrad (or his suspected socks) have accused of being sockpuppets:

    –Tifego(t) 03:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    The end of the one-week window in which edits by the suspected sockpuppets have occurred is quickly approaching, so I think it is becoming increasingly-urgent that this RfCU be looked into. 71.110.253.193 13:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Tifego. This needs to be settled quickly so we can move on and resolve the dispute. Calwatch 08:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    In all fairness, I think what Tifego is trying to do constitutes harrassment. If you read my contributions to the article, they have all been fair, and I have always made a strong effort to respond to concerns that anyone might have had in the discussion page. At times when I have been unable to meet WP guidelines for content, I have allowed that content to be removed. I am trying to be as reasonable as possible here. However, there are a number of individuals in Tifego's camp who have tried to think of one reason after another why certain content should be removed, even though I have addressed all their concerns and I have not violated any rules. This seems to be their last-ditch attempt to silence an editor because they were not able to come up with any other rational justifications as to why a few of my contributions to the UC Riverside article should be removed. If they had, I would gladly yield to them. Honestly. If you read the discussion, you will find that this is the case. These so-called "personal attacks" are far and few between, and they are mild at most. The actual evidence -- the discussion page -- supports what I'm saying. I am opposed to running a RfCU for a number of reasons.

    1) It constitues unjustified harrasment. Tifego and his camp don't have valid reasons as to why my contributions should be removed, therefore, they are trying harrass me through other means.

    2) I do NOT have sockpuppets.

    3) I am worried that it is always possible that other users who contribute to this article may use the same block of IP addresses - they may use the same ISP, the same network, they may be affiliated with the same institution, etc. Since I do NOT have sockpuppets, the coincidental finding of similar (perhaps even overlapping) IP addresses would yield a "false finding of sockpuppetry."

    4) For the record, I do not consent to having my IP address reported publicly. I also do not give consent to have my location or other details related to my IP address reported publicly. If there is any kind of breech of my privacy, and I suffer damages as a result, I would expect compensation from parties involved.

    5) Finally, I, too, believe there is sockpuppetry in Tifego's camp. I would like to request an investigation into these individuals: Tifego

    Calwatch

    TheRegicider

    DtEW

    138.23.21.216

    Dandan

    Dandanxu

    6) Most of the individuals in Tifego's camp are either UCR students, UCR graduates, or UC-affiliated in some way. They have made accusations of bias and they threw up the NPOV tag, but none of them have really been able to give reasons as to why (that weren't easily scrutinized). I tried to explain the difference between a negative BIAS and the presentation of true, negative facts, but I think a lot of these individuals would prefer to have zero negative facts presented, even if this meant sugar-coating data and deleting pertinent and important information about their school. Now it has resorted to this!

    7) I appreciate your consideration in this matter. UCRGrad 18:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I was going to point out what's wrong with the above comment, but I believe it speaks for (i.e. against) itself. Also, note the list formatting peculiarities [32], which 909er has also made identically — compare the following two diffs: [33] [34]. –Tifego(t) 18:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Confirmed that there's sockpuppetry afoot. 909er is a sockpuppet of UCRGrad. UnblockingTau, HisBundleAblation, and Jokersmoker are sockpuppets of Insert-belltower. These groups appear to be distinct. Mackensen (talk) 00:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      Wow, thanks. Those results are a bit surprising, considering how much more reasonable Insert-Belltower tended to be than the others. I hope the article will settle down now, but if it doesn't, there's solid ground for taking action about it. –Tifego(t) 01:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      Mackensen, thank you for your help in this inquiry.Sharqi 01:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    ATTENTION MACKENSEN: I am outraged that I have been accused of having a sockpuppet. Your RFC procedure is FLAWED - because it does not rule out the possibility that two distinct people may be using the same network and/or sets of computers. I will admit that I know who 909er is (though I should not have to reveal this), and that there may have been some collaboration on a few posts. If there are some shared elements of style (such as bolding), that is because I may have directed it. However, my understanding is that this type of activity is not necessarily prohibited. It certainly does not warrant having a "sockpuppet" label on my talk page because this does not strictly meet the definition of a sockpuppet. I hereby request that this sockpuppet business be removed. UCRGrad 01:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Responded on talk page. Mackensen (talk) 01:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser&oldid=51883520"