Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Archive4

Add links
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Whenmoney

Reason: Sock. See userpage. -- Da Punk '95 (talk) 19:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Confirmed and blocked. -- Creol(talk) 10:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AN OLD MAN / Angry Shoplifter

Reason:Users are the same person on en.wiki. See this for more info. VandalFighterFR(V) Bad warning? 23:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True but he is socking like he did on en.wiki. VandalFighterFR(V) Bad warning? 00:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
having an alternate account that is being used for positive purposes is OK. Please remember to AGF :) Shapiros10 Flap the Yap 01:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done - Even if they are the same, there is no abuse. -- Creol(talk) 01:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rhodes416 / Daisy

Reason: Detailed information has been emailed to checkusers, which cannot be posted publicly, due to the privacy policy. ס (Samekh) Talk 13:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Samekh, I have received the information you sent me. However, before I act upon this information I want to coordinate with the other CheckUsers. So thank you for the time being, and I#ll come back on it. --Eptalon (talk) 14:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. I've emailed the info to Creol too. ס (Samekh) Talk 14:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, what's the status of this request? Samekh ❄ 08:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - They are a perfect match (which could be explained) with a bonus (which isn't going to be explained). -- Creol(talk) 09:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't need to be explained. Thanks for looking into this. Samekh ❄ 11:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Veriszonuser /ShockingHawk

Reason: Trolling in IRC and applied for rollback despite being blocked as a sockpuppeter. Changed nicknames from FastReverter to Veriszonuser fairly quick simple whois check confirmed IP was near same need checkuser to confirm this. Corruptcopper (talk) 22:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Already blocked by cometstyles. Shapiros10 Flap the Yap 22:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Not Done Yet - only FastReverter is done...Veriszonuser still needs to be looked at privacy policy permitting..-- ✧ CM16  01:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such user as user:veriszonsuer. Looking at the user list for variant names (based on the users original name using the ISP/telecom company Verizon) which could easily result in a misspelling based on that name leads to only two usernames matching the Veri* mattern. Neither could be reasonably acceptable that this is a typo of SH's IRC name to the point of justifying a check. A check of blocked sockpuppetter ShockingHawks's known IPs did show that FastReverter was a perfect match to him. This is ShockingHawks third tagged sockpuppet account he has used since his block on Oct 19. This does not include the multiple ban evasions he has committed since using IP edits since his block. -- Creol(talk) 06:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Creol, a note..Corruptcopper was NOT on IRC when this happened so there is no way he should know about the Verizonuser nick used on IRC so I suspect, just like Synergy that Corruptcopter is indeed Chris19910 on a proxy....--Cometstyles 07:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I would not doubt it as Chris19990 is an annoying little socker, but contrary to Magically's constant insinuations, I don't have enough reasoning to check or enough prior info to base it on. Eptalon ran the check (below) and as such it is his call on that matter. -- Creol(talk) 07:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please continue the digs at me, very mature Creol. Majorly talk 13:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Coming from you, that is comical.[1][2][3][4] It only took you seven hours from the time you posted this until you were back taking shots at me after all. -- Creol(talk) 07:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no checkuser, but this check is completely  Unnecessary, its already been established that FastReverter = ShockingHawk. ס (Samekh) Talk 11:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Corruptcopter = Chris19910, at least in my mind. Something definitely smells funny here. I can't find any concrete evidence of this yet, but I'll keep looking, both here and on other wikis. Chris has shown to be foolish in the past, and is really bad at hiding his socks. I'm sure they will be found sooner or later. ס (Samekh) Talk 13:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have logs of #wikipedia-simple from 07:06 to 17:31, December 9. Whilst Corruptcopper was not saying anything during that time, people were asking who he was and for his whois data. I can confirm that Corruptcopper was not on the channel during the time, based on PeterSymonds' response to a request for Corruptcopper's whois data. Britishman2 (Chris) and StaticFalcon denied being Corruptcopper when Cometstyles (WaRpAtH) asked, but he is a confirmed liar. Also, the Corruptcopper account on English Wikipedia was created on 7 December 2008 as a result of SUL [5] and has made no edits yet[6]. This looks very suspicious indeed. Jonas D. Rand T 16:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ShockingHawk / Æåm Fætsøn

Reason: ShockingHawk has emailed me admitting that Æåm Fætsøn is a sockpuppet of his, but CheckUser needs to confirm this. Shapiros10 Flap the Yap 00:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to forward the message to anyone interested. Shapiros10 Flap the Yap 00:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not likely. They are not even in the same hemisphere. -- Creol(talk) 01:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You checked this without any evidence or purpose? Shap asked me to block Aeam over Gtalk - I refused because I didn't think it at all likely that it was ShockingHawk. IMO no check should have been made here; Checkuser is not for fishing. This check was done based on someone's say-so? Or is there more evidence I'm not aware of? Majorly talk 11:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You mean other than the fact that Aeam has edited from his IP openly? Knowing his IP (and looking at where it geolocated to) and knowing ShockingHawks would make any connection not likely. -- Creol(talk) 02:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So no check was performed? Majorly talk 13:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Majorly on this one. I believe it is a breach in privacy policy to perform a check based on what could be called en:Hearsay on Wikipedia. I do not know what the policy is regarding the misuse of Checkuser rights, but I do not think that Creol should be punished in any way for performing the check. I would just request that more caution is applied when next using the Checkuser right. Malinaccier (talk) (review) 22:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. ShockingHawk has not exactly been the most honest of users, and they have completely different editing habits/attitudes. They were clearly not the same person. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, dishonest or not it needs to be looked into. Cause you don't know if he's telling the truth or not till it's done.-- ✧ CM16  22:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Honest or not, the privacy policy must be followed for legal reasons. Malinaccier (talk) (review) 22:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How the heck does the privacy policy come in to play here? He's says he's him so it has to be check out to be proven or disproven. I sure that if it's disproven, Aeam would appreciate it. And it seems kinda likely to be true.-- ✧ CM16  22:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The privacy policy is why Checkusers must be over the age of 18 and are among the most trusted users on Wikipedia. The policy states that there must be a substantial amount of hard evidence for a Checkuser to be performed. This prevents Checkusers from using their tools on any user and exposing their personal details to the community. The privact policy has, literally, everything to do with Checkuser. Malinaccier (talk) (review) 22:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have you even read above? Creol says "Not likely. They are not even in the same hemisphere" - not only giving away the location of one or both of the editors, but also noting he has performed a check with extremely weak evidence. It could be like this: ShockingHawk tells someone that I am a sock of his. That person would then request checkuser, and Creol would oblige and check anyway, as he did here. Checks should not be done willy-nilly. There needs to be solid reasons for performing them. This was a check based on ShockingHawk winding someone up pretending to be someone else, causing trouble. Why Creol actually paid attention to it is beyond me. What happened to giving evidence, reasons for checking, other than someone's sayso? Majorly talk 22:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Saying someone is not in North America is personally identifying now? You can identify a persons location by stating they are not in North America? Personally, I would use the persons known IP address rather than this apparently mystical ability you have to identify all non-North Americans. As to Privacy policy, you may want to actually read it. It limits what information can be released under what circumstances. Absolutely nothing I said reased any information which is not publically available through the users contributions and as the policy states: Data on users, such as the times at which they edited and the number of edits they have made are publicly available via "user contributions" lists, and in aggregated forms published by other users. It is not a privacy issue to announce publically stated information. I (or you if you didn't want to use those mystical powers) don't need CU to know - Aeam: [7] (Australia), SH: [8] (United States). Both users have self-identified and geo-located themselves. -- Creol(talk)
Ok fine you have me there....BUT it needs to be looked into in someway. (and I am an adult by law where I live)-- ✧ CM16  22:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) This is a blatant abuse of CheckUser, based on no evidence. Instead, it was based on the claims of a notoriously deceptive person.

Creol, this was inappropriate. Do not do this again. You should know, in all the years you've been here, that this was wrong.

Majorly, this was not giving away the location of any editor, as they just said it was "a different hemisphere". We know that SF lives in New York, but that doesn't really narrow down where Aern lives. Still, this was an abuse of the tools.

Jonas D. Rand T 23:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe a few of you guys past judgment before you gave him time to explain. Now that he has, we can dispense with the melodrama. Synergy 02:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you suspecting me as a sock of ShockingHawk? Shapiros has started this discussion, saying that 'ShockingHawk has emailed me admitting that Æåm Fætsøn is a sockpuppet of his'. Given that ShockingHawk has a bad criminal history, and you've all said that he lies, SH could say that any unsuspecting user could be a sock. How the heck can I be the same person as him, because he's in the US and I'm in Australia? I've never even came across SH, nor interfered with anything to do with him. And I've never vandalised or socked, and have no intention of disruption.

About the evidence, SH says in the edit summary that he's relocating under another sock. I said in my edit summary that I was logged out, but thinking I'm still logged in (because I left the browser on for a while) when I made the edit, then found out than my edit came up under the IP and logged in to fix the problem.

Why are you even attending to SH's request? No-one here's given a valid reason why I should be CU'd. He's just trolling (in violation of this)), disrupting, and wants to get innocent users blocked. Basically, this thing is a joke and SH's just annoying you to test you and waste time. Close this as soon as possible. - Æåm Fætsøn /ˈaɪæm ˈfætsən/ 09:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is rather unlikely one is the sock of the other; look at the times where they edit (click on changes next to one of the users); you will find little or no overlap. By the way: The checkuser policy is mostly about what information can be released to whom; it states that CU should not be used for bad things (like stalking), and that there need to be a valid reason for CU. So there you go... --Eptalon (talk) 13:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corruptcopper

Reason: This statement. He need to be blocked if he is using an open proxy. Synergy 18:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did a check based on his statement, and it looks like a proxy is involved. This proxy seems to be provider-imposed though; XFF data shows 6 other users would be affected by a block on that IP. For Corruptcopper, only one IP shows up (which is this proxy).--Eptalon (talk) 19:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I won't be blocking then. Synergy 19:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ShockingHawk / Giventends

Reason: Jonas has said these are sockpuppets, but the former is unblocked. Checking to see if one is a sockpuppet. Note I am educating Jonas that they will not be unblocked so he can talk to them. Thanks --  Da Punk '95  talk  19:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done blocked and tagged as another sock of ShockingHawk. -- Creol(talk) 20:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WashingManwithwings and Upperclassman

New user with similar editing activities as WashingManwithwings. IP (based on IRC login) geolocates to the same location as WashingManwithwings. Upperclassman requested an immediate cloak this morning, probably to conceal his IP from discovery. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What, exactly, justifies this request? The two users do not appear to have contributions in the same pages, and the second has never voted. --M7 (talk) 15:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WashingManwithwings is a banned user; his old account, HayesC (talk · contribs), has been blocked. His IP on IRC (which I will not reveal) matches the IP used by WashingManwithwings and HayesC. He's said he'd come back with other accounts, so going by the technical evidence, I believe this warrants a checkuser request. By the way, voting in what? PeterSymonds (talk) 17:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He also told me via PM, something along the lines of (as UCM) "See? I told you I would come back." I strongly believe they are the same user, and planned to file this, also. SwirlBoy39 18:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a PM I recieved:
Logs here
MC8 (talk) 18:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've just had a PM from him again. He denies that he PM'd anyone but me yesterday. Logs on the page above have been updated. MC8 (talk) 10:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And finally, here's his statement:
“ I have been on this wiki for a matter of days, PeterSymonds obviously has something against a lawyer or perhaps he has had bad experiences with them in the past I have no idea. But I am telling you just having my team of specialists look through the evidence on the wiki and also contacting various different people in the Internet company that have been looking onto the connections between my username and this User:WashingManwithwings. I hope to appeal this block if needed then I will provide the evidence that has been gathered by my team. Furthermore I would request that PeterSymonds leaves me alone on wiki and if needed but not thinking it is needed off wiki aswell. I dont know PeterSymonds personally but ask that this stops. ”
MC8 (talk) 10:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I completely disagree with this, I'm 100% sure that WashingManwithwings and Upperclassman are the same but this RFCU is pathetic. WashingManwithwings didn't do anything on Simple wikipedia to deserver this, yes he is banned and his account locked but that was based on his actions on another wiki for sockpuppetry and until a CU thinks that the WashingManwithwings account was involved in sockpuppetry case on Simplewiki or did something similar HERE, and until then I will ask the closing Cu to disregard this request and move on...If we start blocking people for socking on other wikis, we will lose over 50% of our editors, don't make simple look as bad as enwiki..--Cometstyles 10:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as of right now, he's socking! SwirlBoy39 19:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well he probably is, just because his account was blocked 4 hours after the request was filed and the closing CU forgot to mention that here :| ..--Cometstyles 20:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This was the fourth account in the string. The original was g-banned for cross-wiki socking, then he got an account banned for harrassment/rude behaviour, followed by identifying himself by repeating a talent of his (trying to get people to hand him flags - in this case it was only Import, but still..) and finally this one. The user seems to be going out of his way to get caught. -- Creol(talk) 21:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - Matched perfectly and identified an additional account which had previously been blocked. All blocked and tagged. -- Creol(talk) 21:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drama and ShockingHawk

Looking at the choice of username and the specific user talk pages targeted, I have a strong suspicion that both accounts are the same person. Chenzw  Talk  05:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opposite sides of the contintent in separate countries. No identifiable connection. -- Creol(talk) 05:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NewWorld98, NYC43

Two potential sockpuppets. Both are blocked on ENWP ([9], [10]) for sockpuppetry and abusing multiple votes on our most recent RfA. May have a (yet undiscovered) puppet master/other users or IPs. However, if they follow ENWP pattern, they are simply the same user and will no doubt abuse their talk pages. --Gwib -(talk)- 23:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that maybe Negrostyles (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log)) might be involved in this. Ric is ShockingHawk 23:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked Negrostyles (talk · contribs) as a vandalism-only account anyway. – RyanCross (talk) 23:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But he might be involved in this. Ric is ShockingHawk 23:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Every ones blocked and there has been a confession. This should be over now. Synergy 00:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Providing a diff link to back it up: [11]. I think it can be closed now. Chenzw  Talk  01:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - Confirmed for the two requested (the third is not worth noting), no other accounts involved. Given the users abuse of {{unblock}} on en:wp, I would suggest the blocks prevent own talk page edits to prevent that issue here. Also, the sock account (NYC43) should be indef blocked (not 1 year) as there is no need for a sock account to ever become unblocked, only the main account should be eligible for unblocking.-- Creol(talk) 07:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blocks tweaked and talk page of NYC43 is protected. No sign of activity on NewWorld98's page so protection is postponed for now. Has anyone contacted MetaWiki? NYC43 is active over there. --Gwib -(talk)- 09:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel and 58.160.170.183

Reason: I have supsicions that this user is editing under a IP adress to violate WP:NPA. The IP, when WhoIsed, comes up as a South Australian IP adress, which lines up perfectly with what he had on his EN user page (that he lives in Adelaide, Australia, which is the capital of South Australia. If the two matches up, may the CU please start a discussion at WP:AN, requesting a block on Daniel for WP:NPA breaches, and sockpupperty. --  Da Punk '95  talk  21:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further evidence: on ENWP. --  Da Punk '95  talk  21:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He has admitted to it and wasn't ever trying to hide it; this seems silly. Tombomp (talk) 22:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - ANI thread lodged. -  Da Punk '95  talk  22:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done - Self-identified multiple times and obvious. The only possible reasoning for doing this check would be if there was doubt that the IP was him which there is not. -- Creol(talk) 07:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expected nominations

I don't mind about Users sock puppets, but it's another matter when dealing with (future) admins. Today (I mean Saturday and not Sunday already here in Europe) nominations talks appeared twice... Strange for a same day. One from an User I never met before on Simple. But it is the other one I think the more important to check here ONaNcle (talk) 23:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, you believe we're all sceaming this out? No reason to CheckUser, what would the users to check? -- American Eagle (talk) 23:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think he's talking about User:RyanTest, my alternative account, and myself? I don't know, the request isn't worded accurately. -- Ryan†Cross (talk) 23:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no idea what you're talking about, and I find this accusation of sockuppetry to be very bizzare. ONaNcle, I was the one that fixed your last RFA attempt; you pasted it to AE's RFA, and I created a separate RFA page for you. I also commented on ChristainMan's oppose. We've never directly interacted (as far as I remember), but you should know who I am. You also should know RyanCross as the first opposer in the recent RFA
  • Both of us have opted-in to user stats RyanCross and me) and my editing drops off (sleeping time) from around 8-16 UTC; Ryan is at around 14-19 UTC. We're not in the same time zone; 14:00 UTC would be about 7 a.m. for me, and I'm never up by then, and even if I was, I wouldn't log into Simple the second I got up to start eediting. Cassandra 23:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note, my current time in my time zone is on the right-hand corner of my talkuser page. I know, I edit pretty late. -- Ryan†Cross (talk) 23:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, I meant user page. I still have to fix the times on my talk page and subpages. <_< -- Ryan†Cross (talk) 00:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a clarification to clear some things up, RyanCross was thinking of nominating Cassandra for admin, so he asked her, and Cassandra replied on RyanCross's talk page (resulting in something that looked like two nomination talks). Chenzw  Talk  00:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please, guys and gals; Given the editing time differences it can positively be ruled out that RyanCross is Cassandra (On another note, why would I nominate my sock for admin?) - Having several accounts is not illegal unless they are used for voting purposes, or to make others believe there is more support or oppose than there really is (again for voting). I am ready ro do a CheckUser if there really is need for it, but please make the request in understandable language, like I have seen that accounts X, Y and Z voted in that request. They are probably realted, beause.... Therefore: If this is not a simple misunderstanding, please clarify. --Eptalon (talk) 01:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is pathetic. TBC offered to nominate RyanCross, and RyanCross offered to nominate Cassandra. Unless completely needed, I think that is pathetic and I oppose any such doing. And ONaNcle, this makes me highly question your judgment, simply based on that they were both discussed on the same day. Eptalon, I have no clue why a CheckUser is needed, though I don't think either of them would mind. But it really doesn't, in any way, require one. --American Eagle (talk) 03:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get it. I offered to nominate RyanCross when he hits the three month mark after interacting with him and seeing how much he's contributed to the site. If it was in the proximity of another nomination (based off the above comments, I'm assuming Cassandra?), then it's totally coincidental. There is no cabal here. (or is there? :o)--TBC 08:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done - There are no reasons for checking an admin and two users for abusive actions in this situation. -- Creol(talk) 07:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kotla Mohsin Khan

Kotla Mohsin Khan (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log)) - See his pages and edits. -- American Eagle (talk) 06:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Pupperty

The username was created I believe to keep reverting after a warning was issued - pupperty? --  Da Punk '95  talk  05:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done the user indeed matches the IP; but this is not sockpuppetry; sockpuppetry only involves named accounts.--Eptalon (talk) 09:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Multipe campers

  1. (User creation log); 19:55 . . Madonna684 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log))
  2. (User creation log); 19:55 . . English (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log))
  3. (User creation log); 19:54 . . Obiedave (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log))
  4. (User creation log); 19:53 . . Bitsy (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log))
  5. (User creation log); 19:53 . . Frenchgirl77 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log))
  6. (User creation log); 19:53 . . Chococat:3 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log))
All had identical userpages, promoting a "Matrix camp". --Gwib -(talk)- 19:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be quite obvious. Do you want to block them now or wait? Chenzw  Talk  08:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Not done - Six accounts from a library/computer summer camp.. I would actually be extremely surprized if these did not all match up perfectly (as per Chenzw - "quite obvious"). CU could only tell that they are either from the same place or not. They are almost certainly from the same place. This is as expected as if a school was running a wikipedia project for a class and all the students made accounts. Even if they were vandalizing/adverting, at best CU would state that they are from the same address. It is not very likely that this is a group of meatpuppet camp advertisers creating accounts to advertise for a camp in session? The camp is from Jul 13 through the 19th - the accounts were created during this camp so it is not likely they are trying to get people to go to the camp. -- Creol(talk) 08:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User and IPs

Alasdairgreen27 is a user who harassed me and IPs vandalized my personal pages. Are user and IPs from Australia?--Pio (talk) 08:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Not done - It is not the job of Checkuser to looking what company owns IP addresses for you. Whois databases should be used for this. In this case, the RIPE whois database would have provided an answer for you since that address is from a well known vandals range. It happens to be Tin Easy in Italy. As to Alasdairgreen27, He was previously checkusered after claims that he was using sockpuppets to vandalise you and this was found to be entirely untrue. No need to recheck him to see if he was in Italy two months ago when this vandalism took place. -- Creol(talk) 08:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JavRiler and Altwiki and others

Modifying templates which are in heavy use to add an "Avril Lavigne" message which persists despite scrolling. All three accounts have edited in the same way, here, here and here. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Same computer. All are blocked.-- Creol(talk) 14:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Splendid. Quickly and efficiently done. Well done team! Creol, any more accounts matching that IP? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
None that are in anyway connected with this. -- Creol(talk) 14:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ælison and others

This was posted on my user talk. Pio thinks that the users are related. I think it's a completely frivulous request since there's absolutely zero correolation between the accounts (MBisanz doesn't blank pages) and any user could vandalize with any picture. MBisanz also says he should be caught in the autoblock if he was Ælison, but he also says he has no objections to being checkusered and having his name cleared, so here we are. Cassandra 18:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After these vandalisms: 1 and 2, is possible to request checkuser control for Ælison, MBisanz and Alasdairgreen27? Regards,--Pio (talk) 12:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well in theory I should be hitting an autoblock posting this since Ælison was hardblocked for vandalism, and I think AlasdairGreen27 lives on a different continent than I do. I know at en-wp checkuser can't be used to prove innocence, but if simple-en permits it, I have no objection to my account being checkusered and any alternate accounts publically disclosed. Cheers. MBisanz (talk) 15:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Very shortly: the address ranges the three users use do not overlap. Also, they are geographically well-separated. MBisanz uses a number of different IP's (possibly a dynamic IP). It is possible that one user is using a proxy from the other end of the world (and gets a static IP address from that proxy), but otherwise these users are all well-separated from each other, either by a large landmass, or by a large body of water. In short, I do not think they are related. --Eptalon (talk) 19:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds about right, I've got school, work, home, and various connections in those places, many of which change from time to time, so I'd expect to see a variety of addresses, thanks for confirming. MBisanz (talk) 22:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfA Trouble

This user opposed Razorflame's RfA immediately after his account was created. Appears to be IonasRand, Benniguy or Simple11. Chenzw  Talk  11:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user created an account at 11:50 and then !voted 3 minutes later. -- Ryan†Cross (talk) 12:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or it could just be a random user. Is there any need to run one if he's not even disruptive? Archer7 - talk 12:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Archer7 - no disruption, just an oppose which can be excluded at the discretion of the closing 'crat. No need for checkuser here. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I think I got too worked up over that. Chenzw  Talk  12:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although, with three virtually "single-purpose accounts" have just happened upon the RfA - worth keeping an eye on it... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindenting) Not three, two. There was one that received a welcome message. Chenzw  Talk  12:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Most of Grawp's accounts get a welcome message! Just a curious !voting pattern, three in the space of 29 minutes... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True, never seen an RfA attract so much attention when it is about to end. Chenzw  Talk  12:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optimus Prime and others

These Transformers accounts are created and each of them has made a single edit – to create a very long user page copied from Wikipedia, table of contents and all. Don't know what's going on about here, but if they're all the same person I'd really like to know. Cassandra 21:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that also and almost listed them myself. -- America †alk 22:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Not done - There is no justification for use of Checkuser here. It is not a violation to have multiple accounts as long as they are not used in a disruptive or abusive manner. -- Creol(talk) 00:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I can get that. But vandals could use heavily in their advantage to create problems. -- America †alk 00:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And if this were vandalism (or they continue the trend to the point that it gets to be disruptive, then action is warranted. Also, given the editing patterns and name choice, there is little doubt that this is all the same person so CU action really doesn't need to be taken to confirm the obvious unless taking further action requires that information. (ie. IP blocking to stop disruption by mass account creation) -- Creol(talk) 05:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies Creol. Cassandra 01:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. -- Creol(talk) 05:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IuseRosary again

Razorflame's post on the AN raised the alarm. The user's writing style seems to be similar, with the most disturbing clue being that he/she voted in the current RfA shortly after the first edit. Chenzw  Talk  01:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - Current information can neither confirm nor deny they are the same. -- Creol(talk) 01:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They even use the same kind of punctuation in their names (look at both usernames. The I and Rosary are both capitalized, while the Quote and Silly are both capitalized. Razorflame 01:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of the two we just banned

See WP:ST. --  Da Punk '95  talk  21:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done No match to any of our known (recently-active, ie. in the log) vandal, much less to those cited. Note that users are free to chose their username. Usernames do not have to match - you do not need to use Unified Login if you don't want to. --Eptalon (talk) 21:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IuseRosary

--Gwib -(talk)- 16:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are different blocks. 1-6 were created from the same IP, 7/8 from another, 9/10 from still another. IuseHoisery is completely unrelated to the ones before. --Eptalon (talk) 18:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify: These ranges are outside those normally used by IUseRosary. --Eptalon (talk) 19:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could we indef block the IP addresses? Even if they're not sockpuppets, they created vandalism-only impersonation accounts. Or do you think that may be a little extreme. --Gwib -(talk)- 19:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IP addresses should never be indefinately blocked because ISPs recycle them often and there would be too much colateral damage. -Djsasso (talk) 17:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Simple11?

Judging by the creation of the first account listed, these may be socks of Simple11.--♠  Lights  talk  12:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to deceive you. The first two are unrelated to Simple11. Rather, they seem to relate to the 1709 vadal, at least they are from that range. Don't blame Simple11, he/she is innocent this time. --Eptalon (talk) 18:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abcdefg...

The first one stopped vandalising pages after he was given a warning. Shortly after, the next 3 accounts were created in succession. Chenzw  Talk  09:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty obvious... do we really need a CU for this? - Given their usernames, it is pretty easy to block them for bad username.--Eptalon (talk) 10:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
<whistles innocently>... -- Creol(talk) 10:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pizza again

Their usernames are very similar. In addition, pizza and pie are both foods. Chenzw  Talk  11:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

201.45.216.114 and Benniguy

This user has been leaving suspicious messages on user's talk pages that remind me of the way that Benniguy used to act. See these examples: [12], [13], [14]. All three of these are tipping me off that this is Benniguy, as both Benniguy and IuR have a history of calling Gwib his real name as well as other interesting names. The first example directly links to a message that this user has left me on my talk page, which is expressing interest into the reason why I referred to a sockpuppet of Benniguy, which is making me very suspicious that this is Benniguy on some IP address outside of his currently blocked ranges. Some may call me a little paranoid for posting this, but I believe that I have provided sufficient evidence that proves my point that I am trying to make. Cheers, Razorflame 23:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please check my contributions. I hope you can rest assured that I have not done anything wrong. Thanks. 201.45.216.114 (talk) 23:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You mean aside from using a proxy to evade a block and causing disruption?. User was traced back to the same Firefox user on the same IP in Bennyboy's range that was used through a proxy earlier to reinstate the Razorflame RfA created by IuseRosmary. IP has been blocked as an open proxy. Make your own assumptions on if it is actually him. -- Creol(talk) 07:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bathroomtiles

Bathroomtiles (talk) 13:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very suspicious request. Urgent checkuser may be neeeded. Chenzw  Talk  13:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Matched perfectly to a blocked sockpuppet on two separate proxies. Blocked both account and proxies. -- Creol(talk) 13:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theeyesarethewindowtothesoul

Disruptive user who seems to have prior WP experience. Could you check if this user's IP matches any previous vandals/trolls/disruptive editors? · Tygrrr... 16:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was in the edit conflict of requesting a checkuser. SwirlBoy39 16:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - Hello, this has cost me more time to really cross check, bit here are the results. The IP address used is dynamic, it changes; it seems ot belong to a big internet provider. In total, a few (read 5-10) users connect through one of these IP's. Analysing the User agent string,it matched one other editor, which has not vandalised so far. Therefore I would prefer to not reveal their identities at this time. --Eptalon (talk) 19:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification: The matched editor is also less than a month old. - so if there is WP experience it probably is from another wikipedia. --Eptalon (talk) 19:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: - isn't this "fishing"? en:Wikipedia:Checkuser is not for fishing
There's reason to suspect that the user is somehow related to IuseRosary and Benniguy. I probably should have written that suspicion in my request. That's my mistake. · Tygrrr... 19:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent) In my opinion it is not; Some of the users edits have been clarified as distruptive (to the point of being considered personal attacks, by some). I have done a CheckUser, which revealed what I wrote above; I have not revealed the identity of any other user (Ie. protected the one possible match I talked about). See en:Wikipedia:CheckUser and m:CheckUser_policy#Privacy_policy --Eptalon (talk) 20:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify: IUseRosary connects through the same ISP; looking at the user-agent (the identification sent by the browser), it is pretty clear though that they have nothing to do with it. --Eptalon (talk) 20:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, can someone please leave a note on the IPs user talk informing the user of how to get in now (s)he is renamed? It seems (s)he is locked out. Thanks. mC8 20:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? OYUFM appears to be editing just fine under their new name. · Tygrrr...
Apologies; I read what Swirl said on his/her userpage and didn't check further. mC8 20:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Was this CheckUser really necessary? It's always been one of my concerns that we might over-use the CheckUser a little bit - although I trust our CUs not to abuse the information, I still don't think it's right to access other people's IP info without any concern for their privacy. I've had concerns that we're doing too many on a few other occasions as well. Although there was some vague hint of IuR in this, I don't see it as anywhere near the level of disruption at which we would require a CheckUser. Although IuR is pretty damn annoying, he's not really a major problem other than a big waste of time - was it really worth running this check without any significant evidence to even point to IuR? I'm sure the CheckUser policy would technically allow this check, but it was always my personal view that it should be used as little as possible. Archer7 - talk 21:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concern and I have had the same concerns about a number of requests in the past. The disruption has certainly be what I would call "high" however. There have been 76 (by my count) edits to this user's talk page since his registration 5 hours ago. That's certainly indicates to me that a user has been distracting others. OYUFM made personal attacks as well as being disruptive and thus earned a block. But his edits and general additude make me suspicious of a connection to IuseR and/or Benniguy (be it them or friends), hence the request. · Tygrrr... 21:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There have been a lot more flimsier requests than this. -  EchoBravo  contribs  21:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly agree that it's a high level of disruption - just not high enough for where I would run a CheckUser. I would have gone through a couple of blocks first, and then requested a CheckUser on everyone if there were any new accounts that seemed likely to be from the same person. This gives more "evidence" to back up the suspected connection between IuR and whoever this is (as we observe more of their behaviour), and also gives them a chance to get bored before we raid their IP info. The risk of a few sockpuppets before our CheckUser isn't exactly a major problem - we can handle a few socks pretty easily, no matter how annoying they are. Even if people are being a total pain, they probably have a greater expectation of privacy from a site like Wikipedia, and I believe we should respect that expectation by only performing checks where they are causing serious disruption that we can't handle. I think that the use of "preventative" checks (with little evidence) like this one should be kept to a minimum - only when it's someone pretty serious. Archer7 - talk 21:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) While I do agree that many of the requests are rather flimsy on justification (and most would be denied on en: under their system for reasons for checking), a random check of known blocked Benniguy ranges would have (and did) tagged several new socks including this one. IuR's reverting on his user talk of what was reverted as vandalism to several users talk pages hinted at there being something there. Several other users edits were reminiscent of early IuR edits. Looking at the CU log and seeing the addresses checked, this seemed pretty much tied to the original Benniguy case so I carried it on further. Several accounts were created outside of the banned ranges (which have been added to the collection of banned ranges now) and later used on both IuR's ip range and several of Benniguy's ranges. Looking at the independent accounts and IPs made the ties harder to identify (other than the fact I have seen the ranges so often that my brain screams Benniguy when they show up). Looking at the ranges themselves clears up the discrepancies that hint at them being separate. Both Benniguy and IuR (unless he is still claiming Benniguy is using his sisters computer) are behind it. -- Creol(talk) 02:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right O then, Where to start off? Firstly, It's good to be back. Now then, could i please have an explination as to why Tash has been blocked, just because she is friends with me and Benniguy, I will give you, that she went a bit OTT on her account about eyes and the sowl, but i do not think that her actions warrented a indef block on their own. If helping another user to set up their account and show them the ropes, is sock-puppeting, then, sure, me and Benniguy would be fully guilty. However, since we are all aware that this is not the case, I hope to see her unblocked shortly. IuseRosary? (talk) 11:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If Eptalon says thats not a sock, why is it blocked? SwirlBoy39 14:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eptalon only stated that it matched another user. Re-read my statement and you will also see that other accounts were tied into it. This account is tied to multiple blocked accounts and to the current rash of socks being created. -- Creol(talk) 14:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pizza

The fact that the first user edited a nonsense article after the second user created it makes me suspicious of both of them. Chenzw  Talk  13:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the fist really isn't pizza; but they edit from the same IP....--Eptalon (talk) 14:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Novotarsky/Novodvorsky

I believe that these are the same users. Their usernames and editing patterns are very similar, so I just want to be sure and ask a checkuser to confirm that they are indeed similar. Thanks, Razorflame 15:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Nothing to do here, both are currently indef blocked. --Eptalon (talk) 15:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Ytf2 / Benniguy

Post on WP:AN tells me this is a sock. --  Da Punk '95  talk  21:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done User operates from the same IP range as other benniguy incarnations; sockpuppetry is an possibility. --Eptalon (talk) 21:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You could just read the AN for more information. I am, according to policy, allowed to edit here, since I have not been "banned" here, but "indefinitely blocked", of which there is a difference. Ytf2 (talk) 21:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Archive4&oldid=9914773"