Steward requests/Checkuser/2011-09

Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in September 2011, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion.

Requests

Wan19960908,Pangboys,Yoyotiktik@zh.wikipedia

Status: Done

List of users: Wan19960908 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Pangboys (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Yoyotiktik (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

CU log

Reason(s): same condition, same reason as

/2011-07#KellyMok.40zh.wikipedia
/2011-07#Natalie330.40zh.wikipedia
/2011-06#TerrenceHo.40zh.wikipedia
/2011-05#Cenfany_.40zh.wikipedia
If any, find other puppets not in the list, Thanks. --K egns 14:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Wan19960908, Yoyotiktik are

Likely to be KellyMok/Natalie330/etc.

There is the second group of socks:

Fungdown

Loveisture

Pangboys

Yucindy84

Handsomeman

Favourite

They are

Confirmed to be the same user, but from the CU point of view they are

Unrelated to KellyMok/Natalie330/etc. Ruslik 15:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Purodha@ksh.wikipedia

Status: Done

List of users: Purodha (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Miss van der Roehe (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Zapper Anton (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Sabine (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Köbes (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Männevdr (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Satansbroode (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

CU log

Reason(s): Purodha is an user, who has been desysoped on ksh.wiki a few weeks ago (see vote). The other mentioned users have been acting in very provocative way in the vote or since then. Some are new users who act in a comparable way like Purodha. --Holder 12:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Miss van der Roehe has been a supporter of Purodha over the last years. This account has been blocked for one year because of repetitive vandalism and personal attacks.
Zapper Anton is an account that has rarely been used except for voting in sysop votes and desysop votes in 2007 and 2011. This account has been blocked for two weeks because of vandalism and personal attacks. After the vote against Purodha this user has requested desysoping votes against all other admins on kshwiki (see here - edit has been hidden - and here). It seems that this request for desysoping another admin without any regular vote on kshwiki has also been submitted by Zapper Anton.
Sabine voted for Purodha and supported Zapper Anton's desysoping votes against all other admins.
Köbes is an account that has also been rarely used before the desysop vote against Purodha. He voted for Purodha and has done some edits since then. Perhaps this is a sockpuppet of Purodha that has been reactivated.
Männevdr is a new account, that has been created a short time after Purodha has been desysoped. This account uses the same unusual writing system as Purodha, e. g. "Shtöck" instead of more common "Stöck".
Satansbroode is a new account with just one edit on talk page of the vote against Purodha. He tried to vote himself but couldn't because the page was protected so that no IP's and no new users could edit it.

--Holder 12:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Satansbroode -

Unrelated.

Purodha and Zapper Anton are

Confirmed to be the same user.

Miss van der Roehe, Männevdr and BischofMixa are also

Likely to belong to Purodha.

Köbes, Mixåmdisch and Rentenirer are

Confirmed to be the same user

Sabine is also

Likely to belong to Köbes.

All of the above 4 accounts (Köbes, Mixåmdisch, Rentenirer and Sabine) are

Likely to belong to Purodha.

Ruslik 16:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much! --Holder 16:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppets@pt.wiki

Status: Done

List of users: Neo-ateu (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Valdemiro Sandiabo (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); ChillyWyllyc666 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Torta de gambá com milho (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Papa Chico Bento XVI (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Sinto nojo de portugueses (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Lord Squish (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); PedoBear TrollFace (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Professor Tibúrcio (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Torta de morango (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

CU log

Reason(s): Destructive vandalism, harassment and disruptive behavior in the last weeks. All users listed follow the same pattern and are already blocked. Need to uncover other accounts and know how he edits (if blocks or rangeblocks can be used).--viniciusmc 12:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Completed, result above. -- Marco Aurelio 18:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Continuous project vandalism over several months with multiple accounts. CheckUser shows that the following 20 accounts have the same source:

List of accounts	Valdemiro Sandiabo Dino-rhino Placeneck Neo-ateu Professor Tibúrcio	Herpestídeo Pedidor de artigos Lord Squish PedoBear TrollFace Papa Chico Bento XVI	Sinto nojo de portugueses Keyssoon Torta de gambá com milho ChillyWyllyc666 Silas Maracutaia	Edir Morcego Spokeroad Yeargets Ictiossauro Torta de morango

Previous meta-requests

The following requests seems to be related to this case:

Usual advertences

Please check edit patterns too before taking any action. IP match is aditional evidence.
Some accounts are blocked, but I did not checked for how long. Other's are not blocked but they're confirmed. You should take action in accordance with your project policies.

IP range

There's a narrow IP range which which all those accounts comes from, but I will not be releasing it here for privacy reasons. I'll contact an administrator myself after I can determine if blocking the range is safe or not.

Request accepted. Result is above. -- Marco Aurelio 18:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Please consider a global block when calculating the range. IP address have been vandalizing elsewhere (and mainly on eswiki, commons and ptwiki) since April 2011. The main account is Litrix Linuxer, which has been banned from ptwiki since 2010. Thanks in advance, Ruy Pugliesi^◥ 03:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello Ruy. Thanks for your suggestion and for the information. Global rangeblocks are not so frequent due to the large ammount of users that can be affected by it. While this range in particular is narrow and it was safe to block it in ptwiki, I do not know for others. Let me discover first if this would cause large ammount of harm before doing it. Best, -- Marco Aurelio 10:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Otherguylb@ka.wikipedia

Status: Not done

List of users: Otherguylb (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Lashab1991 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

Reason(s): Several months ago the User:Lashab1991 was editing disruptively at article's discussion pages. That user stopped his behaviour after several warnings. But it seems he's back with a sockpuppet account now. He even confirmed that he owned these two accounts. Please check users to block the IP for using multiple accounts. –BruTe ^talk 06:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Withdrawn by requester [1] → Not done -- Marco Aurelio 18:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Spammers@mediawiki

Status: Done

List of users: Bungy74 ([[; Special:Contributions/Bungy74|contr]] · [[; Special:DeletedContributions/Bungy74|deleted]] · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Sea-fishing-rods ([[; Special:Contributions/Sea-fishing-rods|contr]] · [[; Special:DeletedContributions/Sea-fishing-rods|deleted]] · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Hoangcuc ([[; Special:Contributions/Hoangcuc|contr]] · [[; Special:DeletedContributions/Hoangcuc|deleted]] · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Marynguyen ([[; Special:Contributions/Marynguyen|contr]] · [[; Special:DeletedContributions/Marynguyen|deleted]] · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

CU log

Reason(s): Spamming by multiple accounts. The vandal uses different projects, such as Meta and MediaWiki. Please check the underlying IP, globally block this IP and block and/or lock these and any more sockpuppets (I expect there are lots more). The IP isn't static, so a long block periode won't help I'm afraid. Perhaps a range block could. Thanks in advance. Trijnstel 08:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Unrelated, sorry diff vandals and or, ip changer. no clear range. Matanya 08:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Texugo-de-mel@pt.wikipedia

Status: Done

List of users: Texugo-de-mel (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Tao Pai Pai (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Padre Pedro (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Yeargets (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

CU log
Discussion: pt:Religiões do Extremo Oriente,pt:Edir Macedo

Reason(s): The user equal to the editing and Tao Pai Pai freinds.Edir Morcego, sock of the editor, is a parody of Edir Macedo, page edited by these very usuários.Padre Pedro edited Darlan Avila, bishop of the IURD, property of Edir Macedo.Please acresent LitrixLinuxer,user of Meta.--187.37.107.238 20:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Possible socks:

Litrix Linuxer (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Leandrinho777 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Tio Chiquinho (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Tio Chumbinho (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Usuário do Mac (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Xptovs25 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Pastor Jorge (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Placeneck (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
O retorno de Litrix Linuxer (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Master Roshi (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Jack London Forever (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Aquarista brasileiro (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Laslopedia (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Bomba-relógio (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Tsufuru-jin (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Biólogo Amador (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Porra o Orritorinco (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Soli Deo Gloria do Yahoo (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Torta de morango (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Valdemiro Sandiabo (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
ChillyWwllyc666 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Torta de gambá com milho (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Papa Chico Bento XVI (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Ictiossauro (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Sinto nojo de portugueses (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Lord Squish (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
PedoBear Troll Face (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Professor Tibúrcio (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

IP faixes:

187.13.149.102 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
201.76.114.112 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
200.215.222.195 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
187.48.137.26 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

View the PB.--187.37.107.238 21:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed

Texugo-de-mel
Pedidor de artigos
Papa Chico Bento XVI
Keyssoon
Silas Maracutaia
Edir Morcego
Spokeroad
Yeargets
Delaypoems
Againatoms
Applyrapid
Placeneck
Neo-ateu
Dino-rhino
Valdemiro Sandiabo
Professor Tibúrcio
Herpestídeo
Pedidor de artigos
Lord Squish
PedoBear TrollFace
Sinto nojo de portugueses
Torta de gambá com milho

Stale:

Tao Pai Pai
Padre Pedro
Litrix Linuxer
Leandrinho777
Tio Chiquinho
Tio Chumbinho
Usuário do Mac
Xptovs25
Pastor Jorge
O retorno de Litrix Linuxer
Master Roshi
Jack London Forever
Aquarista brasileiro
Laslopedia
Bomba-relógio
Tsufuru-jin
Biólogo Amador
Porra o Orritorinco
Soli Deo Gloria do Yahoo
Torta de morango

no user name:

ChillyWwllyc666
PedoBear Troll Face

Unlikely:

Ictiossauro

--Shizhao 03:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Juniorpetjua@pt.wikipedia

Status: Not done

List of users: Juniorpetjua (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); 189.104.139.117 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); 201.50.127.226 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

CU log

Reason(s): It seems a block evasion by Juniorpetjua. Users 201.50.127.226 and 189.104.139.117 show a disruptive behavior in articles that were of interest to the user blocked. See here, here and here. Heitor CJ 22:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I believe page semi-protection might be enough. Even when facing some incorrect or even malicious edits, we should avoid opening these requests when there are other possible solutions as it would reveal his IP if relation is confirmed. Only on very specific cases of very serious disruption a request like this one could be accepted.” T_ele^s (T _{@ L C S}) 01:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Declined as this request would have the effect of revealing IP addresses which is not allowed and other measures like semiprotection might work as Teles said. -- Marco Aurelio 07:16, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

D&S@pt.wikt

Status: Done

List of users: Contrachefe (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Mer (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Koncassor (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Katarina (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

CU log

Reason(s): Suspected sock puppets of known pt.wikt vandal D&S. Please see my previous request related to this vandal for more information. And please, check them not only among themselves (to see if they are the same person) but also with other accounts used by this vandal in the past. Also take into account that he has been known to use open proxies in his vandalisms. Thanks.

--ValJor 15:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to include Moleque-do-surrão (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date ^(alt) • CA • ST • lwcheckuser). His writing pattern (grammar, vocabulary used) and the way he behaves are similar to that of the banned user and to that of the listed accounts. Also, if the underlying IPs of those accounts belong to open proxies, block them. D&S has been using various open proxies, one per sock I believe, to avoid detection. Striker ^talk 02:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Possible

Mer
Koncassor
Katarina
Contrachefe

May be

LaRose
Moleque-do-surrão

The information available is a bit generic. will leave it to the local admins to decide based on the evidences they have. --Jyothis 03:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the information.

Can I add another one to the list? User EuSouAlenda is showing signs of being D&S, can you confirm that via CU? Thanks again.

--ValJor 15:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Plase include the following accounts, that are showing similar behavior:

Psítaco (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date ^(alt) • CA • ST • lwcheckuser)
O ec (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date ^(alt) • CA • ST • lwcheckuser)

--Striker ^talk 03:03, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Another one:

Caminha (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date ^(alt) • CA • ST • lwcheckuser)

Thanks.

--ValJor 13:32, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

And one more

Oftenbadly (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date ^(alt) • CA • ST • lwcheckuser)

--ValJor 15:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Anybody home? I need service here!

--ValJor 09:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Doing... Since no one else seems to be interested... -Barras 09:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, based on the Checkuser result, those accounts seem to belong to the same person:

Caminha
Mer
Koncassor
Katarina
LaRose

Based on the data, it is Likely that those are the same person, but they don't seem to belong to the group above:

Oftenbadly
Psítaco

Based on CU, the following accounts are Unrelated.

EuSouAlenda
O ec

-Barras 09:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Tenage Stupid 3@pt.wikipedia

Status: Done

List of users: Tenage Stupid 3 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Ritula (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

CU log

Reason(s): Known sockpuppeteer and vandal. Those two, who edited today, follow the same pattern of the main account (Diogomauricio3), and were blocked per WP:DUCK. Need to uncover other accounts and know how he edits (if blocks or rangeblocks can be used). Thanks, viniciusmc 16:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Also attacking en.wikipedia, see w:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Diogomauricio3/Archive. --viniciusmc 16:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Possible.

Fishers, Rasvan, Butelermen, Chegaz, Mhnm, DJGomes, O Fiambre are others in the range that shows a similar traits. However, the information available is very generic. Will leave it to the local admins to review this. --Jyothis 03:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

What about "Ritula"? Is it related with "Tenage Stupid 3"?” T_ele^s (T _{@ L C S}) 05:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Likely: Ritula, Ritula 2 and Teenage Stupid 3. Both Ritula and Teenage Stupid 3 share two matching UAs (two browsers) which are used in similar proximity. PeterSymonds (talk) 08:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.” T_ele^s (T _{@ L C S}) 15:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

是魅力一族@zh.wikipedia

Status: Done

List of users: 是魅力一族 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); 心中的凉茶 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

CU log

Reason(s): zh:User:心中的凉茶 has been blocked indefinitely as a puppet, and also abuse. Now zh:User:是魅力一族 edits similar to zh:User:心中的凉茶 (about the same article, newbie but familiar with wiki edit). Using a sockpuppet to escape blocking is NOT allowed at zhwikip.--K egns 09:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The following are

Confirmed:

From a CU perspective it's

Possible that 是魅力一族 is the same user. Jafeluv 09:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the fast responding--K egns 09:46, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Biahh Peresh@pt.wikipedia

Status: Done

List of users: Jancen sergio (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Hugo01 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

CU log
Discussion: pt:Wikipédia:Páginas_para_eliminar/Bruno_Heder

Reason(s): It seems to be a Jancen sergio's sock puppet. User Biahh Peresh, registered today and with only 9 edits, already knows how to find the specific place (the vote page) to express its disagreement related to the possible deletion of the page above mentioned. User Hugo01 has also only 9 edits and is commenting against the deletion too. Georgez 16:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed:

Hugo01
JS200
Biahh Peresh
Jancen sergio

--Shizhao 07:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

비엠미니@ko.project

Status: Done

List of users: Shiholove (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Anivivi (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

CU log
Discussion: w:ko:사용자:Shiholove 차단 요청

Reason(s): Shiholove has slandered an user for some edit, and then He proclaimed that he would leave this wiki from the time the minute his user management request was created. But after six min, user Anivivi was created and his edit article was absolutely similar to Shiholove's edit article. I'm not good English, sorry. 비엠미니 02:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed--Shizhao 07:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppets@bar.wiki

Status: Not done

Papa Kern (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Joe Watzmo (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Saxndi (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Grantla (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Schmei (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Matthias Klostermayr (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Tschick (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Franzl (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Brigendo (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Klampfen Toni (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Friodom (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Bua (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Donejda (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Gjoad (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Schnoatbrax (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Gschupfta_Ferdl (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
MisterGugaruz (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Deppenversteher (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

The bar.wikipedia appears to be parted in two fractions, the users mentioned above and the others. The above mentioned users are acting in a provocative way, sometimes grossly destructive, and usually refusing discussions concerning the contents of articles they edited or changed, usually in critical situations they make use of their sheer number and speek with one tongue for their own interests. This situation for itself might be tolerable. A big problems comes into play since the language abilities of the whole group are equally non-satisfying and they are displaing inconstistencies in their dialects. However these inconsistencies are within the group mostly homogeneous and the seem to have the same language problems in bavarian dialects. Though they claim to stem from entirely different regions. It is important to understand, that regionalism and possibility of identification of the region of origin of a certain article is vital within a dialect wikipedia such as bar.wikipedia. All the group members are strictly refusing to localize their used dialects or any other kind of meta information about the origins of their language. Recently the conflicts between the two groups escalated. Finally some of the mentioned users agreed to have a CU. However not all. I listed all users engaged in the last two important polls, polling for the same opinion. In case of futher questions, do not hesitate to contact me --188.23.115.236 16:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC) PS.: --Hoferaanderl 16:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you please link us to exact examples, so we can look at it. I'd find the polls of special interest. Thanks, -Barras 20:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not Hoferanderl but I try to show you the polls. The first poll is probably BuechsprachII. Interesting could be BuechspraacheII Antrag and its date and the reaction of the group. With the last important poll I'm unsure. All polls can be found here and there. --Buachamer 23:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not one of the last two polls but it was an interesting MB about the Bavarian spelling of Bavaria ( Owabayern/Niadabayern. "Owa/Nieda" is like it's pronounced and "bayern" is the standard German spelling.) see Vorgeschriebene Schreibweise Bayern and the discussion there and especially there. --Buachamer 23:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Hoferanderl may correct me but that's probably the second poll. --Buachamer 23:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

By the way Buachamer is my SUL account. In the bar Wiki I normally work as Roland. Some lines about the dialect can be read at bar:Diskussion:Ratschkathl, [2] and weitere Dialektfragen. I can provide more information if you want. --Buachamer 00:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

These kinds of requests are disturbingly common on meta. Most wikis with their own checkusers would reject a request like this, immediately, as a "fishing expedition." What has been done here, on the face, is to list all users appearing to have a particular opinion. If something like this is going to be done, it should be done for all parties to a dispute, not just a set selected by someone obviously affiliated with or preferring one side. No specific evidence of socking was presented. If a steward/checkuser looks and finds that most of these users are one person, yes, that should be exposed. What I'd very much urge not be done is to find and reveal some *other* socks, not alleged and not really relevant. Because of SUL and various historical reasons, there may be legitimate "socks," and judging legitimacy is not actually a checkuser function. I urge Barras to be careful.

The underlying problem is often that there are factions not willing to consider the arguments of the other side and find a unifying compromise. Socking is not a legitimate response to something like that, but it's human for minorities on wikis to try. Decimating an embattled minority can make the real situation worse, and it will often lead to long-term disruption, including the creation of more and more socks, as well as false identification of new users as socks by the "duck test," i.e., X has the same position as User Y, blocked, therefore X is a sock and should be blocked. It happens all the time!

What else is possible? Well, private emails, as an example, telling a sock operator that's been identified that if they do not disclose the sock(s), or make some other satisfactory arrangement (idea: voluntarily acceptance of a steward block of socks which leave one account undisclosed and unblocked, that it will be publicly exposed). When a local situation has become highly polarized, local admins may be involved, it can be difficult. Sufficiently biased local admins may not look at the value of finding consensus, but may take disclosure of socking as proof that the "disruptive user" should be blocked.

The effect of easy checkuser request fulfillment at meta can be that there is no protection, as there is on wikis where checkusers are responsible to local users, and where rules require local users to be informed, that there be actual disruption and reasonable suspicion of sock puppetry, based on evidence, etc. --Abd 02:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I would have preferred to avoid a check user and reduce the distrust by meeting some of the people or doing a telephone conference but I had no success. They refused to talk *much* about that. They just said no we don't want to meet or do phone calls others of the group just made jokes about that. --Buachamer 03:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Abd, for the detailed explanations. I think you're pointing exactly at our worst problem. It's that, apparently no consensus between the "groups" is possible. Its actually much worse than polls being decided by sockpuppets. You mention some really good reasons why not to do CU. My problem is, that I ran out of alternative ways to handle the problem. In case you strongly recommend to just let it run as it is, we will discuss that again in "our" fraction of the bar.wiki and might dropp the proposal. Thank you, again --Hoferaanderl 07:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I fear that we ran out of alternatives. The main active users of the list above like e.g. Bua, Schmei and Joe Watzmo prefer to run polls and avoid discussions. The users of the list above seems to be in one large group, at least they act like that in discussions or polls. As the group around Bua, Schmei and Klostermayr is pretty large (could be still growing) they can win every poll and I'm afraid that there might be sockpupets among those users. A solution might be a telephone conference with a neutral mediator. Maybe Holder could do that. Then he can speek with them and see whether e.g. Bua, Papa Kern, Schmei and Klostermayr are sockpuppets or not. So far my proposals have been ignored and rejected. --Buachamer 16:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

This Checkuser request is not approved by the community nor by the majority of admins. The two users Buachamer and Hoferanderl are outsiders in bar.wikipedia.org. If there is a disruptive behavior, then from Buachamer and Hoferanderl. Especially from Hoferanderl there have been several vandalistic actions. He has been blocked several times! --Bua333 20:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

And: Checkuser is not for fishing! --Bua333 20:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

And btw: There are less polls in bar.wiki than in other wikis. --Bua333 20:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

This request is in no way approved by the community. Most of the disruptive behavior in the Bavarian Wikipedia comes from these two guys Hoferaanderl and Buachamer (locally bar:user:Roland), known as close buddies. Hoferanderl has been blocked several times for vandalistic actions, Buachamer has even confessed an IP-sockpuppetry action. --Prjaeger 21:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Most of the suspected users in the list above are very productive writers, at least much more productive than the two guys, who prefer discussions and groundless suspicions instead of productive work. --Prjaeger 21:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

There is one fraction only in bar.wiki and this is the fraction of Hoferanderl, Buachamer and two other users. And only with these users there are some communication problems, but this is the subject of bar.wiki. --Joe Watzmo 22:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

This request is totally unjustified and against the checkuser groundrules of the wikimedia foundation. It's nothing but fishing:

e.g. a user like Donejda never took part in any vote, was only once involved in a controversal discussion (with one single statement!), two years ago, nothing else. The rest of the time he did a few useful edits

e.g. user Friodom was never involved in any controversal action, voted a few times (or maybe only once, I can't remember exactly; but not very often, that's for sure)

e.g. user Schnoatbrax was never involved in any controversal action, wrote a lot of articles, voted once (in a vote with a very clear result -- only Hoferanderl, Buachamer/Roland and one other user voted CONTRA)

e.g. user Gschupfta Ferdl was also never involved in any controversal action, wrote some good articles, voted once (in a vote with a very clear result -- only Hoferanderl, Buachamer/Roland and one other user voted CONTRA)

and so forth.

--Schmei 00:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

To Buas statement "If there is a disruptive behavior, then from Buachamer and Hoferanderl." That is not true. --Buachamer 10:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

There was a lot of disruptive behavior from user Hoferanderl, that's why he has been blocked by different admins. --Prjaeger 17:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, some of the users in the list above are quantitative very productive and produce more text than I do. Nevertheless most of these users (I can provide a list) are very aggressive and criminalize things like the "IP-sockpuppetry action". I haven't confessed an "IP-sockpuppetry action". If there is a small thing that is assailable they do it and make a mountain out of a molehill. The same way do the user Schmei at http://bar.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Diskussion:Moanungsbuida/De-Admin_Sinnierer#Exkurs:_Angst_fressen_Seele_auf . For defending me against the sockpuppet reproach I answered there, too. It's in German but I can translate it into English. If Bua and his friends dislike a person they try to make the person unreliable. --Buachamer 05:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

@Aggressions: The checkuser requester User:Hoferanderl likes to use name-calling, to live out his aggressions, for example he called a lot of liberal users on the list "Neonazis" ('fascists'). This name-callings have been version deleted by our bureaucrat/admin Holder und by one other admin. --Prjaeger 17:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes Donejda never voted but wrote in the discussion of a poll the following comment there. --Buachamer 05:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

It could be that Friodom, Schnoatbrax and Gschupfta Ferdl haven't been involved in a controversal action (I have to look it up) yet. At least they seem to be close to the group Bua, Schmei, Prjaeger ... If they are sockpuppets not all them need to be in a controversal action. It could be enough to vote. --Buachamer 05:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Schnoatbrax wrote Spuila just like Bua and some others of the group did. At the moment I've not the time to provide more details. --Buachamer 06:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, communication problems are an issue as well as distrust. One part of my distrust is because of the curious dialect or curious dialect characteristics (not used in the region like e.g. 'Spuila' in Upper Bavaria) shared by many of the main active users (in the case of Spuila the upper bavarian users: Joe Watzmo, Matthias Klostermayer, Bua, Schnoatbrax, Schmei, Saxndi) in the list. Sometimes it seems to me that a few eastern bavarian people write both western bavarian (oberbairisch) and eastern Bavarian (Wienerisch) with different users. For me the upper bavarian dialect seems to me to be a constructed dialect (similar to the "Kärntnerisch" in http://bar.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kloungfurscht_am_Werschthersee). Maybe I'm wrong but I didn't get any answer about the region where the users learned their dialect and as far as I see the dialect of the whole Upper Bavarian part of the group does not fit to a region of upper Bavaria. Of course the dialects are mixing. I'm close to Munich and the dialects there have mixed a lot but I've not seen such a large mix used/shared by so many *friends*. Another point that rise my distrust is that the group of friends around Bua, Schmei and Klostermayr is still growing and that the group point out that polls are the good democratic solution to clarify things like the spelling of Bavaria, forbid the Buechspraach, Taferl (see MB Taferl and the history http://bar.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taferl&action=history and the comments there => "Taferl san unta Intellektuellen sea unbeliabt" during the time of the poll)... --Buachamer 08:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Schmei, now you say it's fishing and bad but what can be done to improve/increase the trust or reduce the distrust? I wrote that I would prefer a meeting or a telephone conference over a CU and I ask/suggest that some of you do a telephone conference with a neutral person to check that there are real people behind the users. A neutral person could be Holder. What do you think about the CU alternative? --Buachamer 08:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Support checkuser attention. There is obviously a conflict on bar.wiki. There are two users who have expressed concern here that there may be massive sock puppetry involved. That may be unlikely, but it would be easy for a checkuser to look to rule it out. If there is no massive sock puppetry involved, then the two users can be advised to proceed with caution, they really are offending or opposed by many editors. If there is sock puppetry creating an appearance of massive support for some position, that should be exposed. Stewards cannot solve the local problem, that's up to bar.wiki users, and I encourage them to find ways to cooperate, even with those who hold minority positions. Users sometimes create socks when they fear that they will not be respected otherwise. --Abd 12:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

There are a lot of users in bar.wiki, who made clear that they have no problem of being checked. But the list above is absurd and definitly against checkuser policy.

And attention: the last three votes in bar.wiki have been close to consensus (including admins), only Hofer, Buachamer and one other guy voted contra. Thats no indication at all for vote stacking or for enforcing one position etc.

On the other side Hoferanderl and Buachamer act for one strange and questionable position: To allow a constructed bavarian language called Buechspraache in the bar.wiki, which is not in the interest of bavarian language and therefore not in the interest of the majority of users in bar.wiki. From their point of view everybody who ever says one word against the Buechspraache or against their behavior is a suspected sockpuppet.

--Prjaeger 04:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's true: Who ever says one word against their sometimes strange behavior is a suspected sockpuppet. Best example is user Donejda, who made one single, critical statement, two years ago(!!). That was one word enough. But further more: Who ever seems to be friendly to those guys, who said something against their behavior is a suspected sockpuppet too (best example: user Gschupfta Ferdl).

--Joe Watzmo 06:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Checkuser ist not for fishing.

And this request is for fishing only.

There is no support for some position, except writing excellent articles:

The accused users wrote an important part of all articles in de bar.wikipedia (and an important part of the excellent articles)

--Saxndi 17:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem at all of being checked. But this list is an attack against intelligence and against the Bavarian Wikipedia - from two wellknown users. --Klampfen Toni 04:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I was not told by these guys, that I'm accused here and that's not o.k.! I didn't have any problems with them and I didn't have any problem with anybody in bar.wiki. I even didn't have any contact (on any discussion page) with them. Everybody can check me, but I would like to know first, what I am accused for. Nobody told me till now.

--Gschupfta Ferdl 12:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

It's some sort of kin liability. Probably you have been friendly to someone these guys don't like. That seems to be their logic. And this seems to be the stuff this list is made from. As Joe Watzmo wrote above: "Who ever says one word against their sometimes strange behavior is a suspected sockpuppet. Best example is user Donejda, who made one single, critical statement, two years ago(!!). That was one word enough. But further more: Who ever seems to be friendly to those guys, who said something against their behavior is a suspected sockpuppet too (best example: user Gschupfta Ferdl)."

--Prjaeger 17:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment So Mädls, ich würd sagen ihr gehts alle Heim auf die bar.wiki, disskutierts des ganze aus, und kommts dann wenns euch geeinigt habts. So wirds nur zum Theater und die Seite hier ist nicht wirklich für Diskussionen gedacht. Gilts? Proposing discussion on bar.wiki and coming again if they realy decide that they need a CU. This looks too much like fishing IMO. --WizardOfOz ^talk 17:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Not done Wizard got a good point above. Please sort out the stuff locally. CheckUser is not for fishing. When you discussed the things and cleared out everything and a CU is still needed then, please come back and ask again here. Having some people agreeing on something is not worth checking, sorry. -Barras 10:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Spamming (car insurances and casinos) on several small wiki's

Status: Done

xhwiki

Elipe (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

ikwiki

Entti (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

tnwiki

Intta (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

snwiki

Alite (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

enwikibooks

Intwo (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Will be requested at ML.

The above-mentioned (non-sul) accounts are all spamming for a casino and car insurances (which comes across as something familiar, I suspect there are way more accounts and wiki's involved) on several small wiki's. These have already been blocked locally by Trijnstel. Please check if this concerns a larger-scale abuse: is it possible to relate these accounts based on CU evidence? Have they created any more sock puppets, that we don't know of? Thanks in advance, Mathonius 16:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Note: : having a look with the antispam bot and blacklisting domains. -- Marco Aurelio 17:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Done - a couple of sleeper spam accounts found (global ones) that are now already globally locked. Domains globally blacklisted. Informing other CUs as I see this is targeting large wikis like enwiki, for example. Best regards. -- Marco Aurelio 17:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Gargamely@pt.wikipedia

Status: Done

List of users: Gargamely (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Jancen sergio (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Hugo01 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

CU log
Discussion: Here

Reason(s): Even case above. Pc^msg 00:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed. Jafeluv 07:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Regulus@fr.wiktionary

Status: Done

List of users: Dragomir Ier (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

CU log

Reason(s): long-term vandalism. Please see, for example [3], [4] and [5]

Hello. I'd like to be sure that these accounts belong the same person. Are they other accounts created today or recently with the same IP address ? Thanks -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 15:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Only the first account has edits there. The others have no edits and are not blocked. So why should be check? Please remember that

CheckUser is not for fishing. -Barras 16:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I've rephrased my request, sorry. I want to check if Dragomir Ier@frwiktionary has some more accounts on the project. Thanks by advance -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 16:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Following accounts are Confirmed and blocked:

Dragomir Ier
Ataman Zabaikalnikh Kazakov
Ataman Ukrainskikh Kazakov
Ataman Kubanskikh Kazakov
Ataman Terskikh Kazakov
Ataman Donskikh Kazakov

The range is probably too big for a block and includes innocent users. -Barras 16:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the help and the blocks. -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 16:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Spam on en.wikiversity

Status: Done

Celery (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Deng (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Zing852741 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

Some spam-only accounts on en.wikiversity: "Celery" and "Deng" are non-sul accounts, "Celery" and Hong99 (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date ^(alt) • CA • ST • lwcheckuser) hit meta as well. See this diff for their typical of spamming. Please check to see if these three accounts on en.wikiversity are sharing an IP address or range. Thanks, Mathonius 06:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Deng and Celery are

Confirmed.

Zing852741 is unrelated to those two, but is related to the following accounts:

Jafeluv 07:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I've informed the local administrators about these results. Kind regards, Mathonius 07:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Holy Fortune@pt.wikipedia

Status: Not done

List of users: Santa Fortuna (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Holy Fortune (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

CU log

Reason(s): Probaly block evasion a blocked user for offenses.--201.6.217.162 22:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

It was me, don't need to check, I even used same nick (only translated to be able to create the account). Look what user Zorglub did: He changed my message, [6] and wrote to me: "Don't you know how to read? Or you don't know the basic rules of punctuation? It's quite clear...". Of course I had to answer this absurd. And please note all my editions there were improvements, I'm perplexed about the bad characters of some very active users of pt.wikipedia. Even administrators don't follow the rules, and vandalize your page discussion, not only that, you are banned because you say the administrator is incompetent. Santa Fortuna 22:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment I see no need for a CU in both two last requests since all listed accounts are already blocked. Also, the requesting IP shares the same IP range as ElectroStatic Jolt. Striker ^talk 22:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, I would like to add, that after all the stress caused on me by those people, I used very strong horrible words... I did not like my attitude, I'm now a mix of angry but also of that I did the right thing in some way, because someone had to challenge that behavior (that I consider trolling), what Zorglub wrote to me was very strong too. Santa Fortuna 22:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment Holy Fortune and Santa Fortuna are ducks. Maybe look into the requester. — Kudu ^~I/O~ 22:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted him to experience his own poison. Well, I don't want to write about it anymore. Santa Fortuna 22:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm wondering if the sysops pt.wiki.Striker tale pros, think before you point the finger for others.--201.6.217.162 22:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

CheckUser is not for fishing -- Marco Aurelio 17:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Asfsagewgaw@zh.wikipeia

Status: Done

List of users: Asfsagewgaw (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Phisodread (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

CU log

Reason(s): They tried to act as a blocked user zh:user:sysywjel, and at zh:WP:VPM, they sent a notice which announcing to kill other wp users. --Zhxy 519 03:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Unrelated Ruslik 06:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to say in this way, but I guess this user has found the way to change his or her IP. Thank you all the same.--Zhxy 519 07:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The IPs are from different continents. UAs are also different. Ruslik 09:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

fa.wikipedia

Status: Not done

List of users: Miladkhoshtip98 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Truth Seeker (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

CU log

Reason(s): hi.i need to your help. my account (miladkhoshtip98) has been locked by checkuser in wikifa. unfortunately my protest in wikifa don't work. i sent a email to The ombudsman commission a few days ago. i want you check my username (miladkhoshtip98) and check attributed vandal username (Truth Seeker). i have only 1 username in wikipedia and i was shocked when the checkuser tell me "you are a alternative user" . thanks--212.95.129.152 20:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Not done - fa.wiki has local checkusers and stewards are not the Ombudsman committee. They surely have also some other stuff to do and not only this case to work on. Be patient. Not steward related,

Declined/ Not done. -Barras 20:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

비엠미니@ko.project

Status: Done

List of users: Shiholove (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Anivivi (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Vermout (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

CU log

Reason(s): Few days ago, I requested checkuser about Shiholove and Anivivi, and The sentence was Confirmed. But the next day of Shiholove and Anivivi's block, Vermout joined ko wiki and edited similar articles contributed by Shiholove and Anivivi. --비엠미니 14:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed. Jafeluv 15:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Santa Gertrudes@pt.wikipedia

Status: Done

List of users: Santa Gertrudes (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Crítico (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

CU log

Reason(s): Evasion of block. Same pattern of edits. User "Santa Gertrudes" was registered on June 28, a day after "Crítico" was blocked. "Santa Gertrudes" edits ended on July 14, the same week that "Crítico" was unblocked. He was blocked again yesterday, and moments later "Santa Gertrudes" returned. Need to confirm for sure to extend the duration of the block. viniciusmc 04:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed. Jafeluv 06:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

배부른산@ko.wikipedia

Status: Done

List of users: 배부른산 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); 강은옥 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Lee530303 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Lee550415 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); 이땡보 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); 강씨매니아 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); 황제숙종 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

CU log

Reason(s): 배부른산 and 강은옥 of the account 윤시내 editing of the document type is very similar. Lee530303, Lee550415, 이땡보, 강씨매니아, 황제숙종 account the specific political documents three similar types of malicious editing or checking account associated with your account request. -- 칼있으마 06:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed:

group1: Lee530303, Bloodangel0
group2: 황제숙종, 강씨매니아

Group1, group2 and other users

Likely, there users used many IP and UA--Shizhao 03:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Wchee@zh.wikipedia

Status: Not done

List of users: Wchee (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Rambo1 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Rambo2 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Heroxhero (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

CU log

Reason(s): Possible abuse of multiple accounts to vote in the same AfD discussion. Either a sock-puppeteer or w:WP:MEAT-- Bencmq 07:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

It looks like a duck to me. Three single-purpose accounts created within minutes of each other, and their only edits are to the same deletion discussion. I don't think this requires a CU. Jafeluv 09:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

මීමා@si.wikipedia

Status: Not done

List of users: Lee (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); බිඟුවා (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); ChanakaL (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); ශ්වෙත (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Singhalawap (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); තඹරු විජේසේකර (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); උකුස්සා (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); අනංගයා (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Anandawardhana (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); පසිඳු කාවින්ද (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

CU log
Discussion: Example

Reason(s): This user had logged in/Registered on 2 September 2010 at 11:55h in Sinhala Wikipedia and with minimal exposure and with hardly any editing he had submitted a check-user query on 15 September 2010 at 03:06h. Due to this it is strongly believed that this user is a sock-puppet of one and/or all listed users who were the active & experienced users at the time and had rough time with the revealed sock-puppets. The listed users are also work in tandem and in cooperation within Sinhala Wikipedia and show that they are related. The user in question is not active and appear only at certain times especially at times of forums such as elections of administrators and then vanish. Hence it is widely believed that he is a sock-puppet of a user who is very active in Sinhala Wikipedia.Please investigate the correlation between the main user and 10 named users and also inter-relations between 10 named users. සුරනිමල 09:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Not done,

CheckUser is not for fishing. Jafeluv 09:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I will submit a refined & more substantiated request later. -- සුරනිමල 10:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

AmyLee221@zh.wikipedia

Status: Done

List of users: AmyLee221 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Susukichow (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Wingmak (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Christy1996 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

CU log

Reason(s): These users did vandalism in a lot of thread about TVB artists and dramas (for example [7], [8], [9], etc...). From their contributions, it has enough evidence show that they are the same user with KellyMok, who has been blocked permanently due to vandalism. Therefore I would like to make a request for a permanent blockage to them (AmyLee221, Susukichow, Wingmak, Christy1996).

Kenwong 03:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The relevant old CU would be Steward_requests/Checkuser/2011-05#Cenfany_.40zh.wikipedia --Bencmq 03:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed the following:

Wingmak

Christy1996

WinnieTse9898

AmyLee221

Lisa9698

Susukichow

LeungYan98

Winnie881

Wan19960908

Ruslik 15:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Ricardo salazar@pt.wikipedia

Status: Done

List of users: Ricardo salazar (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Rick salazar (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

CU log

Reason(s): Probable block evasion; vandalism-only account. Francisco 18:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Obvious per duck case, but also

Confirmed. --Bsadowski1 18:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Crítico@pt.wikipedia

Status: Done

List of users: Crítico (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Pacyficus (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Mark Vincent (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

CU log

Reason(s): Block evasion, same case as Santa Gertrudes above. Need to uncover other accounts and know how he edits (if blocks or rangeblocks can be used). Thanks, --viniciusmc 06:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Both accounts

Confirmed. The ranges used look too wide for an effective range block. Jafeluv 10:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Carleytse@zh.wikipedia

Status: Done

List of users: Carleytse (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Davidyaotin (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Adalau442 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Cherrycheung555 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

CU log

Reason(s): Same as AmyLee221, Susukichow, Wingmak and Christy1996, they above users did vandalism in a lot of thread about TVB artists and dramas ([10], [11], [12], [13]). From their contributions, it has enough evidences show that they are the same user with KellyMok, who has been blocked permanently due to vandalism. Therefore I would like to make a request for a permanent blockage to them (Carleytse, Davidyaotin, Adalau442, Cherrycheung555).

Kenwong 14:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed Ruslik 10:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Is it possible to set a range block without affecting other users? We already have a lot of sock puppets. --Bencmq 11:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Hard block of 173.46.5.0/24 would help. Ruslik 18:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

CARLOS ALBERTO LAURINDO@pt.wikipedia

Status: Done

List of users: CARLOS ALBERTO LAURINDO (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Resistencianom (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

CU log

Reason(s): Probable block evasion; these accounts have almost the same standard of edits. See also the diff and en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Resistencianom. Francisco 22:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Unlikely, but both accounts from same a ISP--Shizhao 01:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)