Steward requests/Checkuser/2010-07

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Requests

117.6.64.175@vi.wikipedia

Status:    Not done
List of users
117.6.64.175 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
117.0.197.168 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
117.1.19.161 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
117.1.27.255 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
117.0.136.244 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Reason(s): Các IP này tham gia tại cùng 1 chủ đề tại đây và cùng trong khoảng thời gian . Các Ip này tham gia cùng 1 thảo luận vầ một chủ đề cho mục tin nhắn cho bản quản viên ở dự án chúng tôi. Đầu tiên họ dùng Ip 117.6.64.175 đưa ra một ý kiến ủng hộ thành viên đang có ý kiến đối lập với họ nhưng ngay sau đó dùng lại dùng các IP tiếp theo mà trong thảo luận họ đã gần như xác nhận là do một người dùng, vu cáo thành viên đang thảo luận với họ dùng rối (Ip 117.6.64.175) để thảo luận. Trong quá trình đóng góp họ tỏ ra rất am hiểu wiki để "lách luật", họ có thể đã lập nhiều các tài khoản để cùng tham gia 1 chủ đề nhưng sẽ đóng tài khoản này trước khi dùng tài khoản tiếp theo để đóng góp để cho các thành viên khác không thể yêu cầu kiểm tra họ được, điều này gây ức chế cho các thành viên có ý kiến đối lập với họ. Chỉ duy nhất lần này, có thể do sơ suất nên họ mới để lộ chứng cứ để có yêu cầu check user. Với chứng cứ ở trên mong các bạn kiểm tra xem ai thực sự là người đang dùng rối ở thảo luận này để cộng đồng tại dự án chúng tôi có được cái nhìn chính xác để đi tới các quyết định tốt nhất cho dự án chúng tôi. Cảm ơn!--Thần Gió 02:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Summary of the above request: Several IPs participating in the same topic in the Administrator's Noticeboard. The requesting user fear that the IPs are veteran users (since they seem to be very knowledgeable about Wikipedia's rules) who created many sockpuppet accounts to accuse other users of using sockpuppets. Their modus operandi seem to be accusing people of using sockpuppets, but then keep switching accounts so that people can't respond to them. DHN 07:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I would say  Declined because Fishing CheckUser is not for fishing. We will not be pointing out which user edits under X IP address for privacy reasons. Other stewards are welcome to review and comment. — Dferg ☎ 09:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree. with Dferg's assessment. FiliP ██ 14:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
OK, thanks!Thần Gió 00:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Trans-Continental@uk.wikipedia

Status:    In progress
List of users
Trans-Continental (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Lunic 14 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Reason(s): Possible block evasion for mass voting. According to local policy any user with 50 main namespace edits can vote for or against deletion. Users Trans-Continental and Lunic 14 have made about 50 very minor edits and immediately started to participate in votings. Examples of edits: Trans-Continental - 54 article edits, mostly minor grammar fixes 1 2 3 4, 5, Lunic 14 - 54 article edits, mostly minor spelling and punctuation fixes 1 2 3 4, strange couple of edits 5 6. Both of these users voted in the same nomination: Lunic 14, Trans-Continental, both of them made strange deletion requests: Trans-Continental nominated article with correct reference to encyclopaedia "because I can't find it in Google", Lunic 14 voted three times and once more again with the comment "because it's not mentioned in the rules" or "I support deletion but I am oppose to it" etc. It looks like these two accounts were made specifically for mass voting and trolling, so please check if they belong to the same person and if it is possible to block an IP, as we previously had about 5 users with similar provocative style. Regards — NickK 18:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Do I understand properly that you're going to request checking whenever you see an account with not very large amount of edits noticed in voting? Otherwise I can't find an acceptable explanation for the request. Yes, two accounts. Yes, they both took part in votings, one of them is fairly blocked for disruption. What is Trans-Continental's fault? Corrections of mistakes are not a crime, nor voting is. Trolling is absolutely absent, isn't it? I mean, although the coincidence is possible (theoretically), there's no ground for processing this request, as one of the nominants hasn't violated any established rules. I urge stewards to treat such requests with more accuracy. --700!n 09:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Every time I make a request here appears a user with no or little contributions who says the check shouldn't be done... The situation is as follows: user Trans-Continental was registered on March 8 and was completely inactive, suddenly on May 15 (more precisely, while Lunic 14 was blocked) he makes 50 edits in 42 minutes, 20 minutes later he makes a list of unused templates and 10 minutes later he makes a deletion request. After Lunic 14's block is over, Trans-Continental disappears and Lunic 14 comes back. However, after Lunic 14 was fairly blocked for disruption, Trans-Continental becomes active again. Personally for me it's clear that if Trans-Continental who was inactive for more than two months edits only when Lunic 14 is blocked and has similar style, it's a block evasion — NickK 10:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
The fact that Trans-Continental had been registered a month before Lunic 14 did automatically refutes the possibility of his being a sockpuppet. Your reasoning about the consequence of events would make sense if they hadn't happened within one day, and Lunic 14 hadn't been indefblocked in 20 minutes after his response to the first blocking.

In fact, these accounts have virtually nothing is common, one single occurring in a voting is rather casual (given that its summary is clear anyway), making a list of unused templates has nothing to do with sockpuppetry, similarity of the styles is just your opinion, and you know this perfectly. Trans-Continental hasn't infringed any rules, and that's why there is no good reason for the check and no use revealing personal info about his IP. --700!n 11:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

  • I guess, it's about time we closed the request, as we seem to have agreed upon its unnecessity. Moreover, Trans-Continental is indefblocked now on account of groundless complaints, thus the check is not needed any longer. --700!n 09:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
    Trans-Continental was blocked for trolling, and uk:User:Thetrain appeared. He had exactly 52 article edits, and in a few hours after Trans-Continental was blocked voted against deletion of his page and nominated Category of Indefblocked users for deletion. He also continued very strange comments at the page of deletion requests. Trans-Continental, Lunic 14 and Thetrain have many things in common, they all act in the same way: 1) creation of a userpage, 2) 52 to 54 article edits (our rules require 50 article edits to post comments to deletion requests) (Trans-Continental Lunic_14 Thetrain), 3) some break, usually another account is active at this moment (Trans-Continental did not edit until Lunic_14 was blocked, Thetrain edited only articles until Trans-Continental was blocked), 4) user ceases making article edits and edits only talk pages and deletion requests, the only article edits are rather provocative or edit wars (Trans-Continental Lunic_14 Thetrain), 5) user receives warning for disruption and comments in a rude way (Lunic_14 Thetrain). All these three users look like someone's accounts created solely for gaming the system and participation in votings, their behavior is pretty annoying, so I think that it's necessary to check whether they are sockpuppets of the same user and if their IP can be blocked (particularly, if they use open proxies) — NickK 22:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
    Firstly, you're simply lying, as two of them have 65 mainspace edits, and this lie clearly points to your reluctance to give the correct reason for the check. You were explained why the request about L14/T-C was inappropriate, and nonetheless you continue to bring the same arguments here.
    Well, then please answer - where do you see trolling amongst Thetrain's contribs? I don't. The rule about 50 mainspace edits was invented not for harassment of those who votes after making 52/54/60 ones, really? Then his behavior is normal and predictable, moreover, he had written two perfect articles - what else do you expect?
    creation of a userpage - oh, all admins have a userpage, let's check them for using open proxies! (if speak seriously, 75% of newbies on any Wikipedia have a userpage, hard to believe you're unaware of it)
    52 to 54 article edits - this is lie;
    some break, usually another account is active at this moment - my previous reply concerned this, be more attentive;
    user ceases making article edits and edits only talk pages and deletion requests, the only article edits are rather provocative or edit wars - I personally don't observe it, however, everyone is welcome to choose what he wants to edit.

So, your "arguments" have no validity again. --700!n 08:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they try to look like really good users, bt anyway, don't you think that their behavior significantly changes after 52nd or 54th article edit? They begin to participate in all possible discussions and votings instead of what they have previously done (creation of articles, fixing spelling and grammar mistakes). Yes, some of Lunic 14 has made 54 edits in 2 days, and it took him 19 days to make the next 11 edits, Trans-Continental has made 53 edits in 49 minutes, and it took him 19 days to make the next 12 edits. And these edits are very different, if the first 53 or 54 edits were useful minor edits, the following ones were different, e.g. Trans-Continental was blocked in dewiki for removal of names in foreign languages in the article about city, where he was reverted by Pavlo_Chemist, so he added names in foreign languages to the article about chemical compound. Among Lunic_14's 11 edits there is the following one. An example of Thetrain's trolling is given above, is it normal to change one's mind from oppose vote with argument "fdsfgs" to support vote with argument "fdsfgs"? Anyway, these users make about 50 really useful edits and immediately begin trolling in Project namespace and/or provocative edits, so that's very unlikely that these are three different users who immediately after 52nd or 54th edit suddenly decide to comment in all possible discussions. The same matter with User:700!n, who suddenly appeared here with good knowledge of the policies of Ukrainian Wikipedia but without any edits in any project — NickK 09:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

From a technical standpoint, it appears that these accounts are all related:

Віктор Чуй@uk.wikipedia (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser • CentralAuth • AllContribs) Thetrain@uk.wikipedia (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser • CentralAuth • AllContribs) Vitya Feonor@uk.wikipedia (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser • CentralAuth • AllContribs) Maxim09@uk.wikipedia (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser • CentralAuth • AllContribs) Another World@uk.wikipedia (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser • CentralAuth • AllContribs) Trans-Continental@uk.wikipedia (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser • CentralAuth • AllContribs) 700!n@uk.wikipedia (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser • CentralAuth • AllContribs) Electric Barbarella@uk.wikipedia (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser • CentralAuth • AllContribs) Prącie@uk.wikipedia (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser • CentralAuth • AllContribs) Lunic 14@uk.wikipedia (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser • CentralAuth • AllContribs) Ex-516@uk.wikipedia (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser • CentralAuth • AllContribs) Йо@uk.wikipedia (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser • CentralAuth • AllContribs) Globalfree@uk.wikipedia (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser • CentralAuth • AllContribs) Diskard@uk.wikipedia (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser • CentralAuth • AllContribs) Our Truth@uk.wikipedia (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser • CentralAuth • AllContribs) Lffff@uk.wikipedia (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser • CentralAuth • AllContribs) Marko-Antonio@uk.wikipedia (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser • CentralAuth • AllContribs) Я гусак!@uk.wikipedia (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser • CentralAuth • AllContribs) Artf1rst@uk.wikipedia (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser • CentralAuth • AllContribs) Фшпіавгшрівіпршмеішгукшгеимспкра@uk.wikipedia (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser • CentralAuth • AllContribs) .one.of.them.@uk.wikipedia (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser • CentralAuth • AllContribs) Вася1987@uk.wikipedia (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser • CentralAuth • AllContribs) Kukurudza@uk.wikipedia (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser • CentralAuth • AllContribs) 32x8@uk.wikipedia (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser • CentralAuth • AllContribs) New Moon on Monday@uk.wikipedia (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser • CentralAuth • AllContribs) ΠΟΠΑ@uk.wikipedia (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser • CentralAuth • AllContribs) ѠѠѠѠѠѠѠѠѠѠѠ@uk.wikipedia (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser • CentralAuth • AllContribs) ĸäłååļîšūŧ@uk.wikipedia (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser • CentralAuth • AllContribs)

J.delanoygabsadds 21:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Please also check a few more new accounts:

contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser • CentralAuth • AllContribs) (user's only contributions is provocation at ArbCom elections by nominating a bot, an indefblocked user and users with long history of blocks, the second edit was creation of a userpage with a strange userbox art)

contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser • CentralAuth • AllContribs) (user only wrote a welcome message to the above user)

contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser • CentralAuth • AllContribs) (user's only contribution is an addition of a userbox, which was nominated for deletion as useless)

contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser • CentralAuth • AllContribs), 195.64.148.9@uk.wikipedia (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser • CentralAuth • AllContribs) — IPs edited after most active of the above users were blocked, but before CU results, pretty similar style (provocation in deletion discussion - like Thetrain, wars about colours of babel boxes - like Lunic_14, strange citation requests a few minutes after an edit was made - like Lffff

contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser • CentralAuth • AllContribs) - IP notificated one crat and one admin about the results of the above check

Thanks — NickK 19:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Brezza del mare,Vunz Vujmingz,Byadengz,Quite Storm,Amaqqut,Biŋhai@zh.wikipedia

Status:    Done
List of users
Brezza del mare (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Vunz Vujmingz (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Byadengz (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Quite Storm (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Amaqqut (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Biŋhai (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

Reason(s): Brezza del mare,Vunz Vujmingz,Byadengz,Quite Storm,Amaqqut are all users with about 100-200 edits. At first they all created articles about literature or languages, or edited their own user pages. When they became autoconfirmed (50 edits), they started to participate in featured article reviews, and they all voted support without good reasons. For example, they all participated in zh:Wikipedia:特色條目複審/塹壕戰. If they hadn't voted in that review, the article would not be delisted, since eight supports are required (see zh:Wikipedia:特色条目复审/规则).

  1. The user pages of zh:User:Brezza del mare, zh:User:Quite storm, and zh:User:Amaqqut are exceedingly similar.
  2. Biŋhai also participated in featured article reviews, and he/she accidentally edited Amaqqut's user page[1], so I suspect that these users are Biŋhai's sockpuppet.

PV=nRT 11:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Results
  • User:Vunz Vujmingz looks Unrelated unrelated.
  • It is Inconclusive inconclusive from a CheckUser point of view to determine that the accounts User:Brezza del mare, User:Byadengz, User:Quite Storm, User:Amaqqut and User:Biŋhai are operated by the same user. You/Your community will have to decide that based on other things (like editing patterns, etc - please note that CheckUser is not the unique tool to find out sockpuppets). If any steward wants to review my findings is welcome to do so.

— Dferg ☎ 23:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I looked at Dferg's findings, and I agree with his conclusions. Excluding Vunz Vujmingz, no conclusions can be made without more information.Shanel 00:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

ෆෙලිඩේ@si.wikipedia

Status:    Done
List of users
හංසක123 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
ෆෙලිඩේ (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Reason(s): ෆෙලිඩේ (felidae) is a company editing Sinhala wikipedia for a payment. In here the issue is discussed, at village pump. ව්‍යාපෘතිය Sinhala wikipedia. Later an admin in there blocked him for improper usename. I also reported this to steward User:J.delanoy. I am afraid due to various reasons such as irregular editing, small numbered community, little knowledge in policies, lack of coordination among editors prevented in discussion what should done regarding the paid editing episode. Meanwhile this new user is editing nothing but the articles that earlier user've uploaded. This is very disheartening for volunteer editors. An editor has reckon him as a sockpuppet. I also left him a message and they are not responding or evading clearing their name. If you can do the checking for us, we, Sinhala wikipedia community can decide on what to do with him. Regards--Chanakal 09:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Results

— Dferg ☎ 11:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Dferg, for the speedy response.--Chanakal 12:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

ko:사용자:부산 et al

Status:    Done
List of users
부산 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
팔산천개청명오약신도 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
구미시지킴이 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
59.23.88.44 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Saga288 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Qq1423 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
떠돌이 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
1 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

Reason(s): First of all, both ko:사용자:부산 and ko:사용자:떠돌이 have similar user page.
Also, these account erased materials even they were already cited, and always write verbose things.

Futhermore, it is doubtful that their editing patterns are analogous.

To be specific, they persist their verbose and unnecessary statement.

[23], [24], [25], [26], [27]

Also, if one user disappear, other users emerged differnt time, not simultaneously. Therefore, it is questionable that one person throw away the account and use another account. Whatsmore, their discussion attitude is so similar.

115.92.202.27 04:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

--Shizhao 09:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Prima_klasy4na@ukwiki

Status:    Done

Please check

  • Ні
  • Userlinks
  • K3
  • Ттх
  • Db
  • Erudit
  • Капут
  • Амба
  • Тест

These accounts created in March and made similar edits in some templates. Possible, it is docks of indefblocked Prima_klasy4na.Anatoliy (talk) 22:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Results of the sockfarm: Users: Ні, Userlinks, K3, Ттх, Db, Erudit, Капут, Амба, Тест, X1, I7, I5 Dy, K9, Текст, Карта, Нд and Тест1 are the same user. After review old logs I can say  Confirmed the relationship with user Prima klasy4na. Regards - @lestaty discuţie 23:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

@lestaty, thanks for good and fast work. And explain me, please, how and why most of this nicks where blocked before results of the sockfarm? Is any violations of rules by uk:user:NickK? See uk:Спеціальна:Log/block/NickK--Wikimeetup 00:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I don't know local police about blocks, but technical information (checkuser) is not the only method to find socks. Regards - @lestaty discuţie 01:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
  • There are no any rules at uk.wikipedia.org--Wikimeetup 01:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
    There are rules. According to Blocking policy, a block is limited to the user, not to one of his accounts. There is also ArbCom desicion, according to it Prima_klasy4na (aka Ink) is allowed neither to edit Template namespace nor to create sockpuppets, but he has created sockpuppets listed above to edit Template namespace. Most of these sockpuppets clearly passed duck test, thus they were blocked without CU request — NickK 13:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Yashar@fawiki

Status:    Done
List of users
ایستاده بر آرمان (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Reason(s): Hi, I am admin in fa.wikipedia. User:ایستاده بر آرمان reverts the first user removed canvassing. They are canvassing together against an admin. The second is a brand new account, yet seems to be extremely experienced with Wikipedia. They have similar edit pattern. If the second user is the sock of the first one, it will be a clear abusive sock. It appears to be created to create a false consensus when there is none: canvasing against an admin in public pages of fa.wikiedia, creating false consensus, restoring the removed canvassing of the first user.Behzad.Modares 13:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
CheckUser results/comments

Hello,  It looks like a duck to me. That is to say: if there is enough behavioural evidence to justify a block (the so called "blocks on behaviour") there is no need to run a CheckUser. Best regards, --dferg ☎ talk 17:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much.Behzad.Modares 02:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Beetlebaum@en.wikiversity

Status:    Done
List of users
Beetlebaum (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Moulton (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Reason(s): It seems fairly obvious from the contributions of Beetlebaum that they aren't new to Wikiversity even though the account was only registered on 11 July 2010. I suspect that this is a sock puppet of the indefinitely blocked and globally locked Moulton but it doesn't quite pass the duck test in my view. The edits they have made are to start writing a song about prior incidents on Wikiversity. They have also listed Moulton as a participant. I understand that Moulton has recently logged into Wikiversity, or at least tried to, so there may be some information of use there available. However, Moulton is known to evade the block by use of a variety of IP addresses. These are usually 68.160.XXX.XXX, 68.162.XXX.XXX, or similar addresses registered to Verizon so it should hopefully be possible for CheckUser to assist here in confirming whether this is likely to be a Moulton sockpuppet. There are no local checkusers. Adambro 18:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It is a sockpuppet of user JWSchmidt. I report this since there's currently a controversy about blocks relating all these users so community can make an informed decision. es:Drini 14:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

ෆෙලිඩේ@si.wikipedia

Status:    Done
List of users
ෆෙලිඩේ (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
203.153.222.16 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
දොන් මැනුවෙල් තිවංකා (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Reason(s): This is following up to the above case with same user in same wikipedia. Sockpuppeting has continued since that last case filed. Will appeal for a block for these users or start a discussion to ban them from the project. Chanakal 02:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Users - Unrelated Unrelated
IP - Not done - cannot associate an IP to a user for obvious reasons.

--Jyothis 04:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Withclear@zh.wikipedia

Status:    Not done
List of users
Withclear (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
KEIM (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Reason(s): User:KEIM was a user always edit without neutrality & most of his or her edits are based on Korean nationalism.He or she has been found using multi-accounts before by CU, and now he or she is inactive. Recently User:Withclear is making edits just the same way as User:KEIM uesd to. So I suppose you to have a check on him or her. Thank you.Zhxy 519 18:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
CheckUser results and comments
  • KEIM is Stale, that means that his/her edits are too old and are no longer stored in the CheckUser database. Check not performed, request can't be processed. --dferg ☎ talk 19:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Krishjaanis@lv.wikipedia

Status:    Done
List of users
Krishjaanis (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Mansalus (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Reason(s): Krishjaanis has been somewhat troublesome user in the past, Mansalus joined the project on 31 May, made few good edits, about week ago he voted in a poll exactly as Krishjaanis (them being the only oposition in that poll and both stating no reason), today I noticed him voting against a good article candidate a minute after Krishjaanis. Given previous problems with this user I suspect Mansalus is a sockpuppet and would like it to be chacked, also if possible please check if he has ever used any other accounts in addition to these. Note that I mentioned this issue in community portal, but the result is inconclusive ~~Xil...(talk) 22:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Unlikely Unlikely. Krishjaanis and Mansalus from different ISPs and use many different user-agents --Shizhao 09:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
In that case would it be possible to check if someone else is harassing Krishjaanis or (though I find it unlikely) that Mansalus is also using open proxy to hide who he is if checked or using mobile phone which would have diffrent ISP (in that case ISP would be LMT, Tele2 or Bite) ? The thing is I think somebody is trolling and this has been going on for quite some time, but I can't quite put my finger on it ~~Xil...(talk) 10:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
No, ISP not LMT, Tele2 or Bite. Krishjaanis and Mansalus use several diffrent computer access internet( at diffrent ISP), maybe at Home, at Work, at Cafe etc. Plese other stewards review--Shizhao 11:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Note Note: Krishjaanis and Mansalus same point: 1) a number of different ISP; 2)Often use different computers (user-agents). Difference: ISP and user-agents are not nearly the same --Shizhao 11:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
The thing is that someone well versed in Wikipedia is occasionaly is making open proxy attacks on us, since first time was two years ago after Krishjaanis was blocked for the first time, so I suspected him. Few months ago this happened again and I blocked Krishjaanis believing that there is enough evidence that it is him. He contested the block using several IP addreses, when asked he admited two of the anonymous users were him and explained that he was editing from home and work. One of those was a proxy at which he blamed sysadmins at his workplace, implying that it is some safety feature rerouting everything through proxies. Also someone created lv:Lietotājs:Revolucija! this January with sole purpose to flame at community portal, perhaps the same guy. There is though some evidence that someone else may be using open proxies e.g. here someone using a proxy is teasing Krishjaanis ~~Xil...(talk) 12:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Nevermind another user confesed that he created this account for his friend ~~Xil...(talk) 13:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

ko:사용자:떠돌이 et al

Status:    Done
List of users
떠돌이 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Mimacds (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

Reason(s): First of all, both ko:사용자:떠돌이 and ko:사용자:Mimacds

Also, if one user disappear, other users emerged differnt time, not simultaneously. Therefore, it is questionable that one person throw away the account and use another account. Whatsmore, their discussion attitude is so similar.

-- 100범 10:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Unrelated Unrelated from a CheckUser point of view --Shizhao 11:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

HISTORIAGEOGRAFIA@eswikibooks

Status:    Done
List of users
HISTORIAENCICLOPEDIA (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
HISTORIAGEOGRAFIA (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Reason(s): HISTORIAENCICLOPEDIA has been banned from the project for disruptive editing (flooding the project with nonsense pages), persistent block evasions and vandalism. After his ban he started vandalizing the project via multiple accounts/IPs so we implemented a couple of rangeblocks, which are still active, to try to stop him. Today HISTORIAGEOGRAFIA apeared making more or less the same edits at that HISTORIAENCICLOPEDIA did in the past. I know that it seems ducky, but appart for confirming if those users are related I would like to know if I need to reset any rangeblock or has sleepers; as he's vandalized from multiple IDs the project and has circunvented the rangeblock. If you find it appropiate, please send me the new range(s) by email. Thank you, --dferg ☎ talk 11:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Results

I'd say yes after reviewing the CU data. No other accounts es:Drini 18:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. --dferg ☎ talk 18:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Rock drum@en.wikiversity

Please check Rock drum and Moulton. A Wikiversity Sysop accused me of being a sockpuppet. A link to the discussion can be found here. The user in question, Ottave Rima, seems determined to call me a sockpuppet. Thanks, Rock drum (talk·contribs) 16:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Moulton is Stale, Rock drum and JWSchmidt Unrelated Unrelated--Shizhao 12:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Retailer@ms.wikipedia

Status:    Done

Hi, I am SYSOP from MS Wiki. Please block IP address for * Retailer (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser). Suspected to be mass vandal as previous attack. Previous suspected sockpuppet used are Shah560, Lidl10, Datamonitor, MyExcellency ... a lot more. Yosri 04:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Previous sockpuppet as follow (in no particular order):-

Results

Completed Completed - I've found a blockable range. Please contact me privatelly via email or IRC on #wikimedia-stewardsconnect. Thanks, --dferg ☎ talk 11:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Votez Romano@frwiktionary

Status:    Done
List of users
Votez Romano (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Regulus (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Reason(s): Please provide a reason.

Regular vandal on this project. I blocked this IP plage and he staid calm for a moment. But yesterday some insults refering to nazism have been insered into pages with account Votez Romano@frwiktionary.

Please see past requests : Steward_requests/Checkuser/2010-05#Philon_III.40frwiktionary | Steward_requests/Checkuser/2010-01#Regulus.40fr.wiktionary.org.

Best regards. -- Quentinv57 14:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Likely Likely closely matches the Philon III series. Tchatch Wadjango is another account in Philon series that is not blocked at this time. --Jyothis 14:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Done Okay, I blocked him. Thanks -- Quentinv57 14:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Tranco28@it.wikiquote

Status:    Done
List of users
Tranco28 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Reason(s): Hi, I would like to know if there are other likely related users on it.wikiquote: the user has been blocked on two projects because of sockpuppets abuse, and on it.quote because he added false quotations and references, so we're afraid he could be using some other account to continue with his sly vandalism. Thank you, Nemo 20:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Results
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steward_requests/Checkuser/2010-07&oldid=26753535"