Meta:Requests for CheckUser information/Archives/2012



Please check if Desempates[1] is related to Maddox[2] (please check in meta and wiki-pt). I have several suspicions that tie is an account used to circumvent the blocking of Maddox. I have some experience in deceive the checkuser, I know this is possible, but it is also possible to identify the geographic location of the accounts is the same. Here are several evidences indicated that Maddox is Desempates, but because of this check a who pointed "unrelated", some users no longer suspect of relations of accounts. See the evidences:

Time of account creation

Desempates made his first contribution in November 20, six days before the lock one month Maddox applied to a block that was more than previsible. During the month of November, edit offs often participating in discussions notabily criteria are well known, deletion of pages, like Maddox did.

Areas of unusual interest

Maddox was known about comics and television editing and TV-offs seem to like too, even attending an elimination voting on the subject. (Less than a month of registry)

Markings on quick elimination redirects with a history

Desempates marked redirects to History thing that Maddox has had and one of the disputes that led to me (Marcus Luccas). The redirect-labeled for ER, Desempates were also done by Marcus Luccas (I).

Fanaticism in scoring E.S.R.

Desempates whith less than one month record registered an various pages on the same subject for disposal semirrápida, which is why the lock had surrendered months before Maddox.

Requests of block against multiple users and disagreements with Marcus Luccas / Quintinense (I)

Desempates also very agile ask [blockages, even with the same so to speak Maddox's.

Insist of delete pages Marcus Luccas/Quintinense

Desempates also asked for quick elimination a page created by Marcus Luccas when the Jbribeiro1 the discussion he said "Any user is interested in moving this text to a personal page itself? The Quintinense not return anytime soon around here (and in turn, will xilindró pro again). The work looks good and need not be lost. Arthemius?". The proposition ERnesse again if it was not consensual, something characteristic of Maddox.

Language very similar to the Maddox

Also in pt:Wikipédia:Esplanada/propostas/Definição de critérios de notoriedade para sobrenomes (8dez2011) Desempates (has less than a month) shows extreme knowledge of Wikipedia's policies, such as "Wikipedia is not a primary source of data , "and" Wikipedia is not a dictionary, "(Maddox often cited pt:WP:WNE).

Alternate hours editing

Take into account also the days and hours in which both edit because offs and Maddox never edit while allowing change of geographic location or at least computer. When Maddox was blocked last time it was different than hitherto not requested review of the blockade, but was defended in its discussion page for playoffs, as seen from the section below.

Desempates instransigente defense of Maddox

When Maddox is blocked, Desempates will defend him and also here (WARNING THIS).

"Coincidences" detected by other user

Belanidia and Heitor seem to have realized, though not explicitly stated, be a case of Duck.


Atually the community discusses the 11º block of the user Maddox (see). The debate may be influenced by the account Desempates. Moreover, the blockade fraud may be being made ​​to perpetuate the destabilizing behavior of the user, previously disapproved by the community. In August, Maddox rounded a block, as can be seen in pt:Wikipédia:Pedidos a administradores/Discussão de bloqueio/Maddox/5 through the IP He confirm the rounded a block, but no reblocked by its block has been canceled.

I ask you here to assess the merits of the application, not who is asking. And please do a thorough evaluation of results, paying attention to the possibility of the user to edit the home of a friend, public computer, or even lend a friend your password to another location edit for a time, to foil any checkusers. Keep in mind the importance of this case to the Wiki-pt, as the number of conflicts with other users is very high. Already, thanks! Quintinense 22:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Is there any abuse taking place on Meta where you are requesting this check be ran? Tiptoety talk 06:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Right, that's what I am getting at. Unless there is abuse taking place on Meta, this is not the appropriate place to request a CheckUser. Tiptoety talk 17:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Tomorrow I response whith diffs. There is abuse in meta also. Quintinense 19:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
  • See the historic of the check user reqest, Maddox and Desempates use the page to reforce POV. Moreover, Tiptoety carried out a check in this page in my accounts and I never committed any abuse in Meta. The request was based entirely on the problems pt-wiki. I urge that as in my check, be clear whether the relationship between users is really "unrelated" or "possible", "likely", "inconclusive" etc because given the evidence, it is a great DUCK. Quintinense 11:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Abusive usernames

Please checkuser these abusive usernames and block the underlying IP address. Thanks in advance. Trijnstel 19:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. -Barras 19:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


Please check the dezestabilizator users. Quintinense request check of user Maddox. Well, this reason of check is very familliar. Marcus Luccas have big history of conflicts with Maddox and Desempates. Southstock also. Marcus Luccas, the dezestabilizator user was conflict with Desempates and Maddox is sock of Quintinense, the user also conflict with Maddox and the requested checkuser. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 19:10, 13 January 2012‎

  Not done - Not of interest for meta. I'm not going to join the party of ptwiki people accusing each other of being a sock. -> SRCU. -Barras 19:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


James Salsman

I'm noting here that I ran a checkuser on the two Survey accounts and came to find that James Salsman (talk contribs deleted contribs logs block user block log CentralAuth AllContribs checkuser investigate) is very   Likely related them (both of which are blocked). Additionally, it is technically   Confirmed that CHSTF (talk contribs deleted contribs logs block user block log CentralAuth AllContribs checkuser investigate) = James Salsman (though, CHSTF has made no edits). I have refrained from blocking James Salsman for now, but would appreciate input and would not be opposed to an admin blocking. It is also worth noting, that CheckUser indicates that none of the accounts sent a single email. Tiptoety talk 01:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure I see any reason he shouldn't be blocked. Not sure about the duration, though. --MZMcBride 01:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) As I said on User talk:James Salsman/Inactive administrators survey, if the user has engaged in email abuse and multiple accounts abuse, a block should be considered for all his accounts. I'd like to verify whether he's likely to abuse more in the future on Meta, but it might not be needed. Nemo 01:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

What policy am I being accused of violating? I explicitly announced that I would be using a role account to send anonymous email, but that announcement has been revision-deleted! My understanding is that role accounts are allowed on Meta. Is that not the case? James Salsman 01:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC) was reverted, not revdeleted. They are two different things. Tiptoety talk 01:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I see. I'm not used to seeing strikeout in histories like that. Is there a policy against role accounts on Meta? James Salsman 01:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Role account specifically says that they are not sanctioned. Tiptoety talk 01:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not quite sure if there was abuse of multiple accounts here or just stupidity. I'm actually leaning toward the latter given that the account was disclosed and that there doesn't seem to be much (obvious) ill intention here. A block isn't strictly necessary, I don't think. Meta-Wiki simply needs a break—a respite—from this user's stupidity. If he voluntarily goes away for a while (the equivalent of a block), I'd be perfectly content. --MZMcBride 02:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Salsman, I guess the real question here is do you confirm that the accounts I listed above are yours, and if so can you offer us an explanation as to why they were created? Tiptoety talk 01:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes; all were created to anonymize outgoing survey emails as I disclosed from the first. The others were not explicitly created on Meta, they were created on enwiki (where "Survey" was disallowed because it was already the name of someone's global account) but they became automatically created here when I browsed a Meta page while logged in on enwiki. Note that WP:UNBAN specifically allows emails to enwiki admins, and I have announced repeatedly that I am trying to support my ban appeal by service to the community. None of the accounts were used for editing; only for sending email. James Salsman 02:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Mass email is exactly what I'm worried about. It's not really a matter of being banned, I wouldn't have sent so many emails myself without some clearer community/process support. Assuming good faith, I'd want to be sure that you won't repeat the mistake. Thanks, Nemo 09:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
The survey had been approved for distribution for more than 2.5 years. I discussed it with Philippe and tried to discuss it with Sue over that period, I discussed it with Philippe in the days prior to the most recent Office Hour, on IRC during the most recent Office Hour, and I stated that I would be sending emails, and I discussed those emails while I was sending them. Given the fact that people have been misrepresenting my actions in a way which appears to be intentional, and that I have been told that there is a policy requiring pre-approval for such work, but apparently that policy has not yet been drafted, and that I was told the legal department directed me to destroy the collected data and was expecting my email even though they have not replied to it for days now, I think there are some very serious ethics issues here. James Salsman 17:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Nemo: I'd be more inclined to assume good faith regarding the multiple account creations if this weren't, y'know, habit for this user. --MZMcBride 20:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Good faith about what? Has anyone suggested that the survey was harmful in any way or that I am going to use the results for some nefarious purpose? Several formerly inactive admins who received the survey have already returned to enwiki editing, which is a far more positive result than anyone had hoped. I am certain that the results will be even more useful, but they will have to be posted to mailing lists since there has been an Office Action deleting the preliminary results. I am still waiting to hear back from the legal department who I was told authorized the deletion of the preliminary results, ordering me to the delete the respondent data, and were expecting my email. James Salsman 22:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

←Getting back on track to the topic at hand. Since Salsman confirmed that CHSTF (talk · contribs) was one of his (I thought it may have been a false positive on my end), I ran a few more checks. I found that Tashir (talk contribs deleted contribs logs block user block log CentralAuth AllContribs checkuser investigate) and Selery (talk contribs deleted contribs logs block user block log CentralAuth AllContribs checkuser investigate) are practicly   Confirmed socks of yours as well. I should note that both are currently blocked on for abusing multiple accounts [4], [5]. Salsman, are these accounts yours as well? Tiptoety talk 07:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to confirm or deny. Note that Selery was blocked because of an ANI report by at least three GNAA members. I have had more than enough trouble with GNAA malice off-wiki far beyond anything I've ever been accused of. James Salsman (talk) 18:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Given this most recent evidence I have indef blocked Salsman for abusing multiple accounts. Tiptoety talk 19:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Spam accounts

Hi. Consider checking these spamming accounts. They folow the same edit pattern described here (Polish spam text on user page with a link on the beginning). They might be editing from new ranges or previous range block expired (iirc, a range block was done a few months ago). Thanks in advance.” Teles (T @ L C S) 21:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Only Debbraddpperry is new, I already checked the other two earlier this day and blocked/locked all accounts I found. No new socks on Debbraddpperry (yet). -Barras talk 22:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)



I request a check to certify the following sockfarm used for manipulation a steward confirmation by dishonestly misrepresent opposings.

They all sockpuppets of the long time banned eswiki user Liutprando/Belibaste es:Magister Mathematicae 05:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Please also check the following three accounts. See also this CheckUser request on the Spanish Wikipedia.
Trijnstel (talk) 09:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


Spam bots

Please check the following account for more socks. It's most likely a new one in the series of spam bots, see also these locks. I can perform a check on some projects if you need it.

Trijnstel (talk) 00:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

  • More information: there was another spambot attack on 28 February 2012. PeterSymonds locked the accounts involved (starting with Raspezdoloff2047 and Svavolyayana1953 being the last one that night). Bsadowski CU'ed it and blocked globally. Mathonius (talk) 00:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
  •   Completed: CheckUser says you guys got them all already. Everyone has already been blocked/locked. Tiptoety talk 06:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

This is probably the wrong place but not sure where to sed it. blocked apparently. really? Why such a large range? That will inconvenince a largish number of DSL users behind New Zealand's primary ISP (Telecom). I only offer occasional edits on wikipedia, and now I find a massive range from my ISP is blocked. As a result I can't even use the recover password function to log in, after which presumably things would be ok. Which is brokenness imho. I could probably proxy in but meh, why bother. The edit I was going to offer was trivial, however please consider removing or revising that block. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 13:26, 7 March 2012‎ was blocked in 2010 for a while as a "checkuserblock", see here, but it's not blocked at the moment. Not locally and not globally. Trijnsteltalk 13:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
It is blocked at English Wikipedia [6]. Presumably a sockpuppet going ballistic. I will mark this for Avraham's review. billinghurst sDrewth 14:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Well, that range has been abused by a long term vandal across several Wikimedia projects. However, this IP is currently not blocked on meta and also not globally (as Trijnstel mentioned above). I think This relates to the current block of that range on enwiki (see here). You may want to contact Avi via meta about this. We can't really help you here. -Barras talk 14:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks guys, I'll check out your suggestions —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 20:23, 7 March 2012‎


This new Thongkaka account spammed on meta today, see this request for more info. Mathonius (talk) 21:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

It has been dealt with that already. -Barras talk 21:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


Another one of those cross-wiki pattern spambots. Please consider investigating this one, so perhaps the underlying IP can be blocked globally. Thanks, Mathonius (talk) 09:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

  •   Done. CegadiXoyeca visited and Vito has (apparently) CU'ed him. Mathonius (talk) 10:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Not done, then. —Marco Aurelio (Nihil Prius Fide) 14:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


Status:    Done

Probably some new accounts of the "epsom salt" spammer. Please consider CU'ing them, so the underlying IP can be blocked globally. Mathonius (talk) 01:23, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

They edited from a web host that's already globally blocked. (Global blocks don't apply on metawiki.) —Pathoschild 01:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
I had blocked that range locally, but forgot to prevent them from creating accounts... Sorry! Mathonius (talk) 15:51, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


Status:    Done

The indefinitely blocked Walter55034 is trying to evade his block by (ab)using other accounts. These ducks have both been blocked as well, but please consider investigating these accounts. Mathonius (talk) 15:51, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

No more socks found. -Barras talk 15:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


Status:    Done

His behaviour is similar to that of David35814, see for example [7] and [8]. Please investigate if these accounts are related and consider blocking the underlying IP. Mathonius (talk) 12:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

  Completed Same range, but (slightly) different UAs. However, it's a duck and no more socks. -Barras talk 13:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


Status:    Done

विकिजी's behaviour is similar to that of Walter55034, but I'm not sure they are related. Anyway, he tried to evade his block as well and विकिजी has been CU'ed by Herbythyme (on Commons?) a while ago. Please consider investigating विकिजी and the new account Ali3452. Mathonius (talk) 15:51, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, those are not related and all the Ali[number] accounts are already blocked/locked. -Barras talk 15:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Let me change that, this is the Ali[number] guy. Just caught him on simple and now some more here. Locked/blocked all the accounts and did some other necessaries to stop him. -Barras talk 18:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


This is probably another one of those pattern spambots. Could it be investigated? Mathonius (talk) 10:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not urgent, but has anyone looked at this request? Mathonius (talk) 16:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
  CheckUser is not for fishing - No edits, "probably", etc. AGF. -Barras talk 18:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)



Please check the above account. It's a sleeper account, used today after a silence of two years. (talk contribs deleted contribs logs block user block log CentralAuth AllContribs checkuser investigate) is most likely related to it, as therefore it's the long-term vandal SGF. Please check if he used more accounts. Thanks in advance. Trijnsteltalk 18:32, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Can't/Won't link between IPs and accounts, as usual. However, the account has no more socks. -Barras talk 18:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Please check Player23 (talk contribs deleted contribs logs block user block log CentralAuth AllContribs checkuser investigate) too if you want. Trijnsteltalk 09:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
UA matches, but different IP/range from the same provider. -Barras talk 10:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Player-23 is not a SGF account nor sockpuppet of Dragon2016. A SGF is a vandal who put anything that is Selena Gomez-related (e.g. political parties fictionally supporting her), like [9], [10], [11], and [12]. --Telerb Gularkov (talk) 03:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
billinghurst sDrewth 12:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


Please check this account because it has been used for cross-wiki spam, but it doesn't have SUL (and there are probably-valid accounts with this name). It is already blocked on meta, spammed simplewiki, and was blocked on enwiktionary. I think its IP should be globally blocked, if it's not already. πr2 (tc) 03:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

  Completed. Tiptoety talk 04:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


Oliver Nedeljkovic

Status:    Not done

Oliver Nedeljkovic (talk contribs deleted contribs logs block user block log CentralAuth AllContribs checkuser investigate)

This account has already been blocked on several wikis. It is suspected that this is an alternative account of Velimir Ivanovic because he vandalized mainly pages by the administrator who blocked him on sr.wp. This evening I blocked him here and on the Commons. Can you please check this account? If CU confirm that it's the same person, I suggest locking both accounts to prevent further cross-wiki vandalism. micki 19:46, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually it is already confirmed on sr.wp. micki 20:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

  Not done then. Both accounts are unified. If he's a sock there, he's a sock over here too. Regards. —Marco Aurelio (audiencia) 21:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Sure. There is no need for another checking. I couldn't find a report from sr.wp. Thanks anyway. micki 21:16, 14 May 2012 (UTC)



Status:    Done

Blockfreedev (talk contribs deleted contribs logs block user block log CentralAuth AllContribs checkuser investigate)

I know this looks a bit like fishing, but his edits are highly suspicious. "If you block me,I could easily get mad and mess up your life! I'm your worst nightmare!", "Help. Babylon,I may get blocked for no reason! Help!" and "Look at this unreasonable block: Ask for admin for unblocking,Please on wiki. He's been unblocked by an admin,but blocked back." Is this one of the long-term vandals of the English Wikipedia? Thanks in advance. Trijnsteltalk 14:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes - well spotted. Blocked - results to CU list next :) IP is globally blocked short term anyway. --Herby talk thyme 15:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll await your email. Changed the status to "done" now. Trijnsteltalk 15:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Socks of Animelover3 haunting enWP, and MW. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Вклад and Omega 3

Status:    Done

Are these sockpuppets of SGF? xwiki-contribsxwiki-date (alt)STIP infoWHOISrobtexgblockglistabuselogbullseye and a couple of other IPs from the same range were discussing something on the talk page of Thehelpfulone. Trijnstel then blocked for being used by SGF, after which Вклад and Omega 3 appeared out of nowhere. Omega 3 also participated in the discussion about this proposal, just like Warcraft (talk · contribs) did. Warcraft turned out to be another sockpuppet of SGF and is therefore blocked indefinitely. Mathonius (talk) 13:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I blocked them before I saw this. I keep a regular watch on that range when I see posts on his haunt pages. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism on Template:News

Status:    Done

Long-term vandalism (AtlanticDeep). All users are already blocked, but you might wish to check for any sleepers. Thanks in advance. Trijnsteltalk 20:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Ow and please block the underlying IP address for a while too and/or protect that template if it's not possible to do. Trijnsteltalk 20:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
All the accounts are already blocked here, no more socks, also nothing on the underlying range. -Barras talk 21:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


DjnseyNlkslb and FmkccfLttkcl

Status:    Done

These accounts match the pattern of this group, which Matanya and Ruslik investigated yesterday. Please consider taking a look at these new ones. Mathonius (talk) 05:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Tricky. I'd need the UA/IP my fellow stews found yesterday to make a conclusion here. -Barras talk 07:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Blocked and locked the accounts now. -Barras talk 12:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


Status:    Done

I suspect this might be another one of these spambots. Please consider investigating it. Mathonius (talk) 07:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Done, blocked, locked etc. -Barras talk 09:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


Status:    Done

Please consider checking this suspected spambot. See SRCU for related requests. Thanks, Mathonius (talk) 22:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't look like the spammer actually, different user information to the usual. -Barras talk 06:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


Status:    Done

This one also matches the pattern. Is it in any way related? Mathonius (talk) 03:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

  •   Inconclusive, they are editing via an open proxy which I have since blocked. Tiptoety talk 03:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. OnajGyf was created just now, would you please investigate that one too? Mathonius (talk) 03:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Once again an open proxy, which I have blocked. I am leaving these accounts unblocked for further review by administrators. Tiptoety talk 04:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC)



Status:    Done

See the thread on CU-L. OkamiKodomo is non-SUL, while LenoreeGoodman is a confirmed spambot on mediawikiwiki. Trijnsteltalk 13:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I was checking the user creation log (Special:Log/newusers); most new users are locked, but not blocked. Trijnsteltalk 13:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
The first one doesn't look like it (very common user info and unrelated IP) and the second one is already locked, but from a known IP. -Barras talk 14:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


Status:    Done

Vandalism and disruptive editing in Steward requests/Checkuser and User_talk:2011wp.--2011wp (talk) 05:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

For what I can see they are the following accounts are related:
They've been trying to game us, falsifying replies, vandalizing the project, vandalizing user pages and so on for a long time. The last two accounts are abusing sockpuppets to troll and disrupt users both at talk pages and on request pages.
-- MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the check, MarcoAurelio. I blocked and locked them all. Trijnsteltalk 18:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


Status:    Done

These spam-only accounts are obviously related. Could their underlying IP address/range be blocked? Mathonius (talk) 07:09, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

While it would only affect a small range, I'd try it without rangeblock for now. Please re-port if there are more such spam-only accounts. -Barras talk 07:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Unless I'm checking the wrong ones they are using abused IPs. One is a mail server (which I've blocked for a year), the other is an abused IP and blocked for 6 months. --Herby talk thyme 07:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
OK - looking further a small abused range I think. I'll try and check it out more later. --Herby talk thyme 07:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


Status:    Done

Perhaps it's good to check this spam-only account (non-SUL)? I suspect more spambots on the underlying range and/or it could be an abused IP. Trijnsteltalk 22:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I found one other spam account on the underlying /16, however, there are also several good faith editors on that range, very common UA and all. I'd say there is not enough evidence to block/lock more accounts. -Barras talk 07:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


Status:    Done

One more possible spambot, unlocked/unblocked. It matches the known pattern. Please check it and don't forget the underlying range. ;) Thanks! Trijnsteltalk 10:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Apparantly   Done by Barras as I noticed a lock and a few blocks. Trijnsteltalk 10:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Another one to check:

Thanks again. Trijnsteltalk 10:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I mark this one as   Done as well. Thank you, Barras. Trijnsteltalk 12:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


New spam account?

Status:    Done

Is this a new spambot? It matches the known pattern per the recently blocked accounts Ginger8Q and BorisBU. Thanks in advance! Trijnsteltalk 13:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Status:    Done

And one more you might wish to check. It's most certainly a spambot. Trijnsteltalk 12:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Herby blocked. -Barras talk 12:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Status:    Done

And one more. Have fun. ;) Trijnsteltalk 22:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Blocked and locked - confirmed privately by a meta CU. Trijnsteltalk 22:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Status:    Done

One more I coincidentally found. Please check and block/lock him if necessary. Trijnsteltalk 12:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Apparantly   Done by Barras. Trijnsteltalk 19:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Status:    Done

This looks like a spambot too, same pattern etc. No edits yet though and only registered on Meta-Wiki. Trijnsteltalk 17:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

  Done, blocked by Barras. Trijnsteltalk 19:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Status:    Done

One more spambot. This one looks obvious too, but please check it anyway and block the IP/range. Trijnsteltalk 12:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

  •   Done - Open proxy blocked. Tiptoety talk 04:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Did you check JaneenCcw (talk · contribs) too? (As this account isn't blocked...) Trijnsteltalk 10:24, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
      • I did. I see no contributions on any projects, and once again some random IP and random   Inconclusive I guess? Tiptoety talk 17:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
        • Is the IP Chinese or likely to be a webhost? Otherwise the UA usually helps too. Trijnsteltalk 21:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Status:    Done

Created in June 2012, but used today to spam. Please check; he probably used two different IPs. Trijnsteltalk 21:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Status:    Done

And this one's most likely a spambot too. (Sorry for all the requests...) Trijnsteltalk 21:59, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Added a few more. Luggszf56 (talk · contribs) already spammed; please block the underlying IP addies for a while. Trijnsteltalk 13:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Query need for a SPI

Status:    Not done

We had a number of IPs and new accounts vote at this RfC.[13] The outcome was not significantly changed by this activity but I have some questions regarding the new accounts since the employer of one of them (Internet Brands) has lauched legal attacks.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

  •   Declined - Per the privacy policy we do not publicly link named accounts to IPs. Additionally, given the subject of the request I suggest involving the foundation. Tiptoety talk 17:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Long-term vandal

Status:    Done

I don't think these accounts have been checked yesterday. Please do so and block the IP; I guess it's a long-term vandal. Trijnsteltalk 13:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Both on different proxies, but related. Not much can be done here. -Barras talk 18:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC)



Status:    Done

These pattern accounts were created simultaneously. Please consider investigating them. Could they be spambots? Mathonius (talk) 02:32, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

  Done spambot, thx — billinghurst sDrewth 01:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


Status:    Done

I suspect pattern spambots. Please investigate thease accounts --Ignacio   (talk) 00:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Done — billinghurst sDrewth 15:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)




Status:    Done

diq:Karber:Gagamen (in Zazaki Wikipedia) implied that he has many sockpuppets in Meta. Moreover most of them are paticipant of this discussion. Takabeg (talk) 02:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Takabeg, will you please provide me with the diff in which Gagamen implied that he has sock accounts? Thanks, Tiptoety talk 03:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Here. Takabeg (talk) 06:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • For starters, I would like to mention this block log entry on Secondly, the following are   Confirmed:
  • The following are   Confirmed socks of one another and it is   Possible bordering on technically   Unlikely they are related to the above group:
  • With regards to this group, I would not look too far into the technical results and more into the behavioral evidence that is clearly here.
  • These accounts are   Stale:
  • And the following are   Unrelated:

Tiptoety talk 15:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your interest and effort. By the way, how about User:Arde, User:Zazamental, User:Zazabewran, User:Omed Veşnosıpê ? Takabeg (talk) 00:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I meant to comment on Arde (talk · contribs) in my first posy. Anyways, I went ahead and added those four accounts to their respective groups in my results above. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 07:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Merci. Takabeg (talk) 05:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)