Steward requests/Checkuser/2009-04


The following discussion is closed.

Is the user Kjellgunnarlarsen the same as the user writing a previous contribution in the discusssion about no:Talk:SOS Rasisme? [1] A check user on this issue is not discussed internally at no.wp, but it is far beyond acceptable limits at the project. The user is given an indefinite ban but it should be lifted if the user is not the same. Jeblad 12:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not clear what disruption there is here... Are you asking whether the named user is the same as the IP which made the edit you linked to?  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Someone has signed anonymous edits over several years with the same name, often described various aspects of other editors and their work, sometimes in less flattering words, in this edit it was especially less flattering. After being removed by two fellow admins someone uses the same name and reenters most of the previous obscene edit. If necessary I guess it would be possible to get a transcript, but I prefer that someone else do that part. Probably there are several editors involved from the same IPs, as this person work for an organization which has been involved in discussions about a disputed article at no.wp. Jeblad 02:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  Unnecessary - there is no need to perform a check to see that the named account is disruptive.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 13:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser requests of Chinese Wikipedia

The following discussion is closed.

The following useres were all registered in late March or April, and have added some inappropriate advertisement of a book 博弈圣经 (Bible of Game Theory) as well as a spam link in a variety of articles. Please do a checkuser since our community normally will not indefinitely block VOAs.

Thank you in advance. —Bencmq 11:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

  Additional information needed What is "VOA"? What domains were spammed, and were they on related topics (specifically, were they related to the book you mentioned)?  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 13:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, VOA=vandalism-only accounts. All affected article varies from Game theory to entropy, Science etc. most of them, except Game theory, are not related to the book. The link was —Bencmq 13:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
OK, but you said that these accounts all spammed the book? If not, I don't see how you have any reason to suspect they're related.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 13:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  Unnecessary please be advised   CheckUser is not for fishing . I don't see any abuse here --Mardetanha talk 13:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I am from zh.wikipedia. I reviewed and reverted all edits of these accounts earlier today. All these accounts listed above spammed exactly the same book along with a link.--Wcam 14:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Blacklist the website and block spammers --Mardetanha talk 14:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Mardetanha, IMHO this request should not be denied, it perfectly falls into the cu policy, multiple accounts have been abused to place unwanted links/content, there might be more socks and sleepers and IMHO this check should be done, please rethink Your decision, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 14:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok , if you think this could help the project , let's do it --Mardetanha talk 14:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, after Wcam's clarification, I think this is an appropriate request. I'll be doing it shortly. Note the domain has been blacklisted on zhwiki, and is being monitored elsewhere.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The following are   Confirmed the same (* indicates users you didn't list above):

  • Yishimi
  • Fandjane
  • Zhifain
  • Hiwegjer
  • 孤费求独 *
  • Vengain
  • Gzjiangtao
  • 直飞但第 *
  • Haheas
  • Leo062104133
  • Greentainge *
  • 菲戈飞
  • Shjinogo *
  • Chanehu *
  • 流穿蜂发
  • Sk3296
  • 如雪烟尘
  • 风残花来
  • Chifehifew
  • Savensd
  • Gavene
  • 微米拉菲
  • 千年树

3 more I would say   Likely:

  • Sllx1990 *
  • Slseadi *
  • Netrider1964 *

I don't think a rangeblock is feasible here.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Kegns has blocked the confirmed sock puppet accounts per CU result. We will keep an eye on the last 3 accounts since they have not made any edits. Thank you again for your help. Bencmq 07:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser requests of Japanese Wiktionary

The following discussion is closed.

Please check this account:

Because he/she is continuing to edit some jargons inappropriately, I think he/she is a sockpappet of a blocked user(maybe EMPIS or YUNA), and also he/she is the same user of wikt:ja:User:レグノワール and User:Opaopa in Meta.

And furthermore I hope you to check accounts below. Probably I expect that these are the same entirely including ja:User:有杜似矢

Best regards--Mtodo 19:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC) I've revised a little.--Mtodo 04:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

group 1
The main account "User:有杜似矢" was the only one editing on 4 of the 5 IP. These IP geolocalise from China. On the 5th one, I found :
  • user:ビツチダナミノリチハラ that edited the same day as the main account
  • user:回蝦屋 showed on one of the main account's IP but more than a week before. Can possibly be someone else (?)
  • And also, a list of user banned in february : Natsuki, 艪尼衰螺, ゼーゼーラーラー, 蛾楪賓, 魯尓瀬羅, EER, YYR and 愛海.
group 2

the following accounts where created on the same IP in a few minutes interval :

All are already blocked

group 3

user:ラーク, user:レルク and user:러크 where created in a very short interval (11 minutes) on the same IP on march 31. None are blocked nor have any edit. That IP is the main IP of the account of one of your sysop, but as it look these are not related to our problem, his identity will not be told.

group 4

user:煮廼壬以, user:潟町駅停・通 and user:一生ギシアンできない無都道 were created from, which seems to be a compromised computer/server (you should probably block the IP for a long time). the user-agent signature correlate with the one of the main account 有杜似矢.

group 5

隷孔 was created from, which is a compromised PC/server. IP should be blocked for long

group 6

ゴンニノチッチ was created on the same IP as a serie of other blocked accounts from 28日2月 and 01日3月 : ハァビットソン , 訣別する , 訣別する, 訣別する, ワンワンライス, 霊狗 and 零苦. computer signature for all of them also correlate with the main account 有杜似矢.

group 7

炉怩施裸於脂舞佐 has the same computer signature as the main account

group 8

まーん and ちーん were created from the same IP, (which looks like an open proxy or a compromised server). same comp signature as main account.

group 9

ガチャラッガチャラッガチャラッ and 中逆ヤアーッ! where created from the same IP. computer signature also correlates.

group 10

Eyazawa1 was created from an iPhone. cannot say much else.

group 11

辞書の改革なくして辞書に成長なし was created from what seems to be a compromised canadian PC/server : Were also created and blocked on the same day : ODOTUMNAMDAMGNIWTEFLRAF, 既得権粉砕, 断行徹底, 龍龍紀丹, 天網恢恢 . computer signature correlate to main account.

finished. DarkoNeko 00:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Excellent!! I admire your very minute investigation and deeply appreciate your kindness.--Mtodo 00:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

文@ko.wikipedia, 武@ko.wikipedia

The following discussion is closed.

Please check ko:User:文,ko:User:武, disrupting users. These users have showed very similar edits, and also these names are very similar. I think this is very doubtful. Thank you. --Zerostone5482 08:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I want to add ko:USer:本, ko:User:言, ko:User:告, ko:User:章,ko:User:-書-, ko:User:號, ko:USer:法, suspicious users seemed to be sockpuppets of 文 and 武 adidas 12:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
and Check this [2]. They are already on the list of 'ko.wikipedia request for sysops'. adidas 12:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
  Confirmed that all of these usernames have the same IP.--Jusjih 17:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you so much adidas 10:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

何健的粉丝@zhwikiquote, 何健的粉丝团@zhwikiquote

The following discussion is closed.

I suspect that q:zh:User:何健的粉丝 and q:zh:User:何健的粉丝团 may have done sockpuppet abuse at [3] and [4] on 2009-03-14 at Chinese Wikiquote vote for deletion about a person named 何健 with questionable notability. Both of the usernames voted to keep the article without asserting the notability. I am asking a disinterested steward to check their IPs as I, a sysop there, am avoiding the conflict of interest there.--Jusjih 17:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

  •   Confirmed
    • 何健的粉丝团
    • 何健的粉丝
    • 刀客杨佳

 — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. We have dealt with these usernames accordingly.--Jusjih 19:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

paulo@ko.wikipedia, PauloHelene@ko.wikipedia, MayJune@ko.wikipedia

The following discussion is closed.

Another suspicious users.

  1. ko:User:Paulo
  2. ko:User:PauloHelene
  3. ko:User:MayJune

First, I have to note that 'Paulo' has been blocked for 6 months because of his(her) disrupting behaviours and sockpuppet ids, ko:User:Mkpaulo, ko:User:김명준하상

Next two users are suspicious users. PauloHelene is related to an incident with a ko:User:ChongDae [5]. Someone stole Chongdae's password and gave PauloHelene some authorities.(and now PauloHelene's authorities are removed)

And also see this, en:User:PauloHelene, User:PauloHelene. This user has almost the same user page to ko:User:Paulo, and claims that 'MayJune' is his(her) sockpuppet.

I wonder if they are really sockpuppets, so I hope you can make it clear. Thanks. adidas 10:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

  • I've run a preliminary check, but I need more information to interpret the results. Specifically, what ocurred with ChongDae's password, and what do you mean by "gave PauloHelene some authorities... now removed"? Thanks  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
ChongDae is one of the bureaucrats in Korean Wiki. ChongDae's password was stolen by someone, and the password-thief gave Administrator and Bureaucrat authorities to ko:User:PauloHelene. Korean Wiki administrators think that PauloHelene him(her)self is the thief, and these three sockpuppets'(Paulo, PauloHelene, MayJune) contributions are very similar. So we need to checkuser them. Also, I regard it as an 'individual information criminal' and want to block all concerned. --Kys951(Admistrator of 03:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Please check ChongDae's user right change log. We should check who stole ChongDae's password and abused.--Kwj2772 () 06:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarification. Here are the results:

  •   Likely: MayJune gained access to ChongDae's account to change the rights of PauloHelene.
  •   Confirmed: PaulaHelene == Paulo.
  •   Inconclusive technical evidence beyond shared IP(s) to link MayJunePauloHelene/Paulo.

 — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

thank you for the efforts^^ adidas 08:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed.

This is a vandalizing user that is impersonating a known figure that I have gotten an e-mail from. I suspect that other users are doing this vandalizing to use Øyvindheians actions to leverage their own figures, credit and arguments. As the people I suspect and Øyvindheian are on complete opposite wings of the political specter.

  • Ollis83@nowp
  • Heian@nowp
  • Rorycn@nowp
  • Trondthorb@nowp
  • Kjellgunnarlarsen@nowp

-- Atluxity 21:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure I understand your reasoning here. What actions of Øyvindheian would bolster the reputation of the other named users, and what does that have to do with political affiliation? Equally, what does that have to do with abusing multiple accounts?  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I have deleted the edits done by the Øyvindheian, but it was blatant vandalism that could be used to say that this person was obviously not someone worth listening to. The political affiliation was just mentioned to explain why these people have disputes. This has to do with abusing multiple accounts because I suspect one user has made this user and impersonated an opponent to discredit the opponent and give himself an advantage in a dispute. As far as I understand, that is abuse of multiple accounts. -- Atluxity 22:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
OK, so you're alleging that all the named accounts (even Øyvindheian) are one user?  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 23:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
No, I dont think so. I suspect that one of those listed has also been abusing the Øyvindheian account. -- Atluxity 23:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Based on a conversation in IRC, it seems Øyvindheian is the sock puppet and the other listed users are potential sock masters. I don't think a check can be justified here, but I will get another opinion on that.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 23:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Se also previous request about Jeblad 11:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Lamalama, Zoozoo @ zh.wikipedia

The following discussion is closed.

I am checking whether the above two accounts are related.

Both users contributes to an article of a Hong Kong artist (Andrew Lam) only. The only difference is Lamalama made some minor edits on 23 December 2007, the day of registration of his/her account, while Zoozoo made destructions to the article.

After Zoozoo's recent destruction of the article led to protection of it, Lamalama post out comments requesting unprotecting the article, saying that Zoozoo is just updating the content. It is unusual that an account was reactivated after being silent for more than one year (Lamalama's contributions beforehand were only those after his/her registration, i.e. 23 December 2007).

In view of this, I am requesting a check whether these two accounts are related. Thank you.--Altt311 20:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

  Confirmed, highly likely that it is the same user. Leinad 21:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

SalmanParsi, SalmanSadegh, Tammar @fa.wikipedia

w:fa:User:SalmanParsi has been blocked in Persian wikipedia and after blocking two new user with names w:fa:User:Tammar and w:fa:User:SalmanSadegh protested with this blocking [6] and [7] than they blocked for sock puppetry but they mailed to me and said that isn't sock puppet of SalmanParsi. please check this users, Thanks!Amir 11:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser checks on fa: are notoriously difficult, as I have been told this is because most users use a variety of internet cafés and such. Having said that, I would say that SalmanSadegh is   Unlikely to be a sockpuppet, Tammar   Likely to be a sockpuppet of SalmanParsi. - Andre Engels 13:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Sikes@zhwiki, 林志强@zhwiki, 田力女子@zhwiki

w:zh:user:Sikes, w:zh:user:林志强 and w:zh:user:田力女子 is new user on zhwp. They many edit or create articles about saint-(in Chinese:圣xx/聖xx), and add many original research content(the mass articles have vfd). Plese check them is sock puppet? --Shizhao 14:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello Shizhao, please note that socketpuppets are not forbidden. Is there any abuse (for example used for manipulating voting)? Leinad 16:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Add zh:user:符字强, same reason. Abuse is add many original research content--Shizhao 17:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  Unnecessary Why don't you just block them? What difference would it be if you know whether or not they are the same user? If they add OR content, they are going to be blocked anyway, independent of their possible identity. --Thogo (talk) 19:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

en:s:user:Elsie Leeson

The following discussion is closed.

This user recreated s:Author:Billy Lee which has been previously created with junk data, and by a known abuser of open proxies and serial abuser of the system. The complexity of the post for a new one-time user adds to suspicious activity. -- billinghurst 11:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

  Not done Hm, looks like you'd better just protect that page for re-creation and block the user. It's obvious that it is the same user as before. CU seems unnecessary to me. Besides, enws has local checkusers. --Thogo (talk) 11:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

st:user:Fet bögjävel som älskar att vuxenmobba andra

The following discussion is closed.
Status:    Done

There has been a conflict on the Swedish Wikipedia since 2005, and harassment against Swedish users has been posted at the Sesotho wiki ever since. At this page some old elements of the conflicts are shown. In 2005 there was an IP check made, and it pointed towards sv:User:Torvindus [8] (or someone with the same IP). This user/IP-address has been connected with the troll en:User:Rienzo [9]. I wish for a IP check on the new Sesotho account to compare with the Swedish wiki. If it's only a proxy, it would better be blocked./Account 21:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello, no other users found, account got blocked/locked/hidden and checkusers informed, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 22:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

AmirAshkan and Bardia666 @fa.wikipedia

The following discussion is closed.

I strongly suspect that users AmirAshkan, and Bardia666 are the same user. They are interested in the same articles, and their literary style is very similar. Their activity times do not overlap suggesting that maybe the same person is using two different computers (maybe at work and at home). User:AmirAshkan was recently blocked by MardTanha on April 14 at 18:08 for a day, so if the two users are the same it would be evading a block using sockpuppets. They also engaged in an editwarring within 24 hours on the talk page of رضا فاضلی on farsi wikipedia. Thank you in advance. P.S. I am user دوستدار ويکيپديا on fa.wikipedia. --DoostdarWKP 23:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Also possible connection with user:Leosan who is known to be a Sockpuppeteer (please see the user page). Thanks --DoostdarWKP 07:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  Inconclusive as these three usernames have never shared any identical IPs.--Jusjih 01:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

zh:User:李孝俊, zh:User:符字强, zh:User:林志强, zh:User:指南針, zh:User:Sikes and zh:User:田力女子 @ zh.wikipedia

The following discussion is closed.

I suspect those accounts are controlled by a same person (perhaps zh:User:十字军大屠杀? This page lists some confirmed sockpuppets of 十字军大屠杀 if it might be useable). Because they voted to keep same articles which created by 林志强 (and have been requested for delete at zh:Wikipedia:頁面存廢討論). Please help check if they were sockpuppets controlled by same one. Thanks. --PhiLiP 02:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

And see Steward requests/Checkuser/2009-04#Sikes@zhwiki, 林志强@zhwiki, 田力女子@zhwiki--Shizhao 06:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

  Likely the same user:

Leinad 16:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. --PhiLiP 04:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

s:en:User:Doop the Froop and

The following discussion is closed.
Status:    Not done

I would like to know if this user used the above IP. I blocked the user for vandalism. A few minutes later, I received an e-mail from wikimedia, telling me that someone with IP requested a new password for my account. This IP has already been blocked previously on wikisource last year, and I reblocked it for 1 year. thanks ThomasV 09:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Handled locally. —Pathoschild 10:08:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Bluemangoa2z @ ml.wikipedia

The following discussion is closed.

I have a doubt about this user he had made some vandalism from this ip range ,, He had edited[10] by logging as anonymous. ip numbers are ,,, . Can you confirm this user is the person who doing this all? --Jigesh 13:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

  CheckUser is not for fishing --FiliP × 09:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Joao666 @ pt.wikipedia

The following discussion is closed.

Currently we dont have local checkusers on, which forces me to put this request here. The entire argumentation and exposure of evidences may be seen at pt:Wikipedia:CheckUser/Pedidos de verificação/Joao666. According to our policies, we have to collect 5 support signatures to endorse a checkuser request. I think Alexanderps could help here, since he is a Steward and a current checkuser on (he is not active just until he have other checkusers ellected. He could not keep the status alone.) Lechatjaune 15:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this request. I don't use the tool because I'm active in pt:wp. Thanks in advanced. Alex Pereira falaê 15:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

My request in nutshell:

So I ask to check pt:user:Quintinese, pt:user:Missigno, pt:user:NaiFudsu and pt:user:Joao666. If you need any more informantion, please let me know. Thank you very much, Lechatjaune 17:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I   Confirmed that user:Missigno and user:Quintinense are same person . But pt:user:Joao666 seems to be   Unrelated and of course   CheckUser is not a crystal ball --Mardetanha talk 17:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much indeed. Lechatjaune 18:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed.

i just want to make sure that these accounts are sockpuppet each other, because there are similar things in both of accounts.

My request is: ko:user:100범 and ko:user:Gaganara.

Because especially, user:100범 is keep disturbing edit and i am suspicious, and i want to confirm. So please let me know, thank you very much. -- Shyoon1 23:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

  Unrelated.--Jusjih 00:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
oh, really? i thought there is some relationship between those two, but does 100범 make any kind of sockpuppet? please confirm. -- Shyoon1 00:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I think that's what {{unrelated}} means.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 14:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)