Steward requests/Checkuser/2009-09



The following discussion is closed.

I surmise ko:user:100범 and ko:user:판델라 are same person

because they have a lot of same acting such as editing, thinking so please check to ko:user:100범 and ko:user:판델라 --Chrismaster 10:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you'll need to provide a more detailed explanation of how their editing patterns are the same.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 05:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I surmise ko:user:100범 and ko:user:판델라 are same person too.

The first reason is both are from Kyeong-sang-buk-do there aren't well-known korea wiki users from Kyeong-sang-buk-do him. Furthermore, Kyeongsangbuk-do is much smaller than Califolnia(about Califolnia 1/100)

Second, ko:user:100범 and ko:user:판델라 have same thinking. ko:user:100범 and ko:user:판델라 admire communist and they hate Democracy. For example, ko:user:100범 and ko:user:판델라 hate Democracy country such as South Korea. They hate Democracy political party named Min Joo Dang. ko:user:100범 and ko:user:판델라 hate Kim Dae Jung and No Mu Hyeon. Because Kim Dae Jung and No Mu Hyeon are famous person who resist communism dictator. Also ko:user:100범 and ko:user:판델라 admire communism dictator, named Park Jeong Hee.

Also ko:user:100범 and ko:user:판델라 hate woman and they hate feminist such feminist as Kim Dae Jung and No Mu Hyeon and foreign feminist.

3rd, ko:user:100범 and ko:user:판델라 valdalize Korea history same patterns. --Nartwarch8 02:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Therefore, I surmise ko:user:100범 and ko:user:판델라 are same person too. --Nartwarch8 02:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the additional detail, but I don't see that you've stated how these accounts are disruptive to the project. If they're not causing harm then there's no need to run a checkuser.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

They valdaled user page. and they vote immorally. so please checkuser ko:user:100범 and ko:user:판델라

also please check ko:user:짐보신당 ko:user:정우익, ko:user:정우익2, ko:user:정우익3, ko:user:양심있는사람, ko:user:개마리, ko:user:hkwon, ko:user:kbr0706, ko:user:알밤한대는 당장 위키백과에서 꺼져라

[1][2][3][4][5] --Nartwarch8 03:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

  Unrelated — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 14:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

阮雄@nn.wikipedia + BenjaminNguyen19770617@nn.wikipedia

The following discussion is closed.

Probably vandal Nipponese Dog Calvero (en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nipponese Dog Calvero) or impersonator on nn.wikipedia. Is it possible to find any IPs/ranges for us to block?

阮雄 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
BenjaminNguyen19770617 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser) --Jorunn 18:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

One more today:

John0617 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

--Jorunn 19:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
29 August:

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

This is a cross wiki issue, the accounts user:阮雄, user:John0617, and user:騜 have been blocked on sevral wikis, and there are probably many more socks.
--Jorunn 13:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  Doing..., --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 14:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


I would have no problem sharing the IP range with an admin of in private for a block, there is only this user on that range who seems to make troubles. You can contact me via special:emailuser/Spacebirdy. Also I think these accounts probably all need a lock. Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 15:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed.

Please check uk:Користувач:Ink and (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser). After uk:Користувач:Ink (renamed short time ago from uk:Користувач:Prima_klasy4na, previously checked here was blocked, he evaded block using his still existing (now blocked) account uk:Користувач:Prima_klasy4na. However, a few minutes later appeared a comment at Administrators' noticeboard by uk:Користувач:, requsting to take measures in this situation. That's very likely a block evasion (same style), so I think a check is needed in order to know whether we should reblock uk:Користувач:Ink for block evasion. Thanks — NickK 20:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Please also check Port (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser), registered soon after blocking of uk:Користувач:Ink, his first edits were creating new templates, template documentation and sorting articles without infoboxes, which was very typical for uk:Користувач:Ink, (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser), whose only contributions were reverting to Ink's version (which damaged the template), (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser), whose only contributions were abusing administrators and (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser), who only created abusing redirects towards me and administrator who blocked uk:Користувач:Ink. Thanks and hope to see results soon in order to stop this — NickK 13:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  •   Likely: Prima klasy4na
  •   Confirmed: Port

 — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 14:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed.

Please check these user. I doubt they are EMPIS(regular vandal).

橋頭保を築造する and ジッチニブンネーネー are created in short time and these username is very similar to EMPIS's sockpuppets. プロスパ is also similar name to EMPIS's socks.

予約する is obvious vandal user. See this (「死ね」 means "die"). I think this user is probably a sock of EMPIS.

Best regards, --Ninomy 09:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

  • プロスパ
 — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 13:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Kftsang hk, Todakoen, Mykazetachi@zhwiki

The following discussion is closed.

These three accounts are involved in inappropriate deletion request of articles based on the notability issue in some different times. As it is believed that the inappropriate deletion requests made by these three users are caused by the deletion of articles that they created, their actions can be seen as violation of "Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point". Based on this similar behavior, I would like to request a user check to confirm whether these three users are related. Thank you.--Altt311 05:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

  Unrelated No ip overlap, different cities and isps--Cspurrier 01:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

wikt:ja:User:柚子胡椒 etc.

The following discussion is closed.

I suspect these users are sockpuppets of wikt:ja:User:風鈴. 風鈴 has been blocked because of dialogue refusal, while (s)he contributed against ja.wikt-local policies/guidelines. These 2 accounts did very similar contributions, that's why I request for CheckUser. Best regards, --Ninomy 00:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Similar in what way? Please also be clear about what the disruption to the project is.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 14:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I guess he is talking about EMPIS/YUNA, who was vandalizing ja.wikt already multiple times in the past. Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 14:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
    •   Unlikely as no identical IPs are found among these three usernames.--Jusjih 00:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

KEIM, Wrote@zhwiki

The following discussion is closed.

Please check zh:User:Wrote, if these user is sockpuppets of zh:User:KEIM. zh:User:KEIM is blocked now. KEIM used a more puppets , see this. I think this user really the same person , but we went to have more evidence sure that . Thank you.--Advisory 09:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Have there been previous checks on KEIM sockpuppetry? (Links please.) --თოგო (D) 09:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
  •   Likely: Ablelast
  •   Possible: Wrote
The users geolocate to opposite sides of the planet, but the IPs I am seeing look like open proxies or compromised machines (though I can't check conclusively at present). I'll pass that along to someone else if I can find someone available & if not I'll do it later & note the results. For now, I'd tend to consider Wrote to be   Unlikely unless the behavioural evidence is highly compelling, which I cannot judge.
 — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
I did the check again and i would like to echo what mike said above but also i can advise you to block as an open proxy --Mardetanha talk 22:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Bajatvj, Mokaw@zhwiki

The following discussion is closed.

Please check whether zh:User:Bajatvj and zh:User:Mokaw are sock puppet accounts of each other. Currently, both are blocked for 6 months and 1 month respectively. I suspect that the account Bajatvj@zhwp has been used to circumvent the block on Mokaw@zhwp in Sep 2009. This suspection is based on the following reasons:

  1. Both accounts show some common interest in editing articles about TV programmes and Chinese culture. In particular, some articles like zh:反華 and zh:格微软件 had been edited by both accounts.
  2. The "active periods" of both accounts suggest a link between them. The account Mokaw was created in on 1 Apr 2009, while Bajatvj was being blocked at that time. Bajatvj became active again after the block expired on June. Then Mokaw was blocked by some causes else. While the block on Mokaw expired on 16 Jul 2009, Bajatvj became dormant. Mokaw was blocked again on 2 Sep 2009, and then Bajatvj becomes active again, until got blocked on 14 Sep 2009.
  3. Both accounts like to empty their own user_talk pages to remove notices and warnings from other users.
  4. Both accounts show an interest in moving articles, usually without discussion.
  5. Both accounts show an interest in adding "蔣介石 / 蔣中正" (i.e. en:Chiang Kai-shek) in "regional vocabulary conversion" in
  6. Bajatvj had been blocked in 2008 as the user was suspected to have used the sock puppet zh:User:大嘢 to circumvent block in 2007.

--Mewaqua 15:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

  •   Doing... --Millosh 17:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  •   Stale until I get more information about network topology related to zh.wp. The problem is that I am able to connect dozens of Chinese Wikipedians. --Millosh 19:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  •   Inconclusive, but, probably, they are not connected. --Millosh 10:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I checked again and I may just confirm my previous conclusion: inconclusive, probably not. --Millosh 10:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Bran, Bleiz, Meven, Gad@brwiki

The following discussion is closed.

Please check whether br:Implijer:Bran, br:Implijer:Bleiz, br:Implijer:Meven and br:Implijer:Gad are sock puppet accounts of each other.

  1. br:Implijer:Meven is currently blocked for inapropriate behaviour but is a candidate for sysop status
  2. All accounts have a similar edit history, systematically deleting changes made by a particular user
  3. All accounts other than br:Implijer:Meven are of very recent creation, one after the other, and all have animal names.

Thank you for your swift reply, Neal (Kaozeal) (sysop and bureaucrat on Breton Wikipedia) 03:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It is   Inconclusive whether Meven, Bleiz and Bran are the same, but Gad is definitely   Unrelated. --FiliP ██ 16:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)