Steward requests/Checkuser/2010-11



  Comment Some format changed to reflect the real case. Memail555 is originally from Thai Uncyclopedia, known in Thai Wikipedia as his possible usage of sockpuppet to support admin self-nomination, and writing annoying message to certain users. Recently this user has moved a user talk page to a rude word. Also note that per consensus of Thai uncyclopedia, this user and his counterpart have been indefinitely blocked. --G(x) 03:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

  Note: User:Finna have been renamed to Natza2010 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
  • Sorry Memail555@th.Wikipedia I Not Block
  Confirmed All accounts are the same person, including w:th:user:ธะวัชชัย . Regards - @lestaty discuţie 22:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


  Not done Shato edits are too old to check. es:Magister Mathematicae 21:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  Comment: Shouldn't you request an older log from a previous local checkuser? We are very familiar with this case. There are some previous requests here, here and here (and more if you need), where you can find some more recent accounts too. Could you reconsider?” TeleS (T PT @ C G) 00:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Since users were des-checkuserized, they shouldn't have access to the logs anymore. And if ex checkusers have information available on-wiki, it should be provided. You can't expect stewards to know the very details of local archives for every wiki.
Understand that, from our point of view only 2 usernames were provided, one of them unavailable to check and if those requesting don't provide more information we can't know where else to look. Therefore requests like this will be denied.
I'll review the case with the additional information es:Magister Mathematicae 02:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't see a strong correlation except sharing the same ISP. es:Magister Mathematicae 02:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry if I didn't make myself clear. I didn't require access to the logs. My question was if you considered necessary any personal record from a previous checkuser to perform the check. It is possible that another request involving an old account be made and some personal record might be necessary and, respectfully, it can't just be denied IMHO. I am agreed with what you said about providing a more complete info. Thanks anyway for reviewing the case and for your comment. If some day you think that any info from the previous checkusers may be useful and if you consider it is the correct procedure, be sure they will be willing to help. Thank you again.” TeleS (T PT @ C G) 06:33, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


  It looks like a duck to me, please request a block to local admins. Regards - @lestaty discuţie 22:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)



  Confirmed --dferg ☎ talk 14:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

츄앙... @ ko.wikisource

  •   Confirmed that these three usernames have had the same IP.Jusjih 03:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I think this account is relate with 츄석@ko.wikipedia etc (front paragraph account) --Betalph 04:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


All users above, w:zh:User:圣印 and w:zh:User:深市 are   Confirmed. Same IP addresses used on all accounts and same user-agent. - @lestaty discuţie 01:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks-Mys_721tx(talk) 02:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


  •   Completed - All those accounts are confirmed to be the same asshole user. Some proxys used:
  • No other sockpuppet accounts found.
  • Processing those sockpuppet accounts.

--dferg ☎ talk 14:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)



Group 2 and group 3   Likely--Shizhao 07:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


A couple of months ago, Slovene Wiki was the target of a malicious "experiment" in which a self-proclaimed group of researchers working under the username Feniks created a lot of articles copypasted from various copyrighted sources, testing how long it would be until they got caught. After discovery and admission (in Slovene), the user was blocked indefinitely because he/they couldn't be trusted anymore, and the work began to stubify all their contributions. Since last week, there has been some activity that we suspect might be linked to this "experiment" - a bunch of new users registered, most with nicknames following a similar pattern "NameNumber", each creating at least one article with content that was either clearly copied from online sources or at least looking as it was copied from somewhere. One of them - User:Phoenicis0011 - even has a name that clearly implies the connection. Below is a list of 10 of them:

We suspect this might be "phase 2" of the experiment (user Feniks clearly stated that individuals operating under this name might create new accounts - here), so I would like to request checking if either of those user's IPs matches User:Feniks'. Especially Phoenicis0011. Some further suspicious users are BC19, Danaja18 and Cuker. Even if they are unrelated to Feniks, we would like to know if they share any IPs between them. Hope this isn't too much to ask. Thank you, — Yerpo Eh? 19:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

  • I don't see any data on the log regarding checkuser of Feniks'... and account is too old to review. es:Magister Mathematicae 22:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
  • There's a strong relation between sl:User:AnjaT90, sl:User:TAnja321 (with deleted articles, but not listed above)
  • But otherwise, I don't find a strong relationship among the other accounts (they seem to be different people/places). es:Magister Mathematicae 23:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
So there is no way to check users that are inactive more than a couple of months? That's unfortunate, but thanks for the effort. We will deal with each suspected copyvio issue individually. — Yerpo Eh? 07:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
No, there are no available records. And those recent accounts you linked, from a pure checkuser point of view, are not related. es:Magister Mathematicae 07:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


Avalaible technical data confirms the relationship between the following accounts:

No other accounts sockpuppet accounts where found. As for commons, they have their own CheckUsers. Should you need data from them please see Commons:Requests for checkuser. Also, as the accounts have been abused at some projects I have globally locked them all, the latest one will be locked & hidden as you've said it is insulting. Request processed.
--dferg ☎ talk 14:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Dferg, for your investigation. But what shall be done in case the user continues registering accounts using other IP addresses from the range of his disposal. Does locking prevent this kind of behaviour? Spiritia 16:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello Spiritia. Locking prevents an user account to continue being exploited on other wikis. Locked accounts can not edit on any wiki, see info page. If he keeps creating vandal accounts block them and if the abuse grows you can approach us here so that we can study the possibility of placing range blocks on his IPs. Regards, --dferg ☎ talk 22:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. Spiritia 19:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
You are welcome. --dferg ☎ talk 23:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

N10@th.wikipedia and นโปเกรียน วินิฮาร์ต@th.encyclopedia

  Comment ผมได้ยินว่า เจ้า เอ็น10 เป็นเกรียนปลาร้าวัยจริง ไม่แตกต่างกันเลย ขอบล็อก N10ในวิพีเดีย และ ไร้สาระนุกรมด้วย The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) .
The reasons provided by (talk · contribs · CA) does not address in any way the use of the CheckUser tool. Please see the relevant policy and the instructions at the top of the page before making a request. Request declined. --dferg ☎ talk 13:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
  Comment Please Note that Thai Wikipedia and Thai Uncyclopedia is a completely different project, and the use of Checkuser are limited within the foundation and its project, not Wikia. (The hosting of Uncyclopedia) --G(x) 15:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Nicholas Waquim Sales@pt.wikipedia

  Unrelated - From a pure CheckUser point of view the users do not seem to be related. --dferg ☎ talk 22:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


  Likely - both operates from the same range and has the same UA. Another user that could need a review is Jonathan Pereira da Silva --Jyothis 02:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Jyothis. Could you please clarify what do you mean by saying that Jonathan Pereira da Silva "need a review"?” TeleS (T PT @ C G) 03:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
In the same range, has the same UA, but not listed in your list. Would be nice to check it out. could be unrelated as well. --Jyothis 04:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
His edits are not similar with the others and the account was registered in april 2010. If the checkuser tool can't confirm, maybe it is not related. I blocked the listed ones. Thank you.” TeleS (T PT @ C G) 04:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
I have a question: who is supposed to make this review on Jonathan Pereira da Silva edits, as pt.wikipedia doesn't have checkusers at this moment? Should the sysops help in this issues? CasteloBrancomsg 05:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Local sysops should check their edit / behavioural patterns against the possible socks. --Jyothis 12:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)