Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in March 2011, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion.
Could you check ka:user:Ouzo the IP-address of this user and, I’d like to know if there is still any contributions of this user in Georgian Wikipedia.
Discussion: No local Checkusers;
Reason:He/she uses several accounts and acts autocratically, does not pay attention the talks. --Petre17 16:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Additional information needed I think that we need more info here. Which are the suspected sockpuppet accounts?, where is the ongoing abuse? In case that there's abuse: are other methods (like blocking) not working? Why technical evidence will help you in this case? In few words: CheckUser is not for fishing
This user, which basic account is Diaoha, has been registering himself with variety names and tries to scandalize Georgian Wikipedia. One of his accounts is mentioned above (Revenge time). Except this, he has several accounts (ka:user talk:Iaponeli – we are sure in this.), 13th december he registered new name, after he changed template autocratically in Georgian Wikipedia, which caused harsh discussion. Admins can not block him, because of his intrigues, he made friends with some of admins and they interrupt us during working in Wikipedia. If you can assure us that these accounts belong to one and same user, so admins could could have appropriate arguments to block him. Hope, you will get correct decision and let avoid Georgian Wikipedia scandals. --Petre17 20:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Could you please fasten the discussion, because some one is prepearing the provocation.--Petre17 14:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Done Ouzo and NewOuzo are the same, Revenge time appears unrelated. fr33kman 02:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Additional information needed Does Persian Wikinews allow requests for self-checks? If so, can you please link to the policy here. Thank you. -- Avi 03:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Not done - Sorry, but I doubt that this is useful. If there is no need for checking and there is no account to complare to, it is somehow like fishing. I don't think that such checks should be done. -Barras 13:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Reason(s): User "Achun1112y" is damaged User page of "Achun1111y", disguise himself as a User "Achun1111y". But User "Achun1111y" said, "저와 동일인은 아닙니다. 저는 Achu1112y를 만든 적도 없으며, 그 사용자는 저의 다중 계정이 아닙니다. 그 사용자는 저의 사칭 계정이지, 다중 계정은 아닙니다"(I am not the same parson to the user. I am not never make the user, the user is not my sockpuppet. The user is my false account, not sockpuppet.) By the way, User "Achun1111y" is block from before "his claim" to until now.
But.. we don't put credit in his words. Therefore, I request "Checkuser". Thank you. --Idh0854 04:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Inconclusive or weakly possible in my opinion. If another steward wants to doublecheck my result is welcome to do so. Thank you, -- Dferg☎ talk 18:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Unrelated Although both users have sockpuppets, they are unrelated. User Achun1111y is not a problematic one, user Achun1112y is one of many blocked sockpuppets. User Achun1111y has created one sockpuppet just after his or her primary account has been blocked. I suggest unblocking user Achun1111y. If you need the list of Achun1112y's sockpuppets, please open another request. --Millosh 07:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
And we trying to track down sockpuppets of Achun1112y, also we nosed out sockpuppets of Achun1111y.(User "Caycedo736", User "Marcha Libertadora"). Thank you. We will request list of Achun1112y's sockpuppets, soon. Thank you. --Idh0854 08:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Could you investigate other sock puppets of Achun1111y?
Reason(s): YoudaCamper was blocked for edit warring today reverting the user Maddox. The account JATV was created after the block of YoudaCamper and was used to support the same opinion of YoudaCamper, comment against the user Maddox on his block appeal and engage on edit war here with the IP 126.96.36.199. Same edits: from YoudaCamper, from 188.8.131.52, from 184.108.40.206 and from JATV. The other IP's are here: , , , , edit warring with the user Maddox as if they were other users and not YoudaCamper and also leaving this comment to provoke the user Maddox after his block saying that it was very good that he was blocked. In the same day, the account 'ElectroStatic Jolt' was created. His third edit was a comment supporting an opinion of YoudaCamper and also against the user Maddox. He had also comment on a request to block the user Maddox (, , ). He listed himself (, ) on two projects (Television and Cinema) that YoudaCamper are also a member. All accounts and adresses edit on pages related to television. In may 2010, YoudaCamper was blocked for using sockpuppets to vote on two requests to deletion (see checkuser request).
If confirmed, the accounts and IP were used to evade a block, support a point of view and to escape of being blocked for edit warring. Please, tell me if more info is necessary. Thanks.” Teles (Talk@CG) 01:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
We have an urgent situation of disruption going on at wiki-pt involving those users, this request is almost 10 days old, can please someone have a look at this?--Darwinius 23:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
How so? I'm not a sock puppet of YoudaCamper. Do you mind very well, Maddox. I will ask lock on Brazilian Wikipedia.I`m NOT Youda Camper.--ElectroStatic Jolt 00:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't believe YoudaCamper is JATV.
JATV is Wjalves and some IPs on the 201.* range above mentioned.
ElectroStatic Jolt is also ElectroBot Jold (evidently) and he's related to the 189.100.* range mentioned.
Chocolate Preto = Maria Mayer = Boneco de Neve = Cão e Gato
Reason(s): Per  please do not lock the main Draubb account. Only the sleepers and other socks that he created should be locked instead. Thanks, :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 02:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Beangbag—there is no user with such username. Can your also explain in more detail why this checkuser is necessary. Ruslik 11:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
There does not seem a prima facie case for use of CU here. I don't personally see evidence of abusive multiple user accounts just from the diffs and you should already have good evidence prior to coming to SRCU, not come here to get the evidence. CheckUser is not for fishing As for a global lock, those are for xwiki abuse and not when local blocks will work. fr33kman 19:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry I wasn't able to get back to you earlier. There's some evidence that this account belongs to a prolific vandal named NewPak2 which was blocked some time ago in April; often it is the case that we try to contain his inappropriate behavior on Wikiversity, but it occasionally spreads to other projects like Wikisource where he trolls, like this example and a more recent one. We've also had to combat disruption locally, especially in cases of privacy violations he caused, such as those to this page. Often it seems that he does not openly disclose that he is the same person when, or if it is true, he makes multiple contributions to the same pages, and, except for the instance where his IP signs as Jacklover, he does not link that Jacklover account to the other ones either, as if to avoid scrutiny or more blocks. If there was a different solution to try to restrict his creation of new accounts or migrating to any other projects (other than Wikiversity, Wikisource appears to be a favourite habitation of his) I'd like to hear, and maybe apply it to him. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 20:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
"There's some evidence"; can you list it here please? Right now, I'm still not making the connection. fr33kman 21:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
They all have a strange predisposition to edit Mabuabsdd and Draubb related stuff, sometimes revealing private information that need to be deleted. Ruslik 08:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Caveat emptor: since the IPs used here localize to a school(s) in VA it is feasible that this means that it is a shared range. The user agents of all of the above, however, are identical. This could also mean more than one student is using the same computer, however all edits are to the same articles roughly. Local admins will have to decide the weight of this CU in that regards. fr33kman 02:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Fr33kman, were you aware of the prior checkuser request from TeleComNasSprVen regarding v:User:Mabuabsdd? He did not link to it. Similarly to this report, most accounts listed and locked then had no contributions off of Wikiversity.
Date of last edit on WV:
220.127.116.11, 4 February 2011 only apparent edit outside of en.wikiversity is an apology. (Prior editing and block on en.wp may be the same editor, but unlikely.)
Beangbag1, 11 February 2011, no edits outside of en.wikiversity. No blocks.
Denial 13:10, 4 February 2011. account appears isolated to Wikiversity. No blocks.
Dkabbhodofbsd, 13:08, 28 January 2011. no edits outside Wikiversity. No blocks.
Draubb has been editing heavily since the other accounts, and he's been about as responsive as I'd expect for someone who is possibly seven years old, maybe eight. I requested he confine himself to one account, and it seems he has. I requested that he stop creating pages in mainspace, and seems to have mostly respected that, except for what may have been errors in moving files, he's been moving pages he created under other user names into his own user space, which I have encouraged. He has used real names, for himself and his apparent friends, and backslid on that recently, but is generally cooperating.
Wikiversity administrators have been helpful in working with this user, and the work load required has not been high, compared to what existed earlier when the approach was delete and block. Fr33kman, there was no need for "defence."
TCNSV has been opposed, on Wikiversity, to my efforts to educate this very young user or users. I cannot see deleted pages, but the guidance to deal with disruption using local blocks rather than checkuser and global locks has obviously not been followed.
I was prepared, seeing this report, to suspect that there had been additional cross-wiki inappropriate editing. I don't see it.
TCNSV came here for what appears to be an exclusively Wikiversity problem or issue, instead of first requesting assistance from WV administrators; he seems to think of meta checkuser as a substitute for local administrative supervision, he can file requests here and nobody from Wikiversity notices. I only happened to see this today because of other business. There was no need for checkuser on these accounts, they are all obviously either the same user or the same "family" of users, probably using the same class computer. Edits from home IP are unusual.
I do appreciate the request by TCNSV not to lock Draubb, but consider this request to have been a waste of checkuser time, as well as mine to check out the cross-wiki contributions that, it turns out, don't exist.
Fr33kman, you are correct that this may be a single class computer. The edits tend to come in at the same time of day, roughly, during the school week. I have been unable to ascertain if there is more than one person involved. A series of accounts were globally locked as a result of TCNSV's prior filing, and I requested information from the user (Draubb), but the user doesn't respond much to questions. I deal with a seven year old every day, my own, and it's normal! However, before that locking, I did see edits that appeared to be different kids, friends, editing the same pages. This may be disconcerting to WMF volunteers on other projects than Wikiversity, but it is not necessarily a violation of WV policy.
These are not "articles." They are all edits to user space pages, except for what may be errors. In the future, there may be some "classes" created that would be appropriate for these kids to edit. For now, Draubb is practicing with wikitext and is learning how to edit nondisruptively. If you have or have had a seven-year old, that's a big deal! --Abd 03:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment okay, on your say-so we'll leave this person to the hands of the local community. I'm a bit upset that TCSNV did not link to his prior request, I would not have touched this had I known. I shall address that with him. From now on please get a local consensus for further CUs to be done on this matter. Good luck! fr33kman 04:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Apologies to TCNSV, the link was there in the discussion, I must have missed it completely. fr33kman 06:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Reason(s): The second edition from the IP was to attack a registered user without previous contact. All other actions are to insult anti-vandalism bot and a sysop. Appears to be an single purpose account, just to vandalize. Alchimista 21:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Result: No named users / other accounts associated with this IP --Eptalon 21:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Reason(s): Recently, it has been shown that Chocolate Preto was a sock puppet, and soon after Poder Paralelo begun editing with the same modus operanti. Like Chocolate before him, Poder was blocked for ofending another user - like Chocolate before him. In the following day, Luz do Sol begun editing. Compare this edit of Poder to this edit by Luz do Sol. I warned Luz do Sol, but the ignored me, and inserted back the same original research Poder did before. Understand that original research was a standard in "Chocolate Pedro" edits. When I warned Luz do Sol for a second time, and no edits have been seen since. But minutes after, Amor e Intrigas made this edit. Same modus operanti. He was warned, but it had no effect. The most curious aspect about these users is that Poder Paralelo, Amor e Intrigas e Luz do Sol are the titles of three different telenovelas shown in Brazil by the same TV network responsible for Rebelde, page these users are editing. I believe they're all socks from Chocolate Preto. Maddox 00:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment Before I close this, I just wanted to say what I like about this request and so why it was done. Maddox came to us with a really good set of evidence that made it easy to determine quickly that a checkuser was needed. The problems with certain requests is that the requesting party wants to use CU as a CheckUser is not a crystal ball and that we should be providing the 1st part of the evidence. This not the case, requests that are for CheckUser is not for fishing will be denied. In certain cases requests from certain users may simply be refused in all cases. fr33kman 00:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Declined - both are trusted users on Romanian projects, so we would need more concrete evidence to process this favourably. PeterSymonds 19:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment Indeed, in fact if there is evidence it must now be given since the accusation has been made. So I've unclosed this case and Memo18 is no responsible for providing evidence of wrong doing. fr33kman 21:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment I'll have a word with Memo18 directly instead. fr33kman 22:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Reason(s): Single purpose accounts with a probable conflict of interest (the subject of the article is a controversial writer/publisher/tv-showman). --GerakiTL 14:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
While I see the reason for this request (several accounts reverting to the same text, in particular), I'm not sure I understand why you've listed the QKU1771 account with the rest of these. The account only has one edit to the Liakopoulos article, and that doesn't look very troubling.Jafeluv 20:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, there was a mistake about him. --GerakiTL 21:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Completed: Please note that these are technical results only:
Possible bordering on Likely:
All of these are in the same location, with similar user agents; some are in the same IP range.
Possible bordering on Inconclusive:
Same location (different to the first set), but different IPs and user agents.
Different useragent; different IP range; no location data.
Done; they have similar UAs, but not identical; they're on different IPs, but in the same location. Added them to the first list since everyone in the first list is from that area. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
During the period of that request, pt.wp was suffering from disruption caused by the users there listed. Soon after, "Chocolate Preto" used "Luz do Sol" and other accounts titled as Brazilian telenovelas to continue his attacks. Today, March 12th, new facts:
Coração Partido (portuguese for Broken Heart) is also the tile of a Brazilian telenovela. This one not shown in Brazil by the same TV network responsible for Rebelde, page these users were editing in the previous CU.
...but what hitted me was this reversion. Look at the edit summary: "Veja o site oficial do programa", portuguese for "See the show's official page". On the same page, see this edit summary. User YoudaCamper has a history of not respecting community policies and reverting redirects, like he did here.
Coração created a invalid redirect for my user page, using an offensive expression whose article I had created and, later, integrated into another one, causing its elimination. This is recent, and can be checked on the messages in my user discussion page.
Coração, finally, made a series of vandalisms that begun soon after YoudaCamper had stopped editing for the day. Not, on their contributions, that their are never online at the same time. Note, also, the ammount of revertions related to me there are in Youda contribution log.
Over this, I believe Youda used this account as a diversion for the current block requests against himself. Or worst, Coração is Chocolate Preto returning to wp.pt.
Reason(s): Wikipedia-pt has serious problems with political attacks. Justus and Dominator are at the same time editing articles who can better PT image between the political use of Wikipedia. Dominator never edited nothing and, suddenly, is editing the article Governo Dilma Rousseff - and talking at the same way Justus says, showing lots of strange experience. I included the user Dornicke, because he always edited with Justus months ago, and all of this 3 users are "petistas", crazy fans of Partido dos Trabalhadores who do not measure the consequences in your edits, make articles partial, pull information that is not good for the PT and put many adjectives and accolades in the articles. Guru2001 and Eu edito, tu editas, ele... have been banned from Wikipedia-pt by multiple accounts and they did this type of political edit too. Please help.
Diabo e Santo has not edited since 2009, Thaberneiro has made no edits at all, and Taberneiro has made one edit since 2006. So, there is basically nothing to check. Ruslik 19:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Here is a recent edit by Taberneiro, and another even more recent by Thaberneiro (where he is complaining that Taberneiro was blocked from logging in). And the two IPs have edited as well. Please, check again, I really need to determine if they are the same person (I'm almost sure, but I need the CU support).
You may leave Diabo e Santo out of the check, he has not edited since 2009 because he has been banned for life from our site.
Thanks again for your help in fighting this vandal.
Confirmed Taberneiro and 18.104.22.168 are the same user.
Inconclusive Thaberneiro and 22.214.171.124 may be associated, but CU is not conclusive. Ruslik 20:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for reopening the case, but the vandal is now using many different IP addresses, so I would like to ask you to check if any of these are part of open proxies and if they are, to block the corresponding ranges for a year (or more). Thanks.
126.96.36.199, 188.8.131.52, 184.108.40.206, 220.127.116.11, 18.104.22.168 belong to the same ISP. Thaberneiro used the same ISP too. But this ISP is large and they may be, well, different users. 22.214.171.124 is unrelated (different country). If you want to check for open proxies, you can do it yourself. Ruslik 08:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Can you tell me how I can do it myself? Is there any documentation about it? Thanks.
Reason(s): Already confirmed here to be the same, the evidence was disputed and dismissed by our former Arbitration Committee since, apparently, there was not an exact match. They recognized, notwithstanding, that there was "strong evidence" pointing to Indech and Sabrina being indeed the same and one user. Now, exactly two days after Indech announces his return at the Village Pump, this IP, which later self-identifies as SabrinaLM comes to my talk boasting about her/his return. Both Indech and Sabrina have been away from the project for long, even after the Arbitration Committee decision which allowed for their return, and both return now, one two days after the other, and at the very same time of the day (about 4.30 am). Darwinius 07:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Reason(s): PKsoft page in English Wikipedia had been deleted several times between 18th March and 20th March 2011. By 19th March si:PKsoft had been created in Sinhala Wikipedia. After it had been tagged to be deleted as per Criteria for speedy deletion, the article had been moved to si:පීකේසොෆ්ට්. Subsequently, after several attempts to tag the article for speedy deletion, instead of defending the article deletion the article deletion tags had been removed contributing to vandalism of the page. The above users have contributed to removing the deletion tags and vandalism of the article and hence the suspicion that all the above users emanate from the same personality. The English article too may have been created/edited/vandalized by the same group of users. ශ්වෙත 15:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Confirmed all these accounts (registered and IPs) are the same user. Ruslik 15:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
The "User:Bad ensane" admitted that "User:Isis" is his/her own account, but now we are planning a new policy and we have a vote page for that, we should know how many other accounts he/she use to vote there, Thanks. MjbmrTalk 12:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
CheckUser is not for fishing. Unless you can show evidence of abusive use of multiple accounts (n:fa:User:Isis has no edits), this won't be fulfilled. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Reason(s): Related to earlier investigation and determination . This earlier investigation was related to activities on si:පීකේසොෆ්ට් article and its talk page. The article tried to promote an entity claimed to be a company in Sri Lanka with this website. According to si:පීකේසොෆ්ට් article, the company had been founded by a student Pasindu Kavinda (පසිදු කාවින්ද). Contributions of 126.96.36.199 suggest that this IP user is related to w:si:පසිදු කාවින්ද. Contributions of 188.8.131.52 suggest that that IP user is concerned about 184.108.40.206 who is already gone through checkuser process as per . Contributions of 220.127.116.11 indicate that this IP user is concerned about the article si:පීකේසොෆ්ට්. A user w:si:Pkavinda had been investigated previously as per  and user name of w:si:Pkavinda123 is similar and his contributions are related. A user w:si:PKsoft123 had been investigated previously as per  and user name of w:si:PKsoft is similar. Hence the suspicion that all the above contributors are related and further that they are related to earlier found sock-puppets as per . Please investigate the above users. Thank you. ශ්වෙත 07:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
18.104.22.168 is this a correct IP? Ruslik 07:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I am extremely sorry about the typo. It should be corrected as 22.214.171.124 please. In the section "Reason" it is mentioned correctly please. --- ශ්වෙත 08:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Confirmed They are all the same user. Ruslik 08:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for speedy determination. --- ශ්වෙත 08:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
so I want to make check with two group - first four accounts and ip is for to identify their multiple account more accurately(especially 126.96.36.199 is represents ko:사용자:Aldidkehskdl). and last four accounts (including me) and ip is to prove my innocence with another ip. - Ellif 12:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
callitlove & cameback are Likely the same user. the rest are UnrelatedMatanya 12:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)