Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in May 2011, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion.
Reason(s): The registered user and the IP edited the same articles and show the same pattern (themes related to Sorocaba). Both of them have insulted me in the same thread of my discussion page ( and ): see the URL suggested in the first message, it is written in English. User Geologist has been taken badly the fact I have marked for deletion some articles he created because the contents violate copyrights or don't show notability. I am requesting this check because now the IP created the pages pt:Stegop and pt:Cuidado com os xerifes da wikipédia, with the clear intention of harrassing me and he succeeded in making me loosing my patience ignoring his vandalist actions. --Stegop 04:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Done Logging out to harass users is against policy on every wiki of which I am aware. Unfortunately, that seems to be the case here as Geologist is Confirmed to have used that IP (among others) and no other user seems to have used those IPs. -- Avi 00:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Reason(s): First, user 100범 = Leno has many multi ID. and it blocked by ko.wiki to has many puppets and other reasons. I think the user Pandira is 100범,Leno. because they have many feature. For example 100범,Leno aim communism and Nazzism. Pandira act like communism and Nazzism such as 100범,Leno,Pandira hate female person and male or female feminist. and 100범,Leno,Pandira curse person who advise themselves to their acting. Pandira is new user but I feel they are a same user and they have same characteristics.
Second, those users are vandaling '대한민국 국군(Republic of Korea Armed Forces)' . Because those users hate Republic of Korea. In addition, 100범,Leno,판델라 and others hate Christ. 판델라 is translated Korean to pandira. Term 'pandira' is abused by Anti-Christ. I think those users are North Korean.
So please check those users.--여성부의 눈 13:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
these is proved by meta wiki on Feb 2011. 'puppets of 100범,Leno'
Of the other names you provided, checkuser gives no information about Antinobba. And for History no. 1 and Backbeom, the checkuser comes out negative - no reason from the CU result to believe that they are among this sockpuppet group. - Andre Engels 00:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)]
The following accounts are Stale:
The following account is Unrelated:
The following accounts are Confirmed to belong to the same user:
I am not sure about Leno. This account may be of may not be associated with those above. The result is Inconclusive.
Reason(s): Notice the inscription "El. " Notice the numbers in order.The ducks acted creating false articles.The checked, was part of a movement diflamatory against sysop Yanguas.--126.96.36.199 23:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
ip:188.8.131.52 was Open Proxy. Notice the inscription "여성부의눈. " Notice the numbers in order.The ducks acted creating false articles.The checked, was part of a movement diflamatory against sysop Yanguas. -- 184.108.40.206 02:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
220.127.116.11 and 18.104.22.168 is open proxy, have global blocked--Shizhao 03:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Inconclusive: 여성부의눈(There is no user by the name). Confirmed: 국군찬양, 토론계의 거성, 여성부의 눈, 대한민국 군대는 영원하다, 22.214.171.124 and 126.96.36.199--Shizhao 03:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Any reason for the check? Ruslik 09:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Checking found the reason: Raisekept and Raisekept1 were blocked for 6 months on January 30, extended to indefinite on January 31, then 38142239twd appeared on February 1, which would thus be a rather blatant block evasion if it were the same person. Nevertheless Declined because the Raisekept accounts had their last edits in late January, which is more than 3 months ago, so they are Stale (cannot be checked any more). - Andre Engels 14:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Reason(s): Yanguas (talk • contribs) wrote in Portuguese: "Segundo as políticas vigentes, são previstos bloqueios prolongados para o uso de contas múltiplas para fins ilícitos". It means these accounts may be indefinitely blocked, because they have vandalized this article. Francisco 14:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Reason(s): The account quoted probably has some connection to the Polaco galeto (currently blocked), by using IPs not to have issues related to account. Was blocked after I make complaint to check last year for using IPs and soon began to use IP and other accounts maionetes (or sock). He has the same language and wage war of page edits related to the Brazilian TV. Bruno Leonard 01:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Declined because we can not make direct associations between accounts and IP addresses. -- Dferg☎ talk 12:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, and could you confirm that there is no open proxy using since there are some good-faith editors in the list?--Mys_721tx(talk) 10:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Which of them are good faith? Ruslik 08:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
zh:User:天下文章一大抄 is obviously a good-faith editor. Why would such a user with around 2000 edits, who never edit Hong Kong related article, make vandalism in these pages about Hong Kong TV?--Jsjsjs1111 09:58, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
This user edited from an IP from Hong Kong. The same IP was used by Cenfany, Vanessa1999 and Kelly456. Nobody else has edited from this IP (not counting edits made by the IP itself). UAs were also exactly the same (including unregistered use). It does not also appear to be an open proxy. Ruslik 12:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, :-) though the result really surprised me.-Mys_721tx(talk) 05:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Reason(s): Notice the inscription "El. " Notice the numbers in order.The ducks acted creating false articles.The checked, was part of a movement diflamatory against sysop Yanguas.--188.8.131.52 13:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Confirmed, you won't be surprised to hear; but the IP ranges are too big to block. Sorry! PeterSymonds (talk) 17:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I endorse this request. The abuse from this accounts and possibly from IP ranges lasts more than a month. Would be helpful to slow down the vandalisms if you provide an IP range we could block. I have reasons to believe this person also uses IP to vandalize (ranges 201.76.114.* and 201.76.115.*). As can be seen here, here, here and here (there are more in fact), those ranges vandalized the same articles than those accounts. Concerning one of his socks name, this user is probably an old account (stale) blocked for sockpuppetry.
Reason(s): How interesting: Multiple IPs and a registered vandalizing articles PSDb and PT and all are affiliated with the PSDB.Eles behave as Eu edito,tu editas,ele...Diffs:Governo Lula and Aécio Neves.Thanks.--184.108.40.206 21:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Declined since we cannot link IPs to accounts. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Reason(s): Please compare the two users. Both of them edited ko:욱일승천기. And both of them tried to change content the articles without consensus. So I came here to ask you to check the relationship between them and so on, thanks. Doomta 00:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Idh0854 was just reverting the other user, right? -- Mentifisto 00:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Unrelated in term of IPs. Just two users reverting each other. Local administrators should step in to stop the edit war.--Jusjih 08:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Reason(s): I'm not sure if this check might be done since old accounts are too much old to comparison, but maybe if you have any information logged from previous checks, I guess you can use them and compare with your findings. Not sure if it is allowed but in case of none of stewards have any log of any of his old socks, perhaps you can contact a checkuser from Commons where Quintinense still has an account there and self declares its relation with pt.wikipedia, despite he does not have an unified account. Reasons: This account is an old sockpuppeteer from pt.wiki (please, see previous check below). His main account (Quintinense) was banned from that project for this reason. He is banned but constantly creates new accounts and edit pages related with "Carnaval" and Rio de Janeiro and engages on edit warring with user Biantez as shown on previous requests. This account's first edit is a change on a page edited by Quintinense and (at least) two of his socks - Lidbergue and Dbc2004 - (history). Similar behavior here (Berimbau is other sock), here, here, here, here, here, here (sock: Beganreal), here, where this new account edited pages that Quintinense and/or his socks had already edited. There are others edits and, in fact, all of them are related with Carnival and Rio de Janeiro, including voting to keep a related article as it was done by other socks.
Please, pay attention to any of other user that this check might indicate automatically, even if this user have any flag (I have strong reasons to believe that a trusted user is one of his socks, which was not listed here, 'cause would be hard to explain, but I will discuss with community); the number of accounts of this user usually is not only one. Thanks.” Teles (Talk@CG) 08:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Reason(s): Confuse me like this sock user. I read the Uncyclomedia and saw that a guy was fighting with checked.Electro will be embarrassed here at Meta.--220.127.116.11 23:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Desculpe-me mas eu não entendi qual o motivo pela qua achas que esses usuários são sock puppet um dos outros. Poderia explicar? De preferência com diffs que comprovem as tuas suposições. Obrigada. Béria Limamsg 12:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Nem precisa.É só ver as contribs e comprovar.Veja que eles foram bloqueados pelo mesmo motivo.Tudo bem,vou colocar diffs: Capitão Feiticeiro
Aí fala tudo a respeito dos socks.--18.104.22.168 13:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Uma dica para ti: Os stewards não vão "ir procurar evidencias nas contribuições" porque esse é o trabalho de quem faz o pedido. E o pedido anterior prova a relação entre as 3 primeiras contas, que as outras contas que ver com as primeiras. Béria Limamsg 13:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Nelas tem o último registro de bloqueio.Ah,e eu pedi para voce olhar para ter a resposta a sua pergunta.--22.214.171.124 13:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Pois continuo sem resposta. Que as outras contas tem que ver com as contas bloqueadas? Béria Limamsg 13:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Interessante que,o IP foi bloqueado nos mesmos dias que o Electro comecou a sockear.No check do Feiticeiro,os gringos debateram sobre o Jolt e o Samurai.O AutoVolt vi nas contribs.Um cara da desciclopédia acha que ele é o Stuckkey.Interessante,que quem percebeu foi o Quintinense,antigo sockeador da wikipédia.Muito estranho.--126.96.36.199 14:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Encontrei provas de que eles seriam a mesma pessoa.Essa é a segunda vez que o checkuser dá errado.A primeira foi com um cara com um nome parecido com o do Stuckkey...No dia que o Electro se registrou,eu nem conhecia a wikipédia.Vou dar uma de verificador:
No princípio,Deus criou o céu,a terra e os seres humanos.No dia 19 de fevereiro,ElectroStatic Jolt nasce,em uma estrebaria.O usuário,comeca a editar,quando ele é ameacado por Teles,originando assim sua saída da wikipédia.No dia 08 de abril,ele volta atacando e vandalizando.
O Capitão Feiticeiro e o Samurai...Bom,segundo a mensagem do Feiticeiro ao Pirata Bruxo,ele queria acompanhá-lo nos mares(copiar o nome).Daí ele dizia que era amigo do Electro e outras coisas,como o que ele disse nos Ps que ele era sock do seu amiguinho.Negou tudo,falando que era brincadeira.Até se vingou do Maddox,falando que ele era o JSSX,vulgo Fred Xavier.Ele resolveu se registrar na Desciclopédia para zoar com os usuários.
O Stuckkey foi discutido pelo Samurai Bruxo e mais um cara,que era sabe quem?Quintinense,antigo sockeador.Interessante é que na PU do Electro o própio Electro parabenizou uma mensagem de ataque do Stuckkey.
Demais comentários e hipóteses aqui.Encontrarei o cara na Desciclopédia,e xingá-lo da pior coisa possível.--188.8.131.52 21:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Declined Insufficient evidence at this point. Please return if there is stronger evidence. -- Avi 03:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Reason(s): These users share same behaviour. They were trying to delete bold markups, critical of PRC goverment and any content of ROC/Taiwan from articles. PhiLiP 15:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
What is the problem? All of them except one are blocked. Ruslik 18:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
OK. I wanna check out whether the excepted one (Vladimirputin1) is a puppet or not. And Qingxin sent an email to unblock-zh@ trying to excuse himself, I'm not very sure about his block too (so I reblocked him yesterday and removed the indefinite tag). --PhiLiP 03:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
蕭抹布, Qingxin are Unrelated
Minyunsiguang, Putin0120, Vladimirputin1, Chenyuanyuan and Chenyuanyuan2010 as well as Yangxiaoyuan05 and Haohuifeng2009 are Confirmed. Ruslik 07:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Reason(s): What occurred was blocked for a month of GE.After removing the IP PDU his warnings, as the user committed.We speak this case here because the two are taking the same attitude.--Dinho 21:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Declined, we can't link IPs to accounts. -- Màñüé£†¹5talk[es] 03:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Reason(s): This user has insulted an admin in much the same way as Diabo & Santo, so we would like to know if there is a connection between Zélia Alves and his most recent accounts (see link for a list).
It would also be great if you could check other new users with recent activity in pt.wikt. This vandal usually creates many accounts at once to attack the project. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ValJor (talk) -- Dferg☎ talk 06:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Done - The database does not have any data regarding wikt:pt:User:Diabo e Santo because it hasn't edited for some time. His account is therefore Stale for CheckUser. Notwithstanding you may want to know that wikt:pt:User:Zélia Alves has engaged in vandalism as an anonymous user and for quite some time now (he/she seems to log-out of his/her account to vandalize and then re-login to continue editing the project without being discovered -- I can find vandalism since April 2011). Regards, -- Dferg☎ talk 07:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the information. I have now blocked this person. Would it be possible to give me the IPs that he/she used to vandalize? Or if they are open proxies, just block the ranges? --ValJor 10:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
As far as I can see nor the IPs used nor the entire range (which is big) is not an open proxy. Blocking IPs in this case might not work I'm afraid. A tip: please do block account creation when blocking vandal accounts. Thanks, -- Dferg☎ talk 12:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Please only forget what I struck above and block the open proxy range 184.108.40.206/19 which has been used for vandalism by this user. Regards, -- Dferg☎ talk 18:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Is there a way for me to determine if a given IP address is part of an open proxy? This user has attacked us today using the IPs 220.127.116.11 and 18.104.22.168 and I'm sure he's going to keep attacking us this way, so it would be great if I could determine myself if an IP is an open proxy. Otherwise I'll keep coming back here...
Yes, both are open proxys. CheckUser does not tell us which IPs are proxys or which ones are not; that needs manual checking. You can use google or robtex to help determine if a given IP is a proxy or not. The English Wikipedia has developed a WikiProject (en:WP:OP) where users can ask for proxy checks on given IPs. Regards, -- Dferg☎ talk 18:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
┌───────────────────┘ I wold like you to check another account, Merriam. He hasn't edited since 2006 and his edits are very similar to the ones of this user, who is a sock puppet of the banned user. Merriam has made one edit today. Strikertalk 19:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Stale - Kugan does not edit since 2009 so I can not determine with this tool if Kugan and Merriam are the same person or not (no CU performed here) -- Dferg☎ talk 12:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Additional information needed Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see they're doing anything wrong. Why do you think they're D&S? -- Dferg☎ talk 12:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Dferg, about "Alves de Jesus", he only makes edits that resemble D&S's "hot topics": different ortographies for Brazil vs Portugal, and pre- vs post-"1990 Ortography Agreement". I have no suspicions about the other 2 users. Maybe ValJor can explain better. Malafaya 12:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I explained this already but let's do it once again: this vandal is very persistent and very clever. He keeps coming back again and again using many different accounts. And he starts by doing apparently innocuous edits and then after some time, he starts the vandalizing. That's why we have to fight him over and over again. I really wish there was a way to stop him for good, I have better things to do than to try to control a misbehaved child.
Anyway, as Malafaya has already said, it's very clear that Alves_de_Jesus is another one of his sock puppets, the editing style is almost the same. I just want the CU confirmation to have something better than a hunch as the basis for blocking him.
In the case of Balamax, he got my attention for two things:
first the vandal had created a sock puppet making fun of him a while ago (see this); this vandal has already done that in the past (insult one of his sock puppets to make us believe that it's not one of his puppets)
and second, he (Balamax) had stayed away from the project for over a week and then suddenly made a modification right when the vandal was actively making modifications, too.
I'm not very sure that Balamax is another one of his puppets, but I would like CU confirmation just to be on the safe side.
In the case of Mareshenrique, my case is not so solid, he just seemed to be around when the vandal was active, it may be just coincidence, so I just want confirmation that my suspicion is unfounded.
Finally, I would like to ask a CU on Kaluekki. What is my case against him? Well, "kaluekki" is a Malayalam word from which the word caluete is derived and this word has just been added to the DB by user Alves_de_Jesus, who I suspect of being one of the puppets. Do you see now how clever this guy is?
Thanks for all your help so far. I just want to add something that I have said before: I don't come here asking for CUs for fun. If I ask for a CU, it's because I need one. And having to write long explanations each time ends up consuming a lot of time that I could be using to work on the project...
Hello ValJor. The reason to ask was because in past cases I handled I didn't remembered that he used this pattern and because the accounts you linked above seemed that they weren't doing anything wrong. Please note that I know that you're not requesting CU for fun and that ptwiktionary is suffering problems with this user since it was blocked and desysopped. Thanks to you, Malafaya and Striker for providing now very useful information to help in this case and, that said, this is In progress... - Regards, -- Dferg☎ talk 19:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I find it very Likely that the users Alves the Jesus and Kaluekki are DS. Others seem not to be obviously related and looks good faith users. Regards, -- Dferg☎ talk 20:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Please, add this account. He edited unregistered with this open proxy. After being blocked, created this account and done the same edit. Here is other open proxy used by him, also vandalizing pt.wikiquote.” Teles (Talk@CS) 01:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Is there such a thing as a checkuser bot? :-) We seem to need one now in pt.wikt... This guy attacked today with an account he created in Dec 2009! He may have dozens if not hundreds of dormant accounts!
Reason(s): Bruno is banned user of vandalism.The IP vandalized equals Brunocorinthiano.
Declined; we cannot link usernames to IPs. If the IP is causing disruption, please have somebody block it. Only re-report if there is reasonable suspicion for multiple account abuse. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 21:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Reason(s): It is curious that the IP edit the talk page of the Tao Pai and Peter Pai.Padre IP vandalizing the same items, and are two tractors for vandalism.Read historical Darlan Avila to realize.--22.214.171.124 22:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Not done as requests by anonymous users will be declined. Moreover, plain vandal accounts can be blocked without checkuser. -- Dferg☎ talk 14:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)