Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in July 2011, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion.
This request is completely nonsensical, the diff in question shows absolutely nothing to indicate that the user is a sockpuppet. The suspicion is that he is either a meatpuppet or has 'lent' his account to the other user. I can't understand why this user would start this request at this point, only if his intention is to undermine it. RafaAzevedo 15:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Ps: just something that may be used as evidence: all 3 created her own talk pages and user pages without any information, only her usernames or text like "Página de usuário" ("user page"). Eamaral 19:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Could you please check this new pt.wikipedia user, Harley1, with same behavior in Plastic article? It may be against Portuguese Wikipedia rules, because it may be a use of sockpuppet to forcce an opinion (as above), and while the main account is blocked to edit this article. Eamaral 00:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
And still another one: Pngp, again with same kind of edition in plastic at pt.wikipedia. He has also combined edition with user Alavanca at pt:Lâmpada fluorescente and a user page with no content (just "Page of user pgnp"). Eamaral 19:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Reason(s): Alberto Emilio Lopez Viñals is a [b]locked account that used to add nonsense on talk pages, insulting comments and text in a language 'invented' by him (as he states here). For this reason, most of his contributions were deleted. With all his other IP he says he is the "Jedi" ('Le Jedi' or 'Lo Jedi'), as exemplified here, here, here, here, here (there are many others), which explains his new name. By checking the abuse filter logs that was triggered by his IP ranges (and enabled specially because of his edits), we can compare the edits he tried to make unlogged with the edits he made with this new account. On article "Vino" (1 , 2); on "Argentina" (1 , 2); on "Discussion:Geometria" (1 , 2) and all his first edits - 1 = logged as 'LoJedi' and 2 = unlogged on abuse filter. Some of his ranges are listed here. Thank you. ” Teles (Talk@CS) 07:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
The two named accounts are Confirmed. No comment in regards to the IP addresses. --Bsadowski1 07:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Unless there is sound contrary reason, a user found to have socked and who suffers a sanction or adverse disclosure as a result, and who agrees to public disclosure of the otherwise private evidence, should be provided this, if there is any checkuser willing to satisfy the request. (I suspect the Foundation is under a legal obligation, but let's hope that's moot.) I recommend providing it publicly, so that there be nothing hidden about this, but it could be provided privately to him.
It has been argued that a privacy problem exists if Abigor is not the vandal, but vandalism spoofing another user is much more serious than ordinary socking, and there is no protection for such vandals, policy again allows disclosure as needed. So if Abigor is the vandal, disclosure is allowed because he permitted it, and if he is not the vandal, justice and equity require disclosure.
Please provide Abigor or the community with the requested evidence. Thanks. --Abd 03:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Not done Sorry, but it has to go here. Thx. fr33kman 05:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, are you asking for all CUs related to the Abigor account on meta, or on other projects also? fr33kman 05:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
The Abigor account is included for completeness, but the central request relates to the acknowledged sock Dirt Diver and the alleged vandal, conclusively identified as Abigor ("conclusive" means that the evidence is strong enough to create a presumption allowing action.). For information about the vandal, see the links. I can't definitively identify the account for obvious reasons! It is not necessary to provide "all activity," only the specific activity that linked Dirt Diver and the vandal. A checkuser may decide to not disclose all CU activity re Abigor, per se. What Abigor needs is that vandal activity, and because an exploit might involve compromise of Dirt Diver's account, activity for Dirt Diver. --Abd 16:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Either way, there seems nothing for the stewards to do here, but only for local checkusers. fr33kman 05:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Not having either checkuser privilege or local admin access, I cannot tell if a local checkuser request, anywhere, will be adequate. Given the consensual nature of this request, and the possible cross-wiki checking needed -- I can't tell -- this is the best place to first make this request. I could ask the two steward/checkusers, who provided evidence here on meta, to provide that evidence to Abigor, or, as suggested, go to all the other places. Finishing this here could be simplest, for sure. Hence I am reverting the change to status and request that this remain open for a reasonable time to see if any steward is willing to do this, before other options are explored. I will, however, notify the two commenting steward/checkusers, perhaps they, having already looked, will make this moot. This request is not based on any mistrust of them. Thanks. --Abd 16:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
The answer is no. If you want an investigation, contact the relevant people (or the WMF directly). The stewards themselves will not satisfy this request. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Sure, I'll recommend that to Abigor if it's necessary. --Abd 23:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
The issue is that the projects that need CU'ing in this request have local checkusers and so the requests must go there. fr33kman 21:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
The problem here is that multiple wiki checkuser results may be involved, because there may have been cross-wiki activity, so this could be simpler for a steward to do than to go for a set of individual requests. Ideally, the steward and local checkuser who already responded in the RfC will simply provide what information they already found, and they've been asked, as I noted above. However, if there is no response here, or otherwise from them, in a reasonable time, then the other routes will be explored. Thanks. --Abd 23:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Comment Whether or not it'd be simplier is not a concern; policy must be followed. Best of luck and let me know personally if you get no where. fr33kman 05:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Morris99@ko.wikipedia et al
The following request is closed: not donePlease do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Reason(s): These three users deleted a part of ko:호텔신라(Shilla Hotel). On April 2011, Korean Traditional Clothing(Hanbok) Designer tried to enter the restaurant Shilla Hotel, but the clerk refused. As a result, the hotel was criticized by Korean people because people who work in this hotel neglected Korean traditional things although they are Korean people and the hotel was Korean hotel. When you see this editing history(editing history of the article), you can see some useres inserted this happening with these several news reports(1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 - All of these articles were written in Korean). However, these three people deleted this part(ko:호텔신라#한복 출입금지 논란) although many users restore these vandal. I doubt these three users are working in the hotel, because they are deleting the part with same pattern.
Reason(s): All of these users just edit around zh:黃現璠 and his workzh:壯族通史, not only zhwp but across the wikipedia in many languages. Also, most of these information is unreliable. Zhxy 519 10:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Reason(s): The rookie Grafismodgital has the same behavior CCON to remove the tags without justification ESR and removal of tags from a PE Fusion, Grafismodigital had a similar behavior in a user CCON not subscribe to the DP and the same common interest in the article.--18.104.22.168 15:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Reason(s): Creating non-notable articles, uploading non-applicable fair use images, copyright violations. Faisal chowdhury was blocked for a week once, and Fahim chowdhury has already warned for disruptive uploads. They are trying to do disrupting edits in a certain field of articles. There might be more from the same group. If they are confirmed, please give us the list of those accounts from the group(s) to perform the local blocks. Thanks. — [ Tanvir | Talk ] 15:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Reason(s): Bruno Meireles was checked a month ago when it was confirmed he used socks to engage on edit warring. After that, the edit warring didn't stop on that same article (Nívea Maria) and others like "Rita Guedes". The same IP ranges are being used for that. The article was semi-protected, but a new account was used to evade protection and make almost the same edit the IP wanted to do (compare IP edit and new account edit). An IP was also used to make personal attacks (see links on summary, referring to the other user that reverted him). At least this IP was used to evade the block of the main account and keep edit warring. On my talk page, some IP confirmed they are Bruno Meireles by requesting to unblock his account (which was not blocked anymore by the way). So, we have block evasion, edit warring and personal attacks. Thanks in advance.” Teles (Talk@CS) 05:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
It took a bit of checking and crosschecking (there were changing user agents involved), but I managed to confirm this request. The user in question resolves to many, many ip addresses but a range block is not possible so I'll not provide any information here. fr33kman 05:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
It's ok. Thanks for this fast answer.” Teles (Talk@CS) 05:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
All five are Unrelated from a checkuser point of view. Jafeluv 17:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. However, there are off-wiki canvassing posts about the above zhwp votes in http://forum.hkgolden.com (en:Hong Kong Golden Forum), teaching the readers how to by-pass the checkuser mechanism of Wikipedia. Previously I suspect the person behind these accounts comes from Hong Kong. --Mewaqua 17:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
22.214.171.124/22 (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date • CA • ST • lwcheckuser) and 126.96.36.199/22 (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date • CA • ST • lwcheckuser). Blocked due to repeated misuse of sockpuppet accounts harming a good build up of the nl-wikipedia and also similar problems cross wiki, ruining categories without knowledge of the languages and respecting the existing framework, doing detrimental edits on articles and persisting in these compulsively driven habits despite help given. Has a compulsive need to do all kind of legal/juridical cats stuff and content stuff but makes many mistakes because he does not onderstand the languages he edits in. Are there more sockpuppets around? The latest checkuser on nl-wiki done is here with links to the two previous ones done. MoiraMoira 10:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Stale: Dendrolo, Catbot, Dendroloo, Redagavimas
Likely: Brox, SZLT --Shizhao 11:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much Shizao. I unfortunately made a typing mistake - the home wiki of this user is not lv but lt. I replaced the wrong letter above and apologise for the inconvenience caused - could you please redo the checkuser there on the correct wiki? MoiraMoira 15:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
on lt wp,
Stale: Catbot, Dendroloo, Redagavimas
Confirmed: Brox, Dendrolo, Logos, Savvour. PS: Brox is a admin on lt wp.
Thank you Shizhao. That indeed makes it awkward how to deal wisely. Also with a sockpuppet account he holds admin rights on related lt-projects. I have now informed him via his main account on lt-wiki as well as elsewhere and here on meta that his cross wiki categorisation tries and when reverted continuing with sockpuppets is not preferable. Kind regards, MoiraMoira 10:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Reason(s): They all admitted that they come from hongkong，via HKGolden Forum. they keep on making personal attack not only during the vote but also after the vote. Most users consider them as a group of troll or puppets.-Zhxy 519 12:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
They are not all from Hong Kong judging by their IP addresses:
Madkat45 – Stale
Ttoew, Coekon, Innche – Unrelated to other accounts and to each other
Thank you all the same.--Zhxy 519 08:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
CheckUser is not for fishing. I don't know what happened but it is very unethical if you make false allegations just to ensure your checkuser request is granted. Well good strategy though since your request has been granted.
I checked what you claim but I found nearly all claims you made are false. Please provide diffs to show that all the above accounts have admitted they come from Hong Kong via HKGolden Forum. Ttoew and Madcat45 voted without arguing anything. What made you think they made "consistent personal attack" on the poll? Please quote their statements and diffs to prove it. Gray.Hang, Lunwingkit, Coekon and Innche didn't vote. In effect Coekon wasn't involved at all. They are blatant lies. It is beyond me how someone uninvolved or didn't argue was accused of "consistent personal attack".
I had a look at a few previous checkuser requests of some Chinese Wikipedians. I observed that they once mixed false allegations with facts, or skewed facts or evidence to mislead a steward. May I remind Chinese Wikipedians that Checkuser is only be accepted to counter vandalism or disruption? A sockpuppet, so to speak, is allowed if he use it for legitimate reasons. I hope this sort of things won't happen again in future.
I hope stewards can double check what they claim and verify their so-called evidence before granting their requests in future. Thank you. Tylerck 09:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, another sockpuppet appears, with only 6 edits on meta and nothing else on other wikis. --Jsjsjs1111 09:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Reason(s): Adding false information; probable sockpuppetry. Francisco 00:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
The first two made one and two edits to that page respectively, and there are plenty of people making edits of various kinds there and I can see nothing else that would link the first two (even their edits seem different) to each other or anyone else. The last two are addressed above in a refused check. -- Avi 08:28, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Reason(s): Edited similar items in the same way, but did not disclose their relationship. Kaykenbass 12:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
User who raised this request has been blocked indefinitely in Chinese Wikipedia because of violating 3RR. And those whom listed here have reverted his/her edits. I don't see the point of checking. Admin of zhwiki, --J.Wong 10:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
To correct the comments above, User:Kaykenbass is unblocked by me since his edits were somewhat covered by BLP. The above listed users are obviously closely related. But there is insufficient evidence of sock puppet abuse, so even if they are proven to be the same person, they should not be blocked for abuse of multiple accounts. --Bencmq 15:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Notice the inscription "히히히", "여성부의눈. " Notice the numbers in order.The ducks acted creating false articles.The checked, was part of a movement diflamatory against sysop Yanguas. -- Pesthero 13:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Reason(s): There is a suspected condition among these 4 accounts in a voting of "Did you know?" nomination ("奧運聖火曾經或將於哪些國家及地區進行傳遞？" from ):
Ronochen had not edited for a long time before but today he suddenly woke up and vote "Support" to Sdee's nomination.
According to Inhins's contributions, he mainly takes part to vote in DYKC mostly when Sdee has nomination there, and all of the votes to Sdee's are "Support". This time he voted "Support" to Sdee's again, and even commented something that is protecting Sdee.
Singsingmac is a new user and vote "Support" to Sdee's, and also commented something that is protecting Sdee.
Moreover, see also this, according the past result Sdee, Inhins & Ronochen has used a certain anonymous proxy in common. Please have a check ASAP as the nomination will end very soon. Thank you! --CDIP No.150repairmeter 23:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Reason(s): This attack account demonstrates clearly that it was created by an user with some experience. I previously left a message on another sysop's talk page, where I expose my disagreement about his use of blocking tool. After my message, this new account used my signature, pretending to be me and leaving an attack message. Another harassing message. I can't say who, but this is definitely an experienced user evading a block or hiding with this account.” Teles (Talk@CS) 00:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
As Carlos Pimentel Jr. says here, this is Roberto de Lyra a former sysop that had his deleter flag removed due to misuse of multiple accounts and made me block two large IP ranges after using lots of his IP to make personal attacks and harassment. Thanks.” Teles (Talk@CS) 01:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Reason(s): Possible evasion of block / harassment. Logging out to harass users is against policy on every wiki of which I am aware. This IP has insulted me in my talk page on metawiki and also stalked in a discussion on ptwiki. It is probably an experienced user evading a block or abusing of multiple accounts/IPs. Thanks in advance. Ruy Pugliesi◥ 04:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Not done A local block should be done. fr33kman 04:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Confirmed A username to cross check with was given via IRC which confirms that this IP is being used to evade a block. fr33kman 04:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Reason(s): Block evasion. Jack123 is blocked for vandalism (point-of-view) in article pt:Tim Maia. Now Liu 500 have made the same kind of vandalism in the same article (example: trying to insert the nickname "rei do soul latino", or king of latin soul, which was prevented by a filter). Jack523 is blocked for the same kind of vandalism in the same article. Yanguas 15:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I think that it's fairly obvious that CheckUser is not needed here. -- Dferg☎ talk 21:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)