Open main menu
Warning! 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.




I confirm the relationship between the accounts Spotscourt and Spotscourte. Lucas55675 looks technically unrelated. No other vandal accounts were found. -- Dferg ☎ talk 10:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


PoVas is   Stale. Opalas is   Unrelated. Matanya 21:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


  Confirmed. See also AlanChan747, WanTik, Helen380. It is not possible to block IP ranges as there are a lot of unrelated users on them. Ruslik 19:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks a lot.-Mys_721tx(talk) 09:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Account is stale. IP addresses won't be linked to accounts. -- Dferg ☎ talk 15:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


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)
Not done. -- Dferg ☎ talk 15:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


The usernames "陳慧珊"、"洪欣"and"郭可盈" are taken from the names of real Hong Kong actresses. --Mewaqua 06:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Ruslik 07:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


The following request is closed: done
  Confirmed. Jafeluv 19:57, 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)
  Likely fr33kman 02:05, 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)
  Confirmed fr33kman 05:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


The following request is closed: done
The two named accounts are   Confirmed. No comment in regards to the IP addresses. --Bsadowski1 07:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Please also check the following account: LoJeday (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser). Trijnstel 19:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Also   Confirmed. --Bsadowski1 19:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Another one.... RichJedi (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser). Trijnstel 21:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
  Confirmed as well. Jafeluv 21:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Please, check also Jedibot. An update on abuse filter might be needed.” Teles (Talk @ C S) 21:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I would say   Confirmed. --Bsadowski1 21:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Dirt Diver (Abigor)

The following request is closed: not done
Status:    Not done

In Requests for comment/Abigor, conclusive checkuser evidence identified the acknowledged Abigor sock, Dirt Diver, as using the same access and device as a vandal, and he was blocked. This request is a courtesy to him in recognition of his prior service as a meta administrator. This is not a request for investigation and conclusion, as is normal here, for the RfC conclusion is not challenged and it is now moot. Even if it were found that Abigor was not this vandal, he would remain blocked for other reasons. Rather, Abigor has requested the raw checkuser evidence on which the conclusion was based, because he claims the vandal (or at least the third with the highly offensive name) could not have been him. He has agreed to public disclosure, which is therefore allowed per Privacy policy. Abigor has admitted prior deception, so this request is not based on a belief that he is telling the truth, but rather on recognition that an exploit, that successfully created the vandal evidence, is not impossible. Abigor, real-life, would need to know for his own security. The evidence would tell him what computer was used and when, it would enable him to investigate the situation himself.

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)
  • Notices, personal requests: Dferg, Herbythyme. --Abd 16:35, 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 done
- 01:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Plain and out right refused. fr33kman 02:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


The following request is closed: done
The following users are   Confirmed:
  • 交通大学
  • 化学工作者
  • 南工隐士
  • 重庆中央工专
  • Wiki cathy
  • 山城小路
  • 电机系
--Jafeluv 21:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! --Mrseacow 07:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Please check again. --Wiki_cathy


The following request is closed: done
  Stale: Jdx

--Shizhao 07:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Shizhao. In fact, there is no user called Jdx@frwiktionary, even if the nickname we give to this user is "Jdx". -- Quentinv57 (talk) 09:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


The following request is closed: done
  Confirmed: Huangwenkuei, Volkker, Liuopoiu
  Stale: 韦荣光, 韦一民. Ruslik 12:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you.--Zhxy 519 12:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


The following request is closed: not done
  Comment: This request was opened by ElectroStatic Jolt. The accounts above were already blocked - w:en:WP:DUCK.” Teles (Talk @ C S) 16:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I`m not ElectroStatic Jolt.-- 17:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
  Not donefr33kman 05:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Roberto de Lyra@pt.wikipedia

The following request is closed: not done
  Comment: This request was opened by ElectroStatic Jolt. The accounts above are already blocked.” Teles (Talk @ C S) 16:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I`m not ElectroStatic Jolt.-- 17:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
  Not done fr33kman 05:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Faisal chowdhury@bn.wikipedia

The following request is closed: done
Fahim chowdhury
Uddin c
Sk khan
Asif akbar1
Faisal chowdhury1
Faisal chowdhury
Ruslik 18:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks very much. — Tanvir | Talk ] 18:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


The following request is closed: done
  Confirmed and also;
fr33kman 05:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


The following request is closed: done
This is basically a request to pin three IP addresses on a single username. I don't believe this is within policy, so it is refused. fr33kman 05:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Bruno Meireles@pt.wikipedia

The following request is closed: done
  Doing... fr33kman 05:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
  Confirmed and also;
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 @ C S) 05:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome fr33kman 06:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


The following request is closed: done
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 (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)


  Comment we need more evidence than "provably block evasion". Can you point to local evidence of wrong doing? fr33kman 19:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
All seem to have a thing for something called "Diogo o Mii" (see pt:Special:Undelete/Diogo the Mii and pt:Special:Undelete/Diogo o Mii, for example). EL902, EL983 etc. were already confirmed at en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Diogomauricio3/Archive, and Sykernouborg-az was confirmed here. Jafeluv 19:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I'd ask for decline and forbid all IP requests comming for ptwiki per this CheckUse result at meta. Enough is enough.   CheckUser is not for fishing -- Dferg ☎ talk 07:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
The links of "Diogo o Mii" at ptwiki are dead. Tylerck 10:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
no need for this check as Jafeluv stated, and anon requests are not very welcomed as Dferg said. Matanya 11:00, 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.

--Shizhao 07:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

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)


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
Gray.Hang, Lunwingkit – association is   Possible.
Ruslik 19:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
The account "Madkat45" doesn't exist in zhwp, it's a typo. --Mewaqua 05:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

thank you. btw, i missed a user, that one is zh:user:madcat45, not kat, i'm so sorry :P. If it is possible, please check he or she.--Zhxy 519 00:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

  CheckUser is not for fishing. It is wrong to grant the Lunwingkit@zh.wikipedia request. What Zhxy 519 claimed are false allegations. See my comment below for details. Tylerck 09:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

  Unrelated Ruslik 07:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
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)


  Confirmed fr33kman 09:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Legal categorisation in WP NL

MoiraMoira in NL WP has n't knowledge of the law
Ad exemplum, nl:Categorie:Advocaat nl:Categorie:Rechter ‎ nl:Categorie:Notaris ‎ nl:Categorie:Openbaar aanklager ‎ to enter to -> nl:Categorie:Jurist. MoiraMoira deleted nl:Categorie:Jurist... :( s. en:Category:Jurists). --Brox 12:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Vih 14@pt.wikipedia

    • 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)


  • 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)


From a technical point of view:

--Shizhao 02:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


  Unrelated fr33kman 23:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


  Likely also Carlos Pimentel Jr. fr33kman 00:48, 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 @ C S) 01:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


Ruslik 18:42, 27 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)


  • I think that it's fairly obvious that CheckUser is not needed here. -- Dferg ☎ talk 21:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)