Steward requests/Checkuser/2011-08


Soviétique@frwiktionary is also suspected. Can you please provide a complete list of the usernames created with the same IP as the accounts listed above ? Thanks by advance -- Quentinv57 (talk) 10:50, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

  Inconclusive, Soviétique, Norsk menneske, Eremia and data expired. But according [2] and [3], Soviétique and Eremia probable sockpuppetry --Shizhao 12:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the help, Shizhao, even if the result is not really helping :P. -- Quentinv57 (talk) 14:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Co Blek@az.wikipedia

Cekli829 06:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

  Additional information needed - Please clearly state why CheckUser is needed. -- Dferg ☎ talk 09:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Activities are very similar to each other. Thanks by advance. --Cekli829 10:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Do those activities violate or have violated any policies of the project? If so please show diffs and explain. Please note that as CheckUser policy says having multiple accounts is not prohibited as long as they are not used to disrupt the project. Thank you, -- Dferg ☎ talk 14:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! --Cekli829 06:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
That's not a reply. Do you mean that you withdraw the request? -- Dferg ☎ talk 09:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Not done. -- Dferg ☎ talk 10:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


  • Brox appears to be blocked on only one wiki, nl.wikipedia, where the user had few edits. Brox has not been blocked on lt.wikipedia, where he has 23,282 edits. What has been blocked on lt.wikipedia is Sands (by Brox), Tik-Kon (by Snooker and Brox), Passutis (by Snooker). A quick glance at the contributions of the blocked users revealed that most edits were standing. Whatever they were doing doesn't seem to have been highly disruptive.--Abd 20:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  •   Confirmed:
    • Sands
    • Tik-Kon
    • Passutis

Based on geolocation, it is   Likely that these users are Brox.

  •   Unrelated:
    • Vitalis
    • Petriukas
  •   Stale
    • Žiedas

--PeterSymonds (talk) 20:13, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Please Recheck lt:user:Sands, lt:user:Tik-Kon and lt:user:Passutis. it's not my (lt:user:Brox)! Please describe observations/reasoning, as specific addresses were assigned to lt:user:Brox. --Brox 14:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
This is worth an independent examination. Geolocation is the weakest possible connection. This could easily be explained by a single user with the other accounts "confirmed" who sits in the same region covered by ISP(s) as Brox. Any review should explicitly state the weakness or strength of the identification. To my mind, PeterSymonds already did that, but others, not familiar with checkuser evidence, might interpret "likely" as something stronger than it is. My guess is that "Possible" would have been more accurate. I see that on lt.wikipedia, the result here is being treated as if definitive proof, see [6]. What the result actually strongly confirms is the three blocked accounts. The identification with Brox looks weak. --Abd 20:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't have the time to give more information atm, but please see this file on nlwiki, this (still open) global lock request and this RFC. I can provide more info tomorrow if necessary. Trijnstel 22:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I personally blocked all those accounts that have been confirmed. The problem with Brox is that he has already admitted to using multiple accounts in past, for example Dendrolo is really Brox's account as he himself tagged the user page that it's his past account even those he used it recently. He recently even created a category for his sockpuppet accounts. Also he had problems on nl.wikipedia. So it cannot be a coincidence, but it is strange for me that Brox is denying all those accusations. So I requested further information on this matter, and I suppose that geolocational confirmation has given Brox the reason to deny everything. Trijnstel, please provide information that you have. Thanks in advance. Tomreves 06:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree that clarification will be helpful. There is major disruption developing out of what seems unclear about this CU. I'm collapsing my explanations and research, but the same kind of weak ID seems to have taken place with the NL CUs. --Abd 17:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
@Tomreves: Brox used several IPs of Lithuanian mobile phone ranges of "Omntel Lithuania". And for the crosswiki abuse: here is perfectly explained (in English) what Brox did wrong on nlwiki. He did that probably on more projects too (I haven't checked that; MoiraMoira did almost all the work - except for the checkuser of course). Trijnstel 18:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Brox is clearly Dendrolo, that's not controversial. Did the behavior of Dendrolo and Brox differ? They did not edit at the same time, so IP may have varied, but I'd guess they had the same user agent information, and Brox claims fixed IP, I think. Trinjstel seems to be assuming that Brox is all the accounts using those IP ranges. It's looking like there is no other evidence. --Abd 20:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Sadly, event faced with problems User:Brox continues his disruptive actions in his home lt.wikipedia creating havoc with his illogical categorization of articles. I can understand User:MoiraMoira, the stubborn position and refusal to cooperate from Brox's side, can drive even most patient users crazy. @Trijnstel, thanks for the reply. Tomreves 19:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I could write a great deal about Brox now, but this is all irrelevant here. Please don't use this page as a forum from which to defame users. LT wiki has no checkuser, so stewards here will serve. The sole question is checkuser information, and defamation of users just complicates this. Those allegations, true or false, are matters for to address. All I'm saying here is that the identification of these socks is clearly weak, so LT wiki discussion should not be complicated by claims, as you have made, that sock identification beyond the acknowledged socks is clear. It isn't. --Abd 20:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for this. I suppose there is no other way to tell for sure whether or not the confirmed LIKELY acounts are User:Brox's. If there is no other way, I suppose the further escalation of discussions is useless because we cant determine new facts with regard to User:Brox.Tomreves 20:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
But you can determine if Brox is being disruptive on lt.wikipedia. Take it one step at a time. Is he causing damage? Sock puppets don't necessarily cause damage, it's important to back up and look at what's important: content and community. If he's got a sock or socks backing him up, that's a form of damage, but if they are really acting independently, doing different things, it's not worth worrying about. If it looks like he is abusively socking, like revert warring with socks or multiple !voting, then is the time to again request checkuser. Even sophisticated puppet masters slip up. But don't harass him. Cooperate with him. It's hard to cooperate with someone who is calling you a liar! --Abd 21:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Acknowledged accounts: lt:q:user:Redagavimas (sysop WQ LT), lt:s:user:Redagavimas (sysop WS LT), lt:user:Brox (sysop WP LT), user Dendrolo (Sichter WP DE), ru:w:user:Brox (autoeditor WP RU). "In WP DE I was (and I want to be)" de:Benutzer:Brox" and the user intends to seek account unification as shown in the linked acknowledgment. I have seen no sign of cross-wiki abuse. Some accounts are blocked on some wikis apparently as a result of this checkuser report, which seems an overreaction to me.
  • Brox (CA) is only blocked on
  • Redagavimas (CA) was blocked on NL wiki and, August 7, 2011, on bat-smg.wikipedia, though the account had not edited since 2007. This was likely based on no misbehavior but only this report.
  • Dendrolo (CA) one edit on Commons in 2010, blocked 11:25, 25 July 2011, accusation of sock puppetry, no evidence cited. 4 isolated edits to Lt.wikipedia in 2011, no apparent abuse, account acknowledged as Brox 7 March 2011, blocked there August 6, 2011, by Snooker (Tomreves, filer of this CU request).
  • LT.wikipedia has 19 administrators and 3 bureaucrats and should be well able to handle alleged problems there.
  • Action needed here: clarify identification of Brox with the sock farm, appears to be weak. Common provider in Lithuania would not be unusual for the Lithuanian wikipedia. --Abd 22:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


Requests for comment/recheck User Brox and Tik-Kon in WP LT. Please recheck User:Brox/Brox and Tik-Kon in WP LT. --Brox 08:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


  Doing...I shall make a complete review and post my findings here. fr33kman 17:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

  Comment I have redone the Brox@ltwiki CU request and also had another steward recheck and we found the following;
  Unrelated Users w:lt:User:Sands, w:lt:User:Tik-Kon, and w:lt:User:Passutis are unrelated to w:lt:User:Brox. I have no comment on the results of any investigation that took place on nlwiki, but using ltwiki's data there is no connection to Brox. I'd like to chat in private with a CU from nlwiki so we can compare findings. I've also nothing to say about anything else related to Brox either. fr33kman 21:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  Done I've dealt with nlwiki, you're free to go about your business, Happy Editing! :-) fr33kman 06:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Further specification: There has been no investigation on nl: into Sands, Tik-Kon and Passutis; they had been blocked there based on PeterSymonds's CU above, then unblocked based on the discussion here. There have been some Dutch CUs regarding Brox and Dendrolo and other suspected sockpuppets. - Andre Engels 08:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Dendrolo is not a "suspected sock puppet" of Brox, this is an "acknowledged sock puppet." --Abd 22:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


Retiro a los autobloqueos de la lista de usuarios implicados pues no son usuarios ni pueden ser verificados per se. Estudiando la viabilidad de la solicitud (Note: reviewing this request) -- Dferg ☎ talk 21:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

¿Hay alguna razón para sospechar que Jgrullon88 es títere, salvo que supuestamente sean los dos usuarios de la misma procedencia? Saludos, -- Dferg ☎ talk 21:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
La herramienta de CheckUser se debe utilizar como último recurso, para casos difíciles de vandalismo o disrupción tal y como establece la correspondiente política. Si bien una evasión de bloqueo puede llegar a ser objeto de una solicitud, tras conversar con el usuario solicitante por IRC y analizar lo aquí expuesto no puedo encontrar razones para llevar a cabo la solicitud por la siguientes razones:
  • Los autobloqueos que aparecen en la lista automática de bloqueos pueden ser: o usuarios nuevos que comparten la dirección IP del usuario implicado tratando de editar e identificados por el sistema y bloqueados; o bien el mismo usuario iniciando sesión desde diferentes direcciones IP que el sistema asímismo bloquea. Ver Wikipedia:Bloqueo automático para más detalles. Como digo pueden ser usuarios o no pero la política no nos permite utilizar la herramienta para "salir de pesca" y ver lo que hay.
  • La segunda razón expuesta consiste en listar a un usuario aparentemente de la misma nacionalidad que el usuario bloqueado. Ser de un mismo país no está prohibido, no constituye un abuso ni por supuesto es razón para realizar una comprobación por lo expuesto anteriormente: no podemos "salir de pesca". No se han descrito comportamientos ni abusivos ni similares del segundo usuario listado y verificarla por ser supuestamente del mismo país, como digo, sería inapropiado y un mal uso de la herramienta.

Así pues, por tanto, esta petición no puede ser procesada. Si en el futuro apareciese alguna cuenta comportándose de modo similar al usuario bloqueado y cometiendo actividades que contravengan las políticas del proyecto sírvanse pedir verificación de nuevo.

Petición rechazada. --Dferg 21:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


But CU cannot give you the relationship between account and IP due to wmf's private policy. --Waihorace 13:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
It's funny that u guy only tell me this without telling others.--Zhxy 519 01:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
    • What is the reason to think that this is truly sock/meat puppetry and not two people who share the same opinion? -- Avi 15:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Simply from the trend that they edit most about entertainments. & mostly from their attitude and style of speeches towards others. --Zhxy 519 01:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
  CheckUser is not for fishing fr33kman 01:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to hear that. --Zhxy 519 04:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, those are the rules. Make sure you reread the policy over again. Take care :-) fr33kman 05:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


The following request is closed: not done Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


  Not done If an IP is making the same invalid edit then surely a block is in order? There is no need for, nor does policy permit this checkuser. BTW: Pointing the contribs of two edits by an IP is not a local discussion. fr33kman 20:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Ok, vamos explicar em português pra ver se entendem: Segundo a política de privacidade somente há 6 razões para violar a privacidade de alguém, e em nenhuma delas se inclui relacionar uma pessoa a um IP. Nunca vão aceitar um checkuser desses, nunca. E era melhor pararem de pedir esse tipo de checkuser. Béria Lima msg 21:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Sim senhora, vossa digníssima majestade. --viniciusmc 21:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I specifically asked Beria, solely because she is native in pt and en, to place this notice in pt so less cu's such as this invalid one will occur. Hope everyone understands. fr33kman 21:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure there are less offensive people out there who could deliver the message, but nevermind... --viniciusmc 22:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


Ruslik 12:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


This request is rejected. The Turkish Wikipedia has their own CheckUser people (verify). As per CheckUser policy stewards can only use CheckUser tools on wikis with active local CheckUsers when urgent requests are made or in cases of cross-wiki checks. This is not the case. The suspicion that the "accusers" would dispute the local CheckUser result is not a reason for us to verify there and as such this request is to be declined here. I suggest to follow the local procedures. Thank you.
Request refused. -- Dferg 22:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


Indeed. Hope this vandal can be checked as soon as possible, as he's disrupting village pump again (just like his other sock puppets which he used from April to June, as can be seen from CU history). Thank you very much!--Jsjsjs1111 17:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Checkuser results can only be seen for a restricted period of time, and Luke7956's block is long enough ago that his edits will not be checkable any more. Do you have a more recent confirmed sockpuppet (or maybe data from an old checkuser result) to compare with? If not, I'm afraid I'll have to declare this one   Stale. - Andre Engels 08:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Hellokite (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Wenreform (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
12345wong (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Ywmanana (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Thank you. --Zhxy 519 10:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
See also checkuser wiki. Ruslik 14:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
  Unrelated No similarity with the known ip ranges of luke7956 (thanks Ruslik for the hint). - Andre Engels 16:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Novelas da Record@pt.wikipedia

Same reaction as above: Lucas081094's edits cannot be checked by checkuser; do you have any recent confirmed sockpuppets or otherwise some data from old checkuser results that we can compare with? - Andre Engels 08:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Note: Lucas081094 lasts edits dates January 2011 and therefore there will be no data on the database about him. Do you have a more recent confirmed sockpuppet to compare with? Otherwise we'll close this as «stale». -- Dferg 08:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Other socks:
Francisco 11:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
The account which has edited more recently is pt:User:Chocolate Preto and is likewise stale for comparaison. Sorry to ask again but, any other account recently found (and if possible, less than 3 months ago)? -- Dferg 12:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
No, this account has been editing since 6 April 2011. Francisco 12:21, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I did a quick research at the archives here. Is this user related to YoudaCamper/Electrostatic Jolt? — Any request here or here (or borderline here) matching with this users? Thank you. -- Dferg 13:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
No, this account is related to Lucas081094. Francisco 14:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Não querendo atrapalhar,mas estou desconfiado deste Novelas da Record.Eu não me recordo o nome,mas tem um usuário bloqueado atualmente que removia consideravelmente conteúdo referenciado de páginas.Pelo que chequei nas contribuições,reversões sobre conteúdo sem fonte foram feitas por todos os verificados aqui.-- 20:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. But all the users listed here to compare with the suspected sockpuppet «Novelas da Record» will have no data stored in the database because they have not edited recently. -- Dferg 08:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
This CheckUser request can not be perfomed since all the suspected sockpuppet accounts listed have not edited recently and thus we will have no data to compare (  Stale). The administrators should determine whether it's possible a block evasion by analyzing the user edits, behaviour and patterns.
Not done. -- Dferg 08:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. Francisco 13:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


  •   Confirmed that both are the same user. No apparent socks. Range is likely too wide for a rangeblock. -- Avi 00:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Mar del Este@ko.wikipedia

  • Question: is this request for Korean Wikinews or Korean Wikipedia? - In the heading you put this is for kowiki, but the template links to kowikinews. I'm correct assuming this is for kowikipedia. Thanks, -- Dferg 20:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Korean Wikipedia and requests. kowikipedia is correct. Please understand, so I did not request Meta. -- 칼있으마 07:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • More information required: Hello. Can you please clarify why CheckUser is required. Take your time if needed but please try to ask: "why do you suspect those accounts are the same person" and "assuming that those accounts are indeed the same person, how that would be a policy violation?" Thank you, -- Dferg 20:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Mar del Este for the account continue to impersonate the account has been created. Mr. Mar del Este, as well as the purported account Awesone Awesonq comes out. I wrote the above account to see if any of the same account will be asking. -- 칼있으마 07:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

As per impersonations and project vandalism, check performed. Particulary complicated check but in a technical standpoint the following accounts have the same source (  Confirmed):

Regarding Awesonq (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST • lwcheckuser), per CheckUser, that account looks   Unlikely to be part of the gruop above. The accounts listed here are blocked, but I did not checked for how long; that's your task.

No comments in regards to the IP.

Request accepted and processed. The result is above. -- Dferg 08:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Adriano Braga@pt.wikipedia


  • Juniorpetjua
  • Adriano Braga


  • Alexandresetubal

Still working on

  • Brasileiro1500

Will finish tomorrow. --Jyothis 04:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Someone will check? Pcmsg 21:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Hello, my behaviour is not disruptive. I've only tried to contribute. Discussion pages are meant for discussions. One has to look at the whole picture, and see the other participants, before making these accusations. Cheers.Brasileiro1500 22:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I must add that I am not Juniorpetjua, you can verify it, but I already declare it for all purposes.Brasileiro1500 22:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Some checkuser? Pcmsg 21:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I have to prepare to meet Irene, the beautiful. I am asking another steward to take over. --Jyothis 05:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Juniorpetjua, Adriano Braga and Alexandrestubal are technically   Possible. Brasileiro1500 is   Unlikely. --Bsadowski1 07:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  Question: Bsadowski1, it still says "in progress". Is this the final result? --Georgez 19:57, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Nevermind. --Georgez 23:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppets @nowiki

  •   Doing... -Barras 14:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, quite a few accounts found here:   Confirmed are:

All above share the same IP and UA(s). Some accounts are already some days old and this makes the IP looking kind of stable (forwarding the IP to Laaknor). The accounts have all been blocked now by me after consulting Laaknor as it is easier to do so via the cu interface. The underlying IP range is probably to big for a block and would affect innocent users. -Barras 14:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)