Open main menu
Warning! Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in October 2011, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion.




  Unrelated Sorry, sort of seems like a duck, but CU says no. fr33kman 18:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Status:    Done

Look what led me to ask this:

  • Laurindo reversed Viniciusmc, which reversed Limitsouls.
  • Laurindo edited on almost every page vandalized by others
  • Herperstídio reversed Viniciusmc, which had reverted Lord Squish
  • All of them edited the same page
  • Laurindo reversed Viniciusmc again, which reversed Limitsouls, a famous sock.

-- 21:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

  CheckUser is not for fishing, IP requests are not accepted. -- Marco Aurelio 17:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
  Question: There is no way to make a range block with these sockpuppets? For some time they are bothering the Lusophone Wikipedia. PcTalk 19:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
  Doing... Since a registered user has asked, I shall now perform this CU. fr33kman 21:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
  Stale = Mister Bumpy, Danceclubber, Danceclubber, Litrix Linuxer, Soli Deo Gloria do Yahoo;   Confirmed = Laurindo Della Verde, Keyssoon, Limitsouls, Herpestídeo, Lord-Squish, Also confirmed = Placeneck, Dino-rhino, Neo-ateu, Professor Tibúrcio, Pedidor de artigos, PedoBear TrollFace, Neo-ateu, Gyroglad, Loro qué biscoito, Luciraldo, Enjoystep, Knowhabit, Loansmoral, Phasepage, Noobtloos, Basedview, Galo-carijó, The wars continue, IsaacFeliz, Texugo-de-mel, Papa Chico Bento XVI, ChillyWyllyc666, Silas Maracutaia, Edir Morcego, Spokeroad, Yeargets, Delaypoems, Againatoms. I have given the range to Teles to block. fr33kman 22:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. PcTalk 23:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Please acrescent:

-- 22:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I won't do requests for IP address requesters. fr33kman 22:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm just asking you to add users.

In fact, for that you never accept requests for IP?-- 23:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The prevailing thought is to not accept CU requests from IPs because the accountability is not there. I will say that I have VERY thoughly checked this person and their IPs and ranges and the above listed accounts are the whole of the findings. (On a personal note, I actually dislike treating anons differently than named users, but that's the way the wind blows, sadly). :) fr33kman 23:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
You can add these users in checking. I'm sure are the same users. PcTalk 23:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
They are confirmed in my first response. The range is now hard blocked fr33kman 23:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. PcTalk 00:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
New sock:Houseclearfre.-- 00:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
a) the user is blocked so no need for a CU, and b) we are not doing CUs asked for by anons. Sorry, raise it as a concern on Talk:Stewards if you wish it changed. Either way, the user is blocked so it's not really needed to check them. fr33kman 00:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


I have done this anyway to check if any more abuse had been taking place. This sysop has no place being an administrator. There is an lots of CU evidence, so much that I almost emergency desysopped them myself. The community should localize the discussion and strip the user of their flags and probably ban them as well. fr33kman 18:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


  Not done we do not accept requests from anonymous users, sorry. fr33kman 16:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I had a mistake. I am User:Awayfromsong. I will prove soon. -- 17:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I am I didn't check my login/out because of my mistake. Please recheck my request. Thanks. --Awayfromsong 17:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
  Confirmed fr33kman 17:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
  Comment All accounts locked globally now. fr33kman 18:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


Tskpc, Edidey, Amhed, Bdkly, Ldsins@zh.wikipedia

  • Ldsins account is too old to verify.
  • I believe
  • Bdkly = Amhed = Edidey = Tskpc. es:Magister Mathematicae 00:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Big problem of Vandalism in ES.Wikiquote

I'll deal with this. To get a full solution, we need to request edit filter enabled at eswikiquote. es:Magister Mathematicae 23:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

There's a large sockpuppet farm, all that I found are now locked, but I don't think Edwin belong to it (they may be common vandals). es:Magister Mathematicae 23:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I'm finished. this is a new appeareance of "ALVARO" vandal, which has been trashing wikiquote since 2008. I reblocked his usual ranges and added some edit filters. es:Magister Mathematicae 00:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Problem of Vandalism in SR.Wikipedia

One correction. Our checkusers both times wrote their reports on the Village pump (first time, second time) and both times we gave the user links to these reports (first time, second time here and here). Actually, both times he responded to them, which means that he has read them. So, it is not true that checkusers didn't make two separate checks and two separate reports. I told the user that logs can not be disclosed publicly and explained to him the whole procedure after he has asked for evidence. mickit 05:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
but, in second report checkuser relied on first report??? Please, check both reports and both situacions. --Drozim 13:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Clarification: User Drozim (user who filled this request) is indefinitely blocked from sr wikipedia because he used his sockpuppets for voting. First checkuser report is submitted on 20th august this year, and after that his first sockpuppet (Rema9) is blocked indefinitely, and he is blocked for seven days. Few days ago, an article which he wrote is proposed for deletion on sr wikipedia, and again suspicious account (User Indijanac) appeared and voted. On 5th october second checkuser report is submitted which confirmed that suspicious account was his sockpuppet. After this both accounts are blocked indefinitely (Drozim is blocked indefinitely because of repeated abuse of accouts for voting). I suppose that Drozim wants that some steward confirm checkuser findings on sr wikipedia.--В и к и в и н др е ц и 13:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

  •   Not done stewards, per policy, do not police local checkusers. fr33kman 18:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

No, I want to confute (to deny) checkusets reports because Indijanac is not my sockpuppets. Please, help!--Drozim 08:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Please discuss with local checkusers (Djordjes‎ and Обрадовић Горан if I'm right). Stewards only help on projects with no active CU. If that does not work, Ombudsman commission might be able to help you. Nothing for stewards to do here. Regards. --Bencmq 08:50, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Suspicious accounts on en.wikiversity

Status:    Done

A couple of hours ago, these accounts were created almost simultaneously on en.wikiversity. The one with the bee hive reminds me of this one. Please check to see which accounts are related and should be (b)locked. Thanks, Mathonius 13:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

  Confirmed All accounts are related. No more sleepers found. Trijnstel 13:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


  Unrelated by CU data fr33kman 17:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! --Jüppsche 19:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


  Confirmed -- Quentinv57 (talk) 09:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
If it's a DUCK, why do the CU? fr33kman 23:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


  Confirmed--Vituzzu 22:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
If it's a DUCK, why do the CU? ... fr33kman 23:30, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
I guessed to prevent controversies and look for other easy to find socks. --Vituzzu 10:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Marcus Luccas@pt.wikipedia

See also: category of sock puppets PcTalk 11:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello. Why do you think these users are the same ? Could you please provide some diffs that show a similar behaviour ? Thanks -- Quentinv57 (talk) 12:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
(Sorry Quentin but I was on it before your answer), anyway...
  Unrelated even if editpattern shows some evidences.
--Vituzzu 12:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. PcTalk 12:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Other check here.-- 23:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


  Confirmed — Tanvir | Talk ] 13:21, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


So the block did not help? Hmm... --Bencmq 17:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
And w:zh:User:Patrickchan222 is also reverting the same thing in some articles --Bencmq 17:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
  Confirmed All the users you gave me the list are the same, plus the following ones :
As a lot were already locked with the reason crosswiki issues, I locked those who were not already. -- Quentinv57 (talk) 18:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


Status:    Not done

JAT6634 is a profilic sockpuppeter of en.wikipedia, and JAT67 on commons.wikimedia follows the "JAT" sockpuppets. This is from a suspision of cross-wiki sockpuppeting so a meta request was needed. ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 21:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

As I can see both these accounts are locked on every project where they were active (and now are also globally locked) and both these projects have local checkusers, maybe I don't understand your request but I don't see how to fulfill your request :/ --Vituzzu 22:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
There's already a global block, nevermind. ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 22:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I just thought that to get the interwiki link for the two accounts of different projects, it had to be here. ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 22:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I see but if a project has local CUes all the checks can be made only by them ;) --Vituzzu 22:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
  Not done per steward Vituzzu fr33kman 22:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Ajudante do Papai Noel@pt.wikipedia

Status:    Not done
  • Account attack. User of pt-wiki create account to offend. Marcus Luccas 16:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
  CheckUser is not for fishing Checkuser is a tool to compare information about two or more accounts that are suspected of abuse. It is not used to just look up a single username on a wiki and fish around to see if there is abuse using multiple accounts is occurring. We need other accounts to compare it to,and we need good, logical reasons backed up by evidence of abuse before we do a check user. Hope this explanation helps. fr33kman 16:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Marcus Luccas@pt.wikipedia

The check was made here. Needed another check? Sorry for bad English. PcTalk 21:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
That was between Gustavo, Marcus and Paulotanner on I'm asking for a check between Quintinense and Marcus Luccas on Commons and/or Meta (because of Observatore's comments and Marcus recent editions on this template and its talk page, defending Quintinense's beloved "Carnaval notability guideline". See also Paulotanner contributions). --Ajudante do Papai Noel 21:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
For request on Meta, we have our own checkusers. I am not sure if they will automatically do it for you if they see it here. As for request to checkuser on Commons, it goes here. Stewards can help you only on projects without local CheckUsers (ptwiki, for example). --Bencmq 00:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
I believe that the user wants to perform a verification request in Lusophone Wikipedia, because the violation was in the Lusophone Wikipedia and not other projects. PcTalk 01:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
As I can see the account Ajudante do Papai Noel has been created just to suggest Marcus Luccas is a long-term sock/meatpuppeteer, the request is just to check on meta or commons if the accounts are owned by the same person, in order to clear the hurdle of CU datas expiration, to me it can be done. --Vituzzu 11:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Who's going to check? Meta or Commons? PcTalk 12:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure that this check can really be performed. Anyway, that's up to local CUs of Commons and meta, not to stewards. -- Quentinv57 (talk) 12:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Local requests done, thanks Bencmq. No need to check on, you can close this request now. --Ajudante do Papai Noel 13:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

  Not done anyway if Quintiniense == Paulotanner and Paulotanner != Marcus Luccas → Quintiniense != Marcus Luccas, at least via CU, anyway a local check may also work.
--Vituzzu 13:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. PcTalk 13:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Technical note: Since a user can have multiple UAs and IP addresses, it's completely possible for A to be related to B even if A = C and B != C. Not that it matters in this case, of course :) Jafeluv 17:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
In fact I wrote at least via CU ;p
--Vituzzu 18:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Status:    Not done

Block evasion (DUCK).View:

-- 15:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

  Not done Sorry, but requests from IPs are not accepted. Cordially, -- Quentinv57 (talk) 15:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Anyway I think viniciusmc forgot to log-in :D --Vituzzu 15:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
I locked Blog...Blog, Losotaint, LOL...Men!, Bubu-CheChe, Revenge 1, PM734, Tenage Stupid, Butelermen and Penerootaint since they had been already checked, Ritula has no SUL. --Vituzzu 15:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
That wasn't me, I wouldn't ask for checkuser on accounts that are already blocked. :) --viniciusmc 15:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
You will accept the check or I make you check these accounts.You will accept, but prefer the IP.No denying their requests, and says he does not accept requests for IPs.I will not apologize.-- 16:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry but it's just the policy here. We don't accept checkuser requests from anonymous users. You can't login and confirm it's your request? Trijnstel 16:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm .... No.

The policy of you is more silly than the Wikinews policy that IPs can not edit. I will change the status of this check, because my checks accepted as a check of the User IP.Fiz honey badger and was well attended by a competent tester. It's unfortunate the way of mistreating the IPs.-- 16:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

You're not in the position to decide whether we accept a CU-request or not, therefore I undid you change of the status. Trijnstel 16:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


  Doing..., because zh:User:水陸空無雙王大波 has been blocked for the same reasons. -- Quentinv57 (talk) 09:51, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
  Confirmed. Other acounts are listed below :
  • RED16
  • 林蕙文
  • 林尚文
  • 王大波
  • 英屬香港團王大波
Quentinv57 (talk) 10:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, for the fast responding.--Kegns 12:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


  Doing... --Bencmq 16:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
From a CU perspective   Unlikely --Bencmq 16:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


  Confirmed. Trijnstel 21:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


  Not done we do not accept anonymous CU requests. fr33kman 19:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
There is no way to make a range block with these sockpuppets? For some time they are bothering the Lusophone Wikipedia. Ex: Chocolate Preto, Coração Partido, Maria Mayer and Cidadão Brasileiro. We can not accept this check? Why can not ask for IP checks? From what I saw this IP is clean.-- 21:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
We do not perform CUs for IP users because there is no accountability for such users. Use an account and we can accept a request. This is most certainly not a reflection of IP users. fr33kman 21:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


  Confirmed Also Sa, Zk, Rh, Mo fr33kman 03:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


  Likely PesquisadorFUT & PERNAMBUCOFUTEBOL;   Unrelated for the other two. fr33kman 03:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


Filipelsr and Thiagorsan   Possible, other   Unrelated--Shizhao 06:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

El Gurka Rapido@sv.wikipedia

  On hold contacting local CU.--Bencmq 09:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
The subject has been discussed on sv:Wikipedia:Kommentarer om administreringen av Wikipedia with two threads: "#Blockeringen av El Gurka Rapido" and "#Nu börjas det igen". My opinion ended the first thread and it is cited again in the new. (The amount of damage a heavily watched user can do is most likely minimal.) -- Lavallen 09:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I haven't even done any damage and my intent is all good. I promote a check on me, so GameOn can have some peace. Just to clarify, Yes. I have edited from the IP He got that IP from a wikimail I replied to him from a mail where he thanked me for my efforts. The other IP's is not in any way associated with me.  El Gurka Rapido  09:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

  Not done sorry but this kind of issue should be managed locally, anyway CU cannot "acquit" anybody but can just "convinct". --Vituzzu 11:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I will not contest if a steward says that it can't be done due to there being a local checkuser if the policy says so. But a local checkuser on svwp can't check against uses on other projects and that's why I went here, not to overrule the local checkusers on svwp. GameOn 11:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Basically CU can be performed by stewards if there are no local CUes, as I can see those accounts edited on projects with local checkusers... --Vituzzu 11:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Ok, so should I then ask a CU on eswp and a CU on commons if El Gurka Rapido on eswp is the same as Belway01 on Commons? Or should I instead of asking on eswp ask a CU on frwp if El Gurka Rapido has the same IP as the one on Commons? Wouldn't it be easier, and more in accordance with the privacy policy, if a steward looked at it? GameOn 12:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


  Not done signature misuse means usually inexperience, not sockpuppeting, do you have more evidence? --Vituzzu 11:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
It has been doing by another stewie. --Vituzzu 11:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Those three accounts seem to be   Unrelated, I aggree to Vituzzu, seems to be a bad joke or alike ... a×pdeHello! 11:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


As above, request done by non-logged users cannot be performed. --Vituzzu 23:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Please, processe my check. No utility of no process checks of IPs. IPs has got users of humanity.-- 23:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

  Not done Sorry, but an IP user has no accountability, we do not perform CUs in such circumstances. This is not a reflection of yourself, it is just our policy. Regards, fr33kman 02:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
  Confirmed in check below.-- 23:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


And the first user is blocked for username, not his edits. --Bencmq 05:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you to block and There are some other sockpuppets, I'll add them in some minute. --Vituzzu 09:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


Could you please log in? Requests from anonymous users are usually not accepted. Trijnstel 15:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Sory, I'm 비엠미니. just a minute plz. -- 15:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm checkuser plz. --비엠미니 15:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
One more question, what's the exact reason to checkuser? Editwarring, block evasion or something else? Trijnstel 15:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
They returned edits about deleteing sexual pictures. --비엠미니 15:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

A long list of sockpuppets. The following accounts are all   Confirmed:

  • 김경민
  • 레드릭키익
  • 퀴잇뜨르뜨틱
  • 홀티스마킥
  • 스페투매크투
  • 무르마쉬코좌좌
  • 아리스엘소
  • 프로폴로댁스
  • 아르미스옹동
  • 글로리원스
  • 테스크믹슨
  • 마름모냇물
  • 위크카르스
  • Bluebelo
  • 노이즈무브
  • Actorueged
  • 톰슨톰스핏짜
  • 호른마이조
  • 브운티엔
  • 굿드굿스
  • 드로위식노우
  • 펠로디오
  • Runsclear
  • GrayBgive
  • Naversaw
  • 드런크하이낙
  • 비엔트비엔
  • 요냐카쥐아노
  • 무초무푹
  • 조크자크
  • 헬픈삼촌
  • Mrbogo
  • Rivernever
  • Spaninnermx
  • Donepraha
  • 무교동낙지발
  • Toolshopedasc
  • Givesnakesqe

아푸로쿠소, 오웨이크리크스, 타임투오리히온 and Oamnet are   Stale. I could have missed some, as this user heavily made use of open proxies. Trijnstel 17:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Editor Wiki@pt.wikipedia

Hello Pc. I agree to check third of them because that is the same pattern, but I don't see why w:pt:User:Leandro nisczak should be checked... He has not edited the same pages and I did not found the same patterns as for others. Did you have some more proofs ? Thanks -- Quentinv57 (talk) 20:23, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, as I said is that he plays administrator with his socks. I took the link above before, but I saw that there was a sock, put unwittingly. No need to check Leandro nisczak. Sorry for bad English. PcTalk 20:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Okay, so I have done the check except for w:pt:User:Leandro nisczak.
The following accounts are   Confirmed :
  • Ataque a mãe com a faca
  • Editor Wiki
  • Seltabot
  • Caruso Briguento
  • Roberto.Oliveira
  • TS3 User
  • Utilizador Bloqueado
Cordially, -- Quentinv57 (talk) 21:52, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Ok, thanks PcTalk 22:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


The following accounts are   Confirmed:
Range block is not possible. Ruslik 07:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the fast action!-Mys_721tx(talk) 07:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
  Confirmed Ruslik 08:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Also should be blocked for some days and you may pay attention to Yesnochwh, Chineetiger, Gerth and Czechann. --Vituzzu 08:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


  Not done for now. The election is still on-going and I see no reason to check now. I guess submitting a request afterwards, but I'm not even sure if that is possible unless there is agreement from all voters and consensus to check all voters, Regards --Bencmq 17:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Afaik there is no such request on ko.wikipedia whatsoever, plus you just create an account for this. --Bencmq 17:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


See above. --Bencmq 17:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


See above--Bencmq 17:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Mar del Este@ko.wikipedia

See above --Bencmq 17:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


See above --Bencmq 17:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Spam accounts on pih.wikipedia

  Done. Patriciabrisco is   Unrelated.
  Confirmed accounts are the following:
  • Darriiusgraeff
  • Wwwmrruuffiini
  • Cameronbonneau
  • Charliemintonc
  • KevinCarterevi
  • Reeneawwallace
Additionally   Confirmed ones:
  • Reenesulleiman
  • DanaKanganaKan
Regards, — Tanvir | Talk ] 05:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Some more accounts from with same pattern:

I've blocked them on and those that were created on Meta. Pages deleted or sent to deletion. There are some more accounts on account creation log with no edit though. Deweynightllin edited on Outreach with same pattern, but was not created on and an IP edited Deweynightllin's user page on Meta. Thanks.” Teles (T @ L C S) 06:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Spam accounts on en.wikiversity

  Done. is   Unrelated.
  Confirmed ones:
  • DanaKanganaKan
  • Darriiusgraeff
Additionally   Confirmed ones:
  • Ashleyespinoza
  • Reenesulleiman
  • Silaasjanssonn
  • Reeneawwallace
  • Charliemintonc
  • Christopherpoo
  • Wwwmrruuffiini is an Open proxy and I have blocked it globally. Regards, — Tanvir | Talk ] 06:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


  Confirmed Trijnstel 22:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


  Confirmed, you may renew the block on the ip above and also lock for less than 2 weeks. --Vituzzu 08:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


Houseclearfre and ChillyWyllyc666 are obvisously ducks. I won't check Litrix Linuxern too because I don't see any common patterns. Anyway, the fact that you created an account just to ask for this request does not encourage me to perform this check. By the way, I wonder why this revision has been hidden, that may be an error. Cordially, -- Quentinv57 (talk) 22:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
I´m not maked this account for ask this request. Sorry, --Agent 22:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
That's really suspicious : you don't even have an account on and you request for a CheckUser ? why ? -- Quentinv57 (talk) 22:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Mister Edição@pt.wikipedia

There were already a request for this same user here: Steward_requests/Checkuser/2011-05#Mister_Edi.C3.A7.C3.A3o.40pt.wikipedia Béria Lima msg 22:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Eu sou brasileiro. Nossa, eu nem tinha reparado que uma pessoa já pediu este check...--Agent 23:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  Not done per above. Here you're linking to a page that has not even be touched by the second user, as a proof for the CU. Please stop to make such CheckUsers requests now, or you will be blocked from meta. Thanks for your comprehension. -- Quentinv57 (talk) 23:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Okay, never edit this site. I'm officially dead and I ask for your desnomeation.--Agent 23:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


  Confirmed also using open proxies, I'll perform a deeper check in some hours, but those are clearly sockpuppets. --Vituzzu 15:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Are there any results of deeper investigation? ko.wikipedia community is waiting for the result. Thanks. --관인생략 13:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I found no other users directly related but I think there could be some other one so I'd like to talk to ask some questions, eg the support rate needed to pass (if it's 80% it's worth to seek the masterpuppet among the supporters)...--Vituzzu 13:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Vituzzu, let me ask you one thing. I don't think all of these accounts are sockpuppets, because their votes for arbitration committee election were slightly different. Please, check ko:위키백과:중재위원회/투표/2011년_10월/엔샷#무효 and ko:위키백과:중재위원회/투표/2011년_10월/Ryuch#무효. Those accounts did not show any relationship in case of the vote. And, are you saying they are sockpuppets because they used open proxy? or is there another evidence to confirm the sockpuppets? I'm just asking because I don't know the way you confirm it.--NuvieK 14:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

If I had to use several sockuppets on a certain set of elections I would vote using a semi-random pattern, considering that, I think opposes has an higher "weight" than supports. Anyway CU doesn't give the sole IP, so, from a technical point of view I have no doubts about the result. --Vituzzu 14:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
What I doubt is that they did not have common editing pattern(their targets were very various) and that their voting pattern was different, too. In case of the election of Ryuch, one account supported, two accounts opposed, and one account did not even vote for it. I guessed that it is more possible that their votes are same in some ways, but not exactly same way. Before voting, they edited some pages in their own branch. We can "doubt" that they are sockpuppets, but the fact that they used open proxy cannot confirm that they are sockpuppets.--NuvieK 14:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Vituzzu, I also have one more question. If these 4 accounts are all sockpuppets and you said you would check more, so masterpuppet just created 4 accounts, or are there more accounts? And if there are still suspicious accounts as sockpuppets, then I support that, too. -- Shyoon1 18:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

@NuvieK: to me, from a technical point of view and for my experience these are sockpuppets. I've just re-checked them again. Anyway feel free to ask for a confirmation by another steward, I have no problems to have a countercheck but I'm not allowed to divulgate more technical details.
@Shyoon1: as I stated, there are no directly linked other sockpuppets, but I think there's a mastepuppet among other voters.
--Vituzzu 19:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Because you just said "also using open proxies", I cannot not assume how you dealt with this problem. I mean, I don't know whether you confirm because they just used open proxies or they used same IP. I just want to listen how you confirmed from your technical point of view. It doesn't mean that I don't trust you, but I just wanna know how you dealt with this problem.--NuvieK 04:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


Please include the following accounts:
All accounts have the same MO in this page. Béria Lima msg 23:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  Unlikely per CU data for Limaodopalmital, Nilto sergio and Cgslucht (even if there are same edit patterns)
  Inconclusive for the three others. -- Quentinv57 (talk) 00:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


--다중닉파인더 11:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Is there any consensus for this checkuser? As I checked in here, there isn't any consensus or discussion about your checkuser request. And I think user nickname is inappropriate; literally means multi-nick finder. It means like "Sockpuppets detector". - Chugun (Talk) 14:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
There was no consensus or even any discussion about these accounts. And then, the requesting account seems a target account for this request.--NuvieK 14:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
  Not done per above. -- Quentinv57 (talk) 14:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


There are obviously ducks, so why do we need to check ? By the way, why did you hide this revision and not the three other ones that have exactly the same text ? Cordially, -- Quentinv57 (talk) 16:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
The user keep registering as new user and keep on posting slander. I presume this will increase as we are nearing election (sigh). I do not often hide edits, that was my test, also my link is extremely slow at the moment that I cannot do much edit now. Cannot even log in as I mistakenly log myself out. Need the IP to prevent user registering as different user again and again. Yosri 17:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  Confirmed but there's nothing which can be used to prevent further abuses. --Vituzzu 19:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but can I have the IP / someone block the IP to prevent further slander. The person target is Prime Minister wife, while I hardly think anyone notice it, recurring vandal may encourage copycat if not handle promptly. As one of the sysop, I agreed to let the steward to block the IP, as long as the problem is tackle. The reason I post it here is because, MS do not have IP Checker. Yosri 23:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
As I told you there's nothing you can use to prevent further abuses, unfortunately this guy uses en:dynamic IP, I'm sorry, you should consider an abusefilter (I can help you in creating it). --Vituzzu 19:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I would appreciate it very much as I am not much a technical guy. The user have strike again as ms:user:Flipflop.Yosri 23:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Again, no block possible either.   Confirmed though. --Bencmq 23:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Actually what I'm interested is what can be done to stop this. If the dynamic ip, block it temporary, ms have no flood of contributor, a month or a year block won't make much difference. ms:user:Batuapi strike today. Again, stopped telling what cannot be done, and do tell what can be done. Yosri 03:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Actually there is nothing that can be done to stop this via an IP block. Far too many IP addresses would be prevented from editing. An abuse filter is likely the best way forward, like Vituzzu said. Sorry it's not better news! Regards, fr33kman 04:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Sangyong@ko.wikipedia (2)

The preceding unsigned comment was added by NuvieK (talk • contribs) .

They are likely to be socks operated by the same person. Ruslik 08:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
What's the reason? Please tell us obvious reason. --비엠미니 09:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Actually I didn't saw your request in the upper section, we cannot give you details because of privacy policy. Anyway I was able to give them to two other stewards which confirmed my point of view, furthermore I asked another steward to perform the checking again, well, now my result is confirmed by about five people...but I think you'll be sure only if you'll run the CU by yourself or simply I'll say "result: negative" ;)
--Vituzzu 09:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
PS: this should be intresting. --Vituzzu 14:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Anyway, thank you so much for your endeavor. I said to korean wiki users about this re-CU in w:ko:위키백과:다중 계정 검사 요청#위키백과:중재위원회/투표/2011년 10월에서 의심되는 다중 계정. :D --비엠미니 15:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


I don't do a checkuser based on similar usernames, and two diffs (there's no reason for it); if it is about simple vandalism, both can be blocked by local admins. --Eptalon 17:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
The two users were blocked. PcTalk 17:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)