Steward requests/Checkuser/2012-05



Hello. They are   Confirmed. I've sent a mail to the CU mailing list to see whether it is a cross-wiki or a local affair. Cordially, -- Quentinv57 (talk) 06:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


Yes, that's very likely to be the same person / bot. However, I don't think it would be necessary to perform other checks on this user, because he uses different ranges so we can't easily find sleeping accounts. Traditional spam detection methods will be sufficient in my opinion. Best regards, -- Quentinv57 (talk) 05:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


The following accounts are   Confirmed:
The underlying IP address is already hard blocked for 1 year. Trijnsteltalk 12:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you.--Zhxy 519 (talk) 12:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


The following accounts are   Confirmed as socks of the same user:
  1. BH567841
  2. Plantwavesfck
  3. ひゃくど
  4. 5941SBA
  5. 李火皇老师
  6. Fake id 255
  7. Qpwoeidjfhg
  8. Fdl;iljhljhlifgfgfg
  9. 美国加州烤鸭
  10. Tatsuka Haimo
SH9002 is   Unrelated. Ruslik (talk) 16:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Could you confirm if they are related to [1] and [2]? Thanks! Bencmq (talk) 09:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
SH9002 is not related. As to BH567841 and its company, there are some other accounts on the same IP as BH567841 with different UA strings. These UAs are somewhat similar to ones used by the user in your examples, but the IP is different. Ruslik (talk) 15:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


  Likely, and see CU mail list--Shizhao (talk) 12:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


--ValJor (talk) 11:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

  Confirmed. Answered at user talk page at ptwikt explaining actions undertaken. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


  Not done Why? Just because someone voted against you? No, declined. fr33kman 13:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
There, among them possible puppet: For example "Ayan 68 or Cirtdan777, I want to clarify, if so, whose are these puppet of others?Vago tp 04:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
You have presented no evidence of socking. MBisanz talk 04:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
See here. This user started edits after 6 months - after 3 days the bureaucrat suggested me that (13/04/12) I become a candidate for the admin. (There is a rule in AzWiki so that the participant be edited in the last 30 days, at least once can vote in elections.) The user "Ayan 68" voted only in the last hours in the election only for my elections, though, that there were four candidates. Vago tp 06:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


  Confirmed. Both locked. --Bsadowski1 (talk) 02:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


The following socks are   Confirmed:
Ruslik (talk) 08:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Thx! Plese CU more:

--Shizhao (talk) 13:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The following accounts are   Confirmed:
The following are   Likely:
Ruslik (talk) 16:16, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


  Confirmed (They are spam bots.) Ruslik (talk) 08:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


Hello 乌拉跨氪. I just performed the request, and here is the result :
  • There is no user with the name Cjsh71607.
  • 靓仔仔 is   Unrelated to the others per CU data. Please see the result of this request for more info.
  • The following accounts are   Confirmed :
    • LakokatXmakekat
    • 人造人19號金正恩
    • Gzdavidweng
    • 李蝗老师沙逼
    • 李蝗老师
    • 李蝗老师八格
Best regards, -- Quentinv57 (talk) 13:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


Not much we can do really as this person has a highly dynamic ISP. An Abuse filter may work, however. --Bsadowski1 (talk) 03:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


Hello Bencmq. The users you gave are   Confirmed. Here is a complete list of what I found :
  • 赵云2
  • 靓仔仔
  • Cjsh716
  • Hy30bj
  • Donen89
  • Duanwuchaoa
  • 神灵龍
I just sent you a mail including the IPs he used and the ranges to block. Regards, -- Quentinv57 (talk) 11:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


The following request is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  On hold after discussion with a few stewards. Trijnsteltalk 19:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  Additional information needed - Please provide here detailed evidence to support your alegations. Please read the box at the top of the page for more details. Thank you. —Marco Aurelio (audiencia) 21:55, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments - if you check editing timestamps, you will see that editing sprees do not overlap. All voted the same way in timely fashion [3] without giving any reason, consistent with LadyInGrey's preference from roughly 6 months ago (Point 7) without citing a specific reason for choosing "option 1" over the others.

Homero - first edit: [4] Validated a page proofread by LadyinGrey a couple years earlier. Highly unusual for a new user to delve into the proofread page, nor know the process of validation. Book not listed in anywhere easily accessible on the site (in comparison with something which could have appeared in Recent changes, or in a collaboration area. Account was registered at Spanish Wikisource first (which occurred only 3 days earlier); practically a Spanish Wikisource exclusive account. Finished validating that book, and then moved onto validating a book which was proofread by Azalee. Then began validating a book until completion which was proofread by LadyInGrey. As with the first, neither were listed anywhere nor would they have showed up in Recent Changes. Specific knowledge of the Index page must have been known. Next, validated pages from a book proofread by Azalee, same as before, no easily accessible path without specific knowledge. This continues for months, same editing styles. Also begins switching over to <page index> as opposed to {{Texto}} like here, a practice which LadyInGrey was doing to books she worked on around the same time. Working on Argentinian literature proofread by LadyInGrey. Without giving any reason for their choice, votes inline with LadyInGrey's preference. Talk page empty, never a single question of site formatting, templates, uploading djvu files or creating indices, collaboration. Editing style and voting consistent with other accounts listed above.

Daeqc - first edit: [5] validates a page. As with before, no learning curve, no questions about what proofreading is or how it works. Account signed up for at Spanish Wikisource only days earlier. Further editing that day, the account validates a work proofread by LadyInGrey [6] 3 years earlier; no easy way to access this work by RC or collab. Account was dormant for awhile but returned recently to validate a book which LadyInGrey proofread until completion. No easy way to access. Began editing only minutes after LadyInGrey had finished editing: LIG, Daeqc. Empty talk page, no conversation with other editors.

Azalee - the attack account. Account opened in 2005, when editors on Spanish Wikisource were virtually non-existent. User returned after 4 years of inactivity, instantly had ability to create, upload djvu file and create and index file. Refused to have any help, was extremely rude to me when I offered to help with page transclusion (something which I assumed an editor would have no clue to do). LadyInGrey added a border around a book I worked on (here); I found no reason to have it, so I undid it, only to reverted by Azalee only moments later. Hostile responses from Azalee coninued. Shares same viewpoint as LadyInGrey on this issue and enforces it for her, telling me they add a blue border "because they feel like it". Removed a portal the next day, which is what LadyInGrey had publically complained about a month earlier. Voted identically to LIG on eight different points [7]. Votes again in support with LIG's preference for partitioning (not using subpages) and confronts user StephenDaedulus, calling him a woman-beater [8] in response to a rant LIG had made, which Stephen politely addressed, but questioned. - Theornamentalist (talk) 01:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Quick sample at Spanish Wikiquote shows shared pages for editing: [9] [10] [11] [12]

Lito WS - opens account at Spanish Wikisource: [13]. Within a day or two, without any discussion, begins changing pages missing images (marked as "Problematic", a practice common at other Wikisources) from "Problematic" to "Proofread" (see here for a list, or an example.) Creates a category for missing images, and does this all with only being an editor at any Wikimedia site within days. No conversation, knowledge from other Wikisources, refuses to budge on point. LadyInGrey sides with this account on the issue and the accounts back eachother up, and then simultaneously ignore me questioning why. Edit eachothers books, agree with eachother on vote.

To expand on the "Missing image" issue, Lito WS was editing at a wiki site for just over a week, and then began making these site-wide changes. The account in question did what I could not explain; joining their first wiki and getting the confidence to make site-wide changes without any discussion to anyone. Questioning the sites standards is fine, but marking them all proofread without any reason or explanation? When questioned politely by me, Lito WS rudely responds, calling the discussion I tried to raise "ridiculous". This was on January 27th, 2012. On January 29th, LadyinGrey made an official post at the Cafe (here) to which she announces Lito WS's edits as the official way to mark these pages, even though we had been doing otherwise for 8 months. Both maintained the same attitude, same commanding and territorial manner. - IP joins in complex internal site issues, with the same attitude and style of speaking as LadyInGrey, expressing the same opinion and acting rashly on her part: [14] (an IP should not have knowledge of site drama or inner workings, editing "Pagina:" space for styling consistent with LIG's editing [15] nor have a working knowledge of what books she was working on. edits Cafe with viewpoint identical to Azalee and the other IP in the same time frame. Same hostility as LadyInGrey. Deleted a link to a book which LadyInGrey had just deleted: IP deletion on catalog page; partial history on deletion. Edits contain rude comments; [16] following complaints on Catalog pages by LadyInGrey earlier in the Cafe.

This is all I have in me for tonight. Please focus on their editing times, shared pages of editing, way of speaking, viewpoints shared in the Cafe, hostility, lack of communication with other users (consistent with what is typically required of other users) learning curve, Spanish wikisource exclusivity, and voting. My extremely limited way to check IP's (thank you google) shows that the three IP's are all in the city of Buenos Aires, Argentina; the city LIG has revealed she lives in. - Theornamentalist (talk) 02:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Anything else I can do, please get back to me as soon as possible, as the outcome of a vote is contingent on time. Thank you. - Theornamentalist (talk) 02:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
  Comment I am unsure whether there is either a prohibition or a requirement to declare alternate accounts at esWS so I cannot say whether there is a breach of local rules, however, the concerns over double proofreading are in contravention of protocols (though may not be policy), and the accusations about voting would be problematic if true.

The two IPs indicate same telephony company in Argentina, though initial data indicates places 400km apart (details are indicative). Some of this could be explained by a familial connection or acquaintance, and if that is the case, even a CU may not necessarily separate information.

Torn on the matter as components are unusual though explainable. Is there further support for or concerns about or on the wiki? Has this query been asked of the person? To me it would seem fair and reasonable for the person to have the ability to address such an accusation and to address concerns. As this is a person of standing for a period of time, I would suggest that this be held until that courtesy has been undertaken, or there is stronger support and/or concerns from the community. The older CU data isn't going to change, or "go off", and if it is old edits, there will be nothing to see anyway. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

In contrast with say English Wikisource, I am unaware of a policy to declare alternate accounts. Although the validation of pages (if by the same party) is not wholly damaging to the site, it does defeat the purpose of the process, and I have only found it to act as evidence to support the peculiarity of these accounts. What is harmful is the way which the accounts are being used to create an arena of conflict throughout the site. If these accounts are to be lumped together, you will see that they edit exclusively, vote exclusively and conduct themselves aggressively. Most other parties are virtually in harmony, despite minor preferential differences. These accounts have been used to bash other users, carry out tasks specified by the main account, and create an overall sense of disapproval to the way in which the remainder of the site edits. I believe that in unison, these accounts have made the issues of one seem like many, and the voting should support this. The validation and advanced knowledge set can be explained, but not easily. All of these together are just too much.
I have not made this clear to the site yet. I imagined this could be a familial connection, but the tone of speaking and consistency of immediate hostility to new users or users who question them is highly suspect too. Never have I seen a group of new editors show such brashness, haphazardness, hostility, and uniformity in their views, editing style and speaking. - Theornamentalist (talk) 13:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
The accounts and Ip's have not been notified, they have been so hostile to the bulk of users on the site and the tension from them is always so high that we were hesitant to post this. Including myself, there are 5 users who hold the same opinion here. I can speak for most of them in saying that knowledge of this would only create a more horrific atmosphere for editing. - Theornamentalist (talk) 13:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
If your concerns are as you express, then the checkuser is not the right process to be undertaken, please see CheckUser#Use of the tool which gives clear guidelines for Stewards, and it is not for addressing matters of behaviour and approach. CheckUser results are not a tool to be used to resolve the issue that is your concern. While I am not making the decision due to my WS cxns, if my opinion counts, this belongs with the person and as a community issue at esWS at this time. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
The behaviour has only been listed as evidence, it is the use of multiple accounts to vote which is why we've taken this step. I've brought it to Meta because LadyInGrey has the tools for checking at Spanish Wikisource. - Theornamentalist (talk) 13:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Checking what? She is a bureaucrat, and gets 'crat rights, there is no checking ability. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
I apologize, I thought that as the site bureaucrat, she had the tools. - Theornamentalist (talk) 15:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Only checkusers have the tools to check for such things, but meta is the correct avenue regardless, as there are no local checkusers on the wiki in question. Snowolf How can I help? 12:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


Below is a list of editing sprees. Going back into March, you will see that each account edits in series. Accounts all edit around the same time frame nearly everyday, but have taken turns. As you can see, there is only one potential instance of overlap in months, as upon further inspection, there seems to be a fair amount of gaps between edits, in which Azalee signed back in and called user StephenDaedalus a "woman-beater" for questioning LadyInGrey after she wrongly accused him of closing a vote. All other edits have no instance of overlap.

  • May 7th, 2012. 19:55-20:27 (**Romina**)
  • May 7th, 2012. 02:00-02:49 (LadyInGrey)
  • May 6th, 2012. 21:25-22:36 (**Romina**)
  • May 6th, 2012. 01:30-03:18 (Homero)
  • May 5th, 2012. 22:15-23:11 (**Romina**)
  • May 5th, 2012. 00:00-00:01 (Azalee)
  • May 4th, 2012. 23:22-23:56 (Azalee)
  • May 4th, 2012. 21:35-21:40 (LadyInGrey)
  • May 4th, 2012. 19:54-20:48 (**Romina**)
  • May 4th, 2012. 00:58-02:59 (Lito WS)
  • May 3rd, 2012. 23:02-23:59 (LadyInGrey)
  • May 3rd, 2012. 19:40-21:20 (**Romina**)
  • May 3rd, 2012. 01:16-02:44 (Homero)
  • May 3rd, 2012. 00:03-00:12 (Daeqc)
  • May 2nd, 2012. 23:21-23:51 (LadyInGrey)
  • May 2nd, 2012. 21:42-22:50 (**Romina**)
  • May 2nd, 2012. 01:26-03:09 (LadyInGrey)
  • May 1st, 2012. 20:19-22:13 (LadyInGrey)
  • May 1st, 2012. 01:03-03:06 (Azalee)
  • April 30th, 2012. 23:32-23:59 (Azalee)
  • April 30th, 2012. 23:14-23:15 (**Romina**)
  • April 30th, 2012. 23:10-23:10 (Azalee) to bash user StephenDaedalus
  • April 30th, 2012. 21:20-22:53 (**Romina**)
  • April 30th, 2012. 00:59-02:29 (Homero)
  • April 30th, 2012. 00:04-00:04 (LadyInGrey)
  • April 29th, 2012. 22:37-23:58 (LadyInGrey)
  • April 28th, 2012. 22:51-23:22 (LadyInGrey)
  • April 28th, 2012. 03:27-01:20 (LadyInGrey)
  • April 27th, 2012. 21:53-22:34 (**Romina**)
  • April 27th, 2012. 00:55-02:11 (Lito WS)
  • April 26th, 2012. 19:42-20:00 (**Romina**)
  • April 26th, 2012. 00:55-01:58 (Azalee)
  • April 25th, 2012. 23:38-23:48 (Azalee)
  • April 25th, 2012. 20:02-20:34 (**Romina**)
  • April 25th, 2012. 01:24-03:02 (Azalee)
  • April 24th, 2012. 21:16-21:34 (Homero)
  • April 24th, 2012. 20:56-21:14 (**Romina**)
  • April 23rd, 2012. 23:22-23:26 (Lito WS)
  • April 23rd, 2012. 129:49-20:43 (**Romina**)
  • April 23rd, 2012. 02:23-03:27 (LadyInGrey)
  • April 22nd, 2012. 01:29-03:48 (LadyInGrey)
  • April 21st, 2012. 00:37-01:18 (Lito WS)
  • April 20th, 2012. 22:53-23:18 (LadyInGrey)
  • April 20th, 2012. 21:54-22:16 (**Romina**)
  • April 20th, 2012. 01:55-02:26 (Homero)
  • April 19th, 2012. 21:49-23:36 (LadyInGrey)
  • April 19th, 2012. 20:27-20:54 (**Romina**)
  • April 18th, 2012. 19:57-20:46 (**Romina**)
  • April 18th, 2012. 00:42-02:54 (Lito WS)
  • April 17th, 2012. 19:09-20:18 (**Romina**)
  • April 16th, 2012. 20:22-21:15 (**Romina**)
  • April 16th, 2012. 00:00-00:04 (LadyInGrey)
  • April 15th, 2012. 23:57-23:59 (LadyInGrey)
  • April 14th, 2012. 22:25-22:25 (**Romina**)
  • April 13th, 2012. 01:08-02:02 (LadyInGrey)
  • April 12th, 2012. 02:06-02:08 (LadyInGrey)
  • April 11th, 2012. 19:41-20:18 (**Romina**)
  • April 11th, 2012. 02:35-02:54 (Azalee)
  • April 11th, 2012. 02:13-02:26 (LadyInGrey)
  • April 10th, 2012. 20:09-20:35 (**Romina**)
  • April 10th, 2012. 02:32-03:12 (LadyInGrey)
  • April 9th, 2012. 20:21-21:05 (**Romina**)
  • April 9th, 2012. 01:45-02:45 (LadyInGrey)
  • April 8th, 2012. No activity from any accounts.
  • April 7th, 2012. No activity from any accounts.
  • April 6th, 2012. No activity from any accounts.
  • April 5th, 2012. No activity from any accounts.
  • April 4th, 2012. No activity from any accounts.
  • April 3rd, 2012. 19:24-20:19 (**Romina**)
  • April 2nd, 2012. 22:11-22:53 (**Romina**)
  • April 1st, 2012. 01:34-02:43 (LadyInGrey)
  • April 1st, 2012. 19:24-20:19 (**Romina**)
  • March 31st, 2012. No activity from any accounts.
  • March 30th, 2012. 19:37-21:55 (**Romina**)
  • March 29th, 2012. 19:46-20:31 (**Romina**)
  • March 29th, 2012. 02:02-02:02 (LadyInGrey)
  • March 28th, 2012. 19:12-22:41 (**Romina**)
  • March 28th, 2012. 00:52-01:56 (Homero)
  • March 27th, 2012. 23:40-23:40 (LadyInGrey)
  • March 27th, 2012. 19:17-20:28 (**Romina**)
  • March 27th, 2012. 15:22-16:45 (LadyInGrey)
  • March 27th, 2012. 00:50-01:57 (Lito WS)
  • March 26th, 2012. 19:33-21:59 (**Romina**)
  • March 26th, 2012. 15:34-17:00 (Homero)
  • March 26th, 2012. 00:00-02:21 (LadyInGrey)
  • March 25th, 2012. 23:28-23:59 (LadyInGrey)
  • March 25th, 2012. 22:37-22:37 (Homero)
  • March 25th, 2012. 21:52-22:08 (**Romina**)
  • March 25th, 2012. 01:39-02:39 (Homero)
  • March 24th, 2012. 22:28-22:48 (**Romina**)
  • March 24th, 2012. 20:34-21:47 (LadyInGrey)
  • March 24th, 2012. 01:09-02:35 (Azalee)
  • March 23rd, 2012. 19:18-19:24 (**Romina**)
  • March 23rd, 2012. 14:42-19:37 (LadyInGrey)
  • March 22nd, 2012. 19:33-19:35 (**Romina**)
  • March 22nd, 2012. 17:12-18:25 (LadyInGrey)
  • March 22nd, 2012. 01:24-02:49 (Lito WS)
  • March 21st, 2012. 21:55-22:49 (Homero)
  • March 21st, 2012. 20:16-20:49 (**Romina**)
  • March 21st, 2012. 14:37-14:38 (LadyInGrey)
  • March 21st, 2012. 02:12-03:07 (Azalee)
Denied. Checkuser is not for fishing. es:Magister Mathematicae 02:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, this is not fishing. - Theornamentalist (talk) 02:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Magister Mathematicae, you ignored my requests for intervention when she went against the outcome of our votes and began deleting pages. - Theornamentalist (talk) 02:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
I replied that your evidence did not lead to the conclusions you made.
And checkuser is still not for fishing. All your requests rests on the fact that you claim any ip or new account that shows some editing proficiency is LadyInGrey. But no eveidence was presented other than the accusation itself and you ask the checkuser in order to have any proof of it.. That is by definition fishing. es:Magister Mathematicae 03:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, you said that, but you did not explain how my evidence did not support the conclusions. If you want to continue that discussion, you can respond on your talk page after my last comment that was left unreplied.
And this is not fishing. I've seen what constitutes fishing and when it is closed (I spent days looking over what was required and the outcomes of other votes) - Theornamentalist (talk) 03:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Magister, please look at the edit history; these are not unsubstantiated claims. There have been hundreds of ip's editing in the last few months. These are not random ip's. These are not random accounts. Additionally, all "accusations" are supported, please read the individual comments for the ip's and accounts themselves. - Theornamentalist (talk) 03:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

STOP. you're requesting a checkuser without warrant on all users that vote the option you oppose on

Checkuser is not for fishing nor requesting checks on every opposer (even 7 year old accounts) is acceptable. es:Magister Mathematicae 03:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Also, it's not just me, it has already been independently pointed above that this request is a no go.
If your concerns are as you express, then the checkuser is not the right process to be undertaken, please see CheckUser#Use of the tool which gives clear guidelines for Stewards, and it is not for addressing matters of behaviour and approach. CheckUser results are not a tool to be used to resolve the issue that is your concern. --Billinghurst
es:Magister Mathematicae 03:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

No, I did not include Freddy Eduardo, nor did I include the users which opposed last time. Do not obscure the focus of the checkuser request. The time she has spent, and the relationship you or anyone else has with her is irrelevant.

Finally, Billinghurst did not close it. I cannot fathom how the evidence provided is anything but sufficient. How else could I possibly prove it? Seriously, did one of the accounts need to sign as someone else, admit themselves? I hate to restate this, but they vote the same way, edit the same way, speak the same way, conduct the same way, carry out tasks for eachother, edit in series (2 and 1/2 months of editing without overlap), have no learning curve, edit books tha are virtually inaccessible without unique knowledge of the site, and so on. I've looked at the requirements for running a checkuser.

  1. Vandalism: The ip's have vandalized pages, acting and responding rudely on LadyInGrey's behalf, in unison with her opinion, and are from Buenos Aires, Argentina.
  2. Sockpuppet abuse: The accounts have voted in harmony with her opinions, without giving any discussion for their opinions.
  3. Disruption: The accounts Lito WS and Azalee have disrupted the way which we work on the site. Lito changed our standard for marking proofread pages without any discussion and only being at the site for a few days before making site-wide changes. Azalee constantly wars with any user that disagrees with LadyInGrey, calling us "vandals" "trolls" "woman beater" etc.
  4. Double-vote: Reasons given throughout all of this evidence.

Tell me what else you want, I can't see a CU case that has given as much evidence as I have. Yes, this is against an established editor with many rights and a longstanding relationship with you, but that makes no difference. - Theornamentalist (talk) 03:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Last time I reply since I'm getting tired of your misportrayals. 1) I said you request a check on all the opposers. Freddy didn't oppose. 2) I said on this vote, not any previous one. 3) And I never mentioned or argued any relationship I may have to LadyInGrey for you to state it irrelevant.
And for what is worth, Argentina is a large country with a large number of active editors, having an active chapter that is constantly campaigning to attract new editors. So two editors being from Argentina is far from a sockpuppetry call.
It is not stewards task to solve, mediate or arbiter local issues, and your checkuser request has been reviewed and twice conclued not appropiate for stewards. es:Magister Mathematicae 13:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
You all seem to be ignoring the fact that the request is based on the suspicion that LadyInGrey is using various users to control votes. And also the fact that spanish WS is being held hostage and as a personal platform. I fail to understand why you initiate such a big debate over the reasons why, instead of simply performing the check and confirming. The Foundation has difficulties with editor retention and improving overall quality. Theornamentalist is only finding one of the many problems and seeking to improve quality, why won’t you. If your duty is to condone and maintain such situations, then so be it. --Gumr510906 (talk) 14:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
By the way, the account Gumr510906 has been created three days ago, and has only one edit globally. -- Quentinv57 (talk) 14:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

This discussion is closed and the check won't be performed, per decision of the stewards above. Thanks for your understanding. -- Quentinv57 (talk) 15:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I would like to contest this closure. What is the next step? - Theornamentalist (talk) 15:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
What kind of kafkaesque process is this in which something is dismissed with the only strong disagreement coming from a friend of the accused? More than enough evidence has been given of suspicious behaviour.
It has to be taken into account that the subject of this investigation is one of the only two active admin on the site, and that the suspected accounts represent a number of users equal to around the 60% of the average participants in votes at It would be an outrageous decision to leave the investigation like this. --StephenDaedalus (talk) 15:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Breaks my heart to see that Quentinv57, ignores my comments that LIG uses various user names, and seems to justify this aberration, "because my account was only made three days ago!".... It is simply grotesque...--Gumr510906 (talk) 16:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello Gumr510906. Why don't you answer the question I asked you on my user talk page ? That's really weird to create an account to comment a checkuser request. Why didn't you use your account Gumr51 to comment here ? -- Quentinv57 (talk) 16:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Greetings Quentinv57.Thanks for responding. If the issue is why the account was made, the answer is very simple and not weird. I forgot the password, so in order to address the issue, being ignored by others, decided to create a “temporary” user, maintaining my GUMR51, for the avoidance of doubt. Hoping to have clarified that, now please clarify why everyone there seems to be grouping together to protect LIG, when Theornamentalist has made a very reasonable and important request. That could be solved by simply complying with the request. Instead, there seems to be a gang protecting the unprotectable. We have been suffering the doings and wrongdoings for some time now, why are you guys not interested in finding the truth and doing something to correct it. I am baffled; my only possible conclusion is that there is no interest in improving things and that is weird. BTW, I second the closure contest.--Gumr510906 (talk) 17:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
No problems, I'm always opened to the discussion. However, there's something I can't explain here : you say that you own the account Gumr51 but cannot edit here because you lost your password... But this account edited less than half an hour ago on eswikisource.
I understand the problems you can have on your wiki. As I said before, I did not take any decision, but I closed the request because I was neutral in this and saw the discussion on the stewards mailing list did not lead to a consensus to perform this check. I could review this personally if you want, but it's going to take a while and I've already lots of things to do. -- Quentinv57 (talk) 17:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I am working on spanish WS, but I have different accounts and passwords to Wikipedia, Wikisource, Meta, etc., under the same user name. Perhaps there is something I do not know. When I tried to access Meta and enter the discussion I was requested to be logged in, although I was logged in to WS. Not sure what the situation is… On the issue, will appreciate your effort of looking into it, I am glad to see you are willing to do something about it. The universe should know that Theornametalist is only trying to improve things..--Gumr510906 (talk) 17:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
In that case you should be able to change your password via Special:PasswordReset... Trijnsteltalk 17:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks a million Trijnstel, already changed and managed to log in. If applicable, somebody could please delete the temporary user account GUMR510906.--Gumr51 (talk) 18:06, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
We can't delete temporary accounts, but it won't do any harm sitting there unused. MBisanz talk 20:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, Quentinv57. Can you un-close this request? Billinghurst had shown doubt, but to quote him, was "torn on the matter". Magister, on the other hand, is to me both biased and ineffective as an appropriate steward to close this request. Only weeks ago he blithely ignored to intervene a matter where the accused deleted pages which were allowed per vote. - Theornamentalist (talk) 20:54, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Because I was requested by three different members of the community of eswikisource (Gumr51, StephenDaedalus and Theornamentalist) to review this request, I'm currently analysing the evidences given to see if it's sufficient to perform the check. I've sent a mail to LadyInGrey to know her point of view. -- Quentinv57 (talk) 08:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
    I've spent a lot of time last days to review this request. I've analysed the arguments of both sides, after having read this checkuser request, the messages on my user talk page and having heard the point of view of LadyInGrey. The analysis has lead me to share the point of view of other stewards : using the CheckUser extension won't be the proper way to fix this ongoing problem at eswiksource. I think that most of the evidence given by the requesters can be explained by the fact that those people could be friends or in the same family (for example, **Romina** is officially declared as being the sister of LadyInGrey). Moreover, I established a time line (not just last 2 months but from the beginning), and it clearly shown periods where edits do overlap.
    What I would advise, especially regarding this action, is to open a new RfC and to discuss with other users the bad attitude and abuse of sysop/crat status. This is something that has to be discussed, but can't be solved by CU means. Cordially, -- Quentinv57 (talk) 12:34, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


  Doing... The results are quite hard to analyse, so I will ask the opinion of other stewards to be sure about it. -- Quentinv57 (talk) 07:18, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but the results are   Inconclusive. I discussed with two other stewards, and none of us is sure about what to conclude after the analysis.
What I would advise for now is to simply discuss this situation with the other members of the community to block the users who are harassing the admins. You don't really need to be sure that these persons are the same to block them if they are insulting / harassing admins. And, as an example, posting private data about admins is a kind of harassment. Also please remember to quickly ask a steward to remove it if more private informations are revealed on the wiki. Cordially, -- Quentinv57 (talk) 08:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Cross-wiki pattern spambots: Campbe...

Status:    Done

Please investigate the following accounts:

Thanks, Mathonius (talk) 04:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

  Done I don't think we need to perform a checkuser on all of them to be sure that it's a spambot. I looked at one and it's   Confirmed to be the massive spambot from China. I've locked every accounts above which was not already locked. -- Quentinv57 (talk) 07:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Request for es.wikibooks

Status:    Done

Hello colleagues,

Pursuant local guideline b:es:Wikilibros:CheckUsers and discussion of this request at here (permalink) on the esWB admin board I request the following CheckUser request to be performed for the following reasons:

Since several weeks we've come to see several accounts adding large ammounts of copyrighted texts and all of them speaking of the same subject: Google and it's sister projects. While the users have been warned and the copyvios deleted the insertion of copyrighted texts continues. As such I've issued some blocks on the most recent accounts to try to stop them [17] they don't work, and new ones appear: [18], [19].

Perhaps this is not the typical case of socking (multiple accounts from a same user) but a group of people doing a scholar task there which is not allowed per b:es:WL:NO. Either way, they're harming the project inserting copyrighted text violating b:es:Wikilibros:Copyrights.

The list of accounts to check is:

You can see a list of pages showing the pattern at the discusion of the case and at the special page for deleted contributions.

It is requested to (a) determine if the accounts listed are sockpuppets of each other; and (b) identify if there's a source/range to block to stop the copyvio and uncover more accounts pertaining to this group.

Marco Aurelio (audiencia) 11:45, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Efectivamente, no parecen ser títeres directos, sino personas haciendo lo mismo de forma independiente. Parece efectivamente ser algún tipo de proyecto realizado sin mucho cuidado, quizás relacionado con Cordobapedia.
Algunas cuentas como Matias Hernan Araya también están relacionadas, y hay varias creando el mismo material (por ejemplo [20] es similar a lo que hizo Eugeval.
es:Magister Mathematicae 13:45, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


The following accounts are   Confirmed

Dahan service

Mehrshad.paksirat is  Unrelated. Bencmq (talk) 05:24, 13 May 2012 (UTC)



  • Delta2000
  • Espiral-o
  • Atrak
  • Chakelz
  • MahanWeb
  • Vasvaseh
  • اترک
  • مموشی
  • عملیات انتحاری زاپاس گذاری
  • Sisab
  • شکارگر اسب سفید
  • Ruzegar
  • Roshanian
  • Xerad
  • ShengYung
  • رهرو آنست که ...
  • مدهوش جیغ خفاشها
  • گریز از مرکز زندگی
  • زمزمه فرشتگان پاییزی
  • گربه سوار
  • خنجر
  • سیب درختی
  • سگ هار
  • رقص خوکها
  • شترمرغ سوار
  • سگ سوار
  • شهراورد
  • فلان
  • نینجا
  • شمعک
  • سیکتیر
  • آرش بچه باز همش فکرش به کون مهدی است
  • استعمال
  • ما با ولایت زنده ایم
  • تا زنده ایم رزمنده ایم
  • اترک
  • خونی که در رگ ماست
  • Ladsbot
  • Casir
  • Vibreh
  • تلطیف
  • Malikholia
  • مَموشی
  • سرزمین
  • Saremsaq
  • BiTaqsir
  • Neshani
  • کس لیس
  • Gelyan
  • Arzeshi
  • Roghayye
  • مدهوش جیغ خفاشها
  • Tisfun
  • Sistembazi
  • Snandog
  • Mikrob
  • Beshqardash
  • شرافتمند
  • Stetar
  • Estetar
  • Pouyamanesh
  • Vivasabet
  • Xnddufcarbo
  • Sanderlander
  • Sampati
  • Larger-box
  • Meshki
  • Arman-ahmadian
  • Moltan
  • Hasaneyn
  • اژدها سوار
  • سرزمین
  • شهراورد
  • سگ هار
  • Gelyan
  • Saremsaq
  • Malikholia
  • Beshqardash
There socks use many open proxy(have blocked)--Shizhao (talk) 17:46, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. Huji (talk) 13:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Extension to the request

One of the socks found in the above check (fa:User:سیکتیر) was previously blocked as a sock for fa:User:پارسا املی. This latter user is a known sock master, and fa:User:Amardian, fa:User:Mazandiran, fa:User:Mchto, fa:User:Mirasir, fa:User:Northiran, and fa:User:Sharmitavox are identified as his socks. Can you please verify that these accounts all belong to the same person who did the impersonation and created the socks identified above? Huji (talk) 16:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


  • Amardian
  • Faryadman
  • Kavoshian
  • Northiran
  • Mchto


  • Mirasir (via OP)


  • Sharmitavox
  • Mazandiran

  Unrelated, from a tech point:

And no user name "پارسا املی".--Shizhao (talk) 17:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It was a typo on my side (fa:User:پارسا آملی is correct) but I don't think you need to extend the check, since the latter account has not been active since December last year. Huji (talk) 16:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Cross-wiki spambots: "Floral Garden"

Status:    Done

Thanks, Mathonius (talk) 12:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I see that the couple I checked at meta are all under random proxy IPs so there's not so much we can do here. Nonetheless Billinghurst has locked them all so I think this can be tagged as   Completed, no other action required. Thanks. —Marco Aurelio (audiencia) 20:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


Status:    Done

Reason: Truth Seeker was indefinitely blocked from Farsi Wikipedia. He now and then makes puppet accounts and does edit warring such as this one. User جنگولک is taking part in the same edit wars as this new puppet's. --Kazemita1 (talk) 12:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

  Doing... Ruslik (talk) 12:16, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Truth_Seeker is   Stale
Ludwig_van_Truth and جنگولک are   Unrelated. Ruslik (talk) 12:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
On second thought, Ludwig_van_Truth is   Confirmed as a sock of Truth_Seeker. جنگولک may be, but it is really   Inconclusive. Ruslik (talk) 16:29, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


Bruno Leonard was banned from pt.wikinews in 2008 because of copyright violations and later use of sockpuppets, and as far as i remember, attack accounts. On he also has a past of illegal sock puppets among other problems. Simone Lira (talk · contribs) and GabrielaM (talk · contribs) are other blocked sock on wikinews. I'm not sure if a CU would give any result because seems that there is the care of not make simultaneous editions, but in a quick look at both their contributions and in a fast behaviour analisys, i'm pretty sure that Sergio is clearly an account used by Bruno to evade the ban. Alchimista (talk) 19:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

  Note: Latests Bruno Leonard edits dates 2008 and CU does not retrieve such old edits. The comparation between those users would probably be   Stale. Is there any project where the user (or one of its socks) has been active recently so there's anything to compare? Thanks. —Marco Aurelio (audiencia) 19:59, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
You can do it with portuguese wikipedia.-- Bertrand GRONDIN   → (Talk) 20:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, in Portuguese Wikipedia.Érico msg 20:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
If ptwiki checkusers provide the information to us (by private means), we can tell you if these two users are the same person or not. Ruslik (talk) 12:13, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
  Confirmed Ruslik (talk) 16:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


Any hard evidence (or discussion in local community)? We can't just perform CU without any evidence. I don't think "almost ... the same" is a reason, plus previously it was marked unlikely. I just want to see something to support this request. Bennylin 15:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
懂心心 and Uyhji both edit zh:广东人, zh:粤语, zh:現代標準漢語, zh:广东省, zh:广东省, zh:三合會, zh:百越, zh:汉语方言, zh:廣府民系, zh:中国北方与南方, zh:粵語白話文 and so on. It is an incomprehensible high rate of overlap between them. Simultaneously, their edit habit is the same: Accustomed to the high frequency of small change; Excessive inner chain. In zh:User_talk:懂心心, zh:User:Mewaqua have warned him to not add excessive inner chains like Uyhji. So, not just I consider that his behavior is similar to Uyhji. In summary, I think 懂心心 is a puppet, becouse of the similar edited entries and habits.乌拉跨氪 (talk) 17:31, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Due to the limit on how long the information is stored, and since Uyhji and Snopp55 has been blocked more than 3 months ago, I couldn't perform any CU on them. For 懂心心 and 王小美 the result is   Unrelated Bennylin 17:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
From regular user perspective (not CU), since 懂心心 first edited on March 2012, after Uyhji been blocked on February 2012, it is possible for them to be related, but again, without the hard evidence, we can't prove them the same or not. Bennylin 17:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Cross-wiki spambots: Greens

Status:    Done

I stumbled upon one of these spambots and some have already been (b)locked. Some of them have edited and some of them haven't (yet) edited. I think locking them all is appropriate. Please consider investigating them and (if possible) blocking its underlying IP or IP range globally. Mathonius (talk) 08:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

  Doing...‴ Teles«msg» 13:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
All   Confirmed and locked by Billinghurst, Jyothis and me.‴ Teles«msg» 14:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

ترول بدخیم@fa.wikipedia

Most recent blocked user is this user spare--►Surena/Discussion)1 Khordad 1391-- 13:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
  Likely I cannot get an exact match for user agent, however, the behaviour looks the same, and for the following accounts it is the same user in play. Calling it likely (or stronger) due to the behaviour, user agent being consistent, and the use of proxies and underlying IP used, which I blocked at faWP. Accounts
  • اسگل مو شرابی
  • مرموزی
  • خوشگل مو شرابی
  • دوست دختر بابای علیرضا
  • شوهر خود علیرضا
  • داداش علیرضا
  • بمیرم برای علیرضا
  • ترول بدخیم (خشم اژدها دی:)
  • عاشق علیرضا
  • زاپاس خوش خیم
  • زاپاس بدخیم
  • میتی کومان
  • مرد شمن
  • جودو با ویلچر
  • جودوکار با ویلچر
  • کوماندو جودوکار (آرایه ایهام دارد)
  • بسمه تعالی
Apologies if any the list is a duplicate. You may wish to block the range as best I can tell, all the current spam emanates from there directly or outwards to proxies. All that I checked within that range seem to be be related to this user. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks a lot--►Surena/Discussion)1 Khordad 1391-- 18:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by problematic? Ruslik (talk) 13:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Vandalism in eswiki, creating invalid news in eswiki --Esteban (talk) 13:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
No comment with regard to the IP address, but for the accounts:   It looks like a duck to me. Trijnsteltalk 17:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


  Doing... Trijnsteltalk 19:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The following unblocked accounts are all   Confirmed. Please note that most of the sockpuppets aren't unified which means that blocking is absolutely necessary. I locally blocked the underlying IP addresses for respectively three and six months. As this long-term vandal uses lots of different IP addresses/ranges I don't quite know how we could stop him.

  • Limitalert
  • Habittruth
  • Angerspeed
  • Trendsure
  • Manylists
  • Heardextra
  • Usedgreat
  • Rockitems
  • Takenkept
  • Emptytrend
  • Overafter
  • Startunion
  • Othercause
  • Whichedges
  • Meanblue
  • Briefexact
  • Headsbrown
  • Todaysaid
  • Monthbuilt
  • Keepspoems
  • Speedocean
  • Priorended
  • Brownships
  • Salespiece
  • Enjoystart
  • Downviews11
  • Dramatruth
  • Underboats
  • Curvenames
  • Typescents
  • Keepback
  • Laughurge
  • Areasolid
  • Basisyear
  • Afterguide
  • Sidesdark
  • Wrongatom
  • Lovetimes
  • Startyear
  • Rateslines
  • Loansblood
  • Hurryhumor
  • Spokeought
  • Basisours
  • Clubpath
  • Downshort
  • Avoidissue212
  • Moviepoems
  • Headwagon
  • Neverpoems
  • Hurrycited
  • Glorydays22
  • Tripvature
  • Plaingets
  • Wateradmit

Trijnsteltalk 19:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for all the efforts, Trijnstel! --Miroir (talk) 13:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


  Unlikely.   Note: both user from same ISP, but IP ranges different--Shizhao (talk) 02:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


Delarama is equal with other user?--►Surena/Discussion)3 Khordad 1391-- 21:06, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

It's   Confirmed that Delarama = Rivolte = Guarnif. It's quite   Likely that Bbahari is related to Delarama. The rest of users are   Stale and no information is available. Bencmq (talk) 03:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks--►Surena/Discussion)4 Khordad 1391-- 04:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


  Confirmed. Also the following socks.

  • Intelloman08
  • Intelloman06

— T. 07:42, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks ! -- Quentinv57 (talk) 07:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


  Confirmed Ruslik (talk) 14:38, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks!--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 15:39, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, one more user:
  Unlikely from a technical point of view. Judged by the geographical information they could be some sort of meatpuppets however. Trijnsteltalk 22:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Lonly lonly@fa.wikipedia

  Confirmed for Lonly lonly, Bbahari, Neghaheno
  Likely for Najmedin
to also note that there have been IP address edits. Spread across several ranges. Going to take a little work to do so if it comes to that. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:39, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Marvin 2009@zh.wikipedia

Request seconded. I received an email this morning and it makes the case more suspicious. I have a few additional IP editors but not sure if it's ok to post it here. Bencmq (talk) 05:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
All of them are clearly   Unrelated from a CU point of view. -- Quentinv57 (talk) 18:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


  Comment جنگولک in his first edit, commented in Wikipedia:Village pump(he knows wikipedia users)--►Surena/Discussion)9 Khordad 1391-- 04:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

From a technical point of view they are   Unrelated. IPs from different ISP (or even different countries) and other data shows discrepancy in identities. --Bencmq (talk) 05:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


Initial checks would indicate that we have two different users
  1. that اترک is Delta2000 not Stetar. This is compared to an earlier data sets that are maintained, though there is a data relationship to other blocked accounts.
    All these users are all on the same /24 [all already blocked] بسمه تعالی, Atrak (note blocked though has rollbacker rights), ما با ولایت زنده ایم, تا زنده ایم رزمنده ایم, Dahan service, Delta2000, Espiral-o, اترک, Ladsbot, Malikholia, MahanWeb, Casir, Vibreh, شمعک, Vasvaseh, تلطیف, استعمال, مَموشی, Tisfun,   Confirmed
  2. Nurani is a different user (different continent)   Unrelated
billinghurst sDrewth 14:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks!--AliReza (talk) 15:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)