Steward requests/Checkuser/2012-07



  Unrelated Ruslik (talk) 08:45, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


Status:    Done

These spambots are undoubtedly related to Ef0987qy (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST • lwcheckuser) on en.wikipedia. Please consider investigating it and - if possible - blocking its underlying IP. Mathonius (talk) 11:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Ef0987qy doesn't exist on en.wikiversity - it does exist on en.wikipedia, but you already mentioned that one. I think you meant Ef0960qy on mi.wiktionary. In any case, both are   Confirmed and I found more sockpuppets cross-wiki. All locked and an open proxy range globally blocked. Trijnsteltalk 14:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Apologies, I must have made a mistake. I meant Ef7906qy (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser). Thanks for the good work, Trijnstel. Mathonius (talk) 16:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


Status:    Done

Please investigate this new account of the Chinese blogpost spammer at (see here for a related request in June 2012). Mathonius (talk) 02:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Done. It shares info with other spam accounts. No others found.‴ Teles «Talk ˱@ L C S˲» 02:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


Status:    Done

These accounts might be - judging by their pattern usernames and the fact that they were all created within a few minutes - related. I'm (also) afraid they might be spambot. Please consider investigating them. Mathonius (talk) 16:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The following accounts match this pattern:

Mathonius (talk) 16:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I happened to see LkrdfbKdnule (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser) at incubator, which suggests there could be many more of these. Mathonius (talk) 16:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

All   Confirmed as socks of one spambot. Ruslik (talk) 18:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


Status:    Done

Please investigate these pattern accounts. More may follow shortly. Mathonius (talk) 16:17, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

As well as:

Mathonius (talk) 16:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Fyi, I've added something to the title blacklist. This group of accounts resemble this group, which Teles locked and investigated yesterday. Mathonius (talk) 16:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

As well as:

Mathonius (talk) 16:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I blocked underlying IPs. Ruslik (talk) 19:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


The preceding unsigned comment was added by 2011wp (talk • contribs) 09:48, 3 July 2012‎ (UTC)

Title should be changed, but I don't know what should I write.--Justincheng12345 (talk) 11:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
What about this one? Trijnsteltalk 14:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
A more user:אנסאנסאנס (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)--2011wp (talk) 07:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
see below.--2011wp (talk) 07:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
A more user:Ideal_gas_equation (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)-- 07:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)--2011wp (talk) 07:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


Status:    Done

These accounts match the pattern of this group (see also these two accounts) and may very well be spambots. I've only listed those that haven't been locked yet. Please consider investigating and perhaps locking them. Thanks, Mathonius (talk) 18:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

They all belong to same spam-bot as those in the 'IlhgbbOgqjvy' request above. All locked. Ruslik (talk) 15:48, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Mathonius (talk) 17:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


MazdakAbbedi is Jeromesearch, Barat moteasefam and Катякос laying on an open proxy I already gblocked, they seem to be some-way related to Delta2000 but not to جنگولک. --Vituzzu (talk) 08:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

  •   CheckUser is not for fishing Do you have diffs or other technical or behavioral evidence to indicate that these two people are the same person, other than that each one does not seem to like you? -- Avi (talk) 06:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Besides the choice of signature styles, both the users give unnecessary indentation for a new section (Froklin William bal klinton), which is very unusual. Also, the writing style is similar.--Bill william compton (talk) 11:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

-- Avi (talk) 17:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Avi, I am a novice in these matters, but can you shed further light as to how do you rule out the possibility of there being two/more different users (lets say from same family/home) editing from the same computer. Or is it irrelevant? Lovysinghal (talk) 05:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
    • I cannot rule that out, which is why I requested the HiWiki community to investigate further. All I can say is that the above 5 accounts share IPs and technical evidence, and that there are no other accounts which do so (at least in the past three months) so they are certainly related. Whether they are truly one person with sockpuppets or multiple people in the same dwelling sharing the same computer in the same residence is impossible to tell with Wikimedia software. Whilst it is not irrelevant, usually, people will self identify if they share a computer. As an aside, while I would have to pull all the data again to be sure, my recollection is that the timestamps of the edits are such that it indicates one person rather than multiple people, as best I recall. -- Avi (talk) 06:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


The following list of users looks   Confirmed sockpuppets:
  • אנסאנסאנס
  • Đài Loan Mỹ Việt lợn
  • 朱海军
  • CivilagainIII
  • Ideal gas equation
  • 超级理科生刘朋
  • 赵明毅教授
  • Guke9527
  • 方滨兴院士
  • 反网特
  • Kage-bot
  • 高考成绩要公布了
  • 氪跨拉乌
  • 英文(简体)
  • 挡的政策亚克西
  • Goe Juna
  • 苏州中学每况愈下
  • Atomsgivenanti
  • VeryVitalPerson
It is   rejected to check A900040a900040 as it does not seem to show disruptive behaviour.
-- MA 19:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


I'd rather say from their edits the users are likely to be socks of User:李煌老师. Bencmq (talk) 09:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
I think this has already been answered in the above request. Both users appears to be related. -- MA 19:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


  Confirmed that Pjatro = Ales-ne muxin. No comments on IP address, as always. Bencmq (talk) 19:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. Sockpuppet Pjatro blocked indefinitely, its owner warned (reasonable amount of productive edits for the past time). Wizardist (talk) 20:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


  Possible, with both usernames operating from a very busy range. The ISP seems to have a whole series of proxies with numbers of users, including users with elevated rights, with the IPs and access times overlapping. Checkuser is not going to be a lot of help. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


  Possible, though I am leaning towards probably, though not all the way to likely; though no smoking gun. Same ISP, though enough variations to put some doubt, some matches on user agent, but no match for all three, but that could be browser upgrades. Better match between 2 and 3, than 1. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


  Unlikely/  Inconclusive Ruslik (talk) 15:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. Jan Luca (talk) 13:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


It's very   Likely they are sockpuppets of eachother. Another sleeper with no edits is fa:User:Haaaaafez. Trijnsteltalk 20:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


Status:    Done

This username matches this pattern. Please consider investigating this account. Mathonius (talk) 18:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I locked that account as well as some others I found. They were created on dynamic ISPs in a large country (I assume you know which one). I did however, block a web host/proxy used. --Bsadowski1 (talk) 19:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Cyrax Cyborg, MistrX & Co.@es.wikibooks

Status:    Done

On June 2, 2012 we noticed at es.wikibooks that a flood of new users —created the same day or in the same week— were creating requests for adminship for themselves or nominating one of those newly users. CheckUser later proved that it was an sock-master from es.wikipedia —now unbanned there— that tried to gain administrator access at various projects by deceiving the communities using sockpuppets to support himself in the RfAs. Evidence of that can be found here. The CheckUser performed at that time —which was not recorded here but requested through the ML if I remember correctly— discovered that the following accounts were owned by the same person:

  1. Denver200 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
  2. Bikkman (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
  3. BlueFen (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
  4. Brousel (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
  5. Stee (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
  6. Brunderick (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

Those accounts were subsequently blocked and the main account —if can be called that— extensively informed for the reasons of the block, and strongly admonished not to use —cross-wiki— sockpuppetry to cheat the communities.

However just today, and following the past modus operandi of the above mentioned accounts, the user b:es:Especial:Contribuciones/MistrX which registered today and has just two contributions in the project opened a nomination —RfA— b:es:Wikilibros:Candidaturas a bibliotecario/Cyrax Cyborg for the user b:es:Especial:Contribuciones/Cyrax_Cyborg with just seven edits in total in the project and that also registered today too.

In normal circunstances the RfA would simply be archived and the user adviced to gain more experience before standing again. However, and suspecting that there is probably a ban evasion I kindly request you to verify whether the users Cyrax Cyborg (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser) and MistrX (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser) can be the same as the ones mentioned above so the measures for violating the project policies and guidelines, such as further blocks, can be issued. It might be a coincidence, but MistrX@es stopped editting shortly after MOVIST@es was unblocked: unblock on 16-06-2012 - last edit on 15-06-2012. CC@es shows somewhat traits of advanced editting in spite of having registered just in June this year.

Thank you. — MA (audiencia) 22:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

  Inconclusive. I performed a check and I'd say meatpuppets for now. Details will be send to you privately. Trijnsteltalk 10:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

ShelliEin@strategy.wikimedia et cetera

Status:    Done

Please consider investigating this suspected spambot. Almost all new accounts on the strategy-wiki are spammers and this one matches a recent pattern.

Also suspicious are

And the last few weeks, small batches of spambots are being created at the Indonesian wikis. For example, I find the following very interesting:

Two of these match the above-mentioned pattern.

Please also take a look at id:s:Special:RecentChanges, there might be some spammers among those new accounts, especially:

The last two match this pattern.

Many thanks in advance. I hope this information helps. Mathonius (talk) 01:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

See as well. Mathonius (talk) 22:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Please also take a look at:

Mathonius (talk) 23:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Done with everything except for the Commons spambot. I blocked many web host/proxies involved. I also locked the accounts (except for the Commons one because it's not confirmed yet). --Bsadowski1 (talk) 02:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Bswjx981@de.wikisource & Drafw594@de.wikinews

Status:    Done

Please check if these are related. I'm afraid they might be pattern spambots. Mathonius (talk) 23:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

  Possible --Luckas msg 21:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


Status:    Done

Please check this pattern spambot and block its underlying IP (range) if possible. It belongs to the following group:

I'll also request a CU for two of these at Commons, see here. Mathonius (talk) 02:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Done.‴ Teles «Talk ˱@ L C S˲» 02:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


Status:    Done

Please investigate these pattern accounts. Mathonius (talk) 03:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Fyi, I've added the pattern to the title blacklist. Mathonius (talk) 03:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Done.‴ Teles «Talk ˱@ L C S˲» 06:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Codename Protest@zh.wikipedia

Question: Why zh:User:Zhxy 519 needs to be checked? — MA (audiencia) 17:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Strong Oppose ,It's an IP user, Probably unnecessarily apply Checkuser.--2011wp (talk) 13:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
  Not done We do not usually honour CU requests from unregistered users. Ruslik (talk) 16:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


Status:    Done

Suspected spambots. --Ignacio   (talk) 03:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

At least the last one on the above list is a spambot, in addition to Air6644ntt (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser) at Deng (talk) 06:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
and Inti5863jj (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser) at ti.wiktionary --Ignacio   (talk) 06:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
All locked. Ruslik (talk) 16:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

李煌老师@zh.wikipedia (11th)

--2011wp (talk) 13:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

  1. 蘇州宇武宙文 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
  2. 你亦可以选择让其他人通过你的 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

--2011wp (talk) 07:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

  • 3 more users:
  1. Whenlaugh (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
  2. 打烂过滤器! (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
  3. FilterAbuserwaterscale (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

--2011wp (talk) 07:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

  • 2 more users:
  1. TacekaM.rM (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
  2. 基米许万人坑 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

--2011wp (talk) 09:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

  • All   Confirmed
  • New sock puppets:
    • Realrocksofcukinggood
    • 五百万个条目了
    • NewsheardWTF

— MA (audiencia) 10:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


Please also check Inhins (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser), act similarly in the discussion and usually helps Sdee in DYK nominations. Past result shows that proxy is involved. Please also check whether underlying proxy is involved this time. Thanks.--CDIP No.150 repair meter 16:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Oppose ,IP user apply Checkuser.--2011wp (talk) 00:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Reply: Now the request is supported by Cdip150. --Makecat (talk) 01:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Ronochen is   Confirmed, but Inhins is   Unlikely. Ruslik (talk) 18:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


The full list of   Confirmed socks:
Ruslik (talk) 15:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks!--Mys_721tx(talk) 21:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


Status:    Done

These two spambots are obviously related to the following accounts (on wikis that have local CUs). Please consider investigating them.

Thanks, Mathonius (talk) 07:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Result:   Confirmed Also found socks below:

Bennylin 12:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


Status:    Done

Suspected pattern spambots. Thanks --Ignacio   (talk) 01:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

  Confirmed--Shizhao (talk) 12:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)



  • Wildfire
  • Kiyaps
  • Bozorgan
  • جواد بیاتی
  • TuiJiani
  • Tuijian
  • Tupbashi
  • Arhamorrahemin
  • Arabalidoosti
  • Sistemus
  • Politicus
  • Lujali
  • Bijangerd
  • Saman.akbaryan
  • Mehrkhane
  • Nurani
  • Muslimsafi
  • Ahmadbahmani
  • Tala-mazandaran
  • Aliafshari235
  • Kashani.salar
  • Faranak373
  • Fatikhabnama
  • Sistemos
  • Hillocuper



--Shizhao (talk) 14:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Miami-related spammers on mediawikiwiki

Status:    Done

This appears to be a human spammer. All are spamming Miami-related stuff.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

  Done locked socks --Jyothis (talk) 17:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


Status:    Done

Please consider taking a look at these recently created pattern (H[a-z]{3}rdo[a-z}{3}) accounts. Mathonius (talk) 21:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

  Done by PeterSymonds. Thanks, Mathonius (talk) 22:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


Status:    Done

Please consider taking a look at these recently created pattern accounts. Mathonius (talk) 22:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

  Confirmed --Luckas msg 22:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


Status:    Done

Please consider taking a look at these recently created pattern accounts. Mathonius (talk) 22:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

  Confirmed --Luckas msg 22:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


Status:    Done

The following pattern accounts were created in (three?) batches, all on small wikis.

And the following accounts (which could be related to the above-mentioned):

As well as:

Mathonius (talk) 22:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

  Done, all related and locked. --Luckas msg 23:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


  •   Additional information needed Can you please write a brief summary of the discussion and why the CU check is needed? Thanks. — MA (audiencia) 10:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
According to suggested discussion, 김경민 started featured article lifting discussion. But another account(Roks0905) is created after it started, only edited it. In addition, two account editing pattern is same(indent editing habit). Sotiale (Talk·Contribs) 10:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
김경민 had been once blocked permanently due to the bad use of multiple user accounts (sock puppetry). As he promised that he will not make more accounts to make trouble, he was unblocked and he is currently under close observation by Arbitration Committee. However, 윤성현 insisted that 김경민, Roks0905, and 낙화산 have very similar pattern of editing. For example, Roks0905 and 낙화산 prefer to make lots of indentation when they talk[5][6]. Also, those three users used offensive language on 윤성현's Talk page according to 윤성현.[7][8][9] Some people also support the 윤성현's request for the sockpuppet investigation. Ykhwong (talk) 10:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I think this resquit is so fast so, I think wait 2 days (these days we will check more opnion) after check it.--DangSunM (talk) 21:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I am 윤성현. Although user:DangSunM says wait for 2 days, but this is not right because the request has been up whatsoever. Consensus has been created in the request page of Korean Wikipedia, so I think it is okay to proceed the checkusing. -- Shyoon1 (talk) 00:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I checkuser page don't have a time i'm sorry about misunderstanding--DangSunM (talk) 00:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I also think it don't have any problems doing checkusing now. Please chech these users. --비엠미니 (talk) 02:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
  Note: I'm working on this request. — MA (audiencia) 11:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
  Confirmed — MA (audiencia) 13:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


Status:    Done

Please lock and investigate these pattern accounts (Gabri[a-z]le[a-z]D[a-z]nn). Mathonius (talk) 20:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Done.‴ Teles «Talk ˱@ L C S˲» 00:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


Status:    Done

Please check these pattern accounts. StephnieThompson85 (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST • lwcheckuser) on meta might also be related. Mathonius (talk) 23:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The following pattern accounts on nl.wikt might also be interesting:

Mathonius (talk) 23:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Also related could be:

Mathonius (talk) 23:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

  Unrelated Ruslik (talk) 09:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Haccpdq@zh.wikipedia 2

Few more here, please also check them, thank!-Mys_721tx(talk) 03:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC) socks:

already blocked:

  • Ssart3y
  • Faacatk

reported above:

  •   Confirmed Cap299s9 (same IP)
  •   Confirmed Swortyk (same pattern)
  •   Confirmed Qwmzna (same pattern)
  •   Confirmed Acadeerd (same pattern)
  •   Confirmed Tqacminf (same pattern)
  •   Confirmed Sfilines (same pattern)
  •   Confirmed Yorktchany (same pattern)
  •   Confirmed Rqlget (same pattern)
  •   Confirmed Eeodtipaz (same pattern)
  •   Confirmed Bapagjdjd (same pattern)
  •   Confirmed Addrya (same pattern)
  •   Confirmed Deerider (same pattern)
  •   Confirmed Ambcak (same pattern)
  •   Confirmed Openeopk (same pattern)
  •   Confirmed Dfhgtoa1 (same pattern)
  •   Confirmed Capcatw (already confirmed by Ruslik above)

Bennylin 11:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! --Mys_721tx(talk) 19:47, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


  •   Additional information needed: Why he thinks the accounts are sockpuppets? — MA (audiencia) 09:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
    I think it is because of the username pattern. --HWChat - zhwp 01:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but this request still lacks evidence. Why do you think those accounts are sockpuppets? Which disruption are those users performing? User-name pattern alone is not itself a reason to run a check. Other evidence should follow. Thanks. — MA (audiencia) 13:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, I think that this request could be closed since all the above-listed user is now blocked by admin due to vandalism. So, CheckUser won't have any effect as they are already blocked. Thank you and please close this request. --HWChat - zhwp 14:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I will close the request until new suspected sock puppet appears.--2011wp (talk) 00:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
  Not done, request withdrawn. Bencmq (talk) 06:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


Status:    Done

Please consider checking this batch of pattern accounts. Mathonius (talk) 03:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

  Done and thanks. Pundit (talk) 01:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


  Confirmed Group A
  Confirmed Group B
The relationship between the two groups are   Inconclusive.
-- Bencmq (talk) 04:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


Status:    Done

Please checking pattern accounts. --Ignacio   (talk) 03:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for reporting.‴ Teles «Talk ˱@ L C S˲» 04:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
:). --Ignacio   (talk) 04:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


Status:    Done

Please consider checking these pattern (J[a-z]{5}fg[a-z]{1}) accounts. Thanks, Mathonius (talk) 02:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

  Likely --Jyothis (talk) 03:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


Status:    Done

Please consider checking these recently created pattern (H[a-z]{3}rd[a-z]{4}) accounts. Are they related to Jxtzpqfge et cetera? Mathonius (talk) 03:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

These were created just now:

Mathonius (talk) 03:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Related to the previous set above. --Jyothis (talk) 03:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


Status:    Done

These accounts match this pattern. Are they in any way related? Mathonius (talk) 02:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC) (edited at 04:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC))

  Done spambots — billinghurst sDrewth 14:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


Status:    Done

Are these pattern accounts related? Mathonius (talk) 04:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

yes, done — billinghurst sDrewth 14:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


Status:    Done

And perhaps also the following:

Are these pattern accounts related? Mathonius (talk) 04:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes   Donebillinghurst sDrewth 14:00, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Status:    Done

Please check this suspected spambot. See #ShelliEin@strategy.wikimedia et cetera for a related request. Mathonius (talk) 22:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

locked by Barras — billinghurst sDrewth 10:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


Status:    Done

Another one of those spambots... Mathonius (talk) 22:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

locked — billinghurst sDrewth 10:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


Status:    Done

I haven't kept an eye on the various spambot patterns today, but is EliseAla another sock? It matches this pattern. Mathonius (talk) 16:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Please also take a look at the following accounts:

Thanks, Mathonius (talk) 17:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

And please check the following accounts as well:

Mathonius (talk) 23:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

done — billinghurst sDrewth 13:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Chinese blogpost spammer

Status:    Done

Please consider checking these socks of the Chinese blogpost spammer. Judging by these patterns, there might be more. Mathonius (talk) 16:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

See this CU request at Commons as well. Mathonius (talk) 17:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Please also check Babycandy (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser), which spammed on simple.wikt and species. Mathonius (talk) 17:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Another sock, Jenremhiah (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST • lwcheckuser), spammed at en.wikipedia. Mathonius (talk) 17:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
done — billinghurst sDrewth 13:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


Status:    Done

This account matches a well-known spambot pattern. Please consider checking it. Mathonius (talk) 21:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

previously locked by PeterSymonds. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)