Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created on 01 March 2019, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion.
Reason(s): 4evayoung77 and Hamogela have voted both in a deletion discussion (el:Συζήτηση:Αθανάσιος Σελιά/Πρόταση διαγραφής) and both have contributions concerning only a specific article. Probably part of a cross wiki spam other accounts that their contributions focused at the same subject include:
Unlikely. Different providers, similar, but popular soft. einsbortalk 20:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
comment Interestingː ,  (Kyriaki Verrou),  (Lucky Billy 1999). Cf. , user's 4evayoung77 comments on Celia' proof of the existence of God, e.g. exactly the same agrument with those of the indefinitely blocked as socks Kyriaki Verrou and Lucky Billy 1999 in the simple en wp. ——Chalk19 (talk) 11:53, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
I haven't ran a check in this case, but CheckUser is not magic pixie dust -- if the technical evidence isn't conclusive, you can still evaluate potential action based on behavioural evidence. – Ajraddatz (talk) 21:54, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Discussion: Policy says that all checkuser requests go here.
Reason(s): ro.wiki has no checkusers. Cristina neagu now blocked on en.wiki with an expiration time of 11:09, 9 March 2019 (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) stated about me This guy really has mental problems. at . She is not blocked on ro.wiki, which she has also edited. Now a new user, Sectant appeared on ro.wiki. He is gaslighting me at  and . He basically says that he is a psychiatrist and that I would be mentally ill. I have reported him beginning with  and ending with , but no action was taken, not even a comment. You should also check for sleepers. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:44, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Now both users are temporarily blocked, but on different wikis. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Done - No obvious sleepers. The accounts share a large range with is widely used through the community. I don't see any UA matches outside these three. – Ajraddatz (talk) 18:10, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Also note that we are following up with enwiki CUs and might have some locks/global blocks to make after that. – Ajraddatz (talk) 18:12, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
There is one user who does not have an en.wiki account, and therefore could not have been checked by Bbb23: Lupulcarunt. About w:WP:DUCK: the timing of his actions at w:ro:Discuție:Zalmoxis coincided with the timing of the attacks of Sectant and Martacastro14, besides he made disparaging/condescending remarks about my diploma from the University of Amsterdam. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:09, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Reason(s): Suspected block evasion. Inappropriate notification of legal action that could reasonably be perceived as an attempt to harass and/or intimidate. mikeutalk 15:50, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Confirmed: Lacoste erc, Karri2019, Bágair Dhiú, Cuba para siempre, Psycho-patriotisme, Beast of Bolsover, Bodto, Gregory Scumball, Caffè con latte, JustBeReasonable, Brottmotdemokratin, Cat285, Frauboehm, Rudolf the Red Nose Reindeer, Baxbax100, Frances310772, Düşman Askeri Superpic, Ali Haydar Annen Neydar, Wikiqivi. Ruslik (talk) 16:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Reason(s): 1st account created a spam article that is deleted, 2nd account edit the spam article before it was deleted but edited other areas. After discussion with admin Tigerzeng, no way to duck block but a possible or likely CU result will make it blockable. Also a sleeper check will be good. Thanks. Cohaf (talk) 12:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Reason(s): Some of the above accounts have only a single edit at en-wv and a couple of them have also edited the biography w:Johnson Philip who is the subject of the vote. mikeutalk 22:27, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Reason(s): All of them are vandalism-only accounts editing zh:丘沁偉. Request for finding sleepers. --云间守望 09:47, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
All these accounts above are involved in zh:丘沁偉. Their editing patterns sugguests they are most likely controlled by two different users edit-warring on the page (so the CU result I speculate will have 2 groups), but for some reason, unlike ordinary sockpuppets-vandalizing-articles cases, these two users keep creating sock accounts to edit instead of sticking with their main accounts. Their editing patterns are confusing enough that I can't duck, thus request checkuser. --Techyan（Talk） 12:05, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Discussion: Unfortunately not had the time to start a discussion.
Reason(s): BAICAN XXX is globally blocked and known sockpuppeteer. This account caught my attention because several translations added on French and English Wiktionary were incorrect and they edited pages created by Baican. Same pattern of behaviour and a refusal to communicate in the language of the project are characteristic marks of Baican. Shows signs of aggression towards other users as well (see previous link). Robbie SWE (talk) 12:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Reason(s): There users have created many low quality article about Thai entertainment media. They have similar user page or copy from another users. Important, some user have username from Thai famous actress. If possible, please show other sockpuppets. Thank you. --Geonuch (talk) 14:15, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Reason(s): Disruptive editing method aimed on one single article at the Chinese Wikipedia. Observed some harassment behavior at some of the editors listed above. 1233 | Questions?| This message is left by him at 09:23, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Reason(s): Hatake is a regular creator of sockpuppets in sqwiki. After his latest socks user:Iskenderije,user:Tunxhi were blocked, he we believe he created a couple of new ones. user:GrepfrutAroma seems like the most obvious. He's pretty experienced and within an hour after this account was created, he started editing articles created or edited by the puppetmaster user:Hatake. Here is detailed report of the articles they have edited.See this report.
This user has also been hounding me although we had no prior interaction before. On the other hand I've reported nearly all of Hatake's socks on Meta, which were confirmed by the checkusers here and blocked afterwards so it's natural that he holds a grudge against me. This aggressive behavior towards me lead me to believe that user:GrepfrutAroma is the latest sock of user:Hatake.
In one instance he started reverting me out of the blue (1,2,3). This is not the only time he reverted my over and over again, in an article where he hadn't edited before, and that right after my edits there. Here is an example of him reverting my edits 4 times in a row, removing all the referenced paragraphs I had added to the article.See this, this,this and this. In one other occasion after a one week long absence from Wikipedia, his first edit was vandalizing an article where I had been editing at that time (See this). This user also has an issue with categories added by me to the articles, removing them en masse. This user also delights in very long debates (See here and here), as does Hatake and his other socks (See here, the edits by Hatake aka "S.Saiti").--Udha (talk) 15:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Reason(s): These IDs and IP engaged in vandalism and page move without discussion. Also, I'd like to see does it have other IDs & IPs on sockpuppetry. All of these IDs are blocked for 2 weeks, 1 month and infinite period. --AntanO 03:23, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Vandalism increases, and I placed some more IDs. --AntanO 17:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi @AntanO:, you can't CU IPs. It is against the policy.--1233 | Questions?| This message is left by him at 09:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
I have already requested. Is it new / updated policy. If so, please give me the link. BTW, can you check the rest. --AntanO 16:41, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
No comment with respect to IP address(es). We do not run checks that would have the effect of directly or indirectly linking a registered account with IP addresses. If the IP or IP range is being disruptive, feel free to block it. So Doing... for the rest --Alaa :)..! 19:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Discussion: Policy says that all checkusers requests go here.
Reason(s): This is an addition to Steward requests/Checkuser/2019-03#Cristina firstname.lastname@example.org. There is one user who does not have an en.wiki account, and therefore could not have been checked by Bbb23: Lupulcarunt. About w:WP:DUCK: the timing of his actions at w:ro:Discuție:Zalmoxis coincided with the timing of the attacks of Sectant and Martacastro14, besides he made disparaging/condescending remarks about my diploma from the University of Amsterdam (e.g. ) and Sectant and Cristina neagu have attacked me as Tudor Georgescu, BSc, M (see archive for diffs). Oh, yes, Lupulcarunt claims to be a psychologist (or something to that extent, three years of faculty study meant no diploma in Socialist Romania; he claims to have studied 4 years of psychology in high school and 3 years of psychology at a faculty), while Sectant claimed to be a psychiatrist (see archive). Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:10, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Comment So @Bbb23: you need (Lupulcarunt) data? (I can put it in CUwiki) --Alaa :)..! 19:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
@علاء: Please. Thanks for thinking of me.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Done@Bbb23: you can found the data on CUwiki (Special:PermanentLink/30546) --Alaa :)..! 20:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Reason(s): According to last check to these users， local sysop hopes to check Hactlcpslaat again, for his talk at w:zh:Special:Diff/53605735, it seems like he gave inappropriate protection to Air-zrlin. And we wish to see if this check could find other sleepers in past 2 months. Thanks in advance. CreampieGolden State Finals Champion 05:24, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
To clarify, I requested to compare Hactlcpslaat with LTA Dragoon17cc (currently stale). Account #4 is a technically confirmed sock of Dragoon17cc with data still available. Hactlcpslaat has been checked before with a conclusion of "possible." Since the checkuser result is not affirmative, I didn't block this account. However, recent editing patterns of this account show a higher similarity with LTA Dragoon17cc. So I blocked this account and would like to check it again to see if previous CU conclusion will change. For some reason, Hactlcpslaat has been defending account #3 and accuse me (who blocked #3) for "blocking an innocent user." Thus we suspect #3 might also has some connection with this LTA. --Techyan（Talk） 15:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Reason(s): Extremely similar editing and signature patterns aims to alter local consensus or pov editing. However, the pattern shown cannot be ducked. 1233 | Questions?| This message is left by him at 12:58, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
I added 2 more seems related accounts. ΣανμοσαThe Trve Lawe of free Monarchies 13:08, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Please check if not only the accounts have any relations, but also there are any sockpuppets. ΣανμοσαThe Trve Lawe of free Monarchies 01:57, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Reason(s): It seems possible that the above accounts are controlled by the same person using sock puppet. However, it can not be ducked due to the article they insist to recreate (though local consensus state to leave a redirect only) is notable in some point but not notable enough according to local standards. 1233 | Questions?| This message is left by him at 06:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Likely Carmen Li.S.M, Joeyeung1984
This is 100% technical analysis and does not include behavioral evidence. No sleepers --Alaa :)..! 20:54, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Reason(s): Have a hunch that it is BAICAN XXX again. Same areas of interest and the timeframe just seems to coincide. Not in the mood to wait for them to start adding a large amount of incorrect translations again. --Robbie SWE (talk) 11:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
If the modus operandi is the same, for me is Confirmed --Wim b 20:14, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
If it's confirmed, who can I ask to ban this account too? --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:28, 26 March 2019 (UTC)