Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Archive6

Add links
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser
Revision as of 08:05, 30 April 2009 by PeterSymonds (talk | changes) (+Thekohser, Jonas D. Rand, 68.96.209.19)

Mr. Kruzkin and Mr. Kruzkin Returns

Thanks, Razorflame 20:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, same IP address.--Eptalon (talk) 20:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

84.13.214.148 and Tharnton345

Per this I think it may be Tharnton evading his ban again. - Æåm Fætsøn /ˈaɪæm ˈfætsən/ 06:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quite obvious, no CU needed, IMO. Chenzw  Talk  12:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

75.119.224.0/20

Just wondering if a CU can check the above range for any collateral damage. Cheers, Goblin 20:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Collateral damage? Please specify. Chenzw  Talk  12:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Basically if there were any legitimate users caught up in the range, but the moment has probably passed now ;) Thanks, Goblin 12:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

92.11.104.197 and Samlaptop

This IP is making the same type of edits as Samlaptop, and based on his editing pattern, such as adding I love vandalism to pages, I believe this IP to be Samlaptop's. Thanks, Razorflame 18:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Likely to be him. Blocked accordingly. Majorly talk 18:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ismouton and JamesManes

Both making same exact same edit to Solaris and using exact same argument at to why. fr33kman talk 23:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't approve of this. The editors (probably unrelated) were correct in what they did. No check is needed. TheAE talk 23:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is wrong is using rollback on non-vandalism like that. Even if it was the same person, I can totally appreciate why they are doing that. Majorly talk 23:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had reason to be concerned that it was vandalism due to the wording of the edit summaries (profanity and insulting users); and then another account performing the exact same edit within seconds of the first account doing so. Concern that it might not be vandalism is why I asked the editor to discuss, rather than revert it again. fr33kman talk 23:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GLFan151 and guess who?

Before I vomit. SimonKSK 18:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to do over here, account is SULed and has been blocked on EN as a sock. Chenzw  Talk  01:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PickingGold12 and Tharnton345


Reason: Just a hunch, but i've been monitoring and it seems very Tharnton like. RfA as first edit, then pointless userspace edits, before nomming someone for RfA. Cheers, Goblin 23:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is not my main though. PickingGold12 (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Want a hint? PickingGold12 (talk) 23:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is this some kind of game? - At the moment I see no reason at all to do a checkuser here...--Eptalon (talk) 23:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why need to cheat when its obivous? PICKING PickingGold12 (talk) 23:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to guess there's not much point adding vandalism warnings? I'll leave it to the admins. FrancesO (talk) 23:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yum5Yum5 and LostRule

Reason: Both edited Enfield Island Village before it was deleted and both seem to be vandals. Kennedy 11:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they are the same person. Check the diffs for details. Lostrule actually reverted Yum5Yum5's edit. Chenzw  Talk  11:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per the CU results, they are different people (different IPs)--Eptalon (talk) 11:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah well, thought we had a couple of socks on... Kennedy 11:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderboy4 and Samlaptop

This user is exhibiting the same behavior as Samlaptop did in the past. The first thing he did when he came here was open an RfA. Therefore, I believe that that is sufficient enough evidence to support a CU of this user. Thanks, Razorflame 23:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Initiating an RfA is a very common thing for newbies to do, as they don't yet understand the role of an administrator. This happens nearly every day on the English Wikipedia, so I don't think a C/U is necessary. –Juliancolton (talk) 23:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But as their first edit? Come on...even I knew better than to apply for adminship as my first edit :P. Razorflame 23:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I've seen this dozens of times throughout the wikis. –Juliancolton (talk) 23:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it was me, I'd mark this as Declined - not enough evidence to warrant a checkuser, but that's just me. SteveTalk 23:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, then. If you don't think that enough evidence was presented, then sorry for even posting this. Cheers, Razorflame 23:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sexplosion696969 and SEXPLOSION6969

Seems obvious but I'd like confirmation in case they create more of them. fr33kman talk 19:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm puzzled. Both accounts have been blocked and encouraged to create a good username, so how would it be useful to confirm they're the same at this point? Toliar (talk) 19:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't know how checkuser does its bit, but I'm assuming that the account creation would show the IP address of the creator?? I just want to knwo in case they keep creating more so a hard block can be considered. My thinking is that it could be different people that just happen to have created very similar usernames (unlikely I know, but AGF is very big on my agenda). I don't know if checkuser can be used at this point or not; I've never had the bit :) but they have both edited the same article, so some IP address should show up fr33kman talk 19:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done There is a big chance this is the same user, even if the IPs don't match. --Eptalon (talk) 19:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'm a big one for AGF, perhaps too much :) fr33kman talk 20:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the reasoning now. Toliar (talk) 23:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm a stickler for evidence :) I figured that someone else might have seen the block or the user-creation log on decided to create another one :) fr33kman talk 23:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Relucio and Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila

An admin at enWP shows these accounts to be the same person (here) and I think that based on the edits it is the same here. fr33kman talk 21:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it very much looks like it. --Eptalon (talk) 23:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'll block Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila (talk · contribs) and start a discussion on the other. fr33kman talk 23:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thekohser and Jonas D Rand

Thekohser has similar writing styles and the same self-righteous attitude and becomes active just as Jonas posts on TRMs talk page. Kennedy (talk) 08:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but don't be ridiculous. Do you not realise who Thekohser is? A quick check of his recent posts on Wikipedia Review, in a thread started by AmericanEagle, will show this in Thekohser. Checkuser clearly not needed Soup Dish (talk) 08:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I don't read Wikipedia Review, so that piece of information passed me by. I will have a look now. Kennedy (talk) 08:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thekohser is Greg Kohs, see en:MyWikiBiz who has been vocal in his criticism of Wikipedia and Jimbo Wales for many years. Jonas D. Rand is a child. Greg Kohs has been covered in various third-party reliable source publications about his thoughts on Wikipedia and Wales, Jonas has not! The above IP address geolocates to New York, Greg is pretty open about where he lives Soup Dish (talk) 08:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Fair enough. I did not know that. Kennedy (talk) 08:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, "writing style" and an "attitude" are now sufficient grounds for violating the Internet privacy of a contributor to a Wikimedia Foundation project? Seems rather rude and invasive to me. And, fancy that, no apology to me on my Talk page. -- Thekohser (talk) 22:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh quit trying to provoke people. Just walk away. -Djsasso (talk) 03:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll say exactly as I said to Jonas: You are deluded if you think I am going to apologise to you. Kennedy (talk) 08:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Archive6&oldid=1510175"