Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Archive19

Add links
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Soldierirani

Misuse of spare account. Creating custom pages in all Wikipedia languages. User accounts:

--Persia (talk) 13:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Only two of the above accounts are registered here, and both are locked. Only one has an edit, creating Reza Goodary, which is currently at RfD. Not sure a check would be helpful. Vermont (talk) 01:18, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roushil Thoi Singla and Jacob Louis Mathew

Both have been involved in the creation and recreation of https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priyakanta_Laishram and in the RfDs (x2) in an apparent attempt to garner more support for it to be kept than it should get. They are both voting multiple times in the same RfD with the same general language. Neither have any history outside of that article and related articles. Blissyu2 (talk) 09:38, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The two accounts are confirmed to each other. Thank you for the report. Best, Vermont (talk) 14:26, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohdzaki 07

Both involved in creating the spam article Mohd. Zaki that was already deleted at RfD. --Ferien (talk) 12:47, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CU was inconclusive. If UPE, behaviorally speaking, they're possibly multiple people working together on it. I'm not opposed to other admins making a paid/promotional editing block. Best, Vermont (talk) 23:27, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2601:8C:4180:3510:F908:35A2:FA42:B375

Based on this unregistered user's history here it appears similar to a previous IP vandal edits towards Deaths in 2021 and Cat Deeley (look at both of their history edits). I feel this user will just continuously vandalize Deaths in 2021 as I've dealt with them before. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's much a checkuser can do here. Yes, that account has two edits; the other account is also an IPv6 address. As to single users wrecking mayhem, any admin can deal with it, and block them, as they see fit. --Eptalon (talk) 22:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MariaMiller30

Looks pretty clear that this is a sock of Angelmunoz50 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log)) a.k.a. LiliaMiller2002 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log)) and others, but since they only only made one edit here I want to refer the case to CU. Similar edits, dead children, incorrect dates and other info. (I forgot which name the vandal goes by on this language version. ) Sjö (talk) 15:31, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Angelmunoz and LiliaMiller didn't edit in the last 90 days, so there's no CU information.--Eptalon (talk) 22:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tamilianda

All these three were blocked on en.wiki[1][2][3] at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sweetindian. They are now editing along with the 157.49.*.* IP range noted in the SPI to push their POV. The IP range has created deleted articles in en.wiki especially Annamalai Kuppusamy(this article was deleted multiple[4][5][6][7] times and was repeatedly created). They have added content across multiple pages here which were reverted in en.wiki for Original research and fictional references. The IP range has started to edit from 17 August 2021 and only uses Visual editor, I can't go for a lesser range as nearly every edit disappears. Suneye1 (talk) 16:15, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, can't comment on the IP range and whether it's connected or not. However, the accounts are  Confirmed along with some others. Operator873 connect 16:59, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bobor001

Both of their editing involves the 9jabased Wiki and also their signatures are very similar. Bobor001's signature LionbobLion's signature If they end up being related, a global lock should be requested for LionbobLion. --Ferien (talk) 17:58, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be curious to see if User:444metaphor is related at all as well. I placed a block there after they basically straight up admitted to being a sock, but the editing pattern is similar in some ways. --Gordonrox24 | Talk 21:02, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Both those accounts have been blocked. Bsadowski1, you may also want to check 444metaphor. Thanks. --Ferien (talk) 09:47, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BolsaOObsequios

Undisclosed paid-for spam which creates spam pages in an identical manner (not saying here). They've been around for over a year on en.wp: en:Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_BolsaOObsequios.

Recently reactivated en.wp socks blocked by myself:

Check the deleted contributions. MER-C (talk) 18:23, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the accounts listed under recently reactivated don't exist. Secondly, the edits by the accounts above looks like pretty normal Wikipedia edits. One of them, Allensyllos, I think created a page which was deleted as advertising (at Rfd), and again deleted as QD. So far, I do not see any behaviour where a checkuser is required. If a block is needed, a regular admin can block the user.--Eptalon (talk) 19:04, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think you read the message wrong, the two in that section are ones on en.wp not here. -Djsasso (talk) 20:05, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, as I wrote above, I don't think the few we have listed above have shown problem behaviour here...--Eptalon (talk) 20:22, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I sent you an email describing the abuse pattern. MER-C (talk) 10:26, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MER-C, thank you for the report. 15 accounts blocked. Vermont (talk) 20:03, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Back in June, I noticed this pattern and began to question if it was just a school doing it or something. I will go through the accounts I found back then and block them. ---Bsadowski1 03:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have blocked over 75 accounts based on behavior/checkuser. --Bsadowski1 17:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brand new account that simply removed an RfD tag on an article created by Lauikas (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log)) (who was blocked as a sock of BolsaOObsequios) and also removed the request from RfD. Very likely related to this user. --Ferien (talk) 19:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now blocked by Bsadowski1 --Ferien (talk) 20:57, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HungryHighway

Previously blocked on en.wp[8] for spamming. Repeating the same here including removing deletion template from IP using fake edit summary[9]. Listed the IPs as there might me more socks. Ramaswar(discuss) 20:29, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We can't comment on IPs and since there is only one account here it will be up to an admin to judge what needs to happen. -Djsasso (talk) 20:12, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

7bcxl0

Looks like an obvious sock of Kimsa Sok. For reference see w:en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kimsa Sok. --Trezoo (talk) 12:02, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that can be duck blocked. SHB2000 (talk) 12:09, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SHB2000: Agreed. I just didn’t know where to make the request, so I put it here. --Trezoo (talk) 12:11, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just reported the account to stewards + VIP. Generally though, they get locked quicker than blocked because, we have some admins here, uhm... find identifying LTAs to be... very difficult. SHB2000 (talk) 12:14, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, we have many admins who can identify lots of LTAs, especially in comparison to smaller wikis (e.g. enwikiquote). --Ferien (talk) 09:49, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ahyieulan

Suspecting unpaid COI. Reminds me of these socks I found some time ago. Made-up name, similar editing styles, edits company articles. Etoza (?) 15:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Friday3jason.webp

First edit appears to be an edit to User talk:Sakura emad in a discussion where a couple of socks were recently blocked by Bsadowski1. Requesting CU for sleeper accounts. SHB2000 (talk) 01:42, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When Bsadowski blocked the user, he certainly checked for sleepers...--Eptalon (talk) 12:15, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
this account popped up right after those accounts were blocked. SHB2000 (talk) 12:27, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Check for sleepers. Derpdart56 (talk) 16:48, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry that is being watched. -Djsasso (talk) 16:49, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Socks at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2021/Susovan Sonu Roy

Likely socks used to keep the Susovan Sony Roy article and disrupt the RfD process. Added an IP that might be related although I know you can't comment on IPs. And the last user is the person who created the article. SHB2000 (talk) 04:34, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also pinging @Achim55: about this. SHB2000 (talk) 04:42, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added two more accounts. —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 18:55, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No comment on the ip, as promised. Antezblik, Sikpink, and Gringotee are likely the same user. Onukrit, Colaheed, and Caresthen are unrelated to the first three, and to each other.--Eptalon (talk) 19:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Omkmandy (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log))
Vineunify (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log)) (added 12:00, 25 September 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Another user is acting similarly. --Ferien (talk) 09:02, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bsadowski1 ran some checks, and found that Omkmandy,Vineunify,Onukrit,Colaheed and Caresthen are lkely connected/the same user. Blocks were put in place. --Eptalon (talk) 09:26, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SmileylolXDXD

Both were involved in the Wikidestruction article and they keep editing each others' talk page. Darubrub (Let me know) 15:07, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

pointless: cu's are not allowed to associate usernames and ip addresses.-Eptalon (talk) 15:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, they're all blocked now. Ferien (talk) 15:26, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Eptalon what do you mean. 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 15:28, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that according to the Checkuser policy, checkusers are not permitted to give out information (on RfCU) that would allow to link an account and an IP address. What is listed above is one account name, and two IP addresses.--Eptalon (talk) 17:19, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you sorry for late reply. 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 15:08, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possible connections?

Hi, I think these two accounts might be connected to an article I spotted yesterday and sent to RFD. --Derpdart56 (talk) 13:10, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as socks. -Djsasso (talk) 21:01, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Xenen1970

Per en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xenen1970. MER-C (talk) 17:25, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. -Djsasso (talk) 21:11, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PDL

You may be wondering why I'm reporting PDL. Well, lets say we had a little incident on the Africa stub and PDL accused Auntof6 of admin abuse (Wow Antaradus was right) and made a personal attack at her. He was blocked for 6 months due to Onestrike and soon abandoned his account. However, I saw this vandalism only account pop up. Is it impersonation or was PDL "back for revenge"? (Antaradus' observation page is actually useful). PDL has a history of socking on the en-wiki, so I'm not so sure this is just an impersonation. If it is discovered that these are the same person(s) then please globally ban PDL and extend the block here to indefinite. Also, PDL, if you're reading this, I said I wouldn't interact but hey, curiosity got the cat. Ely - Talk 04:04, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there; the account with the ..nn.. has less than 20 edits; and I have to say that as to addresses, there's no overlap. As to blocking, both users are currently blocked, so there's little to do here anyway.--Eptalon (talk) 19:47, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be impersonation. Thanks for the report though! Best, Vermont (talk) 04:03, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bear accounts

Both accounts have similar names, starting with bear and then a domestic animal. Bearmutt has been making bad changes, and is possibly good-hand/bad-hand account. Ely - Talk 13:25, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very clearly a spoof account indented to harass Bearcat who is a highly regarded editor on en.wiki and not a sock. No check done but blocking Bearmutt as a spoof. -Djsasso (talk) 11:41, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sussyboy17 and TimiLodeWiki20 + IP

Both users are creating stubs related to the television industry, all edits of both users are also tagged as Mobile edit and Mobile web edit. The account TimiLodeWiki20 has been first used on 20 August 2021, only a few days after the account Sussyboy17 has been blocked indefinitly. The IP 2A0A:A546:2C04:0:45A4:BAFB:E7B9:4382 is also engaging similarly. –Morneo06 (talk) 11:34, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accounts are confirmed connected and blocked. Can't comment on IPs. -Djsasso (talk) 11:47, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All recreating articles that were deleted and originally made by Sussyboy 17. Continually removing quick deletion templates. @Djsasso: Similar behaviour to the above confirmed IP's. Cheers, Hockeycatcat (talk) 11:06, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CUs can't comment directly on IPs. -Djsasso (talk) 18:21, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Adamu001 and Bobline adams

Both users working to keep Dc Themmie, which was created by Bobline adams. Tactics are similar (for example, multiple posts on the RFD for the article). Speech patterns are similar. Bobline adams is indeffed on enwiki for abusing multiple accounts, so may be doing so here. Adamu001 started editng here only after Bobline Adams became globally locked. All but one of Adamu001's edits here are related to Dc Themmie; the one exception is a minor change that was made after I noted that all their edits so far were related to Dc Themmie. Both have "adam" in their user name. --Auntof6 (talk) 15:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed and blocked that one and expanded the block on the other to be site wide though they already are globally. -Djsasso (talk) 15:56, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Djsasso: Thanks. Let's see what new name they come up with; the RFD has a while to run. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:17, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Another account who has been adding Dc Themmie to the list of Nigerian singers and asking for the page to be recreated. Ferien (talk) 17:44, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anshuman Tiwari accounts

Obvious from their account names, both have created advertisement pages about the same subject. MathXplore (talk) 12:43, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't exactly match. But it is likely, but could also be meatpuppets. -Djsasso (talk) 14:52, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AutodidactReview123

Likely a sock of block evasion EditorManagerPH [10], the article has already been deleted here [11], but was recreated again Francis Baraan. User:MathXplore notice. 49.149.101.212 (talk) 12:50, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amanmdshala

These users have all been reverting RfD notices on Sanjay Chakravarti and Mohammad Amanullah. They appear to be heavily related and write similarly to one another. Fixing26 (talk) 13:54, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CUs can't comment on any of the IPs and since there is no other accounts here I will leave it up to an admin to decide what to do. -Djsasso (talk) 14:53, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-checkuser observation) Looks like the account has already been blocked by Vermont. --Ferien (talk) 14:56, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SPA voters

Accounts were made just recently to vote on a RfA. Darubrub (Let me know) 14:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, earlier I created an RFA for Tropical Storm Angela and suddenly 2 new editors have come out of the blue using nicknames of 2 of her middle names (Mo-Maureen and Katie-Kate) and I’m suspecting that they are Meatpuppets I will be really disappointed if they are as I put a lot of effort into nominating her for adminship. In a nutshell I’m requesting an ip check on User:Tropical Storm Angela, User:Mo1980s- and User:Katieamerican to see if they are socks of each other. To me this is Duck quacking. Shame this has come to it but if she’s socking she certainly can’t have adminship. — Cheers TGSL (Leave me a message) 14:05, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-checkuser observation) The user katieamerican did not comment on the RfA, an IP did. See Special:Diff/7699326. Fixing26 (talk) 14:16, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting! How come it was signed by her?— Cheers TGSL (Leave me a message) 14:23, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes IPs sign as users to cause disruption. Check the page history. --Ferien2 (talk) 18:39, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement from Tropical Storm Angela: I would not commit sock puppetry; by doing so, I would damage my editing career along with the trust I've gained over the past eleven years I've been editing regular and Simple English Wikipedias. Why would I ever put myself in danger by abusing multiple accounts? That is stupid and inappropriate behavior on any Wikipedia! Committing sock puppetry would get me blocked permanently, and I can't afford that. I'm only using one account; that is policy on all the Wikipedia websites. Angela Kate Maureen 16:28, 4 August 2021 (UTC).

I personally still think it’s suspicious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegameshowlad (talk • contribs) 18:40, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To me, this looks like a way to frame an innocent person. An editor of 11 years wouldn't do such an obvious and reckless thing. Etoza (?) 18:53, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Checking... And let me be quite clear on this note: I am investigating these accounts and IPs on the basis of harassment of a Wikipedian in good standing. Not as meat puppets on that user. Operator873 connect 19:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tropical Storm Angela is exonerated and is not related to the provided accounts. The two new accounts were related and have been blocked. I can't comment on the IP addresses. Going forward, I would caution Thegameshowlad against passively or actively implicating other users are using sock accounts. If there are suspicious accounts, we can look at those accounts. I feel this report was very close to outright accusing another editor. "TGSL" please understand casting aspersions is tantamount to a personal attack and not allowed. Operator873 connect 19:58, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guguxiangguchengquan

Both SPAs made to blank something on specific pages. Darubrub (Let me know) 20:24, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both currently blocked, so nothing to do here..--Eptalon (talk) 20:59, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UnoBochaganj

All 3 above accounts were used to vote on this RfD. They commented within minutes of one another and all except one have only edited the RfD. Fixing26 (talk) 13:46, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fandom - a1123581321 v 2

I added the "Android + many digit numbers" account to the "Darubrub" (possible impersonation) accounts. Because, the accounts have similar appearance. As, the "Darubrub" accounts were created at 17:31, 17:41, 17:49, and 17:53, The "Fandom" account was created at 18:18, on 21 July 2021. All except one were created by the Simple Wikipedia and have accounts on French Wikipedia, This is unusual. There is also, common pattern, they seem to target blocked users (w:User:Android 1123581321, but, Darubrub is blocked on English Wikipedia not Simple Wikipedia). May be that all accounts made by single vandal / sockpuppet / impersonator. 50.30.176.27 (talk) 18:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator observation)All accounts globally locked. Phew. Darubrub (Let me know) 18:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I still question if may be a long term abuser made all of these accounts. There are many long term abusers recently. 50.30.176.27 (talk) 18:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Redacted). Darubrub (Let me know) 18:54, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-checkuser observation) The Darubrubrubrub account was globally locked for "Long-term abuse" so that's probably the case. --Ferien (talk) 18:55, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stegosaurus1two3four5six7eight9

All of these accounts have been making edits removing Hermione Granger from the Hermione page and blanking the Hermione Granger page and saying she doesn't exist. Likely abusing multiple accounts.. --Ferien (talk) 19:50, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking... Operator873 connect 19:55, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Confirmed with some extras. Operator873 connect 20:06, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CoolSarah

This kind of goes the same. They have simaler names and Cool Sarah did create Talk:Pixel artand compare there summaries, KUNJARPUNCH 21:41, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-checkuser observation) I don't think they are related. One is a sock in the Zeshan Khan sock household (Bzu.girls, now globally locked as evading a lock) and one is just a vandal.
Of course, checkusers can still check if they want to; the account behaviours just don't seem similar to me. --Ferien (talk) 21:49, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Likely unrelated, so we are out of luck here. --Eptalon (talk) 16:03, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CalabazaFénix2

CalabazaFénix2 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log)) is globally locked, see English-Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CalabazaFénix2 for background. The two suspect socks created here an article on a completely non-notable film created by a confirmed sock Pangitnatawo888 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log)) on English Wikipedia (When Cinderella becomes a boy Part 3). The two suspected socks are SPA accounts with low edits counts that collaborated on creating content on this non-notable production organization and short films: Hearty Channel and Blue Star Entertainment Philippines Film, Cinderella boy (2019 short film), Cinderella boy Part 3. The likelihood of these two new accounts showing up here randomly together is very low. Shortfilmcommunity and Iconsmaxed are not active on the English Wikipedia so they can not be checked there, but the overlap here is obvious.--Eostrix (talk) 11:00, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As to CabazaFénix2: There are edits on this wiki, but they are too far back that I get an IP address. Iconsmaxed and Shortfilmcommunity have IPs that are possibly related; user agent is the same: They use the same ISP and are both from the same city in Asia (of roughly 1 million people). In short: 'possible - From what I see now though I'd more think about two different people, who are prerhaps friends. Note also: Working together on an article is what we definitely want. If that movie or its production company is notable, and if there's a possible conflict of interest, is however not something to ask a checkuser. --Eptalon (talk) 16:21, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Technical Pratham

Both accounts were used to add almost identical spam links (technicalpratham.in). They are almost certainly abusing multiple accounts. --Ferien (talk) 15:36, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated but definitely not here to contribute constructively. Vermont (talk) 00:31, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's surprising. Thanks for dealing with the two accounts. --Ferien (talk) 19:36, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BrodieMan201 sock

Both were made to vote keep on a RfD. Albert created a user page in Vietnamese to try to portray themself differently. I don’t feel there is sufficient evidence yet to go to stewards. Darubrub (Let me know) 22:37, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add the following IPs to the list to check:
2600:6C40:1700:610:FD20:965C:54AF:BC4D (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log))
49.183.35.159 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log))
IPs out of the blue who object against the deletion of Verdis. Suggesting that there is more support for keeping then there in fact is. The Banner (talk) 15:51, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-checkuser observation) IPs cannot be checked. --Ferien (talk) 16:25, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually they can be checked (and are regularly checked). It's just there's such a thing called CU policy that forbids us to link ip addresses and usernames. As to IPs voting in an RfD: the closing admin can easily disregard them. Remember, an RfD is not a vote. --Eptalon (talk) 16:31, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant linked. @Eptalon: are the two accounts linked though? --Ferien (talk) 16:44, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See also the related sockpuppet-investigation on the English Wikipedia: en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SwedenAviator/Archive. The Banner (talk) 16:48, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser request

All are removing images from Cheese and saying that there are too many images. They are mainly removing the Feta cheese picture. Animalguy7 (Message me! · What have I done?) 15:59, 9 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]

(Non-checkuser observation) The two accounts seem to be connected but the IP mentioned was not blocked. --Ferien (talk) 17:13, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even if I wanted to, I wouldn't be able to say much about the IP. When looking at the other editors' edits I mainly see normal editing; so, even if they were connected, where's the behaviour that would need the action of a CheckUser? --Eptalon (talk) 20:07, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Eptalon I think it is because they were part of the removing of things related to Greece and putting in other countries flags. The other things I see are removing dead link references. I don’t see a whole lot of editing on my side but they do fall in line with what the other two accounts were doing with the non npov. I’m guessing behavior wise they would match. But then again a sockpuppet reported it lol. PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 20:20, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Who reported it is irrelevant. I can't act upon it if I don't see behaviour that is clearly against policy: Even if they were related: having multiple accounts is not an actionable offense.--Eptalon (talk) 20:23, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No I understand. I was just part of that all when it was happening. IMO this case can be closed out. PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 20:27, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Farhan Rana Rajpoot accounts

Obvious from their account names, both users are creating advertisement pages about the same subject. MathXplore (talk) 04:35, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. -Djsasso (talk) 18:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another account with similar name which is promoting the same subject as above. MathXplore (talk) 07:53, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Placed suspected sockpuppet notice on both user and talk. PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 08:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly enough, was part of the aame group. Blocked with the same parameters...--Eptalon (talk) 20:34, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CU Request

Both users have a heavy hand in the article Adodo Eddy Osaman which was RfDd on 7 June 2020. It was recreated in February of this year and after reading the discussion, it appears these two may be the same. Osman2011 is checkuser blocked and their edit history is gone but Patdavid1213 has only worked on this article. PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 10:42, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Namnic vs. Mohadic

There is an RfD for an article that is being strongly forced to keep by this user despite the sources not being reliable for a BLP. All of a sudden, just after 0600 on May 25, 2021 user Mohadic was created and the only contribution was to this RfD and voted Keep with a very weak argument (Namnak is also fighting with very weak arguments. I feel they are the same person trying to boost the keeps. PotsdamLamb (talk) 08:19, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Technically there's nothing I can do; it's not impossible but it appears unlikely, technically speaking. There are socks on the English Wikipedia relating to the same subject, but not the accounts here. Other admins could look at it behaviorally if they want. Best, Vermont (talk) 19:02, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Vermont The first account I listed has been globally locked. PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 08:01, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

207.254.55.145

Socks of 207.254.55.145, which was blocked for 31 hours for vandalism on 2020 Summer Olympics. Android 2113853211 (talk) 08:41, 10 May 2021 (UTC), updated 11:25, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done there's little a checkuser can do with IP addresses...--Eptalon (talk) 16:16, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IOS 128256384512

Both accounts have similar usernames, similar userpage and user talk page designs, and similar editing habits, editing technology related articles. I suspect that these users may be related to each other. Note that a similar account User:IOS 1009998979695 (talk · contribs) has been locked on all projects. --Tsugaru Let's Talk! :) 🍁 23:55, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed Blocked here and I locked the account too. Operator873talkconnect 02:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Operator873 --Tsugaru Let's Talk! :) 🍁 02:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hoaeter

After being blocked from the English Wikipedia for almost (or a little over) a decade of disruptive editing, utilizing the same IP ranges they have continued to push agendas pertaining to articles for the Horn of Africa, especially in Ethiopia. The main article in question currently is Habesha Community. Please refer to English Wikipedia Sockpuppet Investigations for further information. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 13:53, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like they have a chronological order in their edits, maybe they switched their IP? Dingothegorg 14:00, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the geolocation of these IPs is the same. Darubrub (Let me know) 14:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the Long Term Abuse case pertaining to these IP ranges in the same location, as evident in the sockpuppet investigations page as well on the English Wikipedia, they have a chronological order and typical set of articles they use to try and evade, before showing themselves again. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 14:02, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately we are unable to fish through IP ranges. Best, Vermont (talk) 23:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Vermont, fair enough. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 04:52, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Liu Kang III

Check out the discussion on Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2021/Josephs Quartzy for comments by all these users. Phrasing and grammar (including mistakes) are similar between all comments despite various users. Appears someone trying to game the rfd via sock pockets. Desertborn (talk) 14:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. -Djsasso (talk) 20:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DJéxplîćît

I really hope I'm not jumping the gun here, but this user has raised red flags for me from the beginning. The odd "I'm not a sock!" userbox, as well as a very familiar editing pattern of adding welcome templates and handing out barnstars leads me to believe we are in fact looking at a sock.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 01:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator observation)KirkburnFandom is a confirmed sock of Wagnerrrr. ShadowBallX (talk) 02:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gordonrox24: This is untrue. I believe you’re jumping the gun a bit there. I don’t seem to know or believe you’re looking at me like I’m a sock. DJéxplîćît (talk) 15:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The user had his suspicions, so now we wait for the findings of any of the checkusers. If it is proven you are not a sock, then you can continue editing here. However, if you are found out to be a sock, you will be permanently blocked from editing here. ShadowBallX (talk) 15:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know any of these users who were mentioned in this RfCU. Thanks for the heads up. DJéxplîćît (talk) 16:45, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure ya don't. Blocked :-) Vermont (talk) 03:39, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 23:37, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21283NumbersGuy

Similar disruptive editing coming from these accounts. Quacking very loudly. —Belwine (talk) 20:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Vermont (talk) 20:16, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seaworthyn

Both brand new accounts (at CA) voting the same way at an RfD. --IWI (talk) 12:22, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjayva Raja

Both adding the same factual errors to articles. Quacking loudly. —Belwine (talk) 09:00, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Connected IPs

IP was making personal attacks at editors before they were blocked for 31 hours. A few days later several other IPs were doing the exact same attacks at the same editors by rapidly IP hopping. Thanks! --Cuddles9999 • 💬 • 📜 16:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Checkusers can't do anything about IP addresses. -Djsasso (talk) 16:42, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Q_Q)_-_WK

Master was blocked for 31 hours as they keep placing false userboxes on their page stating they are an admin, bcat, autopatroller, etc. Shortly after being blocked (and not just on simple, but across a lot of the sisters) this account popped up and this is what their page is now: https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:(Q_Q)_-_WK&oldid=7391078. Thanks! It may be helpful also for IP block with account creation blocked for a couple of months. PotsdamLamb (talk) 22:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding an update - This user is a sock of a globally banned user. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alex9777777 (whom to date has 83 puppets caught) PotsdamLamb (talk) 22:32, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No comment on the global sock; the two mentioned are likely the same user. So the block has also been extended to the newly created account (same parameters). --Eptalon (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator observation) both now globally locked —Belwine (talk) 14:22, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As a side note, generally sockpuppetry and block evasion would mean an indefinite block applied to all of the person's accounts. I can't think of a situation where abusing multiple accounts would result in anything but indefinite blocks. Of course, it is now moot given the global locks. --IWI (talk) 15:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't happen a lot here lately, but sometimes users are given the chance to have all socks blocked and continue on just the main account. Depends on the situation. -Djsasso (talk) 16:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zblace

ZBlace is making the same types of threats to other editors in the rFD discussion as did QSS. They are also slowly deleting content from the article itself . Their user talk page is basically an attack against editors who in good faith ask them not to attack them (they are attacking the same people QSS did) Zblace User Talk Attacks: [12]; [13]; [14] Definitive for behavior from my observations, however, I will leave that to the powers! Thanks - PotsdamLamb (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you also check for any sleepers due to the fact we have so many coming from the same regions all of a sudden.? PotsdamLamb (talk) 19:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@PotsdamLamb Just a note, newest requests should go on top, can you move this to the top. Thanks much. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 19:12, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 DoneThanks @Camouflaged Mirage: They should have that button fixed to place at top and allow a new section instead of opening the entire page to edits.— Preceding unsigned comment added by PotsdamLamb (talk • contribs)
Already handled, thanks for reporting. Vermont (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
May i ask what the conclusion was? Assuming that it isn't private of course. @Vermont: --Trade (talk) 21:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Trade, Zblace is the operator of the QueerSport account. Vermont (talk) 22:44, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RachelWex

Could be a potential sockpuppet of QueerSport seeing how they only voted on the rfd for QueerSportSplit and said to keep it because it is notable it is clearly not.--Hellothere4 (talk) 17:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hellothere4, an editor !voting in a RfD with a position you disagree with is not reason to check their account. I see no indication of sockpuppetry, and thus no reason to check. Regards, Vermont (talk) 17:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well it wasn't because I disagreed with them but ok. --Hellothere4 (talk) 17:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Vermont: It's certainly suspicious that they have created their account on the 12th and their first edit is a vote there. Their CA suggests maybe not a sock, but certainly suspicious. --IWI (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hellothere4, more than half of your comment is: "they...said to keep it because it is notable it is clearly not". (italics added for emphasis) That is your opinion. In requesting a check, the requester should establish a connection between the two accounts that shows it is likely the same user; this is what a checkuser needs to determine that a check would be beneficial. For example: "Both accounts edited the same RfD with very similar comments, and have few contributions outside of that RfD." This would have been a better way of phrasing a request for the above two users, however RachelWex has over 2k edits on other projects and is not a new editor. Vermont (talk) 17:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want me to edit the reason? --Hellothere4 (talk) 17:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hellothere4, that is unnecessary, the request is already made. I simply sought to inform you of general practice in requesting checks for the future. Regards, Vermont (talk) 17:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thank you. --Hellothere4 (talk) 18:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possible connected IPs

I think this IP might be connected to the vandals who vandalized User talk:DannyS712, if you guys could look into it that'd be greatDerpdart56 (talk) 15:26, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Derpdart56: I don't think IPs can be checked --Belwine • 💬 • 📜 15:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Those are all open proxies -- and yes, it's the same person. Antandrus (talk) 15:28, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 (change conflict)  Yeah. They are open proxies used by an LTA as Antandrus said. --IWI (talk) 15:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So what exactly can we do about this besides blocking the IPs? Block the range?Derpdart56 (talk) 15:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Only reverting and blocking unfortunately. The IPs are in several ranges. --IWI (talk) 15:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well.. This editor usually uses completely different IPs. See this page history, they are completely different IPs. He literally has dozens of them. Just revert and report. This editor doesn't limit his activities to Simple Wikipedia, he also edits on English Wikiquote and English Wikipedia, and probably other projects too, so reporting to m:SRG for a global block is probably the best idea. --Belwine • 💬 • 📜 15:36, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure on how to do that. Derpdart56 (talk) 15:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure you can do it from Twinkle, although I'm not sure whether that's just because I have Twinkle Global - use the GARV button and tick Long-term abuse. --Belwine • 💬 • 📜 15:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
┌─────────────────────────────────┘
 Firstly, Checkuser is not for "fishing expeditions", and per policy we are generally not associating a username with an IP address. So honestly, what do you expect me to do here? - If the IP showed bad behavior it can be blocked for a short time. There's no need for a checkuser...--Eptalon (talk) 19:12, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is a known LTA, GRP. Globally blocked by Bsadowski1 as open proxy. Can we just stop discussing about them per WP:DENY. They have a lot of open proxies, and will be best handled by revert, reporting for blocks and ignoring. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 19:20, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As pointed out, currently nothing to do. --Eptalon (talk) 19:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Demons24

Possible LTA creating Relay Ball and Roomball articles. Derpdart56 (talk) 15:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked by User:Bsadowski1. -Djsasso (talk) 15:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Anan

 Done and blocked. -Djsasso (talk) 16:01, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heinrichdeutsch

Second one removed RfD template on spam article created by the first. Also, this article was created on many other wikis under many accounts (this shows how this particular user removed CSD templates from other identical articles created by other DUCK socks). Some may be registered here as sleepers. --IWI (talk) 22:36, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Checking Operator873talkconnect 22:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Confirmed plus 8 sleepers Operator873talkconnect 22:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Клос

Both new accounts, whose main contributions surround the article in question. --IWI (talk) 01:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Checking... Operator873talkconnect 01:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Direct interaction is only on an RfD and there is no supporting reason to investigate further at this time. Continue to monitor. Operator873talkconnect 01:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BlueD954

Both adding false information to British millitary articles. The first was attacking other users and leaving disruptive edit summaries, and was previously blocked on enwiki for socking. --IWI (talk) 12:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yutaro26

Some creating promotional style articles about non-notable pop-groups/comedy groups, and all have a very similar style. There were also some IPs creating such articles. Some have already been deleted. --IWI (talk) 08:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of the article subjects are non-notable (in fact, some have EN equivalents), and not all articles are about pop/comedy groups. Editing pattern appears to be consistent with a school project; please do not bite the newcomers. Chenzw  Talk  09:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Chenzw: Yes, you are correct. Apologies, hadn't considered a school project, had been thinking paid editing but that seems unlikely now. --IWI (talk) 09:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Completely slipped my mind that a school project would explain this. I gave them all a welcome; I guess I'm too used to seeing socks advertising, lol. --IWI (talk) 09:17, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ssojic

For second account, only edit is on this RfD. The first account's only edits have been on the Olivier Staub article. Belwine • 💬 • 📜 21:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Checking... Operator873talkconnect 21:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Confirmed plus a 3rd account Operator873talkconnect 22:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joem2masa

Similar general writing style. Similar "meme" related usernames. All targeting the same two users within an hour and being generally disruptive. --IWI (talk) 18:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I should have really checked contribs before replying to them... Wasn't obvious to me that they were possible socks, but quite obvious now... Belwine • 💬 • 📜 18:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. -Djsasso (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fire93200

All creating the same spam article. Same number in name. --IWI (talk) 19:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some were already blocked. Blocked other related accounts. -Djsasso (talk) 20:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Confirmed Operator873talkconnect 19:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Davide Dall'Acqua

Irrespective of same names, I checked that user no 1's page has been edited by user no. 2, they are same person. Check their user talk page and history revision for further investigation. Already been give warning to user no. 2. on his talk page. May be same person but might not decleared same person. It looks duck to me.KP (talk) 09:36, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So far only userspace edits, no article or project page edits. There's no problem behaviour, so where's the reason for a check? - Using multiple accounts is not forbidden.--Eptalon (talk) 12:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The users were using their pages for promotional purposes. --IWI (talk) 12:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but there is no need for a CheckUser if a sock puppet/master account hasn't been blocked. They could receive a warning, but there is no need for a CheckUser. BlackWidowMovie0 (talk) 00:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@BlackWidowMovie0: There can be several reasons for CheckUser tools, block evasion being only one of them. Naleksuh (talk) 05:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nakeksuh: That's fair, but checking contributions, I don't see a need for the CheckUser. I could be wrong, but at a first glance, it doesn't seem warranted. BlackWidowMovie0 (talk) 16:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jordanene7

Same name. Same behavior of copy/pasting enwiki in many cases. Looking at CentralAuth, I would say there is a strong possibility of sleepers. I included the actual master, for reference. --IWI (talk) 05:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Checking... Operator873talkconnect 06:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"We've woken the hive!"  Confirmed Operator873talkconnect 06:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Astronomyscientist124

Both claiming Eddie Van Halen's death was a hoax. --IWI (talk) 22:53, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Checking... Operator873talkconnect 22:54, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Confirmed Operator873talkconnect 23:18, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keywankomala

Seems really strange all these accounts are appearing to vote on this rfd. MiladAz92 and Soufi1355's only edits are the votes on this proposal. Also, Halovand and Keywankomala have made similar edits. I'm not 100% sure, but it seems a little fishy, so I'm checking. Belwine • 💬 • 📜 21:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to the info I have, they are probably not related (as to using the same IP range). Sorry. Btw: if these users only edited the RfD their votes will likely be disregarded.--Eptalon (talk) 21:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. There's no need to worry, I was just checking. :) Belwine • 💬 • 📜 21:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But it can also be happening that he is using different IP address, creating accounts and doing this. Moreover their first edit is Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2021/International network of iranian kurdistan human rights. After that no edits. So we have to focus on it.KP (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
However, if their only/first edit is on the rfd, then it probably won't count anyway. Belwine • 💬 • 📜 17:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again doing this kind of comment to support this article keep mentioned by Belwine. Please check and blocked them.I am not satisfied with their activities. Their editing pattern suspects me. See they hadn't sign after comment. KP (talk) 18:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, per policy, I am not allowed to associate an IP Address with a username.--Eptalon (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledgenerd95

Both created the Jonn Poker spam article. --IWI (talk) 16:00, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed both behaviorally and with technical evidence other than Knowledgenerd95's (stale). Thanks for the report, Vermont (talk) 16:19, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Archive19&oldid=8023597"