Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Archive3

Add links
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Simplify3 / Simple11

Though I may be a little bit paranoid, I would like to check and make sure that these are not the same users. Cheers, Razorflame 20:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done They aren't; they also connect from completely different IP ranges. --Eptalon (talk) 21:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All right. Thanks for doing this checkuser request Eptalon! Cheers, Razorflame 21:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simple11

Should be part of the sock farm. His user talk has been protected. Chenzw  Talk  09:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Is part of the farm. --Eptalon (talk) 10:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My "sockpuppets"

See this and User:Dmits. Quite self-explanatory. I didn't know word could spread so fast. I have a strange feeling that there is a vandal cabal that somehow unifies our worst vandalism and sockpuppet cases.

By the way, I consent to being checked to ensure my integrity. Chenzw  Talk  09:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Dmits and Adnimms effectively connect from the same IP address. Checkzw connects from number of IP addresses (dynamic). As far as I can see the ranges do not overlap. In short: Chenzw has no connection to the other two--Eptalon (talk) 11:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jonesboy

The first was blocked by me with the reason "Vandalism-only account" (though he was being unkind and rude as well). The second account was created today and left this on my talk page and I blocked him for having an unacceptable username. The third account was created shortly after the 2nd account was blocked, so I want to make sure. Chenzw  Talk  11:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: This edit was made by the 3rd account, very similar to the one made by the second. Chenzw  Talk  11:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - All three are the same. -- Creol(talk) 11:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amorrow & Co

(Copied from my talk page):

  1. 21:50, 9 April 2008 S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadow of Amorrow (Talk | changes) New user ‎
  2. 21:49, 9 April 2008 Linda Mack 3: Revenge of Pierre Salinger (Talk | changes) New user ‎
  3. 21:49, 9 April 2008 Linda Mack 2: The Lockerbie Bombing (Talk | changes) New user ‎

All of the above were blocked for socking. Then I saw this below all of them:

  1. 21:48, 9 April 2008 Brodrigueza716 (Talk | changes) New user

Possible sock of the above? SwirlBoy39 22:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done The first three are indeed related (as being from the same IP); Brodrigeza716 is completely unrelated to them though. There are a number of other users from Brodriugeza's IP, it might be a school. --Eptalon (talk) 22:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew from NC

This user came to us today (April 6) and after a while editing took part in the ban disscussion of Inkpen2, it made me curious cause it was in opposition of Gwib and saying that Inkpen2 had inproved alot [1] and when the vote was 5/4 he/she brought it up at simple talk [2]. The username is also similar to Iamandrewrice. On his/her userpage it was said that they had two other accounts, one at en and one at de, the account on en was created on April 1 and the one at de was created on April 5, this seems odd seeing as it makes him/her seem like a well known and trusted user crosswiki but the accounts only seem to be made to make him/her trusted so their vote on AN will count. It is also intresting cause Inkpen gave a visit to his talk page today also. So I would like to know if these two users are the same. Oysterguitarist 15:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should compare him to user_talk:Inkpen2, user:IuseRosary and user:Benniguy since all are closely linked to (or indeed ARE) Benniguy. --Gwib -(talk)- 15:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done No match to either of them. Andrew from NC is on a dynamic IP, which has been assigned to one other user in the past; I can rule out that this user is a sockpuppet though. --Eptalon (talk) 21:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, I saw Inkpen's edit to his talk page on the Recent Changes page and that is what peaked my interest. I then went on to read through the past discussions and cast my vote. Thanks for checking before blocking me, as I am obviously not a sockpuppet. --Andrew from NC (talk) 01:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your welcome, it just seemed a bit odd that's all. Oysterguitarist 02:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simple11 returning again?

Back again? The last incident happened just one day ago. Chenzw (talk ▪ changes) 12:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked Iluvsimple11 and 11issimple on the grounds (once again) of having too similar a username to that of a banned user. Simpleajaycloganberry will have to wait for a checkuser report. --Gwib -(talk)- 12:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Simpleajaycloganberry admitted he was a sock, see Special:Undelete/User_talk:Simpleajaycloganberry. I have blocked this account indefinitely.-- Lights  talk  13:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done -- Creol(talk) 23:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More!

--Gwib -(talk)- 18:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done The two users are unrelated (to Simple11 socks); they are also unrelated to each other. --Eptalon (talk) 18:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Their usernames still justify a ban. However this means that Simple11's influence is spreading outside his IP range (unless I've misunderstood checkuser reports). Can we still focus on a range? --Gwib -(talk)- 18:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course; To be more precise, so far 4-5 different providers are involved (in what we think to be Simple11); Just because there are another two troublemakers from providers I have not seen before does not mean they are Simple11. Once we see patterns emerge we can look for proxies. --Eptalon (talk) 19:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to say add that provider to the list of Simple11 providers because of the post he just made to his user talk page (scrounging up a link as we speak) Razorflame 19:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Link is there. Razorflame 19:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another link that definitely points the first user to being a sock of Simple11. Razorflame 19:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Handsleep

This edit and odd posts to a section on my talkpage regarding Simple11 say that this could be another sock.-- Lights  talk  12:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - Tagged and bagged. -- Creol(talk) 12:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, he is getting craftier, to think that we nearly got fooled by him. Chenzw (talk ▪ changes) 12:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guesswho

Made one edit to Lights talk page, saying that it was Simple11, I'd like to know if their are anymore accounts. Oysterguitarist 20:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done The Internet service provider looks vaguely familiar; There are no other users from that IP address though (that edited recently). User claims to be a vandal (sock). What is the purpose of badmouthing, if there is only one user editing from that IP? --Eptalon (talk) 21:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, other than the same ISP, I can make no direct connection between this user and Simple11. --Eptalon (talk) 21:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simple11 returning?

Their usernames are very similar to those of User:Simple11, who was part of a sockfarm to gain support in an RfA. No edits have been made by them though... Chenzw (talk ▪ changes) 09:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it is true. Evidence: my talk page and Gwib's talk page
I've blocked user:Simple99 and user:Siiiple11 on the grounds of unacceptable usernames (too close to those of banned/existing users). The others will have to wait until the checkuser report comes back or they vandalise beyond a final warning. --Gwib -(talk)- 09:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - Confirmed on the obvious 4, no connection with the 5th. Some issues with the IPs so IP blocking is not currently advisable. -- Creol(talk) 12:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B Nambiar and Headmast ship

Both of these users have been reverting lots of revisions in the article National Development Front, without providing any explanation. The edits by both users occur more or less during the same time. An invitation to discuss in the talk page had been unanswered so far. The reverting reintroduces lots of low quality and POV sentences and weasel words into the article.

As there are practically nill contributions from User:Headmast ship other than vandalism in the above mentioned article, I strongly suspect that this user is a sockpuppet 85.181.113.116 (talk) 07:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have posted this on the wrong site. Please post this at the English Wikipedia. Chenzw (talk ▪ changes) 07:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done This is someone else's cup of tea --Eptalon (talk) 21:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yodude and ?friends?

These are all vandalism-only accounts with similar edits. Yagan was a big target for them, and after protecting it yesterday, Beforeyouse cropped up and added the same pic to other pages. I'd like confirmation as to whether it's a sockfarm and if there are any more. · Tygrrr... 13:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done- Two distinct groups here although both are from the same geographic area. Seperare ISPs and computers for each group. There is one other account associated with group 1 but it has shown nothing but valid contributions.
group 1: Yodude, Yodude1, Beforeyouse, Gassco
group 2: Luminous and ScienceLover
The first group has been identified as a school IP. The one additional user in that group is currently going through both AN/I and CU on en:wp but their actions here support their statement that it is a school related incident for the moment. The school itself has been soft blocked for one month, all identified names in both groups have been blocked indefinately as vandal only, the one unidentifed has not had any action taken given their lack of any problems editing. -- Creol(talk) 20:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Downie1

sole action has been to create an account for user:simpleme12 possible variation of the user: Simple11 sockfamily--Bärliner 12:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - Same general location (but it is a very large and populous location) but there is no direct connection between this user and the previous ones. -- Creol(talk) 19:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFA Sockpuppets

All of these user were using sockpuppets to gain support their RFA, I would like to know if there are any more sockpuppets. Oysterguitarist 14:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added Simple11, although possibly a victim of the sockpuppeteer--Bärliner 14:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - Simple11 is a part of the sockfarm. One additional account was identified. All accounts are now blocked indefinately for puppetry. -- Creol(talk) 17:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

81.157.24.119

This edit makes me feel that this IP address could be used by Simple11, although the IP could be an unrelated IP, telling me that Simple11 has came back (which he has, see Special:Log/block).-- Lights  talk  12:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Identified as farming socks; blocked one additional user there for sockpupperty --Eptalon (talk) 12:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bob5556 etc.

All three of these users have been vandalising the same page. I would like to request this checkuser to see if they are indeed from the same IP address. Thanks, Razorflame 20:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are obvious socks, confirmed by the style of vandalism and article, I don't think a checkuser is necessary. Oysterguitarist 23:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kev...

possible coincidence, vandal kev da scally marks three pages as sockpuppets. Old indef block on one account.--Bärliner 13:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two of those accounts have not been active in the over a year. There is nothing to compare it the active one to. -- Creol(talk) 19:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Archive3&oldid=9914772"