Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Archive5

Add links
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Samlaptop85213 and friends

[change source]

All above vandalised the Bop It article with changes such as "I love vandalism" and "Block me please". 92.15.33.16 has even admitted to being the Samlaptop guy (backed up by IRC evidence). Is it possible to do a user agent comparison between the various IPs?

In addition, a YourWiki checkuser has offered to provide information as the same person is registered on one of their wikis as well. Chenzw  Talk  11:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A very basic question: What good would it be to know that one or more of these actually were Samlaptop; both the Samlaptop account is blocked, and reading your comments above, most of the single IPs will be blocked as well. So what do you expect to gain from running a CU? --Eptalon (talk) 11:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it is indeed that these IPs are him, we can apply a range block to stop him from coming back. Unless some action is taken, it appears that he will constantly be back to vandalise. Chenzw  Talk  12:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Toddst2 and Samlaptop85213

[change source]

Call it a hunch, but Toddst2 asking for admin after two edits seems like Samlaptop85213 may be back with a SOCK account. fr33kman t - c 01:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope this is definitely not Samlaptop85213...--Eptalon (talk) 08:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added another username. Please confirm whether or not this user is either connected to Toddst2 or Samlaptop85213. Thanks, Razorflame 03:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Forring and Toddst2 use the same IPs, they are likely the same user. --Eptalon (talk) 08:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A further name added: Merlspiers...same behavior as Toddst2 and Forring...might be back for another round. Thanks, Razorflame 03:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merlspiers is completely unrelated to any of the above: Different user agent, different ISP, different Geographical region. --Eptalon (talk) 08:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SpoonWarrior‎ and YogurtSpoon

[change source]

Userpages go a long way to making it seem the same person. I deleted an article yesterday called Yogurt Spoon and then today these two users were created. -Djsasso (talk) 17:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the same user to me. --Eptalon (talk) 20:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Umm... what is the point of this CheckUser, exactly? We have no reason to block either one, so I don't see the use. TheAE talk 04:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An anon has been adding pictures of spoons to articles. It might be the same person as these names. I agree that the request should contain the IP addy of the anon for confirmation. fr33kman t - c 04:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phentos and 134.161.227.84

[change source]

Reason: Both have recently pushed the same POV on Christianity. Shapiros10 22:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely. Majorly talk 22:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sinofdreams and MySpaceMan1

[change source]

A small hunch tells me that this is Kalajan, but his socks try to stay away from me. This one, like Sinofdreams, went to me automatically. He apologized for all of actions, but still, socks are not acceptable. I told him to prove that he can edit constructively on another wiki. But, he's not welcome here at all. SimonKSKContradict me... 23:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Likely they are the same. Majorly talk 15:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sinofdreams and YouAreTimeZones1

[change source]

Kinda obvious. block evasion. Went to my talk, said I was Kalajan, said, "I HATE YOU". Too obvious. SimonKSKContradict me... 18:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um...yes,kinda.. Blocked for block evasion..--Eptalon (talk) 18:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elohssa, password, AA, Hairy

[change source]

Vandalism-only accounts, all created at the same time. --Werdan7T @ 03:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given they are probably all blocked (either as bad username, or vandalism-only), what exactly do you expect from running a CU? - We can do no more than block...--Eptalon (talk) 11:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done - No further action needed. Chenzw  Talk  11:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:76.113.184.45 and IPs on the Simple English Wikipedia

[change source]

Hi there all. I would like to request that a checkuser from here check this IP address against two IP addresses,

for the same kind of vandalism and I want to make sure that there are no more IPs on either project that will continue to engage in this kind of vandalism. Please compare your results with the CUs on the English Wiktionary. I have started a request there as well. Thanks, Razorflame 22:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser can show that a given user uses a given IP, for a certain time; the normal way there would be to say I have users A and B, are they the same. - I can of course look up what users these IPs belong to, but as to privacy policy, I would not be allowed to reveal this info here. Therefore, please clarify:
  • What users do you expect to be involved in this
  • What kind of vandalism you are talking about.
In very broad terms, questions to CheckUsers should be answerable by either yes, or no. --Eptalon (talk) 22:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They look the same and they look open proxyish. They've been replacing pages with vandalism and annoying in user talk pages and they've edited half an hour apart, which is close enough to be suspicious. I think I've saw this exact range vandalise many times in other (unrelated) wikis.
Because there's only IPs, I don't think a CU would be necessary.
I don't he's comparing users with IPs and I'm pretty sure no users would be involved in this. - Æåm Fætsøn /ˈaɪæm ˈfætsən/ 02:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind about this request. Sorry for bringing it up. Cheers, Razorflame 02:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A1a2s, Emach1s

[change source]

Due to the time of creation of Emach1s and the similarities of the last two characters (ie: a hunch) fr33kman t - c 19:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Add my username to the list to check. AndyCrogonka (talk) 20:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very odd comment - probably something attention-seeking based by the sockpuppeter. However, this will need to be checked too, and a range check may be needed. Lingamondo (talk) 20:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hai guiz I iz a sockpuppet lol. A1a33 (talk) 20:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment Like OMG No wai can I joni the convo??? AndyzBot (talk) 20:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More socks. SimonKSKContradict me... 20:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I blocked the A1a33 and AndyzBot because even without checkuser it was obvious. -Djsasso (talk) 20:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A1a2s is still not blocked... SimonKSKContradict me... 20:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed: They are all sockpuppets of A1a2s. The AN discussion can now be closed accordingly. Majorly talk 20:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(<-) I haver blocked A1A2s (and all IPs used) for sock farming for 6 months. --Eptalon (talk) 20:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is the next name: A1a4s (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log)). Regards, Barras (talk) 21:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OBJECTION! I am a good user that assumes good faith and you treat me like crap! A1a4s (talk) 21:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But you know that you do twice vandalism!? And you know that your username is like A1a2s? Barras (talk) 21:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OBJECTION! Names can be deceiving darling and I am not this A1a2s guy of what you speak. A1a4s (talk) 21:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are A1a2s, because ever since you got here, you have been disruptive. SimonKSK 21:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done There are between 5 and 10 users, who share (currently) 3 IP addresses (from roughly speaking 2 networks). All those listed above are in the pool. --Eptalon (talk) 22:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the next one: A1a6s (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log)) Barras (talk) 13:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Similar user name; geolocates to same geographical region, IP is different to known offenders thouh. Therefore: I would not be quite as sure this really is the same user as those above.--Eptalon (talk) 14:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GWa2S (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log)) same kind of vandalism like A1a4s. Barras (talk) 17:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done It is a possibility (same geographical region, same browser version as a1a4; "similar subnet") --Eptalon (talk) 17:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nitin 13s: due to similar username fr33kman t - c 04:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Papajohns, PapaJohns78

[change source]

As Papa Johns78 was blocked a few days ago for a promotional username, trolling and socking, I think it likely Papajohns is the same user. Toliar (talk) 07:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both users use a different Provider (and different IP ranges); they are therefore unlikely to be the same user.--Eptalon (talk) 09:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Freddy, Ornamentalfun

[change source]

Given Ornamentalfun's user talk, there's a good chance he's banned user Freddy, per WP:AN#Reversion of edits ("Yes there is a rule that dates should not be linked out of context" and "calling anyone who disagrees with him a vandal, defending his work by saying "duh" a lot") and WP:AN#Freddy?. Toliar (talk) 07:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Freddy's ban was in 2007; this is too far back to yield any results for Freddy - the comparison with Ornamentalfun can therefore not be done. --Eptalon (talk) 09:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Based on behaviour, it is certainly him. He shares the same IP range blocked in 2007 as Freddy, so it's likely they're the same. Majorly talk 16:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kalajan and Primo

[change source]

I hope that I am wrong that and that this user is not a sock. Both went to WP:PW and both seem experienced. SimonKSKContradict me... 18:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any evidence you this...? I don't see the need. TheAE talk 18:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed Kalajan = Primo. Majorly talk 19:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kalajan and XXFireBladeXx

[change source]

I have a hunch that this user is Kalajan based upon the interests that it has and how experienced the user is already. Please confirm. Thanks, Razorflame 03:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fishing? SimonKSK 03:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. Same intersts, therefore, possibly the same user. Razorflame 03:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not Kalajan, but it is Sinofdreams. Majorly talk 03:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sinofdreams, PapaJohns78, Pills4

[change source]

Reason:All have harassed me and were socks of sins at enwiki. SimonKSK 22:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For sins/PapaJohns see below; Do you have anything more "tangible" against Pills4, that "has harrassed me at another WP"? --Eptalon (talk) 22:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Other than they have same editing patterns (capitalizes all words}, and is a sock of sin at en? No. Pills might be fishing, a little bit, but it seems to concidental that when Sins came, they came. SimonKSK 22:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I checked Sinofdreams, who is related in some way to Pills. Majorly talk 22:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Likely they're all the same user. Majorly talk 22:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kalajan and Papa Johns78

[change source]

Both are accounts that were involved in the same sockpuppet case over at the English Wikipedia, so therefore, I would like to make sure that this isn't a sockpuppet of Kalajan. Cheers, Razorflame 17:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added sinofdreams to the list, not sure what checkuser will show since he is probably using proxies. But papa johns78 showed up right after we protected the kalajan talk page, and then sinofdreams showed up right when we blocked papa johns 78. -Djsasso (talk) 18:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Papa Johns78 and SinofDreams are possibly the same user (using the same ranges); Kalajan is unrelated, as far as I can see though. --Eptalon (talk) 18:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, btw, I unblocked Papajohns78 and SinofDreams; as far as I can see they have done nothing wrong. --Eptalon (talk) 18:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Beg to differ. Check the history of my talk. SimonKSK 21:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kalajan and Tess Cramphorn

[change source]

Same kind of behavior and editing styles make me suspect that this user is a sock of Kalajan. Cheers, Razorflame 20:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably an impersonator, different countries. Majorly talk 20:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kalajan and Hazardous Matt

[change source]

Hi there all. These were confirmed sock accounts over at the English Wikipedia, and both have been created here. They are most likely the same user, but I believe that it should be checked just in case. Cheers, Razorflame 20:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know Kalajan was a confirmed sock account on en but I don't see where you got Hazardous Matt from? -Djsasso (talk) 20:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Has Hazardous Matt made any changes here or, specifically, acted in a way contrary to SOCK? Soup Dish (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Got HazardousMatt from the en:WP checkuser case against him. All of the evidence you need to perform the CU is on that page. Razorflame 20:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unrelated. Majorly talk 20:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you mad! I'm never making a sock again, Matt is a strict guy that likes to help people. I'm not like him, I'm... Well I'm not him. He dosen't exist I think, If he is here it's to supervise me. I'd honestly be very excited if he were here.  ←Kalajan→  15:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well the checkuser results came back unrelated, so we know you're not him. His account was likely created via CentralAuth, having made no contributions. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, he made his account to supervise me, as he was strong on helping me, and he made his account the day I did, he knew I was changing brand.  ←Kalajan→  15:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Razor, did you ever look at Matt's account? SimonKSK 21:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did look at his account. It was the timing of his arrival that caused me some suspicion. Cheers, Razorflame 20:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, when you talked about Matt and Kalajan, you said that "These were confirmed sock accounts over at the English Wikipedia." Matt has never been blocked, so this implies that you never even looked at his account. SimonKSKContradict me... 20:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eh...mispoke. I looked at Kalajan's userpage, and saw Hazardous Matt's username there and even a signature, so I made the assumption that they were related in some way. Sorry about that. Anyways, I know they aren't now. Cheers, Razorflame 21:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, just making sure. >.> I'm watching you... SimonKSKContradict me... 21:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I can actually build on this a little. Over on EN Kalajan claimed he highlighted my old signature, liked the colors he saw, and proceded to draw up several example signatures that he tried to push on me. He never took them off of his Sandbox page. However, since I had signatures for others on my sandbox over at EN I didn't feel justfied in removing them. Hazardous Matt (talk) 21:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Finding this was a surprise. Anyway I realize the suspicion as I did join around the same time. I've never vandalized (and have no intention of doing so) and try to keep my nose clean. I just view from work where our procedures don't allow me to browse online for sources to help build articles. Check my contribs, you can see an article from my EN sandbox I'm copying over, etc. Hazardous Matt (talk) 22:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: I did not join to supervise Kalajan. I thought about joining to secure my username and possibly look at some projects that had less drama than EN. In fact, Kalajan sought me on this wiki. Okay. I'm done. :) Hazardous Matt (talk) 22:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A slew of editors

[change source]

Too similar of usernames and too similar of edit patterns. I believe that all of these users are socks of each other. Razorflame 02:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After deleting what looks like a bunch of spam, I am wondering if this is a class project. -Djsasso (talk) 03:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a class project to me. I'd say a checkuser here is probably  Unnecessary. SteveTalk 04:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done ChalermkwanXX acciunts are realted to classproject Thailand. There is not enough evidence to link the others to justify a check. --Eptalon (talk) 10:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tharnton345 and Teenly

[change source]

OK, so I strongly believe that Tharnton and Teenly are the same person. For one, they are both around the same age. Two, Teenly on SWT opposed Tharnton's ban because he was 9 and grownups make mistakes too while thoroughly sounding like Tharnton posting. In addition, Teenly came here knowing how to edit etc and jumped right into the swing of things which makes me suspect socking more. ѕwirlвoy ₪ 17:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being around the same age is not a good reason to believe they are the same. She hasn't opposed the ban either, only questioned why people were discussing age. In addition, she's been around since October. This hardly warrants a check imo. Majorly talk 17:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done The two users mentioned are not related. --Eptalon (talk) 17:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify, before I consider approaching the Checkuser Ombudsman, that you carried out a check based on the above "evidence"? Soup Dish (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't see anything wrong with the request. No privacy issues were violated in the performance of this checkuser, so nothing should be wrong with this. Razorflame 19:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ombudsmen deal with privacy violations, and nothing else. It's up to the other checkusers to decide if they're violating or not. I probably wouldn't have checked personally. Majorly talk 19:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're right, of course. I just find it hard to believe a check was carried out on such evidence. Though it's not worth bringing this before the community as it's not worth risking losing a CU right now! Soup Dish (talk) 19:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not Teenly. TurboGolf 05:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, I think Teenly is from continental Europe, and I'm from the British Isles. TurboGolf 05:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A  Not done? What's the result? TurboGolf 05:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its done, but we're not related. But does that mean I'm gonna be indefblocked? TurboGolf 05:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Try to put all your questions in the one post. But to answer your question, the check was done, but as you are not him, no action will be taken. Kennedy (talk) 08:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(<-) Clarifications: Yes, I ran a check. The privacy policy however deals with revealing information more than actually running the check. More clearly: the check revealed that Tharnton has no socks. There are a number of editors that use the same range as Teenly, but please note: having multiple accounts is not forbidden, as long as they are not used in voting, which is not the case here. Also note: CU is not about witch-hunting. --Eptalon (talk) 10:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas D. Rand and 64.24.44.207

[change source]

Undid a change by a user that undid one of his own changes. I have suspicions that these users are related. Cheers, Razorflame 20:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done The two are not related; different browser, different OS, different IP. --Eptalon (talk) 20:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stopthenoiseplease and Disney Anon

[change source]

As per contributions to Teletubbies (which was the Disney's first choice of article when he came here. --Gwib -(talk)- 22:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - claims to have created The Mighty B! episodes on ENWP. A quick check reveals w:User talk:Cartoons4Life over there, with similar edits. --Gwib -(talk)- 22:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The users are not the same (different IPs); perhaps two users with similar interests? --Eptalon (talk) 22:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BasicEnglish and Simple11

[change source]

Similar names, and similar edits (which I sniffed out through another sock of his, Saheel11). - Æåm Fætsøn /ˈaɪæm ˈfætsən/ 09:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Not exactly similar edits. If it is really him, he would have gone for either my or Creol's talk page. Chenzw  Talk  09:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I would be very surprized to see either of them try for my page any longer. --Creol(talk) 13:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not Sahel11, but Special:Contributions/Handsleep. Anyway, between all of them, they're making deliberately misplaced edits. - Æåm Fætsøn /ˈaɪæm ˈfætsən/ 09:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done No similarity in editing patterns and not very likely the real Simple11s are going to be a bother again. --Creol(talk) 13:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hfhfdhfdhfhgdh and the "Disney Anon"

[change source]

See the first user's talk page for evidence. Shows similar behaviour to that of the Disney Anon. Chenzw  Talk  06:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - Yep, thats him. --Creol(talk) 13:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Issue and others

[change source]

Some IP user must have created all of this new user accounts in a series of 3 minutes. --§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 02:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • (User creation log); 01:56 . . Ahmed95 (Talk | changes) New user account
  • (User creation log); 01:56 . . Hahahoho (Talk | changes) New user account
  • (User creation log); 01:54 . . S2 angela (Talk | changes) New user account
  • (User creation log); 01:54 . . Galebreeze15 (Talk | changes) New user account
  • (User creation log); 01:54 . . Ji-in (Talk | changes) New user account
  • (User creation log); 01:54 . . Jieum1029 (Talk | changes) New user account
  • (User creation log); 01:54 . . Sue (Talk | changes) New user account
  • (User creation log); 01:54 . . Dh6es (Talk | changes) New user account
  • (User creation log); 01:54 . . Sonyoonjun (Talk | changes) New user account
  • (User creation log); 01:53 . . Dalermhndi (Talk | changes) New user account
  • (User creation log); 01:53 . . Kmj (Talk | changes) New user account
  • (User creation log); 01:53 . . Amino (Talk | changes) New user account
  • (User creation log); 01:53 . . Issue (Talk | changes) New user account
There's more too. ѕwirlвoy ₪ 02:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non issue. CU request is premature. Nothing to see here. Goodnight. Synergy 02:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
agree. My belief is that it may be a class project. Either way (talk) 02:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered and Jonas Rand

[change source]

I would like to request a checkuser to check these two usernames to see if they are the same user. I noticed DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered editing stuff around User:Jonas D. Rand and I want to make sure that DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered is not a sockpuppet of Jonas Rand because Jonas Rand is currently banned from this community. Thanks, Razorflame 17:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there is a ENWP DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered, editing there since late June 2008. His account was also created automatically, which suggests Unified Login rather than a manual creation, which would be more suspicious. --Gwib -(talk)- 17:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. I'm terribly sorry to have caused this trouble. I'm not Jonas Rand and I've put a note on my en user page to confirm that I am the same user in both places. And a couple of others I think. Can't someone look at my account and verify that it's a unified login thingy? Apologies again, didn't mean to worry anyone. DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 18:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we can probably chuck this in the archives as a {{notdone}}. (Also here). --Gwib -(talk)- 18:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is this thing still alive or am I cleared? I'd quite like to tidy up my pages in its aftermath a bit, but obviously not if it still active. Thanks and best wishes DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 22:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC) (accept no substitutes)[reply]
I can definitely confirm that you are not Jonas; wrong part of the Globe. Sorry. --Eptalon (talk) 22:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for that. (Sorry for the slow reply.) I'll tidy up my pages a bit sometime ... :) Best wishes DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC) (accept no substitutes)[reply]

FastReverter and ChristianMan16

[change source]

wikiquote:User:StaticChristian tells me that these users may be the same. TurboGolf 16:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This request is ridiculous. StaticChristian has been checked a number of times, so if he was CM16, it would've shown. There is also no behavioural pattern whatsoever. No evidence is provided in the link. I'd advise a decline. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
StaticChristian is FastReverter. I would say they most certainly are not the same; just Static/FR being disruptive yet again. Majorly talk 16:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we got no proof to say it even was SC that said it. I'll admit it's likely, but it could be anyone trying to cause a mess here. Archer7 - talk 16:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not him. I chose that name because I am a christian. Also we are diffrent people in diffrent places at diffrent ages. 'Checkuser is not for fishing. VandalFighterFR(V) Bad warning? 16:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I now you are a Christain, and I thought that in the first place, but I then didn't think you picked that name just because you were a Christain. TurboGolf 16:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if I was CM16, how could I edit as him if I was blocked as ShockingHawk. VandalFighterFR(V) Bad warning? 16:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You two are both on the East Coast of USA. TurboGolf 17:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As are dozens of other editors here I'm sure. Either way (talk) 17:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is absolutely ridiculous! You have no proof to go through and breach the privacy policy with me. Why do you have no proof? Cause it's not true. Don't you have better things to do thing create meaningless Checkusers? Maybe I should get Alison involved? She and know be better than anyone.-- CM16 MLB  18:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alison is currently retired. Lingamondo (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, that means nothing on a case-by-case bases, or would you rather me get bulletproof, the one wikipedian that knows me the absolute best?-- CM16 MLB  18:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry ChristianMan16, this one won't be carried out. Archer7 - talk 18:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Archer.-- CM16 MLB  18:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I have any view on whether you are or not, but if you have nothing to hide, surely you won't mind a checkuser? Lingamondo (talk) 18:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As Synergy would say, it's policy not to have it. Yotcmdr✼ Merry Christmas ! ✼ 18:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I would mind, but I'd rather not as it would breech the privacy policy.-- CM16 MLB  18:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK then. I would like to close this as an obvious no. TurboGolf 18:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done --Creol(talk) 02:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Archive5&oldid=8872689"