Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Archive7

Add links
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

UPAS83, 121.54.64.36 and Ricardojose20027

[change source]

Report originally from WP:VIP diff by Griffinofwales. Pmlineditor  Talk 10:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardojose20027 was blocked several months ago as a vandalism-only account. The other two have edited the talk page of Ricardojose20027 but have otherwise not been unconstructive (and have also not edited in several hours). No check user is necessary as 1) This is almost certainly the same user, and 2) They have not done any vandalism. I would not object to a preventative block if an admin felt so inclined, but I do not think a block (or checkuser) is necessary. EhJJTALK 14:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: Thanks, however, for bringing this to administrator attention. If there was any more vandalism from that account, I would definitely have blocked them both for a long time. EhJJTALK 14:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added info and possible longer term abuse: This IP 203.111.235.50 has been around awhile and has been repeatedly blocked for copyright violations (many of which are still up on the site, I'm going to go through and tag anything I can find). After the most recent page the IP created I warned it and was looking at it's contributions/block log. When I checked out this template I found it [on the english wikipilipinas site ]. When looking [at the history] to see when it was created on that site (to make sure they didn't copy it from US) I noticed a familiar user name [Ricardojose200027] who appears to be fairly active on that site since May. The site includes what appears to be all of the articles the IP copied over here for example List_of_programs_broadcast_by_National_Broadcasting_Network compared to the version on that wiki at the time [[1]] or DXNP-TV compared to [[2]] complete with the missing image with the same name that wasn't imported over. While this alone is obviously not total evidence that they are the same people it Quacks enough that I would be very surprised if they were not at least related. Jamesofur (talk) 05:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Griffinofwales and Mythdon and numerous open proxies

[change source]

Griffinofwales and Mythdon are the open proxy vandals. They are trying to gain sympathy and show a need for more admins so they can pass RfA. The community deserves to know how they have used open proxies in this way. 64.191.74.5 (talk) 09:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the related discussion on ANI. --Barras || talk 11:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I informed the two users about this. Barras || talk 11:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am innocent of all accusations. I urge the checkusers to reject this, and if possible, see if this IP is in fact the real "proxy vandal". Mythdon (talk • changes) 12:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not done. No evidence, no proof, no nothing. Initiator of this request blocked. Majorly talk 12:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the initiator is the real person behind the proxy vandalism. Must be the attacker that first showed up when I joined. Mythdon (talk • changes) 12:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User 99.155.153.29

[change source]

Flooding lots of pages with info about the 350 organization. --Peterdownunder (talk) 07:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What will a check achieve here? Majorly talk 12:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANDREORAGE

[change source]

Appears to be the same user posting questions on talk pages inappropriately. I'll warn one user account, then it'll come back with another name. UNOWEN may or may not be related, but the other formatting of the signature here is similar to Edson's signatures. Either way (talk) 17:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, these users originate from the same IP, and looking at the user agent are probably the same user. In total there are 13 users/IPs that might be related. --Eptalon (talk) 17:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. For tagging purposes, do you have an estimation as to who is the master here? Thanks, Either way (talk) 17:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ILMSEASON2 and ILMSEASON1

[change source]

If you look at the changes of those users, these users are making test edits to their talk pages, which are edits that make them look like the same person. User talk:ILMSEASON1 and User talk:ILMSEASON2 have just been deleted. Mythdon (talk • changes) 20:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a pretty obvious thing to me...I don't think a checkuser is needed. Either way (talk) 20:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DUCK - both blocked. Barras || talk 20:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to use the duck test. I think a checkuser is needed to prove that these are the same person. Mythdon (talk • changes) 21:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (show/hide) 22:27, 16 August 2009 ILMSEASON2 (Talk | contribs | block) New user account ‎
  • (show/hide) 22:42, 16 August 2009 ILMSEASON1 (Talk | contribs | block) New user account ‎
  • Both created today in a short time. Both created exactly the same page. At all: Both are the same. Barras || talk 21:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They didn't do any abuse. --Bsadowski1 (talk) 21:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please undo your block. Two accounts is not disallowed. Only using them to SOCK is. fr33kman talk 21:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The deleted contributes: Wikipedia is not a free webhost. Barras || talk 21:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even look at their edits, Barras? They were sandboxing an article. Majorly talk 22:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because you have checkuser privileges, could you please check the users to see if they're the same person? Mythdon (talk • changes) 21:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done; It is obvious but just having two accounts is not a voilation, nor are their edits. Let's wait until the actually commit an offense. fr33kman talk 21:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think checkusers should check all reasonable suspicions, but I can't make you check, and trying to make you would be harassment. Mythdon (talk • changes) 21:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(<-) I unblocked both of them; I did run a checkuser, but I think the results are not relevant here, unless it can be shown one or both of them committed a blockable offense.--Eptalon (talk) 21:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On what grounds did you run a checkuser? What is your justification for doing so? Either way (talk) 22:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the following reasons: 1) it was requested, and it would be useful in assessing block times if offense could be shown 2) The CU policy is not about running such tests, it mostly deals with the modalities of revealing the information. (Which isn't necessary, for the moment) --Eptalon (talk) 22:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But offense was not shown. We shouldn't be running checkusers if there is no offense (i.e. abuse of those multiple accounts) taking place. Either way (talk) 22:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The account edits aren't actually at all problematic. It looks like they were sandboxing an article, which isn't in any way a problem. Please don't be so hasty to take action next time. Nothing needed to be done here. Majorly talk 22:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bambifan101 and User:63.3.5.1

[change source]

Looks like another Disney vandal sock; recently started vandalizing. Pmlineditor  Talk 18:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IP is temporarily blocked (8 hours). Barras || talk 18:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed. Not much to be done though. Majorly talk 18:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a range that can be blocked for one or two weeks? Barras || talk 18:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. It would need a /10 which is not possible, and besides, this vandal uses a wide range of ranges. Majorly talk 18:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK! Thanks. I changed the block to 72 hours. Barras || talk 18:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working with Wikipedia:Abuse reports, and I'm about to contact the ISP that's responsible for this IP. It was brought to my attention that BF101 was also vandalizing the Simple EN Wikipedia. Is there any more information someone here could provide that would help out? Thanks. Netalarm (talk) 19:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JANUSROMA

[change source]

I would like to know if JANUSROMA is the same user as PINEAPPLEMAN/their sockpuppets. Exert 01:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They look unrelated but not certain. Majorly talk 14:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two sides of the US, Florida and California? --Eptalon (talk) 14:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comppro and Parker1297

[change source]

Both users create an RfA after <10 edits. I'd also like if Parker is checked with Aleksa Lukic. Pmlineditor 16:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any relation between the two, nor with any other users. Majorly talk 16:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Parker and Aleksa Lukic live halfway around the world. Shappy talk 16:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MotherElf and ShappiSecondz

[change source]

Similar style of vandalism, calling users "c**t"s. Time to put an end to this. Shappy talk 14:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed - open proxy IP blocked earlier for one year. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they're the same, on an open proxy. But the IP is hardblocked - I don't understand how the ShappiSecondz account was created, as it was done after the IP was blocked. Majorly talk 14:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hsdgfisbdiwer dsufhusd

[change source]

The IP vandalized and I gave it a final warning. At about the same time, the account was created and it undid 3 of my edits. I suspect that they are the same. Griffinofwales (talk) 05:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IP blocked for 2 weeks, account indefinitely by Fr33kman. Griffinofwales (talk) 05:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your diligence! CU unneeded at this time. fr33kman talk 05:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but keep an eye out. The user may come back and I'm not going to be around (think dynamic IP). Griffinofwales (talk) 06:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They match --Eptalon (talk) 06:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WaltDisneyPictures0888 and the Disney Anon

[change source]

Repeated POV pushing towards RKO (whatever that is) on Disney related articles suggests that this is the Disney vandal. Please verify. Chenzw  Talk  14:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One blocked, the other not editing for 9 months, what exactly do you expect me to do there? - CU logs reach back three months, at best...--Eptalon (talk) 15:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's because of the Disney Vandal aka Bambifan. Barras (talk) 15:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it were bambifan: The first account is indef blocked, the other has not edited since late 2008,...--Eptalon (talk) 15:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aspies burnt to death and others

[change source]

I request the release of IP information for these accounts with the intent of formulating a targeted rangeblock to protect this project from further disruption, and formulation of a complaint to the Internet Service Provider... in accordance with bullet 5 in the section titled Access to and release of personally identifiable information of the Wikimedia Privacy Policy. The article being vandalised is Asperger syndrome and it's talk page. The edits are in the deleted history. Thank you for your time, NonvocalScream (talk) 04:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These IPs do in fact originate from the same subnet ("Class C", a /22 would be exact). All geolocate to Monroe, Louisiana (a city of about 50k people, third largest in Louisiana). I will gladly send the IP addresses themselves by email, but I will not reveal them here. --Eptalon (talk) 06:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, no need; ALL accounts are now blocked indef, so IP's not needed. fr33kman talk 06:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please send them by email. I will still let the ISP know. Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 13:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know if these are the same user, and the range they are editing from. As, I wish to perform a range block. Exert 06:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, the ones below are not related to the ones above; their IPs are completely different. The last Hagger.. is completely unrelated to all of them. --Eptalon (talk) 13:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pinkgirl34 and GoPhish13

[change source]

Both created the same page Panteha Golizadeh. Should be the same user, I think. Barras (talk) 21:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I think a check isn't needed. I blocked both accounts per en:WP:DUCK. Barras (talk) 13:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gorila

[change source]

Both accounts were created at the same time, and the edits do not overlap, although they do come close. Both accounts were created here, and the similarity between the usernames is incriminating. Griffinofwales2 (talk) 16:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good news: some IPs do indeed overlap; bad news: these IPs are also used by about 3 other users (so forget an IP-based block). --Eptalon (talk) 22:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uckfay Ouyay Obbygay

[change source]

These two users appear to be the same, based on their edits. They both vandalized Bluegoblin7's userpage relating to his RFA. I would like to know if they are the same user and if there are anymore accounts. Exert 16:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uckfay Ouyay Obbygay (talk · contribs) has blocked sock FT2's puppy (talk · contribs) and now-blocked Slumdog Trillionaire (talk · contribs) The Rambling Man (talk) 16:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DUCK - no need for a check imo. If more users appear, we can block them. Checkuser is not for fishing. Barras (talk) 16:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
""Fishing" is broadly defined as performing a check on account where there is no credible evidence to suspect sockpuppetry. Performing checks without evidence is inappropriate. Checking an account where the alleged sockmaster is unknown, but there is reasonable suspicion of sockpuppetry is not fishing. A checkuser need not suspect who is behind the abusive behaviour of an account before checking, but they must suspect there is abusive sockpuppetry. Please note that a check coming up negative does not mean that the original basis for the check was invalid." - en:Wikipedia:CheckUser I don't think that is considered fishing. Exert 16:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whilyach

[change source]

Single purpose account. Started a discussion about a banned user, judging by the edits it could be the banned user they mentioned in the discussion. Just a hunch really. Exert 01:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd check to see if this is Tharnton345. fr33kman talk 02:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unconfirmed Whilyach's only recorded edit is from a cell/mobile phone, and Tharnton's info is too old, and in any case, doesn't seem to match with info in the log. Majorly talk 15:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slooteht Kcab Nil Bogeul Bevig

[change source]

Slooteht Kcab Nil Bogeul Bevig's only edit was to Bluegoblin7's RFA, in support of him. Even though the edit was in support of him, I believe that it could be Analysis Retentivus(Snow funn at tall), trying to cause disruption to his RFA. Since, he knows that new users votes generally do not count. I would like to know if it is Analysis Retentivus, and if there are anyother accounts. Exert 16:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed Majorly talk 16:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis Retentivus

[change source]

Analysis Retentivus (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log)) The appearance of this user started out at commons involving a copyright violation with editors from here, and was then brought onto SWEP. Both of the accounts at commons and SWEP were created on the same day. Because of the behavior of this editor they were blocked for trolling, and it seems they may be a sockpuppet. I would like to know if there are anyother accounts. Exert 16:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - I'm not a CU, but the same will happen because CheckUser is not for fishing. Please find more evidence and give that, or find a user to check with. Regards, Goblin 16:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman![reply]
Users who make their first edits to troll us are often checked, especially if they are voting in an RFA. I checked this one, and it looks like it is banned user Snow funn at tall (talk · contribs). Majorly talk 16:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, fair point. And yes, the two users do seem related from a non-CU point of view (edit types, writing style etc). Goblin 16:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw![reply]

Administrator note: Can we let the checkusers issue the not done finales... it is getting confusing, not the first time. I usually stop monitoring a thread when it hits a "not done"... and move along. I always monitor thread starts so I can block if the CU wants us to block, should they not prefer to do it themselves. NonvocalScream (talk) 01:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scream, this is over a month old. Majorly talk 01:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have failed. These threads are anti chronological. Please, may I have a trout now? NonvocalScream (talk) 01:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Relucio and Mk32 and 203.111.235.50

[change source]

Reason: Lot's on edits to the same types of pages and (frankly) just a hunch. fr33kman talk 03:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first is no longer in the logs; and the second and the third don't match. Sorry. --Eptalon (talk) 08:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ice Age lover and Bambifan101

[change source]

Reason: Blocked on en as "an apparent sock". So far, not caused any trouble here as of the time of this post, so consider this more of a notice than a CU request. I'll let some admin more familiar with this user decide what needs to be done. EhJJTALK 03:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked per confirmation of sock on enWP, auto-account creation here and editing history. fr33kman talk 04:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RMH3D_is_back_again and User:RHMÈDComoReturned

[change source]

Similar type of usernames; one engaging in personal attacks against Barras and the other commenting on his TP. Pmlineditor 11:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think checkuser is needed. Seems rather obvious. Both users have been blocked anyway. Chenzw  Talk  13:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksa Lukic, Comppro and Masha Ashner

[change source]

Comppro request as one of his/her first edits sysop rights on simple and tried it on en, too. Later he tried to get the admin tools from meta (see [3] and [4]) Well, it not the start with a comment/ vote on a RfA, but it is a RfA. Best Barras (talk) 17:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated. Majorly talk 18:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taracka Dragon Emperor and 76.125.253.169

[change source]

The account vandalized Deskana's user page and my talk page back awhile. The IP vandalized my talk page today, and created an attack page(their talk page) back in April about Deskana at en.wp. I would like to know if the IP and account are the same user, and if there are anymore accounts. Exert (talk) 14:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed - there's also Taracka X Zarbon (talk · contribs). Majorly talk 14:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksa Lukic and Masha Ashner

[change source]

Contribution pattern looks very similar, especially RFA voting. Gut instinct. Meetare Shappy Cunkelfratz! 20:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed. Majorly talk 20:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PMDrive1061 and Pmdrive1061

[change source]

I might be barking up the wrong tree here, but these usernames are identical after all. The former has been a good contributer so far, the second is blocked for just going on a mass vandal spree. Wanted to check by CU before causing any collateral damage, though have have removed PMDrive1061's rollback as a precautionary measure and left them a note. Thanks, Goblin 10:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy![reply]

One geolocates to California, the other to the UK; I would say it is unlikely they are the same. --Eptalon (talk) 12:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah there is a 0% chance of them being one in the same. PMDrive is the most helpful admin I have ever worked with at EN. If you search his name up at EN you will see that he has atleast 10 editors with names very simmilar to his.--Gordonrox24 (talk) 12:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Er, Goblin... it's blatantly obvious it's an impersonator. Why did you remove rollback, and request this check? Please restore it immediately. In fact why was the check even carried out? He's not stupid enough to create a sockpuppet with an almost identical name. Majorly talk 12:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It appears you haven't removed rollback, but you haven't even informed him of this. Majorly talk 13:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PMDrive1061 cannot be a sockpuppeteer. He is a very good user and certainly, the account Pmdrive1061 is not his sockpuppet. Pmlinediter  Talk 14:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
← I'm going to overstep my authority a bit and mark this as  Not done. Epic fail. :) –Juliancolton | Talk 15:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it obviously was done, per Eptalon's comments. It needs no action though. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(note) Just reversed my reversal of BG's block. Apparently didn't see that it was a vandalism-only account :P Chenzw  Talk  15:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yeah; I mean "no action taken". –Juliancolton | Talk 15:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you know what they say: Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.  :) Nope, that other doofus wasn't me. I was just alerted to this over at EN and I thought I'd weigh in for a laugh. Regards, the one and only PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abnormal surge of new users

[change source]

...and many more until...

Log entries can be found here. This is indeed worrying if these users are used in a sock attack. Should blocking be made if confirmed as socks?

These look like bot-created accounts to me. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 June, 23 or so accounts created between 0428 and 0433 UTC, from varying IPs but geolocated the same; more worryingly we missed the 23 or so created between 0419 and 0424 UTC on 1 June... A check on just one of these created on 1 June shows User:Harryweasley shares IP with User:Hellybelly. I am pushed for time here so could admins deal with appropriately - I suspect we have a sock farm brewing... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's fine - they all resolve to a university, so it was probably a class all creating accounts. Majorly talk 12:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Freddy

[change source]

I believe these are all socks of the notorious vandal Freddy. They all fit his pattern of editing. In fact, he essentially admits it here: http://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kremlinerr&diff=prev&oldid=1550135.MKil (talk) 14:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)MKil[reply]

Blocked all three indef. No need to report them for a CU if it's so obvious - just use AN or VIP. Regards, Goblin 14:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. In the past I've been told to come here to report him. As long as he's gone, that's all that matters. At least, he's gone for now, he'll certainly be back, unfortunately.MKil (talk) 15:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)MKil[reply]
I'm pretty sure Listlistlist is him, too. It has the same type of edits favored by Freddy.MKil (talk) 16:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)MKil[reply]
 Done The Rambling Man (talk) 17:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My name is the master of all of the 6's and A1a2s

[change source]

Our User:My name is the master of all of the 6's is indef-blocked at en (SUL account list) for being a sock of a user (en:User:Pickbothmanlol), also identified as en:User:A1a2s, who is indef-blocked here (User:A1a2s) (SUL account list - and globally locked) for sock abuse. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 04:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that seems like the most logical correlation :) Nice catch, Philosopher :) Cheers, Razorflame 06:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done All socking confirmed via SUL, no checkuser needed. User blocked and tagged. Chenzw  Talk  09:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello all, I ran a quick CheckUser test. Of what I saw, both A1a2 and My name is ... use different ISPs - so unless A1a2s, as we know him here changed ISPs (for which I have no evidence), I would say those two users are different from each other. --Eptalon (talk) 17:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm investigating this. The account on enwiki is operated by the same person on Simple, so unless the enwiki checkusers got it wrong, they have simply moved to a new ISP. This user clearly is a sockpuppet, and aren't even trying to hide it. Majorly talk 18:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All done. No evidence matches, they removed my autoblock. A1a2s is still blocked, by I am not. Thank ya. My name is the master of all of the 6's (talk) 16:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User now indef-blocked for other reasons. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 17:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chairstyle and Simple11s

[change source]

Looking at the user's contributions and the fact that all of them were made shortly after the account was created suggests that he could be back again to wreck havoc. Chenzw  Talk  10:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the duck test can be used here. Majorly talk 14:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - Tagged and blocked. Chenzw  Talk  15:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NEENJAH and 169.227.253.124 and 169.227.253.125

[change source]

Reason: All three users have vandalized similar pages during the same times [5][6] with the same kind of edits (i.e. change "pussycat" to "vaginacat"). Seems pretty obvious, but figured a CU can't hurt to confirm. EhJJTALK 17:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

en:WP:DUCK. Also the range is so small that blocking the two IPs is far more efficient than a rangeblock. I don't think a full check is necessary. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Full check done. - short answer: yes. --Eptalon (talk) 18:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's a big difference between NEENJAH having his user page vandalized by an IP or vandalizing it himself, as far as whether we should welcome him or indef block him. Just wanted to make sure, but I agree with PeterSymonds that this one was kind of obvious and certainly doesn't need a rangeblock (I checked /24 and didn't find any other IPs except these two that looked suspicious). Thanks guys! EhJJTALK 18:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eager Pilot and Snow Funn At Tall

[change source]

User's 2nd edit is to support CM16's unblock, and 1st edit is to post a picture of Jesus on his userpage. Evidence is just circumstancial, but I believe something is up. Meetare Shappy Cunkelfratz! 01:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think CM16 is silly enough to be blatant like that. At best it's a trolling user like Snow Funn at All. Either way (talk) 02:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you formulate your request clearly please: "Find all the other identities 'Eager Pilot' is using" is fishing, not something CU was made for...--Eptalon (talk) 07:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Either way, that it's probably a troll sockpuppet (not from CM16). ~``~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shappy (talk • contribs)
I'd be inclined to agree that it is Snow funn at tall. Majorly talk 19:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Archive7&oldid=9914777"