Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Archive8

Add links
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Arbeitmann

[change source]

Sludge Monster, new user, made its first edit as an attack on me. If you take a look at Arbeitmann's edits and compare that editors attacks to Sludge Monster's and look at the closeness in time the disruptive edits were made, you'd be wondering. —Mythdon [talk] [changes] 07:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added Whattowear, also good chance to be same person. James (T|C) 07:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sludge Monster and Wattowear are related; Arbeitmann is completely unrelated.--Eptalon (talk) 09:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. —Mythdon [talk] [changes] 20:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a possibility that Griffenofwhales (talk · contribs) is related. —Mythdon [talk] [changes] 23:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bambifan101 sock request

[change source]

Those are a couple of the most recent accounts blocked as Bambifan101 based on the duck test. I was wondering if it was possible to check for to assist in an ongoing communication with his ISP (you can see some conversations (from Bambi) about that communication in the history of User_talk:PMDrive1061. If you aren't able to find any xff data then don't worry about it, additional IP data is likely not to be helpful enough to legitimize giving out the info (though if you want to check if its caught by our recent range blocks feel free :) ) James (T|C) 21:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bambifan101 is too old to worry about, and the other do not carry XFF data. Sorry. --Eptalon (talk) 21:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yea the bambifan one was more just to show who they were related to, thanks for the check. James (T|C) 21:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible spamming sockpuppets

[change source]

I noticed these users and their very similar writings. I believe there is more but I don't know the names. Refer to their user talk pages. --Bsadowski1(Talk|Changes) 08:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sockfarm, each of them (except IMPVictorianus, which no longer is in the logs) has a number of accounts, operating through a proxy. Blocked the variious accounts found. Farming socks, are we? --Eptalon (talk) 21:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Batch of impersonations of Administrators

[change source]

These users popped up about a day or so ago, and are seeming to be impersonating administrator usernames, which is against the username policy. I think that these are all related. --Bsadowski1(Talk|Changes) 04:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In total, two IPs from the same class B network (the first two numbers of the IPv4 address are the same). As far as I could tell, all accounts are blocked; so there is little to do here.--Eptalon (talk) 11:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another batch of Jimmy vandals

[change source]
Thanks in advance. @Kate (talk) 04:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget Plant Stranger (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log)). --Bsadowski1(Talk|Changes) 05:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All done from the same IP Address (DSL from Auckland, NZ); see below. --Eptalon (talk) 22:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More Jimbo Wales vandals

[change source]

Here is another batch of these Jimbo Wales vandalisers. Seems to be another IP range they're using; as Eptalon blocked a previous range. --Bsadowski1(Talk|Changes) 05:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very briefly: All geolocate to Auckland, NZ; and have the same ISP (DSL) - First and third use the same "IP"; seconds seems unrelated. --Eptalon (talk) 22:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Pages

[change source]

Both accounts are blocked indef by Bsadowski1.On the 22nd these accounts were created and made a few inappropriate pages. I know one of these pages was Lower mantle, but I am not sure of the others. My tagging's of them for QD are in my deleted edits somewhere. The articles all had similar names. I was wondering if indeed these accounts are socks, and if the IP behind them should be blocked as well.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 22:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When looking at the Special:BlockList, you can see I blocked them, and then you can also see the autoblocked number. Notice that there weren't two sets of numbers and only one. --Bsadowski1(Talk|Changes) 22:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 (change conflict) WP:DUCK and as long as it isn't ongoing it isn't really needed to check, imo. Just two which are the same per the edits. IP is with the account block autoblocked. --Barras (talk) 22:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see. Thanks Brad and Barras.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 22:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo Wales vandal accounts

[change source]

a few days older:

The accounts are all blocked. They all did vandalism in realtion to Jimbo Wales and were created after each other. I think it would be good to get the IPs to block a reange that this stops. After I protected the article about Jimbo, they were a bit more creative and went to other pages to vandalise in realation with Wales.

Thanks --Barras (talk) 20:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this looks like a sock farm, I took care of blocking the well over 20 users (of 32 possible IPs blocked). Thanks for noticing --Eptalon (talk) 22:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 3rd Jesus Christ

[change source]

I suspect these are related in some way. I also believe it's the Jimbo Wales article vandaliser. --Bsadowski1(Talk|Changes) 23:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, sorry; The 3rd Jesus Christ has about 5 accounts (all from the same IP address, all blocked); BibleMan is completely unrelated. --Eptalon (talk) 23:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plastic Ballet Lounger

[change source]

I suspect there are at least 3 others from this IP, I also believe there is a good chance they are related to Wizard of Old/Bible Man given how actions. Because I have already submitted an isp abuse report for Bible Man (no response yet but not surprising) I may ask to have access to the CU information for a followup report if it continues. Jamesofur (talk) 22:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second two are  Confirmed by CU to be socks of each other and other already blocked accounts, first one is  Confirmed to be a Bible Man/Wizard of Old sock but not using the IP of the first one. However, all these pass the duck test as all being related to each other. Thanks for bringing this to RFCU! Even though DUCK was met, a CU showed other accounts that had not been used yet. fr33kman talk 23:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Samlaptop

[change source]

Tagged by Liverpoolfan as a suspected sock of Samlaptop. A CU would be helpful as this isn't really a duck. Pmlineditor ∞ 10:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's Sam. DLuux only had one edit and you need more than that to consider if it's him or not. You need more behavioral evidence. --Bsadowski1 10:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just put it here because of the tag... Pmlineditor ∞ 10:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The tag has been removed. Pmlineditor ∞ 10:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bible Man

[change source]

I blocked the above 3 accounts (with account creation blocked) as Vandalism Only Accounts and suspected socks and would like confirmation if possible.

Background: The Bible Man was the first (and worst vandalism whys) and as soon as he was about to be blocked Flying-Fish (the 2nd account) was created. That account immediately made a superfluous comment that was reverted and the account warned. As soon as the account was warned Two-tone (the 3rd/final) account was created and made and began to edit (both dog and Bsadowski1's talk page after he reverted. Given the quick and serial account creation and the lack of useful edits from all 3 accounts I then blocked them all with a bit of the duck test, allowing them all to edit their talk page if they so desired. Jamesofur (talk) 23:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed, also User:Wizard Of Old (blocked now) fr33kman talk 00:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Omparkash, Ali Rana and SufiSkeptic

[change source]

I've doubts of some users over here. Kindly check if all those operated by a sockpuppet. Also, please see this. Saqib Qayyum (talk) 04:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done at this time. I will keep a very sharp eye on this situation but am not sure a CU is correct at this time. fr33kman talk 09:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin J. Robinson

[change source]

Reason: Came here and did the exact same thing as the new awarder and spammed multiple talk pages with barnstars and did nothing else. -DJSasso (talk) 12:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked him indefinately now since he is blocked as a sock puppet on en. If you want to confirm or deny the relation thats up to you. -DJSasso (talk) 13:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not related but had a load of socks anyway, all blocked. Majorly talk 17:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandals

[change source]

One account created, one page vandalized, one warning given, and then a new account created. I'm pretty sure they are the same person abusing multiple accounts.--Gordonrox24 | Happy Holidays! 01:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of them have been blocked as vandalism-only accounts and also Wikipedia:DUCK. --Bsadowski1(Talk|Changes) 01:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough.--Gordonrox24 | Happy Holidays! 01:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if it looks, sounds like one... Majorly talk 20:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But the S.Y.S.O.P.P.E.R one looks like the "Batch of impersonations of Administrators" ones below. --Bsadowski1(Talk|Changes) 22:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huik01

[change source]

This one may be a bit tricky to some but...

The account TwoBitTitan was created and shortly after commented at the Huik01 ANI thread [1] [2]. (just four minutes difference between the creation and the edits).

The account Huik01 is currently blocked (see here).

While some may not agree, and while editors who join this Wikipedia learn about these pages quicker, it is obvious to me that these are related based on the fact the this account is created and minutes later comments in a Huik01 thread while the editor is blocked. —Mythdon [talk] [changes] 23:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion isn't going to last long, we don't even share the same ISP. TwoBitTitan (talk) 15:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And how do you know that..? Griffinofwales (talk) 16:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Run a check on this account and Huik01's account. I have nothing to hide. TwoBitTitan 16:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a sockpuppet for me. considering edits and style of sentences and etc etc..--Sinbad (talk) 18:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. This is why we have CU (where socks are likely but not obvious based on non-CU data). A quick check will hopefully provide some useful info. EhJJTALK 20:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are unrelated. TwoBitTitan is, however, Digital-Terror, an editor who was trolling us the other day, so should be blocked. Majorly talk 20:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I never would have thought TwoBitTitan had any relation to Digital-Terror. But still, thank you. —Mythdon [talk] [changes] 20:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Huik01 is indef blocked now. --Barras talk 20:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC) My bad, sorry. Unblocked. --Barras talk 20:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, you should reblock and set the reblock to expire when the original block would have expired. —Mythdon [talk] [changes] 20:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One/two hour(s) left. My bad block, the rest is left out because I made this bad mistake. --Barras talk 20:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Central United Church Sarnia

[change source]

Just a look at the usernames and their edits maever, you should reblock and set the reblock to expire when the original block would have expired. —Mythdon [talk] [changes] 20:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One/two hour(s) left. My bad block, the rest is left out because I made this bad mistake. --Barras talk 20:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Central United Church Sarnia

[change source]

Just a look at the usernames and their edits makes it obvious that these are related. A check won't hurt. —Mythdon [talk] [changes] 23:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a checkuser but I would say no, this appears to be just someone confused about the policies and not socking. You will notice that the original user was softblocked for the username. This means they were specifically told that they can and should make a new account following the rules, so seeing one is not a surprise. It is of course obvious that they do not totally understand why they were blocked in the first place but this is usually our fault for explanations or simplicity not theirs. James (T|C) 23:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I see no point in checking this. I think it's a misguided newbie, nothing malicious. Majorly talk 20:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dave Ingram and others

[change source]

Duck test probably applies but compare the contribs etc. Ta, Goblin 20:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy![reply]

I am also concerned that these are the same users. Whether they're are being disruptive in their editing is irrelevant. If they're abusing multiple accounts, they shall by all means be blocked indefinitely with only the master account being allowed email and talk page editing allowed. —Mythdon [talk] [changes] 21:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that they are fairly quacky for sure but if we want to be clear a CU may not be out of the question. I do tend to worry that its a bit more of a misunderstanding then it is abusive sockpuppetry though. I know I've seen people in the past who truly thought they HAD to create basically single purpose accounts to work on new articles and that could be the case here. I would disagree with you Mythdon however. Being disruptive is in fact highly relevant, just plain having multiple accounts is not abuse and not sock puppetry. If you use those to try and pretend you are multiple people (voting, trying to defend the others etc) then you create a problem. In a case like this however I think talking to them to try and find what they say would be a much better move then indefinitely blocking them without comment after we find evidence they could be the same people (likely in opinion). James (T|C) 00:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They are the same, but Paul Gallo is too old to check. Majorly talk 20:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Archive8&oldid=9914779"