Steward requests/Checkuser/2011-02

Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in February 2011, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion.

•  Additional information needed What is the violation for which you are requesting a checkuser? People may edit from IPs as long as they adhere to local policies. -- Avi 07:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, yes. Users edit particularly in sports, religion and countries. However, there appeared several IPs with similar issues (to some vandalism and attacks on users), which led to my suspicion of them. Remember that Indech create account has been blocked because, while it was almost inactive in Wikipedia. Bruno Leonard 03:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• That does not really answer the question. What are your suspicions, and if they are true, why would that be a violation? What are you going to do with the information that you cannot do without it? - Andre Engels 22:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I only have this evidence, but will post just a few days. Bruno Leonard 02:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I made the following findings and may be surprised that the same user, having the same behavior, but point to other cities:

Rio de Janeiro

• 189.106.112.243 [1]
• 186.205.1.39 [2]
• 186.205.2.135 [3]
• 186.205.3.15 [4]
• 186.205.9.109 [5]
• 186.205.12.42 [6]
• 186.205.15.9 [7]
• 186.205.15.57 [8]
• 186.205.17.32 [9]
• 189.4.224.177 [10]
• 189.4.241.165 [11]
• 189.4.248.62 [12]
• 189.4.232.101 [13]
• 189.4.228.65 [14]
• 189.4.251.165 [15]
• 189.4.246.244 [16]
• 189.4.240.56 [17]
• 189.32.160.101 [18]
• 189.106.127.124 [19]

These IPs mentioned above, edited pages about politics, making some users reported attacks in the discussions, even to meddle subjects not know them and even politics, showing that a user is blocked some time ago.

Niterói

• 189.106.118.4 (probable connection with Rio de Janeiro)

The IP 189.106.118.4 edited a page Revolta dos Colonos (Revolt of the Settlers) with two IPs (189.102.173.236 e 189.102.173.217), enlarging the page and posted offensive information against users. To verify locations of IPs 189.102.173.236 and 189.102.173.217, from São Paulo, Brazil, which raises doubt as edited in 3 different IPs from 1 to 5 minutes, probably the same person and Dynamic IP.

São Paulo

• 189.47.202.157 [20]
• 189.102.173.217 [21]
• 200.171.131.22 [22]

The IP 189.47.202.157 accused page editors of being partially: 1 and 2.

The IP 189 102 173 217 criticized the rules of Wikipedia Portuguese 1 and 2.

The IP 200.171.131.22 was blocked by having links with banned user on Wikipedia Portuguese (maybe that user).

This is what I have that evidences. Bruno Leonard 02:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The user requesting this check was blocked several times, including for sock-puppetry ([23], [24]) and is blocked right now for the same reason. He asked for a revision and the local ArbCom decided to extend his block, after consider it a bad faith request about a correct analysis by the local checkusers. I think you should consider that before performing such requests from this user. Thanks in advance. CasteloBranco^msg 04:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Castelo Branco, you have no right to attack me, but also not the same. If you just complain that I was blocked on several occasions, including having used all, I admit it without denying the charges, but it only diverts attention from verified account. It has been accused of abusing office of director last year (and no evidence of that). Therefore, to avoid problems, I have nothing against you (because it helped me), but we better concentrate efforts against this vandal stalker that lurks through the accounts and IPs users to destabilize the Portuguese Wikipedia. In speaking of checking accounts, when such request will be made two weeks? Bruno Leonard 21:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not attacking anyone, Bruno, I'm just providing an information that could be useful (or not) to the stewards. That's all. CasteloBranco^msg 22:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Not done I agree with Castelobranco here. Before a checkuser is done, there should be, in my opinion, three factors present (except for some rare special cases):

1. A wrongdoing, or sufficient grounds of suspicion of wrongdoing
2. A question about this wrongdoing for which a checkuser result is needed to answer it
3. An action that depends on the answer of this question

Given that Bruno Leonard is currently blocked on the Portuguese Wikipedia, I do not see what action he would be capable of doing for which number 3 here above holds. - Andre Engels 17:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

See [25]. Vini 175 15:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

New IPs:
189.123.241.221 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
189.30.158.10 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
189.4.26.122 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Bruno Leonard 02:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

New IP 189.32.32.162 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser). This IP has made groundless accusation that I have two accounts, which blocked administrator without knowing the case (ask the release of the account Simone Lira (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)). So much evidence already presented, which is waiting to check these accounts and IPs? To present more evidence to convince? This vandal bedevils me and other users some time! Bruno Leonard 21:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The user requesting this check was blocked several times, including for sock-puppetry ([26], [27]) and is blocked right now for the same reason. He asked for a revision and the local ArbCom decided to extend his block, after consider it a bad faith request about a correct analysis by the local checkusers. I think you should consider that before performing such requests from this user. Thanks in advance. CasteloBranco^msg 04:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Castelo Branco, you have no right to attack me, but also not the same. If you just complain that I was blocked on several occasions, including having used all, I admit it without denying the charges, but it only diverts attention from verified account. It has been accused of abusing office of director last year (and no evidence of that). Therefore, to avoid problems, I have nothing against you (because it helped me), but we better concentrate efforts against this vandal stalker that lurks through the accounts and IPs users to destabilize the Portuguese Wikipedia. Bruno Leonard 21:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not attacking anyone, I'm just providing an information that could be useful (or not) to the stewards. That's all. CasteloBranco^msg 22:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

 Additional information needed Same problem as the previous case, however I have done a CU on Lacerda Bhahia before, and have now asked GoEThe, who blocked them, whether he supports this request. - Andre Engels 17:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

As a IP (189.30.158.10) de Astorga (Paraná) and the user of Rio de Janeiro (Raphael0, 0) has a relation with the rest? This is characterized by abuse of public space by Leonard, Bruno. Clevelan 22:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Note: Clevelan is currently blocked at ptwiki for sockpuppetry. Apparently, according to this verification this user is Lacerda Bhahia. -- Dferg ^{☎ talk} 23:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Not done - Not done for now based on this remark. I will still happily do the check when a request from a party that is able and willing to do something with the results chooses to repeat the request, but for now chance of action is insufficient. - Andre Engels 16:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

 Additional information needed - Please provide evidences, difflinks or a statement that support this request according to the policy. "Please see contributions" might work for local users who are aware on the sockpuppet patters, but for stewards it is not. -- Dferg ^{☎ talk} 10:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

His contributions are related to Rede Record's programs. Francisco 20:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Not done - Cão e Gato has edited only once, about 1.5 months ago. Chocolate Preto made his first edits on the same article two weeks later, and they were not 're-doing' Cão e Gato's edits. That's very little evidence of sockpuppeting, and if it were sockpuppeting, still hardly constitutes abuse. - Andre Engels 13:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

This looks like some sort of working group. What's the issue? --SB_Johnny ^talk 10:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Unless there's some sort of abuse, I don't see a reason to perform a CU check. --FiliP ██ 11:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Ack Dungodung. CheckUser is not for fishing -- Dferg ^{☎ talk} 12:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Such groups are quite regular features of projects such as wv & wb for example. Cu is for when there is abuse of multiple accounts not apparent use of them. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

 Additional information needed Please clarify wether you want this check on fawiki or fawikiquote. All the links you provide are from fawiki but the heading of the request points us to fawikiquote. Also, is there ongoing disruption or suspicions of abuse of multiple accounts in fawikiquote to warrant this check? Thanks, -- Dferg ^{☎ talk} 17:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually misused happened in fawiki but since the main account has been blocked in fawiki from some months ago , we can't check sockmasters ip address from fawiki , but he is active in fawikiq, so this request needs to be seen as cross wiki Checkuser request Mardetanha ^talk 17:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Please, answer to my request.Pesare amol 19:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

 Confirmed WWwalid and Sonia Sevilla are both sockpuppets of JDiamond. There is also Jamal Nazareth as a third one. The account Arabian Gulf could not be checked for lack of recent edits. - Andre Engels 07:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank You!--Pesare amol 15:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Did you run the check on Fa Wikipedia, or on Fa Wikiquotes? I can see the logs of running it in Wikipedia. I think it is against Steward policies to run a check on a wiki which already has active CUs. Huji 14:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Check was run of fawikiquote and fawiki. Stewards, per policy, are allowed to carry out cross-wiki checkuser requests. -- Dferg ^{☎ talk} 15:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Done All these can indeed be confirmed, except for Sandroavlr, whose edits are too long ago. I also found Andremsc as another sockpuppet.

Regarding your question for an ip range: The good news is: I found seven or so different ip addresses; all but one (including the one that you already gave) are in the range 186.205.96.0/21. The bad news is: Blocking this range will also cause collateral damage. There is one other logged in user, and a number of ip addresses within the range have made edits, several of them without being Bguimaraes or the other user mentioned. I also am not sure whether this is the whole range, or whether it might just be coincidence that all addresses were in this range, and the actual range might be the whole /16. - Andre Engels 18:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Andre. I will softblock 186.205.96.0/21 (and disable account creation). In blocks like this, we leave the unblock e-mail on the block summary so good faith users can ask for an account. It's not perfect, but helps to reduce the damage. Thanks again.” T_ele^s (T_alk @ C G) 03:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

[62], ko:위키백과:사용자 관리 요청/2011년 1월#사관요청 남용,악용하며 위키백과 질서 망치는 계정 Leno(100범)차단요청, ko:위키백과:사용자 관리 요청/2011년 1월#사용자:여성부의 눈 역차단 신청, ko:위키백과:사용자 관리 요청/2011년 1월#사용자:여성부의 눈 역차단 신청, ko:위키백과:사용자 관리 요청/2011년 1월#다중계정 악용, [63],[64],[65], [66], [67]

• Threatening me: [68]

• ko:user:Altostratus : [69], [70]

-- Lenocus 11:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

 Additional information needed You talk about 'attempt to circumvent the blockade'. However, none of these users is blocked either now or in the past. So which blockade are you talking about? - Andre Engels 18:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

No answer → Not done -- Dferg ^{☎ talk} 18:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I will be looking into this more indepth later, but from what I have seen now, I can already conclude:

1. 100범's edits are too long ago to check
2. Leno has a large number of sockpuppets
3. At least some of the abovementioned users are among Leno's sockpuppets.

More precise information about the mentioned and unmentioned sockpuppets follows when I have been able to check this from my home computer (I am now at my work). - Andre Engels 14:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, it seems we're talking mobile internet here, with all complications going with that. As said, 100범 cannot be checked any more but Leno has a wealth of sockpuppets. Which exactly are sockpuppets, and which are other users on the same network is hard to distinguish, but the most likely sockpuppets seem to be:

• w:ko:User:Daqda3asq
• w:ko:User:Leclera
• w:ko:User:Dhtjtyjfhcbc
• w:ko:User:Cerera
• w:ko:User:YunEs
• w:ko:User:恐氣將
• w:ko:User:Qasqdgrgra
• w:ko:User:Gasfslkve
• w:ko:User:Wangffo
• w:ko:User:Naqsk
• w:ko:User:黑技士
• w:ko:User:Dqfhsrta
• w:ko:User:Aqsdfgqsd
• w:ko:User:Shommenshib
• w:ko:User:Qoinqder
• w:ko:User:DQQkoqq
• w:ko:User:Toyotadaich
• w:ko:User:Sadfifhedfh

Less sure I am about the following names, but still I would classify them as 'likely' scokpuppets.

• w:ko:User:Sgshdjdfgk
• w:ko:User:Laydas
• w:ko:User:2prm
• w:ko:User:Sagaderus
• w:ko:User:버터플라이
• w:ko:User:Kresoftqen
• w:ko:User:Qsdhdfh
• w:ko:User:Kwonko
• w:ko:User:Rurenno
• w:ko:User:Sghdshfgj
• w:ko:User:Batuman
• w:ko:User:Gerdssf
• w:ko:User:Naheres
• w:ko:User:Dqfhsrta
• w:ko:User:Sgshhtjnfgnfgn
• w:ko:User:Sdssff
• w:ko:User:Quqafoqa
• w:ko:User:Zsidong
• w:ko:User:Wndeoros
• w:ko:User:Oporous

Of the other names you provided, checkuser gives no information about Antinobba. And for History no. 1 and Backbeom, the checkuser comes out negative - no reason from the CU result to believe that they are among this sockpuppet group. - Andre Engels 00:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

OK. So these are Leno. Thank you check their sockpuppets. But I want to catch connetion of 100범 and Leno. That connetion is important in ko.wiki. --여성부의 눈 00:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Unrelated --Melos 01:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I did not been controlled by Mosesofmason, really. --JerryofWong 10:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• Revenge time (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

Could you check ka:user:Revenge time the IP-address of this user and, I’d like to know if there is still any contributions of this user in Georgian Wikipedia.

• reason: His 13th change is about abusing of one admin.He was registered 21 feb. 2010 and has been active till 22 feb. See his contributions and talk.

P.S. Pay attention for the name of this user. --Jaba1977 20:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello. The user contributions are too old for checking ( Stale

) thus this request can not be processed. -- Dferg ^{☎ talk} 22:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

These two accounts were on IPs that you already blocked. I didn't find any sleeper accounts. Shanel 05:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

•  Additional information needed Simply semi-protect the pages in question; I do not see how a checkuser will help here. -- Avi 02:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The matter is more about suck-puppetry than just protection of some pages. --Geraki ^T_L 07:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Understood, but there is no issue with IP edits, unless you believe that the IP is actually a user logging out to evade local project restrictions (such as 3RR on EnWiki). In this case, semi-protection would be able to prevent the issue, and we try not to run checks if possible. If you can please explain (and if you are more comfortable, use your native language) why there is a specific need to tie the IP to the user (is the user banned, etc.), that would be very helpful. Ευχαριστούμε! -- Avi 16:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

As I have noted the problem is not the reverts per se but that the user is logging off to appear as it is more users that agree with his view. This is against policy in all wikipedias (sock puppetry) and as Help:CheckUser says, "this tool is usually used to counter users creating bad-faith sock puppet accounts". The ips also used the same insulting phrases used by the registerd user before he was warned that next time he will get banned. --Geraki ^T_L 20:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• Any evidence is at best Inconclusive. The IPs show different technical evidence than that shown by Costas78. -- Avi 03:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

•  Confirmed
• 飞向心的世界 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
• lebook2011 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
•  Confirmed
• lebook (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
• 眼泪续演结局 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
• 心由自己掌握 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
• 念过你的容颜 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
• 单纯的美丽 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
• 街角的余温 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
• 不停的回忆 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
• 一个人的精彩 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
• 誓言易是失言 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
• Extremely Likely that the two groups are the same. They span a bunch of different IPs, so a rangeblock is unlikely to be helpful. -- Avi 04:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

•  Confirmed
  • Group1:
    • Seksīgais Čekjūzeris (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
    • Akimbo (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
    • Fēnikss (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
    • Leģions (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
    • Maldikons (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
    • AIeksandrs Timofejevs (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
    • Krishjaanis (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
  • Group2:
    • Zemgalietis (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
    • Bruno (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

Group1 and users in this check same. from a technical point, Group1 and Group2 unrelated--Shizhao 07:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

•  Confirmed
  • Group1
    • Libera (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
    • Truthwillsetyoufree (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
    • Aldidkehskdl (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
    • Cap0070 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
    • Scjournalist (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
    • Scjjournalist (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
    • Libera314 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
    • Cupofcoffee (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
    • Basi (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
    • Thirdparty (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
  • Group2
    • Lhookestra (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
    • FinderKeeper (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
  • Group3
    • Scjsun (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
    • Urbanradio (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
    • Sequencer (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
• Likely
  • Group1
  • Group2
  • Callitlove (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
• Unrelated
  • 위키피디아신천지 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
  • Group3
• Other users Stale, no data

--Shizhao 14:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I added two more possible puppets.--Edgars2007 13:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Likely

• 788al872eo
• Klopenmunden
• Fēnikss
• Leģions
• Krishjaanis
• Maldikons
• Akimbo
• Hisuterī no harinezumi
• Seksīgais Čekjūzeris
• Kapteinis Puplaksis
• Komodors Kanēlis
• उदास मूत्राशय
• VUGD BOTS

Mythpage is unrelated to this group, but seems to be a sock of some one else. Please contact me on IRC to talk about this. --Jyothis 17:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Most recent checkuser data at Commons for Paulinho15.--Darwinius 02:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The list of known socks (some based on CU, some based on their walking and quacking) might also be helpful. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Inconclusive [removed IP] Other three accounts do not have edits that can be checked. Ruslik 10:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Unrelated After a request for a second opinion, I have rechecked and there is no evidence, by checkuser, that these accounts are the same person; three accounts have no edits checkable and all the IPs and accounts that can be checked do not show to be the same. Remember shared IPs can be used by more than one person and often change. fr33kman 17:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)