Tomreves, an identification as "likely" based only on geolocation is easily flawed. All that means is that the IP information from the users returned the location of the servers as a particular location. My IP would reveal that I'm from "Springfield, Massachusetts." In fact, I live maybe 30 miles north. Springfield is where Verizon, my huge ISP, apparently has their servers for this whole area, maybe a million people. Certainly many! There may be other ISPs which return the same location! To treat that as if it were proof is not correct. It's a piece of evidence at most.
If Brox were the other users, only if he were using evasive techniques would this weak an identification show up. That's always possible, which is why checkuser information never can prove innocence. If a user isn't being careful, the identification will usually be much stronger, it will include actual IP coincidence and actual user agent identity.
As to sophisticated users, with possible "clones" as you call them, if the clones aren't being disruptive, it's probably better to drop the matter. On en.wikipedia, some usage of clones is considered legitimate, and many administrators operate clone accounts for various reasons, and not all of them need be disclosed. It's a tricky area. The real issue is whether or not the clone is being used to create disruption, such as by double-voting. What I saw looking at the accounts just blocked was that every edit I looked at was still standing. If these had been disruptive accounts, wouldn't some of those edits have been reverted? They were, indeed, clones, of each other, according to checkuser. Clearly the checkuser evidence for Brox was quite different! I'm not sure those accounts should have been blocked. They probably should have been warned to consolidate, to use only one account and to tag the others. That's all. But it's local lt.wikipedia business, not mine! --Abd 20:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
А что, у вас если одному админу разрешено вандалить, то другой не может поиграться куколками? Непорядок, надо всем одинаковые права прописать.
- This account does not have sysop rights on any of the projects. Tomreves 07:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- While the IP is uncivil, there is a point. On Wikipedia, some administrators and others do "play with dolls." Sock puppets are not contrary to policy there, what is contrary to policy is using socks abusively. Sometimes even Wikipedia gets a little confused about this, and it's recommended that socks be acknowledged, but sometimes there are legitimate reasons to not acknowledge socks. So it is not required. When a user is blocked, sock puppetry is block evasion, hence it is sanctioned. Double voting, or hiding behind a sock in order to be uncivil, while avoiding the consequences, is abusive. As Snooker, you blocked the acknowledged socks of Brox when they were not uncivil, hadn't been abusive, and weren't even editing any more. It's LT business, but .... that doesn't look right to me. Do you think you could discuss this with Brox and work it out? The project might benefit.
- As to the accounts that Brox has not acknowledged, the evidence I've seen indicates that some were socks of each other, and probably not of him, but, again, I don't see that they were being abusive. If they were, that's another matter. What I've seen on en.wiki is that a great deal of time is sometimes wasted in finding and investigating sock puppetry, and it's only worthwhile if the socks are being disruptive, actually causing damage. On en.wiki, if someone like Brox were found to be operating non-abusive socks, they might be gently encouraged to acknowledge them, but absent abuse, a checkuser there would probably not even look. I know! I've filed quite a few checkuser requests, and some were declined for this reason. The stewards at meta can't make those decisions about abuse, it's too complicated, so sometimes they will just check on request. The system probably needs some attention, like a lot of things.
- By the way, Brox did make a major mistake on nl.wikipedia, that's clear. However, that was on one day. I have no idea why he did this, maybe he wasn't feeling well. It's possible that he has days on lt.wikipedia when he isn't feeling well either! So help him out, support him, and keep him connected with the community consensus.
- Good luck with lt.wikipedia. I appreciate your attempts to clear up the matter. --Abd 13:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- The problem is that that incident in nl.wiki is not a single one. Brox used different accounts in the past, and as I've heard from senior sysops he pretty much did the same things as in dutch wikipedia. Brox is guilty that he built up such a bad reputation that he is being suspected of various offences. We had an incident with a sysop and bureaucrat who used sockpuppets in votings and he eventually was ripped of all his rights, so we do not tolerate sysops using several accounts that are not identified as theirs. After such an experience we look at such matters and allegations very seriously.
About civility. I was quite civil at this matter and after "likely confirmation" (the word CONFIRMED here is very confusing) of sock-puppets I have addressed Brox to explain himself, after he denied everything and acted rationally to start discussions here. On contrary, User:Brox after getting much backing up from the users of meta felt very safe to create absolute havoc in his home wiki. Yesterday he messed up categories, and failed to explain his action to the community who opnely addressed his action. This is hypocritical not civil behaviour from Brox side and after yesterday I personally dont believe in User:Brox's sincerity. But as you said this is a matter of our lt.wikipedia. Thank you very much for the concerns and explanations you gave.Tomreves 14:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Snooker, I think you aren't getting it. The comment above is grossly uncivil. It expresses highly negative and dramatic personal judgments of Brox, without evidence and without necessity. It also doesn't match what I've seen of the history, but I'll leave this as a puzzle for lt.wikipedia to work out. You are involved in conflict there, obviously. You may take the opportunity to heal the rift, or to make it worse. Your choice. None of this means that Brox is anything, this is about you. You are quite young, I'm more than three times your age. Just a fact. My advice: "Oops! Seems I was a bit over-excited, I'm sorry." And then move on. Good luck. --Abd 15:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- I will ignore your argument of "I'm older, so I know a little bit more about life". This doesn't make an impact on me whatsoever.Tomreves 15:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Your choice. It's not an argument. It was actually a defense of you, if you want to look at it that way. I didn't say the second part, you did. You may ignore facts, including even obvious conclusions that you make yourself, it's your privilege. I.e., you get to learn for yourself. I just hope the process isn't too painful. Good luck. --Abd 18:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
checkuser request 
Hello. I have reviewed the checkuser Brox@ltwiki on SRCU and have come to a different conclusion than the previous checkuser. I have asked another steward for another independent third opinion and we both find that there is no connection between w:lt:User:Brox and any of the other accounts. I think one of the significant issues here is that Lithuania is a much smaller country than a lot of others; the size of a smallish city. So almost all of the IP addresses have multiple users actively using them. This means we have to use editing behavior, times of edits, and user agents, XFF, and other data to figure out the answers. In this case the technical details showed Brox is a user that very likely uses a fair few public computers to access the Internet as well as well as home, work/school. I can not speak for the nlwiki findings, but I'm hopeful of finding out. Take care and I am happy to answer any questions you have. Regards, :) fr33kman 01:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)