Meta:Requests for CheckUser information/Archives/2008-01

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Warning! Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in January 2008, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.

Multiple users on

The following discussion is closed: done

sq:User:Šiptari su govna
There was a recent vandal attack on this wiki, and the accounts above appear to have been used to vandalize it. To prevent further account creation by this user I'd like to request that the users above be checkuser'd and the IP used to create them temp blocked on sqwiki. Thanks. --Az1568 07:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

These and related users edited from three distinct groups of IP addresses belonging to Canadian ISPs. The lack of geographic distribution, the limited pool, and the ability to switch between them at will suggests web proxies. Blocking and was effective in stopping the disruptive activity. —{admin} Pathoschild 08:51:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Sidheeq and Samad in

The following discussion is closed: done

Hi, I would like to request for a checkuser on the two users, Sidheeq and Samad. both has voted on the same voting, and both seems to follow the same pattern of acts. We would like to determine if they are socks Thanks.--Jyothis 03:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no indication from a user check that they're the same person, although this does not prove they are not. —{admin} Pathoschild 23:41:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Some users @

The following discussion is closed: done

I ask a CU for fivesixseven users: Clamengh, 10caart, Rossi, Pacipaciana, Vladimir, Engels, Padaniandebèrghem.

Two of these users (10caart and Clamengh) are historical users of, those who took to the chaos we are trying to solve now following to the discussion here. 10caart has already voted against everyone. Clamengh decided to disappear officially.

Rossi, Vladimir and Pacipaciana are three absolute newcomers that started voting against every candidate to adminship. I suspect that there they are having a strong influence on the consensus. Every day a new unknown user comes, and votes against everyone.

Many thanks, --Remulazz 10:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Five minutes ago a new user (Engels) appeared. Can I add him/her to the list? --Remulazz 10:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Another new entry: Padaniandebèrghem. --Remulazz 13:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
On it. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 13:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Padaniandebèrghem = Pacipaciana, all other are unrelated, though I find it likely that the new users may be meatpuppets. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 14:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm Padaniandebèrghem and even if is not difficult to understand that pacipaciana is a bergamasch name, I'm not pacipaciana! if you check my Ip you can see that I write from university of bergamo with pubblic computer for student, every day a lot of students use these computers.Ok? I'm newcomer becouse I has received a mail asking support for lombard wiki aganist proposal of closure. I have speoke about this proposal with a lot friends, in university too, and probably pacipaciana study with me. BUT IF YOU WANT I CAN SEND MY NUMBER OF IDENTY CARD, MY REAL NAME AND MY SURNAME and looking for pacipaciana so I will demostrate we are not the same person. --Padaniandebèrghem 17:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

anyway the problem is always Remulazz ... noboy is ok if has voted against him!this is a very good democracy!!!!!!!--Padaniandebèrghem 18:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Tam @ es.wikiquote

The following discussion is closed: done

I suspect es:q:user:Tam is a new sockpuppet account of the same person who recently uses the username es:q:user:Behth (Behth has been identified as a sockpuppet account both in es Wikipedia and Wikiquote). This Tam account has been used in periods when Behth is blocked. One of his few comments mispells a verb (hallan creado) in a way already seen in other of Behth's accounts. --Javierm 17:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. Tam's software profile and IP address range is identical to Aclaremos el desbloqueo de Ja-sídh, and very similar to Aclaración de parte de Ja-sídh (differences consistent with routine updates). All three have very similar software profiles to Behth, but operate from a different IP address range.
It's certainly possible that they are the same person, but this is not conclusive proof. You must combine the above information with other evidence in making a judgment. —{admin} Pathoschild 07:38:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Kouluhai @ fiwikinews

The following discussion is closed: done

Recently started fiwikinews have problem that someone is registering known nicks from fiwiki claiming to be same user as in fiwiki (for example: n:fi:Käyttäjä:Ilaiho, n:fi:Käyttäjä:Iirolaiho and n:fi:Käyttäjä:QWerk). Because of this I'm requesting Checkuser to check is n:fi:Käyttäjä:Kouluhai same person as Ilaiho, Iirolaiho and QWerk (and possible some others also). Kouluhai was active user in fiwiki last year, but recently no one have heard nothing about this user, so it is very suspicious that this user would activate just for fiwikinews. Thank you in advance, br --Agony 11:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Also n:fi:Käyttäjä:Kallerna(user confirmed), n:fi:Käyttäjä:Jaakonam and n:fi:Käyttäjä:Tero Vilkesalo (user confirmed) seems to be fake accounts. --Agony 12:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
And more: n:fi:Käyttäjä:MikkoM (already blocked) was shown as fake. Fiwiki admins and bureaucrats user names seem to be very popular. --Agony 13:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Seems that faker have succeed IP change (perhaps open proxy?): After n:fi:MikkoM blocked, #9 blocked IP automaticly but just few minutes ago this thing continued under different IP with username n:fi:Linnea (autoblock #11 affected this one). --Agony 20:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes check.svg Done Here's the results:
Iirolaiho = Ilaiho
QWerk = Kompak
Kouluhai = MikkoM
Linnea = Tbone

drini [es:] [commons:] 15:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

So there are 4 different persons? That was a surprise. --AtteL 17:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Was any one of these from open proxy? If yes, can you provide the IP address of proxy (since it do not reveal anything especial about user and therefore not breaking any CU rules)? --Agony 18:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed: done

Hi, I need a checkuser to be done on ml:User:Aparamoorthi and see whose sock is this. Please help. Thanks, --Jyothis 17:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Please include a reason as why you suspect Aparamoorthi to be a sock. --Cspurrier 21:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
The User was created while a couple of heated discussions were on. the user contributions are only in those discussions and the account was used only to abuse the fellow wikipedians. We suspect that this is a sock of the users I requested for checkuser information earlier. Thanks.--Jyothis 23:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Although there are not "identical" IPs, the class is the same from Drini results. --M/ 16:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, M7, We appreciate it. -- 16:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC) Sorry, its me. --Jyothis 16:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Blood & Honour Scandinavia@nn.wikipedia

The following discussion is closed: done

I request a checkuser on some, or all, of these users nn:Blood & Honour Scandinavia, nn:Killing Joke, nn:Petterhenriksen, nn:Ordo Ad Chao, nn:Coil, nn:Borer'n, nn:Necrofog, nn:NatRew, nn:Padima, nn:The Great Kat. (These are accounts that have been blocked the last 45 days.) These are obvious sockpuppet accounts of a longtime vandal/troll persona: Nazi/punk theme account names and articles. Creates a new user account, goes directly to the user talk page of some sysop and leaves an uncivil remark about this sysop, and/or puts Sieg Heil or links to Norwegian nazi group Vigrid in articles, etc. I'd like to know if there is an IP in common for some of these accounts, to be able to block it.

Thanks. --Jorunn 00:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. They appear to be using proxies on multiple free web hosts. You can range-block the following IP addresses to cover those they have used so far. No legitimate users have edited from these ranges in the last month.
CIDR range Addresses affected Whois 66.90.[64–127].* (16,384) FDC, LLC 67.159.[0–63].* (16,384) FDC, LLC 67.192.[0–127].* (32,768), Ltd. 87.229.26.* (256) Deninet serverhosting 208.75.[148–151].* (1,024) Cogswell Enterprises Inc. 208.110.[192–223].* (8,192) Time Warner Cable Houston 208.113.[128–255].* (32,768) New Dream Network, LLC 209.135.[128–159].* (8,192) InLink Communications Company 209.190.[0–127].* (32,768) Columbus Network Access Point, Inc.
{admin} Pathoschild 00:20:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

JM-JM, Marronez, Marronez Jr. @ptwiki

The following discussion is closed: done

I request a checkuser on users pt:Usuário:JM-JM, pt:Usuário:Marronez and pt:Usuário:Marronez Jr.. The suspect accounts have been created in near dates and usually votes in the same matter with a difference of a few minutes, as you see below:


Thanks in advance. - Al Lemos 13:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. These accounts are almost certainly run by the same person. —{admin} Pathoschild 23:50:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Same person on different wikis

The following discussion is closed: done

Request written in French: guillom or Darkoneko should understand what I am requesting smiley

Dans les quatre cas, le fâcheux utilise le style et la manière du vandale Club-Internet (« gros naze »), mais il paraît plus probable qu'il soit un pénible belge hélas bien connu. Quoi qu'il en soit, je demande :

  • que les quatres comptes soient bloqués indéfiniment ;
  • que leurs adresses IP soient relevées par le steward agissant temporairement comme CU ;
  • qu'il soit vérifié, sur chacun de ces comptes, que l'adresse IP correspondante n'a pas servi à créer un autre sockpuppet ;
  • que les quatre adresses IP (ou moins s'il y en a moins en réalité) soient communiquées aux titulaires du CU sur wp-FR, pour parfaire (si nécessaire), la lutte contre le pénible belge soupçonné : en recourant à cette méthode voici quelques mois sur wp-KAB, guillom avait ainsi permis de neutraliser, sur wp-FR une douzaine de faux-nez d'un autre pénible de longue durée.

Hégésippe | ±Θ± 16:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

J'oubliais la même chose avec ces trois comptes (déjà bloqués) sur des projets francophones (hors Wikipédia) :

Cette fois, ça doit être bon smiley (en attendant, hélas, les suivants...) Hégésippe | ±Θ± 17:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Je m'en occupe / Doing it now. guillom 17:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
J'ai bloqué les comptes non encore bloqués. Toutes les IP appartiennent au bloc - attribué à Skynet / Belgacom. C'est Scolas, que j'ai retrouvé sur fr.wp sous l'identité d'Insiraf, maintenant bloqué indéfiniment. guillom 18:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Nouvelle fournée (7 octobre) :

si les résultats ne donnent que, l'IP a déjà été transmise aux CU de wp-FR.

Hégésippe | ±Θ± 13:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC) + 19:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Benvenutto@miwiki et ‏خنزير@vewiki‎ semble être les mêmes, mais opère à partir d'un autre fournisseur et un système différent. Je peut transférer les résultats au vérificateurs du frwiki en privée sur demande.
Translation: "Benvenutto@miwiki and ‏خنزير@vewiki‎ seem to be the same person, but operates from a different Internet service provider and with a different software profile. I can transfer my checkuser results to the frwiki checkusers privately on request."
{admin} Pathoschild 02:04:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

qwerty @ ko.wikipedia & betalph @ko.wikidictionary

The following discussion is closed: done

It differs from the user I am falsely accused in the multi-korean uncyclopedia flocked account has been blocked. As a school administrator I probably heard, but based on my ip that includes non-english wikipedia editing ip. Ip was also trying to look up to me and are extremely different. Checkusing please.Kverti 01:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, you want us to check if qwerty@kowiki and betalph@kowiktionary are used by different people, or the same person. Is this correct? —{admin} Pathoschild 00:13:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
yes.Kverti 04:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Inconclusive. Betalph@kowiktionary operates from a different IP address range owned by the same Internet service provider as Hanguler@kowiki, who also edited from a different IP address that is shared by qwerty@kowiki. Hanguler@kowiki and qwerty@kowiki are both blocked and have identical software profiles, although the profiles are too generic to be indicative. So, checkuser data shows that the accounts may be used by the same person, but there's no conclusive evidence either way. —{admin} Pathoschild 05:32:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
There are not many Internet companies in Korea.(i am betalph)Multicode 12:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Does Korea have dynamic IPs? Or only static IPs? --King Edmund of the Woods 03:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

مولیر@fa.wikipedia (sockpuppet or victim of sysop power abuse, by fa:user:حسام?)

The following discussion is closed: unnecessary

fa:user:مولیر has been banned by fa:user:حسام, yesterday. fa:user:حسام claims that this user is a sockpuppet, created for edit war. But, fa:user:حسام hasn't said who the original acount is. Also, he hasn't presented any proof or justification for his claims. I want to know if fa:user:مولیر is really a sockpuppet, or this incident is just another incident of power abuse, by fa:user:حسام (he has along history of abuse of power and banning active users without any reasonable justification).

After being banned (indefinitely, without any proof of wrongdoing) fa:user:مولیر has made other acounts (fa:user:مولیر ۲ and fa:user:Molière) to ask about the reason of the indefinite block. Instead of answering his/her legitimate question, the new acounts are banned by fa:user:حسام and fa:user:ظهیری, indefinitely.

I should also mention that while there has been several banning incident in Persian Wikipedia, based on unproven sockpuppetry claims, the admins of fawiki didn't do anything when one of them (fa:user:ظهیری) was proven to be guilty of sockpuppetry (using sockpuppet fa:user:fbyk). Alefbe 01:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Alefbe, you previously made this claim on 5 Dec too. For your information, checkuser cannot prove (with 100% certainity) if an account is a sockpuppet or not). As far as I know, there are still some people who share the same computer (hence similar checkuser results) with fa:user:ظهیری. So, please try to respect the decision made by the community at that time (that we cannot be sure ظهیری has a sockpuppet) instead of repeating what you interpreted from it.
Made this claim in 5 December?! Where? I'm talking about something which has happened in Dec 8-9. It seems that you have not read my comment. About fa:user:ظهیری and fa:user:fbyk, the checkusers had mentioned that these two have used the same IP and the same user agent, and you know that the fa:user:fbyk has supported fa:user:ظهیری in his edits. What else do you need to know? I mentioned this example to show the double standard in Persian wikipedia. About fa:user:ظهیری, having all this evidences, you insist that nothing is known for sure. But, in several other cases, usernames are blocked indefinitely (claimed to be sockpuppet), without any proof or even weak evidence. I don't remember your objection to those unjust blocks. Alefbe 05:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
To stewrds: It is perhaps a good idea to ask some other credible users of wikis with such inflammated communities as Fa WP, to see if each checkuser request is really mandatory to be performed. Huji 16:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Of cource this is not the right place to deal with the admin power abuse in Persian Wikipedia (its place is RFC). Here, I'm only asking if Hessam's claims (fa:user:حسام) about fa:user:مولیر have any real justification or not. My guess is that it is baseless. Alefbe 05:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
So, if you really think this is not the correct place to talk about what you call "admin power abuse in Persian Wikipedia", try not to describe it in the first place. Huji 21:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Before discussing Hessam's power abuse in its right place, I prefer to give him the benefit of doubt and assume that he may asked the checkusers before blocking fa:user:مولیر (though it's unlikely). My question is about that. So, before rushing to defend user:Hessam, read my question more carefully. About mentioning the background of the problem, I think it should be mentioned why I'm asking this question from chekusers. Alefbe 00:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
i also support huji's word. there is some great evidence of sockpuppetry in fawiki and i should say fa:user:حسام's blocking is surely acceptable.--Mardetanha 21:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
fa:user:مولیر seems to be familiar with wikipedia and may have been active in other wikipedias before. It may be also sockpuppet of another Persian Wikipedia user. However, being sockpuppet itslef is not forbidden in Wikipedia. Using sockpuppets for edit war or evadind block is forbidden. fa:user:مولیر is blocked, claimed to be a sockpuppet for edit-war in fa:خلفای راشدین. If it's true, user:Hessam should show evidence that fa:user:مولیر is sockpuppet of one of those who have edited that page recently. user:Hessam hasn't shown any evidence and here I ask the checkusers whether there is an evidence. Alefbe 00:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Rephrasing the question to avoid irrelevant discussions

fa:user:حسام has blocked fa:user:مولیر, indefinitely, claiming that it's a sockpuppet created to edit-war in fa:خلفای راشدین. My question is:

1-Has fa:user:حسام done the proper procedure before blocking fa:user:مولیر, indefinitely? Has he asked the checkusers whether fa:user:مولیر is really a sockpuppet of one of recent contributors of that page? If yes, where is it archived?

2-If fa:user:حسام hasn't asked yet, is fa:user:مولیر really a sockpuppet of one of recent contributors of that page? Is there any evidence that fa:user:مولیر is an abusive sokpuppet? Alefbe 00:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to ask Alefbe, I think most of you in the Persian Wikipedia are Iranians right? Do you know whether Iranians use only static IPs or dynamic IPs, or both? --King Edmund of the Woods 03:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I think both. I think most of those who connect from universities, dorms, ... have static IPs. But those who use home internet service mostly have dynamic IPs. Alefbe 03:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

As the contributions of the blocked user show, this user *was* created to editwar. So it isn't necessary to make a CU request, the blocking seems to be justified either way. But I'm open for other arguments on this. --Thogo (talk) 08:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Unnecessary Unnecessary, as Thogo said it right, no justification of doing a checkuser with the given arguments, the archives You can finde here (a link to them is at the top of this page). Please do not open multiple discussions for one issue, thanks for Your understanding. Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 19:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed: done

I have been accused of having several sockpuppet users and I need a checkuser to check it. Accusations are in ca:Viquipèdia:La_taverna/Arxius/Polítiques/Recent#Cas_Villalonga. It would be very useful to check if there is a sockpuppet of me among users ca:User:Evolució, ca:User:Geo, ca:User:Artista, ca:User:Guillem d'Occam and anonimous users and, but it is also usefull to chek if any other user may be my sockpuppet.

If necessary, I give permission to make public the IP's I've been using.

If you need to check that ca:User:Pere prlpz and m:user:Pere prlpz belong to the same person (me), you can see a link in both userpages.--Pere prlpz 01:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

done, ca:User:Pere prlpz is not related to any of the mentioned IPs or accounts or other accounts.
The accounts ca:User:Evolució, ca:User:Geo, ca:User:Cronos, ca:User:Artista, seem to be related (similar IPs and software profile).
ca:User:Guillem d'Occam not.
Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 01:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, birdy.--Pere prlpz 02:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Felipe Aira @ tlwikipedia

The following discussion is closed: done

This is a reaction for the numerous requests and suspicions here in the Tagalog Wikipedia about the activities of

  1. tl:User:Wikiboost
  2. tl:User:Regenerate
  3. tl:User:Booster Gold
  4. tl:User:Auto007

. It has been suspected by most editors that those four are the same user and using bot functions. In Wikiboost's talk page, he directly denied any bot functions being done with his account. And according to tl:User:Sky Harbor, the remaining three also denied so. They all came this September 2007. They create articles of almost the same form. And has been most responsible to the exponential growth of the Tagalog Wikipedia from about 7,000 - September to 15,000 this January. Please be so kind to check if those users are operated by the same person or not.

And an extra question too, would it be any violation or ground for their blocking if it has been proven that they are bots, since they directly denied of so?

They create articles of one sentence like this: "X is a politician in the Philippines." With "X" only changing with the person's name. And if you would notice in their contributions, they create articles at lightning speeds, having 2 to 5 a minute. Which is quite impossible even if you got an incredibly fast internet connexion, and just do copy and pasting. Unless they are bots. There are even days when the whole recent changes page are crammed with their contributions.

Thanks a lot! -- Felipe Aira 04:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

After my first CheckUser check, that turned out to be quite arduous, here are the results:
  • The user tl:User:Regenerate hasn't made any contributions for a long time, so I cannot say anything about him/her
  • It is inconclusive whether tl:User:Wikiboost is a sockpuppet of tl:User:Booster gold or vice versa
  • I can make no connections between the users tl:User:Auto007 and the others
  • I found some other (minor?) sockpuppets on the wiki among the users who where under the CheckUser check. If you want, I can publish the usernames and connections (which may shed some light on the case if those users are indeed somehow connected to the whole thing)
Thanks --filip 12:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I would most appreciate that! -- Felipe Aira 13:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
The findings are as follows:
I hope this somewhat helps. --filip 13:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
This is unbelievable! Exec8 and Emir214 are one of our best editors! -- Felipe Aira 13:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Even you yourself should be aware that neither Emir214 or Exec8 are bots in the very first place! The others I'm not so sure of. --Sky Harbor 13:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
The CheckUser tool cannot tell if a user is a bot. This checkuser request was fulfilled because there were reasons to believe that these 4 users are sockpuppets of one another. Whether a user is editing via a script should be determined by other means. --filip 14:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Jea @ meta

Jea (talk contribs deleted contribs logs block user block log CentralAuth AllContribs checkuser) (talk contribs deleted contribs logs block user block log CentralAuth AllContribs checkuser)
clamengh (talk contribs deleted contribs logs block user block log CentralAuth AllContribs checkuser)
I suspect that these two users falsified consense in this proposal for closing Then, they subscribe words similar used by user:clamengh on linked page (i.e. è una proposta fascista alla faccia della libertà = it's a fascist attack for the freedom). Excuse for my English (again :D ). Thank you. --Leoman3000 18:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Can I add to the list:

Thank you again, --Remulazz 10:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


  • Unrelated Unrelated - Jea, clamengh and are not related.
  • Fishing CheckUser is not for fishing - I see no justification for adding 10caart, Belinzona and OlBergomi to this request. ++Lar: t/c 21:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
    I was not fishing. I had and have strong suspects they're the same person. Before this earthquake on, the only community were them. They (and Clamengh) always agree among them, they (and Clamengh) always refused to speak in Italian, they are fans of Catalan language and tried to import it in (that is not, and so on. One day i saw lmo:User:10caart handling on Clamengh's talk page (he archived old discussions). I think this smells a bit. Can you add them to the list now? Are these arguments enough? Bye, thanks, -- 10:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC) Ops--Remulazz 10:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I answered this at my talk, the day it was left, see User_talk:Lar#Checkuser_2. I should have answered it here as well, I guess, my apologies for any confusion caused. For reference, here is the text of my answer given then:
I don't think that's sufficient. I think some actual diffs, not vague descriptions, would be better. Remember that socking is not banned, only using socks to show false consensus or evade bans or blocks. You (or better, someone that is less directly involved) need to show specific behaviour where the alleged IDs are colluding or evading bans. Hope that helps clarify. ++Lar: t/c 12:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I have communicated offline with Yann about this, see below ++Lar: t/c 22:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Not really adding much, just noting that a better translation would be "It's a fascist attack on/for the face of liberty/freedom" -- 05:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Unrelated Unrelated I corroborate Lar's findings, and I think that no further checks are needed. Yann 16:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Dumdum @

Hi, I would like to make a checkuser request for the users ml:User:Dumdum and ml:User:Sidheeq. Sidheeq was blocked recently and Dumdum was created soon after. Dumdum is specializing in the flaming and flaring discussions and has voted in a Sysop's election with more allegations and flames. We would like to crosscheck if this happens to be the same guy. Thanks. --Jyothis 18:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Yes, he seems to be the same user. There's also a Musafir account handled by the same user. drini [es:] [commons:] 18:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Drini, Thanks!!! --Jyothis 18:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Kushan I.A.K.J@simplebooks

Nomination for +sysop screams sock. Let's find any sleepers and block them. This user is a known troll from Wikia.  – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 20:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done So far only Emperor13 and Kushan are linked via CU. drini [es:] [commons:] 20:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

dhardy @ enwiki

The following discussion is closed.

Hello. I am an American graduate student doing research on Wikipedia. I would like CheckUser access to perform a research study. I am not sure if this is the correct forum or process to make this request. Please advise. Thank you. --Dhardy 23:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. First of all, this is a page for CheckUser requests. Granting CheckUser rights is over here. Thirdly, as an English Wikipedia editor, you are to request such things to the appropriate page on the English Wikipedia itself. However, seeing as you're not an ArbCom member, nor have you been elected as a CheckUser on that wiki, I'd say that your chances of getting this user right are close to 0. Especially if you are going to use information, that is subject to privacy policy, in your research study. Thanks, --FiLiP ¤ 23:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

H92 har vært i lomma på lommemannen @ nowikipedia

The following discussion is closed.

There has been some user accounts created with unacceptable names. This one means “H92 has been in the pocket of The Pocket Man”. Try also User:Tidligere bruker 36 (it has been renamed, because of the name). Is this the same person/IP address? Is there more users at nowikipedia who come up in the results? — H92 (t · c · no) 21:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, the accounts seem to be the same user, no more users found but no:User:! ! ! Å gid, å gid! H92 er homo! [1] You might want to block. Two more (already blocked) older bad username creations were found for that network, probably not the same user though. Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 23:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
OK. User:! ! ! Å gid, å gid… is User:Tidligere bruker 36, as it was renamed (it means something like “Oh no, oh no! H92 is gay!”). The accounts were blocked after creation. Thanks for your help! ;) — H92 (t · c · no) 17:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed.

I have benn accused to have a puppet user called ca:usuari:Socarrat here. I want to demonstrate that's not true and me and Socarrat are different users. When I went out from catalan wikipedia in march 2007 I created in may 2007 a new user without using my old account, due to some harassements with another user and his three puppets, now discovered. So, please, may you check the information for these three users i ca.wikipedia? Thank you!

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vilallonga (talk) diff, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 11:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Declined Declined, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 11:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
This decision is not helpful. Vilallonga · (digui digui) 11:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
How about that: similar case. Vilallonga · (digui digui) 11:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that was my error, I somehow thought there was vandalism involved. This should not have done by me, thanks, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 11:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
General remark: It is not possible to prove non-relatedness of accounts. It is only possible to decrease the probability that two accounts are used by the same person, but it can never definitely be 0. --Thogo (talk) 13:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
With the mentioned probability is enough to prove that. I think so. Vilallonga · (digui digui) 14:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

If I may comment, I suggest doing the checkuser, with the explicit mention that this maynot prove 100% that accounts are unrelated. drini [es:] [commons:] 16:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

With the checkuser I'm satisfied. Vilallonga · (digui digui) 18:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Please, someone can do the checkuser? Thank you, Vilallonga · (digui digui) 17:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I've carried out the checkuser check. Socarrat doesn't seem to be related to the other two. The ones you claim to own do match somewhat (which was expected). Again, I must reiterate: CheckUser tool cannot tell with 100% certainty whether a user is not a sockpuppet of someone else. So, these findings cannot be completely accurate. Thanks --FiLiP ¤ 17:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you! This information is ok for me! Vilallonga · (digui digui) 12:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed.

ru:User:Andranikpasha local CU (note the involvement of User "Hayk" and "Wind")
en:User:Andranikpasha (notice this user page says his name is "Ashot") local CU
217.118.95.* on en ru fr de hy bg ar tr uk pl meta on ru en hy and ro

The Russian Andranikpasha has been banned due to sock abuse and edit warring at ru:Википедия:Проверка участников/Samwel which was raised by ru:User:Hayk. Of interest is that the page User:Hayk is vandalised on a number of wikis by the same IP just prior to them being banned from ruWP.

Evidence to presume the accounts are the same person
  • On Meta, the IP signs this as "Ashot"
  • [2][3]hy IP followed by hy user Ashot 12 mins later, and later by IP
  • On the deleted page s:User:Hayk, it says "Ashot-i hayrenasirakan account" (I cant make out what this is, but it appears to be talking about an account called "Ashot-i", which could be a wikimedia project account name)
  • On bg.WP IP requests a translation of en:Andranik_Ozanian into bg, and signs Andranikpasha. The IP returns days later and signs as Andranikpasha again.

After the Russian user was banned, the English Andranikpasha user was created and soon became subject to Arbcom. Recently the parole on English user has been lifted per no incivility. If the user is the same that was banned from another wikimedia project for breaking their rules, I think this should be known to avoid gaming the system by pretending to be a new user and receiving the benefit of the doubt all over again. The English user Andranikpasha has been constantly warned about poor sourcing, edit warring and stonewalling, but the user has also created new articles, so if it is the same user as was banned on the Russian sub-domain, the user appears to be reformed a little.

The IP contributions to enwiki are very similar to those of the English Andranikpasha. By following the interwiki links on the other sub-domains, it appears that those contribs by these IP ranges are also very similar, such as:

As I cant read the diffs, I am limited to concluding that this person using this IP range edits similar topics on en, bg, fr, de, hy, and ru subdomains, and those topics are the same that the the English Andranikpasha concentrates on; I presume the same POV will be found in those diffs. The contribs that are of a similar nature occur before and after the personal attacks on User:Hayk, so I think it is reasonable to assume that the IP contribs are all the same person. Should the 217.118.95.* contribs also be tied to the user Andranikpasha, then the users propensity towards user page vandalism, personal attacks and incivility is quite clear. John Vandenberg 07:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC), added simple:User:Andranikpasha and hy:User:Ashot, and separated attacks per target John Vandenberg 04:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC), added IP John Vandenberg 05:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC) correlated more diffs between en:Andranikpasha and hy:Ashot John Vandenberg 06:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC) added IP signing as Andranikpasha John Vandenberg 06:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC) added ro:Ashot John Vandenberg 09:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC) added fr:Ashot John Vandenberg 10:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I have run some checks on en:wp and I can make the results of my checks available to any steward or CU with a need to know, contact me offline. I'd prefer not to reveal results just yet till other facets of this investigation are carried forward. ++Lar: t/c 01:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Could you post your results on checkuser-l? I'm interested in them if it helps targetting blocks in fr:wp (the targetted user there has gotten *very* tired of these attacks). Manuel Menal 17:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I have also run some checks on fr:wp. While most of the edits have been made from anonymously, they have also used (at least) four accounts and two IPs that you have not mentioned. I can give them to any steward who asks, or here if you want (I believe this is covered by point 5 from checkuser privacy policy). I've also asked the user that our vandal targetted in fr:wp if they know about any other account/IP. Manuel Menal 16:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Following advice from stewards, I've posted the results on checkuser-l. Manuel Menal 17:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Following sharing of information between Manuel and myself, and running checks on all the mentioned wikis (which generated a lot of data) I think there is sufficient reason to broadly concur with John's suggested correlations. However some of the linkages are too old for CU data to directly confirm. Specifically, I feel that there is a strong technical correlation between the Andranikpasha ID on many wikis and 217.118.95.* (or, in addition to the behavioural correlation John has demonstrated. Although there are a few wikis where there are other contributions in this range, this is rare. At least one wiki (fr:wp) has range blocked this IP range already and it may be worth keeping an eye on other wikis as well. I will share this data with CU's or answer questions from admins, as appropriate. This was a fairly large set of wikis to check, it is possible that I have not checked everything I should have yet. Please advise of any questions or concerns. ++Lar: t/c 05:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

What action would you recommend on this user? -- 16:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I think you forgot to log in, perhaps, whoever you are? Much of this is relatively old and there are signs that the user is either trying to turn a new leaf, or at least restrain the most troublesome activity somewhat, although as can be seen on en, they are not willing to acknowledge they are the user, the evidence is compelling (as always, no CU indication is ever a guarantee, it's just a probability estimate). I'd block on behaviour as warranted. For many wikis there are no contributions other than this user in the entire range, but for some, there are, so having a local checkuser check, (or a local sysop can ask me for more detail, or both) before rangeblocking seems prudent. But if the behaviour recurs I'd block. I'm not sure at this point with the change in behaviour pattern (for the better) that a range block in advance is called for. ++Lar: t/c 20:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Malay (MS)

The following discussion is closed.

I would like to request block for ID creation if it belong to same IP user. The reason is that it is being used to vandal pages (persistanty). Keep creating new ID. Belived the IP was block earlier, but new ID creation was allowed.

Believed from Malaysian IP.

Believed from Indonesian IP.

All above user have been permanant block. However, they keep logging under improper name. Yosri 10:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

 Confirmed as highly likely same user. 2 more found: Suharto memperkosa Mahathir and Aku minah Indon, the IP is dynamic but a range could be blocked, please contact me if You want to do this, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 12:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Since it is dynamic, I guess we have to live with it for now. Thanks for your assistant. Yosri 13:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed.

Hi. I am here on behalf of all active users from Azerbaijani wikipedia . First I want to inform you that azeri wikipedia does not have user with access of check user. So we came to the decision to request you for checking the user Uannis and sysop Memty. Because we suspect that on the 18th of January, 2008 sysop Memty gave his username and password to the user Uannis for deleting pages in the category of speedy deletion during a day. But Uannis did not missed this opportunity and deleted more than 4000 articles and media files without showing any reason, blocked the user Kızılsungur. We discussed this issue in the community protal. Uannis denies all the blames, Memty does not want to write anything. So we will be pleased to meet you in azeri wikipedia and hope that you will solve this problem.

P.S. : By the way here are the signatures of users for check user request. "Çağıraq" means let us call the check user :). We only want you to check above mentioned users IP numbers, which were active on the 18th of January. If you check the contributions of both users you can see that Uannis was not active on that day. Because he used the username of Memty all day.

I have information that Uannis sometimes using ip from internet cafe. Not from home. So please be very attentive. Thanks in advance.

--Vusal1981 01:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Likely Likely Two IPs shared both accounts on January 17. That's all I could find. drini [es:] [commons:] 01:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

So it is an evidence that Memty gave his account to Uannis?

--Vusal1981 01:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

you have to ask them. All I can say is that there is an IP that used both accounts on the same day with 5 mnutes difference, and the same with other ip. drini [es:] [commons:] 01:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. But this user was very active on the 18th of January. You can Look at here : Memty


Why it is more important because he vandalised wikipedia during one day

--Vusal1981 01:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear stewards. After steward Drinis checking I put the results to the az wiki community portal. But sysop AMD does not want to block the user Uannis. Because they are friends. But I am again writing here on behalf of azeri wiki community. They all want Uannis to be blocked as a result of vandal activity on the 18th of January. AMD again and again does not listen to us and using his authority. Uannis also blocked the user Kizilsungur using the account of Memty. I think that you have to write to AMD as a steward. Because his does not listen to anybody in wikipedia. We do not have another active sysop to tell. Having look at this situation you can see that it is teh breach of unwritten rules. Sysop gave his account to the user. Of course it is not to be allowed. Thanks in advance.

--Vusal1981 12:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Japanese Wikiquote

The following discussion is closed.

Please check on q:ja:user:Kanji@ja.wikiquote. I suspect if it is a sockpuppet of recently banned from several Japanese projects due to trolling and impostering. From edit patterns, this account may have shared the same IP address with the recently blocked editors either anon or registered, and with b:ja:user:城南. Further details may be given on IRC per query. --Aphaia 04:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done, results are given to the checkuser-l-ml, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 11:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC),, Graeme Bartlett@en.wikipedia

Request for cross-wiki checkuser

I am an admin on Wikispecies and I am requesting someone to perform a cross-wiki checkuser. Everything you need to know (including the links and reasons) are on Wikispecies:Village Pump#Attention needed (possibility of sockpuppet). But I'll also write a quick summary here. I deleted an article due to improper formatting. 1 IP recreated the page and (on the talk page) asked me not to delete things. So this time I corrected the formatting and removed info that should not be found in WikiSpecies (info that should and should not be placed in WikiSpecies are determined by community consensus). Another, but different, IP came to my talk page and once again told me not to remove things. Coincidentally, that article's corresponding page on english wikipedia was created on the same day. Since in english wikipedia, you need to register before you can create an article, hence we are able to obtain the username that created this article on wikipedia. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any need of doing a checkuser here, could You explain if You disagree please, thanks, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 21:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Fishing CheckUser is not for fishing, detailed reason given here, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 00:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Iehbr@ukwikipedia, Jrz@ukwikipedia, Tv@ukwikipedia

These users made the same vandal edits. After blocking of the Iehbr, user Jrz was created. After blocking of him, tv was created. It may be block evasion.--Ahonc 16:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. Iehbr and Jrz are most certainly sockpuppets of one another. Tv seems to be completely unrelated to these (different computer profile and parts of the continent :); IPs not open proxies). --FiLiP ¤ 16:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Darky1@dewikinews, Alex10@dewikinews,

Hi, i'm not sure if checkuser use is indicated in this case. I tried to found some knowledgable person on IRC but was unsuccessful therefore i make the request anyway and let you decide.

What happened: The first account mentioned (Darky1) was created on dewikinews yesterday [45]. Shortly after a article [46] was began by the user which promotes a specific (commercial) software product. The article is therefore considered spam by some users. Later the IP mentioned ( "published" the article (by setting the published template) [47], this was shortly after revoked. In the evening the other account mentioned (Alex10) was created [48]. Only four minutes after creation this account republished the article [49] and only eight minutes after creation this account made a inflamatory statement (accusing us of censorcism) on the discussion page of the article [50]. This was the only real contribition (in addition to removing a marker and publication of the article) of this user as of now. I therefore suspect that Alex10 is only a sockpuppet of the article author Darky1 which was created only to "increase the apparent support for any given position" (quote from checkuser policy), which is said to be a violation of the policy. The IP also spoke in favor of the article on the discussion page and therefore i believe this is still the same user. -- Kju 14:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

 Confirmed I think CheckUser here just proves something that's quite obvious, judging by your description of the case. In fact, Darky1 and Alex10 are the same user and have accessed the site using the same network as the mentioned IP address. Maybe some would call this request superfluous, but I think it just gives closure to this whole matter. --FiLiP ¤ 16:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser requests of Korean Wikipedia

Unypoly was blocked infinitely, and 에멜무지로 was blocked until 6 Jul 2008. After, Noranori was blocked as 에멜무지로's sockpuppet infinitely. And now, Korean Wikipedian suspects 프록시마 to be Unypoly's sockpuppet, but 프록시마 claims that he/she is Noranori's sockpuppet and Noranori is not 에멜무지로's sockpuppet. Please make these clear. --Ficell 06:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Not possible. All users except ko:User:프록시마 have edited too long ago to be comparable. --Thogo (talk) 08:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
If so, could you check that ko:User:북극펭귄(was blocked as Unypoly's sockpuppet since 18 Feb 2008) and ko:User:프록시마 is same user, or not? --Ficell 08:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC) (fixed Ficell 08:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC))
I only see a 1-week block in the block log, and the block reason doesn't say anything about Unypoly. --Thogo (talk) 08:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
He claimed that he is not Unypoly, but there are consensus "he is unypoly" in Korean Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention/February 2008#Requests of block User:북극펭귄, Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention/February 2008#Requests of block User:Hyolee2 (2) and User:Hyolee2/abuse/long term/Unypoly. One-week block is just temporary block for to stop his trolling. --Ficell 08:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC) (fixed Ficell 08:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC))
Yes check.svg Done. It's possibly (maybe even likely) the same user, but I can't say it definitely. --Thogo (talk) 09:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

سخت اندیش @ fa.wikipedia

fa:User:سخت اندیش seems to be a sock. It is created just to swear to two of the users who believe in Bahai faith. I requested a CU on IRC, and User:Spacebirdy suggested this to be placed here first. Huji 16:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done, no more accounts found, the IP is an open proxy, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 16:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Huji 16:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
The open proxy You might want to block (or let the sysops know) is best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 16:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

سیمرغ کوچولو @ fa.wikipedia

fa:User:Ghods and fa:User:سیمرغ کوچولو. --Rooh23 20:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Reason? Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 20:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

fa:User:Ghods is fa:User:Taeedxy's sock, and fa:User:Taeedxy is already banned. and after that fa:User:سیمرغ کوچولو was more active with same contrib. and specially same edit summary. if fa:User:Ghods's ip and fa:User:سیمرغ کوچولو's ip are same we'll say fa:User:سیمرغ کوچولو and fa:User:Taeedxy are same. tnx. --Rooh23 20:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Fishing CheckUser is not for fishing Declined Declined, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 20:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
tnx. --Rooh23 04:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


There has been a vandal on Indonesian Wikipedia named id:user:Go fuck your mother!!!!. However I suspect that this user comes from Malaysia, is it possible to check whether there is someone on ms: Wikipedia who shares his IP address? Thanks! Meursault2004 17:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I just found out that this user also made some anti-semitic remarks and also some abusive remarks about users on Malay Wikipedia intended as unfunny juvenile joke. He placed this remark on the now deleted artikel id:Partai Nazi Malaysia
'''{{PAGENAME}}''' adalah sebuah partai yang didirikan oleh Whjayg. Partai ini didirikan demi membunuh semua [[Yahudi]] di [[Malaysia]]. Yahudi yang pertama ingin dibunuh adalah Edmundwoods.
Translation: '''{{PAGENAME}}''' is a party which has been set up by Whjayg. This party was erected in order to kill all Jews in Malaysia. The first that they want to kill is Edmundwoods. Meursault2004 15:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done, sorry, but there are local checkusers, please ask them to run the check, if it is a global issue, they can share the results with us on the ml, thanks, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 16:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I just saw, You wanted a checkuser on ms wikipedia, please can You come online in #wikimedia-checkuserconnect, since You are checkuser on id and we can compare the results easier, my nick on IRC is "spacebirdy", best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 16:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
unfortunately I don't have IRC. Meursault2004 16:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
It would be good, if You could find some java client or maybe chatzilla, to come online, if not please Special:Emailuser/Spacebirdy me Your results, I will then add it to the ml, thanks, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 16:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
(P.S. see #Malay (MS) to which this might also be related. --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 16:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC))
Yes check.svg Done, results sent to checkuser-l mailing list, further steps should be discussed, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 19:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, could you do a check on on ms.wikibooks please. I posted it here because of the similar content. Is it possible to check if there's any local user (on ms.wikibooks) who shares this address? Thanks. ...Aurora... 12:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I am tempted to decline, because I don't understand why You want to check this IP in ms.b, checkuser is not for fishing, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 12:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
If it's an isolated case, I wouldn't brought it here. But it seems that the same user is doing it again, 1 month after the above case. So I'm asking if it is the same user, please take appropriate action, otherwise, let it be (for now). ...Aurora... 15:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I am just wondering why wikibooks, the incident happened on wiktionary, maybe there is a reason, which is why I asked, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 15:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Oops sorry, my mistake. I do mean wiktionary, not wikibooks. ...Aurora... 15:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Completed Completed, I am dealing with the user in private, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 17:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. ...Aurora... 11:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Senang Hati (talk contribs deleted contribs logs block user block log CentralAuth AllContribs checkuser). This user was permanently blocked today for great vandalism. It should be a good idea to make a checkuser of this user that knows perfectly how to use mediawiki software. Can you check it in another wikipedia, too ?--Bertrand GRONDIN – Talk 11:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

For your information (& others) it was checked here at the time. I think that checks will be made on other wikis too as I posted a message on the CU list. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 11:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

All newer requests for outside Meta you will find on SRCU and its archives.