Steward requests/Checkuser/2010-03

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Vu's sockpuppet@vi.wikipedia

Evil machine translation: "Hello everyone, I want you to help me test users. These accounts is the personal attack in the wiki (creating spam posts on my personal) and external wiki (sent two letters to words not on facebook or-not know anyone personally on facebook is because no information on this). So I want you to check the user from which to discover the account or use of this. And especially you can help me check these accounts have been logged in Vietnam?" and "Can an account number or IP again that I do not know what name do I only see the items related counts after my name was removed so the BQV (sysop) not know the created. Thanks!" Kylu 03:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, how the results? --minhhuy*= 11:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
We'd appreciate a non-machine translation of the request, so that we have an insight into the reasons and rationale behind this request. Thanks --FiliP ██ 12:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Ai dịch cho họ hiểu rồi các thành viên có thẩm quyền cho kết quả đi.-- 11:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to briefly translate the massage of *khi người ta trẻ* as follows:
"Hello everybody. I would like you help me to check users. These accounts have had pesonal attacking actions to me. They created many articles on vi.wikipedia and sent me 2 e-mails to harass and smear me. I don’t know who they are because there‘s no information about them on facebook. I, therefore, would like you to check users. Thank you!" *khi người ta trẻ*.
I hope you can understand and help him.-- 17:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 Confirmed that w:vi:user:Lê Văn Mưa equals to w:vi:user:Vu's sockpuppet per IP, but Unlikely Unlikely for w:vi:user:Vũ Lê Văn due to a different IP.--Jusjih 03:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
An especially you can help me check these accounts have been logged in Vietnam? 04:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I can probably not answer you this due to our Privacy_policy#IP_and_other_technical_information.--Jusjih 00:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Diabo_e_Santo@pt.wikt (Portuguese wiktionary)

Here I am again asking for a checkuser of another set of possible sockpuppets of a very persistent vandal. He has been banned by the community, but he's back at his old game... I have already come here before and before that. This user is back haunting us with many different user names, so I would like to ask you to check these ones now:

As the community has banned this "Diabo_e_Santo", if any of these are found to belong to him, I'll block them for life as well.

Thanks for your help.

--ValJor 13:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

MoreInfo Additional information needed, some accounts just have one or two edits which do not look vandalizing to me. What's wrong with them? Why do you think that they are the banned user? Kind regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 16:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
It may not look like vandalizing yet but this user has shown in the past that he's very clever at avoiding detection; he would start a dozen (or more) sockpuppets at a time, contribute normally for a while and after getting them to 100 or so edits, he would start using them in votes and discussion forums to force his point of view (the other contributors would think that many different users were sharing a point of view, when in reality it was all one person only).
One of the users in the list above (Tico) was already blocked by one of the admins because he showed by one of his edits that it was the banned user.
This user has also shown total disrespect for the established order. User "Prior Jacinto", for instance, sent me (a sysop and bureaucrat) a message that was obviously intended to show that it was him (the banned user) writing. He knew that even if I blocked that one account, he would have others to play with.
Therefore, it's important to nip this in the bud. If any of the accounts above belong to this "Diabo_e_Santo", I would like to block him, so that he doesn't start another round of vandalisms.
Thank you for your understanding.
P.S.: how do the other WikiMedia projects handle persistent vandals like this? We keep blocking him and he keeps coming back. Is there no "final way" to treat such pestilences? If not, I'll have to keep coming back here month after month with lists of usernames to be checked...
--ValJor 22:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I still need this done. Can someone check this out, please?
--ValJor 19:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
How long will I be ignored? This is serious!
--ValJor 20:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 Confirmed: Tico, Prior Jacinto, Genius, Lwçipher, Uku and not mentioned above: Phillipe
Likely Likely: Leopoldina, Jácome Saavedra
Unlikely Unlikely: Chicona, M.CIRLENE: These seem to be part of another sock farm.
- Andre Engels 19:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much for these results. However, in the meantime he has accessed pt.wikt with other user names. Can you test the ones below as well? Thanks in advance!
And if they belong to open proxy IPs, can you block the entire range, so that he wouldn't be able to create new accounts from it?
--ValJor 15:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 Confirmed: Bango, Anonimógrafo, Mama Chicca, Palóio, Mathesis
Also moving the two likelies from last time to confirmed
Possible Possible: Sisifista; Sisifista is definitely the same user who later got blocked under the name "Jihad 1".
Further likely sockpuppets: Bango1, Espírito, Orlando Jesus, Omelas Bruges, Abaltazar
- Andre Engels 12:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much for all your help, it's really appreciated!
--ValJor 19:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


  • Comment Comment Format changed.-- 04:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done. Some accounts edited too long ago, so I could not check them. These accounts were: SsibalAlbamhandae, ConceptBot, and 알밤한대는씹새끼. There appears to be no user called "고구려는 중국의 역사입니다". I can confirm that RedMosQ, Would you mind shuting up your mouth? is a sockpuppet of Conceqt. Conceqt, Consept, and RedMosQ, Would you mind shuting up your mouth? all edited from the same IP address. There is another account I found, w:ko:User:Militaryman, who has the same user agent as the others and edited from the same IP. Over the IP range there are several other users who edited, but whether they are sockpuppets is inconclusive.

--Shanel 04:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for checking those users. All these problem accounts were blocked. However, you said that you couldn't find "고구려는 중국의 역사입니다", but this name was included the period mark(.), so ko:사용자:고구려는 중국의 역사입니다. is correct. Of course this account had been blocked, but I think we need to check this user, too. Endless Railroad 12:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


Can you please check for coincidence with another accounts in the bulgarian wikipedia. They was a long term Editwar in the article bg:Бургас since November and December last year.

I would also be grateful for having this request processed. Thank you in advance, User:Vammpi 13:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Your request header said en.wikipedia, I've taken the liberty of changing that to bg ... if not correct please advise. ++Lar: t/c 00:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes bulgarian (bg) wikipedia ist correct. User:Vammpi 10:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for interfering, but I do not deem this request eligible. I think that check for coincidence implies that the plaintiff has precisely indicated which are the other accounts, involved in a conflict, whom he suspects for being sockpuppets of user Lerin (IPs are not accounts, and IP does not seem to be an open proxy). His question should have been precisely formulated in a way that Yes/No answer be given, while the formulation "another accounts" along with being grammatically incorrect, is ambiguous. I would further note that the plaintiff has not provided solid reasons for requesting the check: stubbornness and involvement in edit war is not enough to classify as vandalism, per en:w:Wikipedia:Vandalism.
Vammpi is also inaccurate about the timing of the edit war: the article has been fully protected for the whole December, and during this time the talk page was well utilized for discussions. The case is not related to voting or manipulation of community consensus, actually very few usernames and IPs took part in the discussion, as can be seen from the talk page history. So, Vammpi should not have problems to point out precisely whom is he suspecting and why. Spiritia 15:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Declined Declined Sorry, This request would be a violation of the privacy policy --Shizhao 12:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


There is some serious concern in pt.wikt that one of our users is using socket puppets to vote. The main similarity of these accounts is the choice of only one 'theme' for their contributions as well as the fact that they reappear on dates close to vote on polls involving place names, the favorite subject of User Isaac Mansur (possible owner of the accounts). Here is a brief description of the contributions made through these accounts:

Please check them out and let me know if they belong to the same person. Thanks in advance.

--ValJor 18:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

 Confirmed, those are indeed controlled by one user. Also, I found another sockpuppet: Manoel-Rio. Cheers --FiliP ██ 10:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much for all your help, it's really appreciated!
--ValJor 19:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)



zh:User:Gzhao using the following IP to engage edit wars on zh:高句丽争议, zh:模板:朝鲜历史,zh:高句丽 and others.


Please block this user. Thanks. Eidrs 05:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Declined Declined,Checkuser not block, plese contact local admin --Shizhao 03:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


Their usernames are so similar that it's either one person or there's a case of impersonation of sorts. I don't think checkuser is needed here. --FiliP ██ 10:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
X mark.svg not needed--Nick1915 - all you want 09:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed.
The last times minhhuy*= mistake the users, not Kayani but Hiệp sĩ không đầu Dung005 10:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I've just added an user named Юрский who has similar behaviour like the two above: Copied raw translation from Google Translate without any further editing, violated copyrighted content from the paper among other sources, ignored warning from administrators and members. Besides, I suspect that this user also contributed through IP and after being blocked. Chubeo 18:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Please specify what the goal of doing the checkuser would be. What would you do differently if the checkuser came out positive or negative? - Andre Engels 12:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
At Vietnamese Wikipedia IPs 71.10... continues to contribute in the same manner as ༒ (et al., as I suspect) but when I propose to block these IPs and revert their edits (per continuously perturbed contribution by a blocked user), another IP opposes and argues that these IPs and the blocked user might not be the same, hence the contribution of these IPs must be checked one by one, which is very difficult since they are mass edit. Therefore I need a clear proof, in this case result of checkuser, to solidify my proposition of blocking and reverting. If the result is negative, then these IPs will have the chance to continue their "contribution" like I said above, which is very sad (in my opinion) for Vietnamese Wikipedia. Chubeo 13:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 Confirmed Other sock puppets: vi:User:Chu beo (an attempt to impersonate you?), vi:User:You never learn. Several ip addresses, but they seem to be consecutive, so I only mention the last one: vi:User: - Andre Engels 09:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Many thanks! About the "Chu beo", maybe this user wanted to provoke me, that's all, too bad it can't work like he/she hoped. Chubeo 10:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed.
Likely Likely Although rarely in the same range, Heng711 and Bubby both have dynamic ip addresses from the same internet provider as the other ips mentioned. Please do not block the ip addresses (at least not for more than 24 hours after the act). He has a new ip address every day, from a wide range, so it is unlikely to hit him, unless you close down the whole range, but that would include many people from Malaysia as collateral damage. - Andre Engels 08:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed.
Unrelated Unrelated --Shizhao 02:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed.
Please also check the nominator himself and the following users:

Reason: only contributions of all these four users are adding mainentance templates (like {{fact}} or {{nosources}}), creations of strange redirects, harrasment and personal attacks with strange edit summaries. Their first edits are very untypical for newbies Evidence:

Summary: it looks like all these four users are sockpuppets of some experienced user who decided to play with the rules. They all know project policies very good for newbies, their only contributions are vandalism and harassment — NickK 15:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

NickK, since my registration I was always sure about your capability of slanting real facts in favour of your own suspicions, that sometimes are completely groundless or even ridiculous.

Most of "evidence" presented by Nick is rooted just in his personal hostility and unwillingness to assume good faith in communications with newbies - yeah, I was amongst his "victims"... I personally perceive no real arguments for regarding me as a puppet - if you read up en:WP:OWN, possibly the idea that not all edits in others' articles (e.g. in articles created by others) are harassment will eventually cross your small mind and make you understand that half of your so-called "evidence" is refuted. Furthermore, I surmise Lffff to be a strawman-sockpuppet made by NickK or Ліонкінг - as Nick has admitted, all his contributions were useful and at once copied style of my actions. Other arguments make no sense whatsoever - Nick, learn to write less words and more proof. So, dear stewards, please sort the situation out in whole before running the check.

--Clyde700 20:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Declined Declined - In Clyde's request the naming seems obvious enough to not need further research. In NickK's case, I see insufficient evidence of abuse of sockpuppets. If their only contributions are indeed vandalism and harassment, then block those accounts for that reason rather than for sockpuppeting. - Andre Engels 22:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
The reason for abuse that after one account was blocked, some other accounts where created with same edit patterns. I thought that block evasion is enough for check. However, all these accounts successfully passed en:WP:DUCK and were blocked, so te check is not needed anyway — NickK 12:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The Animal Lover@species.wikipedia

The following discussion is closed.
Mostly  Confirmed. All on the whole I find 6 different ip addresses, from 3 different providers. All accounts found have already been blocked.
The following are from 3 different addresses within the range The Animal Lover, The Animal Lover 2, The Animal Lover 3, The Animal Lover 4, Lakevin, Fat Pauly, Lee Wang, My halfbred son, BillyGoat, Im a friend of The Animal Lover, The Animal Lover follower
From another isp, but sharing the Lakevin account above, I find: Lakevin, Loving The Animals, Making love to Animals, Talib10, The Animal Lover Recruiter, The Real Animal Lover
From another ip, but at the same isp as the second, I find: The Animal Man, The New Animal Lover, The Animal Lover is BACK, ZooSteel69, The Animal Lover 10: The final account, El amante de los animales 9, Billy The Goat, Revol Lamina Eht no.8, T.A.L. 7, The Animal Lover 666, The Animal Lover 5
That remains one address that I would consider Possible Possible rather than confirmed. On this address there are Sarcholio and AL11'sback
Good luck! - Andre Engels 08:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed.


The following request is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Likely Likely. Mzsabusayeed and Aroopinkadutta from same IP block.--Shizhao 12:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

abuse accounts at zhwikipedia

The following request is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Status:    Done

The following accounts recently are creating floods of new articles about Chinese boxing and Kung-fu that are copyright violation. Would you please perform a CU to see whether these accounts are related and find out other potential sleepers. Thanks.

Sincerely,--Wcam 13:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Everyone else Unlikely Unlikely -- Avi 15:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


The following request is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Possible Possible - Both uses same User agents since March and historical edits are in similar or same IP range. However, It is not from the exact same IP. --Jyothis 17:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


The accounts Nichetas, Lava, SMT, Anece20, 빨간색, 커피 두잔, 새벽4시, and CEO are  Confirmed -- @lestaty discuţie 13:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

My I.D. is Nichetas. 빨간색 is my little nephew and Anece 20 is my younger sister.

Let me explain the situation. Park 4223 is abusing his power to kick people out of Korean Wikipedia. Actually, (ko:file:토론 저기.jpg)is the evidence of trying to throw his weight around. He got that Vanstar after he brought a user into derision. As you know, Park 4223 is a manager, so he knows well about tools and all that stuff in Wikipedia.

The other day, in the article, the Battle of New Orleans, my sister wanted to interpret the words “British Empire”. But Park 4223 and his friends insisted to write just “British”, not “British Empire”. Of course, they hold a debate on the Battle of New Orleans with Anece20. During the debate, park 4223 wrote something stupid words on the discussion using special tools, so people could not see the words on the discussion that mean something like “Fuck you”. Anece20 told Park 4223 that he shouldn’t fool another user with that kind of tools. And because of this remark, they blocked out Anece20 for about two weeks. Right After blocking out Anece20, Park 4223 fooled Anece20 on his user page with his friends and got the Vanstar from one of his supporters who were my sister’s opponent in a debate.(ko:위키백과:의견 요청/Park4223) – This tool even can’t quote as the text, that is why I saved as the picture.

The situation I just described happened again to another user a few days ago. And my sister found it out. My sister could not let them keep doing it. So she wrote about the story on a community portal, and the manager, Park 4223 got fucked off.

Park 4223 is trying to kick my sister out of Wikipeida again.

There might be more people involved with these problems. But they just don’t know what to do and how to do like me. If they say something like my sister, Park 4223 and his friends will kick them out with stupid reasons. Sooner they know that the person is not the super left wing politics, they start hazing them. And my sister is not a super left wing politics, of course they are hazing my sister. My sister loves to edit a valuable article in Wikipedia. But, whenever she edited, park 4223 or his friends came out and mess up her articles with childish reasons.

Yes, that is true. My younger sister might make several I.D. She just avoids them with making another I.D., because she didn’t know what to do, except for avoiding.

Korean wikipedia’s situation is a little bit special, because we are the country divided in two. And actually North Korean can use Korean Wikipedia as well. Korean left wing-politics are not similar with that of any other countries at all. And most of Korean wikipedia’s managers are hazing normal Korean users, whenever they find out the user have something attractive about the president of South Korea. Guess what?

Now the most of Koreans who had edited are leaving Wikipeida because of this problem.

I have nothing to say, even though you block out all those I.D. But I just wanted to let anybody know about Korean wikipeida’s situations. Thanks.

Nichetas 18:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello Nichetas, I understand the situation about the division in the country, but like a steward I cannot do an interference in decisions of the kowiki. Above, the user Park4223 presented a request and I answered, revealing the connection with the counts. The decision about the future of the accounts will be done by the local community, not by me. If the kowiki is having problems, and admins make a abuse with your sysop tools, metawiki gives the possibility for you open a request for comment here, and the community and stewards will try to help. Regards -- @lestaty discuţie 23:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Those are lies. He had not been blocked while he had made a lot of arguments and often distorted facts with nonsenses. He's tryin to pretend to seem to be poor. He looks like he's worry about it, but he's just liar. --NuvieK 23:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Sir Lestaty de Lioncourt for reading my long story and letting me know what to do. Sir Lestaty de Lioncourt, you can see the user above, Nuviek. And you can see the I.D. Nuviek on the picture (ko:file:토론 저기.jpg), as well. Yes, Nuviek is the user. Nuviek is one of the opponents against my sister and one of Park 4223's supporters. Nichetas 00:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Your the opponents against me and a lot of good users. Why are you alone? The reason is that you're wrong. Park4223 didn't say like "Fuxx You". That means exactly "Move this to 'special page'". Please don't be liar and come to kowiki. Meta-Wiki can't solve this problem that you're lying.--NuvieK 00:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Please stop, this page is for request of checkuser information, not for discuss local issues. I have mentioned and indicate the page "request for comments", if the local issues are not possible to solve locally. Please solve the problem locally, for last solution see this page. ---- @lestaty discuţie 01:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Supergabbyshoe@ceb, bcl, cbk-zam, tl, pam, pag, ilo

I would also like to add that she uses the entire range, as I have noticed many of these different IPs as I've been helping sort them out. Several of these IPs get globally blocked for 24 hours, even though I knew that the problem was on a much bigger scale than that. Users on the bcl.wikipedia and cbk.zam wikipedia have also been hit by this same user. See their deletion log on the bcl Wikipedia here for more. I have also added other ranges in which she has used on the bcl Wikipedia and cbk-zam Wikipedia. Here is where you can find the vandalism this user did on the cbk-zam Wikpiedia. Here you can find vandalism on the tl Wikipedia. Razorflame 01:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I would also to add the same vandal that uses the range also uses the range. The vandal has a very striking pattern in vandalizing articles: All IPs on this range at least edited the Studio 23 article, renaming it BBC-23, edits the DWJM-FM or the Raven Broadcasting Corporation articles and adding hoax TV affiliates on both articles (the latter is a radio network in the Philippines), and the most striking pattern, he adds hoax information on the Us Girls article (i.e.: adding hoax versions like "Us Girls Kids Edition", "Mga Kwentong Ng Buhay Sa Us Girls"), changing the first air date from 2006 to 1975, and edits celebrities he listed on the Us Girls article making it look like they became part of the show. Usual names that he will add always contains Angelique Lazo, Pilita Corrales, Edu Manzano, and Bert Marcelo. Because of this editing pattern, I dubbed this vandal as "Us Girls fanboy".
If he gets blocked in English Wiki, he will transfer to other Philippine Wikis, most especially the Tagalog, Cebuano, Chavacano-Zamboanga and Bicolano Wikis, editing and adding the same articles as mentioned above.
I've been following this vandal for more than a year and since he uses IPs to edit in various Wikis, he easily evades any block imposed to him. I will really appreciate it if we can find a way to stop this vandal once and for all. Thanks. -WayKurat 12:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
What would be the purpose of the Checkuser? What I read above sounds more like a report of a vandal/troll to watch out for than like a request for Checkuser information. - Andre Engels 14:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
This is so we could confirm that they are sockpuppets of one another, so we could block Supergabbyshoe and his reincarnations. --Pare Mo 01:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I am still not convinced. You seem to already know that they're sockpuppets, so why check? Also, the behaviour seems to be such that you can block them for that whether they are sockpuppets or not. With my apologies for being so slow in answering. - Andre Engels 21:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I concur with Andre. If behavioral evidence is clear, then the check is unnecessary unless there is a true fear of hidden sockpuppets. -- Avi 01:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Diabo_e_Santo@pt.wikt (Portuguese wiktionary)

Status:    Done

Here I am, once again asking for a checkuser on this vandal. I have already come here in January 2010, October 2009 and August 2009. This time I would like to ask you to check these accounts:

Thanks once again.

--ValJor 20:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello Valjor, I look for the contribs for these users and I dont see inappropriate edits, whats the real motive for this checkuser? ---- @lestaty discuţie 20:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 Confirmed Orfanfilia, Soduku, Jackpocket, Zozé, A._Cóito and Bobby are the same person. ---- @lestaty discuţie 00:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much for everything! Much appreciated!
--ValJor 01:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Robicub@fr.wikiversity, Robicub@fr.wikibooks,, Giratina@fr.wikinews

Are you allowed to see if another sockpuppet exists ? If not, no problem.--Bertrand GRONDIN – Talk 18:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

 Confirmed: Robicub == Giratina
No other accounts found. User:Robicub globally locked.
— Dferg (talk) 19:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Bút Chiến@vi.wikipedia

The following request is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  • Can you please explain why this is not fishing? -- Avi 06:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
We are very suspicious and very need this information, please answer "yes" or "no" --minhhuy*= 09:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The first account you list does not exist; do you mean what appears to be the role account of w:vi:Thành viên:Lớp 12B - Trường PTTH Gio Linh? Shouldn't that be forbidden anyway? -- Avi 14:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

-- Avi 15:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much Avia, if words do not in the process of "check" would forgive you, good luck --minhhuy*= 10:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


The following request is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Symbol wait.svg Doing... ---- @lestaty discuţie 20:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 Confirmed All accounts are the same person, after a review all data, I strongly recommend a request for global block. Regards --- @lestaty discuţie 03:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


The following request is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  • Confirmed. Wutsje 13:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Tanks. :) Tanvir 14:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


The following request is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    • What kind of political propoganda; what about the edits makes you think this would be the same person? In other words, why is this not fishing (Fishing CheckUser is not for fishing)? -- Avi 16:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Political propoganda is Communist Party of Wikipedia.All three user and Mzsabusayeed maybe same user.Jayantanth 16:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
If you want to sure about the propaganda, you may take a look to Nilabjo's user page. There is a communist flag on his page, as well as a picture of a famous Indian communist. He also noted in his user page that, he will use bnwiki to continue political propaganda for his party. Besides, Nilbjo is pronounced exactly as নীলাব্জ in Bengali. That is why we think he is a sock puppet. BTW, how does it looks like fishing? I see no reason to be one. Tanvir 16:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Disregarding the topics covered by the user, there are obvious signs of trolling. The banned user Pravata's edit pattern matches these other users. Pravata was banned for repeated disruptive and hoax edits (e.g. claiming to form "Wikipedia's communist party" to fight against admin tyranny and spamming other users' talk pages). Also, several of the listed accounts are tag-teaming in various talk pages and articles. --Ragib 17:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. :) Tanvir 18:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)