Steward requests/Checkuser/2011-06

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Warning! Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in June 2011, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion.



The following request is closed: done
All of them are  Confirmed to be luke7956. Ruslik 11:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. But may I ask for one more suspicious user? see below--Zhxy 519 15:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Any one doing? Don't ignore this request please.--Jsjsjs1111 05:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
     Confirmed Ruslik 09:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
    Thanks a lot!--Jsjsjs1111 09:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm really sorry that it might become a bit annoying, but there comes a new user:
  •  Confirmed Matanya 06:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Plese again CU there users and more other socks:

--Shizhao 08:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Unlikely Unlikely
I found two other socks of Peterlee9803/luke7956
Yije1020, 35120any
Ruslik 09:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
thx--Shizhao 12:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
  • There comes two more users:

--Jsjsjs1111 05:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

 Confirmed. Also see Oloeppe. Ruslik 08:58, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much. It helps a lot.-TW-mmm333k 16:45, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
  • One more again...

--Jsjsjs1111 14:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

 Confirmed. Also see
Ruslik 14:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

-- Sameboat 02:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

 Confirmed Ruslik 07:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

-- Sameboat (talk) 06:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Likely Likely Matanya 06:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
There is another sock - At7002. At the previous request I said 'inconclusive', but now I am pretty certain about this account. Ruslik 07:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Luke's trolling in village pump really flooding the page and disrupting other users to discuss more important topic. Is there any thing we could try to stop this? I've tried to persuade the other users to not feed the troll but failed since there's no policy prohibiting trolling and troll-feeding. -- Sameboat (talk) 15:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Please stop your tricking.Codename Protector 16:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Theoretically you can apply range blocks, but they may affect other users. Ruslik 18:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Desist, please, Codename Protector. Only you are supporting his vandalism, yet you called it "democracy". It is YOU who is tricking. If any stewards doubt what Sameboat and I say here, then you may see zh:WP:VPM(Village Pump), where 1/2 are now littered with Luke7956 and Codename Protector's words. It is really annoying and this prevents other users from discussing normal issues.--Jsjsjs1111 18:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Village Pump is a place to publish comments. I don't think dissenting view is a "vandalism" even I do not agree Luke's comment indeed. I also do not know and do not care about which comment is composed by Luke7956 and I think the most important thing is the comment should be full and fair. Codename Protector 00:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Plese again CU there users:

mybe socks of luke7956, so plese reCU At7002, Speakwhite email me said, he is luke7956, but At7002 and not his socks--Shizhao 08:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't get it. Why CU Wasami007? -- Sameboat (talk) 08:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
To Shizhao: Don't be confused by the new user Speakwhite, who has amended his zhwp User_talk page to link to different users at different times. --Mewaqua 11:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Speakwhite is  Confirmed. Wasami007 is Unlikely Unlikely. Now a long list of socks (majority are already blocked):
Protein wong
No same boat
I suggest hard blocking of and ranges. There are few others users on them. Ruslik 12:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Any one doing? Don't ignore Mr.Sameboat request please carefully.Speakwhite 11:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
fixed ----Shizhao 12:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Denial Request

Fishing CheckUser is not for fishing: Would you please deny any CU request for the usernames may related to the user above? The usernames or IPs didn't do any violences but only join the discussion in zh.wikipedia with polite words but only treated unfairly by old users union who do not like him/her. These persecutions forced a honest user to register new username unceasingly in order to speak and it's a awful occurrence for wikipedia. Such discussion, which is in good faith, should not be investigated or intervened. In additional privacy reasons should also be considered carefully. Therefore, I hereby request to deny any CU requests for the username may related to the user above unless real violences occurs. Thank you. Codename Protector 14:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, but may I ask, how did you come cross "Polite words" this term? Can you tell me how "polite" was his personal attack, like calling other user "白痴" (which means "idiot" in chinese)? Or you are just ignoring this? Moreover, his behavior of denying himself as a sockpuppet user also violates "Reviving old unused accounts and presenting them as different users" in en:WP:SOCK. If this is what a "honest user" should do, well, then I have nothing to say.--Jsjsjs1111 09:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
The suggestions he/she expressed is very valuable and positive, it is much more important than the wording. Alternatively, most comments of him/her in the discussion was very polite.
By the way, as your standard, I do not think the words you expressed such as "You are a child", "I am much more mature than you", etc. is not a violence, Jsjsjs1111. Codename Protector 14:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
You were garbling my "standard", as "idiot" is totally different from words like "child". And, the reason why I said that was because he's calling me a "child" first, yet he's obviously younger than me. Well, unsurprisingly, you were ignoring these again. It's really amusing, isn't it? If you really think I was violating then please go to zh:WP:VIP, not here. Anyway, even if I did attack Mr. Luke, did that mean that Luke shouldn't be block because of this? And you still haven't told us how "valuable and positive" his coarse language is. That reminds of “王顾左右而言他” in Chinese.--Jsjsjs1111 07:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Such sock puppets already violated the policies on sock puppets; therefore, they must be banned. This user Luke made countless sock puppets and he or she has tried to redirect the discussions on Chinese Wikipedia village pump using such puppets. The whole community's energy and time have been wasted answering these useless "suggestions," which were pure trouble-making nonsense. He and his sock puppets also attacked the rest of Chinese Wikipedians by implicit sarcasms and explicit rude languages. What earned him the ban is NOT because sysops are censoring, BUT because of his intolerable behavior of abusing sock-puppets. May I also remind you, Codename Protector, if you feel any injustice, please reply to the discussions at w:zh:wp:互助客栈/其他#對Luke7956,Peterlee9803等用戶名之封禁提出異議 that you started. I do not know how long you can cling to your stubborn viewpoints. This is not the place to make your protests. --Leejoe Schar 17:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Codename Protector prefers calling trolling as "valuable suggestion". Such euphemism is trolling as well. -- Sameboat 23:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


The following request is closed.
Due to misuse no anonymous requests for ptwiki are being accepted. Also CU has been being used as a weapon on ptwiki and that will need to end. Sorry! fr33kman 15:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I did not sorry.I´m not use the checks as weapons, but to help prove whether that's the other one.-- 18:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


The following request is closed.

Fishing CheckUser is not for fishing We don't link IPs and aren't accepting anonymous requests. The username doesn't even have any edits. If these types of requests continue to come from ptwiki, we may need to talk about not doing pt requests. fr33kman 15:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Fwiw, the IP obviously meant Bruno corinthiano (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · SULinfo · guc · checkuser). Agree with the rest of your points, though. Jafeluv 15:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Very cool.Agora much more I can not get a check here?? Explain to me the guys are reasons.-- 18:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


The following request is closed: done
-- Avi 20:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Silencio faz bem@pt.wikipedia

 Confirmed, no obvious sleepers. -- Avi 04:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 Confirmed, IP blocked IP blocked, -- Avi 04:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

北山樵, NIUREN2, 懂事了, Konglong, 萝卜青菜, 抓咯先生@zh.wikipedia

Reason for CU is not valid. --Millosh 08:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Or I should said, they vote support for the Wiki Honor vote for 68g but they are less-active users. --Waihorace 08:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 Confirmed All from the same IP address. --Millosh 08:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Additional Requests

  1. Just for knowing are they nominating his/herself, please check 68g(Nominee) and 抓咯先生(Voter) are their sockpuppets or not. Thank you so much for Millosh's help. --Waihorace 08:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
     Confirmed 68g is valid user, 抓咯先生 is sockpuppet. --Millosh 08:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
    Note: 68g is valid user with sockpuppets. --Millosh 08:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
  2. Can you list all the other sockpuppets and let local sysop to block them? --Waihorace 08:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Full list of sockpuppets is:

Inconclusive, but should be checked behaviorally: w:zh:User:Xue815. --Millosh 08:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Padre Pedro@pt.wikipedia

Declined Declined; we cannot link IPs to users per the privacy policy. If the IP/users are being disruptive, please have them blocked. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 19:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Ícaro Belmiro Lima de Sousa@pt.wikipedia

I do not understand... how's that a reason for CheckUser? Anyway  It looks like a duck to me
-- Dferg ☎ talk 15:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
These accounts have been misusing user and user talk pages, in disagreement with the policy of user pages. Francisco 15:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
But I still do not see the point in checking them. It's obvious they're sockpuppets. If they're going against policy: block them. I see no need to run a check here. Sorry, -- Dferg ☎ talk 19:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


As I said earlier, he's all over the spectrum. I've done a few checks on ranges and nothing new has been found. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh my God!--Dinho 19:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
He is also attacking the English Wikipedia. A local checkuser investigation has been complete under my request at w:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Diogomauricio3/Archive, that came to the same conclusion as PeterSymonds. The latest sock is w:User:EL904 which I have already blocked, but is in use on the Portuguese Wikipedia. I don't speak Portuguese, and previous attempts by me to make contact with admins over there has failed, so I cannot really deal with it. CT Cooper · talk 20:26, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Dude, I have spoken to a sysop of wiki-pt that is registered here.He that he blocked the Eltonazul of Davidsbarros.Se have any further information, let me know that I transmit to he.I investigate the case and see if he was a known.-- 21:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Someone puts the name EL blacklisted, please? Thus warned against EL family.-- 21:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't want to add a username to the blacklist unless I really know what I'm doing, due to the massive potential for collateral damage. The other problem with this is that if you add his username to the blacklist on both the English and Portuguese Wikpedias, he will just create his username on another project (I believe there is a global blacklist as well somewhere?). Furthermore, every time a username is blacklisted he will just create an account under a new name. CT Cooper · talk 17:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Санюн Вадик@mhr.wikipedia

Sorry, we must've conflicted, but here are the results:


  • Valerik
  • Nata
  • Cseremisz Elian
  • Санюн Вадик
  • ПешОсал
  • Maikl20021
  • Lifeway
  • Игорь Таныгин

--PeterSymonds (talk) 18:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I second this result, but there are two more socks:

  • Валерик
  • Эсметр
Ruslik 18:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you guys--ПешСай 20:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 Confirmed: The above request might also prove interesting. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for checking.--ПешСай 20:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 Confirmed all. IPs are already blocked. No new accounts (i.e. they're all blocked). PeterSymonds (talk) 18:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Please, check also Eltonamarelo, that edited "Camelô" with the same content that an edit made by Eltonazul. All accounts are blocked, but I need this confirmation to reset the block of Davidsbarros, the master account. Thanks.” Teles (Talk @ C S) 20:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

 Confirmed; also pt:User:Eltonverde. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


I see some comments there by OBrigada, nothing by Diaoha. Please specify more clearly:
  1. Why do you think these two might be the same, and (more importantly):
  2. Why would it be a problem if these two are the same?
- Andre Engels 05:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
This person (diaoha) is quite an aggressive user, his tactics of such actions. He did not block the Georgian Wikipedia, the administrator because several of his friends. I'm trying to create the post of Checkuser. User verification are strongly against because they want their actions to remain secret. Sorry for bad English. Thanks. --Jaba1977 20:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Unrelated Unrelated--Shizhao 07:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


Likely Likely. See also Emperor321. Ruslik 18:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 Confirmed that all above accounts are the same person. See also RaviWong and QF29. Ruslik 12:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks a lot--Kegns 18:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Danny Adam@pt.wikipedia

The following request is closed: done
 Confirmed fr33kman 23:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Oops!The user David Mathicheus was created 5 minutes after the original account to take "another" notice in your talk page.Thanks,--Mamonas Assasinas 23:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
I suggest you ask a ptwiki admin to deal with it. Personally, I find it interesting that your only edits anywhere are to ask for CUs on a project that "you" haven't edited on ;) fr33kman 23:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


The following request is closed: done
Translation: Hi, I'm T.A Shirakawa, a sysop from Chinese Wikipedia. I request to check these proxy IPs whether they are controlled by Πrate or not. These IPs vandalized specific articles in zhwiki recently, and I suspect it was the user whom attacking Wikipedia for getting revenge on somebody. Please help check him and these IPs, thank you. (translated by PhiLiP)
Unlikely Unlikelyfr33kman 15:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


  •  Confirmed:
    • Sykernouborg-az
    • EL983
    • EL9832
    • EL9835
    • EL9836
    • EL900
    • EL902
  • Possible Possible:
    • Margaridabraga
    • Alvaro Azevedo Moura

Alvaro Azevedo Moura looks fairly established on ptwiki. However, technical evidence suggests a rather bizarre overlap of IP ranges. At some points the two users share IPs only digits apart. Edits with a similar IP range to the vandal occur hours apart. I would urge you to reserve judgement here, but at the same time, it may be worth pursuing the evidence with this user directly.

  • Stale Stale:
    • Diogomauricio3

--PeterSymonds (talk) 01:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


Why is a checkuser needed if they're already blocked? -- Mentifisto 14:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
If many users are related (Tio Chiquinho, Criador de artigos, Leandrinho777, Soli Deo Gloria do Yahoo ... ...) with these destructive editions (wich have to be locally supressed due the sexually explicit content), may be have more users waiting to continue this "saga" adding sexually explicit images in religious articles like this. Thank you. Leandro Martinez msg 15:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done, vandalism check to prevent continued abuse.  Confirmed that both users are the same and, also of interest blocked accounts:
are him. Regards,
-- Dferg ☎ talk 16:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Bruno Meireles@pt.wikipedia

-- Dferg ☎ talk 16:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


Unlikely Unlikely The data shows them to be unrelated except by some edits. fr33kman 22:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
These accounts were earlier checked on Commons. See commons:Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/CriciumaSC. Jafeluv 23:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I saw that and wondered to even do it as it seemed DUCKish and confirmed, and then I thought, no I'll do it. But the technical data in ptwiki's data (UA's/XFF) etcetera doesn't support that they are related. Feel free to recheck it. :) fr33kman 00:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


There's recently a hot debate regarding our sysop, user:Shizhao's adminship recall (c.f. Requests for comment/Oppression in zh wikipedia). According to our local recall policy, user must at least meet the auto-confirm level in order to start the recall procedure and vote. These accounts are recently making massive extremely meaningless edits like removing a punctuation then self-reverted which I suspect their purpose is to meet the voting threshold. Naruto239377 has started a new recall which is simply by copying the reasons of the failed recall of last week. Judging from the behaviors I also suspect that they're related to user:Luke7956 who was blocked indefinitely for creating massive disruptive sockpuppet. -- Sameboat (talk) 16:36, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Unrelated Unrelated fr33kman 16:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

-- Ilikehongkong 17:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

  •  Confirmed:
    • Wenreform
    • Ilikehongkong
    • Ariorgzh
    • Ywmanand
    • Jackwongnsyu
    • Onlygyrotw
    • Tratra22395768
    • Yanling guan
    • 賴昱宇
  • Likely Likely:
    • Tratra22395768
  • IP blocked IP blocked.

--PeterSymonds (talk) 18:36, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Zxj boy@zh.wikipedia

 Confirmed. See also: 噴出牛奶, 風鬟雨鬓, Difi416. Ruslik 17:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
thanks a lot--Zhxy 519 17:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


This is related to a CU request that I did last month. This vandal keeps coming back with many different user names. In the past few days I have already identified and blocked the following users:

Now these three new users listed above have come and done what may seem inocuous changes, but they have his "style", so I'm almost sure it's him. I need CU confirmation to block them as well.

Also, if you could check other recent new users, it would be great, because this vandal is known to keep dozens of sleeper accounts.

If you identify that any of these users come from open proxies, please give me the ranges, so that I can block them locally.

Thanks once again for your help.

--ValJor 10:41, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

This user has many different IPs. Nevertheless I can confirm that
  • Cabo Henrique
  • Yucazai
  • Marina do Carmo
  • Fernando Nonemberg
are the same person.

The other  Confirmed group is

  • Mariano de Matos
  • Cpls não seja bobão
  • Liberdade sim, anarquia não!
  • Kagon
These two groups as well as Menesez, Manuel dos Santos, Ricardo S., Daniel Azevedo, Sem geito mesmo and Jorge es un Coitado are Likely Likely to be related to each other. Ruslik 12:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much for that. Now I have a new batch to be checked:
The first one is most certainly him (on his first modification he insulted the admins), the second one is probably him, the other three may be innocent bystanders, but I don't want to take a chance, so I would like to ask you to check them all. Thanks.
--ValJor 10:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Others looks Unrelated Unrelated from a technical standpoint.
Regards, -- Dferg ☎ talk 19:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Another one for you to check: Cavaquinho.
I "know" it's him, I just need CU confirmation to block him. Thanks.
--ValJor 12:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Not needed anymore, already done via IRC. Thanks.
--ValJor 13:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Here is today's list to be checked:
--ValJor 16:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Anybody home?
--ValJor 15:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Unrelated Unrelated from the technical point of view. Ruslik 12:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
I would like you to also check these users:
Striker talk 00:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Unrelated Unrelated from a technical point of view; each have different IP ranges. However, Murilocaixeta may be a possible sleeper account (that is just for information; it is not confirmed). PeterSymonds (talk) 21:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Please check Cavacum. Thanks.
--ValJor 22:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Technically Unrelated Unrelated to other accounts listed above; no other accounts on the IP. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
And now, please check these three:
--ValJor 09:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Confirmed technical relationship between the accounts «O bom contraventor», «Bebê de Algodão» and «Cavacum». No other accounts found and didn't checked «Fatima.aee» because I see no grounds nowadays from doing so. Regards, -- Dferg ☎ talk 03:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


Unnecessary Unnecessary It looks like a duck to me. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not duck.--Mamonas Assasinas 23:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
That means it seems obvious enough to be a sockpuppet --Bencmq 15:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


Yes check.svg Done Checks back to the known facts for the lta. Account locked. --Jyothis 00:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Isabella Penatti@pt.wikipedia

 Confirmed--Shizhao 14:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


ValJor asked above to confirm relation between LaRose and another user in order to confirm it's our long-term banned user D&S. But none of the two accounts was proven to be him, so an unconfirmed CU doesn't mean LaRose is not him, as the other account is possibly an innocent user. Therefore, I would like to request checking LaRose against one of the two recent accounts of his: Bebê de Algodão and Cavacum. These two were already confirmed to be related in the previous request. Thanks, Malafaya 14:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Unrelated Unrelated. Matanya 14:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Matanya. Malafaya 14:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


Obvious enough for me that don't warrant a check.
-- Dferg ☎ talk 14:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
More Exactly.Never answer my checks.You only denies and says that IPs can not be verified, which have been forbidden to answer my checks.--Mamonas Assasinas 15:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not denying your checks. I'm denying the checks that are unnecesary as relationship can be stablished without using this tool. pt:WP:PATO may give you some answers. Best, -- Dferg ☎ talk 15:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


As above and already blocked locally as such. Not done.
-- Dferg ☎ talk 14:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


Comment Comment:Can I make a comment here? I think the title should be "Coekon@zh.wikipedia", because the IP user wants to check me and Codename Amnesty. What does edouardlicn mean in this title??--Coekon 12:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Comment Comment:fixed-- 13:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Declined Declined, no reason given. Fishing CheckUser is not for fishing. Matanya 14:01, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


Please provide a list of other accounts created with the same IP adresses. Thanks by advance. -- Quentinv57 (talk) 10:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Just a guess, but couldn't it be this guy? Trijnstel 10:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't know. In fact you're true, it can be this guy too. Let's see the CU Result. -- Quentinv57 (talk) 10:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Those six are  Confirmed, no additional accounts found. Regulus is unrelated from a CU point of view. Jafeluv 10:49, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Okay, thank you again -- Quentinv57 (talk) 12:37, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

A. Stein@pt.wikipedia

Symbol wait.svg Doing... fr33kman 04:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 Confirmed and also ...
pt:User:Paulo M. Pinto
pt:User:Mendes Pinto (previously blocked)
I've tried to find a range block but this user is all over the place regarding IPs.
All edits are made from Portugal based IPs fr33kman 04:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Mendes Pinto (talk • contribs • block • SULinfo • x-wiki • recent edits • CA) it's the "main account", right? Thanks. Leandro Martinez msg 07:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Comment Comment Yes, Mendes Pinto is the main account. fr33kman 17:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


Unrelated Unrelated fr33kman 05:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


Comment Comment Tigris is apparently simply the old username of Žaibas. Could you please explain briefly what makes you suspect these users are related? Thanks, Jafeluv 14:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Tigris/Žaibas was supporting controversial changes by Vpovilaitis, which were not agreed with the community and raised criticism towards Vpovilaitis. Tigris/Žaibas comments immediately after creation of this accounts were very informed in favor to Vpovilaitis. Timing of comments and votings is very close. Style and wording of comments is very similar. After asked about it Vpovilaitis just told that he is not going to answer to these allegations and declared that is in "wiki-vacations". These things are thoroughly described in the discussion link.--dirgela 17:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 Confirmed Ruslik 18:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Joémerson Maia@pt.wikipedia

 Confirmed Matanya 17:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)