|Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in September 2011, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion.|
- 1 Requests
- 1.1 Wan19960908,Pangboys,Yoyotiktik@zh.wikipedia
- 1.2 Purodha@ksh.wikipedia
- 1.3 Sockpuppets@pt.wiki
- 1.4 Otherguylb@ka.wikipedia
- 1.5 Spammers@mediawiki
- 1.6 Texugoemail@example.com
- 1.7 Juniorpetjua@pt.wikipedia
- 1.8 D&S@pt.wikt
- 1.9 Tenage Stupid firstname.lastname@example.org
- 1.10 是魅力一族@zh.wikipedia
- 1.11 Biahh Peresh@pt.wikipedia
- 1.12 비엠미니@ko.project
- 1.13 Sockpuppets@bar.wiki
- 1.14 Spamming (car insurances and casinos) on several small wiki's
- 1.15 Gargamely@pt.wikipedia
- 1.16 Regulus@fr.wiktionary
- 1.17 Spam on en.wikiversity
- 1.18 Holy Fortune@pt.wikipedia
- 1.19 Asfsagewgaw@zh.wikipeia
- 1.20 fa.wikipedia
- 1.21 비엠미니@ko.project
- 1.22 Santa Gertrudes@pt.wikipedia
- 1.23 배부른산@ko.wikipedia
- 1.24 Wchee@zh.wikipedia
- 1.25 මීමා@si.wikipedia
- 1.26 AmyLee221@zh.wikipedia
- 1.27 Ricardo email@example.com
- 1.28 Crítico@pt.wikipedia
- 1.29 Carleytse@zh.wikipedia
- 1.30 CARLOS ALBERTO LAURINDO@pt.wikipedia
- Wan19960908, Yoyotiktik are Likely to be KellyMok/Natalie330/etc.
- There is the second group of socks:
- They are Confirmed to be the same user, but from the CU point of view they are Unrelated to KellyMok/Natalie330/etc. Ruslik 15:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- Miss van der Roehe has been a supporter of Purodha over the last years. This account has been blocked for one year because of repetitive vandalism and personal attacks.
- Zapper Anton is an account that has rarely been used except for voting in sysop votes and desysop votes in 2007 and 2011. This account has been blocked for two weeks because of vandalism and personal attacks. After the vote against Purodha this user has requested desysoping votes against all other admins on kshwiki (see here - edit has been hidden - and here). It seems that this request for desysoping another admin without any regular vote on kshwiki has also been submitted by Zapper Anton.
- Sabine voted for Purodha and supported Zapper Anton's desysoping votes against all other admins.
- Köbes is an account that has also been rarely used before the desysop vote against Purodha. He voted for Purodha and has done some edits since then. Perhaps this is a sockpuppet of Purodha that has been reactivated.
- Männevdr is a new account, that has been created a short time after Purodha has been desysoped. This account uses the same unusual writing system as Purodha, e. g. "Shtöck" instead of more common "Stöck".
- Satansbroode is a new account with just one edit on talk page of the vote against Purodha. He tried to vote himself but couldn't because the page was protected so that no IP's and no new users could edit it.
--Holder 12:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- Satansbroode - Unrelated.
- Purodha and Zapper Anton are Confirmed to be the same user.
- Miss van der Roehe, Männevdr and BischofMixa are also Likely to belong to Purodha.
- Köbes, Mixåmdisch and Rentenirer are Confirmed to be the same user
- Sabine is also Likely to belong to Köbes.
- All of the above 4 accounts (Köbes, Mixåmdisch, Rentenirer and Sabine) are Likely to belong to Purodha.
- Ruslik 16:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you very much! --Holder 16:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- Completed, result above. -- Marco Aurelio 18:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
- Please consider a global block when calculating the range. IP address have been vandalizing elsewhere (and mainly on eswiki, commons and ptwiki) since April 2011. The main account is Litrix Linuxer, which has been banned from ptwiki since 2010. Thanks in advance, Ruy Pugliesi◥ 03:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- Hello Ruy. Thanks for your suggestion and for the information. Global rangeblocks are not so frequent due to the large ammount of users that can be affected by it. While this range in particular is narrow and it was safe to block it in ptwiki, I do not know for others. Let me discover first if this would cause large ammount of harm before doing it. Best, -- Marco Aurelio 10:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- Unrelated, sorry diff vandals and or, ip changer. no clear range. Matanya 08:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
- Pedidor de artigos
- Papa Chico Bento XVI
- Silas Maracutaia
- Edir Morcego
- Valdemiro Sandiabo
- Professor Tibúrcio
- Pedidor de artigos
- Lord Squish
- PedoBear TrollFace
- Sinto nojo de portugueses
- Torta de gambá com milho
- Tao Pai Pai
- Padre Pedro
- Litrix Linuxer
- Tio Chiquinho
- Tio Chumbinho
- Usuário do Mac
- Pastor Jorge
- O retorno de Litrix Linuxer
- Master Roshi
- Jack London Forever
- Aquarista brasileiro
- Biólogo Amador
- Porra o Orritorinco
- Soli Deo Gloria do Yahoo
- Torta de morango
- no user name:
- PedoBear Troll Face
--Shizhao 03:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: I believe page semi-protection might be enough. Even when facing some incorrect or even malicious edits, we should avoid opening these requests when there are other possible solutions as it would reveal his IP if relation is confirmed. Only on very specific cases of very serious disruption a request like this one could be accepted.” Teles (T @ L C S) 01:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
- Declined as this request would have the effect of revealing IP addresses which is not allowed and other measures like semiprotection might work as Teles said. -- Marco Aurelio 07:16, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
--ValJor 15:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- I'd like to include banned user and to that of the listed accounts. Also, if the underlying IPs of those accounts belong to open proxies, block them. D&S has been using various open proxies, one per sock I believe, to avoid detection. Striker talk 02:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC) . His writing pattern (grammar, vocabulary used) and the way he behaves are similar to that of the
The information available is a bit generic. will leave it to the local admins to decide based on the evidences they have. --Jyothis 03:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for the information.
- Can I add another one to the list? User EuSouAlenda is showing signs of being D&S, can you confirm that via CU? Thanks again.
- --ValJor 15:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- Another one:
- --ValJor 13:32, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
- Another one:
- And one more
- --ValJor 15:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
- And one more
- Anybody home? I need service here!
- --ValJor 09:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
- Doing... Since no one else seems to be interested... -Barras 09:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
OK, based on the Checkuser result, those accounts seem to belong to the same person:
- O ec
-Barras 09:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Tenage Stupid firstname.lastname@example.org
- Also attacking en.wikipedia, see w:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Diogomauricio3/Archive. --viniciusmc 16:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Fishers, Rasvan, Butelermen, Chegaz, Mhnm, DJGomes, O Fiambre are others in the range that shows a similar traits. However, the information available is very generic. Will leave it to the local admins to review this. --Jyothis 03:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- What about "Ritula"? Is it related with "Tenage Stupid 3"?” Teles (T @ L C S) 05:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- The following are Confirmed:
- From a CU perspective it's Possible that 是魅力一族 is the same user. Jafeluv 09:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- Biahh Peresh
- Jancen sergio
--Shizhao 07:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
- Confirmed--Shizhao 07:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
The bar.wikipedia appears to be parted in two fractions, the users mentioned above and the others. The above mentioned users are acting in a provocative way, sometimes grossly destructive, and usually refusing discussions concerning the contents of articles they edited or changed, usually in critical situations they make use of their sheer number and speek with one tongue for their own interests. This situation for itself might be tolerable. A big problems comes into play since the language abilities of the whole group are equally non-satisfying and they are displaing inconstistencies in their dialects. However these inconsistencies are within the group mostly homogeneous and the seem to have the same language problems in bavarian dialects. Though they claim to stem from entirely different regions. It is important to understand, that regionalism and possibility of identification of the region of origin of a certain article is vital within a dialect wikipedia such as bar.wikipedia. All the group members are strictly refusing to localize their used dialects or any other kind of meta information about the origins of their language. Recently the conflicts between the two groups escalated. Finally some of the mentioned users agreed to have a CU. However not all. I listed all users engaged in the last two important polls, polling for the same opinion. In case of futher questions, do not hesitate to contact me --188.8.131.52 16:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC) PS.: --Hoferaanderl 16:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- Can you please link us to exact examples, so we can look at it. I'd find the polls of special interest. Thanks, -Barras 20:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not Hoferanderl but I try to show you the polls. The first poll is probably BuechsprachII. Interesting could be BuechspraacheII Antrag and its date and the reaction of the group. With the last important poll I'm unsure. All polls can be found here and there. --Buachamer 23:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- It's not one of the last two polls but it was an interesting MB about the Bavarian spelling of Bavaria ( Owabayern/Niadabayern. "Owa/Nieda" is like it's pronounced and "bayern" is the standard German spelling.) see Vorgeschriebene Schreibweise Bayern and the discussion there and especially there. --Buachamer 23:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- Hoferanderl may correct me but that's probably the second poll. --Buachamer 23:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- By the way Buachamer is my SUL account. In the bar Wiki I normally work as Roland. Some lines about the dialect can be read at bar:Diskussion:Ratschkathl,  and weitere Dialektfragen. I can provide more information if you want. --Buachamer 00:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- These kinds of requests are disturbingly common on meta. Most wikis with their own checkusers would reject a request like this, immediately, as a "fishing expedition." What has been done here, on the face, is to list all users appearing to have a particular opinion. If something like this is going to be done, it should be done for all parties to a dispute, not just a set selected by someone obviously affiliated with or preferring one side. No specific evidence of socking was presented. If a steward/checkuser looks and finds that most of these users are one person, yes, that should be exposed. What I'd very much urge not be done is to find and reveal some *other* socks, not alleged and not really relevant. Because of SUL and various historical reasons, there may be legitimate "socks," and judging legitimacy is not actually a checkuser function. I urge Barras to be careful.
- The underlying problem is often that there are factions not willing to consider the arguments of the other side and find a unifying compromise. Socking is not a legitimate response to something like that, but it's human for minorities on wikis to try. Decimating an embattled minority can make the real situation worse, and it will often lead to long-term disruption, including the creation of more and more socks, as well as false identification of new users as socks by the "duck test," i.e., X has the same position as User Y, blocked, therefore X is a sock and should be blocked. It happens all the time!
- What else is possible? Well, private emails, as an example, telling a sock operator that's been identified that if they do not disclose the sock(s), or make some other satisfactory arrangement (idea: voluntarily acceptance of a steward block of socks which leave one account undisclosed and unblocked, that it will be publicly exposed). When a local situation has become highly polarized, local admins may be involved, it can be difficult. Sufficiently biased local admins may not look at the value of finding consensus, but may take disclosure of socking as proof that the "disruptive user" should be blocked.
- The effect of easy checkuser request fulfillment at meta can be that there is no protection, as there is on wikis where checkusers are responsible to local users, and where rules require local users to be informed, that there be actual disruption and reasonable suspicion of sock puppetry, based on evidence, etc. --Abd 02:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- I would have preferred to avoid a check user and reduce the distrust by meeting some of the people or doing a telephone conference but I had no success. They refused to talk *much* about that. They just said no we don't want to meet or do phone calls others of the group just made jokes about that. --Buachamer 03:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you Abd, for the detailed explanations. I think you're pointing exactly at our worst problem. It's that, apparently no consensus between the "groups" is possible. Its actually much worse than polls being decided by sockpuppets. You mention some really good reasons why not to do CU. My problem is, that I ran out of alternative ways to handle the problem. In case you strongly recommend to just let it run as it is, we will discuss that again in "our" fraction of the bar.wiki and might dropp the proposal. Thank you, again --Hoferaanderl 07:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I fear that we ran out of alternatives. The main active users of the list above like e.g. Bua, Schmei and Joe Watzmo prefer to run polls and avoid discussions. The users of the list above seems to be in one large group, at least they act like that in discussions or polls. As the group around Bua, Schmei and Klostermayr is pretty large (could be still growing) they can win every poll and I'm afraid that there might be sockpupets among those users. A solution might be a telephone conference with a neutral mediator. Maybe Holder could do that. Then he can speek with them and see whether e.g. Bua, Papa Kern, Schmei and Klostermayr are sockpuppets or not. So far my proposals have been ignored and rejected. --Buachamer 16:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- This Checkuser request is not approved by the community nor by the majority of admins. The two users Buachamer and Hoferanderl are outsiders in bar.wikipedia.org. If there is a disruptive behavior, then from Buachamer and Hoferanderl. Especially from Hoferanderl there have been several vandalistic actions. He has been blocked several times! --Bua333 20:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- And: Checkuser is not for fishing! --Bua333 20:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- And btw: There are less polls in bar.wiki than in other wikis. --Bua333 20:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- This request is in no way approved by the community. Most of the disruptive behavior in the Bavarian Wikipedia comes from these two guys Hoferaanderl and Buachamer (locally bar:user:Roland), known as close buddies. Hoferanderl has been blocked several times for vandalistic actions, Buachamer has even confessed an IP-sockpuppetry action. --Prjaeger 21:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Most of the suspected users in the list above are very productive writers, at least much more productive than the two guys, who prefer discussions and groundless suspicions instead of productive work. --Prjaeger 21:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- There is one fraction only in bar.wiki and this is the fraction of Hoferanderl, Buachamer and two other users. And only with these users there are some communication problems, but this is the subject of bar.wiki. --Joe Watzmo 22:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
This request is totally unjustified and against the checkuser groundrules of the wikimedia foundation. It's nothing but fishing:
e.g. a user like Donejda never took part in any vote, was only once involved in a controversal discussion (with one single statement!), two years ago, nothing else. The rest of the time he did a few useful edits
e.g. user Friodom was never involved in any controversal action, voted a few times (or maybe only once, I can't remember exactly; but not very often, that's for sure)
e.g. user Schnoatbrax was never involved in any controversal action, wrote a lot of articles, voted once (in a vote with a very clear result -- only Hoferanderl, Buachamer/Roland and one other user voted CONTRA)
e.g. user Gschupfta Ferdl was also never involved in any controversal action, wrote some good articles, voted once (in a vote with a very clear result -- only Hoferanderl, Buachamer/Roland and one other user voted CONTRA)
and so forth.
--Schmei 00:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- To Buas statement "If there is a disruptive behavior, then from Buachamer and Hoferanderl." That is not true. --Buachamer 10:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- There was a lot of disruptive behavior from user Hoferanderl, that's why he has been blocked by different admins. --Prjaeger 17:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, some of the users in the list above are quantitative very productive and produce more text than I do. Nevertheless most of these users (I can provide a list) are very aggressive and criminalize things like the "IP-sockpuppetry action". I haven't confessed an "IP-sockpuppetry action". If there is a small thing that is assailable they do it and make a mountain out of a molehill. The same way do the user Schmei at http://bar.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Diskussion:Moanungsbuida/De-Admin_Sinnierer#Exkurs:_Angst_fressen_Seele_auf . For defending me against the sockpuppet reproach I answered there, too. It's in German but I can translate it into English. If Bua and his friends dislike a person they try to make the person unreliable. --Buachamer 05:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- @Aggressions: The checkuser requester User:Hoferanderl likes to use name-calling, to live out his aggressions, for example he called a lot of liberal users on the list "Neonazis" ('fascists'). This name-callings have been version deleted by our bureaucrat/admin Holder und by one other admin. --Prjaeger 17:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- Yes Donejda never voted but wrote in the discussion of a poll the following comment there. --Buachamer 05:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- It could be that Friodom, Schnoatbrax and Gschupfta Ferdl haven't been involved in a controversal action (I have to look it up) yet. At least they seem to be close to the group Bua, Schmei, Prjaeger ... If they are sockpuppets not all them need to be in a controversal action. It could be enough to vote. --Buachamer 05:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- Schnoatbrax wrote Spuila just like Bua and some others of the group did. At the moment I've not the time to provide more details. --Buachamer 06:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, communication problems are an issue as well as distrust. One part of my distrust is because of the curious dialect or curious dialect characteristics (not used in the region like e.g. 'Spuila' in Upper Bavaria) shared by many of the main active users (in the case of Spuila the upper bavarian users: Joe Watzmo, Matthias Klostermayer, Bua, Schnoatbrax, Schmei, Saxndi) in the list. Sometimes it seems to me that a few eastern bavarian people write both western bavarian (oberbairisch) and eastern Bavarian (Wienerisch) with different users. For me the upper bavarian dialect seems to me to be a constructed dialect (similar to the "Kärntnerisch" in http://bar.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kloungfurscht_am_Werschthersee). Maybe I'm wrong but I didn't get any answer about the region where the users learned their dialect and as far as I see the dialect of the whole Upper Bavarian part of the group does not fit to a region of upper Bavaria. Of course the dialects are mixing. I'm close to Munich and the dialects there have mixed a lot but I've not seen such a large mix used/shared by so many *friends*. Another point that rise my distrust is that the group of friends around Bua, Schmei and Klostermayr is still growing and that the group point out that polls are the good democratic solution to clarify things like the spelling of Bavaria, forbid the Buechspraach, Taferl (see MB Taferl and the history http://bar.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taferl&action=history and the comments there => "Taferl san unta Intellektuellen sea unbeliabt" during the time of the poll)... --Buachamer 08:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- Schmei, now you say it's fishing and bad but what can be done to improve/increase the trust or reduce the distrust? I wrote that I would prefer a meeting or a telephone conference over a CU and I ask/suggest that some of you do a telephone conference with a neutral person to check that there are real people behind the users. A neutral person could be Holder. What do you think about the CU alternative? --Buachamer 08:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- Support checkuser attention. There is obviously a conflict on bar.wiki. There are two users who have expressed concern here that there may be massive sock puppetry involved. That may be unlikely, but it would be easy for a checkuser to look to rule it out. If there is no massive sock puppetry involved, then the two users can be advised to proceed with caution, they really are offending or opposed by many editors. If there is sock puppetry creating an appearance of massive support for some position, that should be exposed. Stewards cannot solve the local problem, that's up to bar.wiki users, and I encourage them to find ways to cooperate, even with those who hold minority positions. Users sometimes create socks when they fear that they will not be respected otherwise. --Abd 12:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
There are a lot of users in bar.wiki, who made clear that they have no problem of being checked. But the list above is absurd and definitly against checkuser policy.
And attention: the last three votes in bar.wiki have been close to consensus (including admins), only Hofer, Buachamer and one other guy voted contra. Thats no indication at all for vote stacking or for enforcing one position etc.
On the other side Hoferanderl and Buachamer act for one strange and questionable position: To allow a constructed bavarian language called Buechspraache in the bar.wiki, which is not in the interest of bavarian language and therefore not in the interest of the majority of users in bar.wiki. From their point of view everybody who ever says one word against the Buechspraache or against their behavior is a suspected sockpuppet.
--Prjaeger 04:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, that's true: Who ever says one word against their sometimes strange behavior is a suspected sockpuppet. Best example is user Donejda, who made one single, critical statement, two years ago(!!). That was one word enough. But further more: Who ever seems to be friendly to those guys, who said something against their behavior is a suspected sockpuppet too (best example: user Gschupfta Ferdl).
- --Joe Watzmo 06:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
- Checkuser ist not for fishing.
- And this request is for fishing only.
- There is no support for some position, except writing excellent articles:
- The accused users wrote an important part of all articles in de bar.wikipedia (and an important part of the excellent articles)
- --Saxndi 17:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I have no problem at all of being checked. But this list is an attack against intelligence and against the Bavarian Wikipedia - from two wellknown users. --Klampfen Toni 04:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- I was not told by these guys, that I'm accused here and that's not o.k.! I didn't have any problems with them and I didn't have any problem with anybody in bar.wiki. I even didn't have any contact (on any discussion page) with them. Everybody can check me, but I would like to know first, what I am accused for. Nobody told me till now.
- --Gschupfta Ferdl 12:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- It's some sort of kin liability. Probably you have been friendly to someone these guys don't like. That seems to be their logic. And this seems to be the stuff this list is made from. As Joe Watzmo wrote above: "Who ever says one word against their sometimes strange behavior is a suspected sockpuppet. Best example is user Donejda, who made one single, critical statement, two years ago(!!). That was one word enough. But further more: Who ever seems to be friendly to those guys, who said something against their behavior is a suspected sockpuppet too (best example: user Gschupfta Ferdl)."
- --Prjaeger 17:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Comment So Mädls, ich würd sagen ihr gehts alle Heim auf die bar.wiki, disskutierts des ganze aus, und kommts dann wenns euch geeinigt habts. So wirds nur zum Theater und die Seite hier ist nicht wirklich für Diskussionen gedacht. Gilts? Proposing discussion on bar.wiki and coming again if they realy decide that they need a CU. This looks too much like fishing IMO. --WizardOfOz talk 17:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- Not done Wizard got a good point above. Please sort out the stuff locally. CheckUser is not for fishing. When you discussed the things and cleared out everything and a CU is still needed then, please come back and ask again here. Having some people agreeing on something is not worth checking, sorry. -Barras 10:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Spamming (car insurances and casinos) on several small wiki's
- Will be requested at ML.
The above-mentioned (non-sul) accounts are all spamming for a casino and car insurances (which comes across as something familiar, I suspect there are way more accounts and wiki's involved) on several small wiki's. These have already been blocked locally by Trijnstel. Please check if this concerns a larger-scale abuse: is it possible to relate these accounts based on CU evidence? Have they created any more sock puppets, that we don't know of? Thanks in advance, Mathonius 16:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- Note:: having a look with the antispam bot and blacklisting domains. -- Marco Aurelio 17:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- Done - a couple of sleeper spam accounts found (global ones) that are now already globally locked. Domains globally blacklisted. Informing other CUs as I see this is targeting large wikis like enwiki, for example. Best regards. -- Marco Aurelio 17:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- Confirmed. Jafeluv 07:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello. I'd like to be sure that these accounts belong the same person. Are they other accounts created today or recently with the same IP address ? Thanks -- Quentinv57 (talk) 15:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Only the first account has edits there. The others have no edits and are not blocked. So why should be check? Please remember that CheckUser is not for fishing. -Barras 16:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Dragomir Ier
- Ataman Zabaikalnikh Kazakov
- Ataman Ukrainskikh Kazakov
- Ataman Kubanskikh Kazakov
- Ataman Terskikh Kazakov
- Ataman Donskikh Kazakov
The range is probably too big for a block and includes innocent users. -Barras 16:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Spam on en.wikiversity
Some spam-only accounts on en.wikiversity: "Celery" and "Deng" are non-sul accounts, "Celery" and this diff for their typical of spamming. Please check to see if these three accounts on en.wikiversity are sharing an IP address or range. Thanks, Mathonius 06:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)hit meta as well. See
- Deng and Celery are Confirmed.
- Zing852741 is unrelated to those two, but is related to the following accounts:
- Jafeluv 07:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
It was me, don't need to check, I even used same nick (only translated to be able to create the account). Look what user Zorglub did: He changed my message,  and wrote to me: "Don't you know how to read? Or you don't know the basic rules of punctuation? It's quite clear...". Of course I had to answer this absurd. And please note all my editions there were improvements, I'm perplexed about the bad characters of some very active users of pt.wikipedia. Even administrators don't follow the rules, and vandalize your page discussion, not only that, you are banned because you say the administrator is incompetent. Santa Fortuna 22:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I see no need for a CU in both two last requests since all listed accounts are already blocked. Also, the requesting IP shares the same IP range as ElectroStatic Jolt. Striker talk 22:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Also, I would like to add, that after all the stress caused on me by those people, I used very strong horrible words... I did not like my attitude, I'm now a mix of angry but also of that I did the right thing in some way, because someone had to challenge that behavior (that I consider trolling), what Zorglub wrote to me was very strong too. Santa Fortuna 22:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Holy Fortune and Santa Fortuna are ducks. Maybe look into the requester. — Kudu ~I/O~ 22:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I just wanted him to experience his own poison. Well, I don't want to write about it anymore. Santa Fortuna 22:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, I'm wondering if the sysops pt.wiki.Striker tale pros, think before you point the finger for others.--184.108.40.206 22:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- CheckUser is not for fishing -- Marco Aurelio 17:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Unrelated Ruslik 06:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Not done - fa.wiki has local checkusers and stewards are not the Ombudsman committee. They surely have also some other stuff to do and not only this case to work on. Be patient. Not steward related, Declined/ Not done. -Barras 20:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Confirmed. Jafeluv 15:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- Confirmed. Jafeluv 06:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- group1: Lee530303, Bloodangel0
- group2: 황제숙종, 강씨매니아
- Group1, group2 and other users Likely, there users used many IP and UA--Shizhao 03:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- It looks like a duck to me. Three single-purpose accounts created within minutes of each other, and their only edits are to the same deletion discussion. I don't think this requires a CU. Jafeluv 09:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- Not done, CheckUser is not for fishing. Jafeluv 09:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. I will submit a refined & more substantiated request later. -- සුරනිමල 10:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- Kenwong 03:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- The relevant old CU would be Steward_requests/Checkuser/2011-05#Cenfany_.40zh.wikipedia --Bencmq 03:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- Confirmed the following:
- Ruslik 15:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
- Confirmed the following:
- The relevant old CU would be Steward_requests/Checkuser/2011-05#Cenfany_.40zh.wikipedia --Bencmq 03:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- Obvious per duck case, but also Confirmed. --Bsadowski1 18:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- Both accounts Confirmed. The ranges used look too wide for an effective range block. Jafeluv 10:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Kenwong 14:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- Confirmed Ruslik 10:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
CARLOS ALBERTO LAURINDO@pt.wikipedia
- Unlikely, but both accounts from same a ISP--Shizhao 01:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)