Steward requests/Checkuser/2012-12

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 December 2012, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion.


Patri man @zh.wikipedia

I would request another CU review my findings; there are a number of ambiguities.

The remainder are Inconclusive Inconclusive. -- Avi (talk) 05:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Big Love@lv.wikipedia


  • DJ EV
  • Big Love
  • Matematika
  • 1254556A
  • I love Anna
  • EdTroll
  • Xxonikssxx
  • NigggggaNyan
  • Gamgnamstyle
  • Xil ir lesbiete
  • Edgars2012
  • Edgars2007irgejs
  • I sirsniņa trolling
  • Bithcshittt
  • Programmer
  • Trololololnyannyan
  • AlnamhfBot
  • Alamala
  • Alnamhf
  • Botmaker
  • Toms123
  • What a fuuck

--Shizhao (talk) 01:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Can you tell, if anybody has another unique address? ~~Xil...(talk) 15:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, see Privacy policy. What is the unique address?--Shizhao (talk) 04:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I know, what I meant was, if there are at all any other adresses that you can see, not that you reveal them here. See right now we can't tell, if there is some teenage drama going on in geek school or, if it's just one person trolling. User DJ EV has made some reasonable edits and it might as well be that he is bullied by schoolmates. So it would be good to see some additional evidence either way - like if all these are just from one address or if there are some more subgroups. Some of the accounts were created in summer, but in our country school starts in September, so it seems plausible they would have assessed the Internet from somewhere else as well. Also one of them inquired, if you can check MAC adress - says it would prove that DJ EV also was sockpuppeting as they can't change computer during class ~~Xil...(talk) 07:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
CU no MAC adress--Shizhao (talk) 09:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


IP-wise, they're Unrelated Unrelated, probably from recycled IP. Hbancai and Bancai are on the same /16 range, though. Bennylin 10:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


Status:    Done

These spambots are probably related. Please consider investigating Foshtkisb@en.wikiversity. I've also requested a local CU for the ones on en.wikibooks. Mathonius (talk) 11:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Done. Checked on en.versity and all locked.—Teles «Talk to me ˱@ L C S˲» 11:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


Status:    Done

The usual Chinese spambot.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Ruslik (talk) 07:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 Confirmed Ruslik (talk) 18:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
It may be the pattern spambot. Ruslik (talk) 18:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Spambots on en.wikiversity

Status:    Done

The usual Chinese spambots, no local CheckUsers.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done He has been using constantly multiple IPs, some seems to be proxies but not range-block enforceable at least for now, so local sysop may block them all Mardetanha talk 06:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


In particular, I'm requesting the check for:

Thanks, --MF-W 19:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The following accounts are  Confirmed:
Atını siken kovboy
Zazamental (other account)
Newos is Stale. Ayten Huseynova is Likely Likely. Ruslik (talk) 19:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


Status:    Done

A long-term vandal on personal attack, adding pure disruptive material into articles, blanking and so on. If you find these users used the following IP range (,,,,,, 218.19-20.0.0/16, 219.135-137.0.0/16), would you please send some details to Bencmq to help us deal with his vandalism? Thanks. --Makecat 05:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Gjjitiktuiyrttire is Stale. Other accounts can be divided into two groups.
These two groups are technically unrelated to each other. IP ranges are different from those mentioned above. Ruslik (talk) 06:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. The accounts in the second group are created by Liangent according to account creation logs (account request?). Maybe I will wait until they edit. --Makecat 09:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm just pre-occupying user names based on their account naming pattern trying to annoy them. :P Liangent 13:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


Unlikely Unlikely Ruslik (talk) 17:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

This application is lengthy. But this is since it deals with a delicate thing. It concerns a group of long-term users which appeared to be quite active, involved and in parts also deserving in the BAR:WP. Nevertheless evidence and negative influences have been steadily growing in the last 3 or 4 years. So it is justified in my point of view to require a close look and a bit of dedication:

A certain group of users, which has been growing steadily within a few years is currently, completely dominating BAR:WP. The group contains the following user-names: Papa Kern, Bua333, Schmei, Matthias Klostermayr, Prjaeger, Saxndi, Schnoatbrax, MisterGugaruz, Tschick, Klampfen_Toni, Joe_Watzmo, Tauni Lemauni, Grantla, Gschupfta Ferdl, (Brigendo, Donejda, Gjoad which have not been participating in votings), and presumably also Franzl.

However, for the CU-application, I want to restrict this group of user-name-suspects to only the most suspicious and voting-active user-names: Papa Kern, Bua333, Schmei, Matthias Klostermayr, Prjaeger, Saxndi (and maybe Joe Watzmo, Schnoatbrax).

All votings since early 2009 are potentially affected by sockpuppettery connected with this “hermeneutic” group. All other users (with very few exception – only one or two newcomers), meanwhile have retracted from all activities in BAR:WP, most likely due to permanent conflicts between this user-name-group and various other BAR:WP users.

A detailed listing of some votings affected and finally decided based on the votings of this group:

From 15 voters only three non-suspects (Chaddy, Maxx82, most likely Fridom) were voting for this suspect-group initiated “Meinungsbild”. Apart from that, the whole suspect-group was voting for this. In case only Papa Kern, Bua (Bua333), Schmei, Matthias Klostermayr, Prjaeger, Saxndi are really sockpuppets the application would have been rejected. Here as well, the application would have been rejected if Bua333, Schmei, Prjaeger, Saxndi, Joe Watzmo would not have been allowed to vote as separate users.

The same holds true for: Bua333, Papa Kern, Schmei, Matthias Klostermayr, Prjaeger, Saxndi were deciding this vote.

In the last votings as mentioned above all non-suspect-users, except me, have retracted from votings in BAR:WP. These are Here as well the result would have been different if Bua333, Schmei, Matthias Klostermayrm, Prjaeger, Papa Kern, Saxndi and Joe Watzmo would not have been voting separately.

One of the first very suspicious moments was the common attitude to discussions. The whole group was from the beginning against objective, non-provocative discussions in BAR:WP. And from the beginning they were promoting to completely replace discussion about contents, language and questions of design with votings. Whenever objective discussions were started they started with subtle provocations and were obviously trying to spoil the climate in way that consensus between other users was accomplished as much as possible.

To clarify the situation I have suggested various times to gather in WP:meetings, Clubroom-discussions, skype or telephone conferences. Each time the whole group rejected these suggestions claiming maximum anonymity for themselves. Also no alternative suggestions to recover a good collegiality have not been made by this group. I suggested also various “communictaion-protocols” were anonymity could be warranted, all this was rejected.

At this time the idea of starting a CU came up. This immediately prompted threatenings from the side of the suspect-group:

In one of these votings the user-name Bua333 was elected for bureaucrat from the rest of the suspect group. Common interests are votings and anonymity, standard-german discussions in BAR:WP, invention of a new writing style and its propagation of it in BAR:WP.

They try to be as anonymous as possible. All of the the suspicious users (except of Matthias Klostermayr) that claimed to write Upper Bavarian dialect don't give any information of their regional mother tongue dialect. Normally that's OK but in a dialect wikipedia this is problematic its vital to know the origins of the dialect in order to be able to understand subtle nuances and differences in wording and to get a hint of how a text should be spoken. Especially in dialects it is important to loudly read articles since authentic dialects are by definition spoken representatives of a major language group (such as standard German). It is also of certain importance for Wikipedians that the local origins of a dialect is published together with articles for purposes of quality assurance and correction Since Bavarian dialects are in danger of being more and more replaced/destroyed by standard German it's important to clean articles from dialect-untypical or even wrong forms which have been adopted unintentionally from the standard German. Every village and region has it's own accent or local variation of dialect. This small region specific dialects are changing to larger region specific dialects because the dialects are mixing but Bavarian dialects are still region specific. In fact Austro-Bavarian dialects have a lot in common, but they still show significant regional fingerprints. This is not an issue of inter-regional understanding (a dominating subset of regional Austro-bavarian dialects is mutual completely understandable) but an issue of regional individuality and regional recognition. All contemporary ways of Austro-bavarian dialect writings is in general totally individual and there is no single common standard established, yet. The dialect used by the suspicious users who claimed to write an upper Bavarian dialect exceeds the normal mixture I see e.g. in the region of Munich or in any other upper Bavarian region I know. Typical elements used in the Eastern part of Austria are mixed with elements that are usual in Upper Bavaria. This language mixture elements are shared between the users and make it impossible for me to identify the language region the users grew up and I have difficulties to distinguish the users by their dialect. That is very strange for dialect writers. You can see examples of the striking common features in the subsection "Striking common features".

The most common features can be explained if all off the users did the same moves to different language regions but there are elements that cannot be explained by these moves. The most striking was that the several users shares the same language mistakes that are region independent. For examples see appendix "Wrong “vocalisation of “l””.

I am fully aware that such a phenomenon can be explained by other means, than sockpuppetry. But it is the sheer number of independent hints and evidences, what finally makes sockpupettry the simplest explanation, or at least one which should hopefully deliver enough evidence for the justification of a CU. And let it be for sake of excuse and offer of conciliation from my side in case I (and so many other users sharing the same suspect) was wrong.

Further similarities include their status and type of contribution at DE:WP. All of them have “Sichterstatus”: apa%20Kern&lang=de&wiki=wikipedia

Most of their edits are Interwikilinks, a custom which they extend to BAR:WP:

Such a contribution is fine, but then it also casts the question if it is of other use than to increase the formal activities of “puppets”, since this is a job which is also done by bots.

(for instance: ) An exception herefrom makes the suspect-user-name “Matthias Klostermayer”, he wrote some articles about Indians, in BAR this was doing the suspect-user-name “Schnoatbrax”. This gives already some hints to “division of work” in the suspect group. In many instances “Matthias Klostermayer” apears as “primus inter pares” in the group, as he was also the first of this “new type of users” appearing in BAR:WP, when all the trouble started.

The next point appears very important to me: Analyzing the discussions which have been going on on BAR:WP since 2009 it appears that the single elements of the group are never discussing any continual issues with themselves. Never ever was any real disagreement between user-names of this group observed. All discussions are going on between individuals from outside the group as the one party and the whole supsect-group as the other party. They always appear to completely agree upon each others no matter how complicated the subject of discussion is, and appear to argue completely interchangeable. Which appears to be remarkable for a larger group, indeed. A small but nice example on that:

Here, I object Bua333 to re-writing the style of dialect from an article. But the response came from “Schmei” where he doesn't explain the act, but starts to mock about my style of writing. After me responding to the mocking, not the mocker Schmei responded, but “Grantla”, were he was trying to even top Schmei's mocking. At that point I gave up asking questions for the reason why the dialect style was changed in the article (to the worse, in my POV).

A similar case happened here:

There are certain minor pieces of evidence like similarities in the user-names and the make-up of the corresponding user pages on BAR:WP. Almost all suspect-user-names (=SUN) refer to a kind of Austro-bvarian celebrity or has some fierce character. The primus-inter-pares “Matthias Klostermayr” was in real life the name of the head of a gang of thieves:

SUN Bua now SUN Bua333, who was elected by the other SUNs recently for bureaucrat was known in real life for having been Klostermayers best friend (see The name “Schmei” is actually harmless, recently it was connected with the more fiercly subscription “Raubaffe”, with the connection to thieve. “Prjaeger” contains the word for chaser and “Schnoatbrax” is a tool which can be used as an weapon too, like a “machete”. The picture on his userspace shows a tibal war-man. A similarly fierceful picture shows SUN “Bua” on his user-space with the provocative slogan “Wer ko der ko!”.

While the name “Joe Watzmo” is not connected with celebrities or fiercefulness his user-page is very similar to the one from “Papa Kern” which is in real life, the name of a singer from Munich.

I am fully aware that the user-name-similarity is not a strong argument and it might be the weakest one of this application, but nevertheless I am not afraid of making that point. I expect most of the critics that will come in response of this application from SUN-groupe side will focuss extremely on the weak arguments only in the hope that the strong ones will be overlooked, which is again a very common pattern of strategy of the SUN-group.

Other common patterns: The user page from “Klampfen Toni” is mocking about another users affinity to typos, this user has retracted from BAR:WP meanwhile (like so many more). To expose other users weaknesses or deficiencies was once very common on BAR:WP mostly on behalf of the SUN-group. Most of it has been deleted, owing mostly to an administrator from ALS:WP (Holder) who offered his help as mediator. Also black-lists with IP addresses are kept on SUN user spaces, while they themselves seem to protect their IP addresses more than anything else (no incidence is known were one of the users of the group acted without logging in with his name by mistake in BAR:WP.

Another common strategy is, that the whole group often tries to use terms with strongly negative connotations for characterizing disagreeing users. This is done on basis of exaggeration but always only to such an extent that is gets only close to a WP rule violation. On the other hand side they try everything which is possible to delete discussions were they were connected with words or phrases with negative connotations. Again the striking thing here is that all users of this group have this pattern of behavior in common. And also again, it is clear that as such and alone this might not be very suspicious. But its the coincidence of so many slightly odd ways of acting which makes it suspicious. And in the end it is of course only suspicion, because if we had prove we would not need the application for the CU.

negative connotations brought to connection with other users: Wahlbetrug (election fraud): ( Propaganda: siehe Überführte Sockenpuppenspieler (convicted sockpuppet master): (siehe Sockenpuppenspuilarein/rabulistische Exerzitien (vgl. Tafalstreit et. al.)/ea sejm da Socknspuila, danzt im Socknpuppmrock wiara Bock/Missbrauch/Amtsmissbrauch: Bua (siehe

I took a look at common times of inactivities of 3 of the users (Bua/Bua333,Schmei, Matthias Klostermayr). among others there are the following: Bua, Schmei, Klostermayr, all inactive for:

7 days starting with 23. Oktober 2011.
8 days starting with 25. December 2011 
7 days starting with  7. January 2012 
6 days starting with 11. March 2012 

Again, I am aware of the fact each of these evidences does not prove sockpupettry, still the whole of them taken together are meanwhile much easier to explain with sockpupettry than without. Without sockpupettry a complicated and strange construction of common origins, movings abroad common holidays, mysterious projects for the development of a common dialect writing style and many more must be seeked for. On the other hand-side sockpupettry (or better is abuse) is unfortunately a common and wide-spread phenomenon, especially in the wikipedia (a whole infrastructure was built to prevent from that). And it is even that widespread that deserving administrators and bureaucrats are affected, as it has been recently the case in the ripuarian wikipedia. A big impulse for this application was the unsatisfying state current state of affairs in the BAR:WP were the communication between SUN and non-SUN users is dominated by distrust and facts-oriented discussion is not possible anymore or in best case very difficult. I am quite positive, that either outcome of the CU will change the situation to the better and can remove the distrust.

Supplementary Information

Austro-bavarian dialects have a lot in common, but also show significant regional fingerprints. This is not an issue of inter-regional understanding (a dominating subset of regional Austro-bavarian dialects is mutual completely understandable) but an issue of regional individuality and regional recognition. All contemporary ways of Austro-bavarian dialect writings is in general totally individual and there is no single common standard established, yet. For that reasons it is quite clear, that a competent dialect speaker, who ever tried to write dialect texts himself can relatively easily tell from two written larger bodies of dialect texts, especially if they are written spontaneously, as it is usual in discussions, if the text stems from one and the same or from different individuals and in many cases it's easy to see the language region. Although standard German is mainly used in discussions in the bar Wikipedia there are many interesting fingerprints in the dialect texts in the bar wikipedia.

Striking Common Features

Striking East-Central-Austro-Bavarian(=ostmittelbairische,=”Austrian”) common features from claimed West-Central-Austro-Bavarian(=westmittelbairische,=”Bavarian”) SUNs (in the following for sake of simplicity just “Bavarian” and “Austrian” will be used, although that patitioning of “Austro-Bavarian” is scientifically wrong. But it will still serve well for the following discussion.

“aun”-written sound

Matthias Klostermayr gaunz: Matthias Klostermayr: Bua333: Bua: Schmei: Saxndi:

Grantla gaunz kloar, waun: kloar Grantla: AufZagg: The writing scheme “aun” for the typical pronounciation of “an” in Bavarian, whih is normalle only applied from Austrians. Grantla and AufZagg claim Austrian orgins and usage of Austrian dialects in their articles, so this is expected. But for Bua333, Matthias Klostermayr and Schmei demanding the usage of “Bavarian” and not “Austrian” it is quite remarkable.

“ar” -> “oar” for example “offenboarte”

Saxndi: offenboarte Gjoad: afbewohrt

vagleichbor Bua:

Then examples for the other way round:

“Bavarian” forms used from “Austrian”-dialect writers from the suspect group:

“vui” - typical “Bavarian” westmittelbairisch (from Munich-Region)

The letter combination "ui" for (most) standard-german "il" is charcteristic for Munich-Region Bavarian. Surprisingly it is used not only by the “Bavarian” SUN Bua333, Schmei, Papa Kern, Joe Watzmo, Matthias Klostermayr, but also from those who claim to use “Austrian” dialect. For instance from Prjaeger in Vienna-style articles: For any Bavarian or Austrian reading this it makes a really odd impression. It actually cannot happen by incidence or as a typo.

Other cases

Papa Kern: Klampfen Toni Bua: Schnoatbrax: Saxndi: Schmei: Matthias Klostermayr:

All these “users” wrote “Bavarian” articles but no Bavarian would easily come up with writing “kema” instead of “kemma” most of all because it parallels nicely the written-german form “kommen” with double “mm” marking the short “o” or “e”.

zan - zum

Schmei: Bua: Bua333: Prjaeger: Tauni Lemauni: MisterGugaruz: Joe Watzmo: Matthias Klostermayr: Gjoad:

The lead Form in Munich-Bavarian is “zun” or more colloquial and closer to the standard “zum”, while “zan” is a clearly “easter” form.

bei - ba

Matthias Klostermayr:


Bua333: Schmei: Prjaeger (Viennese): Franzl (Viennese)

This “ba” ow is neither very common for “Bavarian” nor for “Austrian” example:

This seems to be an individual form which surely can occure when one individual is writing, but the common usage in a whole group is remarkable.

mange - manche

Bua: mange Bua333: Sanxdi: Schmei: mange + RechtschreibfÀila Matthias Klostermayr:

“mange” for German “manche” is also possible for an individual usage, but so uncommon that its usage in the whole group is uncommon at least.

Wrong “vokalisation of “l””:

Expected is “Fäla” or “Föla”, but there are examples of Fäila, Fäijlan, Fejla.

Klostermayr Fäilan: Schmei: RechtschreibfÀila Klostermayr Fejla:

Saxndi: Fejla

Bua: Fejla

Schmei: Fejla

This form is uncommon to any Bavarian dialect I know and it is definitely not the Form used in Munich or Vienna.

Also Bua uses it:


Spuila: Bua Saxndi: Matthias Klostermayr: Joe Watzmo: Papa Kern: Zwillingformen: Schmei:

Papa Kern: Voiksschauspuilarin, Schauspuilarin (Bua corrected spuilarin to spuijarin)

In the central Austro-Bavarian dialects “l” following a vowel are in most words transformed into some vowel combination. These vowel-combinations resulting are very characteristic for the different regions. But it will not occur that the vowel combination will be there and at the same time the “l” will remain. --Buachamer (talk) 08:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


This user and his dedicated buddy User:Hoferaanderl are the master sockpuppeteers of bar.wikipedia --Joe Watzmo (talk) 08:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

bar:Benutzer:Joe Watzmo/hoferaanderl sock puppet zoo
see: /2012-03#Hoferaanderl@bar.wikipedia
and here: /, where you can see that they are buddies
--Joe Watzmo (talk) 08:43, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Oppose I'm sysop on bar.wikipedia. This check is not approved by the community. These guys are professional, unproductive project disturbers (since years): users Buachamer/Roland and Hoferaanderl and his sock puppet zoo --Gschupfta Ferdl (talk)

and btw, evidently this accuse is written by the sockpupppet player Hoferaanderl, its not the english of Buachamer/Roland. --Gschupfta Ferdl (talk) 09:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

oppose: For longtime the accused users have been the core group of active contributors on bar.wikipedia. The accusers, especially the ghost writer of this accusation (Hoferaanderl: indefinitely blocked for multiple sock puppetry and multiple verbal abuse -> he announced "a scientific" accusation by a verbal abuse, some days ago), are the ongoing provocateurs. But, talking for myself only, I agree to be checked out, in depth. --Bua333 (talk) 11:26, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Note: Hoferaanderl was not blocked indefinitely by one of the admins on the list above, but by Holder, sysop and bureaucrat on als.wikipedia and bar.wikipedia --Bua333 (talk) 11:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done please discuss within your community, and if required please submit a succinct application, with pertinent links. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

How should we discuss it within the community? We had several discussions before. The situation is that these users love to vote and they want that the results of their votes are accepted from all users of the bar wiki. There are suspicious phenomenons and I asked several times if they could offer anything to help me believe in the authenticity of their users but I got nothing. In fact they made fun of me and tried to make other users mistrust me. You can see their behaviour here and you can also look at I wrote "Because there is still mistrust and anger I want to start an CU. If it's accepted the mistrust against Bua333 and his friends could be abolished". I got the warning of Matthias Klostermayr not to stir up trouble otherwise I will be blocked. He added that there was a chance for a CU but it's gone. I will ask them again if they could do anything to prove their authenticity but what should I do if they just don't want to? Could I come here again and show you their reactions? If there are sockpuppets there will probably not be any chance for me to get a good discussion or any proof of their authenticity but I'll try it. --Buachamer (talk) 18:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
You and your buddy, the proved sockpuppet player Hoferaanderl, are constantly misusing discussions to do harm to the bavarian wikipedia (using multiple sock puppets and meat puppets).
I have a suggestion for you: contribute, write articles, support the quality improvement project within the bavarian wikipedia. Accept basic rules of the community and stop your useless wikihounding.
--Gschupfta Ferdl (talk) 06:01, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
I have good news. After the discussion at the bar Wiki the users are planning a voluntary CU. If all of the 8 users offer to be checked with CU I'm satisfied and I think that the mistrust will be abolished. Thank you so far. --Buachamer (talk) 10:20, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
And if not all participate, then this is the community decision, if you accept it or not. EOD --Gschupfta Ferdl (talk) 10:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you both for all explanations. You might want to keep this conversation locally. As said above, this request is closed as 'not done' until we have some more input from locals, assuring that it is the desire of community. Thanks for cooperating.—Teles «Talk to me ˱@ L C S˲» 10:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


Unrelated Unrelated Ruslik (talk) 18:34, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


At this time I do not see anything suspicious. Ruslik (talk) 07:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)