Steward requests/Checkuser/2018-02

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



  • Comment Comment. None of these registered users have been blocked on any Wikimedia project so far. I am wondering what we should do here, but I can't think of anything else apart from blocking three proxy IP ranges or so. Furthermore, I see no grounds for checking the aforementioned IP ranges against a particular user atm. RadiX 21:42, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't think that one of the prior conditions for a request was that one or more of the accounts must have been blocked in a wiki. I'm requiring a check to verify that they have to be: the edits I've shown (some of the which were unequivocally inappropriate or disruptive, the others at least useless) were identical edited by proxies, accounts and IP ranges from Northern Italy; proxies and socks are also forbidden in this project; if a steward verifies the connection among each others, it'll be the prove that one user is the vandal behind all this. No need to declare publicly which single IPs have been used by each single account: if just each account have been using one or more of these IP ranges (both proxies and normal, which are related to each others because of their identical edits), then this will be a long term abuse, so that not just proxies but also accounts (socks) and the IP ranges used by the socks will be blocked, am I right? Jatharinan (talk) 10:24, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Using sockpuppets is not forbidden, abusing them is. But currently I see no proof for such abuse. Or am I missing something? Trijnsteltalk 01:50, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Trijnstel: I do know that "abusing", not "using", sockpuppets is forbidden. The thing I don't know is which one of these legitimate uses was done of the listed sockpuppets. All I see is that Baka Líte, Myeuurn and Onpuryvgr were used in different wikis to restore the same edits made by proxies (see here, or here and here, or here and here, or here) and, "coincidentally", these socks were created after some of these proxies were blocked in some wikis and their edits reverted... Connect the dots. The sockmaster in these cases stopped using proxies and started using sockpuppets, in order not to be identified. Is this a legitimate use of sockpuppets? I hope I didn't miss anything. By the way, sockpuppets aside, no use of open proxies is allowed, at all. On my experience, usually, when a user edits from a proxy which is recognised as proxy by a sysop, the IP or IP range he's used is immediately blocked in the whole project, and the eventual accounts which made similar edits from that proxy are blocked "with an expiration time of indefinite", and their edits reverted. Can you tell me how is it possible, after all the proves I've brought here during the last month, that none of these actions has been taken yet, and it also seems to me that sysops are even looking for loopholes to avoid blocking this cross-wiki vandal? Is there something I don't know but sysops do know about this story? Jatharinan (talk) 9:11, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
    I am wondering whether these accounts have been used abusively on local projects. The user mentioned at my talk page that local checkusers have managed to draw some conclusion based on it, but I still see no evidence of that. @Jatharinan: Would you please provide us with the necessary information? (links and/or diffs for local CU results). Thanks. RadiX 01:58, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I will. First, read my reply to Trijnstel just over here. After that, I'll give you all the information you need. Jatharinan (talk) 9:11, 2 February 2018 (UTC) P.S. I have absolutely NO idea why my account was blocked by an Italian sysop, he must have thought I was another person who vandalised Italian wiki with an IP belonging to my range.
X mark.svg Not done reporting user is a troll who I'm starting reverting and (b)locking on sight. --Vituzzu (talk) 08:51, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


X mark.svg Not done We do not match accounts to IP addresses. Ruslik (talk) 18:24, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ruslik0: How can you verify that IPs are actually connected to a user account? If not, can you suggest how to stop such abuse? --Horus (talk) 11:06, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Horus: Can't you create abuse filters and/or block IP ranges? Trijnsteltalk 01:51, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the idea. --Horus (talk) 04:36, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Extended content
@Abd: Have you send it to stewards(_AT_) As emails from outsiders to stewards-l are automatically rejected. Trijnsteltalk 01:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I got a response from Vito, so I know it went to the right list. (He does not seem to have understood the mail. I am not asking for checkusers to reveal any private information, nor to connect IP addresses to real persons, nor to act based on the information I provided, other than, say, police may investigate an anonymous tip. They will not arrest someone solely on such a tip. I provided a list of IP addresses that were clearly the relevant sock master from the duck test, and that might be useful in connecting the named accounts. If not, it can be disregarded.) I also provided certain normally private information, legally collected, but I do not want to describe it here. w:WP:BEANS Thanks. --Abd (talk) 02:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed I didn't understand it was just "an anonymous tip". In other words a request to violate a basket of policies and laws basing upon illegally collected, untrustworthy and useless data. --Vituzzu (talk) 10:10, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It was not anonymous, but private, as such should be. ("Anonymous tip" was an analogy.) It was not a request to violate any identified policy, and no evidence was collected illegally. Vituzzu is making serious claims without evidence (and, by the way, after he made this "illegal" claim, I researched the law and found nothing), but this is irrelevant here. This is a checkuser request, and what I submitted to the checkuser mailing list will be used or not, at the discretion of the acting steward. If there are any questions about the request, I'll answer; until then I'm simply waiting. I am not biased toward positive results, a finding of clear independence would be of equally high interest to me. There are intermediate findings that would still be valuable. Please, just the facts, as possible. (One of the accounts above was added to a prior request by another user from Wikiversity, but it was not noticed and that had been archived.) --Abd (talk) 04:16, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't trust your knowledge of policies, nor your "researches". That's both against law and policies, there's no much room for lawyering. Also I think you're just using this particular LTA (who is anything but smart) as an easy front for your en.wikiversity agenda. Both @Mu301: and @Ajraddatz: already outlined, these requests are not useful: most of these accounts are already checked at or are easy catch for duck test. --Vituzzu (talk) 21:53, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At en-wv there's a grand total of just 4 edits from Bodybuilder1991 (all of them on my talk page) and one from Liftingthe (also on my talk page.) I was not able to provide assistance in this case, but I do consider it legitimate that someone at least be allowed to make a request to a local 'crat even if they've been blocked elsewhere. I do not appreciate an indef blocked user like Abd interfering with these communications as we attempt to respond to complaints on our wiki. (and there have been many complaints from Abd's activity...) I see no edits at en-wv from any of these accounts that warrants CU, and consider this to be a frivolous and nuisance request. These vendetta's that you are pursuing are a large part of the reason why you can no longer participate at Wikiversity. @Abd: your wv user talk page is now locked.[1] You no longer have an "agenda" to pursue at Wikiversity. Please stop wasting everyone's time. --mikeu talk 03:36, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI, 21:53, 27 January 2018 Matanya (talk | contribs) changed status for global account "User:Liftingthe@global": set locked; unset (none) (Long-term abuse) --Marshallsumter (talk) 19:12, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(Not documented in the previous request.) The point of this request is not that sock, which was indeed obvious, but the connection between the Michaelskater family, already found to be behind impersonation socks, and to be Bodybuilder1991, and new impersonation and other socks on Wikipedia, as well as previously reported IP addresses apparently involved in the same issues, cross-wiki. This can make a difference in further discussions. As to "wasting time," I have filed a substantial series of checkuser requests, all quite productive. Someone, though really doesn't want this to happen and has been complaining extensively by email to some, who seem to believe the claims. This page is for checkuser requests. not debates, and hopefully this one will be addressed or closed. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 23:53, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here are some facts that may be helpful:
  1. w:user:Kujilia did not edit on 25 January 2018, when v:user:Liftingthe edited Wikiversity, which is timing.
  2. w:user:Kujilia edited Wikipedia between 13:38 and 16:36, 23 January 2018, when v:user:Bodybuilder1991 edited Wikiversity at 06:07, then again at 22:35 and 22:37, 23 January 2018, which is timing.
  3. w:user:Kujilia edited w:Toby Young about eugenics/nazis (nazis, is another AP focus, see w:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Anglo_Pyramidologist/Archive).
  4. w:user:Kujilia has an unusual level of knowledge about eugenics/nazis.
  5. Confirmed AP sock w:user:WoodChopper edited w:Talk:Toby Young on 12 January 2018 regarding eugenics.
  6. Confirmed AP sock w:user:Rebecca Bird edited w:Toby Young on 16 January 2018 regarding eugenics.
  7. w:user:El Badboy! calls itself "Tarquin Q. Zanzibar" when editing Talk pages like w:Talk:Toby_Young at 10:15, 11 January 2018 which is impersonation regarding eugenics/nazis, but edited w:Toby Young as w:user:El Badboy! also about eugenics/nazis.
  8. w:user:El Badboy! has an unusual level of knowledge about eugenics/nazis.
  9. w:user:FudgeBarEater and w:user:AlahAkbarAllah are two impersonations by AP that include "bar" as in "Zanzibar" impersonation by user:El Badboy!, see w:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Anglo_Pyramidologist/Archive, coincidence of names.
  10. w:user:El Badboy!'s last edit on Wikipedia was at 13:51, 25 January 2018, only edit by v:user:Liftingthe was at 19:31, 25 January 2018, and account registered on Wikiversity at 18:43, 25 January 2018, which is timing, and another impersonation.
  11. v:user:Sci-fi-, an AP sock (see Checkuser archive), edited Wikiversity in August 2017, w:user:El Badboy! did not edit in August 2017, but did edit Wikipedia in July 2017, which is timing.
  12. w:user:El Badboy! tried to get w:Biochemical Predestination deleted at 19:10, 11 April 2015, and another user suggested taking concerns to Fringe Theories Noticeboard, which is focus on a fringe science, see w:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Anglo_Pyramidologist/Archive.
  13. w:user:El Badboy! as "Tarquin Q. Zanzibar" edited w:Talk:Dean H. Kenyon regarding Creationist/Creationism as science, another AP focus, see w:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Anglo_Pyramidologist/Archive. --Marshallsumter (talk) 15:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here are some additional facts that may be helpful on Tumbleman impersonations:
  1. At 21:45, 25 January 2018 w:Tumbleman 2018 edited Fringe Theories Noticeboard, which is focus on a fringe science, see w:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Anglo_Pyramidologist/Archive.
  2. At 21:45, 25 January 2018 w:Tumbleman_2018 deleted an edit by w:user:Krelnik that began with "A post at the "Wikipedia We Have A Problem" blog (I'd link it but naturally it is blacklisted) is soliciting readers to go edit two articles that have figured in past fringe-related edit wars and attempt to relitigate past battles on the talk page. The first request is to go to w:Rupert Sheldrake and ask about the word biologist in the first sentence (despite the fact that it is already right there in the second sentence). The second request is to go to w:Deepak Chopra and ask about "why he isn't listed as an MD", again despite the fact that this is right there in the second paragraph." is attempting to turn every conversation into an attack on favorite targets, a common AP sock behavior, here included w:user:Krelnik.
  3. The above includes deception.
  4. The above includes a request for contributors to pressure others.
  5. w:Tumbleman 2018 is an impersonation of w:user:Tumbleman.
  6. v:Liftingthe edited Wikiversity at 19:31, 25 January 2018, before first edit above by w:Tumbleman 2018, which is timing.
  7. At 18:08, 14 February 2018 w:Tumbleman Wins reattacked w:Deepak Chopra with "", which is an attack on favorite targets, a common AP sock behavior.
  8. This is vandalism and impersonation of w:user:Tumbleman.
  9. w:Tumbleman Wins has an unusual level of knowledge in attack on w:Deepak Chopra.
  10. user:Logos Tumbleman Manul Abd Jamenta Dan Skeptic edited at 19:08, 15 October 2017 to User talk:Abd (→‎Latest misinformation from Englisc), which is an attack on favorite targets, a common AP sock behavior.
  11. user:Logos Tumbleman Manul Abd Jamenta Dan Skeptic is another impersonation of w:user:Tumbleman.
  12. 19:10, 15 October 2017 Ajraddatz (talk | contribs) changed status for global account "User:Logos Tumbleman Manul Abd Jamenta Dan Skeptic@global": set locked; unset (none) (Long-term abuse). --Marshallsumter (talk) 19:58, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here are facts on The 23canaries and The Aiki:

  1. At 13:19, 26 January 2018 w:user:The 23canaries edited w:Talk:Rupert Sheldrake.
  2. At 13:21, 26 January 2018 w:user:The 23canaries edited w:Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard.
  3. Fringe Theories Noticeboard is focus on a fringe science, see w:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Anglo_Pyramidologist/Archive.
  4. Edit at 13:21, 26 January 2018 to section "Blog author soliciting people to troll Rupert Sheldrake and Deepak" of w:Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard was revision deleted.
  5. At 22:17, 25 January 2018‎ w:user:The Aiki edited w:Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard which was revision deleted.
  6. At 22:19, 25 January 2018‎ w:user:The Aiki again edited w:Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard (Undid revision 822356675 by Chrissymad (talk)) which was revision deleted.
  7. v:Liftingthe edited Wikiversity at 19:31, 25 January 2018, before first edit above by w:user:The Aiki, which is timing.
  8. Confirmed AP sock w:user:Watcher1968 edited w:Talk:Rupert Sheldrake on 17 November 2017.
  9. Confirmed AP sock w:user:Goblin Face edited w:Talk:Deepak Chopra on 8 December 2014‎.
  10. pages will continue to be a magnet for this user. --Marshallsumter (talk) 22:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few facts about user:MrRowser:

  1. attempting to turn every conversation into an attack on favorite targets is common AP sock behavior, see User:Abd/LTA/Anglo Pyramidologist.
  2. a person that AP had a conflict with in the past.
  3. complaining about bias and misinformation.
  4. a single-purpose account to maintain anonymity.
  5. User:MrRowser stated: "I did a handful of edits in regard to the Wikiversity article on parapsychology back in 2015." Parapsychology is a favorite AP subject, see w:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anglo Pyramidologist/Archive.
  6. user:MrRowser stated: "I did a handful of edits in regard to the Wikiversity article on parapsychology back in 2015.", but v:user:MrRowser was never registered on Wikiversity which is either impersonation or deception, or both.
  7. personal attacks and harassment against anyone who disagrees with him, e.g., "this is extreme paranoia." on section Abd.
  8. pressuring user:Vituzzu for a deletion.
  9. w:user:El Badboy! edited Wikipedia at 02:59, 24 December 2017 (last edit in December 2017).
  10. w:user:I have a big foot a confirmed AP sock edited Wikipedia between 17:13, 24 December 2017 and 17:15, 24 December 2017.
  11. w:Rebecca Bird, a confirmed AP sock edited Wikipedia between 18:30, 24 December 2017 and 18:48, 24 December 2017 (last edit in 2017).
  12. user:MrRowser edited here between 22:21, 26 December 2017 and 03:01, 27 December 2017.
  13. w:user:I have a big foot began re-editing Wikipedia at 16:49, 28 December 2017, which is timing.

--— The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marshallsumter (talk) 03:48, 20 February

  • MrRowser did have 10 edits on en.Wikiversity, but to a now-deleted page. He was mentioned in the original AP study, with no accusation of any improper behavior, merely of having edited following AP interests, and what now raised suspicion was his radical attack on me and on the study, years later, claiming he'd been attacked, when he hadn't. --Abd (talk) 22:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've already sent emails about this ongoing harassment by Abd to stewards by email; I'll probably send another. The above spam is from abd, yet he just has this other user now post it - hence he still links to his coldfusion blog. The above spam is misinformation; most those accounts are completely unrelated. Just read this to see what is really going on - Lomax is perm-banned on Wikiversity and RationalWiki and blames "Anglo Pyramidologist" for those bans. He now has a vendetta against Anglo P, for example his blog now has 19 (!) smear articles attacking this person. Wikiversity perm-blocked him for this vendetta.Fairbournes (talk) 22:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the above user:
  1. attempting to turn every conversation into an attack on favorite targets is common AP sock behavior, see User:Abd/LTA/Anglo Pyramidologist.
  2. a person that AP had a conflict with in the past.
  3. complaining about bias and misinformation.
  4. a single-purpose account to maintain anonymity.
  5. personal attacks and harassment against anyone who disagrees with him.
  6. pressuring Checkuser for a desired result.
  7. pages will continue to be a magnet for this user.
  8. This is impersonation.
  9. User:Fairbournes has an unusual level of knowledge of target.
  10. The above includes deception. --Marshallsumter (talk) 02:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  11. See same behavior by confirmed AP sock user:LadyDragoner at Steward requests/Checkuser/2017-09. --Marshallsumter (talk) 18:43, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to keep this simple. Prompt attention to requests would avoid abuse of this page for debate or attack. The misleading claims about my behavior here and off-wiki are irrelevant to the request, but, now, another obvious SPA of the known LTA Anglo Pyramidologist:
This user has added a link to RationalWiki defamation, that's the only "spam" here. Anglo Pyramidologist is actually two people, brothers, one of whom has openly admitted many socks and has claimed that the other brother created the very many others. (And that the two have created many attack articles on RationalWiki, and claims of paid editing have been confirmed. That is not relevant to this request, but is an indication of importance.) Checkusers should be aware of the existence of two people behind these accounts.
I did not write Marshallsumter's request, at all. Had I written it, it would have been very brief. But he is a Wikiversity administrator, familiar with the outrageous situation. The sock masters commonly use open proxies and web hosts, as well as mobile IP, to evade clear identification, and they depend on inattention and hasty responses. Please carefully address this request, results could make a difference on Wikiversity as did previous checkuser findings and global locks, and on Wikipedia as well. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 16:19, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've already sent an email informing Stewards of the situation. These are fake checkuser requests based on a vendetta. Furthermore, Abd has been blocked on RationalWiki impersonating Anglo who he is obsessed with. That leads me to suspect some, or many, of the above accounts he wants check-usered are his own sock-puppets he's probably edited on a TOR. I've never heard of any of the listed accounts before. If they are not Abd false flag socks, he's just linking to random unrelated people.Fairbournes (talk) 18:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by user "el badboy" now on RationalWiki confirming he is not related to the other users Abd has falsely accused him of owning. A RationalWiki sysop describes Abd as follows: "I don't think that the foundation should be bothered by anything posted by this twit thusfar. I've looked at the pages on his blog and they all are obviously the ravings of a complete raving loony and crank." Having independently look at Abd's blog that's the same conclusion I arrived at.Fairbournes (talk) 19:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiversity banned Abd for time-wasting, disruption and pursuing vendettas. Since he got banned from Wikiversity, he's now doing the same here. I would appreciate if this wiki took the appropriate action against him. thanks.Fairbournes (talk) 19:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editconflict - I am a Rationalwiki member that Abd has been harassing. Just to note that all of the accounts listed by Abd have been blocked apart from El_Badboy. I know who that user is, he said he is contacting the Wikimedia Foundation. I personally do not understand this checkuser request. The accounts listed have mostly already been blocked for seperate issues and the other accounts were never disruptive.

Also deception. Bodybuilder1991 has admitted to being liftingthe. Its obvious if those accounts are checked they would be a match. Abd usually does this. He files a check-user request for two accounts to get a match, he then claims falsly all the others belong to the same person. In the past innocent people have been tagged as socks this way, if this check-user request is to be carried out every account should be checked not just the top two which have already been admitted to being the same person. The accounts Tumbleman_2018 and 23canaries belong to Rome Viharo a Wikipedia sockmaster and spammer. They are unrealed to Kujilia and Anglo_Pyramidologist. Abd has a history of confusing Rome Viharo's socks with AP. He does this on purpose.

There is no technical evidence to link the Michael Skater socks of 2017 on wikiversity to the socks of Anglo_Pyramidologist on Wikipedia. AP has never edited Wikiversity. Abd is known for confusing peoples accounts to harrass users. Abd is not a checkuser nor a Steward yet he has been conducting false check-user 'studies' that mimic real investigations.

Abd is banned on Wikiversity and Wikipedia. His LTA studies at Wikiversity were deleted by admins because of doxxing. He is outing users real life names. In regard to Abd's LTA studies at Meta-Wiki. One has been deleted, the deletion discussion was that his studies are inappropriate. Yet one of his studies remains that he has just linked to. This LTA study is deceptive. If you check the sockpuppet investigation page for AngloPyramidologist on wikipedia about 50 accounts are not on there that he accuses AP of owning. Abd has delibrarely confused Michael Skater's socks with APs. He has no technical evidence to be linking these accounts together but puts them all under AP as harrassment. This is on going fued between Michael Skater and Abd. Abd is upset his pseudoscientific articles were deleted on Cold Fusion on Wikiversity. He now has a vendetta against the skeptics he blames for getting these articles deleted on Wikiversity, see the deletion discussion. On his Cold Fusion blog he attempts to dox and out peoples real life identities, even hunting for wikipedia users family addresses and photographs of their children. All illegal. He also has a 'map' of where Wikipedia users live and their IP addresses on his website. Very disturbing.

Abd has also sent AP harassing emails. He did the same to another user JPS

[2] "Delete and ban User:Abd for harassing me in e-mails. Wikiversity should be ashamed of itself for continuing to let him abusively campaign here." Abd also doxxed this user's real life name that was legally changed and posted where this person lives and works. JPS later told Abd to remove it. Abd is a known internet harasser. The reason this person had to change his JPS username to his new one was because of Abd's off-site stalking.

Abd has also harassed and falsly accused other users and IPs of being the same person. He harassed [3]

Abd, was banned on Rationalwiki for doxxing and harrassing other users. He now has an article about himself on there which logs his internet abuse going back years. Apparently his family have seen his Rationalwiki article and they consider him a "dangerous" individual so he has a vendetta against the skeptics who created it. He accuses AP and his brother of creating it, but has no technical evidence. Rationalwiki is not related to Meta-wiki, so Abd needs to move on with his life and stop talking about it. Every few weeks Abd is filing these bogus check-user requests. He then copies them to his blog and pretends he is a Steward. This is just a way he can harass users. He needs to be blocked from this website. He never stops his obsession with AP or skeptics. 19:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The 82.132 IP is mobile, on a service provider used extensively by AP socks, with a familiar geolocation. I'd say more except ... privacy policy. These socks raise a blizzard of irrelevant arguments, which will not be addressed here. My involvement came from impersonation socks used to attack Ben Steigmann on Wikipedia, leading to sanctions against him on Wikiversity, uncovered by this request and subsequent ones, [4], [5]. Impersonation socking has become an Anglo Pyramidologist (AP) practice, and, yes, I'm certain. Details here are not necessary for checkuser. The identifications on Wikipedia that seem otherwise (i.e., socks identified as Blastikus (Steigmann) or tumbleman (Rome Viharo) are not being made with checkuser, but based on "self-identification," which fails to recognize impersonation. In particular, this SPI blamed obvious AP impersonation usernames on Blastikus. (Roxy the dog pseudoskeptic, Viharo revival, Radin Revival, Defending Rhine, Rhine defender.) There is no history of "innocent users" being harmed by my checkuser requests. Checkuser here, looking also at cross-wiki users, could clear up some of the confusion.
In this checkuser request a "target" of the socking raised suspicion of impersonation. But checkuser was not performed. Tumbleman (Rome Viharo) had no confirmed history of abusive "self-identifying" sock vandalism. Krelnik, no friend of Rome Viharo, noticed the blatant out-of-character editing, and that matches the recent alleged Viharo socks, some are listed above.
When AP accounts were massively locked, AP began using open proxies and mobile IP, such as the above. This request was not actioned, for reasons best known to stewards, but that was the only request I've filed that might be called "unsuccessful," and was why I did not file IP evidence with this request, but instead emailed it to stewards. --Abd (talk) 21:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abd is lying, I am a Rationalwiki editor that has been harassed by Abd, I am not AP yet Abd now has a whole article on his website with my mobile IP addresses. Abd is a real life stalker who has been harassing Wikipedia editors. I already linked above he has sent JPS harassing emails. He confuses my identity with his enemy AP like he has done with others.

Ben Steigmann is a known holocaust denier who has admitted to socking, on his blocked sock account areyoumoral on the Blastikus SPI he admitted to sock-puppeting and wrote "I, as the user Blastikus, apologize for the antisemitism that got me banned in the first place." Ben Steigmann is another sockmaster who is a friend of Abd and Rome Viharo. He too has a Rationalwiki article. Abd defends this disturbed person on his blog. I see no evidence he has been 'harassed'. He has admitted to socking.

In the latest Blastikus SPI mentioned, Abd yet again throws out unproven and libellous accusations, he says those socks belong to AP. Proof? None. If you check the history of the J. B. Rhine article on Wikipedia, it is a hotspot for Ben Steigmann to sock and push his fringe beliefs, he has been doing it on loads of accounts including Rhine Revival which he admitted to owning. Abd is yet again confusing peoples socks with other peoples. He does this repeatedly on his blog as a way to harass people.

Lastly Abd says " Tumbleman (Rome Viharo) had no confirmed history of abusive "self-identifying" sock vandalism". Yes he did. He has been sock-puppeting for years. On his account Tumbleman he wrote in his own words to being "Rome Viharo" in edit. This is self-identifying.

Ben Steigmann, Rome Viharo and Abd all have Rationalwiki articles, they are known internet trolls. They have all sock-puppeted on Wikipedia. Now Abd blames their socks on his enemy AP because he blames this person for his RW article. This is libellous and he has no technical evidence to prove his allegations. He does this to harass AP.

Abd has also posted wiki users house addresses on his blog. This is off-wiki harassment and Abd should receive an outright ban on Meta-Wiki. He is putting peoples lives at risk by the doxing users personal details on his website. This guy is an extreme internet harasser who has been banned on every wiki he has been on apart from this one. I will email the Wikimedia Health and Safety team about his behaviour. 01:47, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • This request is not "RfC:Abd." I am irrelevantly accused of many violations of policy above, with highly misleading descriptions and outright lies, and the specific admissions of this IP and the special concerns (and very unusual level of knowledge about AP history and AP enemies) are absolutely clear, this is an AP sock, probably the one I called AP/D. There are two brothers, as the earliest Sock Puppet Investigations on Anglo Pyramidologist developed. (They were not lying! Both are highly disruptive, but AP/O, the original named SPI account, has claimed that the large armies of socks are his brother, AP/D.) Stewards, please address this request so this disruption stops. If there are concerns about my behavior, my Talk page here is open and so is my email. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 14:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More deception from Abd.

1. Abd is hosting AngloPyramidologist's real life name and house address on his cold fusion community blog, this is real life doxxing and outing and should be an immediate ban for Abd. This is real life harassment. Abd has been banned on Wikipedia and Wikiversity for disruption. Before being banned on Wikiversity he had received warnings for doxxing users.

2. Abd is accusing innocent Wikipedia users of owning socks they do not own. He confuses the AngloPyramidologist's socks on Wikipedia with the Michael Skater Wikiversity socks and with Rome Viharo's Tumbleman and Ben Steigmann's Blastikus socks on wikipedia. All these are separate users and separate SPI cases yet Abd blames all of them on AP which is a libellous accusation. He now hosts all these SPI cases on his blog and blames them on AP yet he has no technical evidence.

3. What disruption? All of the accounts listed in Abd's checkuser request have been blocked apart from Kujilia. I see no evidence they all belong to the same person. Kujilia is an innocent user.

4. Abd has been harassing Wikipedia and Wikiversity users off site on his blog. Why is he not banned yet on meta-wiki? 18:55, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mu301:, @Fairbournes:, @Kujilia:, @Ajraddatz:, @Vituzzu:, @JzG:, what are your thoughts about this? 19:04, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I don't want to read any of this. All of you stop editing this page. X mark.svg Not doneAjraddatz (talk) 19:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


 Confirmed as well as Joana poci and Fukingusername. Ruslik (talk) 19:57, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ruslik0: Can you please complete my CU test because user Τζερόνυμο is using his "suspicions" to delete all my contributions. ΕρΚιλλ (talk) 16:15, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


张云飞 is Stale. All other accounts as well as Nimdeebuku are  Confirmed. Ruslik (talk) 18:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
According to archives, should he be 小曹2015 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)? --WAN233 (talk) 00:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


X mark.svg Not done meta has own checkusers. Ruslik (talk) 19:51, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


 Confirmed Ruslik (talk) 19:56, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Drooler@cs.wiktionary

Better translation: The rabble whose behaviour discouraged me from editing must be thwarted. -- 21:33, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kusurija:: you cannot alter others' requests. If you want to add more names you can make a new request or add more names with another template. I trust Martin Urbanec's requests while I don't second requests from involved parties like you. Because of your falsification of Martin Urbanec request I performed two useless checks.
Unrelated Unrelated but I'll share with Martin Urbanec my findings.
--Vituzzu (talk) 22:59, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]