Misplaced Pages

:Requests for checkuser - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MSJapan (talk | contribs) at 02:51, 2 June 2006 (fixed botched caps, changed templaste from user to checkuser). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 02:51, 2 June 2006 by MSJapan (talk | contribs) (fixed botched caps, changed templaste from user to checkuser)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards


    Read this first

    This is the place to request sockpuppet checks and other investigations requiring access to the Checkuser privilege. Possible alternatives are listed below.

    Requests likely to be accepted

    Code Situation Solution, requirements
    A Blatant attack or vandalism accounts, need IP block Submit new section at #Requests for IP check, below
    B Evading blocks, bans and remedies issued by arbitration committee Submit case subpage, including link to closed arb case
    C Ongoing, serious pattern vandalism with many incidents Submit case subpage, including diffs
    D Vote fraud, closed vote, fraud affects outcome Submit case subpage, including link to closed vote
    E 3RR violation using sockpuppets Submit case subpage, including diffs of violation
    F Evading blocks, bans and remedies issued by community Submit case subpage, including link to evidence of remedy
    G Does not fit above, but you believe check needed Submit case subpage, briefly summarize and justify

    Requests likely to be rejected

    Situation Solution
    Obvious, disruptive sock puppet Block, no checkuser needed
    Disruptive "throwaway" account used only for a few edits Block, no checkuser needed
    Checkuser on yourself to "prove your innocence" Such requests are rarely accepted, please do not ask
    Related to ongoing arbitration case Request checkuser on the arbitration case pages
    Vote fraud, ongoing vote Wait until vote closes before listing, or post at Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets
    Vote fraud, closed vote, did not affect outcome List at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets
    Other disruption of articles List at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets
    Open proxy, IP address already known List at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Open proxies
    You want access to the checkuser tool yourself Contact the Arbitration Committee, but such access is granted rarely


    When submitting a request

    • If submitting a new case subpage, use the inputbox below; if adding to an existing case subpage, see WP:RFCU/P#Repeat requests.
    • Choose the code letter that best fits your request. Provide evidence such as diff links as required or requested. Note that some code letters inherently require specific evidence.
    • When listing suspected accounts or IP addresses, use the {{checkuser}} or {{checkip}} templates. Please do not use this template in a section header.
    • You may add your request to the top of the #Outstanding requests section, by adding {{Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/CASENAMEHERE}}. If you do not, clerks should check for pages in Category:Checkuser requests to be listed and will do this for you.
    • Sign your request.


    After submitting a request

    Purge cache

    Privacy violation?

    this header: view • edit

    File a Checkuser Request
    This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference.
    Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump.
    Cases are created on subpages of Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case.
    If you require help or advice, ask at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for checkuser.

    If a case subpage already exists, edit the existing page instead, either adding to the currently open section (if the case is not yet archived) or adding a new section to the top (if the case has been archived). When editing an existing case, be sure to list it here or add Category:Checkuser requests to be listed to the subpage.

    If creating a new case subpage, add the name of the main account (or "puppetmaster", not the sockpuppet!) in the box below. Leave out the "User:" prefix. Do not remove the text in the box, add the name to the end only (that is, append the name to the existing text). Then press "Request a checkuser" and you will be taken to a page where you can fill out the request.

    Example: if you want to request a checkuser on User:John Doe, enter the text:
    Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/John Doe

    <inputbox> type=create editintro=Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Inputbox/Header preload=Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Inputbox/Sample default=Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/ buttonlabel=Request a checkuser bgcolor=#F8FCFF width=50 </inputbox>

    Indicators and templates   (v  · e)
    These indicators are used by Checkusers, SPI clerks and other patrolling users, to allow easier at-a-glance reading of their notes, actions and comments.
    Case decisions:
     IP blocked  {{IPblock}}  Tagged  {{Stagged}}
     Blocked but awaiting tags  {{Sblock}}  Not possible  {{Impossible}}
     Blocked and tagged  {{Blockedandtagged}}  Blocked without tags  {{Blockedwithouttags}}
     No tags  {{No tags}}  Blocked and tagged. Closing.  {{Blockedtaggedclosing}}
    Information:
     Additional information needed  {{MoreInfo}}  Deferred  {{Deferred}}
    information Note:  {{TakeNote}}  In progress  {{Inprogress}}
    Clerk actions:
     Clerk assistance requested:  {{Clerk Request}}  Clerk note:  {{Clerk-Note}}
     Delisted  {{Delisted}}  Relisted  {{Relisted}}
     Clerk declined  {{Decline}}  Clerk endorsed  {{Endorse}}
    Self-endorsed by clerk for checkuser attention  {{Selfendorse}} CheckUser requested  {{CURequest}}
    Specific to CheckUser:
     Confirmed  {{Confirmed}} Red X Unrelated  {{Unrelated}}
     Confirmed with respect to the named user(s). no No comment with respect to IP address(es).  {{Confirmed-nc}}
     Technically indistinguishable  {{Technically indistinguishable}}
     Likely  {{Likely}}  Unlikely  {{Unlikely}}
     Possible  {{Possible}}  Inconclusive  {{Inconclusive}}
    no Declined  {{Declined}} no Unnecessary  {{Unnecessary}}
     Stale (too old)  {{StaleIP}} no No comment  {{Nocomment}}
    crystal ball CheckUser is not a crystal ball  {{Crystalball}} fish CheckUser is not for fishing  {{Fishing}}
     CheckUser is not magic pixie dust  {{Pixiedust}} magic eight ball The CheckUser Magic 8-Ball says:  {{8ball}}
     Endorsed by a checkuser  {{Cu-endorsed}}  Check declined by a checkuser  {{Cudecline}}
     Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely)  {{possilikely}}



    Note: Individuals making requests must check back regularly. The role of checkusers is to report findings; it is the responsibility of the individual making the request to see that appropriate action is taken.

    Outstanding Requests

    Lutherian

    Lutherian is currently blocked for trolling at Talk:Armenian Genocide. All of a sudden 83.77.132.16 pops up, with the exact same sarcastic tone of voice as Lutherian to continue a "discussion" with another user. Both Lutherian and the anon almost always end their sentences with either an exclamation point or "LOL". I have no doubts that L is evading his block. —Khoikhoi 23:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

    User:Prometheuspan

    This user made a huge editing mess at Rationales to impeach George W. Bush and has now taken to calling wikipedia "evil" on Jimbo's talk page. He was recently blocked for 3RR and I am pretty sure he is a sockpuppet vandal. He may be BigDaddy or perhaps he is User:Nescio. Likely he's a troll or banned user. 69.46.20.59 21:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

    User:Mr. Tibbs

    Please check User:Añoranza and User:Mr. Tibbs. Both of these editors are agressive POV warriors at Iraq War and 2003 invasion of Iraq. Mr. Tibbs was recently blocked for 3RR and I am reasonably sure that this is the same editor splitting his edits between users to game the 3RR system. Also suspected with this is User:Nescio. 69.46.20.59 20:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

    User:Rbdz29

    This user and IP addres keeps vandalising or adding independant research to the Fred Meyer and Fred G. Meyer page. Both this IP address and user insert the same misinformation on a constant basis. The IP address has already been blocked once. Hypernick1980 09:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

    User:Rex071404/User:Merecat

    After doing a brief analysis of these users' edits at User:Phr's request, it appears to me that User:Neutral arbiter and User:Wombdpsw are sockpuppets of Rex/Merecat who were both permanently banned for evading prior arbcomm resolutions. A previous noticeboard post by User:Nescio resulted in the suggestion of running a RFCU and User:Phr also made a noticeboard post regarding this. It needs to be known if these new users are sockpuppets of Rex/Merecat so the remedies (particularly remedy 2) from Rex's 4th and last arbitration case can be enforced. There is also an RfAr and a Request for clarification up about this user. -- Mr. Tibbs 07:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

    I would like to add 69.46.20.59 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) to this RFCU-list as possible sockpuppet of Merecat/Rex. Reason is the absolutely odious RFCU above in which this "new" user acuses me. Odious since this users second edit is this RFCU, yet he is very familiar with the rationale article and the heated debate between Merecat and Prometheuspan. And like Merecat he calls this user a sockpuppet and a troll. Sounds like Merecat to me.Holland Nomen Nescio 21:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

    I'll just point out that Mr. Tibbs's accusation against Rex071404 is false. Rex071404 is not "permanently banned". Rather, he is currently blocked and falsely so. He's accused of being a sockpuppet of Merecat, but as the ArbCom history against Rex shows, Rex himself is not a sockpuppet. As for Merecat, he was blocked by Katefan0 (who has since quit the wiki) as being a likely sockpuppet of Rex. So basically, what we have here is Mr. Tibbs, trying to false slander two new users Neutral Arbiter and Wombdpsw. And for what reason? Neither of those uses are disruptive editors and neither of them have transgressed any standard wiki rules or any of the special restrictions that apply to Rex. Suffice it to say, Mr. Tibbs is clearly on a fishing trip, trying to attack a couple of editors for no justifiable reason. I suggest that Mr. Tibbs is a POV warrior trying to stymie these new users because they have made edits which Mr. Tibbs resents. Also, the so-called "5th" ArbCom case against Rex was rejected and interestingly enough, while considering that potential case, User:Mindspillage said "I'm not actually opposed to banned users coming back in such a way that we can't tell who they are because they're not editing disruptively...". I see no evidence that Neutral Arbiter or Wombdpsw are being disruptive. Nor is there any demonstrated allegation that Rex appears to be using them to circumvent. Any plain reading of the CheckUser Policy makes clear that the type of vendetta that Nescio and Mr. Tibbs seem to be on against Rex071404 should not be enabled by allowing them to make these inquiries. However, if they were to be allowed then both Nescio and Mr. Tibbs ought to be scrutinized very carefully themselves. Also Prometheuspan. Optimally though, Mr. Tibbs inquiries here should be rejected as being a fishing trip. 69.46.20.59 23:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

    I think this more than elaborate copy of arguments Merecat has presented on numerous pages, makes it very likely this anon is Merecat/Rex. As for fishing expedition, the two bad faith RFCU's filed by this user are of course a prime example.Holland Nomen Nescio 00:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

    Pantherarosa

    User:Abdulrahman_Jaffer_Al_Zadjali has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet; however, no admin was willing to make the call on who the puppet master was. User:Abdulrahman Jaffer Al Zadjali made two edits, one to his userpage and one to his talk page, and then began commenting on a WP:PAIN discussion on User:Melca, in which User:Pantherarosa had been invloved. Abdulrahman sided with Panthera in the debate. They have also both edited mainly the same articles, such as Reza Cyrus Pahlavi. As I said, the evidence is there but not overwhelming, and a CheckUser would help to alleviate doubt about who the master is and would perhaps present other sockpuppets being (ab)used. AmiDaniel (talk) 04:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

    DreamGuy

    Recent suspected multiple subversion of 3RR at Beelzebub and Spring Heeled Jack, where DreamGuy and Victrix have been involved in edit wars on numerous occasions with numerous editors.

    Example 1: After Dreamguy reverted Beelzebub for the third time (revert 1, revert 2, revert 3), Victrix appeared out of nowhere to post a message of support on his talk page, then reverted the article to Dreamguy's preferred version, using a similar longwinded edit summary to those Dreamguy typically uses, phrased in almost exactly the same hostile manner.

    Example 2: After Victrix reverted Spring Heeled Jack for the third time (revert 1, revert 2, revert 3), DreamGuy appeared out of nowhere and reverted the article to Victrix' preferred version, again using the same longwinded edit summary to those Victrix typically uses, phrased in almost exactly the same hostile manner.

    A comparison of their edit histories reveals that Dreamguy and Victrix edit the same group of articles (particularly those related to the Victorian era, Jack the Ripper, crime and mythology), use the same lengthy edit summaries, the same terminology (ie "crap", "fucked up", "spam" etc when describing anything they disagree with), the same technique of accusing anyone who disagrees with them as "harrassing" them, and the same predisposition to conducting edit wars over content.

    They are obviously the same person using multiple identities with the deliberate intention of circumventing the 3RR and attempting to influence the outcome of talk page discussions. Centauri 02:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

    User:Ed_Poor

    Serious edit war at Intelligent design between User:Ed Poor and the remaining editors, resulting in full protection of the page, 3RR violation report filed against Ed Poor and RFC filed against Ed Poor. Just after this all had started, User:LenW reinserted the last statement of Ed Poor, which was not a simple revert an other edit had taklen place to correct grammar errors . Consequently, the suggestion of sockpuppetry has been brougt forward, and it might need to be established beyond doubt. Of course, this could be a coincidence and if this is insufficient for a checkuser, I understand. -- Kim van der Linde 23:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

    Category:Misplaced Pages:Suspected sockpuppets of Krabs502

    I'd like to see conclusively if these group of users are in fact the same. Also please take a look at User:216.83.121.194. Listed on WP:LTA, but still conducted many vandalistic edits. These include inserting incorrect details into articles, which make it very difficult to pick out any real edits he makes, ridiculous computer game articles based on Medical documentaries (see the history), and all together fake articles. This guy is making vandalistic edits on a daily basis, and yet nothing has yet been done about it. Confirmation is the first step. - Hahnchen 15:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

    User:Jo Mic

    The puppeteer of Jo_Mic (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is unknown, but this user's first edits were setting up an AfD for the NPOV policy, so I highly doubt they are a new user. New users tend not to have policy disputes, and for the minority that do, AfD is usually not something they know about. MSJapan 15:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

    User:The Middle East Conflict Man

    A bunch of new suspected sock or meat puppets. The same edit style with inserting offensive images in the Socialism article. In eddit somments some of them said "no im not mid east conflict man" and "I'm not mid eats conflict man either!". Statements that both seems odd and hard to believe. // Liftarn 13:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

    User:Kittyslasher

    Kittyslasher is currently blocked for vandalism/borderline trolling. Not only have they been talking to each other a lot, since 7 minutes after Kittyslasher's first edit, but Nintendude is the creator of Template:lowercase-Apple, a template that was deleted back in December. Seems inconspicuous, but Kittyslasher made the same template at Template:Iprefix, in May. Kittyslasher also already AfDed two things and commented in 4 others after just 10 days of being a user. Nintendude has been warned for mass-AfDing in violation of WP:POINT. They're also the only two users of {{MySpace2}}, a template that Kittyslasher created (and was deleted soon after). Kittyslasher added Category:Uncyclopedia into an article, which Nintendude created. They've also both screwed with redirects. Finally, they seem to be obsessed with feces. --Rory096 04:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

    Coolboyman

    Suspected policy violation is multi-vote on an AfD.

    IP proceeded to list articles related to Neurotically Yours for speedy delete. After being convinced by someone else that they should be WP:AFD, the IP listed it on AfD. Since they cannot create articles, the user logged into User:Coolboyman to add the article, vote for deletion. Shortly afterward, the IP voted for it as well. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Neurotically Yours


    Cronology of edits (UTC, to the best of my knoledge):

    • 02:34, May 31, 2006 IP lists Neurotically Yours for AfD.
    • 02:35, May 31, 2006 IP makes minor correction.
    • 02:37, May 31, 2006 Coolboyman creates Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Neurotically Yours, votes using the same phrasing as the IP has in prior edits for speedy delete: Coolboyman does not format the AfD page.
    • 02:41, May 31, 2006 IP formats the AfD page, does not add a vote to the list yet, but uses the same phrasing as coolboyman.
    • 02:44, May 31, 2006 IP continues to format AfD page
    • 02:48, May 31, 2006 IP lists Germaine (Neurotically Yours) for AfD, under the same discussion page.
    • 02:51, May 31, 2006 IP adds suspected duplicate vote to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Neurotically Yours
    • 02:51, May 31, 2006 IP adds another vote to delete and signs it "- Travis".
    • 02:55, May 31, 2006 Coolboyman fixes the fact that someone labeled unsigned vote as being by the IP
    • 02:56, May 31, 2006 Coolboyman continues to fix the unsigned signature to be correctly signed.
    • 02:56, May 31, 2006 Coolboyman continues to fix the unsigned signature to be correctly signed.
    • 03:01, May 31, 2006 IP defends adding the AfD.


    Here we have consecutive edits close together in bursts, then bursts by the other user. Note that the User came out of a multiday silence in editing to create this AfD page. How could they have 'never heard of it' if they weren't absolutely staring at the page for an AfD tag to be placed on the article so they could create it on User:24.4.193.231's behalf? User creating the delete page with the same wording for a reason for delete as the IP is VERY suspicious. Inital votes seemed to be without a ~~~~ signing.



    More notes: User:24.4.193.231 has a nice history of vandalism. However, since the IP could be dynamic, the admin should note that they blank their page within a steady stream of actions to attempt to delete all references to the aforementioned webcomic. Most likely the actions of the 31st of May, 2006 by the IP are all of the same physical source, as they call occur in rapid series and of the same subject matter.

    // Kevin Breitenstein 04:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

    dokdo poll

    these new editors (& new ones continuing to pop up) have (albeit after the poll) voted, attempted to vote or influence the vote, or vandalized Talk:Dokdo, regarding renaming from Liancourt Rocks (after active discussion since may 16, RFC, & five days of unanimous voting supporting the move), all of the late oppose voters have no previous edit history, most with only single edit at the poll, with similar comments in non-native english. even with the poll over, the sockpuppets' misleading record will influence future discussion. Appleby 17:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

    Not Clear - Nobs01 or TJive?

    An anonymous user 141.153.74.246 is editing in a pattern that suggests it may be the banned User:Nobs01, who is banned due to an Arbcom decision. I am not sure, and would like it checked. I believe User:Nobs01 has returned in the past under a variety of sockpuppets. User:TJive, who used to tag team edit with User:Nobs01, sent me an off-Wiki e-mail claiming to be U141.153.74.246. Then, a new user User:YINever appeared with the same editing list and editing pattern. If it is TJive or Nobs01 or just one, what is happening is sockpuppetry to mask POV revert warring and potential 3RR avoidance.--Cberlet 16:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

    First of all, it is a lie to state that I sent you an "off-Wiki e-mail" as I sent it through my verified address, else I would not have any access to you in the first place.
    Second, the (brief) contents of that e-mail, though they do not serve in my disfavor (else I would not have sent it), were written in the expectation that you would have the decency to keep the matter private. I sent it so as to dispel your peculiar notion that Nobs had returned (e.g. here and here for reference, though you have now deleted the latter). I, perhaps naively, expected the courtesy of the matter being closed. Rather you have exacerbated it on a flimsy pretext.
    You have provided absolutely no evidence that there is a tie between Nobs and the other accounts, nor any involved policy violations on the part of the latter, and so this report is a highly inappropriate abuse of CheckUser in order to push a content dispute into other realms which do not concern the articles in question. That you would describe edits of a user you disagree with as being "POV revert warring" proves nothing but that you are engaged in an argument over the very question of appropriate content and your accusation of "potential 3RR avoidance" is speculation based on absolutely nothing, certainly not my rather spotless record in that regard. --TJive 21:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
    The purpose of an investigation is to investigate--to establish the facts. If there is no connection among those making these edits, then there is no need for further action, and the matter will be dropped.--Cberlet 03:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
    You know, I was going to say something about "witch hunts" and "paranoia", and mabey even "McCarthyism", but just for the record, I email Nobs now and again, and I can guarantee that these IP's are not him. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 03:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
    It's rather more flabbergasting on my end, considering I used to communicate with the man regularly (hence Cberlet's derisive referral to a "double team") and now I am being told that I possibly am him. The fact is that this is a waste of time, as Cberlet's hunches alone are not a requisite standard for checks, based on the guidelines above. --TJive 03:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
    I read the guidelines above, and was originally sent to this page from an Admin page where I asked a question as to where such inquiries belonged. Given the pattern of edits, I believe a checkuser is appropriate, expecially with the sudden appearance of User:YINever. --Cberlet 13:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
    You were sent here because this is the appropriate page to direct such inquiries, but that does not mean your hunch is sufficient. If any RFCU is fishing, it is this one. --TJive 18:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

    Archdale

    Archdale has been permablocked for repeatedly recreating the nonsensical articles PeeWipes and Abusive Aussie Husband/Battered Southern Wife stereotype, and to make personal attacks on those who tried to reign in his nonsense, including, of course, me. Now Hunchkeh's only edits were to recreate the above articles and to make further attacks against me. I strongly suspect that the same individual is behind both accounts. 207.156.196.242 15:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

    Raptor30 / 03Rotpar / Demiurge010

    IP address has been labled as the "lingerie vandal" by User:Bachrach44 (See Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#Admin_Canidate, and this edit). User:03Rotpar made quite a demonstration of insisting on posting his RfA nom where his RfA was his first edit. Further commentary and investigation concluded that User:03Rotpar and User:Raptor30 were socks of each other, and both have been blocked indefinitely. User:193.111.10.29 was admitted by User:03Rotpar to be his IP, and that IP was blocked indefinitely as an open proxy. This edit gives me suspicion that these accounts and the IP are used by User:Demiurge010. I would like to have that confirmed, if possible, to verify that the bans on Raptor30 and 03Rotpar are fully appropriate. I also have suspicion that User:Jesterjester may be related due to timing of placement of his RfA close to the timing of User:03Rotpar's and the user having only just begun editing on Misplaced Pages, just as User:03Rotpar had. --Durin 13:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

    General Eisenhower or GeorgeMoney

    Some voting on MfD , some voting on Eisenhower's talk . I am unsure if it is Eisenhower, GeorgeMoney, or any. I have similar concerns to the archived RFCU for Eisenhower. Computerjoe's talk 16:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

    I am so tired of all these accusations. --GeorgeMoney  17:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
    Perhaps because you've had to listen to them three times? ; ) Highway 17:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
    CheckUser is not for fishing. DGX 17:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
    Will run it, with the hopes that it will not show any connection, and these requests will stop. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 04:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
    At the risk of WP:BITE, may I request this ceckuser be extended to Rayven_the_Crook (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)? Cheers. NSLE (T+C) at 04:20 UTC (2006-05-30)
    I am so tired of always being accused of being General Eisenhower's sockpuppet. I give Essjay permission to randomly run checks on me any time from now on to prove that I am not his sockpuppet. If ever in the course of forever you find that we are related, you can block me indefinately. I have even made a User:GeorgeMoney/Log that whenever essjay does a check, he will post "yes" for confirmed sockpuppetry, and "no" for unrelated. People can just check that log to see if we were ever related. --GeorgeMoney  05:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
    I was not accusing you of been a sock - I was accusing you or Eisenhower or puppetting. Computerjoe's talk 08:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
    See also Misplaced Pages:Requests for CheckUser/Archive/May 2006#General Eisenhower. --Rory096 18:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

    Also, in a related thing, can you check

    against GE? All 3 have created copycat CVUs, and Robgerts did it after being inactive since September (when he was a vandal) --Rory096 18:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

    And maybe even 68.211.205.149 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)), who vandalized one of those as his first edit after it was MfDed (and then vandalized User:FireFox). --Rory096 18:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
    OrtonFan2006 was RFCU'd. Computerjoe's talk 19:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
    That's why I said it was just related, not the same, because while OrtonFan may not be GE, Robgerts may be either. --Rory096 20:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
    And maybe even Old_Abe (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), My_Old_Kentucky_Home (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), and Code_Napoleon (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) --GeorgeMoney  23:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

    RichardMalter

    Possible attempts to circumvent a block , as well as a gentlemen's agreement that all editors in the discussion page agreed to (refraining from any non-consensus changes to article), including this user. Thanks for checking. Crum375 22:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

    Looking back, also possible use of IP 203.220.167.134 for anon 'unexplained edits' subsequently reverted by Will Beback. Crum375 22:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

    Declined requests

    Bormalagurski

    We thought that a previous warning/finding would stop this user, but seems like not. His actions are highly suspicious, as the following example proved. See contributions of this user in the article Kosovo Liberation Army, they are almost crossing the 3RR rule, and "suddenly" when I (wrongly actually, missing one more revert)report him in the 3RR page, someone else Krytan does that what he wanted, and to confuse an admin further Estavisti also edited a bit. I realized that I wrongly reported him for the 3RR, which gave him a reason to edit with the other accounts, which I was very suspicious for a long time being his sockpuppets. Seeing the speed of edits, and the very short time between the edits. Just check when suspected sockpuppets User:Krytan and User:Estavisti "started" editing. Exactly when he was crossing the 3RR boundary. It is impossible that the 3 usernames can be different, when they edited within a very short time-span. Please take some action, this user has been disruptive in almost all his Misplaced Pages "career", has been blocked 4 times previously, but is not becoming more understanding. It would be good to find out if these are his meatpuppets or sockpuppets, and action to be taken accordingly. On the contrary. I thank you in advance. ilir_pz 00:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

    I would also like to request a checkuser, just to prove Ilir wrong. He is so obsessed with his claims of an "organized propaganda program" aimed at "pushing Serbian POV" that he does not see the clear facts. I, Bormalagurski, am in Vancouver, Krytan is in Toronto and estavisti is in London. A simple IP locator can prove this. Also, estavisti has over 1,700 edits , mostly on articles I've never touched (I believe thats more edits than I've made ), Krytan also edits stuff I don't care much about (mostly South Serbia, I believe ). But when it comes to Ilir's vandalism, which is extremely noticable, I think it's understandable that some of us intervene. Good luck in proving that we are the same person, I really look forward to the results of this checkuser. Also, I'm not surprised that Ilir's main evidence is my wiki-history (which has not been perfect), even though I have changed my ways long ago, but it's hard for others to accept that. On the other hand, Ilir has been organizing vandalism with his Albanian friends, convicted vandals like Hipi Zhdripi and his sockpuppets, who have been blocked for "POV pushing and disruption". There has also been a sharp rise in throwaway accounts, writing in similar fashion as Hipi and Ilir. -- serbiana - talk 00:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

    no Declined. This has become a matter for Arbitration. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 02:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

    What does this mean, Essjay? ilir_pz 10:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
    That it's past Check User and appropriate action to deal with the above. Highway 10:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

    AppleJuicefromConcentrate

    Account AppleJuicefromConcentrate was created on 25th May; he created implausible/hoax articles on a shop named "Claught of a bird". Four hours later, after the article was speedily deleted several times, a new account was created (Motorox) doing the same. For persistent re-creation of the article and incivility, AppleJuicefromConcentrate received several short-time blocks; Motorox was blocked indefinitely. I unblocked AppleJuicefromConcentrate on 27th May after he promised not to engage in disruptive behavior. (The time in his block log is about two hours off because I initially forgot to remove the automatic blocks.) After being unblocked, AppleJuicefromConcentrate created his user page; then the three other accounts were created within minutes from each other and with an identical user page (two of them also with a very similar name; the third one with the name of the article he created). AppleJuicefromConcentrate maintains that these accounts are not his sockpuppets, so I would like you to confirm or disprove it. Thank you. - Mike Rosoft 16:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

    Unless they're used to evade a block or to create false consensus on polls/discussions like AfD or RfA, they're Alternate Accounts and allowed... See if he's using these to do any of the Prohibited Use items on WP:SOCK, but a Checkuser seems fairly superfluous as these appear to be pretty obviously the same person. -M 21:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

    no Declined See the header: Checkuser is for cases where there are policy violations. I see none here. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 00:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

    FruitsAndVegetables133

    FruitsAndVegetables133 is trying to get Embrun, Ontario promoted to feature article status, and appears to have created the last four accounts for vote-stacking (section 9), due to the fact that they have only 6 total edits between them combined. Editor88 03:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

    Completed requests

    User:Iloveminun

    Full reasoning behind argument - User:HighwayCello/Minun

    I have suspected that there may be a connection between "Po132", "Minun132" and "Iloveminun", primarily because of their similar names. What later aroused my suspicion further was the discussion between the three users, the somewhat suspicious breaks between editting and user contributions and their joint interest in Pokémon, all three of them joining the Pokémon WikiProject... for full reasoning, see here. Highway 21:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

     Confirmed as follows:

    Lou franklin

    Hernando's editing pattern closely mirrors that of Lou, consisting mostly of edits to Societal attitudes towards homosexuality and Talk:Societal attitudes towards homosexuality, which take a similar POV position to Lou. He also opposed KimvdLinde's RfA, following one of Lou's other habits - opposing the RfAs of people involved in the article and/or his Arbcom case.

    On the face of it, Hernando is a merely a meatpuppet of Lou. He has a very different speaking style, the account was created just under two months before he started to edit war in earnest, and on the face of it his edits mirror Lou's because Lou asked him to take up his position on the talk page. However, there is a crack in that image - Hernando's first four edits after his first to his userpage were minor copyediting edits, making no mistakes, despite the fact that his talk page edits imply that he has a poor grasp of English. He hasn't made any since he took up the edit war on SATH. As for the creation date, although the Arbcom case was not closed at the time it was fairly clear which way it was going. And the easiest way to 'disguise your handwriting' is to reduce it to the level of a child.

    At least two editors other than myself have openly speculated as to whether Hernando is a sock, and I think this should be cleared up. Sam Blanning 19:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

    Hernando Cortez's editing times also correspond closely with blocks against Lou franklin. Phr (talk) 19:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

     Likely. Hernando_Cortez is editing from a number of public locations (libraries, copy shops, etc.) in the same city as Lou_franklin; looks like a textbook case of attempting to avoid detection. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 01:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


    Greier

    Greier, who has some weird obsession of adding {{historomania}} to the Vlachs article, is currently blocked for 3RR because of that. Today, Vlachul, with only 2 edits, comes out of nowhere and adds the tepmlate back, the exact same behavior as Greier. Looks like a clear case of block evasion to me. —Khoikhoi 18:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

    Also note here and here he comes to the page and reverts back to Greier's version. Or here where he edits G's userpage. —Khoikhoi 18:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
    Also perhaps the banned User:Bonaparte might be involved. He too has an interest in pushing the Romanian POV above all others and follows Greier from page to page. —Khoikhoi 18:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
    For proof of the above statement, check the anon (open proxy) IPs which reverted to Greiers version at Vlachs of Serbia - they were sockpuppets of Bonaparte (he was permabanned for using open proxies). --Telex 18:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

     Likely. Will have to check with Jayjg about a connection to Bonaparte. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 01:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

    Lightbringer (yet again)

    Modus operandi fits Lightbringer (choice of username, wording of editsummary, reverting to a non-masonic editor, article edited) as per his report on WP:LTA. Recent socks to check include Naturalism IS satanism, Newmason and RBMacmillan. WegianWarrior 08:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

     Confirmed. And cookies for using the new templates! Essjay (Talk • Connect) 07:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

    Categories:
    Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser Add topic