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 GoldToeMarionette (talk | contribs) at 20:05, 19 March 2006 (→{{user|PoolGuy}} and {{user|GoldToeMarionette}}). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 20:05, 19 March 2006 by GoldToeMarionette (talk | contribs) (→{{user|PoolGuy}} and {{user|GoldToeMarionette}})(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This page has a backlog that requires attention of one or more users with CheckUser permissions.
(please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared up)

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}}


    Enter requests below:

    Imacomp (talk · contribs) and Skull 'n' Femurs (talk · contribs)

    Can we have a check on Imacomp (talk · contribs) and Skull 'n' Femurs (talk · contribs) again please. This was checked at ] but It would be useful to confim the assessment. SnF was recently banned based on a statement of intent to systematically remove well-referenced information from Misplaced Pages and Imacomps behaviour is tending tow indicate that it's the same person. Most notably is an increasing use of edit summaries to convey personal attacks. If there is a corroboration of the previous check then I'll report over on WP:AN/I for an enforcement of the ban. ThanksALR 15:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

    User:ALR that will be user:lightbringer again will it? Imacomp 12:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

    Ratgirl056 (talk · contribs) and Oneforthetruth (talk · contribs)

    There are likely others as well; there is an attempt to stack a vote at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Michael Crook with newly created sockpuppets, would be nice to know who the puppetmaster is so this can be swiftly curtailed. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

    Axiomm (talk · contribs)

    There is something very strange about Axiomm (talk · contribs). His/her fourth edit was a vote on Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Christopherlin, his third edit created Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Yahooligans which seems to be nonsense without content or context, and his other edits are creation or recreation of nonsense content articles like Humbierto. Maybe a sock for a prevously banned troublemaker? Thatcher131 12:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

    FARVA (talk · contribs)

    Has the same editing style and targets the same people for harassment as User:Eat At Joes and User:SteveInPrague, who were both blocked for abuse. All three of these accounts are suspected "DickWitham" sockpuppets. Master Of RSPW 13:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

    ...but only by Master Of RSPW aka Chadbryant (see below). --FARVA 03:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

    At the request of JDoorjam, I am adding to the current RFCU on FARVA (talk · contribs) - he should be checked against the following accounts:
    Thank you for your cooperation. - Chadbryant 04:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    I haven't seen such paranoia since the 1950s. I can assure you that I am not the people who Mr. Bryant believes me to be. At the request of Eat At Joes, I am asking Mr. Bryant to go fornicate himself with a large stick. --FARVA 15:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

    Master Of RSPW (talk · contribs) and Chadbryant (talk · contribs)

    They seem so much alike and just happen to have the same agenda. When Chadbryant is 'away', Master Of RSPW is right there to continue on instead of Chadbryant. Master Of RSPW seems to wave around certain Misplaced Pages policies and rules that Chadbryant has recently been warned against doing, as if Master Of RSPW felt personally offended by Chadbryant being warned. He acts in exactly the same manner that Chadbryant has been known to do. He places sockpuppet tags freely on other use pages, but gets offended when someone does the same to Master Of RSPW even though there are valid suspicions. Chadbryant acts in exactly the same way, adding sockpuppet tags to other pages, yet being offended when people accuse him of having sockpuppets.

    NOTE: To the person who does the CheckUser - If they don't turn up a complete match, please check to see if Master Of RSPW is editing from behind an open proxy or a very public place. If it turns up to be a very public place, please note that Chadbryant claims to be from Salt Lake City, Utah, so any public place in or near that city should be very suspicious. tv316 14:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

    NOTE: I theorize that the IP for Master Of RSPW will most likely be one for a ComCast Cable site somewhere in the USA or from an anon service called SecureIx. I also wish to point out that it is easily verifiable through a glance at Google's Usenet archives that the Id 'Master of RSPW' was one that Chad used for a while on rec.sport.pro-wrestling some years back. He also had a live Journal blog (now removed due to posting of personal information) with the Master of RSPW Id. TruthCrusader 15:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

    NOTE: The numerous amounts of vandalism that Master Of RSPW has placed on pages since his creation should warrant enough suspicion to validate this CheckUser request. In addition, it should be made clear that one reason for this suspicion is Chadbryant's past behavior of having used "Master Of RSPW" as a moniker/handle in several locations on and around the Internet, including Google Groups which "Master" is attempting to use as a source to justify his rampant sockpuppet tagging on one particular account. This sockpuppet tagging, along with the tagging of other accounts as sockpuppets, matches almost word-for-word and account-for-account the (invalid and vandalistic) sockpuppet tagging which Chadbryant has engaged in. A quick check of the User Contributions of both parties may confirm this. Chadbryant Master Of RSPW. It also must be said that during the times "Chadbryant" was blocked, "Master Of RSPW" was active. --166.102.89.76 03:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

    NOTE: I concur all of the above statements. See http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Nashville_Municipal_Auditorium&action=history as an example. --Zpb52 03:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

    NOTE: Master Of RSPW is not my sock, and that at this point, it is most likely being operated by someone who has responded above with deliberately misleading speculation. A CheckUser will be my vindication. - Chadbryant 09:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

    NOTE: Taking Chadbryant's word that he is not running a sockpuppet would be a misleading and incorrect course of action. By that logic, anyone who has had or will have a CheckUser request can come on this page and say "It's not me, trust me, so you can stop now" just as Chad has done. He has a history of lying, both on rec.sport.pro-wrestling in Usenet as well as many other places both on and offline -- and, as stated above, his "vindication" may turn out to be nothing more than an anonymized service. All indicators point towards him; granted, in a court of law it would be circumstancial evidence, but this is far from a court of law, isn't it? --FARVA 14:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

    64.192.107.242 (talk · contribs) et. al.

    Still fairly new to Misplaced Pages so I hope this is the right place for this. Here is a list I have compiled of what I believe to be one busy vandal. I don't know if they're related to a known vandal but there are a lot of sockpuppets here. Most of the edits from all these accounts relate to similar articles; in fact, it's hard to find an article edited by only one of the accounts below. Very few of the edits are productive. Most of them are attempts to get Misplaced Pages to conform to this person's own ideas, regardless of the positions of others or official Wiki policies or guidelines (for example, unnecessary changes, redirects, or pagemoves to American English spellings vs. British. Almost all of the accounts have been used in a manner that violates WP:SOCK. Tons of multiple votes, strawman arguments, evading blocks, the works. Sometimes reverts his/her own vandalism in an apparent attempt to make one account seem more legit. Has also nominated his/her own ludicrous articles for AfD, probably to avoid PROD or speedy deletion. Many of these accounts have been accused at one time or another of being sockpuppets; some are blocked or banned, but most are not. The edits are usually to pages having to do with very large numbers, language, and evolution. In total there has been a lot of vandalism, but most of it is minor enough that no one bothers warning him/her most of the time, and even when they do, the warning is often deleted from the user page. Generally flaunts admin authority and consensus votes. Has used the phrase "on wheels!" to vandalize. I found these accounts just by clicking around in contribution pages etc. I could be wrong about a few of them, but I am convinced that most of these are the same person. -Big Smooth 18:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

    IP addresses
    Usernames
    NOTE: since I posted this, this person has continued with the same M.O. - for an example see here . In addition, I believe based on edit history that DecadeZone (talk · contribs) is yet another puppet account. -Big Smooth 01:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

    RendezvousSingh (talk · contribs) vs 10 000 thundering typhoons (talk · contribs)

    These two users have been POV pushing and edit warring at Rajput. As they have been reverting to the same version and RendezvousSingh is close to being an obvious sock, I think there is good reason to believe that they are in some way "related". If they are, then there's a violation of WP:SOCK as the RendezvousSingh account has been used to avoid the 3RR. Also, if it's not too late, can you please check whether they are one of the users banned in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Rajput. Thanks. --Latinus 18:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

    RandallR (talk · contribs), VrrayMan (talk · contribs), and Randallrobinstine (talk · contribs)

    VrrayMan (talk · contribs) was blocked indefinitely earlier today for merciless vandalism. The user RandallR (talk · contribs) has edited many of the same articles and made virtually the exact same edits to said articles earlier this week. RandallR, by the sentence placed on the userpage, admits to being Randall Robinstine, who (obviously) was the accountholder for Randallrobinstine (talk · contribs), which was indefinitely banned in December 2005 for the exact same edits on the exact same pages as the two other screen names. Vrray9000@yahoo (talk · contribs) (also banned indefinitely) is also guilty of the same practices, and it is obvious that screen name coincides with VrrayMan. I do all of this, because the only one of these accounts that is still active is RandallR, and it needs to be blocked indefinitely in order to prevent the same behavior in the future. --Zpb52 04:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

    Nallina (talk · contribs), Sussex Cables (talk · contribs), Photocopying and tea (talk · contribs), Orlintz (talk · contribs), OWL-FELLS (talk · contribs), Kebulo (talk · contribs), and Wickerwae (talk · contribs)

    All of these users blanked Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy within a short time of each other.

    • Nallina (talk · contribs), 09:38, 10 March 2006: Blanked page and added deletedpage tag; no edit summary.
    • Sussex Cables (talk · contribs), 09:40, 10 March 2006: Blanked page and added deletedpage tag; edit summary "remove offensive text; the bot is stupid."
    • Photocopying and tea (talk · contribs), 09:41, 10 March 2006: Blanked page and added deletedpage tag; edit summary "remove offensive page; it's grossly offensive, and too POV."
    • Orlintz (talk · contribs), 09:42, 10 March 2006: Blanked page and added deletedpage tag; edit summary "Remove offensive images; Wikiadmins are obscene."
    • OWL-FELLS (talk · contribs), 09:43, 10 March 2006: Blanked page and added deletedpage tag; no edit summary.
    • Kebulo (talk · contribs), 09:44, 10 March 2006: Blanked page and added deletedpage tag; edit summary "remove offensive text; not vandalism."
    • Wickerwae (talk · contribs), 09:44, 10 March 2006: Blanked page and added deletedpage tag; edit summary "remove offensive text; not vandalism." —Wayward 11:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

    Keystrokes (talk · contribs)

    Healthy eating (talk · contribs)

    Can be be checked against Basil Rathbone (talk · contribs)? He's a known sock of Lightbringer (talk · contribs). Ardenn 19:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

    A request User:Paln

    Anonymous editor has accused another user Paln as a sock-puppet of Deepak, most likely of the user User:Deepak gupta on a talk page, namely, Talk:Terrorism in Kashmir in the section named Deletion of referenced material. I request for examination of the matter in its entirety. If the charge of sock-puppetry is proved, I request for initiation of appropriate steps. In case, the charge turns out to be false, I request for initiation of suitable measures against the accusor as in my humble opinion, false accusation of this nature violates several basic principles of wikipedia, including Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks and is also highly disruptive behavior. I am doing this in the long term interest of the Project. --Bhadani 15:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

    Bhadani seems to be doing this is incredibly bad faith and especially when the situation has already passed a month ago. He's only doing this because he's angry over other issues that he can't seem to settle. The sockpuppet accusation is not a personal attack, it's an accusation editors make every day based on the evidence of a user's contributions (look at the list on this page). A new policy just can't be introduced that he claims "suitable measures" that should be taken against the accusor.
    The user who was accused and I have already settled this and Bhadani's only doing it a month later because he is looking forward for revenge. Extremely bad faith and as I said before, it doesn't even have to be Deepak but it could be a sock of other editors, some who have used them before, that wanted to make the situation worse. But Bhadani, bringing this up at a later date just to make it worse after it's already been settled, violating WP:POINT and disrupting wikipedia for revenge or because you can't settle simple issues, is bad faith and similarly I think that the appropriate measures should be taken against this bad faith in the long term interest of the project. --a.n.o.n.y.m 16:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
    I think that shouting against me is not going to help. As such, I would request for an expeditious enquiry into the matter to resolve the issue, as in my opinion, blaming without basis threatens the wiki-policies of good faith. I do not have any intention or reasons to take revenge. I am stunned that AE, after accusing someone of being sock-puppet, is directly taking a stand that I am doing this in bad faith. Actually, I want to simplify and sort out the matter by proper examination of the real facts – my intention is that the matter should be resolved and the wikipedians should know the real facts. The contention that users sometimes call other users as sock-puppets is not going to help, as I am talking of a specific instance. New or old, a month old or a year old, is irrelevant, as the fact requires proper enquiry by a CheckUser. It is not something, which is going to make the Project tumble down like a house of cards: we have seen the worst cases, and have weathered many storms – this is a very simple enquiry and may take few minutes only. I once again request the persons vested with the necessary tools and authority to investigate the matter, as in my opinion such a serious charge by an established editor-administrator against another user is highly deplorable, and sets a bad precedence and gives negative signals. I will not reply to further accusations against me here – as I have faith in the judgment of the wiki-community and the persons vested with the required tools and authority to impartially investigate the matter. --Bhadani 10:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    Well Bhadani, that's exactly what it seems like when you show up a month later having a completely unrelated dispute with me and decide that you are going to do something like this. I am however satisfied with the accusation because getting rid of someone who is an abusive sockpuppet is for the better of the community. Even the user who was accused later said that he would have acted in the same way. He even agreed that the evidence points to him, since the sockpuppet's contributions show that he was not new, started editing right after the user left, starting making attacks against me and knew a lot about Misplaced Pages already. Now I hope it doesn't turn out to be him because then I will know that it was another related editor trying to make trouble by using a sockpuppet. I really don't know what you will get out of it, since the person who was "charged" already agreed that he would have done the same and settled this with me, and on my part identifying a sock who is a not helping the project and just making trouble is in good faith. Cheers --a.n.o.n.y.m 14:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

    Melissadolbeer/SallyGold/Bacchiad

    Is

    any of the following:

    ?

    (apart from Bacchiad these are all very obvious socks of each other)

    (SallyGold and Dwho are the most recent)

    Thanks,

    This is needed for an arbitration case.

    --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 17:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

    Licinius

    Licinius (talk · contribs) is pushing an eccentric view in edits to the Football article. To this end, he/she appears to be using multiple sockpuppets to vote in polls at Talk:Football. He/she claims that several editors use the same PC. However the "users" concerned appear to have cooperated on several articles to a very close degree, and even edit each others' user/talk pages. I have warned him/her/them and have grouped them under Category:Misplaced Pages:Suspected sockpuppets of Licinius. The suspected sockpuppets include: User:J is me, User:The man from OZ, User:130.130.37.6, User:60.225.200.50 and User:60.225.202.61. User:60.225.200.50 has also tried to portray User:CambridgeBayWeather as my sockpuppet. Grant65 | Talk 11:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

    Add to these User:60.225.217.77, User:60.225.218.137 and User:NSWelshman. Grant65 | Talk 23:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

    Jim16 and 66.17.116.148

    It is my belief that Jim16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 66.17.116.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) constitute the same person. While most actual vandalism is done by 66.17.116.148, neither engages in constructive editing. Further, each user is in the habit of "blanking" vandalism warnings (and anything else, for that matter) from the talk page and, most notably, from the other user's talk page. If my suspicion is correct, an extended block may be warranted for both accounts following the next case of vandalism by either. RadioKirk talk to me 19:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

    New "blanking" of vandalism warnings

    By User:Jim16 to User talk:66.17.116.148, here. RadioKirk talk to me 23:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

    User: Tombride and User:63.226.214.125

    These two users have edited This Bike Is A Pipe Bomb to change their genre from folk-punk to folk. In addition to being an edit without any merit in my opinion and the opinion of another user (which suggests the same user is making the edits) their edits seem to be a way to get around WP:3RR. Furthermore, the anon has edited this article similarly in the past and had their edits reverted, and has done the same with Against Me! at one point. I also find it interesting that Tombride's last edit before today was in July 2005, which makes me think he/she is the same user as the anon because that seems like more than just a coincidence. The Ungovernable Force 05:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


    JanKees (talk · contribs)

    In the NiMUD article, Young_Zaphod/Eggster/many-Pittsburgh-anons was blocked for multiple 3rr offenses and vast amounts of incivility. After he was blocked for a week, JanKees (allegedly a friend of his, and not him) started making reverts, and has done 3 within 24 hours, or 4 if he's the same person as the blocked guy. His comments are vaguely similar to Young_Zaphod's (using same arguments as justification for reverts), but has been acting civil. You guys already confirmed a bunch of sock puppets of his , I'd like for you to compare JanKees with the other IP addresses. Since the blocks were for specific IPs, I assume that this new user is probably on one of the other computers in the same lab, which is not blocked. A majority of his other edits have been made by:

    Thanks, sorry to bother ya by the way. --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 12:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

    user:BTR

    Seems like a possible sockpuppet for user Bcorr. A mysterious user page (the users says describes himself as "aka Stealth Technology"), only edit past user page has been to recruit user:deeceevoice (whom I had a previous arbcom case against) to the Ron Dellums page. This is very odd behavior. Bcorr has been active on the Ron Dellums page and logged in anon to bug me last week. My guess is that this is Bcorr but I expect that BTR has a minimal login history.

    -Justforasecond 01:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

    User:Kilbosh

    As per perculiar voting patterns on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Strampop, could someone please check if any of the following are socky, please?

    Thanks, Proto||type 16:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

    User:Leyasu and 86.143.127.4

    A new anonymous IP 86.143.127.4 just showed up, and its first and only edit was to make the same revert that User:Leyasu was blocked for revert-warring over multiple times today. Can an admin with CheckUser please investigate if 86.143.127.4 is the same as Leyasu? flowersofnight (talk) 20:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

    Second sock puppet from Leyasu

    Further evidence seems to show that it is a sock puppet of *Leyasu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a similar IP has emerged to 86.143.127.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log).. 86.143.125.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) this IP is using the same tactics and editing patters as 86.143.127.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), they are reverting articles to versions which Leysau was recently blocked for pushing, an editor who is already on Misplaced Pages Parole.

    Gothic Metal

    and Moi Dix Mois

    Aswel as vandalising an article which 3 or more regular users have been discusing on the talk page and reworking. This sock also uses tactics which Leysasu has used in the past; refusal to discuss any issues on the talk page with other editors, and calling everything "vandalism" that doesn't apply to "last edit by leysau".

    Heavy metal music;

    -Deathrocker 20:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

    Third sock puppet from Leyasu

    3rd suspected sock, see another cases above..

    Only edits by Anonymous IP 81.157.88.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) are reversions of various articles to verisons by Leysau's version (who is currently blocked).

    Moi Dix Mois;

    Gothic Metal;

    Sergeybakh (talk · contribs), Markdanil (talk · contribs) and various IPs

    It certainly looks like these two users are sockpuppets of the banned user Roitr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and his identified sockpuppets Tt1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Alexr23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - notice the clear pattern in contributions by these and

    This user has previously caused a major wreck to various articles, including but not limited to

    Comparative military ranks of World War II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views),
    History of Russian military ranks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ,
    Navy ranks and insignia of the Russian Federation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views),
    Air Force ranks and insignia of the Russian Federation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ,
    Army ranks and insignia of the Russian Federation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    and some articles had to be protected or semiprotected in order to stop his vandalism. --DmitryKo 22:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

    Possible User:Robust Physique socks

    Vandalised Galactic Civilizations II: Dread Lords page, warned, ignored warning, blocked for 3 hours. After block, continued vandalism. Blocked for 24. Another 2 accounts with no other edit continued the same pattern of vandalism. Semi-protected page. I began to be vandalised at my user page and user talk page by 6 different accounts with no other edit, again, identical each time. All within, maybe 5 minutes. -- Миборовский 06:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

    A few more suspicious accounts created the next day:

    Another suspected sockpuppet, not encountered by me, reported by other editors:

    Bescn (talk · contribs)

    I suspect this user is a sock-puppet used to evade 3RR on Persian people and other articles. The user seems too familiar (expert level) with wiki and wiki tags/codes for a newbie who just joined wiki. --ManiF 08:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

    A sockpuppet of whom, and where specifically has he violated 3RR? Jayjg 06:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

    ._JamieHughes (talk · contribs) and related accounts

    Several accounts popped up on Iain Lee and Clive Bull related to a purported "coming out" on the air. I've indefblocked all of them except the underlying ip (which atm is caught under the autoblock)...but I'd like confirmation if its possible. I feel they are all a bunch of socks, but I'd hate to have blocked legit editors who just happen to be bandwagon-y. Accounts are ZoeCroydon (talk · contribs), Brucethebiggaybear (talk · contribs), ._Westminsterboy (talk · contribs) and 160.83.32.14 (talk · contribs) (who suspiciously goes silent when the blocks are enabled). All of their edit histories show similarities, not only focused on the articles above, but also vandalization of Olmec. Syrthiss 15:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


    Hello, I know that 3 of the people mentioned above work in the same organisation and we like to edit wiki while we are working. Is that a crime? Two of my work collegues were banned from wiki simply because they said they didn't like the changes at the clive bull site. That is very unfair. So you just block people on a bandwagon??? How do we make an official complaint? Editors should have been more throurough before banning everyone. 160.83.73.14 09:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

    You are welcome to complain about my blocks at WP:ANI, tho be advised that I already started sections there asking for review of my blocks. I don't block people on a bandwagon, I block people who appear to be perpetrating a hoax. I can say with confidence that if your coworkers registered new accounts and contributed positively to wikipedia (ie don't all edit Clive Bull with a remarkably similar style concurrently) that they would be welcomed. Condsidering another of your 'coworkers' User:Jimbolain (hmm funny that its an amalgam of "Jimbo Wales" and "Iain Lee") just blanked this section, I don't really forsee that happening though. --Syrthiss 13:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

    Corax (talk · contribs) and 64.40.60.106 (talk · contribs)

    Request checkuser to see if there is evidence of connection in what might be a case of wikistalking, trolling, and vandalism occuring on 15 March or thereabouts. ॐ Metta Bubble 07:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

    Problem has subsided. ॐ Metta Bubble 14:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
    So this one can be removed from the list, then? Jayjg 06:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

    PoolGuy (talk · contribs) and GoldToeMarionette (talk · contribs)

    PoolGuy disputed the removal of a section of content from Pet peeve, and rather than continue revert warring over its inclusion, instead created List of Pet peeves. This new article was nominated for deletion; during the discussion, GoldToeMarionette spammed over 80 users advising them to "vote" to keep the article. This vote-stacking spam is GoldToeMarionette's only contribution thus far to Misplaced Pages. android79 13:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

    Frankly I don't see how the individual(s) in question are engaged in significant (e.g. pattern) vandalism or there is reason to believe that sockpuppets are being used to evade a block, ban, or 3RR, or to otherwise violate policy (such as to vote multiple times in a poll or to otherwise appear to represent a wider opinion in discussion than one actually does). A simple review of user contributions seems to demonstrate that.
    Thanks for all your efforts. Misplaced Pages benefits by all your good work. GoldToeMarionette 05:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    This is wikilawyering. Using a sockpuppet to "rally the troops" on an AfD discussion is not kosher. android79 12:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    After reading Wikilawyering I see that this is not relevant either. It appears that you are attempting to justify action contrary to Misplaced Pages Policy by claiming that even though there is no violation of Misplaced Pages Policy, somehow you believe that my IP must be investigated because you don't like my posts. Per Wikilawyering I have not engaged in imploring any legal technicalities, instead, I have clearly illustrated that your CheckUser request is baseless.
    Per CheckUser and the Wikimedia privacy policy on that page, unless someone is definitely violating policy with their actions, revealing their IP, whereabouts or other information sufficient to identify them is likely a violation of the privacy policy. Resorting to the inaccurate claim of Wikilawyering appears to remove the possibility of a definite policy violation.
    I have been unable to find a policy violation for Misplaced Pages:not kosher and there is no adopted policy on vote stacking. I would like to apologize to the Admins here for this request adding to the backlog in Requests_for_CheckUser. GoldToeMarionette 05:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Excuse me, can you please inform me what the basis was for your completion of a CheckUser on me? I don't see the basis for you doing this in Misplaced Pages Policy. Based on the requirements in the green box at the top of this page, there is no basis. Thank you. GoldToeMarionette 20:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

    Jimboiain (talk · contribs)

    This user has a very similar pattern of edits on Talk:Clive_Bull to the already blocked ZoeCroydon (talk · contribs), Brucethebiggaybear (talk · contribs), ._Westminsterboy (talk · contribs), and 160.83.32.14 (talk · contribs). There are similar comments by 160.83.73.14 (talk · contribs), Rolandaslondon (talk · contribs) and 84.13.95.110 (talk · contribs) on the same page and none of them offer any coherent argument as to whether the new revision of the page has any real flaws.Minglex 17:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


    I personally said that I do not like the whole 'flow' of the new article. Why change a whole article that flows well for a new version written by ONE person that doesn't flow well and a lot of people don't like. 84.13.84.22 18:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

    Also I work with a number of people who work in the same office. We are all alowed to be ourselves I hope! Why are you banning people because they use the same internet connection in their office????84.13.84.22 18:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

    You share an office with the 160.xx.xx.xx ip? Because according to your whois, you resolve to Great Britian while the 160.xx ip resolves to New Jersey in the US. --Syrthiss 19:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


    Dude we are only two people. There are others out in internet land who have been adding stuff too. I mean man! This guy is saying that everyone that disagrees with him is a sockputtet. You should ban him! 84.13.84.22 20:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

    Hello, I have also been blocked. I work here and me and the other secretaries edit the clive bull article and the Iain lee one. This wiki stuff is getting stupid because they don't understand most companies have one email address. Joanne was blocked on Wednesday and none of us could edit. Is there an offical place to complain, we work for a tv station so that might make them sort this situation out. 160.83.32.14 09:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

    Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Clive_Bull"

    Probably the best place to complain would be to complain to the manager of the tv station where you all work, and let management know that this Joanne person is causing problems with the rest of you editing Misplaced Pages. That would surely get things sorted out. --(uninvolved person just trying to be helpful) Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 11:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

    NoToFrauds (talk · contribs) and his (possibly) many alter-egos & Chai Walla (talk · contribs) and Adityanath (talk · contribs) and his/their respective possible alter-egos

    Hello, I was recommended to stop by here by PseudoSudo (talk · contribs). Here is the current list of sockpuppets that are worth checking in on. There may be 2 or possibly 3 individual users here, each with their respective sockpuppets. It's hard to distinguish the them. They are using their sockpuppets to boost concensus in voting and discussions, and to avoid WP:3RR, also to avoid other punishment for other policy violations such as WP:PA, revealing personal identity details of rival disputants on talk pages, and others (below):

    This username may be involved with either of the two, but unlikely..

    Thanks for your help. For more info see bottom of my talk page. Hamsacharya dan 19:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

    The mentioned users have been building up false discussions on a number of pages; check the contibs of the newer accounts. The most blatant example is Talk:Mahavatar Babaji#Vote.
    User:82.15.17.152 (who is currently serving a 24-hour block for blanking warnings on his talk) has signed his contributions as User:NoToFrauds (, ) and User:No to Nutss (a non-existent user, ), User:Priyanath (, check the right of the sig), and has actually flip-flopped the signature of a comment (). ~ PseudoSudo 22:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Confirmed for both. TroyVaughn/NoToFrauds/82.15.17.152 are all the same editor. Adityanath/Baba Louis/Chai Walla are also the same editor as each, though not the same as ToryVaughn etc. Note, Adityanath claims that other editors were simply working at the same place, and using his/her computer,etc. Jayjg 05:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I would like an independent review of this. Yes, the three of us were travelling together and sharing a laptop from hotel and cybercafe. However, we are now in separate locations and this should be verifiable, as should the fact of our changing location while travelling. I could do it myself using just nslookup and whois, but we had no reason to keep a list of our IP addresses as we travelled. —Adityanath 17:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

    80.90.39.72 (talk · contribs) and Rose-mary (talk · contribs)

    Rose-mary uses a dynamic IP, and prefers not to log in, but she always pushes the same PoV on Phaistos Disc. If she violates 3RR again, it would be useful to have it established that this is the same user. Septentrionalis 20:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

    Bitola (talk · contribs) vs 62.162.188.223 (talk · contribs)

    I believe that the IP is a sockpuppet of User:Bitola to evate the 3RR on Bitola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Bitola has stated that he lives in the FYROM and that is where that IP originates. I think it is obvious that they are the same person, but I'd like to be sure so that I can report him for a 3RR violation. --Latinus 23:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

    Jbamb (talk · contribs) Alpha269 (talk · contribs)

    Alpha only showed up to basically battle and fight for an article about Jbamb to be kept, and pushed the fight to the point he was banned. Jbamb did not comment on anything to do with his AfD or DV, and only showed up on the WP:AN AFTER Alpha was banned. Seems like sockpuppets to me. Mike (T C) 03:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

    Timeline: Article John Bambenek sent to AfD. After a colorful discussion loaded with various forms of puppetry on all sides, the article was deleted. User:Alpha269 requested a DRV, which ended with the article remaining deleted (despite spamming by Alpha on many newly minted admins' talk pages). Then, for whatever reason, Alpha269 takes it to the noticeboard. After everyone more or less reaffirms the deltion, Alpha recreated the article (redeleted again), and started an illegitimate RfC, located here. After a spate of incivility, continued disruption in several places (including putting The New York Times on AfD - seriously), I blocked him (with the unsurprising calls of "Wiki-terrorism!" on his talk page).
    Coincidently, the subject of John Bambenek happens to be User:Jbamb, who was mum on ther whole ordeal until I blocked Alpha. See the same AN thread. Incivility and accusations of Administrative abuse out of nowhere. It seems to me that they are the same fellow. Requesting Check User. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

    Diffs: AfD of the New York Times: , AfD of John Bambenek , RFC by Alpha269 , Alpha's posts to the WP:AN , Jbamb chims in AFTER the block of Alpha269 , Sample of the request placed on new admins talk pages by Alpha269 . Also if you look at Alpha269's contribs he only contributes to AfDs and to things associated with the Bambanek AfD, DRV and RFC. Mike (T C) 04:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

    I'll accept permanent banning if we are on checkuser on the condition that Onthost and Gustafson are permanently banned if I'm not. -- Jbamb 15:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    IPs which may have been involved include:
    • 12.203.38.138
    • 130.126.138.6
    • 130.126.139.135
    • 130.126.139.14
    -submitted by Will Beback 05:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
    I'd also like to point out that this request is not being made with policy, that no vandalism, vote stacking, or other behavior has been alleged. That being said, I want this issue put to death so that people realize there isn't sockpuppetry (I'm tired of being accused), and that the incivil admins who continue to disregard all policies and guidelines will be reprimanded for their disruption of the community. -- Jbamb 21:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
    user:Alpha269 has in fact engaged in vandalism, such as nominating the New York Times for deletion, as well as other disruptive behavior that has resulted in his being blocked by an admin. -Will Beback 22:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
    Oh, forgot about that NYT thing, that was a pretty dick thing to do. But the idea that taking an AfD to Deletion Review, than to RFC is disruptive I find intriguing. Particularly in the light of Jeffrey Gustafson's known f!@#% you attitude. -- Jbamb 01:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
    I am asking for this checkuser. Also if this checkuser comes back positive, Jbamb will be would be evading a block. Mike (T C)
    You are taking away from my time in making an encyclopedia. And correct me if I am wrong, I thought Alpha's block was one day. -- Jbamb 03:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
    What does "most likely" mean, either we are or are not using the same IPs. -- Jbamb 16:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
    Sockpuppet checking is an art, not a science. They're definitely using those IPs to edit, and it's most likely they're the same. The latter means I'm at least 90% certain they are the same individual. If I were 100% certain I would have simply confirmed it. Jayjg 17:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

    Medule (talk · contribs)

    Request on WP:RFI, copying over here to verify suspected sockpupets, to allow appropriate action to be taken. Petros471 17:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

    User Medule has been for over a month repeatedly making changes to the pages History of Croatia, Croatia, Medieval Croatian state, Dalmatia, Hvar, London Pact, Battle of Vukovar, and others related to Croatia by removing any mention of the words "Croat" or "Croatian" and substituting them with either "Slavic" or "Serb and Croat" etc.; or by adding information which are widely viewed as Serbian nationalist propaganda sometimes supplying external links to organizations such as the Serbian Union Congress as evidence. The dispute was tried to be resolved on the corresponding discussion pages by a number of Croatian contributors to the Misplaced Pages but to no avail. The user won't give up. In fact, after the protection of Croatia page imposed because of his controversial edits, he has turned his attention to the aforementioned pages and possibly others related to Croatian matters. The situation is further aggravated by the suspicion that Medule may be using the following sockpuppets User:KHasek, User:Bzezen, User:Clavell (as of March 15 2006), as well as anonymous IPs 195.252.84.xxx or 195.252.85.xxx (195.252.86.175 (talk · contribs), 195.252.84.184 (talk · contribs), 195.252.85.237 (talk · contribs), 194.106.187.133 (talk · contribs) etc. // EurowikiJ 10:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

    Apreacherofiar (talk · contribs)

    Shares consistent vandalism with Zuzzzu (talk · contribs), Syzzamundo (talk · contribs), Rozgred (talk · contribs), Jonnox (talk · contribs), Woolwich Matt (talk · contribs), Intheiderem (talk · contribs) and Godofbiscuits12 (talk · contribs) on the Briefs and article.Minglex 23:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC) Rozgred (talk · contribs) has admitted to using socks on their talk page *(INCLUDING Godofbiscuits12) and a shared IP address. I don't think Jonnox and Woolwich Matt are from the same IP though. --Keltus3 13:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

    S14235325235 (talk · contribs)

    Squidward vandal, assuming IP is using open proxy, CheckUser would be of use to determine proxy status -- Tawker 01:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

    Not sure I understand, can you explain exactly what you want? Jayjg 06:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

    220.245.180.133 (talk · contribs), et al

    User:220.245.180.133, User:220.245.180.134, User:220.245.180.130, User:203.213.77.138, User:58.162.252.236, User:58.162.255.242, User:58.162.251.204, User:58.162.252.58, User:58.162.245.148, User:Dennis Fuller, User:Phloxophilos have conducted a low intensity but disruptive edit war and POV campaign at Jonathan Sarfati and Answers in Genesis and are suspected of being socks of Sarfati or Agapetos_angel (talk · contribs) or of being staff of Creation Ministries International, , Sarfati's current employer and formerly known as Answers in Genesis. FeloniousMonk 18:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

    The first 3 IPs are proxy servers of an Australian ISP, and thus nothing is really provable through them. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

    Innatheism (talk · contribs)

    At the AfD discussion for Innatheism, a number of entries seem to have sock-puppetry tendencies: very similar arguments ('approached by Innatheists in the street'), extremely low edit-counts, and IP addresses that seem to be in one or more series. The possible puppets are 81.79.157.77 (talk · contribs), 81.79.238.57 (talk · contribs), 85.210.59.216 (talk · contribs), 88.109.78.41 (talk · contribs), 88.109.184.204 (talk · contribs), 88.110.27.34 (talk · contribs), 88.111.37.190 (talk · contribs), Tenth_User (talk · contribs), ToMySurprise_81 (talk · contribs) Jumbeaux_lafeet (talk · contribs), and Hellmonkey42 (talk · contribs). Bucketsofg 20:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC) Request withdrawn. As Jayig points out it is now moot. Bucketsofg 15:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

    Article has been deleted; does it really matter any more? Jayjg 06:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

    0waldo (talk · contribs) & 199.174.149.1 (talk · contribs) & 24.232.247.81 (talk · contribs)

    1. User:0waldo has been repeatedly harassing me via Misplaced Pages then via my website and now a new message on my talk page here from an anon IP 199.174.149.1 (who appeared to sign as User:Hemihead). I suspect they're both the same user.
    2. There is also suspicion here that User:0waldo and User:24.232.247.81 are the same user.

    Please investigate. Thank you. - File:Ottawa flag.png nathanrdotcom 06:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

    Emperor Hirohito (talk · contribs) JJU754 (talk · contribs) Japanese historian (talk · contribs) Parkinsons (talk · contribs) 88.106.218.23 (talk · contribs)

    Those users keep adding a portion in Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki for weeks now that that was discussed and rejected in the talk page, also used to evade 3rr in that page. I'm sure they are socks but I need the checkuser results just in case. Thanks --Jaranda 18:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

    Categories:
    Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser Add topic