Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Archive6

Add links
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archives
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011-2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020


Charlottewebmedia and Disney Vandal

[change source]

Same user as the one below. Their editing pattern is almost identicle. Obviously has registered accounts to get past autoconfirmed. -Djsasso (talk) 23:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fact I just found that en.wiki already blocked this one en:User:Charlotteswebmedia -Djsasso (talk) 23:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed: also found TheRescuers (talk · contribs) Majorly talk 23:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smiles and Disney/Teletubbies Vandal

[change source]

Just happened to show up after I blocked the IP for vandalizing teletubbies articles and makes some of the same edits. Their editing history also suggests that they are the same editor. -Djsasso (talk) 17:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is indeed the case, Smiles and another account blocked for sockpuppetry.--Eptalon (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Antoinette and Snow funn at tall

[change source]

Gut instinct. Looks suspiciously like a sock, creates RFA within half an hour of registering. Seems to have some of the same tone as Snow funn at tall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shappy (talk • contribs) 14:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:AGF I'm inclined to think this is premature without evidence.  GARDEN  14:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Adding all of these fake checkuser requests will be very helpful to the campaign to ban me. Snow funn at tall (talk) 14:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was indeed a sock, but not of Snow funn at all. Majorly talk 15:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tardisrepect and User:Snow funn at tall

[change source]

It is only a feeling. Both accounts have odd edits. Snow funn at tall created (a) copyvio(s) and mades different other odd edits 8 e.g. on RfA's). And of course, s/he is for me a voting account. Tardisrepect has voted too. S/he seems also to be a bit offensive. I belive that the creation of these odd RfA (for me) was the revenge for my notes on the RfA's here and here. It is just a feeling. Other thoughts? Regards, Barras (talk) 20:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser is not for fishing. I feel it is grossly inappropriate that Barras is trying to have my privacy invaded. Barras has been following me around RfAs for some time, and has begun a campaign against me after I nominated him for admin in good faith. But this is clearly over the line. Snow funn at tall (talk) 12:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but the evidence here really isn't substantive enough, in my opinion, to run a checkuser. Provide some detailed evidence, some diffs of potential sockpuppetry, but "It is only a feeling." is not sufficient I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Snow funn at tall (talk) 13:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Only that I said it: Sometimes is a feeling a really good think. Regards, Barras (talk) 11:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Freddy

[change source]

I believe these are all socks of the notorious vandal Freddy. They all fit his pattern of editing.MKil (talk) 18:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)MKil[reply]

Confirmed: also Amazingstays (talk · contribs), Amazingstay (talk · contribs), BoxingWear2 (talk · contribs), Popedude (talk · contribs) and others that are globally locked. Majorly talk 19:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Socks blocked/tagged. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ciaran UK and Tharnton345

[change source]

I believe these two users to be the same based upon his reverting of Bluegoblin7 on Wikipedia talk:Community Portal. Thanks, Razorflame 04:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? How? Majorly talk 12:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Edits such as this and this. Seems to be quite obvious; CU is probably not needed. Chenzw  Talk  13:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would disagree. A checkuser is necessary to confirm if this is indeed a sockpuppet of Tharnton345. While it might be obvious, the check should still be carried out to make sure that it is indeed a sock of Tharnton345. Cheers, Razorflame 05:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The two users are clearly different. Note however, that Ciaran has been blocked for other issues, though. Since all we can do is block, I guess this resolves the issue. --Eptalon (talk) 13:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kalajan or Sinofdreams and 80.58.205.38

[change source]

I believe that this is Kalajan or Sinofdreams because of this edit. Thanks, Razorflame 16:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quack quack. If it's obvious, no need for a check. Majorly talk 12:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that you are referring to the duck test, right? Razorflame 19:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We don't know if it's Kalajan, it could be Sinny trying to be him. SimonKSK 17:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Kruzkin and Mr. Kruzkin Returns

[change source]

Thanks, Razorflame 20:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, same IP address.--Eptalon (talk) 20:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

84.13.214.148 and Tharnton345

[change source]

Per this I think it may be Tharnton evading his ban again. - Æåm Fætsøn /ˈaɪæm ˈfætsən/ 06:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quite obvious, no CU needed, IMO. Chenzw  Talk  12:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

75.119.224.0/20

[change source]

Just wondering if a CU can check the above range for any collateral damage. Cheers, Goblin 20:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Collateral damage? Please specify. Chenzw  Talk  12:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Basically if there were any legitimate users caught up in the range, but the moment has probably passed now ;) Thanks, Goblin 12:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

92.11.104.197 and Samlaptop

[change source]

This IP is making the same type of edits as Samlaptop, and based on his editing pattern, such as adding I love vandalism to pages, I believe this IP to be Samlaptop's. Thanks, Razorflame 18:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Likely to be him. Blocked accordingly. Majorly talk 18:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ismouton and JamesManes

[change source]

Both making same exact same edit to Solaris and using exact same argument at to why. fr33kman talk 23:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't approve of this. The editors (probably unrelated) were correct in what they did. No check is needed. TheAE talk 23:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is wrong is using rollback on non-vandalism like that. Even if it was the same person, I can totally appreciate why they are doing that. Majorly talk 23:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had reason to be concerned that it was vandalism due to the wording of the edit summaries (profanity and insulting users); and then another account performing the exact same edit within seconds of the first account doing so. Concern that it might not be vandalism is why I asked the editor to discuss, rather than revert it again. fr33kman talk 23:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GLFan151 and guess who?

[change source]

Before I vomit. SimonKSK 18:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to do over here, account is SULed and has been blocked on EN as a sock. Chenzw  Talk  01:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PickingGold12 and Tharnton345

[change source]


Reason: Just a hunch, but i've been monitoring and it seems very Tharnton like. RfA as first edit, then pointless userspace edits, before nomming someone for RfA. Cheers, Goblin 23:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is not my main though. PickingGold12 (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Want a hint? PickingGold12 (talk) 23:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is this some kind of game? - At the moment I see no reason at all to do a checkuser here...--Eptalon (talk) 23:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why need to cheat when its obivous? PICKING PickingGold12 (talk) 23:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to guess there's not much point adding vandalism warnings? I'll leave it to the admins. FrancesO (talk) 23:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yum5Yum5 and LostRule

[change source]

Reason: Both edited Enfield Island Village before it was deleted and both seem to be vandals. Kennedy 11:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they are the same person. Check the diffs for details. Lostrule actually reverted Yum5Yum5's edit. Chenzw  Talk  11:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per the CU results, they are different people (different IPs)--Eptalon (talk) 11:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah well, thought we had a couple of socks on... Kennedy 11:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderboy4 and Samlaptop

[change source]

This user is exhibiting the same behavior as Samlaptop did in the past. The first thing he did when he came here was open an RfA. Therefore, I believe that that is sufficient enough evidence to support a CU of this user. Thanks, Razorflame 23:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Initiating an RfA is a very common thing for newbies to do, as they don't yet understand the role of an administrator. This happens nearly every day on the English Wikipedia, so I don't think a C/U is necessary. –Juliancolton (talk) 23:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But as their first edit? Come on...even I knew better than to apply for adminship as my first edit :P. Razorflame 23:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I've seen this dozens of times throughout the wikis. –Juliancolton (talk) 23:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it was me, I'd mark this as Declined - not enough evidence to warrant a checkuser, but that's just me. SteveTalk 23:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, then. If you don't think that enough evidence was presented, then sorry for even posting this. Cheers, Razorflame 23:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sexplosion696969 and SEXPLOSION6969

[change source]

Seems obvious but I'd like confirmation in case they create more of them. fr33kman talk 19:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm puzzled. Both accounts have been blocked and encouraged to create a good username, so how would it be useful to confirm they're the same at this point? Toliar (talk) 19:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't know how checkuser does its bit, but I'm assuming that the account creation would show the IP address of the creator?? I just want to knwo in case they keep creating more so a hard block can be considered. My thinking is that it could be different people that just happen to have created very similar usernames (unlikely I know, but AGF is very big on my agenda). I don't know if checkuser can be used at this point or not; I've never had the bit :) but they have both edited the same article, so some IP address should show up fr33kman talk 19:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done There is a big chance this is the same user, even if the IPs don't match. --Eptalon (talk) 19:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'm a big one for AGF, perhaps too much :) fr33kman talk 20:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the reasoning now. Toliar (talk) 23:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm a stickler for evidence :) I figured that someone else might have seen the block or the user-creation log on decided to create another one :) fr33kman talk 23:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Relucio and Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila

[change source]

An admin at enWP shows these accounts to be the same person (here) and I think that based on the edits it is the same here. fr33kman talk 21:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it very much looks like it. --Eptalon (talk) 23:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'll block Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila (talk · contribs) and start a discussion on the other. fr33kman talk 23:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thekohser and Jonas D Rand

[change source]

Thekohser has similar writing styles and the same self-righteous attitude and becomes active just as Jonas posts on TRMs talk page. Kennedy (talk) 08:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but don't be ridiculous. Do you not realise who Thekohser is? A quick check of his recent posts on Wikipedia Review, in a thread started by AmericanEagle, will show this in Thekohser. Checkuser clearly not needed Soup Dish (talk) 08:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I don't read Wikipedia Review, so that piece of information passed me by. I will have a look now. Kennedy (talk) 08:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thekohser is Greg Kohs, see en:MyWikiBiz who has been vocal in his criticism of Wikipedia and Jimbo Wales for many years. Jonas D. Rand is a child. Greg Kohs has been covered in various third-party reliable source publications about his thoughts on Wikipedia and Wales, Jonas has not! The above IP address geolocates to New York, Greg is pretty open about where he lives Soup Dish (talk) 08:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Fair enough. I did not know that. Kennedy (talk) 08:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, "writing style" and an "attitude" are now sufficient grounds for violating the Internet privacy of a contributor to a Wikimedia Foundation project? Seems rather rude and invasive to me. And, fancy that, no apology to me on my Talk page. -- Thekohser (talk) 22:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh quit trying to provoke people. Just walk away. -Djsasso (talk) 03:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll say exactly as I said to Jonas: You are deluded if you think I am going to apologise to you. Kennedy (talk) 08:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Archive6&oldid=7307683"