Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mr. Tibbs (talk | contribs) at 08:00, 6 June 2006 (→[[User:Rex071404]]: Added afterthought about NoSeptember's idea that Rex's admin sock: might be OvenFresh.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


    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 Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets
    Vote fraud, closed vote, did not affect outcome List at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets
    Other disruption of articles List at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets
    Open proxy, IP address already known List at Wikipedia:WikiProject on 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 {{Wikipedia: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

    Privacy violation?

    this header: view • edit

    File a Checkuser Request
    Cases are created on subpages of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case.
    If you require help or advice, ask at Wikipedia 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:
    Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/John Doe

    <inputbox> type=create editintro=Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Inputbox/Header preload=Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Inputbox/Sample default=Wikipedia: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

    User:Rex071404

    User:Rex071404 recently admitted on his talkpage that he has used the accounts above as sockpuppets. There also is an incident report about this.[3] As well as the continueing request for clarification.[4] -- Mr. Tibbs 06:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

     Clerk note: 20:42, May 12, 2006 Naconkantari blocked "ソックスのパペット (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (english name, please) Thatcher131 07:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Jidan

    Jidan has had a history of removing or arguing against the labeling of a person as "Persian" in several articles, often replacing them with "Arab" or "Islamic". He's also previously been blocked for evading 3RR using open proxies & public IPs. I think it's safe to say that the behavior of Jidan matches that of Napmor, and that they are the same person. —Khoikhoi 05:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Another possible sock may be MB (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). All of his edits I checked out had to do with changing various ethnicities to Arab. - Pureblade | Θ 05:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC) (I will be abstaining from clerk duties, of couse.)[reply]

    Clerk Attention Required

    Declined requests

    User:Objectman

    similar to the User:Bright888 sockpuppetry confirmed below, new users constantly revert at same and related articles, around same times, apparently from same geographic location, similar writing style, same pov. Appleby 05:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC) added tomatobomb & 69.197.142.100. actual and suspected 3rr violations at Dokdo, Korea, Shimane Prefecture.[reply]

    Clerk note: Checkuser links repaired. Kevin_b_er 05:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    no Declined. Sockpuppetry, in and of itself, is not prohibited. Until there is evidence of policy violation, I'm afraid this is outside our scope. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 16:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    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. [5] 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)[reply]

    I would suggest to delete this frivolous accusation that clearly is a response to the RFCU against suspected socks of a disruptive user.Holland Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 22:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering your Checkuser request hasn't been completed on this IP, I think you are over stepping the grounds for having anything removed. Its valid unless the user is proven to be a sockpuppet. --zero faults |sockpuppet| 00:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    fish CheckUser is not for fishing Essjay (Talk • Connect) 18:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, i was blocked on trumped up NPA bs. NOT 3RR. Prometheuspan 23:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    Declined. Nobs hasn't edited in six months; it's well known we don't keep logs going back that far. Regarding TJive and YINever, absent an alleged policy violation there's no reason to investigate at this time. Mackensen (talk) 16:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I note for the record that a number of comments were deleted, leaving primarily an attack on me. See: [6]. I do not understand why this is considered ethical.--Cberlet 20:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    TJive and YINever have ADMITTED to being the same person. See above. They have violated the 3RR. --RevolverOcelotX 04:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Diffs please. That is, diffs showing abuse and the users committing the abuse in conjunction. Mackensen (talk) 22:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Completed requests

    Possible Lightbringer?

    Only one edit at this point, but target article (related to Freemasonry) and content (the same stuff Lightbringer and his sock army has regurgitated ad nasaum - that Freemasonry is supposedly satanism) makes me suspisious of another sockpuppet. Recent verified socks to check against includes User:Canonlaw, User:Newmason, User:Naturalism IS satanism and many more. Also see Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Lightbringer. WegianWarrior 19:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Red X Unrelated. Unless he's moved (to Australia, from Canada). Essjay (Talk • Connect) 21:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Unlikely it's the same guy then. Thanks for looking into this. WegianWarrior 03:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:YINever

    User:YINever has been edit warring with User:PatCheng and many other editors over the article The Epoch Times. I suspect that User:YINever has many sockpuppets if you look at the history of The Epoch Times article. Also look at User:YINever's contributions. It is clear the editors listed above are all new users. User:YINever is a likely sockpuppet of User:Freereader, User:Web spy killer, User:65.33.167.138, and User:141.153.74.246. RevolverOcelotX 03:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no evidence of policy violation here, so no rationale for a check other than a hunch. This is a retaliatory request and an abuse of the system. For clarity's sake, I have used the latter IP but have nothing to do with the first three. YINever 03:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    YINever, you have CLEARLY reverted the article The Epoch Times with your IP address after you were at the limit of breaking the 3RR rule. See here: [7]. Your editing patterns are extremely similar if, not identical, to the other 3 accounts. They are all fairly new accounts and all have engaged in an edit war at the The Epoch Times article. --RevolverOcelotX 03:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    A simple web WHOIS lookup reveals that the latter two IPs are registered under different services, in different states, from different states. Considering I use the latter, that would be a rather remarkable technical feat for an unskilled user like myself. Simply stated, there is no merit to this claim and it is simply leveled to water down the initial RFCU below and distract attention from it. --TJive 03:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have also added the User:TJive as a possible sockpuppet of User:YINever because he has admitted to having an account called "YINever". See here: [8] where User:TJive says "where my primary account is "YINever"" on the talk page of User talk:Blnguyen. --RevolverOcelotX 03:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I recently filed a check user request that was declined (see below). I listed.
    TJive then claimed he was posting under 141.153.74.246. Now it appears that YINever is claiming to post from 141.153.74.246. I believe it is possible that YINever and 141.153.74.246 are TJive. I am totally confused, but hope this adds some facts. Some of the discussion was deleted by Voice of All here[9]. I think the issue of Nobs01 was used to distract attention from the multiple accounts being used for edit warring.--Cberlet 03:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Here is further evidence where User:YINever has ADMITTED to being a sockpuppet of User:TJive. [10]. I hope it is now clear to the administrators that User:YINever is a sockpuppet of User:TJive and possibly other accounts/IPs on the list. --RevolverOcelotX 03:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Can the clerk assist in this matter, please? I never denied having two accounts, and it has nothing to do with the original charge, which remains nothing but fishing on the part of this user. Now that he has retroactively inserted TJive it makes it appear as if my original denial pertains to that account rather than the ones he started with. No evidence was put forth (per the declined Cberlet RFCU) that either is violating policy, alone or in tandem, so the matter is irrelevant. YINever 03:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User:YINever has used his sockpuppets to break the 3RR. Here is evidence of him ADMITTING[11] to being a sockpuppet of User:TJive. I also suspect the other accounts/IPs are also his sockpuppets. User:YINever is in violation of 3RR by using his sockpuppets. --RevolverOcelotX 03:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you point to where TJive and YINever have together conspired to break 3RR? No, you can not, because such an event does not exist. You are attempting to blur the issues. This report did not concern TJive. It concerned four other accounts, one of which is an IP I used. Do you have any evidence that I have broken policy? No you have not. Do you have any evidence that I am the originally asserted users? No you do not. This is a sloppy attempt to fish, no better than the first, and should be seen for that. YINever 03:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This concerns the issue because RFCU is to show ALL the sockpuppets of User:YINever. And it is clear that TJive is already a sockpuppet of YINever. And here is where suspected sockpuppet of User:YINever, violated the 3RR. [12] I suspect the other accounts/IP are also sockpuppets of User:YINever. --RevolverOcelotX 04:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Can a administrator check to see if those accounts/IPs are the sockpuppet of User:YINever? --RevolverOcelotX 04:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

     Clerk note: Having two accounts is discouraged but not prohibited, unless they edit disruptively together. TJive has not edited The Epoch Times. A checkuser request to see if YINever has used additional accounts (such as Freereader or Web Spy Killer) will be performed at the discretion of one of the admins with checkuser permission, but it may take a couple of days. (All the clerks can do is keep things tidy.) This is not the right place for an extended discussion. Thanks. Thatcher131 04:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

     Inconclusive This seems to be a fishing expedition, but without much in the way of live bait. Freereader and Webspykiller are the same user, but there is no connection that I can see between TJive/YINever. Thatcher131 is correct; sockpuppetry in itself, while discouraged, is permitted provided that the streams don't cross. Mackensen (talk) 12:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:PatCheng

    The former user has been following my edits for a while now, and has been blocked for policy violations. The latter has taken up the same edits on the same set of articles, in tandem with PatCheng to evade 3RR. The latter has been blocked for 3RR violations already, and has now committed another. If you look through the contribution histories, there is a clear time gap between 20:23, 4 June 2006 where "RevolverOcelotX"'s rapid-fire edits dropped off, "PatCheng"'s picked up, then "ReolverOcelotX" returned at 20:31, 4 June 2006, demonstrating a completely contiguous log-in between accounts.

    Here are examples of tandem 3RR violation.

    In the second case, "RevolverOcelotX" committed a 3RR violation on his own. As of this writing, no one has stopped him, but two of those articles are now protected.

    He has now taken up posting a massive list of templates on my talk page in an attempt to have me reported for vandalism, which so far has seen two bad reports shunned. [13] [14]

    "PatCheng" was itself created by an IP which took up the same hobby of stalking me, as you can see in his first edits. There were at least five of them, all of which you would not have recent information for, in order to track. [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] But there is a clear line through all of them, including with the same accusations that people are "whitewashing" and "blackwashing" anti-communist and communist subjects, respectively. [20] [21]

    His harassment, user page vandalism, and assorted mischief has gone unchecked all this time, but apparently he is moving toward straight-forward policy violation via having a second account and gaining more reverts. --TJive 02:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

     Clerk note: Discussion has been removed and summarized. Original discussion here

    Summary: Original request is made by TJive over two users who have reverted articles together during an edit war, PatCheng and RevolverOcelotX . The accused editor RevolverOcelotX protests claiming innocence, and says that the users involved in the revert war with him/her were sockpuppets. As a result the above RfCU is filed. The reporting user, TJive admits to being a sockpuppet of YINever in the his/her userpage indicates that he/she, has had poor experiences with the other accused user, PatCheng. Note that a related, but not included in the checkuser, IP, 211.30.206.11 seems to be PatCheng's IP address, by both his admittance (the IP's talk page redirects to his userpage), and TJive's userpage. This IP is registered to Optus Internet. Also note that RevolverOcelotX has been able to edit while two autoblocks are in effect on PatCheng. Prodego talk 03:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

     Clerk note: Comments inserted into Prodego's summary by YINever have been removed and may be seen here. Please do not insert material into other editors' edits. Please note it may take a couple of days for an admin with checkuser permission to attend to your requests. Thatcher131 04:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Red X Unrelated No links between the two users. Mackensen (talk) 12:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    CommentBoth have edited at similar times and periods. Both have been absent for prolonged periods at the same time as well, e.g. both DreamGuy and Victrix have been away from the early hours of June 1st, both also didn't edit from 13th onwards of may and both returned on 23 May 2006. Both use the same edit summaries and both step in to revert articles in order to avoid 3RR when nessessary. Both radily breach WP:PA. DreamGuy has a history of being blocked for breaching 3RR. Englishrose 10:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

     Likely. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 19:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    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 [22]. 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 at venus 23:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Red X Unrelated I generally do not run checkusers on highly established users without strong evidence, but as I see potential for this to escalate, I went ahead and ran it. The two do not appear to be related at all (separate countries). Essjay (Talk • Connect) 19:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks, this sets some issues aside that otherwise would be linguring, but I would have understand if it you had not done it. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Category:Suspected Wikipedia 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)[reply]

    (Comment only) This category doesn't exist, and CheckUser is not for fishing. Stifle (talk) 20:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    (Fixup) On June 2, 2006, the category was moved and deleted. It used to be this. Fixed to location in delete log. Kevin_b_er 08:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

     Confirmed They are related, and 216.83.121.194 is the underlying IP. I've blocked it for six months. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 19:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

     Inconclusive It is not possible to determine a puppeteer from the technical information available. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 19:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Rex071404/User:Merecat

    Update on list: Last IP-editor started disruptively trolling and has been blocked following the heated debate between Mr Zero and others. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 18:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    After doing a brief analysis of these users' edits at User:Phr's request,[23] 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[24] and User:Phr also made a noticeboard post[25] 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.[26] There is also an RfAr[27][28] and a Request for clarification[29] up about this user. -- Mr. Tibbs 07:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Clerk assistance required: I've archived the whole discussion to the history (see here), and would like a clerk summary. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 18:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

     Clerk note: More discussion archived here. Summary (by Pureblade) is:

    The request is on
    both of whom have been permabanned, are accused of having the following socks:
    Claims Rex is innocent
    Also campaigns for Rex's unblock
    Zer0faults vehemently argues that he is not a sockpuppet, and claims that his IP is 74.64.40.102, which is located in a different state than 69.46.20.59.
    This was requested by Noosphere after the original request, due to: the user's first edit was just after Merecat's block, use of Wikipedia slang, and editing this article, supposedly one of Merecat's favorites.
    Prodego talk 20:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

     Confirmed as follows:

    • Rex071404, Merecat, Neutral_arbiter, Cal_Burrattino, and Wombdpsw are the same editor.
    • Zer0faults appears to be a distinct individual, and has used 74.64.40.102, along with several others. There is not an obvious connection with Rex/Merecat.
    • 69.46.20.59 is HIVELOCITY VENTURES CORP, a hosting company in Florida. Very little legitimate traffic comes from hosting companies, and their addresses often operate like open proxies.
    • 216.22.26.46 is Choice One Communications Inc., a business internet and phone service provider/hosting company. The address 216.22.26.46 appears to be part of the webhosting services.

    In short, either of the two IP addresses could be anyone, including Rex/Merecat. It is impossible to tell, since they may or may not be available for proxying activities, and are not likely to be scannable. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 22:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

     Clerk note: Neutral arbiter, Cal Burrattino, and Wombdpsw have all been indef blocked. Prodego talk 22:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Chakabuh / Newssourceusa / Qed-news

    Several user accounts and IP addresses have recently vandalized articles related to email spam fighters -- people and organizations that track down and stop spammers. Vandalized articles include The Spamhaus Project, Steve Linford, and SPEWS. User:Chakabuh has been trying to insert libellous claims into Brian J. Bruns and may be the same person.

    The user in question is probably affiliated with spammers, and may be abusing Wikipedia for other purposes (e.g. to promote a spam business). There may be other puppets I've missed above, too. --FOo 04:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Did some Googleling/whois/traceroutes/calls. 166.70.177.1 appears to be based out of Salt Lake City, Utah (it looks like a library if the rdns is to be believed). The comment in the edit 166.70.177.1 made to the page on me is very very close style/wording wise to what Barbara Schwarz posts on usenet. However, as far as I know, she has been banned from the SLC Public Library, so it may be a sockpuppet or similar.Brian 19:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    These addresses vandalized the Spamhaus article and put ads for spamming servies on Bullet proof hosting, an article describing ISPs that host spammers. Possibly part of the same crew. --FOo 20:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

     Additional information needed What exactly am I supposed to be checking here? Whether the accounts listed are associated with the IPs? Whether they're coming from the same area? This request seems to involve several different issues, and leaves out the connections. Could someone put together a concise summary of exactly what has gone on here? Essjay (Talk • Connect) 17:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for your response. To answer your questions:
    What exactly am I supposed to be checking here? Are the accounts and IP addresses being used by the same people? In dealing with the vandalism and harassment that these accounts and addresses have been committing, are we dealing with one person, or several? Whether they're coming from the same area is also relevant, particularly given Brian Bruns' brief investigation above suggesting that one is from the Salt Lake City area and could be a known harasser.
    Exactly what has gone on here? I noticed on WP:AN/I that User:Chakabuh and User:Bruns were having a dispute over Chakabuh's creation of an article about Bruns, Brian J. Bruns, which contained false and malicious claims. Bruns wished the article to be deleted, or at least the libels removed from it.
    (Bruns is a noted spamfighter; that is, a system administrator who does volunteer work to help other sysadmins reduce email spam for their users. Spamfighters often become victims of harassment by spammers, who naturally resent their work; as well as by cranks such as Brad Jesness and the aforementioned Barbara Schwarz.)
    Around the same time, I had been dealing with vandalism on other articles related to spam and spamfighting tools, such as The Spamhaus Project and Steve Linford. (Linford is another spamfighter; Spamhaus is the international effort he founded.) The nature of the vandalism was similar in scope: it was to insert false and malicious claims about the person in question, and to direct users to off-Wiki sites containing more such claims and concocted or misrepresented "evidence" of them.
    It occurred to me that Bruns and I could be dealing with the same offender here: a spammer or crank engaged in a pattern of Wikipedia abuse for the purpose of spreading derogatory falsehoods about spamfighters. This is a tactic that specific individual spammers have used before in other forums, the goals being (a) to harass the spamfighters into giving up their efforts; or (b) to convince others to distrust the spamfighters so that their efforts will be futile.
    Wikipedia needs to resist being abused for this purpose, which clearly goes beyond simple vandalism into persistent and malicious harassment. (Some comparison could be drawn between this sort of harassment and that perpetrated by "Wikipedia Review" users to drive away or sow distrust against Wikipedia administrators.)
    All I'm looking for is some determination which of these accounts and addresses represent the same offender. --FOo 18:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    information Note::

    • Qed-news is 72.224.170.144; Newssourceusa is 72.224.169.2. Both are RoadRunner IPs registered to main; the same user, obviously.
    • 84.115.71.45 has been used by SpamhausSucks. It's an Austrian IP.
    • 89.36.88.2 has a single edit, not used by any contributor. It is a Romanian IP.
    • 166.70.177.1 is a Salt Lake City IP, registered to XMission.com, a hosting company. It has been used by a number of different types of unsavory users; I've blocked it, as little good traffic comes from hosting companies. This IP has been used by Chakabuh.
    • 66.167.180.248 and 68.165.190.33 are registered to Covad Communications Co. in San Jose, California, a combination hosting company/DSL/T1 provider. Each has only a few edits, and no logged in editors; if they continue to be a problem, they can be blocked.
    • The Rest of Chakabuh's traffic has come from Electric Lightwave Inc, a hosting company in Vancouver.

    In short, it seems the only common thread here is the subject matter (spammers/spamming). Essjay (Talk • Connect) 21:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Raptor30 / 03Rotpar / Demiurge010

    IP address has been labled as the "lingerie vandal" by User:Bachrach44 (See Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia, just as User:03Rotpar had. --Durin 13:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    information Note: Can't check against Raptor30, there are no edits, and the creation is too old (Feburary). 03Rotpar is 193.111.10.29. Demiurge010 can't be connected to either, as 03Rotpar was using an open proxy. Jesterjester doesn't appear related to the above, but is the same person as User:MyUsername:. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 20:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    General Eisenhower or GeorgeMoney

    information Note: Long discussion removed to history. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 20:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Results:

    • General_Eisenhower and GeorgeMoney, as indicated before, are unrelated.
    • General_Eisenhower is the same as User:Mr. Shame, which he has already acknowledged.
    • Gangsta-Easter-Bunny and Rayven_the_Crook do not appear directly related to any of the rest, or to each other.
    • Old_Abe, My_Old_Kentucky_Home, Code_Napoleon, and Robgerts cannot be checked due to age.
    • OrtonFan2006 is editing from Australia.
    • 68.211.205.149, a BellSouth IP, has two edits, neither of which are by any logged in user.

    Now, I'm going to say this very clearly: Until someone can come up with serious, well supported allegations of serious policy violation (much more than "they sound alike"), I don't want to see any more requests related to General Eisenhower or GeorgeMoney. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 20:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

     Confirmed. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 19:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    User:Lights out!'s contribs suggest that TMECM has realised that edits to articles other than Socialism can go unnoticed.--Nema Fakei 12:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

     Inconclusive It actually appears to be an impersonator from the University of Auckland, New Zealand (TMECM is from Norway); I can find no evidence of either IP being an open proxy. TMECM's only known IP is still blocked (I blocked it for a month a week or so ago); the New Zealand IP can't be blocked because it is a shared IP. A complaint to the University of Auckland might be in order, however. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 19:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

     Confirmed. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 19:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks. --Rory096 03:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    information Note:: 212.72.21.53 is Abdulrahman_Jaffer_Al_Zadjali. Pantherarosa appears uninvolved. There is no obvious tie to any other user at this time, though that doesn't mean there isn't or hasn't been one. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 19:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm a little confused Essjay. Does the checkuser function not allow you to see if AJAZ's IP address(es) have been used by Pantherarosa? You said that it doesn't mean that there hasn't been a connection, but how does the CheckUser function not allow a conclusive result? (Feel free to use technical terms). Paul Cyr 20:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There are several reasons this could be, one is that the information checkuser uses only remains in the database for a limited amount of time. It is also possible that the internet service provider assigns IP addresses dynamically, so there would be no way to be certain. Checkuser is not a simple confirmed / denied function. Of course I do not posses checkuser, and do not know the exact reason. Essjay will be able to explain it better, if you really want to know. Prodego talk 20:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    information Note: Responding to these requests requires a bit of ESP; you have to try to forsee what people will assume you meant, and avoid giving rise to incorrect assumptions. As a part of that, I often have to make statements with various disclaimers.

    My response should be read as follows:

    • There is no connection between Panthearosa and AJAZ. (Hence why I said "Pantherarosa appears uninvolved.")
    • At this time, there is no evidence tying AJAZ to any other Wikipedian, including Pantherarosa. (The request was not simply to see if the two named accounts were related, but to see if the puppeteer of AJAZ could be identified. The second part of my statmenet addresses the possiblity of some other puppeteer.)
    • While I cannot identify a puppeteer via checkuser, AJAZ may well be the sockpuppet of a previously blocked/banned user for whom we no longer have IP information. (I did not want the result to be read as "He is most definately not a sockpuppet," because that is not accurate. He is not the obvious sockpuppet (remembering that people use things like open proxies to avoid detection) of any currently editing user, but that doesn't mean he isn't a sockpuppet.)

    As David Gerard says, checkuser is not magic wiki pixie dust. We can't always wave our checkuser wands and make the puppeteer appear; that should not be confused, however, with an indication that there is no puppeteer. There are plenty of rabbits around, even if one doesn't pop out of the hat. ;) Essjay (Talk • Connect) 17:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    information Note: Extensive discussion moved to history. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 18:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Red X Unrelated No connection whatsoever. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 18:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

     Confirmed. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 18:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    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". (same with 81.62.128.110 & 83.79.98.206) I have no doubts that L is evading his block. —Khoikhoi 23:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

     Confirmed. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 18:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    RichardMalter

    Possible attempts to circumvent a block [30][31], as well as a gentlemen's agreement that all editors in the discussion page [32][33] agreed to (refraining from any non-consensus changes to article), including this user. Thanks for checking. Crum375 22:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking back, also possible use of IP 203.220.167.134 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) for anon 'unexplained edits' [34] subsequently reverted by Will Beback. Crum375 22:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Why did you put this checkuser reqeuest at the end of the list? New requests are supposed to be at the top of the list. Kevin_b_er 00:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    My mistake - thanks for catching it and helping. Hopefully we can still get this checkuser info in a timely manner nonetheless. Thanks, Crum375 11:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

     Confirmed: 203.220.167.134 is RichardMalter, likely that Morpheuz is as well. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 18:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bookmain / User:HansAntel / User:AliceDeGrey / User:HeadleyDown

    I am a mentor on the Neuro-linguistic programming. The above 4 seem to be working together to try to get around the restrictions put upon them by the NLP arbcom decision. Essentially, one of the non affected people is reverting and then the affected people are editing. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. --Woohookitty(meow) 09:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

     Confirmed as follows:

    • All are editing from IPs registered to schools or residental providers in Hong Kong.
    • HeadleyDown and Bookmain are the same user.
    • HansAntel may be HeadleyDown, or may be another individual recruited to assist. The IPs involved are residential, so could be an off-campus apartment or a friend/family home.
    • AliceDeGrey is editing from a different school than HeadlyDown, but may be the same user, utilizing another school's library or computer labs. It could also be a meatpuppet.

    The above will hopefully be helpful. If there are additional questions, please advise. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 17:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Astint1

    All users repeatedly remove an AfD notice from Pour over. If CheckUser confirms that these are the same user, I intend to report to WP:AIV Lbbzman 03:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

     Confirmed. Astint1 is 24.238.212.90; doesn't appear to be connected to 70.2.227.93. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 16:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Polaron & Node ue

    Same pattern, same user. Severe block. Recognized here http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMoldovan_language&diff=50926117&oldid=50499656 --221.150.196.170 09:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Red X Unrelated 24.251.68.75 is Node ue, which is fairly clear from the history of his userpage, but there is no apparent connection with Polaron. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 16:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Hganesan

    Simishag (talk · contribs) asked me to see if they were one and the same, but obviously, as I don't have checkuser, I can't.

    Reasoning for Simishag to believe Bucs. is a puppet of Hganesan is here Will (E@) T 01:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Red X Unrelated I can't find any evidence linking the two; from all appearances, Hganesan is coming from California, and Buscrsafe from the UK. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 16:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    -Inanna-

    It seems that the banned Inanna just likes to edit! By looking at Dandanakan's contributions, one would find that:

    • Both like to change numbers to favor the Turks. (i.e. make it seem that Kurds only account for 5% of Turkey's population when the real number is 15-20%.)
    • Here again, this was one of the reasons Inanna got into edit wars all the time, because she changed numbers without citing her sources.
    • And now look at the edit history of the Yıldız Kenter article.

    I'm sure that this user is Inanna. —Khoikhoi 15:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

     Confirmed. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 16:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Ruzgar

    Ruzgar was blocked for a week today for continuing to add an inflammatory image to an article and personal attacks. Only a few hours after he was blocked, Erdemsenol, who hasn't edited in 4 months re-uploads the image and adds it to the article. Here's some interesting facts: both users seem to have an interest in (1.) the removal of the Muhammed cartoons picture (2.) anything Kurdish on Turkey-related articles, and (3.) pushing Turkish nationalistic views on Wikipedia. I have no doubts that these users are the same person, and that Ruzgar is evading his block. 80.145.74.84 also just re-added the image, and also talks just like Ruzgar. —Khoikhoi 05:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

     Confirmed. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 16:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Ericnorcross, Katherinejohnson, Almost Famous, Living large

    User:Almost Famous emailed threats to User:Econrad very much like previous threats from User:Ericnorcross; what's more, he used the email address of confirmed sockpuppet User:Sevenlinefeatures. User:Katherinejohnson has claimed in the past to be the roommate of Eric Norcross, and User:Living large has edits on subjects and described him or herself in such a way that it's not likely to be a coincidence.  RasputinAXP  c 02:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Additions:

    Each vandalized my user and talk page, including posting personal information. Not that it much matters because I don't hide it, but in the end it only adds fuel to the stalking.  RasputinAXP  c 15:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

     Confirmed: Finding A Solution = Living large = Finding A Solution = Nicole_Lynn = Katherinejohnson = SyossetMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) = Eric_The_Red (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) = LittleStinkNess (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) = J._Whales (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Fred Bauder 03:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    A_Funny_Thing_Happened (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) another one. Fred Bauder 12:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Bright888, Schola64, Polaris36, Foreastwest

    Brand new users trailing each other and taking turns reverting similar edits mostly having to do with the relationship between Japan and Korea. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Adding a new one who just reverted my revert after I warned Schola64 about 3RR. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    adding more new accounts making similar reverts in related articles around the same time. Appleby 00:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

     Confirmed. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 17:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    thank you essjay. can you block the accounts, or do other steps have to be taken? Appleby 04:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
     Clerk note: Bright888 has been blocked for a week and the others have been indefinitely blocked. (You can see this for yourself by clicking on block log after their name.) Thatcher131 04:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Now we just have to watch for more of them, I suppose. (^_^) ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Chadbryant / Chud Manzier

    Chadbryant is quite well known for reverting Rec.sport.pro-wrestling to his preferred version (an example here), but he does so infrequently without breaking WP:3RR. Chud Manzier is another user who has come along and reverted the same version as Chadbryant (an example here, and has also done some things that I've seen Chadbryant do, such as flag other users as sockpuppets of Dick Witham. Other users have flagged Chud Manzier as a sockpuppet of Chadbryant, while Chadbryant has reverted to remove the notice.

    I indefinitely blocked Chud Manzier because he was obviously doing the same things as Chadbryant. Chud Manzier sent me email vehemently denying that he is Chadbryant while chastising me for not having any hard evidence of his sockpuppetry, and insisted that I unblock him ASAP. I unblocked Chud Manzier due to lack of hard evidence, but Chud Manzier hasn't done anything since I unblocked him. I am a little concerned that Chud Manzier is a "sleeper sockpuppet" that Chadbryant is keeping around to make it seem like he has more consensus than not. I have stayed in the background in the hopes that things will resolve themselves, but I don't want to wait any longer for fear that the IP addresses will be lost from the databases. --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

     Inconclusive Essjay (Talk • Connect) 17:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bugman94

    This seems to be the 5th puppet now, constantly abuses {{helpme}} and generally annoying. -- 9cds(talk) 15:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

     Confirmed. Without a doubt, all of the following are the same user:

    Blocking the IP for a month. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 15:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser&oldid=57143652"