Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:04, 15 April 2006

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This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference.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to the currently open section (if the case is not yet archived) or adding a new section to the top (if the case has been archived).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}}
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}}	Unrelated  {{Unrelated}}
Confirmed with respect to the named user(s).  No comment with respect to IP address(es).  {{Confirmed-nc}}
Technically indistinguishable  {{Technically indistinguishable}}
Likely  {{Likely}}	Unlikely  {{Unlikely}}
Possible  {{Possible}}	Inconclusive  {{Inconclusive}}
Declined  {{Declined}}	Unnecessary  {{Unnecessary}}
Stale (too old)  {{StaleIP}}	No comment  {{Nocomment}}
CheckUser is not a crystal ball  {{Crystalball}}	CheckUser is not for fishing  {{Fishing}}
CheckUser is not magic pixie dust  {{Pixiedust}}	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}}

Outstanding requests

Theonlyedge (talk · contribs) and PM shef (talk · contribs)

The below user and his (suspected) sockpuppets are claiming these two users are the same person by continuing to drop sockpuppet notices on the two pages. This was what caused the below user(s) to get blocked, and therefore causing sockpuppetry to circumvent blocks. Please check just to have concrete evidence. — Deckiller 03:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Westernriddell (talk · contribs)

Suspected sockpuppet of User:Eyeonvaughan. Similar edits under 64.228.149.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 69.156.150.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 69.156.150.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Edits consist of accusing User:Theonlyedge and User:Pm shef to be sockpuppets of each other, just like the mother account. Also, Westernriddell has less than ten edits, half fo them to AfDs over five months old (some of which he supported claims made by Eyeonvaughan), with the rest being immediately after the block on Eyeonvaughan being put into place. Although this is a somewhat obvious case of sockpuppetry, I decided to put it here to be "just". Also, see the above request for more information relating to this case. 03:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Kerry ( work IP address for DB) (talk · contribs), Joanne ( work IP address for DB) (talk · contribs), Peter ( work IP address for DB) (talk · contribs), Uni student (talk · contribs), and Johntheclivefan (talk · contribs) with ZoeCroydon (talk · contribs)

All these editors are new accounts that oppose a neutrality and cleanup edit to the article Clive Bull (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) on grounds such as 'poor wording' and 'flow'. The article is deadlocked due to 3RR constraints and the accounts refuse to work with other editors to correct the problems they claim to have. There is a strong possibility that these accounts are indefinitely blocked vandal, hoaxer and puppetmaster User:ZoeCroydon, who has a considerable sock farm, largely proven by previous CheckUser, which was also used a month ago to create illusions of a false consensus on this very same issue (as well as on Iain Lee).

Apart from their shared but otherwise unique opinions, they also share a similar style of writing, knowledge of obscure Misplaced Pages "rules" such as WP:AGF and WP:RPA despite being focused on one article , and the first three accounts share the same interesting typo in their bizarre names (the unnecessary space after the opening bracket), suggesting rapid account creation using copy-and-paste. --Sam Blanning 08:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

(Alternatively, the space after opening a bracket may be a habit.) --Sam Blanning 09:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

No More POV Please (talk · contribs), Bluegold (talk · contribs), MacPhersonAndy (talk · contribs), Bel air (talk · contribs) and Sea horn (talk · contribs)

No More POV Please (talk · contribs) has suddenly appeared from nowhere with some knowledge of wiki culture (etc). I suspect there to be some connection somewhere, owing to similatirities in both editing interests and POV, similar mistakes in style and similar visiting places, and to other things like general timing (two have been away for two years) and recent editing timing. I suspect MacPhersonAndy (talk · contribs) least as being a sock, but it seems possible. But it doesn't seem likely that No More POV Please (talk · contribs) and Bluegold (talk · contribs) really are different people. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 01:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I compared this and this and was suspicious, so Bel air (talk · contribs) can be added. Sea horn (talk · contribs), who's edited Harp may be another, see this. Interestingly, Talk:Harp, Talk:Dál Riata and Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Middle Ages have all had edits where single quotes were double-escaped (i.e. \\\'), evidently some hopeless script kiddie I've requested a block of the unblocked anons used, 72.232.33.146 (talk · contribs) and 84.245.75.24 (talk · contribs), used only for scripted updates and vandalism. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

He edited may have edited again as 67.15.0.68 (talk · contribs), which has since been blocked by Angr. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 16:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

To which could be added 72.21.56.146 (talk · contribs) and 72.232.89.58 (talk · contribs), both banned by Shanel. But as these are all open proxies and throwaways, I don't see much point myself. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

These pair of users should not be entertained with their request. I did very little or nothing to these users, maybe just to hurt their pride a little. Maybe I just picked a provocative name that's getting under their skin (a name I must reconsider in light of their reaction, see Irish language page and Irish language talk page). If you study my edits, you will see that there has been no violation or vandalism on my part. My IP address never starts with 6 (as stated above)and always begins with an 8, and it varies from time to time. And User:84.245.75.24, I have traced to Slovakia, not local to me, and was most disgusted at some of it's edits. A complete storm in a teacup. Thanks No More POV Please 00:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, there isn't much room to doubt the use of bad faith socks among the 5 users, but I readily admit the possibility than one or two may just be coincidences. However, on Talk:Irish language I asked MacPhersonAndy (talk · contribs) if he was No More POV Please (talk · contribs). The reaction was interesting to say the least. Here's another opportunity, No More POV Please (talk · contribs), do you deny you are a sock? Admitting it now and saving hard-working wikipedians some distraction will go some way to compensating for the misdemeanors. If you aren't, I fully apologize for the accusation. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 01:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

There you go again Calgacus, alway having the last say. Actually don't know what it is, but there is something about I like, true! In a court of law the defendant always gets the last say, and that's me. It's you and your friend Angus McLellan who are wasting good Wikipedian time, as the outcomes of these 'investigations' can be uncertain to say the least. So you took the charges, now up to administration, and I believe the reasons for your case are flawed. No More POV Please 02:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed it is. You shouldn't be worried if you are innocent. I offer you again the chance to deny sock puppetry. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 02:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

There you go, last word again. i am not worried, maybe you are! No More POV Please 02:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah yeah. Answer the question please; you only have a short opportunity, just say "no, I am not". - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 02:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, I have to now retire. yawn! No More POV Please 02:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Angusmclellan, I see 2 new addresses added, 72.21.56.146 (talk · contribs) and 72.232.89.58 (talk · contribs). Anyone looking at this spat could have used these to up the temperature on this topic. I am not buying! I'll say no more! No More POV Please 19:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

JimTS (talk · contribs)

It's been noted recently that all of this user's edits are to AfDs. This, I think, gives an inference that this might be a vote-stacking sockpuppet. I therefore request a CheckUser to see if that's what this user is, so that appropriate actions can be taken if he/she is. --Nlu (talk) 01:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

HK30 (talk · contribs)

There is reason to believe that this is a sockpuppet of User:206.61.48.22 and/or User:Giovanni33, created to avoid violating WP:3RR. Please note that I do not feel that Giovanni33 is involved but do believe the anonymous user to be related to this new user. Rationale/evidence can be found at the history page and talk page for Christianity. Thank you... KHM03 (talk) 18:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I was just coming here to make the same request. Giovanni33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been shown to use sockpuppets before. BelindaGong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), as established by Usercheck, and Freethinker99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), as established by signing as one editor, forgetting he was logged on as another, having pretended that the other was a brand new editor with no connection to him. Both those socks began their career on Misplaced Pages by saying on the talkpage that they agreed with him, and then reverting to his version, when he had run out of reverts, or while he was blocked.

We also suspected Kecik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and MikaM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) of a connection to Giovanni, as Kecik's seventeen article edits contain sixteen reverts to Giovanni, and his talk page edits are 100% supporting Giovanni, or voting for what Giovanni votes for, on different articles that he'd be unlikely to find by himself as a new user. Usercheck showed no connection, however. The same with MikaM; the account seems to exist for the purpose of reverting to Giovanni, voting for Giovanni's version, on multiple articles, but the usercheck found no connection. All five editors continued to ignore 3RR, after it was brought to their attention. (Not just an accidental slip into a fourth revert, but as many as eleven a day.)

There were also, some time ago, two brand new editors that appeared when Giovanni had not edited for a few days. RTS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) turned up after Giovanni had been absent for about two days (I think), said on the talk page that he agreed with Giovanni, and then reverted to Giovanni's version seven times, if I remember rightly, despite multiple warnings and pleas. I reported him at WP:AN/3RR, and he was blocked. Immediately after, brand-new NPOV77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appeared, and reverted to his version, saying in the edit summary that he was aware of the rules and had two reverts left. Having typed up lengthy explanations of the rules for RTS, and polite requests, in an effort to AGF, knowing quite well that he was a sockpuppet, I acted on instinct, and blocked NPOV77 immediately, even though I was involved in the article. (Blocked for sockpuppetry, not for reverting.) I then reported it at WP:AN/I, to get a review of the emergency block, and got a lot of support from fellow admins. I didn't ask for a usercheck, because there was a backlog at the time, and I knew that since the person I (and others) suspected had been caught before, he was aware of IP checks; and since he hadn't edited in the previous few days, I thought he might be away from home, perhaps in a hotel, and taking advantage of an unconnected IP address to get as many reverts as possible, knowing he'd be blocked if he made four, but that we were more lenient towards new users.

Another point, these sockpuppets and suspected sockpuppets are in disagreement over article content with me, User:Str1977, and User:KHM03. The two recent suspected socks, RTS and NPOV77 seemed to have chosen their names as a variation on Str1977. Has the new editor based his name on KHM03? The pattern of reverting, the language used in the edit summaries, etc., are 100% consistent with the pattern we've already seen. There could also be a connection with Trollwatcher (talk · contribs), John1838 (talk · contribs) and J1838 (talk · contribs) though I think that's less likely. Trollwatcher has as his apparent purpose keeping an eye on how Christians treat new users who disagree with them, and is directing people to this website, which attacks several Christian editors by name (me, KHM03, Str1977, Storm Rider, DJ Clayworth, and Tom harrison). John1838 and J1838 are the same user. Like Trollwatcher, there was no evidence of wanting to contribute to Misplaced Pages. He just wanted to build "case studies" about the behaviour of KHM03 and others. His John1838 user page was deleted as an attack page, so he registered a new account as J1838, and his new user page was deleted as well. Much of the material is now found on the new website which Trollwatcher is advertising.

P.S., at this moment, HK30 has now reverted five times under that name, plus possibly three times as User:206.61.48.22. Three of the reverts have been since I informed him of the rule (which of course he was already aware of, in my opinion). AnnH ♫ 19:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• comment: This is not a valid CheckUser request in my opinion because the user already admitted on his/her talk page that the anon IP is his/hers, and he used it before he created an account and did not know about the 3RR rule. After he recieved the warning message, he apologized and agreed to follow that rule. I see that he has so far. So, this user check serves no purpose at this point. Also, rehashing ancient history about me, even though its said above that I'm not involved, is also not appropriate here as I have no connection to this other than the fact that this user shares a similar POV, it seems. Certainly all the speculations above about other users and when I was away for a few days (I'm often away!), it a bit funny. Such speculations it seems to me is not warrented for their negative predjudical effect it has, and its not fair. Anyone can be creative and try to connect tenuous leaps of logic and speculate openly in such a negative manner without any evidence (incuding bring up things in the past that have been proven to be wrong), but such is not fair and its an exmaple of assuming bad faith. Giovanni33 02:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• I am sorry to clog up this page, but I would urge that the check still be carried out. Giovanni has a history of massive edit warring and sockpuppetry to get his way. The BelindaGong account showed up shortly after he registered, reverted immediately to his version, continued, like him, to violate 3RR when warned (i.e. not an accidental fourth revert having lost count), followed him to several other pages to vote for what he was voting for, to revert to his version, and to support him on talk pages, giving the impression of consensus. The two accounts pretended to have no connection to each other, despite being repeatedly asked. Finally, after a user check showed that they were the same, he then said she was his wife. Then, while he was blocked, the Freethinker99 account turned up, said he was new and had read the talk page and agreed with Gio, began to revert to his version, several times, and then answered a question addressed to Gio on Gio's talk page, forgetting he was logged on as Freethinker, hastily changed the signature, and then, since we had seen it, said that in fact he did know Gio, and had let him use his computer while Gio was showing him how to use Misplaced Pages. The whole of Talk:Christianity/Archive 24 is devoted to the issue of Giovanni's sockpuppetry.

• As the user has agreed on his talk page that the IP address is his, there is no need to verify that. I would still request a usercheck, however, as there is a disturbing history of brand new editors turning up to support Giovanni, and as two of them have been shown to have an IP connection, and as two others show from their contributions that they are on Misplaced Pages for the purpose of reverting to his version, as HK30 is using similar arguments, similar behaviour, and similar edit summaries, as he is showing non-newbie familiarity with terms such as "NPOV" and "pushing a POV" (despite claiming that he wasn't aware of the 3R rule), and as he has now, a few hours after registering, started voting at an AfD. The claim that he wasn't aware of the rule is unlikely, given his obvious familiarity with Misplaced Pages, and the fact that he made his last three reverts plus two talk page contributions after I informed him of the rule on his talk page, so that orange bar would have been flashing up on his screen for every single edit, until he went to his user talk page. Thank you. AnnH ♫ 10:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• This is just a fishing expedition of sorts. As I've said the digging up of questionable history, only parts of which are true, is a rather lame attempt to justify further user checks without sufficient probably cause. Its not true that this user has the same style, and comments in the edit summaries and elswhere--at least not anymore than almost anyone else. Its clear this is part of an agenda, a vendetta based on the fact that I've been in various content disputes over POV's with Musical Linguist, so she has an axe to grind, hence the pasting of the above ancient history, which Im frankly not even going to bother to refute, except to point out that past user checks proved I was innocent, and BelindaGong is my wife, who I offered to prove (but no one cares that its true); the other user was my friend I was introducing to Wikipeadia, and I used his computer while at his house to respond ONLY to a commment on my own talk page. Again, all this is rather irrelevant. I just think its inappropriate to make this about me, again. But, if you want to check on me again (I guess they will keep checking anytime there is anyone who is not a Christian), then I will continue to be proven innocent. Its a wild goose hunt. Giovanni33 02:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

User:HK30 has been indefinitely banned - see WP:AN/I

In this users defense, he/she was new and did not originate that site or spread it. He seems to just want a response from the users who it is about, in effect alerting them, and having the real problem it talks about openly discussed. I also note that the user, after being notified of his vio for the 3RR reverted himself so as not to violate the rule, and promised to follow the rules. I think he/she is a good user and that this bann is not just, esp. not indefintitely. Giovanni33 02:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Northmeister (talk · contribs) and 1010011010 (talk · contribs)

See Misplaced Pages talk:No original research. It is suspected that the latter is a sockpuppet of the former, to evade 3RR and to manufacture consensus on a policy page. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Cunado19's sockpuppet (talk · contribs)

This account was created to insult User:Cunado19 during an ongoing discussion. The user page was a deliberate personal attack. Thank you for your time and attention. MARussellPESE 15:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a bit vague; what's the reason for the checkuser, and who are we checking against? If we know it's an attack account, then we wouldn't be checking against Cunado19; is there someone else you have in mind... Essjay 05:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry — first timer mistake. Thought one could see what this IP address is and see if it hits anybody else's. Jeffmichaud (talk · contribs) has been engaged with Cunado, and me frankly, across a number of pages, so he's a possible candidate. Sorry for the inconvenience. MARussellPESE 13:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

64.231.242.202 (talk · contribs) and 69.156.148.61 (talk · contribs)

64.231.242.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 69.156.148.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) have been launching personal attacks and vandalism against pm shef. I suspect they are being used by Eyeonvaughan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is currently blocked for personal attacks, or VaughanWatch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The IPs resolve to Bell Canada. Although they have been blocked for 24 hours, if Checkuser finds they are being operated by VaughWatch, this should help admins block new IPs that launch similar attacks and may be evidence in what seems like the inevitable ArbCom case. Thatcher131 05:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Sampa (talk · contribs) and Peyman.a (talk · contribs)

The article History of Azerbaijan has been attacked by these two users and a number of anonymous IPs for a couple of month now, and as result got protected yesterday. I suspect that these 2 user accounts are sockpuppets, all they do is revert the article to a very old POV edit. Please check the history of the article for IP addresses used to vandalise the page, the list is long. Grandmaster 06:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it seems that the two users are trying to avoid the 3RR by switching accounts. --Khoikhoi 06:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Eastern_section_of_the_nation (talk · contribs)

We believe this is blocked user MuslimsofUmreka getting around his block. He is acting in the same manner and trolling for an edit war on Islamism. Kyaa the Catlord 14:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Johnc1 (talk · contribs) possible sock of Waya sahoni (talk · contribs)

Because of Johnc1's recent edits to Joe Byrd (Cherokee Chief) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Chad "Corntassel" Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), I've begun to suspect that Johnc1 is a sock of WS. WS also started supporting Johnc1 on the Joe Byrd talk page. · Katefan0/poll 13:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Xebat and User:Zanyar and User:AbdulRahman

These users are active in the pages related to Iran and Kurds. I think both User:Zanyar and User:AbdulRahman are sock puppets of User:Xebat (previously known as user:Diyako). User:Diyako had previously contributed in Persian Misplaced Pages by using three usernames (Diyako, Dalaho, and Daneshdust) in controversial pages. Bidabadi 17:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Zanyar only seems to edit when Xebat is blocked, which he is right now. If so then we have a block evasion. --Khoikhoi 18:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not just block evasion. It's deception . Bidabadi 18:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

But Xebat is currently blocked for 1 month, how is it not block evasion? --Khoikhoi 18:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Ofcourse it is block evasion. I'm saying that it is also deception (by impersonating several users in controversial pages). Bidabadi 18:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah. --Khoikhoi 18:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Declined requests

Haham hanuka (talk · contribs), 62.0.118.79 (talk · contribs), 207.232.8.4 (talk · contribs), 85.250.100.4 (talk · contribs), 85.250.168.182 (talk · contribs)

Haham hanuka seems to evade his block time and again, this time from IP 62.0.118.79 and several other IPs. The 207 IP I am more doubtful about. Can you check them all out? gidonb 13:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

No. Please read the policy, above. Declined. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 12:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello UninvitedCompany, please state what part of the policy led you to believe that this RFCU should be declined. Regards, gidonb 12:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The policy is that we only fulfill requests that meet the fairly narrow criteria listed in the policy. Which of the criteria do you think this request meets? The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

149.68.168.147 (talk · contribs) and 149.68.168.138 (talk · contribs)

Suspected sockpuppet of Zarbon (talk · contribs) who has been blocked and is using various IP addresses to bypass the block. Placed on checkuser per User:Nlu. Kafziel 16:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

He's already moved on to 149.68.168.138, and I'm assuming he can cycle through most of that netblock, since most of his other sockpuppets are in that block. Everything from those IPs appears to be Zarbon at least in terms of editing the same articles he edits in the same way he does. 4.89.242.158 22:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Declined. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 12:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Why??? Kafziel 13:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Please read the policy above. This doesn't meet it. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 01:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

In what way? As I stated above, an admin asked me to post this here so she could be absolutely sure before blocking this IP. Just because he moved on to another IP doesn't mean that he won't be back - if you look at the history of all of his IP address contribs, you'll see he cycles through them. I'm not the one who wrote the whole "editing the same articles in the same way" stuff. The IP address I asked about (149.68.168.147) is clearly tagged and linked with actual proof. If that's too much effort, here you go.

What's the use of this page if not to link an IP address with an established Sockpuppeteer? In fact, what's the use of this page when everyone has to wait days for a reply, just to get summarily denied without explanation? Kafziel 11:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The use of this page is to deal with hard cases, where it is not clear whether sockpuppetry is going on, and where the answer to that question has significant ramifications. The criteria are deliberately narrow due to a consensus that privacy concerns govern except in the most egregious cases. You have to substantiate that the user is disrupting the site in an way that can't be dealt with using any other means as per the criteria listed. If someone is clearly being a pest from multiple IPs, just block them, don't list them here. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

There, was that so hard? Why couldn't you just say that to begin with? Obviously, most of the people who are posting users to this page are spending a good amount of their time trying to improve Misplaced Pages, and in my case I specifically said that an admin asked me to post that IP address here before she blocked it. It wouldn't kill you to have enough courtesy to offer more than a "declined". Kafziel 14:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be difficult or discourteous. This is a fairly new page and we're getting dozens of inappropriate requests, so I'm merely being brief. The majority of the the requests placed here don't meet the criteria, and I'm puzzled as to why people even post them since the page header makes the criteria pretty clear. I have tried to tighten up the wording somewhat on the front matter to help prevent such misunderstandings in the future. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Completed requests

OghuzRaider (talk · contribs)

This account is a suspected sockpuppet of User:-Inanna-. See Category:Misplaced Pages:Suspected sockpuppets of -Inanna- for a list of 35 other anonymous addresses and accounts employed by this person. Activity by this user is consistent with that if -Inanna- but official confirmation is needed. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, quite. That was the basis of my indef block. Mackensen (talk) 19:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Jason Gastrich (talk · contribs)

At the Bob Cornuke (Gastrich related) article SYITS (talk · contribs) white washes criticism.

• Alyssa1440 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) white washes accreditaion at the LBU article at 01:02, 3 April 2006
• Jayson Marx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) white washes accreditaion at the LBU article at 00:58, 3 April 2006
• SYITS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Makes his only of the day at 00:50, 3 April 2006
• Neil Bonetti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) white washes accreditation at the LBU article at 0:37, 3 April 2006

These others are suspected or confirmed socks. Arbusto 02:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Three of the four listed here have been blocked already as socks. Mackensen (talk) 02:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the fourth, he is not a sockpuppet. Mackensen (talk) 02:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Please, do (talk · contribs)

Possible Gastrich sock, listed separately because he requested unblock, which is atypical, and I have unblocked. Contribs follow Gastrich pattern: communication does not. May be meat not sock. KillerChihuahua 04:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• Doesn't really follow the usual pattern. Check was inconclusive. Let the fellow edit. Mackensen (talk) 05:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Stop war! (talk · contribs)

New user, very little ammount of edits. Put Daniel Brandt article up for deletion part of reason "As this guy does not want an article about himself on Misplaced Pages" ], I think it could be brandt or close support that may of in past been banned IP is probably 70.245.238.114 )
Check to see if this could be user:Daniel Brandt --Adam1213 Talk + 01:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC) Also they are a vandal User talk:Stop war! and just now blocked for 1 hour (ban should be extended) --Adam1213 Talk + 01:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC) indef blocked so no need --Adam1213 Talk + 01:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

9A (talk · contribs) & Daniel Brandt (talk · contribs) & Stop war! (talk · contribs)

User 9A just listed Daniel Brandt's article for deletion AGAIN stating Daniel wants it deleted, user is new as of today. Also User Stop war was investigated as a sock of Daniel so I'd like to check 9A against him too. See http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_12#Daniel_Brandt for latest AFD of the article. Mike _{(T C)} 03:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• 9A (talk · contribs) and Stop war! (talk · contribs) are highly likely to originate from the same source.
• There is no IP evidence tying these accounts to Daniel Brandt (talk · contribs)

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 12:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Inactive project pages
• Misplaced Pages sockpuppetry