Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:32, 5 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This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference.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to the currently open section (if the case is not yet archived) or adding a new section to the top (if the case has been archived).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

Threats by User:24.193.230.197 / User:JoeMele

This is also posted at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents but due to the nature of the incident I'm also asking for help here. Thanks.

I suspect that JoeMele made these anonymous threats on my talk page: "I am going to find you IRL" and "I am coming for you". I suspect this user as he "vigorously disputed" a couple edits I made and strangely went silent for the period of time when these anonymous comments were made, then reappeared shortly thereafter with a new edit. What you do with this is (obviously) up to you, but I don't appreciate threats like that. Hope someone with 'checkuser' will look into it and let me know if I'm wrong. ⇒ BRossow /_C 12:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

user:Eyeonvaughan, user:VaughanWatch & others

Related to the Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Eyeonvaughan, I have been looking into the contributions of user:Eyeonvaughan and user:VaughanWatch. I beleive that user:VaughanWatch is a sockpuppet of user:Eyeonvaughan based on their edit histories (the two never overlap, but edit on the same days on the same/related articles. They then don't edit for a few days, but when one isn't editing neither is the other - I have a spreadsheet that shows this but don't know how to get it on Misplaced Pages), their style of editing and persistent personal attacks against user:Pm shef and user:Bearcat. There are multiple AfDs and at least one deletion review on which they have both voted. I also suspect that User:Hars Alden (note particularly this edit to user talk:Hars Alden where user:VaughanWatch leaves the edit summary "It's my talk page") is another sockpuppet, although I haven't checked in detail. Based on the articles they have contributed to and this personal attack-laden edit accusing user:Bearcat of being the same person as user:Pm shef (which user:Eyeonvaughan frequently does) and of having a sockpuppet, I think User:CasanovaAlive is probably another of the family of sockpuppets. IPs User:70.29.239.249 (which is the account CassanovaAlive alleges is Bearcat's sockpuppet) and User:69.198.130.82 have also been linked to this on the RfC page. I would like someone else to check this and block as necessary. I am assuming that user:Eyeonvaughan is the primary account as that is the one that arrived first. Thryduulf 14:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I should clarify that I am not aware of any evidence that either user:Pm shef or user:Bearcat either have sockpuppets or are sockpuppets of anyone. Both strongly deny any accusations they are the same person. Thryduulf 14:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Edwy (talk · contribs) and LionKing (talk · contribs · block log)

Reopening the request per discussion with Essjay:

1. Before creation of his new account, Latinus was pretty much involved in pushing Greek POV in the Macedonia related articles (I will now concentrate only on one article:Republic of Macedonia: , , … (now in the page history he appears under his new user account Edwy.

2. On 1 april 2006 a new user account Edwy is created by Latinus and the previous one was deleted, as he admits that in this discussion: . However, user Edwy doesn’t want to admit the relation with his previous account and stops with his contributions on the Macedonia related articles:

• deletion of the following comment from his new talk page:
• HolyRomanEmperor makes a redirect to his new users page and Edwy reverts that:

3. If we check the user contributions, we can see that Edwy is not more involved around the Macedonian articles, but the newly created user LionKing appears for the first time on 3 April 2006 and from that moment he is completely involved only in editing, edit warring and discussions in the Macedonia related articles.

4. I found that LionKing has very good knowledge in WP policies for a user that has only few days experience on WP and very similar altitude as Latinus. For example, Latinus mentioned straw pool for renaming the Republic of Macedonia article several times before: ,, , and now LionKing has similar opinion: , ,

If my assumption is correct, than that this case can be considered as prohibited use of sockpuppet under the:Deception and impersonation, because he possibly tries to create an illusion of broader support for a position (Greek POV pushing) in the Macedonia related articles using a sock puppet LionKing, but having in the same time another account Edwy that will have no relation with his biased past regarding the Macedonian articles. IMO that is the reason why he is trying to hide the relation between the former and current user account.

Bitola 12:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Bitola, do you think you could stop pestering and go and write some articles or do something more constructive. Assuming that your amusing conspiracy theory is true, the circumstances you are describing would fall within the "legitimate uses of sock puppets" section, specifically, the "segregation and security" and the "keeping heated issues in one small area" paragraphs.

So even if your suspicions are 100% correct, there is no policy violation unless sockpuppets are supporting each other; that has not happened. When Edwy appears on the talk page and starts agreeing with LionKing and they are indeed sockpuppets, then there would be the violation you are describing. As you yourself have said that Edwy is keeping away from the Macedonia related articles, then the violation you are alleging is impossible.

Not to mention, that using terms such as "biased" and "pushing Greek POV" are definitely personal attacks, and should be treated as such.  NikoSilver  13:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

In the sensitive areas as the Macedonian articles are (there we have almost constant edit warring), one sockpuppet can make a lot of trouble whether with posting biased discussions on the talk page, edit warring, voting etc. and for that reason it is very important to clear the mess and find our every possible use of prohibited sockpuppetry. Moreover, if this potential sockpuppet is created in good faith, then why we have no clear declaration by Latinus announcing that he created two new accounts (on the contrary, he is hiding the relation between the former and his recent user account). Finally, what are you afraid of, if I'm wrong, then a simple user check would reveal my mistake. Bitola 14:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, these "users" are very suspicious. They seem to be the former user:Latinus. Check User:HolyRomanEmperor talkpage for instance. Latinus used to chat with him, and since he "disappeared", user Edwy continues chatting with this user on similar (even same) topics. Bomac 14:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

No violation means no checkuser. No checkuser means you are mistaken. This is the second time. CheckUser is not pre-emptive and the privacy of users is not invaded just because you "suspect" something might happen at some indefinite point in the future. Present a violation of policy as described in the green box above or be on your way. I also invite the admin who will fulfil or reject this request, to see admin Essjay's reasons for rejecting this request when Bitola made the same request yesterday, but his rationale was deleted by Bitola!  NikoSilver  15:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

NikoSilver, I know that you are making an attempt to disrupt this request by flooding: this is not a DISCUSSION page and I will stop this pointless discussion with you right now. (by the way, this request was reopened after discussing it with Essjay). Bitola 15:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Declined requests

Hpuppet (talk · contribs)

I have a strong feeling this editor is a sock puppet and using several accounts, would you please do a check. Thank you SirIsaacBrock 23:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Please provide specific evidence supporting your feeling that this editor is engaged in sockpuppetry. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Declined. Also, I have removed the off-topic discussion in this section; those involved may take up the matter elsewhere if they wish. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

WinniePooh (talk · contribs) and Korab (talk · contribs)

These two users have both created an account today and have almost exclusively been bothered in reverting the article Republic of Macedonia. They may be sockpuppets of User:Bomac, User:Realek or User:Bitola, since, although they are new, they seem to know all about Misplaced Pages and cause the last of the 3 users mentioned has violated the 3RR again in the past. --Hectorian 01:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Declined. This request does not meet any of the criteria listed in the instructions. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 02:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Science3456 (talk · contribs)

Can I have a list of account that have edited from 169.157.229.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 169.157.229.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 169.157.229.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 169.157.229.87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 64.192.107.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 64.194.44.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 64.194.44.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) or 64.200.124.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and are not yet listed in Category:Misplaced Pages:Suspected sockpuppets of Science3456? Cheers, —Ruud 01:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Declined. This request does not meet any of the criteria listed in the instructions. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 02:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Jason_Gastriggs (talk · contribs)

Not sure if this is an impostor or a disruptive sockpuppet, but it would be helpful to know if there are any additional sleeper accounts to be aware of. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Declined. This request does not meet any of the criteria listed in the instructions. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 02:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

High Elf (talk · contribs)

Clearly somebody's sockpuppet as demonstrated by his familiar with Misplaced Pages, but few "contributions". I believe it is Bomac (talk · contribs · block log), as he reverts in edit wars in which Bomac has participated, e.g. Template:EU countries and candidates (history). He also adds interwiki links on articles which Bomac (he is know as Boyan on the mk Misplaced Pages - check the e-mail addresses on both User:Bomac and mk:User:Boyan) has done the same over at mk, for example, here is Bomac/Boyan adding interwiki links at an article over at mk and then High Elf appears and adds the interwikis over here using the same edit summary as Bomac is known to use, eg , and . The same coincidence, with High Elf adding interwikis which Bomac had added over at mk happens every time: , and . If it is a sockpuppet, please ban it as it has been double voting on the same RFA and . 13:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• Declined. This request does not meet any of the criteria listed in the instructions. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 02:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Hpuppet (talk · contribs)

I have a strong feeling this editor is a sock puppet and using several accounts, would you please do a check. Thank you SirIsaacBrock 23:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Please provide specific evidence supporting your feeling that this editor is engaged in sockpuppetry. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I am an admitted sockpuppeteer - I retired this username and created a non abusive sockpuppet. I did no mix contributions between accounts, and when I felt the extreme need to comment on an old issue, I went back to my initial account to avoid making it appear an issue had more support than it did. Please protect both of the above usernames, as I have left this encyclopedia, 50% due to abusive trolls like the one above, and 50% due to a conflict with the goals of the project. Hipocrite - «Talk» 02:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

He's not a troll. He's got your number, that's all. Three different editors have reported you. Admins, please see the disruptive edits and uncivil edit summaries in the history of Hpuppet and his IP address for the abuses of this "non-abusive" sockpuppet.

User:Crusading composer User:Count Of The Saxon Shore and User:Bakewell Tart

These one, two or three users have been accused of sockpuppetry and using different accounts to stalk, vandalise harass etc. Could you please determine if all or any of these are related to each other? Thanks.Gator (talk) 21:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

No need to check if Crusading composer is Count Of The Saxon Shore. We know he is; there's no mystery about it. . However, it would be nice to have it established once and for all whether or not there is a link between the two, as User:Robsteadman keeps insisting that they are, and keeps insisting that there's a cabal. AnnH ♫ 23:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

If it speeds up the process - check the requests to change usernmae logs. Crusading composer became Count.... last week. So I should imagine that these 'two' editors might share the same ISPs - one a home ISP, and a few work ISPs. However, unless I am a schizophrenic with a memory disorder, I doubt that any of these ISPs will match Bakewll Tart's ISPs. Good luck!Count Of The Saxon Shore 00:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Mind you, reading the box above, what reason is there for the request? It doesn't specifically mention harrassment or stalking. Shouldn't there have been a request for these to be investigated first? I'm pretty sure that there is no genuine reason for this request to be logged = other than to end the complaints of Mr Steadman, but since he seems to have retracted his accusation, this request is a bit moot. But don't mind me, look it up, I don't mind.Count Of The Saxon Shore 00:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it's not a usual request. There's no voting going on, and there's no suspicion of 3RR violation. It's really because User:Robsteadman has been going on and on and on about the cabal and calling for other editors to be banned, and making generally unfounded accusations. It would be great if we could put a stop to it, and Count Of The Saxon Shore says he doesn't mind being checked. AnnH ♫ 07:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Rather than running a checkuser, just block the disruptive editor. I don't see a case for a checkuser, and without the permission of both parties, I'm not inclined to run one. Essjay 16:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't ask for a checkuser, I was aware of the name change and I am tired of the stalking that Count Of The Saxon Shore in his previous incarnation on here and as other names on a different internet forum has been using to stalk and harass me. What I said is that there is a "link" with User: Bakewell Tart - I didn't say they were the same person.... both the Bakewell Tart account and the Crusading COmposer account were set up for the sole purpose of stalking me - hence their names 9 I work in Bakewell and I am a composer who often uses music for campaigning purposes. Both accounts should be removed if there is any justice - although Crusading Composer has attempteed to disguise the fact he is a single issue editor it is clear, from a look at his edit hostory, that this is the primary purpose. Bakewell Tart's edit history is even clearer. Surely WP should get rid of stalkers and abusers? I would be interested to know if there is any link with User:Njd123 and User:Kotuku - boith similarly single issue editors. Robsteadman 17:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

204.56.7.1 and Reddi

Any chance of User:204.56.7.1 against User:Reddi? Reddi is arbcomm-limited, and 204 edits much like Reddi and is potentially skirting those restrictions. William M. Connolley 21:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Declined. Please provide a link to the case. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Completed requests

WikiMB (talk · contribs) and Bormalagurski (talk · contribs)

Is accused of being a sockpuppet of Bormalagurski (talk · contribs). The evidence is circumstantial, but not wholly without merit. This new user seemed mighty experienced during casual editing. One of his earliest edits was on his userpage (at 02:17), making a link to photos he had contributed to the project, whereas he had not yet added them. The page he was referring to appeared half an hour later, at 02:48. Of course, this could also be explained by a great deal of enthusiasm on WikiMBs part, but such planning of uploading pictures is uncommon among new users to say the least. Also, some strange edits on his talk page seem to suggest that WikiMB, Boris and perhaps also User:Luka Jačov are coordinating edits.

Because of the severity of the accusation (and doubly within the mine-field of Balkan-related topics), it merits some investigation at the very least. Like I said, evidence is mostly circumstantial, but it seems a good idea to nip this in the bud - either to clear WikiMB's name, or to demonstrate abuse.

Cheers, The Minister of War 13:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I have also been harbouring suspicion that User:WikiMB is, in all likelyhood, another account that has been opened by User:Bormalagurski. Given the number of his edits and the approach he is using he is probably aiming at eventually getting adminship at Misplaced Pages which User:Bormalagurski failed to secure on a couple of attempts for all the known reasons. Needless to say, this would have interesting consequences on articles related to Croatia. I had suspected this for some time, but I didn't have any evidence until yesterday (April 2) when User:Bormalagurski made a mistake of deleting a Luka Jačov's comment left on User:WikiMB's discussion under Re:Template. Luka Jačov appeared 5 minutes after this deletion and left a slightly modified comment (without the previously included phrase - Boris why do you have two accounts;)?). Pretty interesting tempering with another user's page on the part of User:Bormalagurski. Of course, User:WikiMB re-appeared 5 minutes later as if nothing had happened to add another PR remark. For more info check WB's history page EurowikiJ 13:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

As I have stated here, I deny these accusations and am horrified of such a claim. I will still be editing for Misplaced Pages while I'm on "trial" for these accusations. --M.B. 23:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Request denied. Just from looking at the contributions I find it unlikely that these two are sockpuppets of one another; they appear to me to be distinct editors. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I'd like for EurowikiJ to send messages to all of his buddies, who he tried to unite against me, that I'm not a sockpuppet. Also, Mr. Minister of War, you mentioned something about clearing my name... I feel like I've been disgrased by Misplaced Pages with this accusation, and even though the request is denied, I feel sad because of this akwardness. All I wanted was to write geographic articles about Croatian villages. The accusation came only days after I said how everyone is friendly here. Minister of War was right, "not everybody here is friendly and helpful", and he was also right when he said to me that "there's enough spirit to make & keep you addicted". --M.B. 00:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I've reopened this request based on additional evidence provided via my talk page. Confirmed: WikiMB and Bormalagurski are the same editor, or at least two editors working in close concert. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

This is amazing! I don't have a sockpuppet, and here's my reasoning:

-- Boris Malagurski ₪ 01:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

JeffT (talk · contribs), ABrowne (talk · contribs), Ulsterman81 (talk · contribs), PaulMcCartney (talk · contribs), Activevision (talk · contribs),

Misplaced Pages:Single purpose accounts and probably sockpuppets of JASpencer (talk · contribs) (= user:64.218.254.249?) who tries to push his anti-freemason edits (edit war). These accounts only revert other contributions. Possibly all identical with User:Lightbringer perhaps even User:SeraphimXI but unsure. --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 04:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Accounts are performing mutually supportive reversions with no substantive explanation or discussion across Anti-Masonry, Christianity and Freemasonry, Jahbulon and Catholicism and Freemasonry. New accounts with no edit history yet demonstrate an understanding of process and are clearly identifying contentious and disputed versions with no effort to engage in discussion. I would not assess a likelihood of being JASepncer but given that it's now a couple of days since the last Lightbringer (talk · contribs) sock ( Oregano (talk · contribs) ) was blocked would suggest it's a change in tactics. Useful comparison would be Fyodor Dos (talk · contribs) as an alternative. ALR 11:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Add MicroMacro (talk · contribs)ALR 11:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC) Add Activevision (talk · contribs) ALR 11:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Based on the fact these (suspeced) socks are trying to revert Anti-Masonry to a version also pushed by the banned sockpuppet User:Oregano (compare edit by JeffT with Oregano here), I believe they are socks of User:Lightbringer. Due to the fact it's been a long time since that account was active, I would suggest checking agains User:Basil Rathbone, User:Fyodor Dos or other recent socks from Lightbringer. Personly, I do not suspect JASpencer or SeraphimXI to be behind these socks. WegianWarrior 11:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

You are right, JASpencer is from Texas and has nothing to do with Lightbringer. --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 05:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I nailed all these, as well as several others. Keep bringing them here as they show up. I've also blocked the underlying IP, as there was no activity on it other than Lightbringer. Essjay 12:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, that's great! --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 13:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Rick Browser (talk · contribs)

I think it would be in the best interest that I restate my request. I admit, my original stating of the facts was a bit vague- it was certainly lacking in essential details.

For the past half a year, I have been stalked by an indefinitely banned user who originally went by the name Brazil4Linux. He wikistalked me and my friends, vandalized my userpage (and theirs too) repeatedly and viciously ], ], ] insulted me repeatedly using his sockpuppets of BreakingRules, GroundZero, ForeverWatch and others ] and interjected into any possible conflicts that might arise; and finally, somehow he managed to find out my WIFE'S NAME and created derogatory harassing sockpuppets ], ], using the aforementioned name .

Which brings us to the present week. There was a disagreement regarding the ESRB article between me and Pagrashtak- and we each created one edit. All at once, however, my instant message box began to flood with harassing links to a "ha ha" website, one that bore the label "No ESRB on Misplaced Pages" and crashed my computer, causing me to lose over an hour's worth of work. I assumed that it was Pagtarak (an error on my part), and I admit that I wasn't tactful in the next couple edits. Feeling desperate, I even went so far as to erase my userpage.

However after calming down, I felt that I needed to resolve this conflict, I contacted Pagrashtak about the IMs. To my surprise, he had no knowledge or involvement in them at all, which led me to suspect that B4L was the one responsible. I apologized via email to Pagrashtak, and almost immediately after, Rick Browser begins to push into the argument, applying some rather vicious labels towards me ] (and at the exact same time, IP addresses that trace back to Brazil4Linux begin to post gloating messages on my friend's pages, bragging about me leaving)], ].

Look, I know that users are entitled to privacy and respect. But I feel that have the right to know if Rick Browser is another Brazil4Linux sockpuppet. Given the above facts, I believe I have stated my case appropriately. Brazil4Linux uses DialUOL and Veloxzone addresses that end with the .br suffix.

If after reading this, you still feel that my request is inappropriate, then I can do nothing more. Cheers, Daniel Davis 01:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Doom127 vandalized my userpage because I supported Pagrashtak in ESRB dispute and deleted my answer on this section today. --Rick Browser 05:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually "Rick", a "this user is a suspected sockpuppet of" template is NOT vandalism, given the fact that you ARE a suspected sockpuppet, and on top of that, I put it there at Pagrashtak's own suggestion, after we had discussed you at length. You've never "supported" anyone, all you did was call me a troll, just like you've always done from the start. That's the entire reason why I've PUT this check out- because I believe that you are the very same Brazil4Linux that's been stalking me for over half a year. A "suspected sockpuppet" template isn't vandalism- what you did (which I have very carefully detailed above), is vandalism, stalking (both on and off wikipedia), AND personal attacks. I don't think anyone who looks at the evidence will be disinclined to show me that you are indeed the very selfsame Brazil4Linux who was banned for bad behavior. Daniel Davis 05:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Could you provide a list of known IPs used by Brazil4Linux for us to compare to? We don't generally reveal personal information like IP addresses; without a list, all we can do is reveal the IPs we find, which would be a violation of Rick Browser's privacy if they do not match. Providing a list of known IPs, particularly if you can provide on-Misplaced Pages evidence that they have been used by Brazil4Linux, will make it much easier for us to run a check, and for appropriate action to be taken if there is a connection. Essjay 06:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I have placed here the list of IP known IP addresses that Brazil4Linux and his known sockpuppets have used on Misplaced Pages. There may be other IP addresses, of course- he has a tendency to switch his IP after each edit (but they all trace back to the same veloxzone or dialuol location).

Further revelations- even as I was compiling the list, this user placed a personal attack on the Request for Admin page of user Jedi6, someone whom with the Rick Browser username has had NO prior contact with- in fact, the only person who has ever to my knowledge bore a grudge against Jedi6 was in fact Brazil4Linux. You can take a look at it . Daniel Davis 06:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Confirmed. The evidence suggests a strong link. Essjay 07:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Annalina (talk · contribs) and Curettage (talk · contribs)

As mentioned at AN/I this section, Pro-Lick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), having caused a lot of trouble at the abortion article, is now using sockpuppets. An earlier checkuser revealed that Halliburton_Shill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Cry_Me_a_Shill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Vote_Machine_Malfunction (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) were the same user as Pro-Lick. There was also technical evidence linking them to Undermined (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Ban.wma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

At the time of the earlier request, Curettage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) had not edited, and so was not included in the check, but from the edits, and even the name, it was obviously the same person.

Pro-Lick recently linked to his blog. There, he calls on people to come to Misplaced Pages and change the Abortion definition to things like "Abortion liberates the uterus" and "Abortion is fertilization for flowers." Then, a new editor Annalina (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appeared and began to make those edits. And there was a similar edit from 64.42.88.22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). An investigation would be appreciated. Many thanks. AnnH ♫ 01:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Confirm Curettage, definately a HS/Pro-Lick sock.

As for Annalina, if it smells like HS/PL it probably is, but the checkuser is inconclusive. There is, however, a vandal sock farm coming off that IP, mixed in with some legitimate editing. Essjay 05:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Cooldc19 (talk · contribs)

Believed to be the original username of the Matt Leinart Vandal, with a growing list of socks. I would simply like to make sure that the IPs of users are the same as the anonymous IPs tracing to Georgetown University to provide verification that it's one vandal. T K E 09:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Could you provide a list of these anonymous IP addresses, as well as a summary of the situation? We are not in the habit of revealing the IP addresses used by contributors unless there is definate proof of serious policy violation. Essjay 21:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The article has been vandalized well over a hundred times with the same claim that Matt Leinart is gay . The only verification that has come from the vandal(s) is a random blog , an ambiguous ESPN article , and a fake blog news article . The vandalism has been recurring for over two months; the page has been protected at least 4 times because of the vandal. This IP is the most prolific, followed in no order by 141.161.12.151, 141.161.12.65, 141.161.12.188 and 141.161.92.134. Additionally, Comcast Cable IPs have been rotating, usually 68.something or other, or 67. My suspicion is one user editing at school and home. The point of the checkuser is to affirm one vandal, as that would make warnings and admin notices much easier after such long term abuse. I would like to be clear: I am looking for no personal information, simply that the registered users are coming from a similar IP to the ones mentioned. A "Similar" or "Dissimilar" will suffice. T K E 00:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• The 67. IPs trace to RoadRunner. T K E

Confirmed. Essjay 05:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Jason Gastrich (talk · contribs), Benapgar (talk · contribs), et al.

Suspected voting fraud at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of TRACS members by sockpuppets of the abovementioned two users, believed to be in connection with Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Jason Gastrich case. See my talkpage for details if further reference is needed. - Mailer Diablo 14:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Suspected users are as of follows :

• Nutter1 (talk · contribs)
• Jon Calla (talk · contribs)
• Rookwood (talk · contribs)
• Michaelwmoss (talk · contribs)
• Angelina Y. (talk · contribs)
• No Jobs (talk · contribs)
• Shindig Me (talk · contribs)
• Scifiintel (talk · contribs)
• Doe, John (talk · contribs)

Two more users with three messages, including two with personal attacks on User talk:Arbustoo :

• BryanW4C (talk · contribs) (blocked)
• Jeffrey Tuttle (talk · contribs)

Further spamming by Jayson Marx (talk · contribs), and a number of throw-away accounts at AN/I

• Confirmed that BryanW4C (talk · contribs),Jeffrey Tuttle (talk · contribs),Jon Calla (talk · contribs),No Jobs (talk · contribs),Angelina Y. (talk · contribs),Shindig Me (talk · contribs), and Doe, John (talk · contribs) are Gastrich sockpuppets. Inconclusive results on all the rest. I'll be blocking presently. Mackensen (talk) 02:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: That's a very serious accusation, since Gastrich is on a 1 year ban. Are you saying that those accounts are using the same IP address that Jason Gastrich used to use when he posted, before he was banned? --Nancy5671 07:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Note: Users third edit. The Minister of War 19:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not obligated to disclose that kind of information; it would be an invasion of privacy. By the by, thanks for reminding me that I missed that account the last time around. Mackensen (talk) 11:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • With all respect, I think you're either lying or mistaken. What is the process for having someone review your findings? You may not be obligated to say why you think all these people are Gastrich, but you certainly should have some sort of reason that you can tell us. It's hard to believe all of these are Gastrich, so you have the burden of proof and the burden of proof can't be met with "I say so". --Steve Jackson1 18:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Note. Users fifth edit. The Minister of War 19:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Indeed. I suggest that he stop creating socks (like the one above). My reasons are that your puppets have the same behavior, edit the same articles, edit from the same IPs, and in many cases were obviously created by the same badly-written script. They also have the common behavior of wasting my and other user's time. Cheers, Mackensen (talk) 21:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
        • I know some things and I believe you, Mackensen, are being dishonest. I believe you are abusing using your IP checking privileges and making assumptions, not based on facts. I've posted this discussion on your talk page . --207.200.116.69 00:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
          • So tell me, what is it that you know? I'm bound by privacy concerns and common courtesy from not revealing the IP addresses involved. The findings are devastating. Do you have any facts of your own to offer? I've removed your post from my talk page; this discussion deserves the full scrutiny of this forum. Incidentally, repeating the claim that he "hasn't edited in quite a while" is laughable; his main account hasn't edited because it's blocked. Funny, that. Mackensen (talk) 01:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

SlashDot (talk · contribs) and Karaveks voice (talk · contribs)

They are working in tandem to keep unsourced images in the Hentai article. Despite several editors telling to them to stop, they seem to take turns making the reversions so they don't violate WP:3RR. 日本穣 20:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Please post diffs of alleged behavior. Mackensen (talk) 21:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I should note that until they came along, the images in this diff were accepted by all the participating editors as acceptable for the article. The editors who have been helpful in trying to stem this spate of edits (either by reverting these two editors' edits, or by commenting on this the use of unecessary explicit images on the page) include Makemi, Offkilter and Ned Scott. Feel free to contact them if you wish.
  • Here's a list of the diffs for these two editors' changes:
    • , , , , , , , , . --日本穣 21:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Inconclusive. By the by, SlashDot seems to be uploading copyrighted pornography (and it isn't even good pornography). --Mackensen (talk) 15:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Well, thanks for checking. The way they were working together, and the fact that both were brand new, seemed to indicate something. Karaveks voice even issued a challenge, basically saying that I wouldn't be able to prove sock puppetry. I'll take a look at SlashDot's contribs and mark any unsourced pics as appropriate. Thanks again. (^_^) --日本穣 Nihonjoe 17:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Adityanath (talk · contribs)

This user is being investigated for sneaky ongoing vandalism, 3RR violations, and general incivility and intractability. Please check:

• Adityanath (talk · contribs) (First edit: 15:33, 14 October 2004) against the following:
• 999 (talk · contribs) (First edit: 22:17, 24 May 2005) note: user has caused page to redirect to user SamH
• SamH (talk · contribs) (First edit: 21:31, 21 December 2004)
• Chai Walla (talk · contribs) (First edit: 05:38, 11 March 2006)
• Baba Louis (talk · contribs) (First edit: 03:01, 11 March 2006)

There might be 2 individuals with 5 different IPs... Hamsacharya dan 17:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Robsteadman (talk · contribs), Robeaston99 (talk · contribs), Vhjh (talk · contribs)

User:Robsteadman has asked that I release the evidence of his sockpuppeting, using the accounts User:Robeaston99 and User:Vhjh. It is not Misplaced Pages practice to release private information like this, nor to release this kind of evidence to individuals. However, I have passed the evidence along to the other Misplaced Pages editors with CheckUser access, and asked that they review my work and provide their own analysis. Jayjg 21:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Having seen the evidence, I concur with Jayjg's analysis. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. Mackensen (talk) 23:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I have reviewed the evidence in this matter and concur without reservation in the conclusions reached by JayJG. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

As do I. Sam Korn 23:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Ditto the above. There is simply no other way to read it. Essjay 01:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Inactive project pages
• Misplaced Pages sockpuppetry