Jump to content
Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Steward requests/Checkuser/2009-02

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Latest comment: 16 years ago by ITurtle in topic Requests
Warning! Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in February 2009, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion.

Requests

Latest comment: 16 years ago 88 comments31 people in discussion

Moulton@enwikiversity

Checkuser is requested for v:User:Moulton (locally blocked and locked global account) and the following known or suspected sockpuppet accounts:

See also Steward requests/Checkuser/2008#IP.68.162.241.114@enwikiversity

In an attempt to prevent disruption of v:Wikiversity:Community Review/Status of Moulton we have blocked the following ranges:

  • 18.85.0.0/16
  • 68.160.0.0/16
  • 68.162.0.0/16
  • 141.154.0.0/16

See for example [1] and prior/subsequent edits.

We realize that these ranges are overly broad and seek assistance in determining a narrower range block. We are also trying to identify other ip ranges that have been used in the past so that we may promptly apply appropriate blocks to those ranges when editing begins from new ip addresses. So far we have identified:

We request a check for user accounts that have been created but are not yet blocked. In the past this person has evaded account creation disabled by starting new accounts at other wikimedia projects and then relying on SUL to bypass editing restrictions at wikiversity-en. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. --mikeu talk 02:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

bulk page creation

There are also a number of pages that were bulk created with page titles similar to those used by moulton. Below is a small sample. See v:Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion/Archives/3#User:Moulton's didactic character subpages - DELETED and V:Notices for custodians. --mikeu talk 14:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

new range

Range 68.163.0.0/16 is now blocked - see v:Special:Contributions/68.163.110.239 --mikeu talk 15:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Can this be cut down to 68.163.0.0/17 ? --mikeu talk 16:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
At least. More later, or another steward can take a look, but right now I think that's a good change... there were innocent users on that range a while back. ++Lar: t/c 20:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

current range blocks

Here is the current status of range blocks at wv-en. I will update this last as change are made. --mikeu talk 14:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

  • 18.85.10.0/24
  • 68.160.0.0/16
  • 68.162.0.0/16
  • 68.163.0.0/17
  • 141.154.0.0/17
  • 208.100.232.0/23 (possibly unrelated)

as of 14:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: there is also [2] --mikeu talk 13:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

results

(I think Spacebirdy is working on this too) ... the following are Stale

:

More info shortly... ++Lar: t/c 03:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, realise that Moulton no doubt is watching this page. ALSO as a note, please bring us stuff to look at sooner. all those stales? If you had brought this forward sooner maybe we could determine more. The range blocks...:
  • 18.85.0.0/16 can be narrowed to 18.85.10.0/24 ... at least for now. You may well find you need to widen it back out at some point.
  • 68.160.0.0/16 and 68.162.0.0/16 are fine
  • 141.154.0.0/16 can be narrowed to 141.154.0.0/17
While it's true that the accounts reported are stale on en:v they are known socks of his though, so were locked. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 04:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I've been changing the ranges as info is posted here. I'm wondering if we can modify to 68.160.128.0/17 and 68.162.128.0/17
Re: stale activity. It was only recently that the community decided to implement strict editing restrictions. There was (and still is) concern that these range blocks will prevent legitimate participation from users at sites like MIT. There was no need for cu until we decided that wide range blocks would be put in place with far longer expiry times than we have used in the past. --mikeu talk 13:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: this is becoming a minor crosswiki issue: see w:Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:Moulton_becoming_active, etc. --SB_Johnny|talk |books 16:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Additional note: moulton has also been active at betawikiversity. [3] Although, so far, there have only been a few complaints about his editing there. [4] It is likely that he will shift activity to other projects as restrictions are implemented at wv-en. In any case, I've also been using the activity on beta to gauge the width of the block ranges needed on en. --mikeu talk 13:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

If betawikiversity needs a check they can add that here, they have several sysops who could do the block then, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 04:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser requests of Korean Wikipedia

The following discussion is closed.

I think these users are same person. --Junpei 16:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

In discussion of ko:User:양재온천, ko:User:Mhha always gives countenance to ko:User:양재온천. I suspect that they are really same person. --Junpei 02:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Using multiple accounts itself is not prohibited, only if they are being abused to mainuplate votings or to disrupt etc. Please can You give evidence for such abuse of these accounts or ask another user of ko.wiki to do so if You need some help in translating Your answer, thanks best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 02:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I didn't see any problem in my viewpoint on Mhha's activity.--Kwj2772 04:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Kwj2772, if I understand You correctly and since no further explaination of the requester was added, I mark this request as  Declined, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 16:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser requests of Japanese Wiktionary

The following discussion is closed.

Please check them (whether they are sockpuppets of EMPIS or YUNA) --Mtodo 01:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for my poor explanation. EMPIS and YUNA, whom are already blocked, are notorious users in ja.wikt. who attack repeatedly by a lot of sockpuppets. And it is the general tendency of these users to get plural accounts in a short time. Today I found that accounts were acquired in succession in a short time therefore I doubted whether they are, which is the reason I have required to check them. thank you.(削除) --210.144.21.66 (削除ここまで) 04:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC) I wrote --Mtodo 04:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Comment Comment: The last three users with Japanese usernames have no contributions, deleted ones, or hidden ones found, so why exactly do you want them checked? No contribution at all means no disruption in my opinion.--Jusjih 03:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Sure it is natural that you wonder why we(Ninomy and I are sysops of ja.wikt) are so conservative, but EMPIS and YUNA, who I suspect are same, are such adhesive antagonists that they will interfere with the project by various methods. It is one of such interference methods that they do nothing for three months after acquiring an account to avoid Pp-protected. So I'd like the Steward to check them.--Mtodo 04:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
wikt:ja:User:バイチャー菜緒子 has similar naming tendency as some EMPIS's-confirmed socks. I strongly doubt this account is a EMPIS's (or YUNA's) sockpuppet, as Mtodo doubts. The other two accounts seem to differ from EMPIS's socks in their naming tendency and I don't have any other enough reasons (besides the time-shortness of the creation of these accounts) to doubt that they're EMPIS's socks (but personally I doubt them). Anyway, please check wikt:ja:User:バイチャー菜緒子 at least.--Ninomy 16:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Done the check as being familiar with the vandal EMPIS and YUNA.
results
Unrelated Unrelated (from the checkuser point of view) with EMPIS and YUNA.
But
are  Confirmed the same user, please note that this is not forbidden, only if these accounts would be abused. Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 16:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Hm, I am surprised at this result. Anyway, thank you for your work. --Ninomy 16:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Microchip08@Simple.Wikibooks

Status:  Done

Hello,

During his rfa he was canvassing his application and I suspect use of a sock puppet also.

Microchip uses the name MC08 on IRC and when he logged in (and out 2 seconds later) this showed up:

MC8 (n=PeterSym@wikimedia/Microchip08) has left #wikimedia-stewards

After he logged in again it was:

MC8 (n=MC8@wikimedia/Microchip08) has joined #wikimedia-stewards

There was a voter with the name PeterSymonds PeterSym matches PeterSymonds in all numbers, and the user is a inactive user almost only used to vote. All his edits in 2009 are vote edits. Please check this.

Thanks in Advance. Abigor talk 23:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Technical evidence here is inconclusive. --FiliP ×ばつ 19:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
This is the most ridiculous request. A tiny bit of research would have established that they aren't the same user. PeterSymonds is active on Simple WP and English WP, and is a friend of MC8. Yes, he might have been canvassing, but the same? C'mon. This should have not been checked on such weak "evidence". Majorly talk 20:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Any chance of some kind of "by the way, you've just been checkusered" next time? It sort of ruined my "yay! adminstrator!" feeling. Microchip08 @simpleWB 20:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
CUs are not required to inform you, but I don't think this should have even been checked with such weak evidence. It's blatantly clear to anyone familiar with you both that you aren't the same. Majorly talk 20:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
We've worked with each other on wikis, but to say "friend" is too much, considering we don't know each other (not in real life, and only scarcely on other wikis) at all. The only thing I know about MC8 is that he's from the UK. Ridiculous idea, and a ridiculous accusation that I should have been informed of first. I'm too active to "sock". PeterSymonds 20:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I also noticed this "n=PeterSym" and I told MC8 that is was a bad idea, and he should change it. He did, but not in time. A simple pm (private message) should have been done before running a check. I consider this to be the worst check I have ever seen done on a user. Synergy 21:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Here is a summary of the case details, to expand on FiliP's answer. They have different software profiles, but similar update patterns. Their IPs are based in different locations, but not too distant from each other. They often appear on the same wikis together, including non-Wikimedia wikis, but they voted different ways in at least one case. One steward's prior encounters with them on IRC made him assume they were the same person who changed nick. Microchip08 explained privately that his PeterSym ident on IRC was deliberately changed as part of a running joke.
The result is inconclusive, and would need to be continued from here by local community members if they think it appropriate. —Pathoschild 22:06:34, 08 February 2009 (UTC)

This was brought to all stewards, some of whom (the ones that actually said anything about the matter) agreed this was CU-worthy, so I did the check. Is there a problem with that? --FiliP ×ばつ 22:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd like the names of these stewards please. Such nonsense deserves a good trouting. Synergy 22:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Did you seriously just base a on wiki check from evidence garnered from irc logs? Let me change my mask to that of Majorly, and then maybe we can be checked also. Bad form. I am a little disappointed. NonvocalScream 22:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
    Change it to Abigor and then accuse him of sock puppetry. If we get enough to do it, maybe we can all be banned for the nonsense. 75.104.128.38 23:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


wikt:ja:User:ドチュラドチュラドチュラッ etc.

The following discussion is closed.

Please check these accounts:

wikt:ja:User:無都道を達磨にしてしまえ must be a sockpuppet of EMPIS (or YUNA) because of naming tendency and similar disrupting edits. The other three accounts seems to be sockpuppets of EMPIS because of their naming (巻き込まれたくねー = "I don't want to be involved", 大逆ヤアーッ = "It's treason"). If these accounts are not EMPIS's sock, please check whether they are same users as:

These 3 users were requested to check and the answer was unrelated, but they may be same users as above vandalusers. --Ninomy 14:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

And I add these accounts below to check on the same reason.
sigh and sigh--Mtodo 16:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

In addition to above, please check these accounts:

wikt:ja:User:ヌーヌーアーアー and the 3 accounts Mtodo requested above have same naming tendency (using Katakana, they're like mimetic words but don't make any sense) as EMPIS/YUNA or Yukarin. wikt:ja:User:福田孝行 is a suspect's name, and this user wrote problematic sentences. This action is similar to EMPIS. wikt:ja:User:魯尓瀬羅 and wikt:ja:User:蛾楪賓 can be read as "Lonicera" and "Gachapin". Lonicera is a user of ja.wp, and this account is sometimes attacked by someone else. This "魯尓瀬羅" account seems to be a personal attack. This action and using phonetic equivalents are similar to EMPIS. There are some other doubtful accounts, but I'm not convinced that they are EMPIS's socks. --Ninomy 10:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

results
 Confirmed the same user:
Likely Likely the same user & Likely Likely to be wikt:ja:User:EMPIS:
These accounts already had been checked, see Steward_requests/Checkuser/2009-02#Checkuser_requests_of_Japanese_Wiktionary for results (same users of each others, inconclusive to be involved in other accounts, from the checkuser point of view)
(*) = blocked (did not check for how long), ($) = not a global account
Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 20:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much. --Ninomy 00:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


User:Gamy @ jawiktionary, User:Mm @ jawiktionary

The following discussion is closed.

Please check if User:Gamy @ jawiktionary and User:Mm @ jawiktionary are the same user or the sock puppet of some user. Gamy and Mm create nonsence article, and complain to Mtodo, a one of sysop of jawiktionary, about deleting the article(s) that they have created. So we suspect they are the same user(s). And please check if they use a proxy. Thank you. LERK 10:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Unrelated Unrelated due to different IPs.--Jusjih 02:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. LERK 05:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Georgezhao and Gzhao@zhwiki

The following discussion is closed.

plese check zh:user:Georgezhao and zh:user:Gzhao sockpuppet. Georgezhao and Gzhaoa lways same contributions (Basketball and korea), and a user create an article, other a user also create an same article with other name. --Shizhao 09:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Please explain why that is abuse. --Thogo (talk) 10:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Comment Comment Despite I can't speak Chinese, but I read his edits since I can read Chinese script (Hanja). I think their edits were common mistakes which newbies commit easily, not intentional abuse. So I insist checkuser is not needed.--Kwj2772 (論) 13:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I understand--Shizhao 13:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Closing then, please note that using multiple accounts is not prohibited, only if they are abused (for example used for manipulating votings, disruption, vandalism, etc.), thanks, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 16:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Situation with Russian checkusers

The following discussion is closed: please open a RFC or local discussion

Bureaucrat and checkuser of ru.wikipedia.org ru:User:DrBug made several statements (notably here, and here) from which it follows that ru.wikipedia.org checkusers systematically abused their authority and intruded into ru.wikipedia.org users' private lives. These texts probably need to be translated into English. Most recent abuses mentioned there are the intrusions into private affairs of ru:User:Lvova and ru:User:Drbug himself. I can add many more examples of such abuse and falsifications by these checkusers. Given this information, I suggest that checkuser flags are immediately removed from all ru.wikipedia.org checkusers. They are currently trying to attack :ru:User:Drbug and revoke his checkuser flag, and the situation looks pretty bad. The best remedy seems taking their checkuser privileges away and thoroughly investigating their activities. SA ru 06:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, please this is not the place, this is a 'request for checkuser'-page only, open a Request for comments on Meta (the appropriate place for such things where the local community is not able to solve the problem itself) or open a discussion on the local wiki, where the community could probably also vote for removal or keep in the end (that might be the prefered step if it had not been done already).
Thanks for Your understanding, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 07:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
OK. I will open a request for comment. SA ru 07:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


NapoleonQuang and NapoleonDung05 @viwiki

The following discussion is closed.

Bonjour,

Je suis un administrateur de Wikipedia vietnamienne. Je voudrais demander ton aide pour savoir si les deux utilisateurs vi:Thành viên:NapoleonDung05 et vi:Thành viên:NapoleonQuang (avec des IP de type 207.233.xx.xx) s'agit de la meme personne et de ce fait nous a Wikipedia vietnamienne on est en train d'affronter un attaque de type troll. Merci d'avoir recueillir ma requete. Vous pouvez me repondre a ma page discussion a WP VN vi:Thảo luận Thành viên:Dung005.

Cordialement

Dung005 (d) 18 février 2009 à 03:43 (CET)

Hi, I've received this message on my talk page on frwp. He's asking for a CU for those two accounts vi:Thành viên:NapoleonDung05 and vi:Thành viên:NapoleonQuang. You can keep him posted on his vi talk page. Cheers Schiste 09:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Please check if vi:User:NapoleonQuang, vi:User:NapoleonDung05, and vi:User:Dung007 are the same person. NapoleonQuang was banned recently by admin vi:User:Dung005, and NapoleonDung05 and Dung007 are recently-created single-purpose accounts whose sole purpose is to complain about NapoleonQuang's banning. He is using provocative language and daring anyone to prove that these accounts are his socks. DHN 16:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

 Confirmed the same IP for vi:User:NapoleonDung05, and vi:User:Dung007, but vi:User:NapoleonQuang has entirely different IP.--Jusjih 03:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Can I ask if the two sock Account use the IP Range type 207.233.xx.xx or 96.229.xx.xx Dung005 09:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Please explain why you need this information.--Jusjih 03:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
We can confirm that vi:User:NapoleonQuang switch between this two IP Range (of the Verizon Internet Services Inc. - maybe now 98.119.XX.XX and of California State University). Otherwise maybe another user can involve in this affair. Dung005 08:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
The two sock Account did not use the IP Range type 207.233.xx.xx or 96.229.xx.xx. Anything else?--Jusjih 01:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Thx a lot. Dung005 01:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

User:李勁曇 @ zhwp

The following discussion is closed.

Plaese check if zh:User:李勁曇 one of the sock puppet of an Indefblocked user zh:User:Msnhinet8jp. Their editing habit are similar, and ther've edited many same articles, what's more, they like copying comment from these articles to those articles. We've found out 18 puppets of zh:User:Msnhinet8jp already (see zh:Category:Msnhinet8jp的维基用户分身) please check these puppets. And if possible, please find out all his puppets. We know that 218.170.9.7, 173.52.163.224 are the IPs he used. Thanks.--1j1z2 09:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, please can You explain a bit more why the editing of "李勁曇" is problematic, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 16:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Progress report? If nothing further is heard this request closes in about 1 week as not done, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 19:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Not done, nothing further heard, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 00:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


Raha21@fawiki

The following discussion is closed.

Dear stewrds. Presented here is the request for a list of users and IPs who have almost always the same contributions or reverts. The contributions of some of these are just limited to a special article which is a biography about one(?) of the listed users. These users and IPs participate for group voting and discussion in favor of notability of this article and engage in disputes and edit warring against other users who wish to edit that certain article.

Adler.fa 17:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, which article do you mean? They edit different articles. --Thogo (talk) 10:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
The article which I referred, is [5]. This article was nominated seven times for deletion (for not sufficient notability), some were successful and some not. However, by the effort and team work and campaigning of these users and group voting, this article is still there. Moreover, a big part of their contributions in other pages are directly and indirectly related to this article, e.g. discussions in talk page of other users, admin notice boards. They always attack whoever wish to edit this article and exhaust him together. If they are the same users they violate many rules such as WP:SOCK, WP:DISRUPT, WP:AUTOBIO, WP:OWN and WP:COI.
Note: You may want to see the English and French version of this article [6] (Und sogar die Deutsche! [7]). Maybe it is not relevant to here, but some of these IPs are actively editing this article in other Wikis as well.Adler.fa 16:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Progress report?
ترانه جوانبخت (the second user listed above) is related to one of the listed IP, but not related to any other users or IPs listed above. The other four usernames (not IPs) listed above share at least one identical IP (not those shown above) at different time. Anything else?--Jusjih 22:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I think it's really of help. Thanks. Adler.fa 07:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)



  • Hi. It's really good that Adler.fa has asked checkuser for these users. Now that you have confirmed that I am not related to these users, please also check out the IPs that Jooya2009 has used in fa:wiki. This person has claimed in [8] that he (or she) is a student form Germany. Please check out if he (or she) has used any IP from Germany. Thank you. Javanbakht 00:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
      • What Adler.fa says about team work and campaigning of these users and group voting in fawiki is not true. Actually, most users in fawiki have voted to keep this article in [9] and none of them is one of the users mentioned above. Unfortunately, Adler.fa has made some mistakes in articles about physics in fawiki and because I have corrected his errors, he wants to revenge in this manner. Anyway, I would be pleased if you give me the IP from Germany that Jooya2009 has used, because I think that this person has not lied and if you give me his (or her) IP from Germany, that would be great. Thank you. Javanbakht 03:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

zh.wiki vandalism accounts

The following discussion is closed.

Hello, per private request of an zh.wiki admin for emergency checkuser of ongoing vandalism accounts on zh.wiki here are the

results

Likely Likely the same user (please note: it is possible that good users are on that range too, so please check for the contributions before blocking, if they have no vandal contributions it is likely that they are a different user)

Likely Likely the same user (please note: it is possible that good users are on that range too, so please check for the contributions before blocking, if they have no vandal contributions it is likely that they are a different user)

Again, please really check for the contributions, it is better to miss one vandal than to block one inocent user,
please note that I did mention who is already blocked, but I did not check how long they are blocked and if it is indefinit.
It is likely that these two groups are related.
I will contact an admin in private for a second range zh.wiki might think of blocking
best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 21:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for your work and guidance. I will check the accounts above carefully. --Kegns 04:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


Litter@zhwp, Milker@zhwp, Pokka@zhwp and Ramblers@zhwp (done)

Please check whether zh:User:Litter, zh:User:Milker, zh:User:Pokka and zh:User:Ramblers are puppet accounts of the same person. The above accounts have recently voted in zh:Wikipedia:投票/巡查權及回退權的門檻 and zh:Wikipedia:投票/Wikiversity中文譯名 ("投票" means "voting"; "巡查權及回退權的門檻" roughly means "minimum eligibility for granting the rights of patrol and rollback"; "中文譯名" means "translated name in Chinese"). I suspect these accounts may be controlled by the same person for cheating in the votings, because their contribution history exhibits some unusual similarities, such as consistently adding or restoring negative contents about a few particular Hong Kong people. Further details are explained in zh:Wikipedia:互助客棧/其他#疑似傀儡投票 (in Chinese). --Mewaqua 12:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Check done. Result: Inconclusive Inconclusive. No evidence for abuse found. --Thogo (talk) 22:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. --Mewaqua 12:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

BlackCar@kowiki

Dear Stewards! I suspect this account had made many sock puppets. I think he made many feigned account: ko:User:개마리봇, ko:User:Acee8Bot, ko:User:Sam9925Bot. He committed vandalism on Acee8's user page with following statement: (Korean)Acee8은 자신이 봇을 만들었는데도 안만들었다는 망언을 한다. (English) Acce8 is making an absurd remark which Acee8 had not made his bot account although he made a bot account.-- Translated in English by Kwj2772 (論).

All the accounts suspected as his sockpuppets have suffix "봇" or "Bot". Victims are claiming "I didn't make my bot". Please check if BlackCar has more sockpuppet, to prevent more users victimized. Thank you!--Kwj2772 (論) 11:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

results
 Confirmed group1:
 Confirmed group2:
Please note that I did not check for how long these users are blocked.
Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 03:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but can you check ko:User:Raisekept love iTurtle? This account also suspected as his sock puppet. --ITurtle 06:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello ITurtle, I can  confirm this, (he used an open proxy with that account), these two showed up:
and are of group2
The open proxy (not his IP) is 220.111.137.188, which You might want to block.
Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 06:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! --ITurtle 06:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

AltStyle によって変換されたページ (->オリジナル) /