Steward requests/Checkuser/2011-12

• Result: User 1 and User 2 are  Confirmed, I can't CU User 3, 4, 5, but based on previous CU, User 2, 3, 4, 5 are confirmed. Also found another user, Luís Portman. ✒ Bennylin

  Also, your link is broken, but I found these on the archive Steward_requests/Checkuser/2011-06#A._Stein.40pt.wikipedia, and Steward_requests/Checkuser/2011-11#Joaquim_C._Sousa.40pt.wikipedia ;) ✒ Bennylin 12:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

 It looks like a duck to me. Therefore I don't think a CheckUser is necessary in this case. Trijnstel 20:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment Non-steward comment: This is not a reason to check. It might be just a regular second name of this user. His edits do not follow the same pattern of those done by Carlos Lanazi." T_ele^s (T _{@ L C S} ) 13:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Not done Per Teles. He explained it very well. Trijnstel 14:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Question Question: Has as apply a range block? Pc ^Talk 21:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I've already confirmed two of these accounts...--Vituzzu 22:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

 Confirmed to me the first step should be semi-protecting the page, than let's see if a rangeblock is needed, in this particular case it will have too many side-effects so, let's start with protection. --Vituzzu 22:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Please, check the users Ana Ribeiro da Silva and Paulo A D Barbosa.--Daniel Azevedo 13:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Please, too check the users Júlia de Sousa. Marcos Elias de Oliveira Júnior 13:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

 Confirmed Júlia de Sousa Unrelated Unrelated Paulo A D Barbosa. --Vituzzu 14:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment Comment Please add all user names in question to the template. a×ばつp_de ^Hello! 06:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Question Question: I just checked the contributions of both users, ok, both users create stubs by citing "Kenneth C.Laudon and Jane P.Laudon, 《Management Information Systems》, Pearson, 07 March 2011". Are those edits in a disruptive manner? And why is it so important to know whether zh:user:Youkiya may be a socketpuppet? a×ばつp_de ^Hello! 06:22, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The most of editing of this two users meet the deleted standards of meaningless or machine translation. After baning Youkiya for half of the day, Daner0725 began to edite in the same way. So I think they may be one man.乌拉跨氪 08:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Not done  It looks like a duck to me--Vituzzu 09:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Stale for JeffersonCapuxu and JeffersonNelli. It's Likely Likely JeffersonAbdon, Thiagorawrshow, Thiagorawrshows, Seridoense, Jeffbozkurt and JeffersonNobreg are related. Trijnstel 20:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Gustavosales55 has no recent edits while the other two accounts are Unrelated Unrelated by CU. --Vituzzu 02:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Doing... Trijnstel 13:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Unlikely Unlikely most of them are from the same "B-net", but even the "C-nets" are differing! a×ばつp_de ^Hello! 13:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

(after ec) All  Confirmed. Some confirmed socks: Asdf135a, Asdf135ss, Egegsdfe, Zonewfc and there are probably more. A rangeblock is not possible as he's using large ranges (/16), perhaps you could use the abuse filter? I will check this out later today (checking the IPs, accounts, et cetera). Trijnstel 13:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

@Axpde, consider this as a second opinion. I didn't notice you were doing the CU and I'm sure the accounts are socks. Trijnstel 13:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I set a keyword in MediaWiki:TitleBlackList, hope that works. -Mys_721tx(talk) 15:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

 Confirmed, and Berkham6 is also the same. Cordially, -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 17:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Please, give the link for Berkham6.Willy oath 17:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The link ? pt:User:Berkham6 ? -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 17:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but Fishing CheckUser is not for fishing. If you suspect Wet12 to be a sock, please tell us which user you suspect it to be a sock, and the reasons of such a suspiction. Cordially, -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 20:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Please see if the user mentioned is not ElectroStatic Jolt (talk · contribs). He has the same behavior (shows lock requests unfounded). Pc ^Talk 01:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Stale Sorry, but the data for ElectroStatic Jolt has expired. Regards, -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 10:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

 Confirmed but there is no range to be blocked to avoid this.

Likely Likely for Rodrigomastersom, but not enough likely to block in my opinion (depends on what he did / will do).

Cordially, -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 09:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

 Confirmed along with a host of other locked accounts. --Bsadowski1 20:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

(after ec)  Confirmed Already performed a checkuser earlier today. I locked all confirmed spam accounts and globally blocked all IP addresses (most likely to be open proxies). Trijnstel 20:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that the strategy spammers came there. I will be putting the filter in the case of a new spammer. I think that we should watch out for outreach now. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk _Contribs 16:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Did you ever met Ajudante do Coelho da Páscoa? --Vituzzu 21:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

No.--Demander 21:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Not done, please ensure that future requests for ptwiki come from administrators, unless it is an emergency. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Neither Ajudante do Papai Noel? --Vituzzu 21:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Acept this check, is a liar explication. It`s not future resuest.--Demander 21:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Please, can see if it is technically possible a rangeblock? Pc ^Talk 21:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I already said it's not possible and it's easier to manage these sockfarm with some semi-protections, anyway Fátima S.  It looks like a duck to me

--Vituzzu 21:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The semi-protections do not help. Pc ^Talk 21:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Since the pattern is quite known you just need to block every new account acting in the same way as the previous socks. --Vituzzu 21:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Template:Agree with Pedroca Cerebral. The same protections do not help.--Demander 22:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• Per Vituzzu. All accounts are blocked, and rangeblocking was considered difficult. If a slew of similar duck editors return, and local editors feel a recheck for potential rangeblocks is necessary, please repost. -- Avi 19:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Nothing to check,  It looks like a duck to me. Bencmq 07:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

--ValJor 18:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

•  Confirmed:
  • Pinto
  • Ant(óô)nio
  • Trinta e um
  • Evaristo
  • Destróier
• IP blocked IP blocked

--PeterSymonds (talk) 18:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the lightning fast service!

Do I still have to block the usernames listed above or the IP block is enough?

--ValJor 18:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. The remaining accounts will still need to be blocked locally. All best, PeterSymonds (talk) 18:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Question Question: Efeld not edit "Arouca". Arouca is article protected. --187.37.246.249 14:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

 Confirmed. Bencmq 15:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

 On hold I just sent a mail to the local CUs, and I'm waiting for their answer to do it. Cordially, -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 19:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I performed the CU on Aphaia's behalf. Please see the result above :

The following accounts are  Confirmed :

• Deezy.D.
• PartyCrasher762
• Mr3in1gr
• J a c o b b e o t c h
• Researchman11
• YoungIdolsEnt
• Dantheman

Victorrrmz is Unrelated Unrelated per CU data.

Cordially, -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 13:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. The socks have been blocked locally and the main account has been warned. ~ Ningauble 17:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Not done, Fishing CheckUser is not for fishing Bencmq 02:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Not done Sorry, but we don't accept anonymous CU requests. By the way, Maddox@ has no contributions on this wiki, so I won't perform a check on it without any reasons. Cordially, -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 20:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Please, check the Maddox with Desempates. The first user has blocked by one month in November 26. The second account has created in November 20, but his first commented in a discussion has on the after day of the block of Maddox. In December 8, Desempates marked many articles with ESR-tag, the same way that Maddox did, and that led to its lock on one occasion, some months ago, in July 31. See. See Maddox Talk Block 5: "abuso de WP:ESR mandando mais de 50 artigos para ESR por ser contrariado no abuso de WP:Fusão" (abuse of Pt:WP:ESR sending more than 50 articles to be contradicted by ESR in the abuse of Fusion ) Desempates have much knowledge for a user registred only one month, example [1], [2]. The latter diff is a example of knowledge of block requests. Maddox engaged in many request blocks and other request to sysops [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. There is strong suspicion of blocking contour. Marcus Luccas 16:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Hope I did not forget one. The first three have been confirmed by CU on frwiktionary, and the fourth one by a CU on frwiki. I would like to see if there are no more users, and if there is no IP or range we could block locally / globally. By the way, those concerns have been raised on the checkuser mailing list. Thanks ! -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 21:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

All  Confirmed (as you already knew) - no more socks are found. Trijnstel 21:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Not done, 1) since we can't link IPs to usernames, and 2) because you don't even have an account on the Portugese Wikipedia. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

ACEPPT THIS CHECK! First: No even have acccount in Wikipedia is not politic of checkuser. I have a account in en.wiki and Lusophone Wikipedia. I not have accont in pt.wiki. Marccus Luccas requested this check. Accept this check.--Roadbreaker 19:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Marcus Luccas asked to verify the two accounts. Pc ^Talk 20:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• I endorse the request. I had made the same request up before, and you did not answer. I presented the request diffs and made more complete than this. I have account in pt.wikipedia. Marcus Luccas 20:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I endorse the request too, and if possible, check with the user "Zorglub". This user has been inactive in 20th november, and the user "Desempates" signed up in the same day. Felipegaspars 22:11, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Unrelated Unrelated. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Unrelated with Maddox, with Zorglub, or with both? I disagree with verification with Zorglub, different behaviors, and even if it was sock, it would be lawful. Marcus Luccas 22:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• Anyway, thanks. Marcus Luccas 22:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• Confirmed. —Marco Aurelio (Nihil Prius Fide) 15:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Willy oath 18:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Neisk and João W. Nery are  Confirmed. Joao w nery is technically Unrelated Unrelated, but could be a meatpuppet judged by his (deleted) contribs. Trijnstel 19:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: he also recently used the IPs 188.37.253.216, 188.37.191.138, 178.166.108.2, 188.37.85.1, 87.103.0.68, 46.189.211.150 and 188.37.125.43 for similar updates.

--ValJor 10:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello. Those two accounts are  Confirmed, and could be the vandal D&S from what you just described above.

I compared with this other request, and they are  Confirmed too (but I did neither tried to compare with this request because I did not understand the result, nor with this one because data is too old).

Cordially, -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 11:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello Bellavista1957. I see that Americophile got unblocked by Mardetanha. There seem to be no local consensus to block this user : could you please explain this with more details ? Thanks by advance. -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 13:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

It is of common knowledge that Americophile had been blocked in Wikipedia because of misusing several accounts. on 14 of December 2011 Americophile wrote on the page of Hootandolati in Wikisource Farsi that

--Bellavista1957 13:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello and sorry for the time you had to wait before I handled your request.

Americophile and لئونیداس are Likely Likely to be the same, but not likely enough to block لئونیداس or to consider it as a sockpuppet. Just for you to know that this one is not definitely unrelated. The conclusion may depend on the future behaviour of this account.

Americophile is definitely Unrelated Unrelated with Hootandolati per CU data.

Cordially, -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 11:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Not done stewards cannot check on projects with local checkusers. I guess they didn't give you any answers since it was not needed. --Vituzzu 18:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I do not understand. It is my IP adress. And i want to prove my innocence. But the policies do not give permit to do it. Duke ^{ϡ»» message ^^} 19:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

 Confirmed the following...

Marcus Luccas

Mariano Julio

Locoabreu

Wesley2011

Anderson Bueno Pereira

Possible Possible

CARLOS ALBERTO LAURINDO

Hicsos

... from a CU point of view. Please review their editing pattern. Bencmq 03:26, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, and I forgot Palonvitas is confirmed as well. Bencmq 08:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

• Talk archives
• Steward requests archive/Checkuser

• Noindexed pages