Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Archive13

Add links
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archives
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011-2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020


FDR and 108.192.73.8

[change source]

The IP started editing about the same time as FDR was indef'd. It's working on the same articles that FDR was. Looks like a duck to me. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fine its me. I give up. I guess all of the wikipedias have decided that they do not want me as an editor.--108.192.73.8 (talk) 07:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why does simple English wikipedia not want me as an editor? Is it because I'm considered a bad editor? My record here has been good or at least mediocre. --108.192.73.8 (talk) 07:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons are explained at User talk:FDR, in the block notice, the unblock decline messages, and the other notes there. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't be able to comment on this request as a CU because it would link a user to an IP. But they have done it to themselves at this point. Already blocked so nothing to see here. -DJSasso (talk) 15:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

C.G.Pharmacy and Carly-pharm

[change source]

Are probably one and the same. Aunt blocked C.G.Pharmacy indef as a company ad, and Carly-farm took over on the same page (Cefalexin) while an e-mail request for unblock was current. Macdonald-ross (talk) 20:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They may be the same person, but Carly-pharm had edited that page before the other user was blocked. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am user:Carly-Pharm and am a different user from user:C.G.Pharmacy. We are both pharmacy students and have no connection to a company. Please let me know how C.G.Pharmacy can be unblocked. Thank you. --Carly-pharm (talk) 20:39, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that the other user create a new account with a name that can't be mistaken for a company name. That way there wouldn't be an issue with it. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about that. The account has not been blocked at enwiki. Not sure about their policies. I think we should either unblock them here or have them requesting a rename. -Barras talk 11:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Might be wise to ask them to stay away from topics where commercial interests might be especially active, for example exciting new pharmaceutical products. It's up to them to behave in a way which is above suspicion. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not if they're just studying the topic, as they say they are. I didn't think any of their edits were promotional. In fact, I'm going to unblock the one I blocked. Feel free to keep an eye on his/her edits, though. --Auntof6 (talk) 12:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A username block on the first one would be appropriate until they requested a rename. That is how promotional/orginizational names are handled on en.wiki. -DJSasso (talk) 13:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I have been keeping an eye on this discussion during the entire blocking process. I appreciate being unblocked and have made a rename request. I would also like to personally say that myself and user:Carly-pharm are purely involved in Wikipedia academically as pharmacy students from the University of Waterloo. --C.G.Pharmacy (talk) 13:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've just renamed you. So that issue should be solved. -Barras talk 13:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pistolplay

[change source]

Please compare to the various users listed at en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/River_Stumpf/Archive. I deleted this user's talk page, because it was a string of multiple articles that the linked enwiki page indicates are hoaxes. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't actually see much of a reason to run a CU here. It wouldn't serve any purpose, would it? -Barras talk 11:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FDR and Lucifergavemeag

[change source]

Editing the same articles as FDR and his/her various socks, same kinds of edits. Started actively editing only after the other socks were blocked. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)f[reply]

Verified. And also this account was already blocked on en.wiki for being a sock of him. Pretty lazy to sock with an already known sock. -DJSasso (talk) 13:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Next time (!) I'll try to remember to check enwiki so I could block without bothering our editors with the checkuser right. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A question is: should we revert all his edits? Many are tendentious, but it would take quite a bit of time to assess them individually. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted a lot of them. Most are fairly complex. Besides that, leaving them sends the message that all this user needs to do is keep creating new accounts and he can edit here. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that's a decisive argument. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I have no problem with that. It is standard policy on en to revert all edits of a banned user. Even if FDR is not actually banned, just blocked, I think its a case of WP:IAR to do so. So go ahead. -DJSasso (talk) 21:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

67Johnboy and Dan476768 and Devadosex2

[change source]

Editing the same articles related to Paul Easter and his work and nothing else. See the sockpuppet investigations at enwiki: even more aliases were found, and some are now globally locked. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed are: 67Johnboy (talk · contribs), Dan476768 (talk · contribs), Devadosex2 (talk · contribs), JackJonesKB (talk · contribs), Jones771 (talk · contribs) for this wiki. -Barras talk 22:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LuvmeorHateme and C-Sqwad and 86.133.178.216

[change source]

added:

Editing the same articles on studio albums, making the same mistakes. Possibly trying to evade a directive by Auntof6 to edit in the sandbox and to get approval before posting articles. User:Rus793 (talk) 01:32, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The two named accounts are socks and have been blocked. I cannot comment on if the IP is connected or not since its an IP. I will leave that up to an admin to decide. -DJSasso (talk) 14:21, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was just pointed out to me that I omitted a fourth: Mind, Body and Soul. User:Rus793 (talk) 15:27, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed and already blocked. -DJSasso (talk) 01:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

C-Sqwad and friends

[change source]

The above accounts have already been blocked, with the socks discovered by WP:DUCK or confirmation from EN (see SPI). We are having an average of one new sock per day, requesting CU to see if a rangeblock is feasible. Chenzw  Talk  05:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added Shaundice (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log)) and blocked -DJSasso (talk) 14:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

200.33.130.130 and some users

[change source]
All 3 of these users said "Keep" on an RfD giving absolutely no reason why, all within half an hour of each hour. That's enough.

Could I get them checked? Krett12 (talk) 00:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Non-checkuser note: all these appear to have been created after the RfD was created. I have left a note on the RfD page about this. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just added another user who meets the same conditions. Krett12 (talk) 01:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks obvious enough. Looking at the page histories of User:Grouder Otel and User:Univewol, it seems that the editor was logged out/forgot to "switch accounts" while creating those user pages. Chenzw  Talk  03:23, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Verified by CU. -DJSasso (talk) 14:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please check this one as well, same behavior as the others:

Yankees10_eats_pigs

[change source]

Two users in the last 24 hours or so with similar patterns/abuse:

The deleted contributions is where the evidence is really. Look at the creation of NFL-related pages. Note also the unblock request placed at Yankees' (since deleted) and the one at Eatdat...'s page (since rollbacked).

These two look to be clearly related per WP:DUCK but just want to make sure there aren't more out there. Appears to be a cross wiki abuse. Only (talk) 00:13, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They were more than related, but no sign of any other family members.--Peterdownunder (talk) 22:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Archive13&oldid=6091180"