Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WP:RFCU redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct (WP:RFC/U), CheckUser policy (Wikipedia:CheckUser), or Wikipedia:Changing username (WP:CHU).
Shortcuts:
WP:RCU
WP:RFCU

Read this first

This is the place to request sockpuppet checks and other investigations requiring access to the Checkuser privilege. Checkuser is a last resort for difficult cases. Whenever possible, use other methods first. Possible alternatives are listed below.

Acceptable requests

Code Situation Solution, requirements
A Blatant attack or vandalism accounts, need IP block Submit new section at #Requests for IP check, below
B Evading blocks, bans and remedies issued by arbitration committee Submit case subpage, including link to closed arb case
C Ongoing, serious pattern vandalism with many incidents Submit case subpage, including diffs
D Vote fraud, closed vote, fraud affects outcome Submit case subpage, including link to closed vote
E 3RR violation using sockpuppets Submit case subpage, including diffs of violation
F Evading blocks, bans and remedies issued by community Submit case subpage, including link to evidence of remedy
G Does not fit above, but you believe check needed Submit case subpage, briefly summarize and justify

Unacceptable requests

Situation Solution
Obvious, disruptive sock puppet Block, no checkuser needed
Disruptive "throwaway" account used only for a few edits Block, no checkuser needed
Checkuser on yourself to "prove your innocence" Such requests are rarely accepted, please do not ask
Related to ongoing arbitration case Request checkuser on the arbitration case pages
Vote fraud, ongoing vote Wait until vote closes before listing, or post at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets
Vote fraud, closed vote, did not affect outcome List at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets
Other disruption of articles List at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets
Open proxy, IP address already known List at Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies
You want access to the checkuser tool yourself Contact the arbitration committee, but such access is granted rarely or by invitation only

General procedure

  • If submitting a new case subpage, use the inputbox below; if adding to an existing case subpage, see WP:RFCU/P#Repeat requests.
  • Choose one code letter that best fits your request. Provide evidence such as diff links as required or requested. Note that some code letters inherently require specific evidence.
  • When listing suspected accounts or IP addresses, use the {{checkuser}} or {{checkip}} templates. Please do not use this template in a section header.
  • Sign your request.


Specific procedure


After submitting a request

  • Responses will be brief in order to comply with Wikipedia's privacy policy.
  • Due to technical factors, results are not always clear.
  • Check back regularly to see the outcome of your request.
  • Checkusers and clerks do not generally issue blocks. You may need to do this yourself or submit a request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
  • Case subpages are typically archived several days after a checkuser responds.


Privacy violation?
this header: view • edit

File a Checkuser Request
Cases are created on subpages of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case.
If you require help or advice, ask at Wikipedia 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:
Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/John Doe
Indicators
Request completed:
Confirmed Likely
Possible Unlikely
Unrelated Inconclusive
IP blocked Stale
Completed
Request declined:
Declined Unnecessary
Checkuser is not for fishing Rejected
Checkuser is not a crystal ball
Information:
Additional information needed Deferred to
Note:
Clerk actions:
Clerk assistance required: Clerk note:
Delisted Relisted

Contents



[edit] Outstanding requests

[edit] Wikzilla

request links: view edit links history watch
Filed: 2008-06-7


[edit] Dvaaeg

request links: view edit links history watch
Filed: 10:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Dvaaeg, recently blocked for edit-warring, would appear to be another in a long line of sockpuppets trying to remove alternate place-names that don't accord with an immature Greek-nationalist POV. Two possible puppetmasters here: either Aegeanhawk (indefblocked) or long-time banned user Mywayyy (more likely the latter) Moreschi (talk) (debate) 10:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NisarKand 7 June 2008

request links: view edit links history watch talk
Filed: 15:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • This account was created recently after the last sock of NisarKand was banned.
  • He expresses Pashtun and Afghan nationalism (see his contributions).
  • He is familiar with the long unjustly banned user: Tajik, he accuses another user of being him (Diff). So this user is obviously not new. NisarKand was the only other of the few Afghanistani editors who knew Tajik.

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/NisarKind 30 May 2008

- Blueboy96 03:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Rejected - It's Stale for starters, and the editor hasn't edited in over a year. Sure you got this right?? - Alison ❤ 03:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Ooops, I meant Mullberry (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser). Happens when you file a checkuser right after getting up from a nap ... Blueboy96 03:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

So let's do this formally ... again ...

Blueboy96 03:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh - thought as much :)
And Confirmed as socks of NisarKand (talk · contribs)
  1. Mullberry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
  2. KennedyChicken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
  3. Gunner447 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
IP blocked - a few of the busy ones - Alison ❤ 04:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
...and accounts blocked too. <sigh> Tiptoety talk 06:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bonaparte

Codes: E[5], F [6]

Also, maybe it is helpful to know some recently blocked sockpuppets of Bonaparte: Flueras (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser), ClaudiuLine (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser), 194.111.136.223 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log • checkip) (open proxy), 61.145.163.228 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log • checkip) (proxy) and I could go on (see also the impressive category).


Like other accounts listed below, these editor have edits mostly in two areas: Romanian economy and Bessarabian/Moldovan issues. Also, all of them revert to one version of the article Moldova, that fails wikipedia policies. This behaviour of the above mentioned accounts appears in a lot of articles related Moldova and Moldavia, where they introduce the same POV over and over again, and help eachother, by preventing 4 reverts from the same account in 24 hours (and thus violating WP:3RR. Note that Olahus may not be one, but his restoration of the versions preferred by other socks makes him suspicious.Xasha (talk) 12:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Klaksonn

request links: view edit links history watch
Filed: 16:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] LossIsNotMore - 11

request links: view edit links history watch
Filed: 16:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment

  • Proven socks of James Salsman are subject to immediate indefinite block; see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Nrcprm2026. The block master is User:Nrcprm2026. The block log is [7]. User:LossIsNotMore is a frequently named proven sock. (I said I would template these assertions but I don't have community support for it yet.) Recently proven socks include User:CKCortez and User:Listing Port. Because of this, regular checkusers are desirable when there is proof of abusive activity and close content overlap. Though not all the above accounts are clearly abusive, there is sufficient circumstantial evidence in each case to ask that they be checked, and I am highly confident that at least "Archilles last stand" is a sock. I am not confident that all the above are socks, but believe it is necessary to give a longer list due to the severity of the need for finding the true socks regularly. If you are a listed editor and are not James, please be patient for the checkuser to clear you, because new editors are unknown qualities.

James Salsman's favorite editing targets include Plug-in hybrid, Gulf War Syndrome, Ron Paul, and he has also edited usury. The listed editors meet the general criterion for his socks: new editors since last flush; very single-minded debate magnets; dismissive edit summaries.

  • Archilles last stand has POV-edited Ron Paul with uncivil edit summaries, and has also edited usury, a recherche topic also edited by proven sock CKCortez. Usury as of May 30 looks like an unreported article-protecting edit war to me. Archilles has edited critique of capitalism, Karl Marx, Mikhail Bakunin, which are about communism, while proven sock SBPrakash has also edited Politburo Standing Committee of the Communist Party of China‎.
  • Counteraction has edited the classic depleted uranium, on the wrong side of consensus (it appears), and has also edited Gardasil to emphasize a libertarian relationship (again, Salsman his high correlation with libertarianism),[8] while Listing Port has edited thalidomide, modafinil, and homeopathy. My recollection is that Brzezinski, Alex Jones, and earthquakes also align with James's interests.
  • Mountainsarehigh is an SPA which has POV-edited Ron Paul with uncivil edit summaries and has only one unrelated edit. Both these editors began their careers with edit-warring over a point and refusing to get the point, as if the opposing POV must be proven to their satisfaction before permitted. This indicates close identity between the two because both went right up to the edge of 3RR attempting not to go over. I succeeded in proving the Mountains did in fact go over. See entire Archilles talk [9] and retouched Mountains talk [10].
  • PiRcubed made four edits to Gulf War Syndrome and was flagged as a sock in edit summaries due to uncharitable reference to User:TDC: [11]. There may also be some good IP evidence in that article history.
  • Shakedown Bluff is a conflict-attracting SPA on plug-in hybrids with only two unrelated edits. Example of an IP deleting Shakedown's text as illogical: [12]. (I have no idea which side if any is more logical on this thread, or whether the IP was also a sock.)

Proof of prior steps: I reported Mountainsarehigh to ANI who was immediately blocked for 24 hours for edit warring. I also requested help from Alison, who has not had a chance to respond; but I decided to go ahead anyway as Archilles has notched up activity, possibly in response to my request.

Please also include an IP check to ferret out any additional socks that may have slipped past. Thank you for your consideration. I will be happy to answer any questions and address any omissions. JJB 16:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Memills

request links: view edit links history watch
Filed: 10:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Supporting evidence: Removal of criticism, commentary, COI, NPOV violations, and edit warring across multiple pages:[13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18] All accounts seem to be either the same person (likely) or several people working together (unlikely). If the former is shown to be plausible, I recommend that the master account be given a stern warning and asked to edit using only one account, preferably while logged in to avoid the false impression of consensus. Listed at AN/I[19] with request for page protection[20] (protected) and then relisted at AN/I[21] for a second time when the first incident was archived after the page was semi-protected, since the master account showed up to revert again when the IP's could no longer access the page. Viriditas (talk) 11:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Update: Memills appears to admit that he is using 68.99.124.205 in this edit. Compare these two diffs. I suggest that he is also using the others. Note, the list above is only a sample; there are many more. I'm not sure why he is doing this, as his edit history shows he has been on Wikipedia since 2006. Is it possible that he is just too lazy to login? If that is the case, can someone please ask him to edit while logged in? The average person looking at the edit history suspects that different accounts are reverting to his version. The account he seems to admit using also added his name to List_of_evolutionary_psychologists.[22] Viriditas (talk) 12:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm inclined to decline at this point. One of your diffs of edit warring is a year old, you don't have any actual 3RR violations, and the closest you come involves a self-confessed IP. I'm not seeing evidence of disruption that is consistent enough or serious enough to warrant confirming his IP(s). Thatcher 02:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    • IMO, edit warring and 3RR violations are the least of our concerns. User:Memills and several anon accounts have been removing criticism from evolutionary psychology, segregating it into a very small subsection, and forking it out into evolutionary psychology controversy, a violation of NPOV.[23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31] A criticism and merge tag have also been added,[32], [33] suggesting that the information be merged into related sections per the NPOV policy. (See also: Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Article_structure) These tags have also been removed by Memills.[34], [35]. Those diffs cover just some of the most recent (within the last two weeks) NPOV violations by Memills and his associated IP's. Viriditas (talk) 08:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Do you actually need checkuser confirmation of his IPs to deal with this? If there is consensus to revert the content fork, just do it. Unless he is actively pretending to be more than one person (double voting and such, or swearing that he is unrelated) I'd rather not offically reveal his IPs. Thatcher 03:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
        • That's a good point and I agree with you. I've left a message on his talk page and invited Memills here to shed some light. I'll contact the editors he has been reverting to find out the scoop. I'm not entirely clear on the history, as I only ran into this problem by chance after seeing the multiple reverts by different accounts on my watchlist. The irony is, I'm actually on his side, but I'm trying to uphold balance in the article. If you feel this should be closed out, then that's ok, but if the problem does come up again, I hope we can restore this discussion. Viriditas (talk) 04:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sussexman

request links: view edit links history watch talk
Filed: 03:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Code letter: G
  • Supporting evidence:

On the original Robert I ArbCom case an account named User:Isabella84 (two Ls) is mentioned as a likely Robert I (aka Sussexman, David Lauder etc) sockpuppet. I came across a suspicious series of edits by User:Isabela84 (one L) and User:BScar23625 earlier.

  • 16:36 - Isabela84 posts to the talk page of User:Counter-revolutionary, asking him to confirm it is him and not some sockpuppet.
  • 16:36-16:37 - Isabela84 amends the signature on the previous post to that of BScar23625.
  • 16:39-16:44 - BScar23625 further amends the signature on the post made by Isabela84, and makes some remarks about one known Sussexman sockpuppet, and one (User:Olborne) that isn't known as a Sussexman sockpuppet, and a puzzling "et al" implying there are more sockpuppets that might not have been identified.

Further to the comments about further sockpuppets, there's also comments by BScar23625 on User talk:137.205.30.157 regarding User:Robert I, User:Sussexman and User:Christchurch all being the same editor, and those comments are from 2006 which is well before the connection was made by checkuser in February 2008. In addition to Olborne identified in the comment above, there's also the identification of User:Chicheley as another sockpuppet. BScar23625 seems remarkably well informed about the sockpuppets (and other possible sockpuppets), long before anyone else.

Given BScar23625's intimate knowledge of the Sussexman sockpuppets, and "oh shit" moment on Counter-revolutionary's talk page with the Isabela84 account, which is almost certainly connected to the Isabella84 account from the Robert I ArbCom case, I think it might be a good idea for a checkuser to take place to see if these accounts are connected to each other, or any other socks from the Sussexman/Counter-revolutionary sockfarm. Thanks. One Night In Hackney303 22:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Deferred to later. This needs discussion amongst checkusers experienced with the case, and may be kicked up to ArbCom yet. Please hold on a while ... - Alison ❤ 00:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Note: - this is now actively being discussed by the Arbitration Committee - Alison ❤ 07:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Declined requests

[edit] Completed requests

[edit] Xted

request links: view edit links history watch
Filed: 16:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, main account appears to be


  • Supporting evidence:

From the long term abuse page link (added at 16:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC).

original report:
I think this guy is known as the Genesis vandal, or some such. While RFCU is not needed to connect these accounts (too obvious). I would like to know if there are any other accounts associated with the following so that they can be blocked asap (and the underlying IP or IP's as well)

All 3 were created on June 1 to get around semi-p solutions for the Evolution article which has now been fully protected by NawlinWiki. If there is another main account this activity is usually linked to, somebody should probably note that as well (or re-open the old case, whichever). Virtually all contribs are evidence of premeditated vandalism and disruption, so no diffs in particular are listed. If this report is redundent in some way, just delete and please leave a note at my talk page. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 16:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Clerk note: All accounts have been blocked. RedThunder 21:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Azukimonaka

request links: view edit links history watch
Filed: 00:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


Prior accounts
  • Supporting evidence:

Talk:Blade_of_the_Phantom_Master#RfC:_Is_the_work_created_by_manhwa_artistes_manga.3F

Azukimonaka used ocn.ad.jp or ocn.ne.jp ISP and these anons show the same writing pattern of him and same articles (manhwa related articles).[40][41]] Besides, Jazz81089 appeared at the article after his 8 months break and also edited Pyrus pyrifolia[42], all of which articles Azukimonaka vandalised. Even though Azukimonaka is banned, he keeps appearing as anon and vandalised Korean related pages, so it is highly likely he creates more unrevealed sock accounts. --Appletrees (talk) 00:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: There is very little I can tell you here. There are no registered accounts on the IPs, and Jazz has too few edits to be of technical use. Checkuser is not a crystal ball. Thatcher 03:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)



[edit] Hishamzr

request links: view edit links history watch
Filed: 11:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Supporting evidence:
    • Hishamzr created Eilabun massacre [43] and (likely COI) Hisham Zreiq [44] and Sons of eilaboun [45]
    • Mordka's first edit is to remove a speedy and COI tag from the Hisham Zreiq article [46]. They then continue to edit Sons of Eilaboun [47] and Eilabun massacre.[48][49], and then recreate Sons of Eilaboun after it had been deleted.[50]
    • Num666's first edit, the day after I delete the articles, is to restore a link to the articles on Zreiq and Sons of Eilabun,[51], and then add to Mordka's report on me on the Conflict of Interest noticeboard.[52]

Basically I'm not sure if Num666 is a puppet of Hishamzr or Mordka, or whether they are all the same editor. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Confirmed Mordka is Haykush (talk · contribs)
  • Confirmed Hishamzr is Num666.
  • These two groups are on different ISPs in the same country. Thatcher 03:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copperchair

request links: view edit links history watch
Filed: 03:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Code letter: B (banned user; linked in previous request for this user)

Evidence: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Copperchair (7th). Copperchair has quite a history, and if this is confirmed, he should be blocked indefinitely. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Boomgaylove

request links: view edit links history watch
Filed: 06:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Confirmed - no other socks - Alison ❤ 07:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much! I've blocked and tagged him--it's refreshing to hear there are no others. --jonny-mt 08:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Poeticbent

request links: view edit links history watch talk
Filed: 15:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Avoiding 3RR violation using IPs and main account

3RR violation using IPs

3RR violation using IPs

Avoiding semi protection

During edit war between one of the suspected IPs and other IP suspected IP filled an 3RR report on other IP, result > semi protection meaning that both IPs would have no possibility to edit main space in the Ustka article [87], after few hours Poeticbent came with registered account and avoided semi-protection, and made controversial edit

Stalking

  • Stalking account (see edits of 23 September 2007)
  • After the complain was laid down by established editor to protect article (Kraków) from IPs (207.102.64.214; 207.102.64.211 etc.), and after admin left this comment, Poeticbent arrives and delivers these “remarks” on opponent in the same notice board with PA.

Personal attacks

And other controversial edits. Data spectrum show that problematic behavior continues for the quite great time now. And perhaps there more IPs needing an investigation. M.K. (talk) 15:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Poeticbent is Poland-born Richard Tylman who lives in Vancouver, Canada, and the IP range belongs to a library there (Vancouver Public Library), see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman, Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_23#Richard_Tylman. See also related cases Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/134.93.60.170, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement/Archive7#User:Matthead_and_User:Poeticbent., Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement/Archive22#Digwuren_edit_restrictions_following_edit_war_suggested, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive72#User:Boodlesthecat_reported_by_User:Poeticbent_.28Result:_no_violation.29. -- Matthead  Discuß   11:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by Poeticbent

This is the last of a series of assaults made by a couple of notorious flame warriors, a nondescript User:M.K and a guy from Germany hiding under the pseudonym of User:Matthead, both trying to gain an upper hand in Eastern European disputes, this time, by demanding access to OTRS nonpublic data about me. I am a long-time editor whose off-Wiki identity is already publicly known as Richard Tylman.

Meanwhile, our policy on release of data derived from page logs states in point 6 that it is "reasonably necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation [and] its users" especially against those trying to discredit their Content opponents via all means available. Their recent joint assault on me through a bogus arbitration case prepared by Matthead and M.K. was of course unsuccessful.[88][89] --Poeticbent talk 22:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Confirmed except for the 76 IP address. If you act in ways that make your IP address obvious to others, it is not a violation of the privacy policy to point that out, and in the case of logging out to avoid 3RR, confirming the name of the user is permitted. (The complaint about logging in to avoid semi-protection is rather silly and not actionable in and of itself. That's the goal of semi-protection, of course.) Acting contentiously while logged out in order to keep your registered account "clean" is considered good hand/bad hand editing and is also a policy violation. Thatcher 01:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I've moved Poeticbent's comments concerning the 3RR section to the discussion page as they were not part of the report to which the checkuser clerk responded.76.64.212.242 (talk) 16:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see my added dates to 3RR accusations from above. This is truly Orwellian, like the accusations of "personal attacks" against... not users, but anonymous IPs engaged in disruptive editing. Do I need to reveal who I am in order to deal with the worst cases of vandalism? No, I don't think so. I have every reason to be afraid of being stalked as a result of defending Wiki content, which the above case proves beyond doubt. --Poeticbent talk 02:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
The 3RR violations are all valid and you did not even explain what was supposedly faulty - your added dates only back them up quite neatly. Within little more than a month you violated 3RR five times (three with the IP and two on your account, one of which you were blocked for and another one overlooked at Ghetto benches on May 12). Explanations like you were ony "deal[ing] with the worst cases of vandalism" are completely unconvincing. The same goes for the PA's. Attacks against the messenger rather than the relevant message like "a couple of notorious flame warriors, a nondescript User:M.K and a guy from Germany hiding under the pseudonym of User:Matthead, both trying to gain an upper hand in Eastern European disputes, this time, by demanding access to OTRS nonpublic data about me." only emphasise it. By the way, there wouldn't even be this CheckUser request if you had simply answered the question yourself. At your next 3RR violation or when edit warring on your part in general gains relevance, the certainty in this regard may indeed play a role. Sciurinæ (talk) 10:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
3RR does not apply to reverting vandalism, and dealing with disruptive IPs that are clearly single accounts POV pushers/socks. This case here is a pretty obvious harassment of Poeticbent (it would be interesting to see if IPs reverted by Poeticbent don't belong to the editors harassing him).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 11:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
You can see what is exempt from 3RR within one click to the 3R-rule and immediately see that no relevant action here was exempt. Also, while alleged vandalism is probably the number one excuse for 3RR violations, accusations of harassment with which to counter valid reports on bad behaviour and attacking the messenger - thereby killing two birds with one stone - are still pleasantly uncommon in Wikipedia otherwise. It was only an informal opportunity offered by M.K to ask him first and give him days to reply (without a positive result) before filing the report. Matthead here only provided solemnly relevant links without even giving his opinion. I only refuted Poeticbent's and your claims that these weren't 3RR violations (I had found the violations), which I wouldn't have to refute if Poeticbent did actually check upon them properly and if you had actually remembered what vandalism is not and bothered to reread WP:3RR. I also took the opportunity to comment on the repeated and troubling personal attacks, whose relevance you and Poeticbent not only highlighted but still highlight (although you were already on the Digwuren list, and Poeticbent has been walking the thin line) and which you somehow need me to have to mention again and again apparently. No one else is to blame if someone violates 3RR and engages in personal attacks but that person themselves, and mentioning or reporting it is not harassment. If your popping-up here with incorrect claims and personal attacks and nothing else wasn't harassment, nothing here is. As for your accusation that someone here could be behind the IPs (presumably because it comes from Germany, from which you know that both me and Matthead come from), anyone with CU rights reading it here can run a check. Apart from that, for me, the case here is closed and unless you two want to turn this into an argument with comments that need long replying to again and again, I hope I won't have to respond anymore. Sciurinæ (talk) 18:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Welcome Sciurinæ. Good to know that you're always there for Matthead during Eastern European disputes and for whomever else wants to harass me [90][91] over Poland-related articles. I revised the list of 3RR accusations above to show the kind of disruptive editing by anonymous IPs I was trying to prevent. It's much clearer now and personally, I wouldn't mind knowing who's behind those IPs. But please, do not align yourself with this last campaign of harassment that needs to be dealt with via other and more appropriate WP:OTRS channels. --Poeticbent talk 15:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

User Poeticbent never used sockpuppets, not to my knowledge, to suggest a fraud in voting on AfD or to make an impression more than one person is behind this or that, which would be a serious issue. His 3RR violations are pretty good documented but it's a minor misdemeanor, lots of dedicated to Wikipedia users commit this now and then. Regarding multiple IP issue: It happens to me all the time to sign by IP instead of my log name. Many my edits are signed like that, just because I forgot to log in or to click on "remember me" button, and then the Wiki program just simply logged me out until I finished my lengthy edit. The only difference is I have one IP while User Poeticbent has obviously a dynamic one. Not the big deal until proven guilty of intentional bad faith. greg park avenue (talk) 17:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


Poeticbent, would it not be more effective to present your comments of defence here (or, as the procedures page suggests, on the discussion page), rather than in the actual report? I ask because it is rather difficult to follow and/or respond to each: they have been added gradually (three batches over the course of 38 hours) and not one features information as to when it was placed. The fact that all these comments were appended to the report after Thatcher, the checkuser clerk, had addressed the request adds to the confusion. The reader is now obliged to go on a bit of an archeological journey in order to find the report to which Thatcher was responding. And this is assuming that the reader who comes across this report suspects changes were made after participation of the checkuser clerk. Please understand, this is not a criticism, but a suggestion that might lead to clearer communication.

In any case, I did want to address your last edit. I disagree on two counts:

  • while one might consider the term "stupid nationalists" less than refined, even crass, it is not "bad language";
  • the user did not call "Polish people 'stupid nationalists'", as you write, rather he stated " You people actually hurt our polish heritage because readers get the impression we are stupid nationalists."

I suppose a very weak case might be made that the author of this statement is in some way insulting certain editors, but I'm assuming in good faith that this is not the case. 76.64.212.242 (talk) 18:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the term You people used once by Ross Perot while addressing African-American citizens, was politically incorrect and had cost him his presidency bid; still, I presume, it's not a big deal in reference to Wikipedia editors as long as the policy WP:AGF was not violated or proven otherwise beyond reasonable doubt. greg park avenue (talk) 19:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for such eloquent and certainly most balanced responses. As we can see (above), anonymous IPs can easily prove themselves to be good contributors without the trouble of manufacturing pseudonyms in order to make their points. However, I’m not as eager as 76.64.212.242 to believe smoke-and-mirrors which is NOT confirmed by a Domain search. Here we have an anonymous dynamic IP from Duesseldorf, Germany, purporting the so called “our polish (sic!) nationality” in order to sound likeable first before going out on a limb. Not for a moment did I believe it to be true and I acted accordingly. I have never used sockpuppets. I would like to use this opportunity to refute the accusations of the "possible WP:SOCK violations" delivered to me in an email by yet another editor on May 31st. Not logging-in is not a violation and indeed might turn out to be quite popular among established users if such CU searches were ever warranted. --Poeticbent talk 20:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

As a side note to that about the IP: (One thing I can't get into my head if you actually believed the person behind the IP not to have been Polish back then as well, why couldn't you simply bring it up rather than remove the comment and start a revert war? You do know that there are also people of Polish descent in Germany ([92]), at least you could have thought of that, since you don't live in Poland, either, and naturally Polish people in Germany would be especially interested in Polish-German matters. In any case, you can express your doubt productively instead of leaping to conclusions and biting at the earliest possible opportunity. For example, you might have asked for proof or just challenged his or her in Polish. Whether you would have liked the answer if you had risked trying to find out is another question but everyone would be a little wiser.) Sciurinæ (talk) 21:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

After the waves of recent personal attacks and ad hominem "arguments" by Poeticbent towards me, I thought I should remain away from this board, however continues misinformation just overwhelmed me. like the accusations of "personal attacks" against... not users, but anonymous IPs engaged in disruptive editing., writes Poetibent, even if we presume that IPs should be treaded as second class editors on which are allowed personal attacks; such Poeticbent excuse collapses soon afterwards. Not mentioning that one of his IPs was dedicated to stalk an established editor. Not mentioning that, that in presented diffs there are no worst cases of vandalism as was pointed out already . Even if there suspicion about vandalism, it should be reported in proper venue and not dealt with it using logg in/ loog out tactics, trying to avoid 3RR, semi-protection. Moreover Wikipedia:SOCK#Circumventing_policy clearly states Policies apply per person, not per account. Policies such as 3RR are for each person's edits. therefore there are no excuses for this contributor's systematical revert warring. I would not go in details about calling Polish people "stupid nationalists" as it was done already. As noted in initial report there are additional controversial edits, which not covered here, which looks not good either. As this board is not assign to deal with contributors additional behavior patterns, apart of Sock puppetry, any additional investigation should be redirected to different boards and if contributors will continue to investigate Poeticbent's editing pattern and behavior on different venues, let me know I would definitely add some comments. M.K. (talk) 10:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

M.K., you have filled two ArbCom cases against Polish editors. Both were rejected, but perhaps you'd like to start another one? If no, please stop harassing Poeticbent.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
"two cases", "rejected"? Last time I look at the case I started it was accepted and decided. So not "rejected". M.K. (talk) 20:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Ah, my bad. I should have said: all of your arguments, claims and proposals were considered and discarded by the arbitrators. Better? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Ad hominem again? This board serves for different purposes, mainly to run a checkuser, and not to absorb ad hominem remarks. I hope that this board's main purpose will be regarded, M.K. (talk) 20:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, it would be highly advisable if ad hominems and harassment directed at Poeticbent would stop, I agree.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
You've used the accusations here before and I have responded to them elaborately. Their repetitive assertion don't make them true, either. But it's really becoming bothersome to continue to respond to them. Either one accepts the patently false claims or one responds to them only to be faced with yet another, with the original case getting blurred in the process. Sciurinæ (talk) 22:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thelegendofvix

request links: view edit links history watch
Filed: 03:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Supporting evidence: Please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Thelegendofvix. Diffs of 3RR violation are toward the bottom. Note that Thelegendofvix already violated 3RR before Preshuzz's revert, but using a sockpuppet is of course an aggravating factor to justify a longer block. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Unrelated. Thatcher 01:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Biaswatchdog

request links: view edit links history watch
Filed: 00:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Supporting evidence:

Diffs of 3RR vios:

Tag-team single-purpose accounts; the Gberkeleywannabe account was created after Biaswatchdog ran up 4 reverts on Philip E. Johnson and proceeded to carry on reverting in the same manner, similar edit summaries, etc. Also, each new IP/account takes over after the previous one hits 3RR. I understand if you can't comment on the IP's for privacy reasons, though I've included them as I believe them to be associated. MastCell Talk 00:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Confirmed. The IPs are rather obviously related, and are participating in the same edit war, so confirmed as well. Thatcher 02:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Thank you for the quick response. Admittedly, these were screaming "obvious, disruptive sockpuppets", but with the current... shall we say... intense scrutiny of all things intelligent-design-related, I thought I'd seek backup rather than just going with my instincts. MastCell Talk 05:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jvolkblum

request links: view edit links history watch
Filed: 03:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


  • Supporting evidence:

Jolkblum edits from open proxies, so confirmation is unlikely, but checking if the accounts are likely would be helpful. CedricRobinson was blocked at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jvolkblum (7th), Point Place 1970 was marked as possible sockpuppet but scarce evidence. It's pretty clear that edited from the same IP on the same day, could that be checked. EarthCleaner, PLATOLAWS , and Sweetiedarling are mentioned in Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jvolkblum (8th). EarthCleaner and PLATOLAWS were created two minutes apart, so could it be checked if they were created by the same IP address and if any others accounts were created by the same IP address at that time. BlueAzure (talk) 03:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I have added Nina Van Horn to the list of accounts above. The account was created two minutes before Point Place 1970 and has edited in Jovlkblum style (additional evidence in Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jvolkblum (8th). BlueAzure (talk) 23:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: Some of the confirmed accounts from last time have not been blocked yet!
  • Confirmed
  1. CedricRobinson (talk · contribs)
  2. Orick-XL (talk · contribs)
  3. Flav-r-Ice (talk · contribs)
  4. PLATOLAWS (talk · contribs)
  5. EarthCleaner (talk · contribs)
  6. Point Place 1970 (talk · contribs)
  7. Nina Van Horn (talk · contribs)
  8. April24th1992 (talk · contribs)

More coming. Thatcher 04:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

  1. Procuremeister (talk · contribs)
  2. Werkmamawerk (talk · contribs)
  3. Bullethead08 (talk · contribs)
  4. Sweetiedarling (talk · contribs)
  5. KatieGrinn (talk · contribs)
  6. Oy'Peanuts (talk · contribs)

Might be all. Thatcher 04:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC) Clerk note: all blocked and tagged. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Two new accounts that have been created since the last group were blocked, evidence at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jvolkblum (9th). BlueAzure (talk) 22:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I have added Fajnzylberg101 to the list, evidence in the above suspected sock puppetry case. BlueAzure (talk) 23:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Confirmed - the following accounts, all on open proxies, now blocked -
  1. Gluconate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
  2. LaurieBurton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
  3. Fajnzylberg101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
  4. CreativeSuite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
  5. ANGLE-TELLA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
IP blocked - lots of proxies - Alison ❤ 05:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Clerk note: Y Done -- lucasbfr talk 09:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The above are additional new accounts that appear to be Jvolkblum based on their creation times and editing interests. See the current sockpuppetry case for details. --Orlady (talk) 14:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

    • Clerk note: Clearly the same user, both blocked indefinitely. Rudget (Help?) 15:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: Proxies, no link to the previous accounts but quack quack etc. Thatcher 02:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't understand the comment about proxies, but it appears that every registered account in the above report is now blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 23:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I think that Thatcher was simply pointing out that if it walks like a duck and it talks like a duck it's probably a duck. HMishkoff (talk) 23:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


[edit] DavidYork71 2008-06-04

Code letter: F

  • Supporting evidence: [94], [95], [96], [97] Identical edits to numerous DavidYork71 socks. Seeking confirmation and a check for any other accounts/IPs. Leithp 10:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Confirmed - no other visible accounts - Alison ❤ 18:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
User:Dauphinee indef blocked. --Rodhullandemu 18:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Leon harrison

request links: view edit links history watch
Filed: 06:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


  • Supporting evidence: in reading this user's contributions as well as This AN/I discussion I'm not convinced that he is a sockpuppet worthy of banning. I believe that a checkuser will prove that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisP2K5 (talk • contribs)
Clerk note: Please keep in mind that checkuser can't prove innocence when evidence is based on behavior. I'm listing this but I suggest this matter be pursued at ANI. -- lucasbfr talk 08:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Clerk note: Merged and Archives edited. Thanks for spotting it! -- lucasbfr talk 12:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Greier

request links: view edit links history watch
Filed: 00:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Possible/ Likely - Same city, same ISP, but different range. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: the account Greier is stale by now, but his static IP was 86.124.112.36.


Greier has been banned since December 2006. Rezistenta (originally Adrianzax) was created in November 2007. Both users edit the exact same topics: Origin of the Romanians ([98], [99]), Romania in the Middle Ages ([100], [101]), Aromanians ([102], [103]), Battle of Baia ([104], [105]), etc. Both users have the same POV and use very similar edit summaries ([106], [107]) and rude comments ([108], [109]). Because of this I therefore believe that Greier and Rezistenta are undoubtedly the same person. Khoikhoi 00:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Per the result above, I have indef. blocked Greier's sockpuppet and left a note on his talk page. Khoikhoi 02:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I unblocked him. Using the same ISP (which happens to be the largest ISP in Bucharest) is not a proof they are the same person. I know both of their styles and they don't match at all. bogdan (talk) 10:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 216.83.121.194

request links: view edit links history watch
Filed: 23:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

This is suspected to be the long term vandal Krabs502, also known as 216.83.121.194 (talk · contribs · block log), though that IP has been hardblocked indefinitely. I've listed some IPs, some of which I've blocked as open proxies, and all of which are suspected to have been used by this vandal. I request confirmation on the accounts, and there may be other socks, proxies, and/or a static IP to hardblock. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Two of the IPs turn up, along with a cousin of 221.120.250.73; Bigboy and Dancer are on the same IP. Some other apparent proxies blocked. Thatcher 01:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)





IP/A

[edit] Requests for IP check

  • Vandal and attack accounts may be listed here for the purpose of identifying and blocking the underlying IP address or open proxy. Requests to confirm sockpuppets of known users should be listed in the sockpuppet section above.
  • If you already know the IP address of the suspected open proxy, list it at Wikipedia:Open Proxies instead.
  • Use === Subsections ===; do not create subpages.
  • List user names using the {{checkuser|username}} template. Add new reports to the top of the section.
  • Requests may be acted on or declined according to the discretion of the checkuser admins. Responses will be noted here. Specific evidence of abuse in the form of diffs may be required so as to avoid the impression of fishing for evidence.
  • Answered requests will be moved to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/IP check/Archive for 7 days, after which they will be deleted. No separate archive (other than the page history) will be maintained.

[edit] Avril Lavigne pagemove vandals

Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 21:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, for evidence, please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Fuzzmetlacker. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Y Done Thatcher 04:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Genesis vandal (User:Tile join)

Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 16:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

IP blocked - already done by Raul. No other sleepers, that I can see - - Alison ❤ 17:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
There's also

Hut 8.5 08:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Y Done Thatcher 13:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You-know-who

Here's some socks fresh from the laundry...¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 00:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

  • It's being addressed, but its complicated. Thatcher 00:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yard vandal

The above accounts vandalise and create articles with the word "lard" or "yard". After seeing a user report that this vandal was active earlier today, I searched the deletion logs for articles with the word "lard" or "yard" and found these accounts:

Can a CU clean out this sock drawer? Thanks, Spellcast (talk) 12:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I just found out about Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Lardland. It seems all the accounts were made today. Hopefully the underlying range is small. If not, it was probably coordinated off-wiki. Spellcast (talk) 12:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it's User:Random-5000, a daily active vandal with >100 other socks. There were 6 more accounts during 20 minutes today:
The following block of 121.90.0.0/16 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser), which is the suspected range used by Random-5000 (per edits he made logged out), stopped the creation of more socks. --Oxymoron83 13:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Y Done That's a good range block, too. It catches a small number of good users but most of the edits are this guy. Thatcher 05:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


NC

[edit] Non-compliant requests

Requests that do not follow the instructions at the top of the page will be moved here. Common reasons for noncompliance include:

  • Did not cite a code letter, or cited more than one code letter.
  • Did not cite any supporting diffs if the code letter requires diffs.
  • Included IP addresses.

The specific deficiencies may be noted with Additional information needed. Cases which are corrected may be moved back to the pending section. Cases which are not corrected will be deleted after 3 days.

Please note that meeting these three criteria does not ensure that your check will be run. The checkusers retain final discretion over all cases.

[edit] Pachapeedika

request links: view edit links history watch
Filed: 15:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


  • p: PLACE A CODE LETTER HERE (SEE WP:RFCU)
  • Supporting evidence: EXPLAIN YOUR REQUEST. INCLUDE EVIDENCE AND DIFFS AS NEEDED. REMEMBER TO SIGN.
Clerk note: Neither ഉപയോക്താവ്:Pachapeedika (talk · contribs) nor Pachapeedika (talk · contribs) are registered usernames on the English Wikipedia. Please name existing account(s) to be checked, and provide some rationale for the check. If you can't do that, at least try and explain the problem you need help with. Thanks. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] J. A. Comment

request links: view edit links history watch
Filed: 00:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Supporting evidence: In article Srbosjek user 71.252.101.67 aka 71.252.102.204 is edit warring against all other users. From 20 May 2008 he is supported by newly created account J. A. Comment. This new user has been warned by SWik78 (which is using anti vandal tool) that his actions are under question but this has not stoped SPA account (history of article).

It is "public" knowledge (for small example I will use administrators Fut.Perf. and Lar) , that banned users Velebit, Stagalj and Smerdyakoff are using IP range 71.252.xx.xxx and because of this reason User talk:71.252.83.230 and User talk:71.252.101.51 has been blocked. Because it is not clear which of this banned users (Smerdyakoff or Velebit) is puppet master (or if this is only 1 user) they are all in this list--Rjecina (talk) 00:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment I am not 'warring against all other users' - as a proof, see my contributions: I am reading references and supporting the existing text. It is frivolous to link me to any other user or IP address (except those I've used when contributing to the Srbosjek article) for the reason that Wikipedia does not ask for any user identification data. The 'warring all other users' are Croats desperately attacking all non-Croat users, the text, the references - trying to ultimately destroy or remove this article despite of overwhelming evidence that the 'serb cutter' knife existed and used during the WWII. For evidence - see the talk page of this article.--71.252.101.67 (talk) 18:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Additional information needed Can you please provide specific diffs showing the disruption? -- lucasbfr talk 11:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Supporting evidence against Rjecina:Removed references, section, and baselessly inserted {dubious} tag after references [110]
This user is engaged in regular removals of my contributions to the Srbosjek article and the talk page - removal of references and pointless insertion of the [dubious – discuss] tag after each existing and not removed reference. See [111],[112],[113]
This user was warned already three times by other user and by me [114],[115],[116]
Also, his harassment of other users is already noticed by an administrator and proper warning is given here [117],[118] which reads:
You, however, Rjecina, are very clearly engaging in a campaign of harassment in order to get as many opposing editors blocked as possible. You're apparently even keeping a list of trophies ([119]). I'll wait for comments from others here, but I'm seriously considering handing out some fresh sanction under WP:ARBMAC against you at this point. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Here he is attacking the same way other users [120] where he claims
Difference between numbers in this article and older history is much greater. It is possible that article has been edited by puppet of banned user:Velebit which can be see from history of his edits IP 217.57.46.126 and user Velebit other puppet user:NovaNova or his suspected banned puppet user:Stagalj. Creation of this article has not been noticed earlier because if has been created with only edit of SPA account.--Rjecina
It is not difficult to see that the IP 217.57.46.126 (an Italian IP address) is not an US based IP - which shows frivolity of his attacks on other users.
--71.252.101.67 (talk) 03:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I am tired with this guy. During last few monts I have deleted all wiki contributions of Velebit confirmed socks. He want to use other people words so:
  • contributions from this IP are nevertheless consistent with it being used only by socks of Velebit/Guivon ... and Per this thread on unblock-en-l, it's apparent that User:Velebit is still active on this IP address.... [121] (this is about 71.252.83.230)
  • About 71.252.101.51 :Clearly a ban-evading sock IP of the same multiple sockpuppeter as User:Smerdyakoff/User:Standshown, per WP:DUCK [122]
  • About article Srbosjek and versions: difference between versions 71.252.101.67 and J.A.Comment is this
  • Difference between 71.252.52.88 and J.A.Comment are only book sources so for me this is clear evidence of puppets.
  • Edit warring of this user in article Srbosjek. He has reverted rjecina (from IP 71.252.52.88), BalkanFever , GriffinSB. Using IP 71.252.102.204 he has reverted Rhun and me when I have reverted J.A.Comment. User J.A.Comment has reverted user SWik78 2 times. I have added this only to show clear evidence of edit warring of this user--Rjecina (talk) 15:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I am adding to list user153.39.144.157 because he has started to edit with reasons identical to users 71.252.101.67 and J. A. Comment [123] and he has reverted to version of user 71.252.101.67 [124] before seeing mistake of his actions and reverting himself [125] and start to editing around 12 hours latter from IP 71.252.101.67--Rjecina (talk) 18:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Adding user 71.252.102.163 which has entered edit warring game in article Srbosjek. Can somebody confirm this puppets so that we can start action against this user ?--Rjecina (talk) 00:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)