Wiktionary:Requests for checkuser/archive

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search


To: (talk)/24 or (talk). I wouldn't normally request this, but Connel's open protectionism in BP made me suspicious of him trying to cover up Dcabrilo. If proven correctly, it would be severe POV pushing and lying incident. --Ivan Štambuk 15:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really sure that this was about, but I'm just noting that it's stale by now, anyway. Dmcdevit·t 14:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


I would like to find if the IP address of this user is (talk) or (talk). Those IP addresses are me. I would like to kow who registered this account, because it made an edit under a name used by me (oddly, the name "Ionas" is registered here too) that I don't remember making. --Ionas Freeman (自人) 01:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is a request asking about CheckUser, or a mere question about how "Transwiki" works. The only edit from the account Ionas68224 (talkcontribs) is from a transwiki of an edit made by w:User:Ionas68224, which indeed, came from one of those IP addresses. Confirmed. --Connel MacKenzie 16:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Arturius same as User:Matricularius?[edit]

Possibly (but not shown AFAIK) as evading blocks? Robert Ullmann 23:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I can confirm that Arturius is Matricularius. The IPs don't show any other users in the last few months, though. Dmcdevit·t 23:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay. My "take" is leave this alone for now; I'm not going to block as socks or whatever; most edits are very good and constructive. Does bear watching. (move to complete presently). Thank you. Robert Ullmann 23:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Note that the User referred to is User:Arcarius (both above are typos). Robert Ullmann 12:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
These are long since checked, confirmed, blocked, cleaned up after. We can probably archive this one. - [The]DaveRoss 10:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


Something about this user reminds me of Wonderfool. Would it be possible to rule out the possibility? (Probably just being paranoid.) —Stephen 09:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I was browsing the recent changes, and this page came up. I would like to know why I am being checkuser'd? I have no objections to you doing it, since this is my first account here (well actually, i may have made one months ago i forgot the password to), but I have never even heard of the name Wonderfool. Nwspel 10:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
There is apparently no such account called User:Wonderfool. O_o Nwspel 10:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
If you’re not Wonderfool, you have nothing to worry about. —Stephen 10:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Can you give me the proper name of their account please, since the name you gave does not seem to link. And no, I'm not worried by the checkuser, as I know it will come out negative, but it is the principle that annoys me; that you seem to think I'm doing something wrong just because I'm new. Nwspel 10:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
That account does not exist. My intention is to see that it remain so. —Stephen 10:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
You're checkusering me against a non-existent user? What? Nwspel 10:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Now you’ve got it! —Stephen 10:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Hang on a minute. I just checked wikipedia, and there is an account there: [1]. I am presuming you mean him/her? If he/she has never made an account here, then I must in fact protest in favor of this user. If this user was to come here (which, I would like to clarify, I am not them), after being apparently banned on EN wiki, that would not warrant you the right to have the user banned here, until his/her actions here gave you reason to. A banned user on one wikimedia project is not banned on another, unless they repeat their behaviour on both. Nwspel 10:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I am confused now. Apparently the puppet master was this: [2], yet if you look at his/her contributions, he has been "unprotecting/protecting" pages; surely he would have to have been an admin to do that?? O_o Nwspel 10:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Do not fret about who or what Wonderfool was. As I said, if you’re not Wonderfool, then you have nothing at all to worry about. —Stephen 10:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
This would be fishing, which is one of the things CU is not for. Can you provide some reasoning why this user appears to be a sock other than intuition? - [The]DaveRoss 10:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
No, just intuition. There are some specific things, but voicing them would only allow them to be avoided in the next incarnation. —Stephen 10:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
That's not the point; if you're accusing me of being someone, Stephen, then I would at least like to know who they are. And if they have not come here before, then this checkuser serves no purpose anyway, as they are not banned here. Nwspel 10:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Their userpage was deleted but they were indeed a user here, under several account names. Special:Contributions/Wonderfool is the "primary" account on enwikt. - [The]DaveRoss 10:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh ok, thanks for the explanation. I would like to note however, that deleting their page is not usually good practice, unless they activate the "right to vanish", which, as far as I am aware, banned users cannot. Nwspel 10:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Huh??? He was an admin here too? I checked his block log, and apparently he was able to block/unblock himself. Why is he banned here and WP, yet he was admin on both? Nwspel 10:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Please note that I give full permission for the check to go ahead, but I find it very insulting; imagine that your behaviour is being likened to that of a banned vandal - you would not be impressed. Nwspel 11:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
The reason for deleting the page is so that we give them no way of keeping score (and also we have no idea how many millions of accounts are him). I don't think you act that way, and I'm not sure this is a valid CU request, but if Steven wants to double check and the CUs are happy with it I don't mind too much. Conrad.Irwin 19:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Well seeing as the User is OK with it, I have done the check. There is no conclusive evidence (some circumstantial evidence which also implicates SB and some other people) to suggest that this user is in any way associated with Wonderfool, I suggest assuming they are not and moving on. - [The]DaveRoss 20:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. SB? Is that another banned user? Nwspel 20:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
SB is User:SemperBlotto, one of our admins, bureaucrats and most prolific contributors, the similarity is purely regional. And as an aside, don't be offended at being compared to Wonderfool, Nwspel, while he misbehaves from time to time his contributions are on average quite good. He just has a pattern of behavior which starts out good and ends in vandalism. I don't think anyone was suggesting here that your behavior is in any way wrong, it is just something we have all learned to be suspicious about. I hope you aren't put off by any of this, we are happy to have you here. - [The]DaveRoss 20:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok thanks. :) Nwspel 20:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Felonia (talkcontribs)[edit]

Can we please check to see if there is any hard evidence of Wonderfoolery, per User:Παρατηρητής on User_talk:Felonia. Edit pattern looks incriminating, but are not hard evidence. Conrad.Irwin 17:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Symbol unsupport vote.svg Inconclusive - There is some supporting evidence but unless this user has done something worthy of blocking there is not sufficient CU evidence to do so. - [The]DaveRoss 19:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Got the wrong guy. --Booboo 14:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Παρατηρητής (talkcontribs)[edit]

Accusing others of being Wonderfool - (User_talk:Felonia), one is lead to ask how he knows. Again, the pattern of edits is similar to some I've seen before. Conrad.Irwin 17:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Symbol unsupport vote.svg Inconclusive - Similar to the above, there is some evidence which might suggest this user is a sock, but not enough to act on. - [The]DaveRoss 19:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Got the wrong guy. --Booboo 14:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

A whole bunch[edit]

Thinking Paper (talkcontribs), Moth catcher (talkcontribs), Robert Ullmann sucks dick (talkcontribs), Nininjaja (talkcontribs), Aangaing (talkcontribs), LastRevolution662 (talkcontribs), PizzaMan9176 (talkcontribs), FirstClasskid (talkcontribs), among others. All vandals of User:Robert Ullmann's userpage/talk page. I was just wondering if maybe a range block or something might be possible here. I'm sick of one our more useful editors constantly being irritated. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 10:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Confirmed - All of those plus several more, all but two were previously blocked. A range block doesn't seem appropriate, some of the IPs are certainly OPs, which will be blocked as such. - [The]DaveRoss 20:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks TDR. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 21:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Victor Frankenstein[edit]

06 Nov 2008 Victor Frankenstein (talkcontribs)
07 Nov 2008 Count Dracula (talkcontribs)
12 Nov 2008 Dangerous Vampire (talkcontribs)
17 Nov 2008 This is exactly what I am saying (talkcontribs)
18 Nov 2008 StormMore (talkcontribs)
18 Nov 2008 PotatoMaster (talkcontribs)
19 Nov 2008 GhostMaster (talkcontribs)
22 Nov 2008 Vampire seeking human blood (talkcontribs)
22 Nov 2008 Man with labia majora (talkcontribs)
24 Nov 2008 DogGoatTiger (talkcontribs)
25 Nov 2008 GoblinReh (talkcontribs)
29 Nov 2008 FotLikeRot (talkcontribs)
30 Nov 2008 Loptiouy (talkcontribs)
05 Dec 2008 Hougtd (talkcontribs)

The above accounts have all engaged in vandalising userpages, typically just for a few minutes between account creating and getting blocked; the dates are indicated. From the style of their disruptive edits, it seems reasonable to assume that they are all related. The first group (before Vampire seeking human blood, which marks a transition) altered names, locations and occupations by inserting references to vampires [3] [4], to Chupacabra [5], to Bigfoot [6] [7], serial killers [8] and other monsters [9]. Edit summaries often said something like "typo" or "fixed". The second group (after Vampire seeking human blood, who was concerned with talk pages and is included mostly due to the vampire theme) added inappropriate pictures to userpages, more specifically pornography [10] [11], primates [12] [13] and again Chupacabra [14] [15]. Similar vandalism has taken place on Wikisource.

Perhaps CU can identify an open proxy or an IP address or a small range of IP addresses that could be blocked. -- Gauss 23:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the IPs used with the above accounts are from all across a large range of dynamic IPs assigned by a popular broadband provider in India. Rod (A. Smith) 18:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


Can we please see if this user has any link to accounts and/or ips that have previously had links with Wonderfool or any of his sock puppets.The community is in a state of ill-ease, which we would do well to disperse - if possible. Conrad.Irwin 22:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


Can we please see if this user has any link to accounts and/or ips that have previously had links with Wonderfool or any of his sock puppets. The community is in a state of ill-ease, which we would do well to disperse - if possible. Conrad.Irwin 22:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it kind of silly to have to make such a request out in the open? He's obviously knowledgeable enough to watch this page. DAVilla 05:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


Can we please see if this user has any link to accounts and/or ips that have previously had links with Wonderfool or any of his sock puppets. Seems to know too much about Wonderfool. Conrad.Irwin 22:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

See above.—msh210 22:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
For all of the above
Inconclusive on all counts. - [The]DaveRoss 23:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

User: and IPs on the Simple English Wikipedia[edit]

Hi there all. I would like to request that a checkuser from here check this IP address against two IP addresses,


for the same kind of vandalism and I want to make sure that there are no more IPs on either project that will continue to engage in this kind of vandalism. Please compare your results with either of our two local CUs Eptalon or Majorly to confirm or deny this case. Thanks, Razorflame 21:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe our CU's can help, as the bottom two users have never edited here. (Notwithstanding the fact that they are not even user accounts, editing from multiple IP addresses is not itself a crime as many ISPs change your IP from time to time). Conrad.Irwin 22:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Not run. - [The]DaveRoss 23:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


All editors solely of a single page, seem to act in concert. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 06:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

And similar behavior patterns, both on- and off-wiki. But "Lisakachold" and "LisaKachold" obviously aren't pretending to be different people, and Robert Ullmann has pointed out that "Asil" is just "Lisa" spelled backward; so it seems like maybe she just doesn't realize that sockpuppetry is poor netiquette? —RuakhTALK 13:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

LisaKachold is stale (too old for results), the other three are likely the same individual. I tend to agree with Ruakh here, it might be better to ask them to stick with one account rather than blocking the others. --Versageek 14:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I no longer agree with me; I hadn't noticed yet when I left my earlier comment, but at Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup#Obnosis scientology based edit wars on citations page she writes, "There are three registered Wiki users who will also nominate it for deletion if it has not been correctly described." As far as I can tell, the three users are herself, herself, and herself. Similarly, at User talk:Msh210#obnosis, she refers to herself entirely in the third person, both by username and by the pronoun "her". I'm going to go ahead and block all accounts except Asil (talkcontribs), which seems to be her main one. Feel free to unblock if you disagree. —RuakhTALK 19:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
No, I think that a wise idea (as you've at least left her one account open). I've left a comment on Asil's talk page. Please feel free to add clarification if it is in need of it. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 19:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Too stale to run. - [The]DaveRoss 23:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


911rawp (talkcontribs) for suspicion of evasion of blocks by use of socks. (Hello, Dr. Seuss!) Specifically: suspected, by virtue of username, to be Grawp.—msh210 19:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

If that's positive, then Emergency 911 (talkcontribs) also: similar username to previous, and account created three minutes after that one was.—msh210 19:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any block log or anything else beyond user creation for Grawp (talkcontribs), so I'm not sure how a sock became a consideration here. Was Grawp somehow banned or blocked in the past? —Rod (A. Smith) 19:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Grawp is a group of users more than a single user. See w:Wikipedia:GRAWP#Grawp. I can't find any recent examples, but I know they've hit us before. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 20:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that link. The inactive users Emergency 911 (talkcontribs), WikipediansDontAccept (talkcontribs) and Wikipedians (talkcontribs) all appear to be the same user as 911rawp (talkcontribs). I cannot yet confirm, though, that the the user is actually Grawp (talkcontribs). —Rod (A. Smith) 21:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
You might want to check if they are on an open proxy or Tor, as that's what he usually uses. Grawp's regular IP range is on Verizon in Southern California, something like Dominic·t 23:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Too stale to run. - [The]DaveRoss 23:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


All of these are involved in user harassment. Requesting the IP range they're editing from so they can be blocked. -- Prince Kassad 10:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

These are now too stale to investigate, sorry. - [The]DaveRoss 22:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


Probably a sock of Poingpoingjj004, LastRevolution663. - Amgine/talk 04:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Known vandal. Don't bother. Robert Ullmann 04:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Got a list on this one? I'm finding back into 2008... - Amgine/talk 04:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Beginning of 2008. Robert Ullmann 04:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
No CU done. - [The]DaveRoss 23:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

"I win"[edit]

Yemoni5511 (talkcontribsglobal account infodeleted contribsnukeedit filter logpage movesblockblock logactive blocks)

Capero95 (talkcontribsglobal account infodeleted contribsnukeedit filter logpage movesblockblock logactive blocks)

LucaviAD (talkcontribsglobal account infodeleted contribsnukeedit filter logpage movesblockblock logactive blocks)

Abc142898 (talkcontribsglobal account infodeleted contribsnukeedit filter logpage movesblockblock logactive blocks)

These four (did I miss any?) have very similar edits. Perhaps an IP block is in order?​—msh210 17:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

There were a bunch more from the same IP/IP range, they are all now blocked. - [The]DaveRoss 22:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Lee's wang[edit]

These have almost identical edits, close in time to one another. Perhaps an IP block is in order?​—msh210 19:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorted. - [The]DaveRoss 22:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Am I the same user as User:Rising Sun? Constant unfounded accusations especially from Vahagn, despite us making simultaneous edits from different locations. Equinox 15:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I was going to make the same request. But TBH I don't think one user can have 2 checks, seems a bit pointless. But I'd love to make the distinction. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 22:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Unrelated - Sounds like you guys have some unresolved identity issues. You are most likely two different people though, congratulations. - [The]DaveRoss 23:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Would it be possible for a blanket check on Wiktionary:Votes/2010-04/Voting policy. I realize this sounds a bit....evil, and if such a request is unacceptable by checkuser standards, I'll understand, as I certainly have scant evidence of anything. However, I think a number of folks would sleep better if they knew for sure, and it just seems like the sort of situation where sockpuppetry might creep in. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Those editors seem to be covering their bases; I suspect it's just meatpuppetry/canvassing on a massive scale, but even if there is sockpuppetry, I suspect the sockpuppeteer would know to conceal the fact. (Keep in mind that, unless someone actually uses the same static IP address for multiple edits, checkusering can generally just give an idea of how likely it is that they're the same person. When there's a large of number of editors from a single region, chances are pretty good that at least some of them will have the same ISP; we won't really be able to tell if that's sockpuppetry, or just random chance. Unless we've got sockpuppeteers who really don't know to conceal the fact …) —RuakhTALK 00:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I am not going to check everyone on that page, if you have a narrower list of name you actually suspect are socks I would be willing to look into that. - [The]DaveRoss 01:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I do not. Thanks for the reply. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 01:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


Symbol unsupport vote.svg Inconclusive There is no direct evidence linking the edits between those accounts to a single person/computer. —Rod (A. Smith) 16:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


I suspect User:Qt-Q!U in Wonderfoolery from his edit behavior. --Vahag 06:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Qt-Q!U (talkcontribsglobal account infodeleted contribsnukeedit filter logpage movesblockblock logactive blocks)
Jackofclubs (talkcontribsglobal account infodeleted contribsnukeedit filter logpage movesblockblock logactive blocks)
Rising Sun (talkcontribsglobal account infodeleted contribsnukeedit filter logpage movesblockblock logactive blocks)
Volants (talkcontribsglobal account infodeleted contribsnukeedit filter logpage movesblockblock logactive blocks)

Symbol delete vote.svg Unrelated The accounts Qt-Q!U (talkcontribs), Jackofclubs (talkcontribs), and Rising Sun (talkcontribs) appear to be unrelated to Wonderfool (talkcontribs).
Symbol support vote.svg Likely The account Volants (talkcontribs) was likely used by the same person as the account Wonderfool (talkcontribs). Both accounts are already blocked indefinitely, though. —Rod (A. Smith) 16:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Is User:Felonia Wonderfool?[edit]

He/she is creating a bunch of silly entries. Equinox 14:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Already passed a Checkuser test - here --Felonia 14:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Symbol unsupport vote.svg Inconclusive There is some supporting evidence, but the user appears to be intentionally anonymizing his or her identity, which prevents a conclusive comparison. —Rod (A. Smith) 21:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


I reckon User:Lexicografía might be Wonderfool dodging his block again. Santagnostic was the kind of thing he'd do. Equinox 21:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The above text says "CheckUser requests are only to be used with long-term, persistent suspected sockpuppets and vandals", so not on the basis of one edit. Likewise, m:CheckUser Policy says "Where the user has been vandalising articles or persistently behaving in a disruptive way".​—msh210 (talk) 21:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
What is this? — lexicógrafa | háblame — 13:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
The one edit was one example. There are more. Do I need to give lots of examples? Previous requests often haven't given any. Equinox 23:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I believe you are right about this. In this new incarnation, he claims advanced knowledge of Spanish and none of French, but his Spanish is really horrible. The Spanish on his user page is machine translated, and edited very inexpertly. It all smells like WF. —Stephen (Talk) 23:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
I am serious. What is this? What is Wonderfool? I'm sorry if there is bad Spanish on my userpage, however only part of it was machine translated. My Spanish comprehension is much better than my Spanish construction. — lexicógrafa | háblame — 00:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
See m:User:Dangherous for a sort of summary. It's assumed that pretty much everyone is Wonderfool, as he has turned out to be an extraordinarily large amount of people. --Yair rand (talk) 00:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
As far as the CU tool is concerned there is zero correlation between this user and any past behavior of Wondefool. That being said Wonderfool knows how to avoid CU detection and the most accurate detection method all along has been other people spotting his style. There really is no reason to ask for CUs of suspected Wonderfools in the future, once you know how the tool works (it is open source) then gaming the system is pretty trivial. - [The]DaveRoss 02:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for confirming this. I did some research on this odd character tonight and I can assure you all that I am in no way related although my personality apparently is similar. Have a nice day — lexicógrafa | háblame — 02:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC) (talk) and (talk)[edit]

The following two IPs have vandalized my talk page, my user page and my signature at other projects. I suspect they, and in addition 2001:470:C:156:0:0:0:8 (talk), are connected to Renard Migrant. Renard Migrant, and an account he had used previously, have made no secret of his disdain for me; his previous account vehemently attacked me. Another red flag for me is that Renard Migrant has been inactive when was blocked, which seems unusual since he had just started a beer parlour discussion. I am requesting a checkuser to see if Renard Migrant is connected to those vandalizing IPs. I think it's likely that the IPs are connected to someone who has Wiktionary experience, because the IPs are familiar with areas other than mainspace, and throw around the term "community ban". It's also clear that the IPs were editing with a clear intent of targeting me (each edit is to a page I've edited), rather than vandalism at random. Purplebackpack89 22:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


Emergency checkuser access[edit]

To alert the Wikiquote community that I recently undertook emergency access for Checkuser checks following a crosswiki vandal attack. I have informed your checkusers of the details via the checkuser network. The information gained enabled a global block. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)