Shortcut: WD:CHECK

Wikidata:Requests for checkuser

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

For the place to request CheckUser access, see Wikidata:Requests for permissions/CheckUser.
Requests for checkuser
This is the place to request investigations of abuse of multiple accounts or of other circumstances that require use of checkuser privileges.

Requesting a checkuser

Please don't ask us to run checks without good reason; be aware of the following before requesting:

  1. Checkuser is a means to choose for difficult cases. If multiple accounts show clear behavior patterns or editing type, please post on the administrator's noticeboard.
  2. Running a check will only be done to combat disruption on Wikidata, or as required to assist checkuser investigations on other Wikimedia wikis.
    • Valid reasons for running a check include, for example: suspected block evasion, vote-stacking, or other disruption where technical evidence would prevent or reduce further disruption.
  3. Evidence is required. When you request a check, you must include a rationale that demonstrates (e.g., by including diffs) what the disruption to the project is, and why you believe the accounts are related.
    • Requests to run a check without evidence or with ambiguous reasoning will result in delays or the request not being investigated. Do not post requests for fishing without any grounds.
  4. The privacy policy does not allow us to make a check that has the effect of revealing IP addresses. Do not post requests to compare IPs to accounts or IPs to IPs comparisons.
  5. Requests to run a check on yourself will be declined.

Responses will be brief in order to comply with Wikimedia privacy policy. Due to technical limitations, results are not always clear.

Privacy concerns

If you feel that a checkuser request has led to a violation of the Wikimedia Foundation privacy policy regarding yourself, please refer the case to the Ombuds commission.

To request a checkuser

Cases are created on subpages of Wikidata:Requests for checkuser/Case.

Creating a request
  • Insert the name of the suspected sockpuppeteer (the main account or puppetmaster, not the sockpuppet!) in the box below, leaving out the "User:" prefix. Do not remove the text in the box, add to the end only.
  • Please explain/justify the request by saying what it is you suspect and why it is important that the check be carried out. Indicate the usernames you suspect, using {{checkuser}}. Please do not use this template in the section header, as that makes it difficult to read the account names. Include the diffs or links required to support the request and reason for it.
  • There are people to assist you and help with maintenance of the page. Just ask for help on the admin noticeboard if you really are stuck, or take your best shot and note that you weren't completely sure of what to say.
  • 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/transclude the subpage here at the bottom.
If you want to request a checkuser on User:John Doe, enter the text Wikidata:Requests for checkuser/Case/John Doe then click "Make a checkuser request". You will be taken to a page where you can fill out the request. Please make your request there brief and concise.

Translate this header box!

If this page is displaying outdated contents even after you refresh the page in your browser, please Purge.
For older requests, please see Wikidata:Requests for checkuser/Archives


Rationale, discussion and results[edit]

Reason: The user frequently cites EnWiki policy but doesn't have an account on EnWiki. In addition Edoderoo voiced additional suspicion at ChristianKl❫ 21:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Results: @Edoderoo: Which "5-letter-long user" do you refer to here? Other CheckUser's (@Sotiale, BRPever, علاء:) are free to disagree, but I'm not fully comfortable running a check with only the evidence that they cite enwiki policy without having edited there.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:23, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That other user is Jura1, a user on Telegram asked me for this as he/she had the feeling they were the same user. I learned that they took part in the same discussion(s), which made it borderline abusive as I as told. That is all I know so far. Edoderoo (talk) 04:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Edederoo: What evidence is there? I don't think it's characteristic of Jura to cite external policies.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree, I cannot see how MrProperLawAndOrder and Jura1 should be identical. However, User:Jura1 made two related comments on WD:AN in May regarding User:MrProperLawAndOrder (new account from early April), but without mentioning their user name:
In other words, the assumption is that User:MrProperLawAndOrder is an account operated by the person who received a global community ban at meta:Requests for comment/Global ban for Tobias Conradi in 2015, and who is assumed to have returned with lots IP activity and potentially some undeclared accounts since then. I think that quite some users here would agree that this person has never really left Wikimedia projects after the global ban, as they have been around pretty much all the time. Their fields of work, editing patterns, technological skills, formatting quirks, inability to accept consensus against their own position, and tendency to drift into pretty aggressive, accusive conversation manners in conflicts are all remarkable. User:MrProperLawAndOrder looks in many regards meanwhile like a sock of said banned user.
If that assumption was correct, User:MrProperLawAndOrder would have been a rather promising attempt for a clean start, as there was in the beginning not much conflict, but a lot of rather productive work for which they earned some applause from other users. Meanwhile, however, there have been some discussions in June that do not look promising any longer, and are reminiscent of said banned user's behavior.
I am not sure whether I should be happy about this request in the way how it was made. It is also unclear to me whether checkuser can help here at all, as I do not expect them to operate other accounts in parallel for which checkuser data is still available. However, the IP ranges usually used by the user in question are well-known (Telefonica ranges geolocating in Berlin, and sometimes also Hamburg-based IPs of another provider). That said, I would not be surprised if User:MrProperLawAndOrder would be blocked indefinitely rather soon anyways for behavioral reasons.
Disclaimer: recently I had some contact with them as well on Property talk:P213 and the corresponding property. ---MisterSynergy (talk) 13:06, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jasper Deng, Sotiale: I suggest what Jura said in Wikidata:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive/2020/04#Please_semi is about Tobias Conradi, and both the IP and MrProperLawAndOrder edited Property_talk:P7902. And there is almost certainly some information about this user in checkuserwiki.--GZWDer (talk) 13:34, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • On the grounds provided by @MisterSynergy, GZWDer: (but emphatically not the original evidence, which would never have been sufficient to run a check), I declare them Likely Tobias Conradi based on both technical evidence and the observed behavior. Therefore, their block is upgraded to indefinite as a sock.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:35, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sotiale, BRPever, علاء: Please lock this account and block any relevant IP ranges.--GZWDer (talk) 00:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I will review it and handle it soon. --Sotiale (talk) 06:49, 20 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

27 June 2021[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results[edit]

Reason: Global ban since 2015, creates socks or works as an IP with a similiar pattern: “in the beginning not much conflict, but a lot of rather productive work for which they earned some applause from other users [but then] some discussions […] that do not look promising any longer” (see above). The “not so promising phase“ has begun.

User:MisterSynergy has compiled a list of typical patterns (see above):

  1. Field of work: Interest in authority data (“Normdatentroll, SFZ-Troll, ISNI-Troll”, especially around GND ID (P227)-related properties such as Deutsche Biographie (GND) ID (P7902) (also the main field of activity in 2021)
  2. editing patterns: masses of edits in said field, mostly well-intentioned and productive but as the user has little to no ability to listen and discuss productively, not-so-great edits aren’t removed.
  3. technological skills as demonstrated in his work on Property talk:P7902
  4. formatting quirks such as
    • raw data mingled with complaints about data quality: compare 2020 vs 2021
    • endless lists with varying degrees of usefulness: 2019 vs 2021
  5. inability to accept consensus against their own position
  6. tendency to drift into pretty aggressive, accusive conversation manners in conflicts are all remarkable

For further reading on IP ranges and the questionable usefulness of CU and other actions see above.

Just for reference, the following recurring elements of the user’s behavior might lie in the future:

--Emu (talk) 15:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

+1. Same user as and User:Michael Montag. --Kolja21 (talk) 17:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Based on username and field of work, User:Matthias_Mittwoch is another one to look at. —MisterSynergy (talk) 11:54, 30 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Results: We have Michael Montag and HumanAFuser Confirmed to be the same. I would say (with the behavioral evidence) that it is Likely that they are Tobias Conradi.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:13, 30 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jasper Deng: Items created through and have very near resemblances with item created through b MrProperLawAndOrder. Given the evidence, I think to have to proceed as in 2020. --Epìdosis 08:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Epìdosis: Wikidata have no policy to delete pages merely because of they are created by blocked users, not is it a established practice.--GZWDer (talk) 09:13, 30 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@GZWDer, Jasper Deng: I perfectly agree, of course! With "I think to have to proceed as in 2020" in fact I meant the necessity of blocking the accounts as socks, not of deleting the items they created; in fact, as in 2020, I am against their deletion (and they weren't deleted in 2020) and I support their enrichment instead. --Epìdosis 11:12, 30 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Epìdosis: These two accounts are now locked.--GZWDer (talk) 14:37, 30 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

24 February 2023[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results[edit]

  1. Field of work: check, GND and similar authority data
  2. editing patterns: should be obvious from Special:Contributions/Humanisator
  3. technological skills: as always, Tobias shows quite some talent in his endeavours
  4. formatting quirks, inability to accept consensus against their own position and tendency to drift into pretty aggressive manners: see this textbook case including this: “It seems as if the goal of Kolja21 posting here is not to improve items about entities of type human that have or may have a P227 claim in the Wikimedia project named "Wikidata", but to create drama to intimidate a contributor and maybe get him kicked-out”

To be honest, I’m not even sure that we need a RfC per w:en:WP:RBI and w:en:WP:DUCK, but Epìdosis suggested one @Kolja21, Epìdosis, MisterSynergy: --Emu (talk) 12:30, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seems pretty Confirmed to me.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:13, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

26 February 2023[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results[edit]

Likely successor accounts to Humanisator after their “semi-retirement” @Kolja21, Epìdosis, MisterSynergy, Emu: --Emu (talk) 10:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

28 February 2023[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results[edit]

Another likely successor account. @1997kB, BRPever, Jasper Deng, Sotiale, علاء: Could we have some indication whether you plan to follow up on this case? Or do you consider this to be outside of CU territory? I don’t want to be pushy but this is a user with a lot of potential to disrupt Wikidata. --Emu (talk) 15:57, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Effectively these users starting immediately to write to other users asking for confirmations or edits regarding authority IDs are quite suspect (e.g. recently also Salatalık Kral (talkcontribslogs)). --Epìdosis 17:29, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That account is Confirmed to the above three accounts.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:17, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The above three are Confirmed to be the same and Likely Tobias Conradi. Herrenloses Damenfahrrad is Confirmed to be Tobias.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:11, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


@Kolja21, Epìdosis, MisterSynergy, Emu:

Werte Wikidata-Normdatler,

ich bin ein ehemaliges Mitglied der Redaktion Chemie der Wikipedia. Derzeit habe ich einen kaputten Knöchel und mache deswegen kurzweilige Wikidata-Edits.

Auf meiner früheren Arbeitsstelle sollte ich arbeiten und nicht Wikidata bearbeiten. Daher gewöhnte ich mir damals an, jeweils 50 (max. 65) Edits mit einem Wegwerf-Account zu tätigen und danach wieder ein neues Konto anzulegen. Es soll daher kein Geheimnis sein, dass ich

angelegt habe. Alle Konten haben dasselbe Passwort, das ich meinetwegen einem von euch mitteilen könnte.

Aus der Mehrzahl der Konten könnte man mir wohl einen Strick drehen: Ich weise darauf hin, dass sie konsekutiv aufeinander folgen und es keine zeitlichen Überschneidungen gibt. Ich logge mich üblicherweise nie wieder in alte Konten ein.

Über die Relevanz von Dingen (notability) kann man immer streiten, ich würde aber für jeden inhaltlichen Edit meine Hand ins Feuer legen.

Ich stelle gerne meine Telekom-Telefonnummer auf pastebin, lasse mich anrufen und kann dann beliebige mich verifizierende Edits von jedem dieser Konten tätigen.

PS: Bitte werft mich nicht mit dem Normdatentrolltroll zusammen. Ich habe mit jedem Konto z.B. Duplikate nach Property talk:P214/Duplicates/humans zusammengelegt. Ich hoffe sehr, dass ich dabei keinen einzigen Fehler gemacht habe. Falls doch, bitte mitteilen.

Bei Muḥammad Sallām Madkūr habe ich aufgrund der schwachen Datenlage nicht einfach zusammengelegt, sondern Kolja21, den ich schon oft als kurzen Dienstweg zur DNB benutzt habe (er möge mir das verzeihen), gefragt.

Bei nach DNB-Daten erstellten Datenobjekten von Russen oder Arabern fehlt oft der Name im Alphabet des Herkunftlands. Das korrigiere ich gerne. Beim Thailändischen fehlt mir die Fähigkeit dazu, sodass ich bei Sō̜nphachan Thavīkham peinlicherweise Google Translate benutzt habe. Habe ich sonst noch weitere Sünden begangen? Keines meiner Konten hat irgenwelche Debatten geführt wie der obige Troll.

CU-Hinweis: Ich editiere stets von einem Telekom-Heimanschluss im PLZ-Gebiet 38 aus.

Viele Grüße,

--Grifters gotta grift (talk) 16:55, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done blocked account for block evasion, implausible story --Emu (talk) 20:13, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

15 March 2023[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results[edit]

Reason: Aligned with the new tactic of creating items (people, papers, organizations) in a niche. Still with a fixation on certain users, see User_talk:Kolja21#Johannes_Günther. See also Wikidata:Administrators'_noticeboard#Do_we_need_RFCU_for_clear_cases_of_sockpuppetry_(Tamawashi_cases) Emu (talk) 11:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Comment Same behavoir by User:Ettiwdreg on German Wikipedia, see de:Benutzer Diskussion:Ettiwdreg#Altbekanntes Verhalten. --Kolja21 (talk) 22:03, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PS: He keeps deleting critical comments on his talk page. --Kolja21 (talk) 23:00, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


23 December 2022[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results[edit]

Reason: Modus operandi and similarity of user names. Lymantria (talk) 22:07, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Results: Confirmed beyond any doubt that the following are the same; blocked and tagged.

Jasper Deng (talk) 10:44, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

14 January 2023[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results[edit]

Reason: Identical MO. Lymantria (talk) 18:43, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Results: All are Confirmed matches to the master and are thus blocked and tagged. No other accounts found.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:14, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

23 March 2023[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results[edit]

Reason: Same behaviour, similar names. I expect there to be many more, these are just the ones from white hole (Q131468) from this year. Please let me know if I should list more. Dorades (talk) 12:39, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


28 August 2022[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results[edit]

Reason: Same behavioural patterns, editing same items. Jklamo (talk) 19:32, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Results: The main account is Stale so there is no data to compare with the second account. No comments on the IPs.--BRP ever 22:44, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

29 August 2022[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results[edit]

Reason: New accounts from today. Same behavioural patterns, editing same items. It seems like a never-ending story.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jklamo (talk • contribs).

Results: See below. --Sotiale (talk) 12:43, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

5 September 2022[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results[edit]

Reason: Yet another account. --Jklamo (talk) 22:12, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Results: No commnets on IPs. --Sotiale (talk) 12:43, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

8 September 2022[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results[edit]

Reason: Yet another account?--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:10, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@علاء:--Trade (talk) 12:00, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Results: Completed

  • Confirmed WikiUsr83, NdpoclP, TNT88, WiiisbetterthanPS4, CostanMauri, THU236, Iamnotascammer, BennyM88

All blocked. --Sotiale (talk) 12:44, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

3 October 2022[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results[edit]

Yet another incarnations. --Jklamo (talk) 08:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I appreciate the effort but we are not allowed to make CU requests based on IP's alone. If you look at the top of the page it says 'Do not post requests to compare IPs to accounts or IPs to IPs comparisons.' @Jklamo:--Trade (talk) 19:55, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

9 October 2022[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results[edit]

Yet another incarnation?--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:19, 9 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

05 April 2023[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results[edit]

Reason: Same interest, same behaviour. Dorades (talk) 19:30, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


25 April 2023[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results[edit]

Reason: Same interest, same behaviour. Dorades (talk) 19:13, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


12 April 2023[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results[edit]

Reason: Bukky658 posted an unblock request at User talk:Bukky658. This is a CU block, but Jasper Deng who applied it is inactive.The request seems reasonable to me and I am ready to support it, but I can not lift the block because I am not a checkuser. Could one of the checkusers please have a look and see whether the block (which might be a false positive) could be lifted. Thanks. Ymblanter (talk) 21:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Ymblanter. There are three other open unblock requests that have also been tied to this one (and hence to Wikidata:Requests for checkuser/Case/Marcyway4) and which are also potentially exonerated by the same explanation (see Semmy1960 in particular for more background information):
Bovlb (talk) 23:41, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, just to clarify, it's not clear that TemiteeonDiamond is in this group. They may be just independently waiting for a response from Jasper Deng. Sorry for the confusion. Bovlb (talk) 16:57, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Comment Sotiale Can you please close this request? --Alaa :)..! 21:58, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't recall the details of this request, but the conclusion was that Bukky658 was most likely not related to other users. Relationships between different users are all inconclusive as they were not the focus of my investigation at the time. --Sotiale (talk) 08:42, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sotiale So does that mean we can unblock them? Bovlb (talk) 16:31, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's just that Bukky658 is unrelated to other accounts, and I'm not sure if other accounts other than Bukky658 are related to each other. In my investigation, it was not the target. If this investigation is still needed, please let me know. If there is a checkuser who judged them as socks, please ask him/her first. --Sotiale (talk) 05:15, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All three were blocked by Jasper Deng, who has refused to respond to any queries on the matter for several months now. I would really appreciate it if another checkuser could pick up the slack here. You should be aware that this egregious delay in responding to unblock requests has already led to calls to disband local checkusers. Bovlb (talk) 15:00, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sotiale What do we need to do to move this forward? Bovlb (talk) 18:15, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bovlb: It's a bit limited data, and there are difficulties in that respect, but I just conducted the investigation to the best of my ability. I just lifted blocks on Semmy1960 and TemiteeonDiamond. Fortunately, Semmy1960 logged in a while ago. This is based on currently available data. Khaddy4 was left as it is because it was blocked on enwiki with same reason. --Sotiale (talk) 15:08, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! Bovlb (talk) 15:13, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


29 April 2023[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results[edit]

Reason: Creating similar promotion items on drug recovery companies. Any sleepers? Lymantria (talk) 07:10, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks like these are probably related

--Nintendofan885T&Cs apply 02:07, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Results: Confirmed; using VPN or Open proxy --Alaa :)..! 21:55, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

09 May 2023[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results[edit]

Reason: Looks like single purpose accounts, many of which only edited Q112812873 a couple of minutes after they were created. Self-promotion on enwiki, fawiki and Commons (and and dewiki on the first one). Nintendofan885T&Cs apply 01:40, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Results: These are only Possible except that it's Likely Kurdsport5577 = Shahoo5577. Meatpuppetry likely otherwise.--Jasper Deng (talk) 12:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

21 May 2023[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results[edit]

Reason: These users have been attempting to replace the content related to "Sam" (a disambiguation page in Wikidata and Thai Wikipedia) with the information about an artist, using incomprehensible language that appears to be generated by a translation machine. Potapt (talk) 16:32, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

P.S. Adding the user account WilliamSeanz, which has just been created but immediately starts engaging in conversation with the user account หวูเฟืองทู่.

Results: Confirmed the following are the same;  No comment on any IP addresses.

They are tagged as User:Smagzine who doesn't have a local account here but is a cross-wiki abuser.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:36, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

30 May 2023[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results[edit]

Reason: After Muhammedola got blocked, Cinemepro started to recreate the already deleted items. Both accounts focus on the very same persons and companies. Some of the items were (re-)created by IPs and right away edited by one of those two accounts afterwards. Dorades (talk) 17:48, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edit: After reviewing the accounts that created items for "Ernest Sturm", this case may be connected to Wikidata:Requests for checkuser/Case/Marcyway4. I also added two older accounts. --Dorades (talk) 18:00, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


30 May 2023[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results[edit]

Reason: User Alex.hernandez7 was recently blocked on behavioural grounds as a likely block evasion by Gold Gang Server (apparently a sock of Marcyway4) because they recreated a deleted item about Gold Gang Server. On User talk:Alex.hernandez7, the user claims that they are not related to the Gold Gang Server account. The other user, Alexhernanzed, has also recreated a deleted item about Gold Gang Server, but has not yet been blocked. Bovlb (talk) 19:52, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See also Wikidata:Requests for checkuser/Case/Marcyway4.

Results: Completed

  • Possible Gold Gang Server = Alex.hernandez7
  • Confirmed Alex.hernandez7 = Alexhernanzed

--Alaa :)..! 14:24, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Based on this equivocal result, I have unblocked Alex.hernandez7 and advised them not to use Alexhernanzed again. Bovlb (talk) 18:14, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

03 June 2023[edit]

Similar interest in "Arash Barmaan":

Similar interest in "Dennis Shen":

Rationale, discussion and results[edit]

Reason: User was blocked for block evasion on behavioural grounds after recreating two previously-deleted items. They are appealing their block. Bovlb (talk) 14:46, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Results: Completed

  • Group1 Confirmed Dcraigo = Muhammedola = Marvelprw = Aaremu746 = Ridypage = Dhollyliz = RobertMoore13 = Granitjarod = Kaizenify = Successpromas = Autopella = Bola112
  • Group2 Confirmed HIVAdvocate1o = Samowe = Muhammedola = Dennis Shen = Dakunpawo
  • Group1 = Group2; as Dcraigo = Muhammedola = Samowe

Note: Appear above users using highly dynamic ranges, and full with different spam! --Alaa :)..! 20:23, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. I'll get back to the user and also look into some of the extant item creations. Bovlb (talk) 20:43, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just for the record, the user is still protesting innocence, so I have asked @علاء to follow up with them. Bovlb (talk) 18:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]