Jump to content

Steward requests/Checkuser/2025-01

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
< Steward requests | Checkuser
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Sotiale in topic Requests


Requests

Latest comment: 1 year ago61 comments22 people in discussion

Byne Walter@pt.wikipedia

Status:    Not done
List of users
Byne Walter (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Wiki Automated (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Simbine0 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Reason(s): same disruptive changes as with blocked users, example (see Steward requests/Global/2024-w52#Global lock for Simbine0 and Wiki Automated or fr:Wikipédia:Faux-nez/Vandale occitaniste). --Ciseleur (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Not done Ptwiki has local checkusers who can do this. Please submit a request at pt:Wikipédia:Pedidos a verificadores instead. EPIC (talk) 19:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Mirkazım Bəy@az.wikipedia

Status:    Done
List of users
Mirkazım Bəy (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Ədhəm Qasımov (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Ədhəm Qasımov 2 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
YA ƏLİ SƏSLƏYƏRƏM, NASİBİNİ XAR EDƏRƏM (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Astaralı oğlan (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Eşq Dəlisi (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Reason(s): Same case as october and november checks. Mirkazım Bəy admitted that he is TALIŞOV: [1]. Then he created 2 new accounts (Ədhəm). Check is needed to find possible sleeper accounts. Nemoralis (talk) 01:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
All accounts  Confirmed. No likely sleepers found. EPIC (talk) 22:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

OiOiOi2025@no.wikipedia

Status:    Done
List of users
OiOiOi2025 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
1000km (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
DenSaak (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
~2025-2138 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
~2024-30705 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
~2025-3041 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Reason(s): The pattern of vandalism that the mentioned users exhibit are very similar, and targets mostly one user. This obviously seems like disruptive sockpuppetry, but I'd like to confirm the likelihood of the users being the same. Additionally, I am aware CheckUser is not for fishing, but if there is a possibility that these accounts are tied to any previous CheckUser requests or more established users, it would be helpful for us to know, but I understand if this is information that can't be shared. There are also three temporary accounts mentioned – I'm not certain what the policy about those and CheckUser are yet. The user has previously used a lot of unregistered IP users, but we have since transitioned to temporary accounts on nowiki. EdoAug (talk) 17:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
All  Confirmed along with Birk Fejerslev and T.Bunny555. Also found 1866A2024-32429 who might be related, but it's not certain. EPIC (talk) 22:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Alright! Thanks for your help. This doesn't really resolve anything, but at least it's confirmed that these are likely the same individual. Ty! EdoAug (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Wildcursive@zh.wikipedia

Status:    Not done
List of users
Wildcursive (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Cindyzs (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Reason(s): Cindyzs posted their personal political opinions on Wildcursive's user talk page, while Wildcursive refused to remove these comments, even though they were removed by other editors due to zh:WP:SOAP violation. Both of them edited articles on the same topic (Taiwanese politicians and politics). The time of their edits was also similar (i.e., mostly around night). SCP-2000 15:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
This, nor the zhwiki SPI, meet the diff/links requirement. General topic assessments make it difficult for stewards that don't speak the language to easily review and see your concern to justify the check. -- Amanda (she/her) 10:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
I see. On hold this request and will discuss with the community. Thanks. --SCP-2000 10:55, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
This has been sitting on hold for quite some time now, so at this point I am closing it. Please feel free to submit a new request once you are ready. EPIC (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Dervişli@tr.wikipedia

Status:    Not done
List of users
Dervişli (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Kastamonu Vehicle (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
  • CU log
  • Discussion: I am thought to be a puppet
Reason(s): It will be about a month and the lawsuit filed against me has not been concluded. The inspectors stated that they are busy in real life, so I am moving here and I want you to inspect me to see if I am a puppet. Thank you in advance for clearing doubts. Dervişli (talk) 11:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Not done.
  1. We do not check users on their own requst.
  2. When a wiki has local checkusers, stewards can only perform checks in emergencies. Otherwise, please ask the local checkusers to take care of it. EPIC (talk) 11:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Hi @EPIC Local inspectors said they were busy in real life and could not inspect at the moment, so I created an inspection request from Nurdan, it has been almost a month. Dervişli (talk) 11:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Yes, but the first point still applies, and I don't see that the local checkusers have consented to us performing a check anyway. EPIC (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
I understand, thanks. Dervişli (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Mirələmoğlu@az.wikipedia

Status:    Done
List of users
Mirələmoğlu (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Маммадзада (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Xanoğlanoğlu Pünhan (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Scnekti (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Reason(s): per Special:PermanentLink/28073302#Mirkazım Bəy@az.wikipedia. The user opened a troll account named "Mirələmoğlu" and was blocked. These accounts emerged later. Shows the same activity as other accounts. The 3. account creates the user page and enters a long summary. Edits made with the 2. account are only on the discussion pages. The 1. and 4. accounts blocked. Sincerely, Gadir (talk) 02:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Mirələmoğlu is  Confirmed to Маммадзада and to Mirkazım Bəy. Scnekti is Unrelated Unrelated from a technical point of view.
With that being said I can't find any obvious reason as to why Xanoğlanoğlu Pünhan might be related (which is why I didn't check them for now), and they didn't come up in the checks I performed. Could you explain further? EPIC (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
I think we can close this case. Sincerely, Gadir (talk) 11:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Closing as resolved then. EPIC (talk) 12:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Rastinition@zh.wikipedia

Status:    Not done
List of users
Rastinitionn (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
49.217.193.103 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

Reason(s): There was an initial claim originating from an anonymous IP, suggesting that due to previous edits made by other IPs involved in Rastinition-related pages, Rastinition was accused of using logged-out edits and sockpuppet IPs. During the accusation period, a new account, "Rastinitionn," mimicking Rastinition's naming style, was registered and became active. Opinions varied: some believed the case warranted a check, others thought more evidence was needed, while users "Rky03" and "段奇遂" argued that regardless of sockpuppet usage, Rastinition should be blocked.

Setting aside potential IP or sockpuppet interference, I am submitting this report early due to the impersonation by "Rastinitionn." I hope at least the impersonation issue can be investigated to determine if it is connected to me or any sockpuppets. If deemed appropriate, a check on logged-out edits can be conducted as well. Rastinition (talk) 09:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
It's a bit unclear what this request is asking for, but the way I see it, it seems that you want us to check Rastinitionn and the IP to determine the relationship to you and possibility of sockpuppets. Anyways, I'm marking as Not done for three reasons.
  1. This request was not posted by a local SPI clerk.
  2. Fishing CheckUser is not for fishing and IPs will not be connected to accounts.
  3. We do not check users on their own request.
With that being said Rastinitionn is also already locked for impersonation. EPIC (talk) 10:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Eissink@commons.wikimedia

Status:    Not done
List of users
Eissink (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Wwikix (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Reason(s): On behalf of User:Eissink via their talkpage on Commons, I am requesting a second opinion on this steward decision from 2023. Their account is now connected to (as far as I can see) a total of 17 sockpuppets, which he disputes.
As an admin on nlwp since 2006, I was a bit surprised to learn that Wwikix (locally blocked per ArbCom ruling, mainly for content disputes about categorization and similar) and Eissink (locally blocked for violation of privacy) are connected. Both users were quite active on nlwp at the time, but their edit patterns, the way they were present in off-wiki spaces (IRC chat), and the final reason for their local blocks were very different. Of course, if the CU at the time was clear I'll leave it there, but the other connections that were found per the duck test in 2023 (links in the top of this request) to the other 16 accounts now connected on Commons might also be incorrect. Can the whole case please receive a second opinion? Ciell (talk) 15:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Unfortunately this request cannot be processed, mainly for two reasons. First one being that Commons has local checkusers, the second being that both users were locked long ago and thus the data from them is long expired. With that being said, looking at the past data from CU wiki I can't find an obvious technical connection between them, and they were both locked for different reasons each (Eissink was locked as globally banned while Wwikix was locked for cross-wiki abuse), so I can't see any obvious reasons that they are the same person. EPIC (talk) 15:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Hi @EPIC, thanks for looking into this.
So the old CU data does not confirm a connection between Eissink and Wwikix? My suspicion is that the additional accounts belong to Wwikix, and Eissink just got caught in the cross fire. As you can see, Eissink is not appealing the block but only the connection to the sockpuppets in the category, and the category on Commons is created in May 2023 because "the Stewards say this is the case". Commons CU's therefore might not be able to help here. Ciell (talk) 16:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Here's what I think might have happened:
  • In May 2023 an admin on Commons advises to get a CU about a group of sockpuppets, suggesting they may be connected to Eissink;
  • Another user requests the CU on Meta for "global ban evasion by Eissink / Wwikix". The forward slash in the title, and in the question below the accounts, can mean they are the same ("Eissink, also known as Wwikix"), or might mean the requesting user is in doubt who to connect the sockpuppets too ("either/or");
    • The steward notices that the admin on Commons was only suggesting a connection with Eissink and advised to get the CU because they weren't sure. Let's also notice the user who did the original research back on Commons, looking for matching behavioural pattern across the sockpuppets, did not mention Eissink or Wwikix in his original posting;
  • The steward then looks as login info, and these match for the accounts. However, Eissinks account is not listed among the other sockpuppets, neither is Wwikix;
  • Back on Commons, a user who reads the conclusion of the Steward, "checkuser information on Login wiki do match", and creates a category to keep track of the sockpuppets of Eissink - since this name was in the title of the request on Meta. All accounts in the cat get the template they are sockpuppets of Eissink because the connection is there according to the stewards.
I have asked the admin on Commons to share the reasoning why they originally connected the sockpuppets to Eissink. Also, I think it would help to know if both the accounts of Wwikix and Eissink were included in the review by the steward did (if they can still remember, I don't know if a login lookup is logged). Ciell (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
I agree with this interpretation: Looking back into the loginwiki logs, I cannot find CheckUser actions for either of both, Eissink and Wwikix, during that request in 2023. I can only see that the socks were checked. Unless Teles has other information on that, I cannot see a clear connection between Eissink and Wwikix which is why I would suggest to distinguish these two cases/users. Best, —DerHexer (Talk) 08:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
If there remains uncertainty, could the lwcu log entries be dumped on cuwiki? The nlwiki CU's would like to give their analysis, as we are the most familiar with both users, but right now we find insufficient technical or behavioral evidence to establish a link between these accounts. XXBlackburnXx (talk) 09:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
@XXBlackburnXx: Done, see [2]. EPIC (talk) 09:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks @DerHexer for pinging. I don’t have access anymore to CU wiki, nor login wiki. I almost never store information on my personal computer; I prefer to store on CU wiki when required. So, I don’t have more technical infornation to share. It’s possible that I have read the case assuming that both accounts were already linked to each other by the way it was requested; I can’t remember for sure. I remember though that I was prepared to deny the checking at first for lacking reason, but then it was added and I considered enough for at least checking. Information on login wiki as far as I recall was clear enough to directly link the accounts. I just can’t remember whether only one account could be linked or both. Again, sorry for not helping much. It’s been some time and I don’t have access anymore. —Teles «Talk ˱C L @ S˲» 11:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
If the conclusion is that there is no obvious connection between Eissink and Wwikix, could this perhaps be re-closed then? In either case there isn't anything for us to do here, as there won't be any checks we can perform in this case so there's only past data to rely on. EPIC (talk) 12:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
@EPIC that may be the best option if nothing can be retrieved from logs and it wouldn’t really change anything, unless the user is thinking about asking a ban lift. From someone that don’t follow closely these socks, I don’t think their edits are that much different on Commons, but I can’t say it’s enough to hit the duck test. I wouldn’t mind if categories on Commons are fixed so these accounts are not linked anymore, even though I would like to have a look on logs. Maybe @Multichill or @Jeff G. have something else to add? —Teles «Talk ˱C L @ S˲» 12:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
So, based on the given LWCU log entries and behavioral analysis, this seems to be Wwikix all the way, so the locking was appropriate. But the alleged connection to Eissink is incorrect and should perhaps be updated both on Commons and in the lock reason (though I don't have a strong opinion on the latter) until there's compelling evidence that Wwikix == Eissink, which is not the case here or anywhere on cuwiki. The statement 'my guess is that this is all User:Eissink based on the edit pattern' (which is not even true) does not constitute substantiated evidence.
We can indeed perhaps close this request since there's nothing left to do here - it's up to Commons admins to fix this misunderstanding. XXBlackburnXx (talk) 14:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughts y'all, and for the second (and third, and fourth...) pair of eyes! I'll take the result back to Commons and make the necessary corrections. Ciell (talk) 17:36, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

(LWCU) Anticapinyalice, Nathan2718

Status:    Cannot be undertaken
List of users
Anticapinyalice (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Nathan2718 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Reason(s): Hello, i'm Le chat perché, CU from the french Wikipedia, Nathan2718 is a sockpuppet of this local LTA (see also Wikipedia/fr/Football Lab on the CU's private wiki). It appears that, while not blocked on wikidata, he's doing the same POV pushing on Wikidata today that he use to do in fr.wikipedia on one page, and today Anticapinyalice for his first edit is doing the same on fr.wikipedia. I'v check locally but, though i have some datas for Nathan2718, the date are from october. I've concluded negatively but i think a LWCU with Wikidata's datas would be relevant to have a definitive advice. Regards Le chat perché (talk) 17:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Unfortunately the LWCU data for both users has expired so there is no data for us to compare with. However, there is past information from one of the accounts on CU wiki, and the other edited frwiki as recently as today, so you will simply have to rely on local data for this case. EPIC (talk) 17:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
@EPIC, i've already done that but in my opinion it's not sufficient to exonerate our LTA because of the time between the local logs on fr .
However i don't understand how data could be expired ? Anticapinyalice has contributed today on french Wikipedia, Nathan2718 has contributed today on Nathan2718. What i ask, if possible, is to compare those to logs wich i can't do as a local CU on fr.wikipedia. Le chat perché (talk) 17:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
@Le chat perché both accounts registered more than 90 days ago and loginwiki only stores the IP from account registration, not from every login. There is of course data on local projects where they are active, but no longer any data on loginwiki. If you believe they should be checked on Wikidata, you should ask Wikidata CU. If there is xwiki abuse in multiple projects, you can request a global lock at SRG. Johannnes89 (talk) 18:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

蒙古天驕@zh.wikipedia

Status:    Done
List of users
蒙古天骄 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
夏土贤 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

Reason(s): Requested by local admin. “蒙古天骄” is registered after “夏士贤” was blocked. Ducked by their similar editing contributions in history related articles.

Please refer to local discussions. A sleeper check is requested. Many thanks.-Manchiu (talk) 11:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion link seems to be broken. And has there been any recent changes to the clerks system? --Sotiale (talk) 11:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Sorry. I fixed the link already. Because of the community’s consensus and we want to have the CU result ASAP, so I submitted this request directly. This does not imply any change of the clerk system. Thanks. -Manchiu (talk) 15:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Hello all. I have been requested to comment here about the status of the clerk system. Currently, there are only two active clerks on zhwiki (3 after Feb. 12th as I will return from WikiBreak, according to my zhwiki user page) from five clerks when the clerk system was originally established. I have recognized the need for additional clerks and will work closely and actively with the clerk team on seeking prospective clerks to join the team. This check is primarily endorsed by community; I support this sleeper check as well, noting the necessity given 夏土贤's frequent sock creations since Dec. 23 of last year. --∫（☎） 02:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
They're Likely Likely the same person. There are several sleepers, those I found being Fdcsjd, Custthedown, 刘生堂, 挚爱小哆, Ehrijrf, Es119es and 塔林呼恒. EPIC (talk) 06:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Futurolog21@az.wikipedia

Status:    Done
List of users
Futurolog21 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
PinkEmaa (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Reason(s): This change made by PinkEmaa caught my attention (because Futurolog21 was interested in these topics). I think it might be related to Futurolog21. If there is technical data, I want you to look at it. Apart from this, I would like to talk about the activities here. Although the user is new, (registration date: December 15, 2024) it is clear that she is experienced. Sincerely, Gadir (talk) 15:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Possible Possible but Inconclusive Inconclusive, based on the previous check on Futurolog21. They share the same ISP, but not the same range(s). I found some other accounts in the check, though none of them are blocked. With that being said, the data from the last check was not documented anywhere and therefore I don't have much technical data to go by, except the log actions from the previous check. Therefore, this result isn't certain. EPIC (talk) 17:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Carinanegurici13@ro.wikipedia

Status:    Done
List of users
Carinanegurici13 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Diana.surdu141 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Dianaplaton131290 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Cristinatofan22 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Reason(s): Accounts created in a short period of time to introduce similar changes consisting of advertising and self-promotion pages of commercial companies. Same presentation style and references. Technical confirmation needed in order to block them. --Pafsanias (talk) 11:20, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Confirmed Cristinatofan22, Dianaplaton131290, Diana.surdu141, Carinanegurici13, Adnanamiron, Adinavranceanu, Andreiadomnicai02

From a technical point of view. --Sotiale (talk) 08:58, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Donwun@zh.wikipedia

Status:    Done
List of users
Donwun (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Reason(s): After Donwun was reported to the administrator noticeboard for repeatedly removing maintenance templates (notability) from an article, they were suspected to make logged-out edits to debate about the notability concerns on the noticeboard (Wikipedia namespace) and leave uncivil comments on user talk pages. Thanks in advance! -- 94rain Talk 10:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
  • There is no evidence that they did IP socking.

--Sotiale (talk) 09:06, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

TALIŞOV@az.wikipedia

Status:    Done
List of users
TALIŞOV (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Mirkazım Bəy (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Qəzənfər1747 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Reason(s): Sockmaster. I am sure that the account is "Qəzənfər1747". Please let me know based on previous discussions ([1], [2], [3]). The user is very experienced and just registered. Sincerely, Gadir (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
Likely Likely. Since the data from TALIŞOV has expired I only checked Mirkazım Bəy and Qəzənfər1747. EPIC (talk) 17:03, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Mirkazım Bəy@az.wikipedia

Status:    Done
List of users
Mirkazım Bəy (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Qəzənfər1747 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Xəttabzadə (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Reason(s): Sock of Qəzənfər1747. Sleeper account. After the last account was blocked (Qəzənfər1747), this inactive account is activated. Sincerely, Gadir (talk) 14:19, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
All of them are Likely Likely to each other. @Gadir: Pinging for results as I was asked to do so. EPIC (talk) 10:31, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Fafreecca@ro.wikipedia

Status:    Done
List of users
Fafreecca (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Astrtasd321 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Reason(s): Problematic changes in BLPs. The first account is blocked, but when the block appeared imminent, the second one took over with the same changes. w:WP:DUCK certainly applies to these two accounts, but I suspect there are also dormant ones. Andrei Stroe (talk) 13:20, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
They're both  Confirmed to each other. No other accounts found. EPIC (talk) 16:47, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

安竹@zh.wikipedia

Status:    Done
List of users
安竹 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
S1222 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Reason(s): These accounts are lta Qqqyyy's sockpuppets. Please check sleepers and block their using IP address if possible. Thanks. --SCP-2000 04:58, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
First of all, they are  Confirmed. And even though I investigated their ranges widely, I couldn't find the hidden account. And the ranges they use are normal ranges that are used by a lot of users, so I didn't block IP ranges because it seems like too much collateral damage would occur compared to the creation of their accounts. --Sotiale (talk) 07:40, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Kone718@zh.wikipedia

Status:    Done
List of users
Kone718 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Lrmlo (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Reason(s): Users found to have similar editing and discussion areas with similar editing POV mistakes (using "我國" - our country). User 1 is blocked in Nov last year, a check is requested to see if there has been block evasion, given suspicions from behavioural evidence but insufficient to duck. LuciferianThomas 13:30, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Likely Likely Kone718 and Lrmlo
  • They're using OPs or VPN.

--Sotiale (talk) 14:51, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

SPM straight A+@zh.wikipedia

Status:    Done
List of users
SPM straight A+ (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
I love my doggie (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Reason(s): Highly overlapping editing areas, with similar violations of bolding and text enlarging. Requesting check to see if this is just an interaction between two users misunderstanding MOSes or actual socks. LuciferianThomas 14:35, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Confirmed SPM straight A+, Nabil Mukhlis, I love my doggie

From a technical point of view. --Sotiale (talk) 14:57, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steward_requests/Checkuser/2025-01&oldid=28198900"