Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Bonaparte


If you are creating a new request about this user, please add it to the top of the page, above this notice. Don't forget to add
{{Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Bonaparte}}
to the checkuser page here. Previous requests (shown below), and this box, will be automatically hidden on Requests for checkuser (but will still appear here).
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.

Bonaparte

request links: main • edit • links • history • watch • talk
Filed: 12:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Codes: E[1], F [2]

Also, maybe it is helpful to know some recently blocked sockpuppets of Bonaparte: Flueras (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), ClaudiuLine (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), 194.111.136.223 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (open proxy), 61.145.163.228 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (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)[reply]

Also, it may be advisable to check Boris ru (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), a newly registered user (first edit June 9), with his 8 edits generally legit, but with his 7th edit on Wikipedia on my userpage [3], introducing fictional babel boxes.Xasha (talk) 10:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jayjg (talk) 05:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Clerk note: - blocked and tagged. Tiptoety talk 01:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bonaparte

request links: main • edit • links • history • watch • talk
Filed: 14:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Like other accounts listed below, Suchwings1 edits in two areas: Romanian economy and Bessarabian/Moldovan issues (see his contributions). His style, very reminiscent of Bonaparte's, involves seemingly manipulative edits which make Romanian economy look better than it actually is (see here, where he seems to have changed referenced text without changing the references). He is involved in a traditional Moldovan-themed edit war, introducing POV (see here), and he wastes the community's time with polls such this. Dahn (talk) 14:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed - also Edgesusedarea (talk · contribs), SzékA (talk · contribs) - Alison ❤ 15:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked accordingly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bonaparte

request links: main • edit • links • history • watch • talk
Filed: 06:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Code: F.

Bonaparte is known for editing economic data on Romania and Moldova related pages, this user is new and shows the same patterns, changes data without exaplanations or references. Sorry if I messed up the format, it's the first time I file a checkuser. -- AdrianTM (talk) 06:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Additional information needed - going to need a bit more information than this; diffs, etc, to show abusive sock-puppetry. Especially given the main account (User:Bonaparte) is long stale - Alison ❤ 12:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a quite obvious through-away Bonaparte sock. I have blocked it indefinetly based on the contributions Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
no Unnecessary so - Alison ❤ 06:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bonaparte

request links: main • edit • links • history • watch • talk
Filed: 14:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Code: F.

Creation of numerous low-level article related to Romania with an over-optimistic and praising tone. (Bonaparte thought Romania is "a regional power"). Inclusion of noted anti-semitic books as sources in articles. Support of each other's version of an article.Anonimu (talk) 14:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: The link to the block log of the original account, as required in Code Letter "F", is located here. Anthøny 16:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Confirmed - for Sambure (talk · contribs), also Cezarika f. (talk · contribs), Sputnik Sattelite (talk · contribs), Nistriana (talk · contribs), Mr. Diegos (talk · contribs), Space Appolo (talk · contribs) and Moldorubo (talk · contribs) - Alison ❤ 17:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Red X Unrelated - for Nergaal (talk · contribs) - Alison ❤ 17:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bonaparte

request links: main • edit • links • history • watch • talk
Filed: 06:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Code F.

Disruptive SPA reinciting the old edit wars at Transnistria. Obvious behaviour/language similarities to Bonnie. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'd rather guess that this is sock of user:EvilAlex. `'Míkka 08:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, could also be. In which case it would be in violation of the topic ban from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Transnistria. But somehow I doubt the checkusers have EvilAlex' old IP data saved, unfortunately. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Red X Unrelated to Bonaparte,  Likely EvilAlex. Dmcdevit·t 12:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for the quick response. I guess the "likely" finding plus the similarity in behaviour is grounds enough to assume sockpuppetry. If there are no objections, I'll block. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't you be 100-percent sure or are you employed by Blackwater? Lol... --Thus Spake Anittas 18:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bonaparte

request links: main • edit • links • history • watch • talk
Filed: 21:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Filed by Mikkalai (talk · contribs)

The above set of users appear not to be novices in wikipedia. They continue the work of Ursul pacalit de vulpe and have one and the same style and purpose of editing. I blocked Christian.Maracuta indefinitely because he blanked my warnig about copyrigghts and continued his cut and paste. I blocked Ages.shihft because he did the same type of cut and paste. User:Bonaparte is well known expert sock puppetter driving several socks with single hand. Please keep in mind that these accounts may operate via open proxies. This is the favorite modus operandi of Bonaparte. `'Míkka 18:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: you have given a Code Letter of F - evasion of community-based bans or blocks. Please provide a link to the block log of the original account. Anthøny (contact ⇔ talk) 21:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He's a well known vandal, LTA sub-page included, don't thing a link is needed (plus, the block log link is included with the {{checkuser}} template). Kwsn(Ni!) 23:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We can't assume everyone knows who this is. I'd probably say only wikipedia connoisseurs know every serial vandal on the site. If not, see WP:BU. VoltronForce 13:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say only "wikipedia connoisseurs" have any business clerking on this page. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed all, also Thin Film (talk · contribs) and Notedapplytimescoach (talk · contribs). Dmcdevit·t 21:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bonaparte

request links: main • edit • links • history • watch • talk
Filed: 21:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Filed by DBishop1984 (talk · contribs)

Currently in a edit war with user:PANONIAN on the article Central Serbia. Panonian suspects sockpuppetry and asked for a checkuser on Wallak.

 Clerk note: It would be helpful if there are difs provided of the revert war on the article. Miranda 21:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I just discovered Wallak as the latest edit on Romanians, per NorbertArthur below. Also, I'm not exactly sure how to do the difs linking. DBishop1984 21:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a dif[[4]] on the Central Serbia article regarding Romanian identity. Also note comments in PANONIANS talk page
I hope as soon as possible to give me the verdict I'm not, so that I could continue my work in peace. I'm tired of these accusations which became like an argument to revert my work in articles.--WallakTalk 19:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Confirmed that this is the same user as:
  1. Tones benefit (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  2. Ursul pacalit de vulpe (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  3. Indexxs (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  4. ŞtefanIaşi (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
which should suffice.  IP blocked. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bonaparte

request links: main • edit • links • history • watch • talk
Filed: 09:18, 24 July 2007

Filed by Anittas (talk · contribs)

 Clerk note: Cleaned this up and added name of the user who filed. GrooveDog (talk) 22:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure as to rationale, but Ursul is currently blocked as a sockpuppet of Bonaparte, and is requesting unblocking. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Delisted No link to community ban, or even a real reason as to why a CheckUser is needed. Diez2 05:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You could have checked below. It is all about him and the reason hasn't changed. --Thus Spake Anittas 06:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted Sorry about that.... Diez2 15:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:(unindent)  Additional information needed A link is needed to the community ban. Diez2 15:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned at Wikipedia:List of banned users#Bonaparte. Not aware of any outstanding challenges on this ban; it's been in place for some time, AFAIK. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a point of order - a link to where the ban was actually given is not needed for code F, merely a link to the block log. Martinp23 01:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but is Ursul the same user as Bonaparte? That is the question. --Thus Spake Anittas 20:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed; Indexxs (talk · contribs) as well. Mackensen (talk) 23:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tones benefit and Bonaparte

User:Tones benefit engaged in edit warring over the articles related to Moldova and Moldovan language (some of the diffs are listed here). This is why the suspicion aroused of him being Bonaparte. He was eventually blocked for 3RR violation (block log). He also makes reverts at the Georgia (country) (diff1, diff2, diff3) and makes disruptive comments at its talkpage ("you lack support", "You are in contradiction with the other editors. Why the other 3 are reverting you?", "Please try to reach consensus, since you're single and the other editors don't agree with you.", another one). They could be seen in context here. Some of them are just untrue and the editor has no desire to present sources supporting the version he reverts to. Alæxis¿question? 12:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Delisted Code letter incorrect. "F" is for community-based bans or blocks. GrooveDog (talk) 14:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's Bonaparte's block log. Alæxis¿question? 14:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
uhh...Bonaparte is a well known recurring cross-wiki troll. Voice-of-All 21:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Possible. Voice-of-All 22:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


My mistake in delisting, I had never heard of Bonaparte. Apologies! :) GrooveDog (talk) 22:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC) What possible? I'm new in Wikipedia but that person Alaexis is very strange.--Tones benefit 11:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user continues the pattern of disruptive editing, typical for user:Bonaparte. Such impenetrable persistence despite numerous rejections suggests some mental illness of Bonaparte. `'Miikka 16:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Burak18 and Bonaparte

  • Burak18 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Bonaparte (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • 193.164.254.50 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • Code letter: F

Burak18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Bonaparte (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are two banned sockpuppeteers. Bonaparte focusses on Romania, while Burak18 focusses on Turkey and football. A request for CheckUser on a possible Bonaparte sock, Sosomk (talk · contribs), has just been made. Sosomk has several comments on his user page, left there by a "User:Bonaparte". The messages were in fact left by IP 193.164.254.50 (talk · contribs): [5] and [6]. A mere three minutes after the second message, the IP started to vandalize in a manner consistent with Burak18: [7], [8] and [9]. During this, the IP also made an edit to 2006 Georgian-Russian espionage controversy that could be considered consistent with Bonaparte. The IP might be a copycat, a wannabe, or he might try to lead us astray. But it might also mean that two notorious sockpuppeteers are in fact one and the same. For a list of IPs used by Burak18, see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Burak18. For a list of IPs used by Bonaparte, see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Bonaparte. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 13:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Inconclusive, but not likely. Jayjg (talk) 18:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bonaparte

  • Code letter: F

Bonaparte is a comunity banned user notorius for mass creating sockpuppets and abusing open proxies. He once posed as a Georgian nationalist User:Georgianis. Bonaparte hates User:Khoikhoi and uses multiple sockpuppets to harass him (e.g. [10]). Bonaparte is also known for his love to troll on RfAs.

Now we have another users posed as a native Georgian born in Tbilisi, the capital of Georgia. He trolls on the Khoikhoi's Rfa (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Khoikhoi 2) and generally harasses him (e.g. [11]), praises Bonaparte ([12], [13]). I have looked through almost one thousand of his edits and have not found a single one showing any command on Georgian History and Culture (besides copying a couple of texts from an English edition of Georgian Enciclopedia). The user seems to not even know Georgian language - he never inserts Georgian spelling or Georgian-language references. I have also looked into the first edit of Sosomk [14]. Can you imagine a new user starts from jumping into a talk page of an obscure article, he was never intersted of and start harassing other users? One of a possible explanations would be a sock of a user having arguments with Ghirlandajo who just monitored his contributions.

When checking the user please take into account that Bonaparte is notorius for using open proxies and malware. Alex Bakharev 00:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What IP evidence could we check it against? Do we have any edits from Bonaparte recent enough to check that haven't been on open proxies? Dmcdevit·t 06:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe ask User:Jayjg he recently discovered a few of Bonaparte's socks including User:Georgianis and User:РКП ? Alex Bakharev 07:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Red X Unrelated Jayjg (talk) 18:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eliade

  • Eliade (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • 159.148.3.187 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • Bonaparte (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Possibly used to evade 3RR on Bulgaria. Also, it is suspected that User:Eliade may be a sockpuppet himself, because he possesses remarkable knowledge of policies for a "brand new" editor, engages in nationalsit editing and trolling, and uses an anon proxy. It is thought that he may be a sockpuppet of User:Bonaparte, another Romanian Wikipedian who was banned for sockpuppetry and engaged in similar disputes. Todor→Bozhinov 15:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do a full investigation. You will not find any connection with anything. I'm waiting your response. --Eliade 16:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note the user is relying on the use of various anonymous proxies. The behaviour of the IP is largely the same as the user's. Todor→Bozhinov 16:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this user has very similar behavior with Bonaparte. So much for assuming good faith on my part. :( You'll notice that all Bonaparte socks are always disruptive, possess a Romanian nationalistic POV, make little "fake edits" such as these and are usually pissed off at mikka most of the time. I'm still waiting for the last one to happen. —Khoikhoi 17:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No connection have been made with Bonaparte or 159.148.3.187, then why user:Eliade has been permaned blocked? Is this not an abuse of power? --195.131.171.154 06:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because of items 1,2 and 3 of the policy above abakharev 08:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's fairplay. Alex at his old age will have nightmare and his conscience will suffer. How did you blocked a person without any evidence? However, I don't support any association with Bonaparte.--198.70.193.2 13:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Identification and handling of suspected sock puppets, the evidence provided is more than enough. A CheckUser is not compulsory in such obvious cases. And please no personal attacks. Todor→Bozhinov 13:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: The most recent Bonaparte case is Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Greier. Jayjg seems to be the checkuser Bonaparte expert. Thatcher131 (talk) 02:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

information Note: Deferred to Jayjg. Mackensen (talk) 01:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed Quite obvious, both from the editing style, and the CheckUser evidence. He's moved on to User:ElevatedStork now. Jayjg (talk) 15:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed Also Noisettes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Ćele Kula (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Latinitas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Georgianis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Economistul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Jayjg (talk) 04:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NorbertArthur, Andrei George, Bombonel, & two anons

I have reason to believe the following are the same person, or at least two of them are. It seems that this person is using these different accounts to bypass the 3RR on a number of pages, most notably the Romanians aritcle. Most of these users/accounts have been extremely disruptive lately, and have gotten into large-scale edit wars with a number of users. —Khoikhoi 22:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Being familiar with the background of the editing history at Romanians and other related articles, there is a discernable pattern (for some users at least) which might indicate some sockpuppetry. However, I'm quite convinced that User:NorbertArthur is a bona fide user, distinct from the other accounts- based on my interactions with him these past few months- and don't think that his account needs investigating. Some of the others, however, such as Andrei, Bombonel (and also Romania (talk · contribs), Iasi (talk · contribs), Romanian (talk · contribs)) have exhibited suspicious behaviour, and the possibility remains that they are in some way associated with Bonaparte (talk · contribs · count), who was indefinitely banned for "malicious sockpuppetry and running a botnet" in January. --cjllw | TALK 00:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm slightly amused that while StabiloBoss wasn't a sockpuppet of De Mortuuis below, he was still someone's sockpuppet. --Syrthiss 21:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, I don't believe this! Thank you! —Khoikhoi 23:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JamieBattenbo and StabiloBoss

As the userbox and sockpuppetry paranoias lead to ridiculous accusations [15] [16] please verify that JamieBattenbo and StabiloBoss are not even from the same country as ROGNNTUDJUU! and I. De mortuis... 14:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, those were ridiculuous accusations all right. Sockpuppeting is probably the fastest way to destroy your credibility around here. Editorializing aside, those users are likely not your sockpuppets. Mackensen (talk) 15:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As it turns out, StabiloBoss was indeed a sockpuppet, but of Bonaparte (and many others). See above. Jayjg (talk) 23:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chisinau (talk · contribs)

Chisinau (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a recently registered account has all the features of now permabanned Bonaparte (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Because the latter was known to use open proxies in the past, the IP match might not show much. What needs done, is the IP used by User:Chisinau be checked for being an open proxy and if the check gives positive, both the user and the IP need to be permabanned. He is already a headache. No need to wait until this escalate into a bigger drama. He is going to turn this into a childish "Why are you so anti-Romanian?" anyway. --Irpen 20:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

irpen deletes my contributions. I ask him about it but he gave no answer. I ask him why he is anti-romanian? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chisinau (talk • contribs)

Ditto! --Irpen 20:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, Chisinau (talk · contribs) and Moldoveanu (talk · contribs) appear to be the same person. Still checking out association with anyone else. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
add here Stefan_cel_Mare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). mikka (t) 20:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And while at it, please check whether the IPs they use are open proxies and if so, there is no need to investigate anything else since open proxies need to be blocked as per WP policy on their own merit. Thanks, --Irpen 01:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Please check all users in category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Bonaparte for open proxy and label their user pages is OP are detected, so that not to repeat this check n the future. I am sure this category will grow, since Bonaparte's hatred for "anti-Romanians" shines bright. mikka (t) 20:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This case went quiet, so IMO you may close this item now. mikka (t) 19:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser requests for Yodo, Monor, and Boxero

Yodo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Monor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Boxero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Yodo has a history of 19 edits. Of this 19 edits, 9 edits are to Romania, 2 to his userpage and remaining 9 edits are RfAdm votes.

User:Monor has a history of 11 edits. Of this 11 edits, 3 edits are to Romania, 1 to Bulgaria, 2 to his userpage and remanining 5 edits are RfAdm votes. Additionaly, vote is cast next to the vote of the user:Yodo above, both likely sockpuppets with a very similar pattern.

User:Boxero has a history of 12 edits. Of this 12 edits, 6 edits are to Romania, 1 to Tourism in Romania, 1 to his userpage and remanining 4 edits are RfAdm votes. Additionaly, identical pattern to Yodo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Monor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) above. All three are likely sockpuppets with a very similar pattern and sockpuppets of some other user . Strongly request a m:Checkuser. --Irpen 23:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty clear that User:Monor and User:Boxero are socks of Bonaparte (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is quite probably using a botnet or other proxy mechanism to edit from a home base in Romania via proxies in the Ukraine, Bulgaria, and Taiwan. He slipped with one of Monor's and one of Boxero's edits, editing them from Romania instead of via the proxies he had assigned for their use. There is no evidence for concluding that User:Yodo is part of the puppet show -- could be, but nothing to prove, or disprove, it. Findings reported to WP:AN/I for further action. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All blocked, including Bonaparte at least until more feedback can be gotten on AN/I as to what Bonaparte's ban should be. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 01:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duca (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppet of now indefinitely banned Bonaparte (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I remember this Duca fellow for extremely offensive trolling around contentious Romania/Moldova related articles months ago. Then he disappeared and now, after Boni's banned Duca is back with his trademark style entry [17], [18]. If Boni's reincarnation, should be banned indef. If just his twin-brother, still a shorter block would be helpful. --Irpen 18:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duca is not using any address known to be used by Bonaparte. This proves very little, though, as Bonaparte used proxies in at least five different countries, and I have no reason to believe that I have found all of his sockpuppets or proxies. Treat this one as inconclusive. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.
Subsequent requests related to this user should be made above, in a new section.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Bonaparte&oldid=1140161379"