Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Grawp

''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it .''

Dec 31

 * This Ip address has a long history of vandalism on wikipedia, and has created many Grawp accounts on other wikis such as PALAEOS.org, I looked it up on WHOIS and i found out this address comes from the same city and state that JaraxleArtemis/Grawp comes from.--Fang 23 (talk) 18:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Grawp, 23 August 2008

 * Some older socks for visual comparison




 * Tonight's batch of socks for technical comparison




 * Some new socks to check




 * Code letter: G

The first two listed are much older Grawp socks, obvious on sight and already blocked; I'm including these to demonstrate a link to some of the listed usernames, which are based on song lyrics. The next four were active tonight, and are likewise blocked, around the same time these last three were created; I'm including them for technical comparison. Also interesting to note, it appears Grawp is back to creating accounts locally, rather than globalizing them from other wikis.

So. These last three seem related to me; does technical evidence support that? May be worthwhile to check for underlying proxies/ranges, in the meantime. – Luna Santin  (talk) 09:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The first, oldest example are now, so not much use.


 * ✅ - these are Grawp, 100% certain again;


 * - with 5 more accounts registered using an open proxy.
 * - open proxy, no additional accounts.
 * - with 5 more accounts registered using an open proxy.
 * - open proxy.


 * ✅ -The last three are also Grawp. 100% certain, and there are the usual other three socks. The single IP is a TOR exit node but it's still Grawp:




 * all TOR nodes and open proxies, hardblocked - A l is o n  ❤ 09:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Grawp, July 12th
Goatse-tabled a couple of users talk paes. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 14:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This user has been renamed to User:Renamed user 27. Tiptoety  talk 02:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing useful found. Dynamic IP.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Grawp, July 5th

 * This ip address redirected a page to hagger, it might be an ip address of grawp.--Apollonius 1236 (talk) 14:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Grawp, May 17th



 * More recent page move vandals, edit summaries say "brought to you by Grawp" --Boss Big (talk) 13:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know whether I am right or wrong here, but should this be even listed when all the named accounts are already blocked? The accounts pose no threat to the encyclopedia now surely? Rudget   (Help?) 17:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict with Rudget, hopefully this should answer his query :) Case to requests for  checkuser, appears to have been neglected at the time of filing. Not sure of the value of it being listed (all accounts are blocked as Grawp socks and tagged), but listing for CU attention regardless; the final call is not for the clerks to make.  Anthøny  17:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay. That makes sense. Thanks. Rudget   (Help?) 17:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The CheckUsers may be able to find sleeper accounts, as well as block underlying IP's, which usually include open proxies and Tor nodes. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 18:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

✅ Generally, Grawp gets checkusered pretty thoroughly. It's probably better at this point to add the name of the latest account to the IP check section, just in case there were no checkusers on line at the time he showed up. Thatcher 00:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Grawp accounts



 * Code letter: C


 * Supporting evidence:
 * 
 * 

All three are accounts suspected to be used by Grawp (The first is the original; the second two both vandalized my userpage along with various other pages.) If we can find a common IP address or range, we can perhaps locate Grawps real IP which will be useful in an abuse report that I've filed. Even if we only turn up proxies, we can at least block them. Urban  Rose  23:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge with Requests for checkuser/Case/Grawp please.


 * Grawp operates from a range that can not be blocked without potentially affecting a large number of users, and sometimes he goes elsewhere. If you can get his ISP to take action, then any checkuser can get the exact IP he used for any given edit, and his ISP should be able to track him down from that.  However, release of the IP must be approved by the Foundation attorney, Mike Godwin. Thatcher 00:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Merged from Requests for checkuser/Case/Grawp accounts. – Luna Santin  (talk) 04:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I’m not an administrator here. I’m an ordinary Wikipedian. I’ve had it up to here with Grawp on other Wikis where I am an administrator. If you apply a range block against Grawp with any luck his Internet Service Provider will terminate the contract. The ISP won’t want to inconvenience very many customers for the sake of one account. Then with any luck other ISP’s might blacklist Grawp. Proxima Centauri 2 (talk) 06:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Not gonna work, as Grawp uses TOR as a supplement should his range(s) be blocked. Besides, Wikipedia can't block ranges larger than /16 (due to technical issues); if Grawp's operating from a larger range we cannot block it. -  Jéské  ( v^_^v  Mrrph-mph! ) 06:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Grawp
A new hoard; Guy's been undoing blocks of my edits for three days; likely made this edit, too.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * When is this going to be archived? In any case, here's a new one: ; targeting edits by . -  Jéské  ( v^_^v  Detarder ) 06:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

another; cheers, Jack Merridew 07:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * To any clerks servicing the request after this check: For the love of all that is sane please archive this fully. I'm tired of transcluding this whole page, including the stuff from early February. -  Jéské   ( v^_^v  Detarder ) 09:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * archiving now, this is too ugly. I guess the page slipped through. -- lucasbfr  talk 13:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thatcher 14:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Eridani Edict


Another batch; all appeared at Eridani Edict on 22 March exhibiting the usual behaviors.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * ANI

and then he attacked the ANI report on this; Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what to do here. There are no other registered accounts associated with those IPs or the user Cjhard. I have no idea how this is one person coming from Florida, British Telecom, and Iceland, among other places. Try listing the IPs at WP:OPP where they can do a more thorough check for open proxies than I can. Thatcher 15:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yup, that's Grawp. Maybe you should ask User:Jéské Couriano; he's done the Open Proxy thing before and knows Grawp well; believes it's a botnet. Some of this may be due to posts on an off-wiki-forum such as 4chan; see . I gotta go; it's late where I live. If you want to find more, just watch for edits undoing mine. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm siding with Thatcher. This is not Grawp; this looks to be the same people that have been harassing Milburn as of late. Although I will note that I believe that Grawp and 4chan are allied, thus these users are proxying for him.  WP:RBI. -  Jéské   ( v^_^v  Detarder ) 23:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I may have leapt too quickly to the assumption of this being Grawp. If it is whomever has left the "I suggest you leave…" message on my and User:J Milburn's talk pages, then there's still the D&D commonality. Whoever it is is quite persistent. I have no objections to this section of this page getting split-off to another. I've reverted this sort of thing on the order of a thousand times. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC) nb: I'm away for most of the coming week.

Grawp



 * Code letter: G.
 * Code letter: G.
 * Code letter: G.
 * Code letter: G.
 * Code letter: G.
 * Code letter: G.
 * Code letter: G.
 * Code letter: G.
 * Code letter: G.
 * Code letter: G.
 * Code letter: G.
 * Code letter: G.
 * Code letter: G.

All the users are reverting the addition of in-universe, nofootnotes, notability, and context tags on Dungeons & Dragons creature articles posted by. Users are currently edit-warring to keep the tags off, making me suspect these are socks meant to bypass 3RR concerns. -Jéské ( Blah v^_^v ) 00:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This user is likely also connected to User:Señor Gray Dwarf, User:Duergarthedwarf, and User:Señor Gray Duergar. 207.229.140.148 (talk) 00:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Per information here, is it too much to ask that the underlying IP(s) also be blocked? -Jéské ( Blah v^_^v ) 01:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Submitting some more for consideration: These are from Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Senang Hati (impersonator) and have all either dogged my edits or removed D&D clean-up tags; there are hosts of anons doing it, too. This all started after I began expressing concerns re D&D articles. A Look at the vandalism of my user and talk pages shows a lot of the same sort of out of box thinking. There are also several users in "good standing" who aggressively remove clean-up tags from D&D articles: This has become a major long-term disruption and harassment issue and warrants serious attention and strong action. --Jack Merridew 09:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC) Once again, I must thank all of the vandal patrols and Jack Merridew for acting in such a timely fashion. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * similar to above, but not exactly the same shite.
 * Comment I am guessing, but I doubt that either Hobit or Rray are related to these sockpuppets. However, I note that single purpose IPs are now being set up to remove cleanup templates on an article by article basis in order to avoid detection by anti vandal patrols, and that the number of IP accounts have also been created to disguise these edits. Once instance of this (one of vandalism and the other to cover up the vandalism) occured with only a minute between the two - note how the IP left a deliberate mistake for the second editor to "correct". These two editors may be related to the above sockpuppets:
 * ?Javier removed obvious vandalism, (the word c**ks), and you're saying that shows he's a wrong'un and part of a complicated conspiracy?  Merkinsmum  13:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Just as a comment, I've only removed a small handful of tags recently and only when clearly justified IMO. Jack, and to a much greater extent Gavin, have been adding what seem to be large number of ill considered tags. I've removed about 1% of the tags added by Jack and Gavin in the last 30 days, often after fixing up the article. Hobit (talk) 15:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I heavily doubt, borderline refute, that Hobit is involved with this group of puppets. Rray, however, I don't know much about. -Jéské ( Blah v^_^v ) 19:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There's not much to know; I'm just another Wikipedian. No sock puppetry here though, and I'm focusing on other things besides RPG articles now anyway. Best of luck dealing with the disruptive editors. :) Rray (talk) 20:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

re Hobit and Rray; I only listed these users because they have also removed some tags. This is "circumstantial" — and it would serve the users well for an unrelated determination to be made. Please do not let this serve as a distraction to the core issue here: a determined campaign of disruption and harassment. nb: some of the obvious vandals have not been blocked and I would urge anyone with that button who is reviewing things here, to press it where appropriate. --Jack Merridew 05:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)



If you could add the following: I think you will find these are also a single purpose accounts intent on vandalism. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)



Alison's List

 * - can we merge in the half-done "Jack Merridew impersonator and tag remover" request from the IP section below and work through the sock groupings again, please? They're both obviously the same case and there is massive ongoing sock abuse here. It's going to be a messy case! - A l is o n  ❤ 20:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Alright, here are all the suspected socks that need checking:

And the IPs:
 * who just vandalized my talk page (be sure to check this one against )
 * just added now --Craw-daddy | T | 10:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * who just vandalized my talk page (be sure to check this one against )
 * just added now --Craw-daddy | T | 10:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * who just vandalized my talk page (be sure to check this one against )
 * just added now --Craw-daddy | T | 10:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * who just vandalized my talk page (be sure to check this one against )
 * just added now --Craw-daddy | T | 10:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * who just vandalized my talk page (be sure to check this one against )
 * just added now --Craw-daddy | T | 10:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * who just vandalized my talk page (be sure to check this one against )
 * just added now --Craw-daddy | T | 10:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * who just vandalized my talk page (be sure to check this one against )
 * just added now --Craw-daddy | T | 10:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * who just vandalized my talk page (be sure to check this one against )
 * just added now --Craw-daddy | T | 10:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * who just vandalized my talk page (be sure to check this one against )
 * just added now --Craw-daddy | T | 10:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * who just vandalized my talk page (be sure to check this one against )
 * just added now --Craw-daddy | T | 10:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * who just vandalized my talk page (be sure to check this one against )
 * just added now --Craw-daddy | T | 10:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * who just vandalized my talk page (be sure to check this one against )
 * just added now --Craw-daddy | T | 10:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * who just vandalized my talk page (be sure to check this one against )
 * just added now --Craw-daddy | T | 10:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * who just vandalized my talk page (be sure to check this one against )
 * just added now --Craw-daddy | T | 10:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * just added now --Craw-daddy | T | 10:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

All done. Hopefully this helps. Keilana|Parlez ici 21:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I dispute that User:Hobit and User:Rray are sockpuppets, or "masterminds" of these sockpuppets. If I am incorrect, I will be the first to publicly apologize to all involved parties. If their inclusion is based solely on the "circumstantial" dispute of a tiny fraction of edits by User:Gavin.collins and others, then you must include me on this list as well, as I have disputed a tiny fraction too. --Craw-daddy | T | 22:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree; these socks have all (to the exclusion of anything else) targeted Gavin.collins' taggings; Hobit and Rray have not. As it is, I have been reverting all the tag-removal and semiprotecting each article I revert so that it's harder for him to attack articles. However, if we can get him on so much as a single ISP, this might be enough for an abuse-report. Or, if he's using proxies, we can plug those (unless they are Tors). -Jéské ( Blah v^_^v ) 03:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Note there's more at Suspected sock puppets/Duergarthedwarf... &mdash; Scientizzle 18:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I've added the new ones to the list. Keilana|Parlez ici 20:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have added and  and removed a duplicate of . Also added . --Jack Merridew 05:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked the IP for the death threat; your TP is semi'd, as is Gavin's. -Jéské ( Blah v^_^v ) 05:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

This group of IPs may be useful. They all restored the same personal attack on Talk:Sarrukh that was first posted by User:Luckyevent diff. They are in oldest to most recent order. --Jack Merridew 13:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Results to-date

 * - Let's try and make a start on this. It's going to take some time and will likely happen in stages.

Group 1

 * ✅ -, , , , , , , , = 71.107.xx.xx range

Group 2

 * All of these are the same user, most likely Grawp. There is user overlap between these sub-groupings as there are two very distinct ISPs being used, so you may see duplicates across the groups




 * - a lot of the above are tagged as socks of Grawp and I suspect that's exactly who this is. It should be possible to block all these by hardblocking three /16 ranges associated with a dialup ISP with surprisingly little collateral damage





Group 3

 * The Duergar and Dwarf theme ties them together, but this is a shared IP. All three groups are in the same geographic location so they are most likely related in some way. And yet again, some of these are tagged as Grawp.

✅ -, , , , , , , , , ,


 * - A l is o n  ❤ 06:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * So, to clarify, The Cyric accounts are (initially) related only to themselves, not to any of the other named accounts, and not to the Senang Hati (impersonator) accounts? -Jéské ( Blah v^_^v ) 06:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Ummm - I just did another massive update since your question, and things have radically changed. All the Cyric accounts are related, they're not related to the Senang guy, but they are related to a lot of the others - A l is o n  ❤ 06:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Tagging and blocking where applicable. -Jéské ( Blah v^_^v ) 06:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Untagging Jesse; I jumped the gun there. -Jéské ( Blah v^_^v ) 07:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that. Maybe hold off on the tagging for a while until this is done. Group two, however, is pretty uniform and can be tagged/blocked - most likely as Grawp socks, I'm thinking - A l is o n  ❤ 07:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been tagging Group 2; however it's almost midnight here and I need to take a break and maybe kill Mephisto before I go insane. -Jéské ( Blah v^_^v ) 07:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * following cross-posted from the checkuser/IP check request

I request a clarification; above lists as confirmed that is part of the Jack whatever harassers; that is my old account that was usurped after my username was changed; the edits by the usurper are now at  and I believe the conclusion should be changed to reflect that. See:
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive343
 * Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 8

I am also unclear as to what the second confirmation has determined other than that the 3 Cyric accounts are related to each other. Please note the the actual edits by the Cyric accounts are all very much in support of the harassment by. See:
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive346

Basically, I don't want the page that refers users to my current page to be listed as a sockpuppet; this is why the pages/account were renamed. Thanks, Jack Merridew 06:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * - I can state here that the account is ❌ to Jack Merridew above, and that Jack Merridew is ❌ to any of the sock accounts examined here -  A l is o n  ❤ 07:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: Cross-posted to AN/I - Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive357. -Jéské ( Blah  v^_^v ) 07:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Others

 * ❌ - and  - to anything going on here. Best get this out of the way -  A l is o n  ❤ 07:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * - Jéské - go to bed and get some sleep :) - A l is o n  ❤ 07:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

We have another user:. Blocked him indef on behavior; is he related to any of the three groups above? -Jéské ( Blah v^_^v ) 06:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ -, , , , , - these are likely Grawp (group 2) again.


 * - A l is o n  ❤ 07:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocking users, reverting edits, and protecting the articles. -Jéské ( Blah v^_^v ) 07:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * All users blocked and tagged; all edits reverted; all articles protected. -Jéské ( Blah v^_^v ) 07:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Another IP; this one vandalized a RPP request Jack Merridew made. . Related to any of 'em? -Jéské ( Blah  v^_^v ) 00:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * - just one edit, I'm afraid - A l is o n  ❤ 00:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And another one - . Which group is this one? And as a side note, I keep on timing out at the block page for him. -Jéské ( Blah  v^_^v ) 20:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * (I was having the same timeout problem, too...but it seems to have gone away.) All of these are worth checking, probably: Suspected sock puppets/Grawp (2nd). &mdash; Scientizzle 20:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * &larr; - blargh! More work :) This looks like Grawp again - I'll include the SSP case in these findings as the autoblock shows that User:Goblin (Dungeons & Dragons) is involved -  A l is o n  ❤ 20:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ -, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , - and various already-blocked ones. Note: these are all User:Grawp
 * - all of them, hardblocked for a few months
 * ✅ - A l is o n  ❤ 20:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * - can we possibly rename this case to Requests for checkuser/Case/Grawp as this is the master account and the name everyone's familiar with? Thanks! - A l is o n  ❤ 20:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * All tagged and blocked as far as I know, don't think I missed anyone. I will rename shortly. Keilana | Parlez ici 20:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Renamed move-wise, should I rename the heading? Keilana | Parlez ici 20:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * - that looks super - thanks, Keilana :) I've gone ahead and fixed up the headers an' stuff. Thanks again :) - A l is o n  ❤ 21:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Another one - . -Jéské ( Blah v^_^v ) 02:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * - A l is o n  ❤ 02:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Bagged and tagged. -Jéské ( Blah v^_^v ) 03:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * From AN/I, posting here per Alison's request: Coincidentally, Jéské just reported at the above checkuser request and it's now ✅ as being Grawp.  is now also confirmed, as well as  and .  also - can someone move these over to the Grawp case at RFCU? I have to run here :) -  A l is o n  ❤ 02:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC) -Jéské ( Blah  v^_^v ) 03:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * More, these ones from AN/I:, , , -Jéské ( Blah  v^_^v ) 04:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * More, these ones from AN/I:, , , -Jéské ( Blah  v^_^v ) 04:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ - all of them, and more. Grawp has had enough fun for the moment, so I've applied a month-long rangeblock to 4.168.24.0/24, published here per policy. There are other account, like, , etc, etc but they're all blocked now. Yes, it's Grawp again - I've now blocked all the unblocked ones - they're in my block logs ... - A l is o n  ❤ 04:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Went through their contribution histories and semi-protected every single article they've hit. I only went through the ones you blocked within the past 24 hours; there may be more.
 * I have asked WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons to provide me with a list of articles that (a) currenly have or have recently had cleanup tags on them and (b) are currently unprotected so that I have a watchlist in case he comes back after the block. I don't see the semi-protections on any of those articles being lifted anytime soon. -Jéské ( Blah  v^_^v ) 05:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Could I ask for the following user to be checked as well?

I think this may be a single purpose account. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Related parties?
We have five more IPs here who have left death threats at User talk:Jack Merridew and User talk:Gavin.collins. Are they related to any of the groups above? ,, , , -Jéské ( Blah  v^_^v ) 21:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * - Likely not Grawp, unless he's moved to the UK. These are all one-off IPs and there's nothing underlying. Tiscali UK DSL range - A l is o n  ❤ 21:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Another single purpose vandal account has apeared:

Could this be a Gawp variant?--Gavin Collins (talk) 05:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Possibly; it resolves to Colorado, as does the range Alison hit. -Jéské ( Blah v^_^v ) 01:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It also occurs to me that this person has vandalized most of the random clicks I made on Category:Dungeons & Dragons articles that need to differentiate between fact and fiction, and few other people have actually edited those pages recently. If this dude continues relentlessly, we can take the jam out of his donut by mass-semi'ing all of them in one fell swoop (using Twinkle's batch protect) for a month or so.  From that point, it makes it more of a pain in the butt to actually accomplish anything without jumping through more hurdles than it's worth&mdash; unless, of course, the dude has no life and gets his rocks off to... uhh... vandalizing dungeons and dragons articles repeatedly? :P By the way, don't we have a dungeons and dragons wiki somewhere already?  -- slakr  \ talk / 10:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm semi'ing each D&D article he hits indefinitely as I see them. -Jéské ( Blah v^_^v ) 10:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, I just remembered, check out User:VoABot II's watchlists/category watchlists. It might be an easier alternative to protection. *shrug*.  -- slakr  \ talk / 03:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Not in this case; the main problem is removal of cleanup tags placed by User:Gavin.collins and a legitimate removal could unintentionally trigger the bot. -Jéské ( Blah v^_^v ) 21:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

New One
. Appeared on Talk:Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons) and attacked Jack Merridew. Cheers. -  Jéské  ( v^_^v :L13 ½-Raichu Soulknife ) 18:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ - the following:




 * - A l is o n  ❤ 05:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Bagged and tagged. Thank'ee. -  Jéské  ( v^_^v  :L13 ½-Raichu Soulknife ) 05:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Cool! - A l is o n  ❤ 05:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * - I think we badly need to archive this one :) :) - A l is o n  ❤ 05:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Seconded. Honestly, I thought it already had been. -  Jéské  ( v^_^v  :L13 ½-Raichu Soulknife ) 05:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

17 May 2008

 * ✅ - the following:




 * All registered on 12 May, used on 17 May to get around auto-conf. I note they've since been blocked. James F. (talk) 13:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

''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.''