text:
Wiktionary:Requests for checkuser/archive

User:Dcabrilo
To: /24 or. I wouldn't normally request this, but Connel's open protectionism in BP made me suspicious of him trying to cover up Dcabrilo. If proven correctly, it would be severe POV pushing and lying incident. --Ivan Štambuk 15:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure that this was about, but I'm just noting that it's stale by now, anyway. Dmcdevit·t 14:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Ionas68224
I would like to find if the IP address of this user is or. Those IP addresses are me. I would like to kow who registered this account, because it made an edit under a name used by me (oddly, the name "Ionas" is registered here too) that I don't remember making. --Ionas Freeman (自人) 01:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

 * I can confirm that Arturius is Matricularius. The IPs don't show any other users in the last few months, though. Dmcdevit·t 23:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Okay. My "take" is leave this alone for now; I'm not going to block as socks or whatever; most edits are very good and constructive. Does bear watching. (move to complete presently). Thank you. Robert Ullmann 23:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Note that the User referred to is User:Arcarius (both above are typos). Robert Ullmann 12:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

 * These are long since checked, confirmed, blocked, cleaned up after. We can probably archive this one. -  10:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

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

 * I was browsing the recent changes, and this page came up. I would like to know why I am being checkuser'd? I have no objections to you doing it, since this is my first account here (well actually, i may have made one months ago i forgot the password to), but I have never even heard of the name Wonderfool. Nwspel 10:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

 * There is apparently no such account called User:Wonderfool. O_o Nwspel 10:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

 * If you’re not Wonderfool, you have nothing to worry about. —Stephen 10:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Can you give me the proper name of their account please, since the name you gave does not seem to link. And no, I'm not worried by the checkuser, as I know it will come out negative, but it is the principle that annoys me; that you seem to think I'm doing something wrong just because I'm new. Nwspel 10:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

 * That account does not exist. My intention is to see that it remain so. —Stephen 10:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

 * You're checkusering me against a non-existent user? What? Nwspel 10:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Now you’ve got it! —Stephen 10:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Hang on a minute. I just checked wikipedia, and there is an account there: w:User:Wonderfool. I am presuming you mean him/her? If he/she has never made an account here, then I must in fact protest in favor of this user. If this user was to come here (which, I would like to clarify, I am not them), after being apparently banned on EN wiki, that would not warrant you the right to have the user banned here, until his/her actions here gave you reason to. A banned user on one wikimedia project is not banned on another, unless they repeat their behaviour on both. Nwspel 10:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I am confused now. Apparently the puppet master was this: w:Special:Contributions/Robdurbar, yet if you look at his/her contributions, he has been "unprotecting/protecting" pages; surely he would have to have been an admin to do that?? O_o Nwspel 10:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Do not fret about who or what Wonderfool was. As I said, if you’re not Wonderfool, then you have nothing at all to worry about. —Stephen 10:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

 * This would be fishing, which is one of the things CU is not for. Can you provide some reasoning why this user appears to be a sock other than intuition? -  10:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

 * No, just intuition. There are some specific things, but voicing them would only allow them to be avoided in the next incarnation. —Stephen 10:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

 * That's not the point; if you're accusing me of being someone, Stephen, then I would at least like to know who they are. And if they have not come here before, then this checkuser serves no purpose anyway, as they are not banned here. Nwspel 10:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Their userpage was deleted but they were indeed a user here, under several account names. Special:Contributions/Wonderfool is the "primary" account on enwikt. - 10:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Oh ok, thanks for the explanation. I would like to note however, that deleting their page is not usually good practice, unless they activate the "right to vanish", which, as far as I am aware, banned users cannot. Nwspel 10:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Huh??? He was an admin here too? I checked his block log, and apparently he was able to block/unblock himself. Why is he banned here and WP, yet he was admin on both? Nwspel 10:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Please note that I give full permission for the check to go ahead, but I find it very insulting; imagine that your behaviour is being likened to that of a banned vandal - you would not be impressed. Nwspel 11:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

 * The reason for deleting the page is so that we give them no way of keeping score (and also we have no idea how many millions of accounts are him). I don't think you act that way, and I'm not sure this is a valid CU request, but if Steven wants to double check and the CUs are happy with it I don't mind too much. Conrad.Irwin 19:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Well seeing as the User is OK with it, I have done the check. There is no conclusive evidence (some circumstantial evidence which also implicates SB and some other people) to suggest that this user is in any way associated with Wonderfool, I suggest assuming they are not and moving on. -  20:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Thank you. SB? Is that another banned user? Nwspel 20:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

 * SB is User:SemperBlotto, one of our admins, bureaucrats and most prolific contributors, the similarity is purely regional. And as an aside, don't be offended at being compared to Wonderfool, Nwspel, while he misbehaves from time to time his contributions are on average quite good.  He just has a pattern of behavior which starts out good and ends in vandalism.  I don't think anyone was suggesting here that your behavior is in any way wrong, it is just something we have all learned to be suspicious about.  I hope you aren't put off by any of this, we are happy to have you here. -  20:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Ok thanks. :) Nwspel 20:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

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

 * - There is some supporting evidence but unless this user has done something worthy of blocking there is not sufficient CU evidence to do so. - 19:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Got the wrong guy. --Booboo 14:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Accusing others of being Wonderfool - (User_talk:Felonia), one is lead to ask how he knows. Again, the pattern of edits is similar to some I've seen before. Conrad.Irwin 17:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * - Similar to the above, there is some evidence which might suggest this user is a sock, but not enough to act on. - 19:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Got the wrong guy. --Booboo 14:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

A whole bunch
,, , , , , , , among others. All vandals of User:Robert Ullmann's userpage/talk page. I was just wondering if maybe a range block or something might be possible here. I'm sick of one our more useful editors constantly being irritated. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 10:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Plus - same style. SemperBlotto 11:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

 * ✅ - All of those plus several more, all but two were previously blocked. A range block doesn't seem appropriate, some of the IPs are certainly OPs, which will be blocked as such. -  20:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Thanks TDR. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 21:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Victor Frankenstein
06 Nov 2008 07 Nov 2008 12 Nov 2008 17 Nov 2008 18 Nov 2008 18 Nov 2008 19 Nov 2008 22 Nov 2008 22 Nov 2008 24 Nov 2008 25 Nov 2008 29 Nov 2008 30 Nov 2008 05 Dec 2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Παρατηρητής
Can we please see if this user has any link to accounts and/or ips that have previously had links with Wonderfool or any of his sock puppets. Seems to know too much about Wonderfool. Conrad.Irwin 22:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See above.—msh210 ℠  22:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

 * For all of the above: Inconclusive on all counts. -  23:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

User:76.113.184.45 and IPs on the Simple English Wikipedia
Hi there all. I would like to request that a checkuser from here check this IP address against two IP addresses,

 * 76.17.245.191
 * 24.118.67.245

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

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

 * Not run. - 23:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

obnosis

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

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

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

 * Actually, I no longer agree with me; I hadn't noticed yet when I left my earlier comment, but at Requests for cleanup she writes, "There are three registered Wiki users who will also nominate it for deletion if it has not been correctly described." As far as I can tell, the three users are herself, herself, and herself. Similarly, at User talk:Msh210, she refers to herself entirely in the third person, both by username and by the pronoun "her". I'm going to go ahead and block all accounts except, which seems to be her main one. Feel free to unblock if you disagree. —Ruakh TALK 19:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

 * No, I think that a wise idea (as you've at least left her one account open). I've left a comment on Asil's talk page.  Please feel free to add clarification if it is in need of it.  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 19:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Too stale to run. - 23:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

 * I don't see any block log or anything else beyond user creation for, so I'm not sure how a sock became a consideration here. Was Grawp somehow banned or blocked in the past?  —Rod (A. Smith) 19:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

 * Grawp is a group of users more than a single user. See w:Wikipedia:GRAWP.  I can't find any recent examples, but I know they've hit us before.  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 20:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

 * Thanks for that link. The inactive users,  and  all appear to be the same user as .  I cannot yet confirm, though, that the the user is actually .  —Rod (A. Smith) 21:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

 * You might want to check if they are on an open proxy or Tor, as that's what he usually uses. Grawp's regular IP range is on Verizon in Southern California, something like 71.107.0.0/16. Dominic·t 23:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

 * Too stale to run. - 23:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

John

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

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

LucaviAD2
Probably a sock of Poingpoingjj004, LastRevolution663. - Amgine/talk 04:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Known vandal. Don't bother. Robert Ullmann 04:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Got a list on this one? I'm finding back into 2008... - Amgine/talk 04:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Beginning of 2008. Robert Ullmann 04:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

 * No CU done. - 23:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

 * Sorted. - 22:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Am I the same user as User:Rising Sun? Constant unfounded accusations especially from Vahagn, despite us making simultaneous edits from different locations. Equinox ◑ 15:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I was going to make the same request. But TBH I don't think one user can have 2 checks, seems a bit pointless. But I'd love to make the distinction. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 22:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * ❌ - Sounds like you guys have some unresolved identity issues. You are most likely two different people though, congratulations. -  23:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

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

 * Those editors seem to be covering their bases; I suspect it's just meatpuppetry/canvassing on a massive scale, but even if there is sockpuppetry, I suspect the sockpuppeteer would know to conceal the fact. (Keep in mind that, unless someone actually uses the same static IP address for multiple edits, checkusering can generally just give an idea of how likely it is that they're the same person. When there's a large of number of editors from a single region, chances are pretty good that at least some of them will have the same ISP; we won't really be able to tell if that's sockpuppetry, or just random chance. Unless we've got sockpuppeteers who really don't know to conceal the fact …) —Ruakh TALK 00:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

 * I am not going to check everyone on that page, if you have a narrower list of name you actually suspect are socks I would be willing to look into that. - 01:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

 * I do not. Thanks for the reply.  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 01:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Sokac121

 * They all vandalised the same article in less than 24 hours. has been blocked indefinitely in the past and if he ventured to resort to sockpuppets (editing under IP for the sake of edit warring) this would justify reimposing the indefinite block. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 07:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * They all vandalised the same article in less than 24 hours. has been blocked indefinitely in the past and if he ventured to resort to sockpuppets (editing under IP for the sake of edit warring) this would justify reimposing the indefinite block. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 07:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * They all vandalised the same article in less than 24 hours. has been blocked indefinitely in the past and if he ventured to resort to sockpuppets (editing under IP for the sake of edit warring) this would justify reimposing the indefinite block. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 07:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * They all vandalised the same article in less than 24 hours. has been blocked indefinitely in the past and if he ventured to resort to sockpuppets (editing under IP for the sake of edit warring) this would justify reimposing the indefinite block. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 07:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * They all vandalised the same article in less than 24 hours. has been blocked indefinitely in the past and if he ventured to resort to sockpuppets (editing under IP for the sake of edit warring) this would justify reimposing the indefinite block. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 07:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

 * ❌ The accounts, , and appear to be unrelated to.
 * The account was likely used by the same person as the account .  Both accounts are already blocked indefinitely, though.  —Rod (A. Smith) 16:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Is User:Felonia Wonderfool?
He/she is creating a bunch of silly entries. Equinox ◑ 14:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Already passed a Checkuser test - here --Felonia 14:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There is some supporting evidence, but the user appears to be intentionally anonymizing his or her identity, which prevents a conclusive comparison. —Rod (A. Smith) 21:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Lexicografía
I reckon User:Lexicografía might be Wonderfool dodging his block again. was the kind of thing he'd do. Equinox ◑ 21:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The above text says "CheckUser requests are only to be used with long-term, persistent suspected sockpuppets and vandals", so not on the basis of one edit. Likewise, CheckUser Policy says "Where the user has been vandalising articles or persistently behaving in a disruptive way". —msh210℠ (talk) 21:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What is this? — lexicógrafa | háblame — 13:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The one edit was one example. There are more. Do I need to give lots of examples? Previous requests often haven't given any. Equinox ◑ 23:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I believe you are right about this. In this new incarnation, he claims advanced knowledge of Spanish and none of French, but his Spanish is really horrible. The Spanish on his user page is machine translated, and edited very inexpertly. It all smells like WF. —Stephen (Talk) 23:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I am serious. What is this? What is Wonderfool? I'm sorry if there is bad Spanish on my userpage, however only part of it was machine translated. My Spanish comprehension is much better than my Spanish construction. — lexicógrafa | háblame — 00:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * See m:User:Dangherous for a sort of summary. It's assumed that pretty much everyone is Wonderfool, as he has turned out to be an extraordinarily large amount of people. --Yair rand (talk) 00:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

 * As far as the CU tool is concerned there is zero correlation between this user and any past behavior of Wondefool. That being said Wonderfool knows how to avoid CU detection and the most accurate detection method all along has been other people spotting his style.  There really is no reason to ask for CUs of suspected Wonderfools in the future, once you know how the tool works (it is open source) then gaming the system is pretty trivial. -  02:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for confirming this. I did some research on this odd character tonight and I can assure you all that I am in no way related although my personality apparently is similar. Have a nice day — lexicógrafa | háblame — 02:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

and

 * The following two IPs have vandalized my talk page, my user page and my signature at other projects. I suspect they, and in addition, are connected to Renard Migrant.  Renard Migrant, and an account he had used previously, have made no secret of his disdain for me; his previous account vehemently attacked me.  Another red flag for me is that Renard Migrant has been inactive when 213.205.251.62 was blocked, which seems unusual since he had just started a beer parlour discussion.  I am requesting a checkuser to see if Renard Migrant is connected to those vandalizing IPs.  I think it's likely that the IPs are connected to someone who has Wiktionary experience, because the IPs are familiar with areas other than mainspace, and throw around the term "community ban".  It's also clear that the IPs were editing with a clear intent of targeting me (each edit is to a page I've edited), rather than vandalism at random. Pur ple back pack 89   22:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The following two IPs have vandalized my talk page, my user page and my signature at other projects. I suspect they, and in addition, are connected to Renard Migrant.  Renard Migrant, and an account he had used previously, have made no secret of his disdain for me; his previous account vehemently attacked me.  Another red flag for me is that Renard Migrant has been inactive when 213.205.251.62 was blocked, which seems unusual since he had just started a beer parlour discussion.  I am requesting a checkuser to see if Renard Migrant is connected to those vandalizing IPs.  I think it's likely that the IPs are connected to someone who has Wiktionary experience, because the IPs are familiar with areas other than mainspace, and throw around the term "community ban".  It's also clear that the IPs were editing with a clear intent of targeting me (each edit is to a page I've edited), rather than vandalism at random. Pur ple back <font color="#CC33CC">pack <font color="FFBB00">89   22:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

 * A couple of pattern (spambot?) accounts have recently been created at Wiktionary and Commons. See this CU request at Commons for more information. Please consider checking the following accounts:
 * Thanks, Mathonius (talk) 10:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * A nearly complete overview, including the accounts on this wiki, can be found at m:User:Mathonius/Reports/Twin spambots. Mathonius (talk) 19:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * See also special:abusefilter/16. Perhaps do the same here? —msh210℠ (talk) 19:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't view that filter. ;) Mathonius (talk) 23:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks like they've moved from en.wiktionary to en.wikipedia recently, see the latest additions to m:User:Mathonius/Reports/Twin spambots. Mathonius (talk) 07:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Mathonius (talk) 10:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * A nearly complete overview, including the accounts on this wiki, can be found at m:User:Mathonius/Reports/Twin spambots. Mathonius (talk) 19:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * See also special:abusefilter/16. Perhaps do the same here? —msh210℠ (talk) 19:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't view that filter. ;) Mathonius (talk) 23:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks like they've moved from en.wiktionary to en.wikipedia recently, see the latest additions to m:User:Mathonius/Reports/Twin spambots. Mathonius (talk) 07:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Rockpilot

 * , possible sockpuppet of (a.k.a. ).  Has been blocked already by  and was then unblocked by  who said that he is WF.   AugPi 00:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This doesn't really need a CU, he is Wonderfool. - 01:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

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

2018

 * , is Special:Contributions/FourMastab our old friend? —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 18:00, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Either way he should be blocked. He's making too many errors. --WikiTiki89 19:13, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Yep. Editing as AncientEgypt23, TragedyUkraine, and as various IPs. I'll have to check more later, but I think you got pretty much all of it. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:59, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * What about ? --WikiTiki89 15:10, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Though I don't have time to do anything about it at the moment (maybe a couple of hours from now). Chuck Entz (talk) 04:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * : Special:Contributions/Whowrote. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 20:23, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅. I was already dealing with it when you pinged- pretty obvious. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:26, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * : Victar thinks Special:Contributions/Cagwinn is Uther. I don't know him well enough to tell, but the account seems pretty old. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 20:06, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * To be fair, I think he just sounds like him. --Victar (talk) 20:11, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Right. They're not near each other geographically at all. They're both very bright and both have the patience of a gnat, but this person doesn't seem to be as hypersensitive or nasty as Uther- they act like they're genuinely surprised that anyone would object to their rebuilding Civilization As We Know It from the ground up on 3 minutes notice, and they don't treat people who disagree with them like insects or parasites. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:31, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

 * Special:Contributions/Hanaviz, and very likely a connected vandalism-only account, Special:Contributions/KilltJews, both of which are probably a certain someone we have heard of before... S URJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 18:35, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yep. Same as above. To a checkuser, the edits by both the new accounts all look pretty much the same. Fortunately they show the same abysmal level of attention to detail in covering their tracks as in their edits. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:57, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I refuse to believe Special:Contributions/Makuta Makaveli is a new editor; there are some convenient coincidences as well that could help identify. S URJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 17:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have to have more to go on than that. The privacy policy says I can only do checks to prevent or stop vandalism or other damage to the site. Is there any indication that they're violating any rules, or making bad edits? Block evasion isn't the only reason an experienced editor might come back under a new identity, and it's not against the rules to do so, as long as they're not doing so to take unfair advantage or avoid detection of rule violations. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:26, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I was precisely thinking this would be block evasion, but in hindsight that isn't clear at all, so I would simply ignore the CU request for now. S URJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 10:38, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * : I can't remember if (see deleted contribs) is PaM or someone else, but if it matches somebody we know, you should take a look. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 16:04, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Not PaM, unless they're abroad on vacation. I don't remember seeing anyone using an IP in that range before, so it's not anyone I would recognize. I guess it's just someone random being actually creepy, instead of just exploring the vocabulary of creepiness as an "intellectual" exercise the way PaM does. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:43, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * : could likely be someone we know; we had an earlier version of that editor adding place names, didn't we? S URJECTION  ·talk·contr·log· 18:24, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a sock of a previously indef blocked user, Chuck will have to weigh in on whether it is the person you reference. - TheDaveRoss  19:16, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yep. They started out as, but one of their more recent socks was . Chuck Entz (talk) 08:32, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

2019
Just An IB Nerd (talk) 08:23, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * User:2601:202:100:46B4:D006:15EF:156:5B30 appears to a be a sock of User:Jessecantero, who is blocked for vandalism. The account and IP have both made similar edits to cantero.
 * No need for a checkuser on this one- too obvious. I blocked the IP for the same time as the account, but made the block on the account permanent. Fortunately, this is limited to two entries, which are easy enough to keep an eye on. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:15, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

 * , User:Wyang blocked User:Erminwin based on the evidence at the bottom of User talk:Erminwin as a sock of a known problematic user. I find this evidence to be flimsy, and Erminwin's use of English does not comport with that of this user or his only known active sock here (Hirabutor, currently unblocked). Can you use the information at w:Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Tirgil34 to determine if Erminwin is the same person? —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 16:47, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There's not much to go on. Hirabutor is the only Wiktionary account on the Wikipedia page that's made any edits I can check (exactly one), and that edit has absolutely nothing in common with Erminwin (I haven't checked every Wikipedia account listed, but I don't recognize any of them as having made edits in the past 90 days). Also, the physical location and the IP addresses given at the Wikipedia page don't match, either (I won't go into specifics). I don't see anything in either the edits pointed to by Wyang or in the checkuser information that makes a case for blocking as a sock, let alone making it permanent. Besides, I can't see why Hirabutor, who's not blocked on Wiktionary, would feel the need to use a sock to make edits in an area that has nothing to do with his Pan-Turkic interests, namely Vietnamese and Mon-Khmer linguistics. I have no clue about the original justification for the block (though Wyang wasn't the only one to point out sloppiness in ascribing things to sources), so I wouldn't feel comfortable unblocking him- but I think the permanent block is unwarranted. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:56, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Feriorin - despite behavioral similarities being quite clear, the user claims their likely other accounts are only impersonators: User:Ferencecon, User:Phonysym, User:Ventionin (and some others that have done few or no edits). Even though it's likely complete rubbish, it's still probably a good idea to get some certainty here. — surjection ⟨ ⟩ 06:57, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Lying about their sockpuppets is part of their game. I ran a check on them yesterday, and all of those accounts are identical from a technical standpoint. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Учхљёнэя
This user may seem like an obvious sock of myself, but despite my persistent memory problems, I'm relatively certain that I didn't create this account nor did I perform any of the edits on it. There's the possibility to consider that this could be an instance of framing, as all of it's edits are within one day and were restoring edits of mine which had been reverted, and noting the edit summaries appearing to be a mockery of mine as well. Thanks in advance -/ut͡ʃxʎørnɛja ☭/ (탁ᷞ, кон-, ឯឌឹត្ស, 𐎛𐎓𐎄𐎛𐎚𐎒). 05:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC).
 * The edits were made too long ago for a checkuser to check, so this request isn't going anywhere. Also, when I warned you seven months ago and said that my warning applied equally to the other account, you didn't claim it wasn't yours. Given your "persistent memory problems", I think this is an open-and-shut case. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 05:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Firstly, did you notice how little I used to reply on my talk-page? -/ut͡ʃxʎørnɛja ☭/ (탁ᷞ, кон-, ឯឌឹត្ស, 𐎛𐎓𐎄𐎛𐎚𐎒). 05:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC).
 * As Meta said. If you want to log into that account and make some edits I can then confirm it is yours, though. - TheDaveRoss  13:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That's the thing; if it is mine, I would've written the password in my notebook. It being not there leads me to conclude that it's a sock of someone else intending to frame me. -/ut͡ʃxʎørnɛja ☭/ (탁ᷞ, кон-, ឯឌឹត្ស, 𐎛𐎓𐎄𐎛𐎚𐎒). 20:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC).
 * I was mostly kidding, but if they come back let us know and then we can check. - TheDaveRoss  21:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I see that your SPI found the behavioral parallels so open-and-shut that they didn't even bother with the checkuser part, and a pattern of reporting one's own sockpuppets along with claims that they're someone else goes all the way back to Diabedia. Chuck Entz (talk) 09:54, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Sam away Sam away Sam away accusations
Recreation of attack page band hand. Former is temporary blocked, latter is not. There might be sleepers.
 * User:FlexKord
 * User:Sam ich bin
 * You forgot to include yourself in the list. That's okay. I've got it.
 * For more of the same, see the Feriorin discussion above. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:11, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Aryabum
Seems likely to be a sock of banned user. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 15:54, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, . Different ISP and not especially distinctive in the other technical details, but the ISPs are geographically close and the other technical details are identical for all practical purposes. It's all consistent with a scenario of the same device (of a relatively common type) accessing a different network. To be conclusive, you would have to rely on behavioral evidence. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:53, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll make a call here, then, and ban the account. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 06:07, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Tell-tale signs of spurious etymologies insisting Turkic words derive from Persian ones. -- 13:16, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Cyndaquil es mi homi, User:Se eimoh im Pikachu?
Obvious LTA, of Blu Aardvark. please check for sleepers. Emulocks (talk) 15:07, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * These accounts (including the filer) are all obviously socks of Blu Aardvark/Incorrigible Troll, though they could be an imitation attempt by Wonderfool, given the behavior of the socks on en.wiktionary. LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Not Wonderfool, just more sockpuppets reporting other sockpuppets, since no one would know or care about the sockmaster otherwise...yawn... Chuck Entz (talk) 02:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * If it's not Wonderfool then who is it? 24.246.118.194 12:56, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That isn't how this works. - TheDaveRoss  15:25, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, anon. Dave is only saying that because he's a Wonderfool sock. (So am I.) —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 03:26, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Shayan1376
Activity looks like that of perma-blocked user. -- 06:56, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Probably not. Different device, different continent, near-overlap on dates. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:14, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

ونوشک
Seems like the sock of the banned user. Interested in the same stuff and posting similar spurious etymologies. --Vahag (talk) 09:55, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you have a problem with the Iranians? You should see a psychiatrist.--ونوشک (talk) 10:19, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , but there are enough similarities to say that it is a reasonable suspicion. - TheDaveRoss  12:10, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Iskuqoro keyd
Possibly PaM based on fixation on obscure-ish Somali entries. — surjection ⟨ ⟩ 10:58, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * . - TheDaveRoss  12:16, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Xorasan
May be the sock of the banned user. Interested in Zazaki and bad etymologies. --Vahag (talk) --Vahag (talk) 08:40, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Marmase was blocked 5 years ago, and checkuser data is only kept by the system for 90 days. There was some saved data on the checkuser wiki, but the device information was from other accounts checked in 2012-2013 and the IPs didn't provide any useful pattern for comparison. This account's IPs are from a part of the world where you would expect to find people interested in Zazaki and don't overlap with any other edits, so there's absolutely nothing to go on. It was an extreme long shot to start with (people move and get new devices over half a decade), so I'm not surprised. I probably shouldn't have even tried. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:08, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Users adding links

All three new users adding links to the same site, perhaps as part of a spam campaign. Any more users? — surjection ⟨ ⟩ 11:06, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Those are the only ones, but I can confirm that the Walter ones are using the same IP address, which geolocates to the same metropolitan area as the IP address for the Crystalsmith one. The browser details for all 3 are identical, which means it's probably the same computer. I blocked them all for abusing multiple accounts, but it's bordering on "Unauthorized bot" territory. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

PeaNut5667
Sudden interest in Punic without any sourcing. It could very well be the same editor who's obsessed with ancient Semitic and Egyptian (Special:Contributions/יבריב, aka BedrockPerson), who has come back every so often. — surjection ⟨ ⟩ 11:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That had occurred to me, but Bedrock Person never touched anything having to do with the Philippines. I checked anyway just now and the geolocation is indeed wrong for Bedrock Person. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Jutyrutoutfor
Probably an old friend. Same focus as before (Somali entries). — surjection ⟨ ⟩ 19:29, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Blocked. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * . This one decided to start out somewhat differently, but I still have little reason to doubt it's not the same person. — surjection ⟨ ⟩ 10:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Blocked, though the entries they were working on were real, for a change.
 * — surjection ⟨ ⟩ 17:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The ISP and geolocation are all wrong- doesn't look like it. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Gabloigen
The behavioral patterns here are very BedrockPerson-like. The account seems old, possibly being used as a sleeper of some kind. — surjection ⟨ ⟩ 16:16, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, it's hard to say 100%- it's been long enough since their last verified account that the normal process of OS-updating has blurred any distinctiveness in their browser configuration. The IP certainly matches closely enough that you've blocked it for abusing multiple accounts, but it's in a heavily populated area. I can confirm, though, that they're the same as - NativeNames' last edit was August 19, and Gabloigen started editing 5 days later. The IP and browser configuration were identical. Just changing user names isn't enough, by itself, to merit a block if there's no overlap and no evidence they were using them to get away with something improper.
 * I've had a hunch that NativeNames was BedrockPerson from the beginning- I even blocked them at one point, but on second thought unblocked them- the evidence wasn't quite strong enough. Their interactions with Vahag on his user page are certainly suggestive, though. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:03, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * . (Look at the dates! Such convenient timing!) — surjection ⟨ ⟩ 23:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks like it. Blocked as an IP, then edited as, then switched to Pabythali- all three technically indistinguishable and the transitions were seamless as far as timing

Troy
Already making a mess in Chinese (cf. Justin's talk). Any reason not to block on sight? —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 04:08, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not really checkuser territory, unless you think they're a sock of someone who was blocked. I hadn't noticed any parallels, though I could easily have missed something. The Wicca angle, the Bay area focus and the last part of the user name aren't enough in themselves to suggest a LW/GTroy connection, if that's what you mean. They seem even more clueless, and in ways that I wouldn't expect LW to be able to fake. I'll check anyways, just in case. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:22, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * And they have claimed their name is Tiffany-Athena. How is that not enough to suggest a connection? —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 04:27, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, now that I've looked into it: they also have Spanish translations and medical terminology that an EMT would know, as well as IP edits that reinforce the impression- and the geolocation fits exactly. I didn't think to save the data from last time, but it's starting to look pretty solid even without the browser configurations. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:00, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Blocked accordingly. I hope you save the data this time. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 05:03, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Candycrushsaga416
Probably User:Star2548, based on teenager and obsession with editing other editors' user pages. — surjection ⟨ ⟩ 14:30, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep. Literally the same minute that they failed to log in as Star2548, they switched to their other account. I've done what I can to keep them from coming back, but I'm not holding out much hope, Their history of compulsive behavior leads me to wonder if they're even able to stop. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:53, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Odssaid
Probably User:Hirabutor/User:Meatbowl, also blocked twice under IP ranges. The behavior and obsession with etymologies is very similar. (Further info in WP:LTA/Tirgil34). — surjection ⟨ ⟩ 10:45, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * . The IP range has been used by a Tirgil34 sock within the past year, and the device details are consistent, though too common to be open-and-shut proof. Still, I find it odd that this editor has been pushing a Semitic connection at Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/h₂ébōl rather than a pan-Turkic one. I do see a comment by the same IP on an entry talk page that's more like Tirgil34, though. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:05, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , back to old habits and almost certainly related. — surjection ⟨ ⟩ 23:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Looking at the IP that Altuunay uses, every edit is technically indistinguishable (they updated their browser software twice, but there was enough overlap to tell that that was the only difference), and that includes edits by the following accounts: (who also used another device with another IP),, , and . Never mind Hirabutor/Tirgil34- the above accounts overlap enough and the content is similar enough to block them based on the 90-days of data I have access to. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:52, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've now blocked them all. Although I'm tempted to block the IP, also, it may be used in the future by someone else. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:04, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Dubitator
An IP just made edits that I find objectionable and in my view should have been discussed. (My reasoning for keeping the current quotes in Jamaican Creole is that the syntax of the sentences in quotes is fairly typical for Caribbean English-based creoles; the English is just there for context. I think the point about the same authors, study and quote as the English cite is valid, but it does not follow that the quote is not in Jamaican Creole.) How should I request a checkuser comparison to Dubitator? ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  11:13, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've been aware of this from the beginning, but I'm reluctant to run a check. Neither the IP nor Dubitator has done anything that required blocking, and I'm not sure that creating the Dubitator account would be a rule violation either. Rude, yes. Dishonest, yes- but is it something that would require action to protect the site? Chuck Entz (talk) 15:39, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * For reference, the IPs involved are and, both Deutsche Telekom AG and both geolocating to Paderborn. This is an IP editor who's been participating here for years. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:51, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Having read the section at the top, I agree that the behaviour is too trivial for a CU investigation. None of the behaviour comes close to serious enough for even a short ban. The ping didn't get through by the way (so maybe this one won't arrive either). ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  17:50, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Badagnani?
Their editing patterns look like. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 22:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't need the checkuser tool for that. The person in question described himself on his own Wikipedia talk page as a musicologist from Kent, Ohio. This IP geolocates to Kent, Ohio and has a higher than average proportion of their endless requests related to music. So far, they seem to have avoided the fatal words "can it be added", and they're not as rude, but I have no doubt that it's the same person. By the way: I can't get checkuser information on edits that are more than 90 days old and I never had any reason to run a check on this person, let alone save any checkuser data. Even if I ran a check, I would have nothing to compare them against.
 * I wouldn't have blocked them, myself, but I never had to deal with them and I don't like second-guessing other admins' judgment where I have little involvement. They are technically evading a block, so I'm going to let you do what you think is appropriate. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Samandar33
Almost certainly Irman again; compare to the last blocked sock. — surjection ⟨ ⟩ 09:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * : Samandar33 and Andronovo are identical- same IP, same browser data. Never mind Irman, this is clear block evasion based on that. Blocked.Chuck Entz (talk) 14:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * — surjection ⟨ ⟩ 11:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Portmanteau IPs
This is a bit of a complicated case which might cause issues (as it might involve revealing someone's IP), so I can understand if this request is denied. There's a small group of editors (perhaps just one) that has been editing Appendix:English portmanteaux in short spurts, mostly apart from each other. The only registered user account is

while the rest are IP addresses, as can be seen from the page history. The reason I suspect that we aren't actually dealing with more than one editor here is that the IPs and the account seem to restore the exact same things when I remove them because they don't belong on the list: Special:Diff/62958636, Special:Diff/62958650 (IP), Special:Diff/63448003 (Enix150), not to mention the fact that the editing patterns are very much the same.

There are no blocks involved, so why RFCU it? There is an active RFD of the page I linked (Requests for deletion/Others) and I suspect there's some multiple voting going on in an attempt to save the editor's personal playground. — surjection ⟨ ⟩ 11:07, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not all that complicated: it's a clear and blatant case of IP-socking and double-voting. No innocent parties are involved, so I have no problem with revealing that these are all from the same device, with Enix150 using all of these IPs interchangeably, both logged in and logged out, over the same time periods using the same device. If they didn't want their IPs exposed, they shouldn't have used them to double-vote. And really, I'm just confirming what was totally obvious to anyone paying the slightest attention. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:04, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Bananabeachmilk
Probably a sock of User:SlippyLina, the account was seemingly created just to restore a definition that that user had added via a proxy IP — surjection ⟨ ⟩ 11:03, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Kaunuss
Some admins in the Discord server are putting allegations that this account is a sock puppet of myself. Not sure about the reason but probably because of their recent deployment of the controversial inh+ and bor+ en masse. Their edit to page "tatsama" may be supporting factor since "tatsama" is a term of Indo-Aryan linguistics (my main editing area). They have edited other languages I do not know, and have edited none of the languages I work on apart from their English entry super-straight (where I actually do see some editing similarity to my editing). I, as the accused, want to disprove this claim by having myself checked, especially because of a recent RFDO vote of theirs in a case where I was also involved and where use of multiple a/cs for multiple votes is block-worthy (and hence I'm wanting a clean chit) Svartava2 (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see any overlap with this account, though there are multiple overlaps with another account with a similar name that was active as of earlier this month. I haven't compared all of your edits with their edits, but it doesn't look like the two have participated in any of the same votes or discussions. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:55, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking. In the discord server everyone knows about my other account. Svartava2 (talk) 02:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Shāntián Tàiláng?
These IPs have been active after I gave Shāntián Tàiláng a block, and the behaviour is quite similar to what they usually do. (I gave Shāntián a permablock for block evasion, but was reminded to check to make sure.) — justin(r)leung { (t...) 22:58, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

—Suzukaze-c (talk) 02:08, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * ... Yep. It's sad to see all that youthful enthusiasm and energy wasted on bad edits. That and all the not-so-youthful and not-so-abundant time and energy wasted on running behind with a mop and a shovel to clean after them. Chuck Entz (talk) 09:14, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Weird feeling about this one. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 21:15, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Same as above. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 00:29, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yep. And still trying to talk their way out of their block. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:16, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Looks like them. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 15:06, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Totally looks like them. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 23:40, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I haven't bothered with the checkuser tool- this is one of the ranges they were using while logged in. I didn't want to go through and block all of those, but they don't seem to have any self-restraint. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

What xactly did this guy do? Can u fellas pls giv me a comprehensiv list of all the bad edits he did over each of those IP addresses? I only ask bcuz i used 2 b blocked from editing here, & it was *not* bcuz of anything *i* had evr done, but bcuz of *his* bad edits which i had nothing 2 do w/. That way, if i evr decide 2 signup 4 an accnt here 1 day, i'll know how 2 avoid making those bad edits. And u said he was still trying 2 talk his way outa the block― have u evr found any evidence of him actuly creating new WT or WP accnts just 2 b disruptiv, like say ? Bcuz if he hasn't done that kind of accnt creation, i think he might actuly have some "self restraint", unlike what User:Chuck Entz said. 2600:1003:B449:4C46:0:55:DA00:4901 00:21, 3 December 2021 (UTC) Date:Dec 02, 2021 Time:7:20 PM

--Fytcha (talk) 01:52, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

User:General Vicinity
General Vicinity. Any chance they are User:Shāntián Tàiláng? RcAlex36 (talk) 16:51, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Nope. Wrong continent. They are the same as another relatively active new account, but they seem to have just decided they didn't like their old name and ditched it. As long as they aren't evading a block and don't do anything deceptive like double voting, that's not a problem. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:22, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Abusing Multiple Accounts Block Evasion
—<u style="color:#E21F1F; font-variant:small-caps; font-size:120%;">Svārtava <sup style="font-size:80%;">[t•c•u•r] 07:14, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This person just wants to play games. I'm not going to humor them.
 * I blocked them, and I'll wait until their next lame, attention-grabbing gimmick, and block them for that, too- unless someone else gets to them first. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Qasayidabughalis
Very likely block-evading as Special:Contributions/95.187.121.235. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 21:16, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No need for checkuser. The behavioral evidence (especially the request to hide the IP from the edit summaries) is conclusive. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Սեաւ Պարտէզ
Is similar in behaviour to the permanently-banned User:Pilotmucks. Invents words and is foul-mouthed like that user. --Vahag (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I blocked based on behavioral evidence, by the way - it seems pretty obvious to me. — S URJECTION / T / C / L / 18:29, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It is indeed obvious. Vahag (talk) 18:36, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

 * They are right, however, that using descriptors like "inane" in the Etymology section is unprofessional. Use something like "improbable" (or remove it entirely if there's no chance of it being right). Equinox ◑ 18:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I did. Vahag (talk) 18:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I don’t think so. He probably used “inane” literally as “empty” because of them pointing to nothing, or ”worthless” as being too vague to be to any avail, and also because variation delectates, so his etymologies are a pleasure to read. Fay Freak (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

 * The etymologies are in English. There is no English sense of "inane" that means "empty". Equinox ◑ 18:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, I meant it in the sense of "annoyingly senseless", because not only are the proposed etymologies senseless but they also annoy me for seeking complex answers where the simple one lies nearby. Is it so hard to look up the same word in the dictionaries of nearby languages? Vahag (talk) 18:59, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No connection to Pilotmucks on the back end, but same as and, who are globally locked, and blocked on Wikipedia as socks of  (see w:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ClassicYoghurt/Archive). The block reason is correct, even if the specifics behind it were (probably) mistaken. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:02, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. Seems to be a Western Armenian with interest in nationalist topics and with weird mood swings. Vahag (talk) 19:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The WP sockpuppet investigation mentions Occidental College, which is near Glendale, home to a huge Armenian community. In my experience, the worst nationalist-POV vandals tend to be from expat communities in places like the US or the UK. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * . Please check User:Անէծք տաճկաց for being the sockpuppet of the same. I want to nip this in the bud. Vahag (talk) 20:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Different IP (within the same range), but otherwise identical. Blocked. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

User:MooCowSayMoo
Very likely block-evading as Special:Contributions/2A02:C7E:18D0:7700:587F:8F02:F34E:92E4. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 16:12, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No need for the checkuser tool. Behaviorally this is completely, open-and-shut obvious. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:54, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

User:GinNike0000
Special:Contributions/Mare-Silverus —Fish bowl (talk) 08:15, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It's been more than a decade, and they're still at it. They seem to have been visiting Wiktionary once a month as Mare-Silverus to see if they were still blocked, then they tried editing logged out, which was stopped by the abuse filter. With the start of the new year they came back with a new account and started back up with the same bad edits. The IPs and browser configuration information for everything were identical. They now have a second permantly-blocked account to add to their routine. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:48, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Probably. —<u style="color:#31B404; font-size:120%;">Svārtava  (t/u) • 10:08, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

 * Yes, obviously the same person. However, it is unclear to me why has banned User:MinecraftGod12345 for "long-term abuse" when that account was a mere 4 and a half hours old. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 11:48, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Fytcha: —<u style="color:#31B404; font-size:120%;">Svārtava  (t/u) • 12:58, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * See WT:Beer parlour/2022/March

Special:Contributions/2001:E68:540E:3B5C:3DE7:2D0E:F26C:B7
Is this Special:Contributions/XxbahrainxX? RcAlex36 (talk) 16:16, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

 * Which of the causes below "CheckUser investigations will only be conducted with the following cause:" applies here? — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 09:55, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

 * Both are making disruptive edits to Chinese entries, and it seems to me that there is a possibility they are the same person. RcAlex36 (talk) 10:08, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Botreview
User:Indigenouswikicom, etc. — S URJECTION / T / C / L / 19:15, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * They are abusing multiple accounts, but it looks like every account they have used has been blocked at this point. - TheDaveRoss  01:44, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

User:MrsBobDobalina
Obsessed with blends and adding some words that are hard to attest. User:Enix150? The same account is blocked on en.wp as an LTA, albeit without specifying who (note that Enix150 is not blocked on en.WP). — S URJECTION / T / C / L / 11:30, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I can't tell. Maybe Chuck knows more about Enix150 or other possible socks. - TheDaveRoss  01:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Anton Hougel
These two accounts are all but certainly related to each other; they're new accounts that have an affinity to promote Turkic etymologies, with questionable sourcing. They also show a strong similarity to Tirgil34 (aka Hirabutor, Meatbowl...), but the data may be too old to confirm. — S URJECTION / T / C / L / 20:48, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Requests for checkuser/archive for the most recent previous example I can remember. — S URJECTION / T / C / L / 21:18, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I am afraid to disappoint you, but all I did was giving a primary source (Histories (Herodotus)) for new entries for the wiktionary, it's part of the main subject Greek mythology and the page is Targitaos. And now, all of a sudden I am connected with Caucasian Kubachinians? Thanks for this nice welcome.--Anton Hougel (talk) 21:00, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

 * ✅ Same IP, same browser- everything identical on the back end. Also and a couple of other accounts with no edits. They've also edited as an IP- I see similar edits going back to 2018 in the same range, though I can't use the checkuser tool on anything more than 90 days old to confirm whether they're the same. There are also what look to be unrelated edits by third parties (nothing within the 90-day window). From data I and other checkusers have archived, I see that confirmed Tirgil34 socks have used the same IP range in the past. With software updates and the like there's not a real signature I can match with the old data, but it's certainly suggestive. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:26, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Based on pattern of vandalism. I've recently in the past month encountered a few such vandals who mass-create a lot of trash redirect pages. Please IP-block if it's the same user. —Svārtava (talk) • 07:08, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

— Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 01:51, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

 * User:Shāntián Tàiláng? — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 16:48, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

 * Ah, Surjection blocked him the very same minute. It's resolved then. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 16:50, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

—Fish bowl (talk) 03:22, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

—Fish bowl (talk) 23:50, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ and blocked. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:41, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Something strange is afoot here - I cannot tell if there are multiple (equally incompetent) editors behind this and some other accounts (such as the ones that have edited the user talk page), or whether it's the one and the same person. — S URJECTION / T / C / L / 19:10, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

 * - I suspect this may be the same person. Thadh (talk) 20:33, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * As is -- just take a look at the user talk. — S URJECTION  / T / C / L / 07:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * — S URJECTION / T / C / L / 09:43, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * : my impression is that these are students working on some kind of assignment or class project somewhere in Africa. : UserAnhkiet439 seems to be completely unrelated (Vietnam rather than Africa) and random. There's nothing here that would justify running a check on any of these accounts: UserAnhkiet439 is globally locked, and the others are guilty of nothing more than posting boring statements about Wiktionary on their own talk pages.. Chuck Entz (talk) 11:45, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

@Surjection sorry for the inconvenience but it is for an assessment, however we are not yet assessed… is it possible to undo, unblock the content we posted … we will delete it after we get marks please.

A suspected sockpuppet of, ,. Vahag (talk) 08:22, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * : unfortunately, it's all rather boring and inconclusive. The IPs seem to geolocate to the same geographical area, but it's home to one of the largest populations of Armenians in the US, so that doesn't say much. I only have access to the data from WP sockpuppet investigations this year, and the device used is completely different.
 * So, I can't categorically exclude the possibility, but I also can't exclude the possibility of a like-minded but completely unrelated individual from the same general area. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:34, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Chuck Entz, thanks for checking. I'll keep an eye on him for now. Vahag (talk) 16:37, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Suspected suckpuppet of Thadh (talk) 18:04, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

 * Also : The fact this one uses the above user's files from Commons (not to mention almost identical editing habits) makes it all the more suspicious. Thadh (talk) 18:11, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Thadh - The latter two are likely the same person, and if the behavioral evidence suggests that they are the same as the blocked user then the CU evidence circumstantially supports it. There is no direct relation, however. - TheDaveRoss  18:31, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * To make sure, this was only concerning 우습게, correct? Thadh (talk) 18:37, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Thadh ဘာကျာ်ဝိ is likely the same person as 우습게, and if you believe that they might both be the same person as 咽頭べさ due to editing behavior then the checkuser evidence would suggest that is probably the case, but cannot say so with certainty. - TheDaveRoss  18:39, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks. The behaviour of 우습게 almost undeniably proves this (see also incubator:User:우습게), for ဘာကျာ်ဝိ I'm reasonably certain it's the same guy. Thadh (talk) 18:42, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * On second thought, I'll wait with blocking the second one, they only have three edits so far, so I might be wrong. Thadh (talk) 18:45, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Probably a sock of and  (and many older accounts) - this user is adding IPA and entries without any clue and almost certainly making a ton of mistakes. — S URJECTION / T / C / L / 05:46, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅. All the following are related:, , , , , , , , , ,
 * They're also related to a bunch of Minecraft-themed and/or vandalism-only accounts I checked in May. That's all I have time for right now, but there may be a few more. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:28, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey, I know this is old stuff from last year, but since and  have been found to be socks of the globally-blocked , maybe you (or rather, someone you know with the authority to do so) can globally block all those other socks you mentioned? 174.193.88.49 18:21, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/2607:FB91:38C:6C96:8599:2AC1:9B1D:6AEB
Looks like engaging in offline editing to evade a block. — S URJECTION / T / C / L / 09:16, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * : no evidence on the back end- different devices, geolocating thousands of miles apart. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:42, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I also asked some of our editors working on Korean to look at the edits, and they seemed to agree that the IP shows quite a bit more competence than SSTF, despite the editing patterns being very similar on first glance, so this is almost definitely a miss. — S URJECTION / T / C / L / 16:44, 17 December 2022 (UTC)


text:
Talk:فلافل

Needs Arabic
Needs Arabic. 71.66.97.228 23:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Etymology
Guest Post: A Smattering of Obnoxious Word Origins gives an alternative etymology from Coptic: "the three words fa-la-fel mean “of many beans.”" I couldn't find it in:
 * Behnstedt, Peter (1981). "Weitere koptische Lehnwörter im Ägyptisch-Arabischen". Die Welt Des Orients (in German). 12: 81–98. ISSN 0043-2547 doesn't list it as far as I have seen.
 * Federico Corriente: Coptic Loanwords of Egyptian Arabic in Comparison with the Parallel Case of Romance Loanwords in Andalusi Arabic, with the True Egyptian Etymon of Al-Andalus, Gorgias Press, 2013

Right now, I couldn't check Bishai, Wilson B. 1964. “Coptic lexical inﬂuence on Egyptian Arabic”. Journal of the Near Eastern Society 23. 39–47.

Does anyone has more information on this? Thanks in advance, --Marsupium (talk) 11:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:فلافل


text: Category:Egyptian Arabic uncountable nouns


text:
nafoukanec

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1)  bighead a person having an inflated opinion of himself

title: nafoukanec


text:
furiant

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1) bighead a person having an inflated opinion of himself

Noun

 * 1)  a dance

title: furiant


text: Category:English terms suffixed with -izzle


text:
Citations:echoplex

1. The computer sense, as a verb:
 * 1993: Uyless D. Black, Computer networks: protocols, standards, and interfaces, caption of an image on page 99
 * Data placed in async. format, transmitted, and echoplexed.

2. The computer sense, possibly as a noun instead: 3. The musical/echo sense, possibly as an adjective instead:
 * 1985: Martin D. Seyer, The IBM PC/XT: making the right connections, page 132
 * The PC operator can then backspace and retype the character. The device that is to echo the characters should be optioned for echoplexing.
 * 1988: Martin D. Seyer, Complete guide to RS232 and parallel connections, page 212
 * When a terminal is connected to a computer port supporting echoplexing, the terminal will not locally display the character until it is received from the line.
 * 2003: Peter Buckley, The rough guide to rock, page 1
 * [...] like whales pirouetting to the tones of a string quartet in E, before Butcher's lush vocals swept in over Philip Glass motifs and an echoplexed bagpipe.
 * 2003: Rob Bowman, Soulsville, U.S.A.: The Story of Stax Records, page 257
 * William "Wee Gee" Howard takes the lead vocal and Dennis Coffey plays the heavily echoplexed guitar, while Johnny Allen [...]

title: Citations:echoplex


text:
Talk:echoplex

echoplex
I see a lot of noun uses, not matching this definition, but no verb uses. But I've only looked fairly cursorily.—msh210 ℠ 20:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I only know this as a noun from ancient computing. It is what we now take for granted when using a PC - when we hit a key, the character is displayed on a screen so we can check that we hit the right one. SemperBlotto 10:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

These aren't coherent enough (ie, they don't all apply to the same sense and they possibly don't all apply to the same POS) to rfv-pass yet. — Beobach972 18:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The computer sense, as a verb:
 * 2) *1993: Uyless D. Black, Computer networks: protocols, standards, and interfaces, caption of an image on page 99
 * Data placed in async. format, transmitted, and echoplexed.
 * 1) The computer sense, possibly as a noun instead:
 * 2) *1985: Martin D. Seyer, The IBM PC/XT: making the right connections, page 132
 * The PC operator can then backspace and retype the character. The device that is to echo the characters should be optioned for echoplexing.
 * 1) *1988: Martin D. Seyer, Complete guide to RS232 and parallel connections, page 212
 * When a terminal is connected to a computer port supporting echoplexing, the terminal will not locally display the character until it is received from the line.
 * 1) The musical/echo sense, possibly as an adjective instead:
 * 2) *2003: Peter Buckley, The rough guide to rock, page 1
 * [...] like whales pirouetting to the tones of a string quartet in E, before Butcher's lush vocals swept in over Philip Glass motifs and an echoplexed bagpipe.
 * 1) *2003: Rob Bowman, Soulsville, U.S.A.: The Story of Stax Records, page 257
 * William "Wee Gee" Howard takes the lead vocal and Dennis Coffey plays the heavily echoplexed guitar, while Johnny Allen [...]

 * Failing due to lack of conclusion. Looks like this should have an entry if someone does the legwork on it. -  23:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:echoplex


text:
Talk:key log

key log
Rfv-sense: The key issue or problem, which if (re)solved, would make the current task easy to complete. The issue around which the whole problem revolves. Also: Literal sense seems SoP: The log which, if removed, would free up the whole logjam. DCDuring TALK 18:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Found some references for the second sense. "Electric utilities are the key log." TIME Magazine, "the "key log" of the economic jam was the public utility situation" TIME Magazine, "Vietnam Negotiations: The Key Log" New York Times, "The key log In the educational jam is the department" New York Times.--TBC  13:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Unable to get access to the NYTimes cites. Inserted Time cite, qv. DCDuring TALK 14:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As for the first sense, keep as per keystone. Also, I believe it's a technical term in the logging industry (not sure about it, though).--TBC  13:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It would be nice to have even one real usage of the logging sense. DCDuring TALK 14:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Cited. TBC's second New York Times cite is behind a paywall, but fortunately, the journal that it's quoting from is on JSTOR, which I happen to have access to at the moment, and the CFI only require one cite from a scholarly journal. (This actually covers both senses, because the same cite uses the literal sense. Or maybe it only mentions the literal sense, but for scholarly journals we only require "appearance", not necessarily "usage", so it doesn't matter.) —Ruakh TALK 03:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:key log


text: Àokèlán

title: Àokèlán


text:
ओबामा

Etymology
.

Declension
NOTE: This term is declined masculine or feminine according to the gender of the referent.

title: ओबामा


text: Àoyùn

title: Àoyùn


text:
Talk:stagiaire

stagiaire
I think this is French. The English is stagiary according to the OED. (Needs formatting properly) SemperBlotto 07:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

 * I added the French, never heard of it in English. We usually say trainee or intern if it’s a noun, or probationary if an adjective. —Stephen 15:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

 * It seems like the word is used quite some times in English too, probably just directly stolen from French. To give some examples,          . --Eivind (t) 16:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems that the Council of the Inner Temple in advertising training posts with, for example, the European Commission, the United Nations,etc use the "french" spelling, without, however, italicising as they would for Latin or other foreign words. I was unable to find any recent use of "stagiary" in this sense, whilst all the post-graduates I spoke to recognised "staadj-ee-air" but not "stagg-ee-airy".

 * Removing, no citations given and examples shown are italicized as though it were a foreign language word. Stagiary is able to be cited if someone cares to. -  00:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:stagiaire


text:
Talk:свекла

sveklá - non-standard
This pronunciation is common but not considered standard. свёкла (svjókla) is standard. Spelling "свекла" is correct because letter ё is commonly replaced with е in writing by Russians. Dictionaries should use свёкла. --Anatoli 00:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:свекла


text:
Talk:首乌汁

首乌汁
The definition says that it is the name of a patented medicine. I'm not sure that would qualify under WT:CFI. This link provides a description of the medicine. -- A-cai 12:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

 * It's apparently a brand name of a liquid patent medicine produced in Guangzhou, which can be found in pretty much any Chinese herbalist's shop or Chinese supermarket with a traditional medicine section). It's so prevalent among the Chinese communities around the world I think it could appear here like Tylenol, Prozac, Rohypnol, Kleenex. 24.29.228.33 16:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not a "patented medicine" - our definition of "patent medicine" is was wrong; it is a medicine that was originally proprietary, but is now generic so that anyone can make their own version, just like anyone can make aspirin, which was itself once a trademark. bd2412 T 09:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:首乌汁


text:
forst

Etymology
From, from , , akin to 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬. The surviving attestations show metathesis of r, but the descendants derive from a form without it.

Noun

 * 1) frost

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) firwood, pinewood
 * 2) forest

title: forst


text:
Talk:patent medicine

patent medicine
Hippietrail tagged this as an RfV over a year ago, based on the discrepancy between our definition and Wikipedia's. I did some research and found the following: So it seems that what we have here is a UK/U.S. usage divide, with the U.S. usage clearly divorced from ownership of an actual patent. bd2412 T 22:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Patent medicine is an English term which refers to the registration with the British Patent Office of a given compound as a medicine. In the United States it refers to those drugs which are sold without a prescription. Thus, in the United States, the term "patent medicine" is a misnomer since no patent is required." Robert H. Coombs, Lincoln J. Fry, Patricia G. Lewis, Socialization in Drug Abuse (1976), p. 10.
 * "The term "patent medicine" originated in England and referred to "patents of royal favor" that kings granted to their bootmakers, tailors, and medicine makers. By definition, true patent medicines revealed their ingredients on their labels as a condition of maintaining their patent on that formulation. The so-called "patent medicines" produced in America were actually proprietary drugs in which the unique shape and color of the bottles along with the label designs were protected by trademark. The actual ingredients within the bottles, however, were kept secret — a practice that only added to the medicine's mystique. "Patent medicine" became a misused term due to the lack of distinction between patented and unpatented medicines in ads and on store shelves." Charles R. Whitlock, Ben Chandler, Mediscams: Dangerous Medical Practices and Health Care Frauds, (2003), p. 39.
 * "Just a word as to the distinction made between proprietary medicines and "patent medicines." Strictly speaking, practically all nostrums on the market are proprietary medicines and but very few are true patent medicines. A patent medicine, in the legal sense of the word, is a medicine whose composition or method of making, or both, has been patented. Evidently, therefore, a patent medicine is not a secret preparation because its composition must appear in the patent specifications. Nearly every nostrum, instead of being patented, is given a fanciful name and that name is registered at Washington; the name thus becomes the property of the nostrum exploiter for all time. While the composition of the preparation, and the curative effects claimed for it, may be changed at the whim of its owner, his proprietorship in the name remains intact. As has been said, a true patent medicine is not a secret preparation; moreover, the product becomes public property at the end of seventeen years. As the term "patent medicine" has come to have a definite meaning to the public, this term is used in its colloquial sense throughout the book. That is to say, all nostrums advertised and sold direct to the public are referred to as "patent medicines"; those which are advertised directly only to physicians are spoken of as 'proprietaries.'" American Medical Association, Nostrums and Quackery (1921), p. 6.

 * According to the OED: "a proprietary medicine manufactured under patent and available without prescription". You're right that in the US it seems to have become a synonym for simply "non-prescription medicine".  Is it ever used this way in the UK I wonder?  I don't think I've ever heard it.  Ƿidsiþ 09:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Although the OED has only the "official" meaning, the term is sometimes used in its wider sense in the UK (certainly in Northern England), but this is probably just "patent" in its wider sense of "In extended use: to which a person has a proprietary claim. Also: special for its purpose; ingenious, well-contrived" (OED).   D b f  i  r  s   09:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

 * In the US, there is no necessary connection between a drug being patented and being a prescription drug or being sold over the counter or being a "controlled substance". In the US patent medicine is dated (19th-early 20th century, I think), but referred to non-prescription medicines. DCDuring TALK 11:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Chambers 1908 defines it as "a medicine sold under the authority of letters-patent, any proprietary medicine generally on which stamp duty is paid". Equinox ◑ 16:30, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:patent medicine


text:
Talk:Neugeborene

Neugeborenes
Genitive form: I think the correct genitive form is Neugeborenen, as in "Die Haut des Neugeborenen ist rosa." Mutante 08:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right. Neugeborenes can't be the genitive, only the nominative/accusative, and only in syntactic positions where the strong form is called for, since this noun is inflected like an adjective. Angr 08:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:Neugeborene


text:
Talk:proof of concept

proof of concept
Recently resolved on rfc, but now there is a rfv issue, namely the two plurals.

My initial reaction on seeing them was to think that "proof of concepts" should be deleted, in the same way that "mother-in-laws" and "court-martials" are frowned upon. On further consideration, though, I think there is room for two plurals here, but with slightly different senses.

I would say that "proofs of concept" is the "simple" plural, as in In every software house I've worked in the past, I've had to provide proofs of concept of my work. This sentence emphasises the multiple proofs. I would reserve "proof of concepts" for the concept of proving multiple concepts; that is, "proof" is uncountable in this sense.

 * Hmmm. And what about "proofs of concepts"? "Proof of concepts" doesn't sound right, but let the citations speak! DCDuring TALK 12:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

 * All three exist in number, "proofs of concepts" having 100 raw b.g.c. hits, the others 5 or 6 times as many. So much for it only being uncountable. DCDuring TALK 12:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

So there is a more subtle point here: does "proof of concept" have countable and uncountable senses? In This document provides proof of concept, "proof of concept" is uncountable, whereas in This document is a proof of concept, it is countable (and therefore allows for These documents are proofs of concept). If "proof of concept" is uncountable only (as I have always understood it to be), then we have no plurals at all, but if it is countable only or countable as well, we need a usage note to distinguish between the two plurals, as, to my mind, they are not interchangeable. — Paul G 09:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

 * "a proof of concepts" (indicating countability) gets 29 raw b.g.c. hits, some of which are clearly countable uses of some noun sense. Interestingly, as I look at these I find that my own notion of "concept" in this collocation can refer to either the integrated concept of something as a whole or the separable component concepts. I'm not sure that we will help any user very much by trying to explain this in the "proof of concept" entry. "Concept" has different meanings, possibly, but not necessarily worth distinguishing in a dictionary entry. (It would be like having a sense for "container" saying that it was an object that contained other containers because it could be used that way.) Proof has both countable and uncountable senses. "Proof of concept" seems to carry over all the combinations of senses and plural/uncountability of the components, while still meriting an entry because it is idiomatic. Is it worth having a long-winded usage note about the combination plurals, when the component terms could carry most of the water? I would consider using . The usage note could direct the user to the component entries. DCDuring TALK 12:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:proof of concept


text:
kielégítő

Adjective

 * 1) satisfactory

title: kielégítő


text: kielégítőbb

title: kielégítőbb


text: legkielégítőbb

title: legkielégítőbb


text:
Talk:preferences

preferences - senses
Rfv-senses: pluralia tantum that which one chooses over something else and computing}user-specified settings of parameters in a computer program

I don't see how def is p.t. and why the second is listed as a plural, or why it is deemed a "computing-specific" sense. But I could be wrong. DCDuring TALK 18:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Seems to have been sorted. - 00:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

preferences
Sense: (computing) The user-specified settings of parameters in interactive computer software.

 * This looks like the plural of preference:. DCDuring TALK 18:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

 * This should not be listed separately under the plural, though we might need a new sense at singular preference: to indicate a computer program setting. Equinox ◑ 20:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 20:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Any particular reason? Can it be show that this usage is plural only as much as sneakers is? Facts are permitted in discussions despite the recent practice of closing discussions that have had no facts and little discussion. DCDuring TALK 20:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Delete and explain it at the singular. — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 05:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

 * Keep. Computing meaning is not generally singular. DAVilla 14:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course the computing meaning occurs in singular. A simple Google Books search would have unveiled that fact in ten seconds:

 * Although you can access most system- and application-specific settings via System Preferences or application preference dialogs, respectively, there are often other settings or options available in the OS or in a particular application for which there's no interface provided.

On that basis, delete. -- Liliana • 22:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

 * Yes delete sense. It is no different from any other sense. Spinning Spark  13:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

 * Keep, as the singular "preference" does not capture the always plural sense of a group of settings. bd2412 T 17:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Kept. No consensus.--Jusjih (talk) 22:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:preferences


text:
tempétueux

Adjective

 * 1) tempestuous, stormy
 * 2) storm-racked; agitated by a storm

title: tempétueux


text:
dohs

Noun

 * 1) pig

title: dohs


text:
tempétueusement

Etymology
From.

Adverb

 * 1) tempestuously

title: tempétueusement


text:
Talk:write-off

write-off
Phrasal verbs are never hyphenated, but the verb senses might derive from the noun "write-off" (itself derived from the phrasal verb "to write off"). Can anyone confirm? If so, it might be worth adding a usage note pointing this out, to save possible future edit wars; if not, these would belong at write off.

I've already deleted "write off" as the supposed alternative spelling of the noun and "write-off" (which was given at write off as a supposed alternative spelling of the phrasal verb). — Paul G 14:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

 * I agree with you as to preferred spellings and predominant practice, at least in print. Not 100% sure that hyphenated and solid-spelled forms are not sometimes used as verbs. "Write off" is sometimes used as a noun. Business jargon is at least as prone to questionable usage as ordinary English and there's no prescriptive authority nor any inclination to pay any attention to one. DCDuring TALK 15:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

 * I would also agree with the entries as they are now. Although alternatives of this particular entry can be found, I would think of such items as "write off" = noun as misusages. -- A LGRIF  talk 17:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Cited. I changed the sense to just —Ruakh TALK 15:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:write-off


text:
Talk:badding

badding
Nothing obvious on a quick Google. SemperBlotto 15:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Found one usage. There are many mentions in dialect dictionaries. Apparently a true verb. What is standard for such dialect items. DCDuring TALK 16:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose that is reasonable. Dialect words won't get into print very often. SemperBlotto 21:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

 * I suppose that I should insert dictionary notes to deter a needless subsequent RfV. DCDuring TALK 23:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Leaving per consensus. - 00:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:badding


text:
Talk:headmistressship

hostessship, headmistressship, goddessship
The usage note at hostessship says, "The term appears unhyphenated in the unabridged second edition of Webster's Dictionary, yet is spelled hostess-ship in subsequent editions. This trend is also prevalent in headmistressship and goddessship, which, respectively, may be hyphenated."

 * English does not allow the same letter three times consecutively, and usually hyphenates to avoid this (compare cross-stitch), but I acknowledge that these closed-up forms might have currency.
 * American English more readily closes up words that are hyphenated in British English. If these terms are to be included, they need to be marked as "US" because they would be considered incorrect in British English.
 * The fact that Webster's amended "hostessship" to "hostess-ship" in later editions suggests that they recognised they had made an error.

By the way, "respectively" is redundant here as "may be hyphenated" applies to both words. — Paul G 08:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

 * I am unaware of the rule. There is no authority to promulgate a binding rule. Wiktionary does not normally give much weight to rules, except with respect to context tags. I doubt if it is "error" correction as much as changes in prevailing usage or in information about such usage that the other dictionaries follow. DCDuring TALK 10:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Why are these items at RfV??? hostessship, because used in A Winter's Tale, would meet the well-known work rule. The others are cited. No argument challenging the citations has been made. DCDuring TALK 10:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Well, the First Folio spells it hostesseship:; are you sure that the specific edition quoted in our entry constitutes a well-known work? (Also, I'm not sure the well-known work rule applies to misspellings, as this may be; but then, RFV isn't great at identifying misspellings.) —Ruakh TALK 00:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

 * I am aware of the question of editions in Shakespeare, which is why I got the First Folio reference into the notes. I have no idea what ought to constitute a well-known edition of a well-known work. That it was Samuel Johnson's I thought would help the claim. This is the first time that I've seen this issue come up. DCDuring TALK 01:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

 * The fact remains that whatever edition it is, people will read it and can therefore decide to look up the word. At the very least, we should have some sort of "obsolete form of" entry.  By the way, because this section isn't precisely titled "hostessship", the RFV link wasn't working, so I thought it was un-listed and removed the tag. Language Lover 01:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

 * I've restored it, thanks for mentioning. —Ruakh TALK 01:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Ah, I didn't notice it was you that added that. I don't really know enough about the history of editions of Shakespeare. —Ruakh TALK 01:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

 * I think the First Folio is, more or less, the first "authorized" edition of the plays. Some of the older "Quarto" editions were "pirated". I think the quality of some is considered poor, but Shakespeare was dead by the time the First Folio was printed. In any event this was apparently the first publication of "The Winter's Tale". Presumably the later Folios (let alone the later editions) reflect both true corrections and adjustments to then-contemporary printing and spelling conventions. Because the issue here really is just spelling, we might have to wade into this in more detail than normal. Is the a true Shakespeare scholar in the house? DCDuring TALK 00:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Agreed with DCDuring, RFV is the wrong place for these. Let's compare freeest, which only passed as a misspelling, but that's perhaps because of the recency of the term. However, also compare various other attested terms that violate this so-called "rule" which no one has provided citations for: skulllike, bulllike, gillless, crosssection, etc (please don't RFD any of those until this discussion is over). Bear in mind the sheer number of words that break rules (slough can be pronounced three different ways, efficiencies breaks the "I before E except after C" rule twice, and barbaric pronounces the "bar" combination two different ways). To exclude clearly attested words because they break rules is completely absurd. Teh Rote 00:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

 * The rule “‘i’ before ‘e’ except after ‘c’” is only for an sound; an exception is made for -terminal plurals of -terminal nouns. Also, you must agree that, , , and  are a lot more common that their unhyphenated forms. In language, I’d wager that any rule of broad application will have its exceptions, especially in one so widely spoken as English. Nevertheless, this does not bar such terms from being included (as long as they are attestable); however, it is only wise that it be noted when they “buck a trend” when some may term such bucking as “violating a rule”. †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 01:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:headmistressship


text:
Talk:nom nom nom

nom nom nom
Really? SemperBlotto 07:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Should be num-num-num. —Stephen 07:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

 * There's pleny of usage with this spelling. Almost half a million sites on Google web, almost 50,000 on images. --Dmol 08:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

 * It's an onomatopoeia that's surprisingly widespread (though alternatives "om nom nom" and "om nom" are equally as common). Some cites: "This should feed me for days. [Nom, nom, nom]" (San Francisco Chronicle), "Nom nom nom: Alligator Season Starts Today!" (Miami Times ), "Retro-gamer cupcakes OM NOM NOM NOM" (Boing Boing), "Nom nom nom: Indiana welcomes two new restaurants for students" (The Penn), "This Chain Chomp Cap Is Like "Arf! Arf! Om Nom Nom" (Kotaku)--TBC  21:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Is it possible to merge or link this with nom? Currently there are entries for nom and nom nom nom, and a mention of "om nom nom", but we have nothing for "nom nom" (which appears to be a short, somewhat unusual form of "nom nom nom"), or for further repetitions used to intensify the interjection ("om nom nom nom", "nom nom nom nom nom", etc.).  I doubt we want a never-ending chain of entries for this.  Which ones should we have, and how do we deal with the ones without separate entries?  My instinct is to put them all under nom with redirects set up for "nom nom nom", "om nom nom", and "om nom nom nom", but I think that may not be the Wiktionary way. Dfeuer 02:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Redirect to nom: it's SoP, if you will: nom + nom + nom. The only phrase I can think of that's like this but that's not SoP is I say, I say, I say (and I'm not sure about that one).   —msh210  ℠  02:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Perhaps ha ha:, ha ha ha:, ho ho:, ho ho ho:? Equinox ◑ 03:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

 * What about the "om nom" version? Is that the same or separate? Dfeuer 05:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Can be found at nom. I guess there's also numnum as slang or baby talk for a snack or perhaps food in general, which may be older in usage. Peptonized 20:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:nom nom nom


text:
Talk:roll down the windows

rolling down the windows
Is this legit? Does it have wide currency? Is it a noun phrase, or does it belong at "to roll down the windows"? (That is, would you say, "Rolling down the windows is his favourite move" or "He is always rolling down the windows"?) — Paul G 16:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm. This entry is missing the usual sense of lowering car windows, which is idiomatic as most newer cars no longer have a handle to "roll" them down. --EncycloPetey 18:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In terms of books, it seems to appear in three glossaries, but no actual usage  . Haven't delved into groups yet. Conrad.Irwin 18:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

from the entry:

Verb
roll down the windows
 * : To flail one's arms in a circular motion when off-balance, as to mimic the act of rolling down a car window.

title: Talk:roll down the windows


text:
Talk:out the window

out the window
Is this really a noun, as the definition suggests? If so, is it actually "out of the window" ("out" being a slangy way of saying "out of")? A cursory glance at the first 10 Google hits out of 13,500 for "an out the window" gives this as an attributive noun phrase only, mostly (correctly) written as "out-the-window".

If it is not a noun, then I think this is really "go out of the window" and should be defined as "(of an opportunity) to be squandered" or something like that. — Paul G 16:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's (what we call) an adverb (as in "go out the window") and perhaps also an adjective ("another opportunity out the window!" —or is that just an elision of "(has) gone"? See ). Same for down the drain, which we currently list as a preposition and which is tagged with .—msh210 ℠ 17:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

 * I often heard it when I was much younger. I heard it as both adjective (predicate) and adverb. In meaning it was mostly as MSH describes. "That [opportunity] is out the window" or "They had a chance to win the pennant, but now that's out the window" are examples. I can't quite get an attributive use scenario though. I'm not sure how many verbs besides "go" that it can modify as an adverb with the "idiomatic" meaning, which is just a figurative extension of the literal meaning. DCDuring TALK 18:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Still in relatively recent use. Lyrics from a 2001 Sugar Ray song: "All the things that we used to know have gone out the window." --EncycloPetey 21:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * cited IMHO. Please inspect. DCDuring TALK 03:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The noun sense tagged is not cited, of course, but has been replaced. Detagging; thanks for citing. Shouldn't we have [[go out the window]] hard-redirect? (It's now a full entry.) — msh210 ℠ 18:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:out the window