• Pogrebnoj-Alexandroff (talk•contribs•Luxo•SUL•deleted contribs•logs•block user•block log •checkuser)

• Cherusk (talk•contribs•Luxo•SUL•deleted contribs•logs•block user•block log •checkuser)

Cherusk (talk ·contribs) awoke. Please, compare it against data on Pogrebnoj-Alexandroff’s previous puppets (see down the page).Incnis Mrsi (talk)17:44, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See alsothis edit directly claiming to upload Pogrebnoj-Alexandroff’s work.   —JeffG. ツ _{pleaseping ortalk to me}20:52, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• All accounts except Cherusk areStale. Leaving this open in case we want to block based on behavior. Original block goes back 11 years (!).Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs)18:05, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Pogrebnoj-Alexandroff (talk•contribs•Luxo•SUL•deleted contribs•logs•block user•block log •checkuser)

• Cheruskers (talk•contribs•Luxo•SUL•deleted contribs•logs•block user•block log •checkuser)
• Cherusc (talk•contribs•Luxo•SUL•deleted contribs•logs•block user•block log •checkuser)
• Cherusk (talk•contribs•Luxo•SUL•deleted contribs•logs•block user•block log •checkuser)

• Reason: I filed this case at the suggestion ofLX inCOM:ANB#Cheruskers. Please see that section for further info and check for sleepers. See also the previous case below.   —JeffG. ツ _{pleaseping ortalk to me}09:49, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • OnlyCheruskers is notStale. Accordingly, there would be no data to which to compare the account. Handling needs to be based on behaviour.Эlcobbola _talk20:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Pogrebnoj-Alexandroff (talk•contribs•Luxo•SUL•deleted contribs•logs•block user•block log •checkuser)

• Genius 2 (talk•contribs•Luxo•SUL•deleted contribs•logs•block user•block log •checkuser)
• Genius 3 (talk•contribs•Luxo•SUL•deleted contribs•logs•block user•block log •checkuser)
• Gilderg (talk•contribs•Luxo•SUL•deleted contribs•logs•block user•block log •checkuser)
• King 1 (talk•contribs•Luxo•SUL•deleted contribs•logs•block user•block log •checkuser)

• Reason: I created this case at the suggestion ofO inthis edit. This user: insists on removing warnings fromits user talk page; has posted multiple copyvios after being warned to stop; has been rather uncivil; sometimes logs in asPogrebnoj-Alexandroff (talk ·contribs) (whichhas been blocked twice as Pogrebnoj-Alexandroff); operates a sock puppet on Russian Wikipedia (there's no mistaking "indefblocked" inthis edit);has been blocked thrice as 24.168.39.49;has reuploaded a copyvio that Bryan deleted;has reuploaded a copyvio that Siebrand deleted; and is nowattempting to get its images deleted from Commons, despite having released them under CC-BY-2.5. Please seeCommons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#24.168.39.49_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29 andUser talk:Pogrebnoj-Alexandroff#User Check, along withthe Russian Wikipedia Checkuser Results for more information.   —Jeff G. (talk|contribs)06:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added more givenCommons:Deletion requests/Uploads of Pogrebnoj-Alexandroff andUser talk:Pogrebnoj-Alexandroff.   —Jeff G. (talk|contribs)16:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This request needs tidying up and I don't have the time at present. A number of the listed IPs have never edited so why are they listed here? The user has only edited from one IP (I checked a couple of days ago). More information/clarity please --Herby^{talk thyme}09:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, only the first three IP Addresses have contribs here. He's used the others on Russian Wikipedia, so I thought he might have logged in with them here. I've removed the others from this request.   —Jeff G. (talk|contribs)21:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Unrelated One IP is the one used by the user, the others seem unrelated --Herby^{talk thyme}07:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Declined. Sure - others are editing the named user's page or subject area but they are using IPs not named users, therefore it is not a CU matter --Herby^{talk thyme}15:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• In practice all the named users were blocked at the time this was raised (there were by & large obvious puppets of some sort) so in the absence of other information/activity I guess this is effectively closed, thanks --Herby^{talk thyme}11:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]