Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
General
Content
User issues
Noticeboards
WP:RFCU redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct (WP:RFC/U), CheckUser policy (Wikipedia:CheckUser), or Wikipedia:Changing username (WP:CHU).
Shortcuts:
WP:RCU
WP:RFCU
WP:RFCHU

Read this first

This is the place to request sockpuppet checks and other investigations requiring access to the Checkuser privilege. Possible alternatives are listed below.

Requests likely to be accepted

Code Situation Solution, requirements
A Blatant attack or vandalism accounts, need IP block Submit new section at #Requests for IP check, below
B Evading blocks, bans and remedies issued by arbitration committee Submit case subpage, including link to closed arb case
C Ongoing, serious pattern vandalism with many incidents Submit case subpage, including diffs
D Vote fraud, closed vote, fraud affects outcome Submit case subpage, including link to closed vote
E 3RR violation using sockpuppets Submit case subpage, including diffs of violation
F Evading blocks, bans and remedies issued by community Submit case subpage, including link to evidence of remedy
G Does not fit above, but you believe check needed Submit case subpage, briefly summarize and justify

Requests likely to be rejected

Situation Solution
Obvious, disruptive sock puppet Block, no checkuser needed
Disruptive "throwaway" account used only for a few edits Block, no checkuser needed
Checkuser on yourself to "prove your innocence" Such requests are rarely accepted, please do not ask
Related to ongoing arbitration case Request checkuser on the arbitration case pages
Vote fraud, ongoing vote Wait until vote closes before listing, or post at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets
Vote fraud, closed vote, did not affect outcome List at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets
Other disruption of articles List at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets
Open proxy, IP address already known List at Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies
You want access to the checkuser tool yourself Contact the Arbitration Committee, but such access is granted rarely


When submitting a request

  • If submitting a new case subpage, use the inputbox below; if adding to an existing case subpage, see WP:RFCU/P#Repeat requests.
  • Choose the code letter that best fits your request. Provide evidence such as diff links as required or requested. Note that some code letters inherently require specific evidence.
  • When listing suspected accounts or IP addresses, use the {{checkuser}} or {{checkip}} templates. Please do not use this template in a section header.
  • You may add your request to the top of the #Outstanding requests section, by adding {{Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/CASENAMEHERE}}. If you do not, clerks should check for pages in Category:Checkuser requests to be listed and will do this for you.
  • Sign your request.


After submitting a request

Privacy violation?
this header: view • edit

File a Checkuser Request
Cases are created on subpages of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case.
If you require help or advice, ask at Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser.

If a case subpage already exists, edit the existing page instead, either adding to the currently open section (if the case is not yet archived) or adding a new section to the top (if the case has been archived). When editing an existing case, be sure to list it here or add Category:Checkuser requests to be listed to the subpage.

If creating a new case subpage, add the name of the main account (or "puppetmaster", not the sockpuppet!) in the box below. Leave out the "User:" prefix. Do not remove the text in the box, add the name to the end only (that is, append the name to the existing text). Then press "Request a checkuser" and you will be taken to a page where you can fill out the request.

Example: if you want to request a checkuser on User:John Doe, enter the text:
Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/John Doe
Indicators
Request completed:
Confirmed Likely
Possible Unlikely
Unrelated Inconclusive
IP blocked Stale
Completed
Request declined:
Declined Checkuser is not for fishing
Rejected Checkuser is not a crystal ball
Unnecessary Checkuser is not magic pixie dust
Information:
Deferred to Additional information needed
Note: In progress
Clerk actions:
Clerk note: Clerk assistance required:
Delisted Relisted

Contents



[edit] Outstanding requests

[edit] Julius Ceasarus From Primus

request links: view • edit • links • history •  watch
Filed: 05:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Supporting evidence:

Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Julius Ceasarus From Primus

The indef.blocked Julius Ceasarus From Primus has great interests in early history of China and Korea, especially anything related "empire" given his previous names are emperors of China or other countries and his edits are within such field. Note the same mention of Kublai Khan[1][2] Also he's currently living in NYC and using Version isp which was confirmed by the past RFCU on him, and the vote at Wei Man, same I and agenda has appeared and attacked user Kuebie, whom the troll has antagonized constantly. I think the newbie, Alitla Gruppels who appears the page is the same person as we as Lord Archivo. Given his abusive sockpuppeting, there would be more accounts. The user also has a typical misselling on capital letters. --Caspian blue 05:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


[edit] Yorkshirian

Portayla (talk · contribs) is an SPA who is repeating, in part, an edit made by known Yorkshirian sock Bovarl. Please determine whether Portayla is Yorkshirian. Thank you. --B (talk) 04:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed. Also blocked sock Whiskey Tipssy (talk · contribs). I've been scanning through eight or nine IP ranges on a regular basis when I suspect Yorkshirian socks, but I always seem to miss one or two. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 05:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. --B (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


[edit] Mossida

request links: view • edit • links • history •  watch
Filed: 11:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Supporting evidence: This is, perhaps, overkill (and if so apologies, perhaps someone could advise what I should be doing?). 91.143.70.161 is an IP address belonging to a PR agency which engages in "Reputation Management". This IP has a single [edit on Tony Murtagh which removed references to various "spots" in the person's history. The article itself was created by Mossida, who has also returned and removed the references section which provided references for the spots in the history. Mossida has also created The Money Group, a company belonging to Murtagh with peacock terms and no claims to notability. It's my belief that Mossida works for PHA Media and is engaged in the "reputation management" the agency claims to provide. If this is the case it is potentially the start of a slippery slope, and certainly doesn't indicate good faith on behalf of the agency.--Blowdart | talk 11:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Orieus

request links: view • edit • links • history •  watch
Filed: 02:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Range blocking is possible here and would not have huge collateral damage. I think, however, that semi-protection would work just as well in this case. Has that been explored? [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 14:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Unnecessary. I semi-protected the talk page for six months. The article itself is already indefinitely semi-protected. --Deskana (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Clerk note: The talk page had been protected a few times before and it proved not to work. I was the one that recommend iMatthew file a RFCU as this users socks keep popping up, and a range block along with clearing out any potential sock drawer would be helpful here. Tiptoety talk 20:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] USEDfan

request links: view • edit • links • history •  watch
Filed: 23:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


  • Supporting evidence:

User:USEDfan has a long long history of all around general disruption, he was indef blocked several months ago and has since created many many sock puppets, many of them confirmed by checkuser. He always creates sole purpose socks to edit The Used and its related sub articles. I'm not exactly sure what diffs to post because there are so many of them. I am familiar with the user and his editing patterns so it's easy for me to identify his socks. I'm just not sure which diffs to use to lay out the evidence properly. If you will look at the the edits of his latest blocked sock, this account is making the same edits and is edit warring with the same people, and refuses to discuss anything just reverts away. Landon1980 (talk) 22:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: Already blocked. seicer | talk | contribs 23:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Dr. Anymouse

request links: view • edit • links • history •  watch
Filed: 22:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Supporting evidence:
  1. Dr. Anymouse has been warned about 3RR with regards to edits at Fibromyalgia here and here.
  2. 71.191.7.3 has been blocked for edit warring at the same article here
  3. User:Sciencewatcher has made a similar allegations here
  • Clerk note: Case filed by User:Orangemarlin (note made for transparency). Tiptoety talk 22:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • All I see is some weak inductive logic, so Additional information needed. Please provide additional evidence of a relationship between Dr. Anymouse and 71.191.7.3. Are they making the same type of edits to Fibromyalgia? Are their noticeable patterns in their style of editing? Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 00:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • FYI: Anon user and I are roomies. We also swap bodily fluids. Does that help? I am trying to convince her to register. Dr. Anymouse (talk) 19:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, that's conclusive. No need for an RfCU, we can just move on to WP:SSP.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Two roommates working on the same article have a built-in conflict with the interests of Wikipedia, which is enough to trip the 'meatpuppet' provisions of WP:SOCK. I suggest that the IP be blocked three months anon-only, that the roommate be invited to create an account, that the two user pages should acknowledge the relationship, and that the two people should not both work on any of the same controversial articles together. EdJohnston (talk) 22:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Done. I am on pledge to be in "tip top" behavior per a note from William Connoley (sp?). "We" will negotiate entries to fibromyalgia off line and I will post them through my account. Now, what can we do about OrangeMarlin's being overly quick on the Twinkle to reverse a majority of what I do on that article? Dr. Anymouse (talk) 23:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your response. Tip top behavior is a good thing, and it would be a pleasant change from recent events. We could do without the mocking remarks at User talk:Dr. Anymouse, and the diatribes on the IP's page about routine enforcement of WP policy ("Really, this is hysterical..."). How would you feel if the IP were blocked anon-only, to make it clear that any further edits via your IP should be made through registered accounts? EdJohnston (talk) 23:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm all for it, thanks. But to get a taste for what I am up against, take a look at how quickly OrangeMarlin reversed my edits on fibromyalgia ... I mean, within minutes. Is there any way I can get him off my back? I'm not a WP-pro, so I don't know all the protocol to address this. My life's work is fibromyalgia; he is a self-professed doubter. Seems a bit silly to have a unqualified individual reverting efforts to improve the content of the article, especially since (as noted by others) this is the first hit that comes up on Google.com when the word 'fibromyalgia' is typed in. We have hashed out the 'controversy' issue in times past. I've been a lot less acid since then, though I can't vouch for my friend-gurl. What are your thoughts? Dr. Anymouse (talk) 23:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we can mark this case Completed. Perhaps the thread above can be taken elsewhere -- it doesn't concern the sockpuppetry allegations. [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 00:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

  • (ec) @Dr. Anymouse: Fibromyalgia is a highly contentious article, so I hope you are not totally shocked at being reverted. We have policies on dispute resolution for a reason, and I hope you will become familiar with them. I've blocked the IP 3 months anon-only, but any other admin may modify the block. I suggest that further discussion take place on your Talk page. If you need to have anonymous editing permitted through this IP, please explain how you plan to do so in accordance with the WP:SOCK policy. Creating new accounts is still enabled. EdJohnston (talk) 00:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Lute88

request links: view • edit • links • history •  watch • talk
Filed: 13:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Possible 3RR violation by sockpuppet and a WP:BLP violation

diffs: 1 2 3 4

Possible deletion vote fraud at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Django (program).

DonaldDuck (talk) 13:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Clerk note: The AFD's outcome was not affected, 3RR was however broken on Judaeo-Masonic conspiracy theory. -- lucasbfr ho ho ho 14:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Likely Currently available technical evidence indicates that while these two users may be using different browsers, they are sharing IPs which no other users share. If it is not outright sockpuppetry, it looks suspiciously like meatpuppetry (even if it is two roomates sharing an internet connection). -- Avi (talk) 15:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but not quite. We both use the same network, and we are in fact related. And we make no secret about it. It has already come up several times in the past.--Galassi (talk) 16:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
It i