|
Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser
|
| General help |
|
|
| Report abuse |
|
|
| Request assistance |
|
|
| 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).
|
Read this first
This is the place to request sockpuppet checks and other investigations requiring access to the Checkuser privilege. Checkuser is a last resort for difficult cases. Whenever possible, use other methods first. Possible alternatives are listed below.
Acceptable requests
| 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 |
Unacceptable requests
| 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 or by invitation only |
General procedure
- If submitting a new case subpage, use the inputbox below; if adding to an existing case subpage, see WP:RFCU/P#Repeat requests.
- Choose one 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.
- Sign your request.
Specific procedure
After submitting a request
- Responses will be brief in order to comply with Wikipedia's privacy policy.
- Due to technical factors, results are not always clear.
- Check back regularly to see the outcome of your request.
- Checkusers and clerks do not generally issue blocks. You may need to do this yourself or submit a request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
- Case subpages are typically archived several days after a checkuser responds.
Privacy violation?
|
|
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 |
 Unnecessary |
 Checkuser is not for fishing |
 Rejected |
 Checkuser is not a crystal ball |
|
| Information: |
 Additional information needed |
 Deferred to |
 Note: |
|
| Clerk actions: |
 Clerk assistance required: |
 Clerk note: |
 Delisted |
 Relisted |
Outstanding requests
These accounts have all been editing Jewish Internet Defense Force and could be considered single purpose accounts. See recent history of the article in particular. Obaminator (talk) 19:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Note: These appear to be Obaminator (talk · contribs)'s only edits in listing and filing this RfCU. D.M.N. (talk) 19:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Supporting evidence: Please compare edit history of this user with those of EmmaRoad and Lemonsquares. You'll find that Lemonsquares gave way to EmmaRoad and now to WillowGrove, each a few days after the prior sock was blocked. In each case, they were traced back to a banned user. The Mystery Man. Please check if I'm right, but the paterns are the same. join up. Do a huge number of edits. Slip in some out-of-line ones. Get blocked. Rinse, lather, repeat. David in DC (talk) 04:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Supporting evidence: This is an obvious sock of banned editor, and long term abuser, User:Jon Awbrey or else an imposter. My request is to identify any other related, sleeper accounts and block them also. Jehochman Talk 01:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
-
- Supporting evidence: Pinkadelica and Darth Panda recently made the same edits to the Eve Torres page.Pinkadelica first made the edit and then Darth Panda made the same sdit after Pinkadelica made it 2 times.I belive that Darth Panda made the edit so Pinkadelica would not violate the 3rr rule.
both of them do is revert edits and give warrning eventhough they have no adminstrative power.they do this at the same time.somthing seems a little fishey.would some one please check this out.CMJMEM (talk) 21:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The only thing fishy going on is this fishing expedition. For the record, I'm not Darth Panda, we're not in cahoots and, until today, I had no idea the user existed. The only thing the two of us are guilty of is using Huggle to revert some bad edits around the same time. CMJMEM repeatedly added information to the Eve Torres using a blog/gossip site (mediatakeout) as a source. I reverted the first edit while doing RC patrols and explained why in the edit summary. CMJMEM added it back twice and Darth Panda just happened to revert the edit the third time. If I had caught it, I would have reverted it 3RR or not, so the accusations of evading 3RR are completely unfounded. Removing poorly sourced content from a BLP is what we're suppose to do and any user can warn another user who is in violation of policy. CMJMEM was not barraged with warnings from me or Darth Panda either. We both warned him once for adding back the same poorly sourced content three times. While still on my Huggle adventure, I again reverted CMJMEM for removing content from the Layla El article without an explanation (didn't leave a warning for that either). CMJMEM removed it again and finally took advantage of using the edit summary. Lo and behold, I didn't revert that because (s)he explained why it was removed. End of...or so I thought. Following this, CMJMEM left a warning on my talk page for "vandalizing" the Layla El page to which I explained why I made the revert and that the warning was unwarranted. This report is, to put it mildly, a load of bull. It was filed in bad faith and is an attempt at retaliation for what CMJMEM perceives as personal slights. I have no problem with a checkuser being done on my account, but the results will be disappointing to anyone attempting to link me with any other user. Pinkadelica (talk) 09:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Hmm. I don't remember ever working together or planning anything on Wikipedia... Feel free to checkuser me, as I assume that it will show my innocence in this situation. I am sure that both Pinkadelica and I were reverting vandalism, so we have done nothing in bad faith. I'm moderately insulted that CMJMEM seems to think that I'm the secondary account of someone who I have also never heard of before this incident. Darth Panda (talk) 15:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
More detail and Peter Dow's complaint on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Threats to exterminate me, overdose of lead etc. on my User pages ϢereSpielChequers 14:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- Supporting evidence: Suspected use of single-purpose sockpuppets to avoid scrutiny of conflict-of-interest contributions. Accounts' edits almost exclusively involve the subject 5W Public Relations. If confirmed as same user, there are violations of Wikipedia:Three-revert rule#Not an entitlement and Wikipedia:Edit war on that article as well. Previous RFCU request confirmed and resulted in block. Thank you. — Satori Son 14:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- Adding User:Judae1 Please look into this account as well, as this could be the puppet master for all the accounts listed here. While this account has not edited the articles in concern in months, he initiated the 5W Public Relations and Ronn Torossian articles, and the accounts below have restored promotional sounding edits that Judae1 originally inserted. More damning is the user talk page message left by 65.16.36.2 listed above, which accuses me of "trailing" Juade1, when I haven't interacted with, or edited the same article in 2 years. --Mosmof (talk) 15:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- Adding 12.103.203.218 and 207.237.137.37. I suspect both IPs are connected to the user or, at the very least, it's Emetman logging out to edit. 12.103.203.218 popped up this morning on the 5W Public Relations after 207.237.137.37 (confirmed in last checkuser) was temporarily blocked for incivility towards Mosmof. After reverting 12's edits, I requested the page be protected to stop the madness for at least a day or two. Unsurprisingly, Emetman showed up after the page was protected to add and/or remove the exact same info with similar rationales and (crappy) sources. As stated above, these IPs and users seem to edit articles exclusively pertaining to 5WPR, have no problem with breaking 3RR, and have a huge COI. Pinkadelica (talk) 22:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Older:
- Supporting evidence: This case revolves around a persistent POV-pusher and disruptive editor problem on Chiropractic and related pages and talk pages.
CorticoSpinal (talk · |
