Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser".

content
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).
Shortcuts:
WP:RCU
WP:RFCU

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?
this header: view •

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

Contents



Outstanding requests

Nexusb

request links: view  links history  watch
Filed: 22:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

PravdaRuss

request links: view  links history  watch
Filed: 15:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Supporting evidence:

First 5 users are accounts created only to revert my edits and because of that they are banned.

Number 6 on this list is nationalistic SPA account user Joka because his only edits after end of article deletion discussion (his only edit this year until then) is writing warnings on my talk page and 1 revert. All in all it is weird that user after 9 months without any edit is coming to deletion discussion (and all after that)

J. A. Comment is on list because he is demanding checkuser report for Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/72.75.24.245 so he will now have his wish [1].

72.75.24.245 is on list because he is having 1 month ban because of harass of user rjecina. If he is connected with other banned user he can be banned.

user:64.18.16.251 and user:72.75.18.173 are on list because they are blocked puppet of earlier banned user which has edited Croatia WWII related articles.

66.217.132.152 [2] is on list because only edits of "users" from this IP range are reverts of my edits in support of J. A. Comment [3] [4]

If it's possible I will like that checkuser in report write if user are using Proxy servers.--Rjecina (talk) 15:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

K69 and 62.56.64.118

request links: view  links history  watch
Filed: 22:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Supporting evidence:

I strongly suspect that User:K69 is the same as User:62.56.64.118. K69 recently posted an attack on User talk:Justallofthem and some rather inappropriate external links on Noelle North: [5] [6] [7]

After I warned K69, 62.56.64.118 posted an attack on User talk:Justallofthem and a rather inappropriate external link on Noelle North: [8] [9]

I suppose I'm a coward for not getting Bishzilla to block the user straightaway, but, well, I am. Plus, only five diffs altogether are involved, and Scientologists get attacked a lot. Bishonen | talk 22:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC).

Added 62.56.113.172 (talk · contribs) [10], [11]. Cirt (talk) 23:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Update: Meanwhile, both the IPs have been blocked for 1 day by JForget (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 23:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Added 2 more to above [12], [13]. Cirt (talk) 23:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
And [14]. Cirt (talk) 23:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Added [15]. Cirt (talk) 23:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

All right, this getting ridiculous, 'zilla block K69 for 48 hours, see previous blocks, and see user triumph in dynamic IP system. bishzilla ROARR!! 07:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC).

Donna01

request links: view  links history  watch
Filed: 07:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Supporting evidence: At the Australian politics wikiproject, we've been made aware of a "kit" being distributed offline to Members of Parliament instructing them on what amounts to Wikilawyering and edit warring. Following that, the IP 202.14.81.49, which is owned by Parliament House, has gone on a spree of edits since 21 July to a range of articles. We are currently trying to find out whether the two usernames, which have engaged in similar edits violating WP:EDITWAR and WP:COPY, are linked, and whether we should be looking elsewhere as not every article in the scope is on every person's watchlist (I notice some of the edits, such as to Russell Wortley, aren't even to federal parliamentarians). The supporting evidence, which is not majorly extensive, is simply the contributions log of each of the four accounts/profiles. Feadering's and PReport's requests for page protection almost exactly follow the prescription leaked on the outside blog. Orderinchaos 08:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Declined requests

RRaunak

request links: view  links history  watch
Filed: 07:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

comment I changed signature today asking rraunak and tinucherian
[+]►▪ Σ╙ΣMEΩ╦ Я ▪ (♪ ╥a|k ¿ ) ▪ 07:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Clerk note: Can you please provide diffs showing the relationship and "team-tagging" (3RR avoidance, vote stacking, ...), if any? Being the same person is not a violation by itself. Thanks! -- lucasbfr talk 07:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, ahem, there aren't any. They were just pretending to be different people but I really think their the same. Sorry, this is my first case request so I'm not very fluent in this area. -- RyRy (talk) 07:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with User:RyRy, there isnt a case for sockpuppetry in the typical sense( for team editing, editwars, 3RR workaround's etc). But this user has an annoying habbit of creating new userIDs all the time. Has been messing around with templates and has a tendency to ignore helpfull messages and warnings alike. Now he claims that ElementR is not his sock and that he is someone else named Rahul[22] despite the fact that a multitude of editors spotting the obvious. The only common behaviours(not diffs, sorry) that I can show is that both editors love deletions and scripting. A glance at their contribs should convice you.
RRaunak's contibutions and ElementR's contributions
To run a CU investigation, we need to see some evidence of disruption. Simply that these users are the same person is not enough -- that is permitted under policy. We need to see how these accounts would be going against policy in order to run the investigation. Sam Korn (smoddy) 09:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
The evidence are in the following diffs. [23] (POints to my monobook.js as per User:Cream/newpages.js and another evidence hides in this link: [24] wich is a Recaptcha link to prevent spam. Once unlocked, the email is this: rraunacq@gmail.com wich matches the other username. Look at the contribs of both users: Special:Contributions/ElementR and Special:Contributions/RRaunak. Both of them are too new and they waited until they are autoconfirmed to start the use of the wikipedia tools. --ɔɹǝɐɯʎ!Talk 13:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I really don't see evidence of disruption. Patently they are the same user -- the signature alone would convince me -- but I don't see any evidence of abuse that would necessitate a CheckUser investigation. Unless there is any evidence to be brought forwards, I am marking it Declined on these grounds. Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Completed requests

Mcdonaldsfreak82

request links: view  links history  watch
Filed: 01:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

For a full description, please see below

Possible masters:

Socks: