Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser
CAUTION In a few days, both the suspected sockpuppets page and the requests for CheckUser page will be merged into Sockpuppet investigations (SPI). SPI is designed to make the process of dealing with sockpuppets much easier, by using one central page for all sockpuppet discussion, rather than fragmented discussion between RFCU and SSP. In addition to the merging of both pages, the RFCU and SSP shortcuts will also be redirected to the new SPI page. Comments are appreciated on this issue at WT:SPI. |
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
Requests likely to be rejected
Privacy violation?
|
Indicators and templates (v · e) | |
---|---|
These indicators are used by Checkusers, SPI clerks and other patrolling users, to allow easier at-a-glance reading of their notes, actions and comments. | |
Case decisions: | |
IP blocked {{IPblock}} | Tagged {{Stagged}} |
Blocked but awaiting tags {{Sblock}} | Not possible {{Impossible}} |
Blocked and tagged {{Blockedandtagged}} | Blocked without tags {{Blockedwithouttags}} |
No tags {{No tags}} | Blocked and tagged. Closing. {{Blockedtaggedclosing}} |
Information: | |
Additional information needed {{MoreInfo}} | Deferred {{Deferred}} |
Note: {{TakeNote}} | In progress {{Inprogress}} |
Clerk actions: | |
Clerk assistance requested: {{Clerk Request}} | Clerk note: {{Clerk-Note}} |
Delisted {{Delisted}} | Relisted {{Relisted}} |
Clerk declined {{Decline}} | Clerk endorsed {{Endorse}} |
Self-endorsed by clerk for checkuser attention {{Selfendorse}} | CheckUser requested {{CURequest}} |
Specific to CheckUser: | |
Confirmed {{Confirmed}} | Unrelated {{Unrelated}} |
Confirmed with respect to the named user(s). No comment with respect to IP address(es). {{Confirmed-nc}} | |
Technically indistinguishable {{Technically indistinguishable}} | |
Likely {{Likely}} | Unlikely {{Unlikely}} |
Possible {{Possible}} | Inconclusive {{Inconclusive}} |
Declined {{Declined}} | Unnecessary {{Unnecessary}} |
Stale (too old) {{StaleIP}} | No comment {{Nocomment}} |
CheckUser is not a crystal ball {{Crystalball}} | CheckUser is not for fishing {{Fishing}} |
CheckUser is not magic pixie dust {{Pixiedust}} | The CheckUser Magic 8-Ball says: {{8ball}} |
Endorsed by a checkuser {{Cu-endorsed}} | Check declined by a checkuser {{Cudecline}} |
Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely) {{possilikely}} |
Outstanding requests
ProudAGP
ProudAGP (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
request links: view • edit • links • history • watch Filed: 19:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC) |
- Fipplet (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Code letter: F
- Supporting evidence:
User:Fipplet, who on his/her user-page identifies as a Swede, was blocked on Jan. 8 for 48 hours for edit-warring: [1]
About the same time the two above IP´s (which geolocate to Sweden) start edit-warring with User:Spool 26 and myself on a number of churches: Church of All Nations, Church of the Pater Noster, Church of Maria Magdalene Dominus Flevit Church,
Also; IP:85.230.108.108 edits User:Fipplet´-s user-page: [2]
Also, with this edit it seem that s/he admit to being ip number 85.230.108.247 ("Read what I (ip number 85.230.108.247) have written").
Regards, Huldra (talk) 19:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment. See also Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fipplet, from September 2008, in which this editor was believed to have used 85.230.109.191 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a sock in a 3RR case. EdJohnston (talk) 19:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- I thaugh't you only were forbidden to create a new account wile being block, not just editing when you're logged out? Anyway, I admit it and I am very sorry for this, but it is very hard for me to stay away from Wikipedia. I love wikipedia and live in an environment with a high density of computers. Very sorry, won't do it again. I think it is unnecessary to block me again since it happened such a long time ago and I didn't broke any rules while being blocked and the disgrace is punishment enough, also; doesn't admitting reduce your time being blocked? But do what you think is just. Again sorry. --Fipplet (talk) 21:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- But it didn't happen "a long time ago"; it happened this weekend, when Fipplet was blocked for edit-warring. And, as shown above, it is the second toime s/he has done the same thing. The argument above is specious and barely credible; the whol;e point of being blocked is that you are not permitted to make edits. This is as clear a case as I have ever seen of sockpuppetry to beat a block, and should be dealt with accordingly.RolandR (talk) 08:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- I thaugh't you only were forbidden to create a new account wile being block, not just editing when you're logged out? Anyway, I admit it and I am very sorry for this, but it is very hard for me to stay away from Wikipedia. I love wikipedia and live in an environment with a high density of computers. Very sorry, won't do it again. I think it is unnecessary to block me again since it happened such a long time ago and I didn't broke any rules while being blocked and the disgrace is punishment enough, also; doesn't admitting reduce your time being blocked? But do what you think is just. Again sorry. --Fipplet (talk) 21:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- This weekend is about 4 days ago. That is a very long. And it isn't the second time I did this. Last time I created a new account and got blocked consequently for creating it. This time I didn't, I just continued to edit from my school cause I thaught you just blocked the account and not the person. Now I have learned this.
- What is the point of not being permitted to make edits? (This is a quote from Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses:
In this case blocking obviously surves no purpose). The point is to prevent further vioalations of Wikipedias' rules by that specific person. Since I didn't vioalate any rules while being blocked and since I didn't vioalate any rules during this four day period since being blocked and since I now have learned alot more about what is allowed and not, there is no point of blocking me. I won't do this again and i've certanly felt the disgrace of being punished. I am sorry for this but I urge you to do what is just and do it quick so that I then can return to wikipedia.--Fipplet (talk) 09:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)Blocks should be based on the protection of Wikipedia rather than the punishment of offenders. Most IP addresses should not be blocked more than a few hours, since the malicious user will probably move on by the time the block expires.
- What is the point of not being permitted to make edits? (This is a quote from Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses:
Declined. He admitted it. No check needed. Also, Fipplet, you can't just say "Oh this block served no purpose so I evaded it". You do not get to decide that. --Deskana (talk) 23:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
request links: view • edit • links • history • watch Filed: 14:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC) |
- Ericorbit (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Code letter: C
- Supporting evidence:
- User:Ericorbit and his believed to be sock User:Realist2 team up together on pages and keep reverting. On pages like "New Amerykah Part Two (Return of the Ankh)" and "User:Realist2's talk page". After leaving a comment for User:Realist2, User:Ericorbit shows up to answer the question.[3] Another example of this, would be when I leave a comment for "User:Ericorbit" in response "User:Realist2" shows up. My request was for User:Ericorbit to stop personal attacking my talk page. User:Realist2 comes and says that no personal attacks have been made against me. One follows another or itself and is strongly believe to have a sockpuppet. User: Realist2 confessed that he is a sockpuppet of User:Ericorbit.[4]
- That "confession" on my talkpage was a very obvious joke, given that it followed this joke "outing" in the same thread, as part of a long discussion about legitimate uses of multiple accounts. I highly doubt Realist would be creating sockpuppets to post replies on his own talkpage. I don't want to do it myself as I'm technically involved now, but can someone close this RFCU, please? – iridescent 22:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- Clerk note: Inappropriate comment removed, for details please see the page history. Tiptoety talk 23:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- But in truth, Ericobit is backed up by Realist2. It seems way to obvious that he has a sockpuppet.Tarysky (talk) 14:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- Clerk note: Inappropriate comment removed, for details please see the page history. Tiptoety talk 23:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- That "confession" on my talkpage was a very obvious joke, given that it followed this joke "outing" in the same thread, as part of a long discussion about legitimate uses of multiple accounts. I highly doubt Realist would be creating sockpuppets to post replies on his own talkpage. I don't want to do it myself as I'm technically involved now, but can someone close this RFCU, please? – iridescent 22:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Contribution history of User talk:Ericorbit
|
---|
New Amerykah Part Two (Return of the Ankh)
|
Tarysky (talk) 14:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Declined. No evidence of socking. [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 21:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Declined requests
- None currently
Completed requests
- None currently
This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump. |
IP/A |
Requests for IP check
- Vandal and attack accounts may be listed here for the purpose of identifying and blocking the underlying IP address or open proxy. Requests to confirm sockpuppets of known users should be listed in the sockpuppet section above.
- If you already know the IP address of the suspected open proxy, list it at Wikipedia:Open Proxies instead.
- Use === Subsections ===; do not create subpages.
- List user names using the {{checkuser|username}} template. Add new reports to the top of the section.
- Requests may be acted on or declined according to the discretion of the checkuser admins. Responses will be noted here. Specific evidence of abuse in the form of diffs may be required so as to avoid the impression of fishing for evidence.
- Answered requests will be moved to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/IP check/Archive for 7 days, after which they will be deleted. No separate archive (other than the page history) will be maintained.
Non-compliant requests
NC |
Requests that do not follow the instructions at the top of the page will be moved here. Common reasons for noncompliance include:
- Did not cite a code letter, or cite more than one code letter.
- Did not cite any supporting diffs if the code letter requires diffs.
- Included IP addresses.
The specific deficiencies may be noted with Additional information needed. Cases which are corrected may be moved back to the pending section. Cases which are not corrected will be deleted after 3 days.
Please note that meeting these three criteria does not ensure that your check will be run. The checkusers retain final discretion over all cases.