Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  (Redirected from Wikipedia:RFCU)
Jump to: navigation, search
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 • 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 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



[edit] Outstanding requests

[edit] Soccermeko (4th case)

request links: view edit links history  watch talk
Filed: 02:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Supporting evidence:

Soccermeko has been a relentless sockpuppeteer, creating unsourced articles about R&B and hip-hop personalities, notably Nicole Wray. He has a distinctive style of broken English that generally provides a strong clue. He has been getting smarter and smarter, though, and each sockpuppet tends to live a little longer than the previous ones.

Here he posts on the Nicole Wray discography page, wanting to know what is allowed in typical Soccermekoese. He goes on to claim that the previous Soccermeko edits were right. He never actually edits the page, though. I think he's gotten gun-shy.

Here, he creates a new album article, in that distinctive language again. Ultimately, it gets prodded, which he removes, and, once at AFD, lets loose with a personal attack that just screams Soccermeko to my ears. Kww (talk) 02:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


[edit] MagdelenaDiArco

request links: view edit links history  watch
Filed: 21:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Supporting evidence:

Recently the pages about Maltese language have been haunted by a series of disruptive editors. Some of these have already been blocked for sockpuppetry and disruptive editing (User:Brunodam, User:GiovaniGiove, User:MagdelenaDiArco, User:Kalindoscopy inter alia) but a number of very new accounts with editing patterns astonishingly similar to those of the above mentioned blocked users have entered into discussions, stalled decisionmaking and affected consensus building and defended the sockpuppeteers. It would be useful to know whether these accounts are sockpuppets of the above editor(s) and if they all belong to the same person. It seems that this is a case of increasingly complex of purposeful disruption.

As evidence I provide the entire editing histories of the suspected sockpuppets which should be compared to the editing histories of the blocked users.

I also appeal to review the contents of Talk:Maltese language in order to see how the different suspected accounts seemingly work together to stall and disrupt. This is the first tie I file a checkuser request and I am sorry if I have not done it right - please tell me if something needs to be changed.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:MonetaryCrankster: Another obvious sockpuppet of User:Karmaisking

Edit history, including editing of previous talk page work of Karmaisking (and sockpuppets); followed by geographic IPs that fit pattern. New username barely changed version of previous sockpuppet. See diff1], diff2, diff3, etc.


[edit] Mcdonaldsfreak82

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

For a full description, please see below

Possible masters:

Socks:

  • Supporting evidence:

I am having an issue with the Ronald McDonald (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) article. There has been an ongoing editing cold war with this article over who created the stupid clown. I have been keeping it neutral but my current problem is on the talk page. There has been POV pushing using sock puppets to establish a consensus for one side or or the other, or it could be an attempt to create general disruption of the page. These socks have editing histories that only deal with this page and only last a couple of days. I do not know how to go about resolving this and require assistance in determining who is doing this. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 01:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Clerk note: I am going to go ahead and list your case for you, but would you mind providing a bit more information via diff's to better link the users to one another. Tiptoety talk 23:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that these contribs appear randomly for a week or so then make no more comments, then two days later another newly registered user shows up and make similar comments elsewhere in the talk page. What do you want me to give you exactly, as the history shows the edits they made and their comments are all over the talk page. These individuals are trying to establish consensus on the talk page in order to justify changes to the article that support their POV. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 01:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

  • What I am looking for is diff's linking relevant edits, its just to make it easier for the checkuser. Tiptoety talk 01:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] M.V.E.i.

request links: view edit links history  watch
Chronology

The contributions for each of the editors are full of examples if you need more. Can we do anything more permanent to fix this? Papa November (talk) 17:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Opinions

  • I really dont get November's obsession on me. I really wanted, a few times, to start from scratch. What did i do wrong?? Someone made a mistake in an article about i music festival? i fixed it. I want to start from scratch, what's the problem? There's nothing you can do because when i get blocked i simply go to one of my friends in the neighberhood. I could forever stop writing here, but please explaine me what i asked so much and was ignored: I understand once i did stupid rude mistakes. But now i really have improved. So why not giving another chence? Why do administrators have such a beurocratic obsession to block someone without even taking as a factor if he changed, and what have he done lately? What's the case?! Forward Belarus (talk) 18:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I dont mind an admin to adopt me, or whatever it is called, i dont mind 10 admins adding me to their watch-list to see i really have changed, but whats the point blocking someone who really wants to contribute and comes for it? Why cant i start from scratch? It's really not fair. Forward Belarus (talk) 18:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
    By all means, you can appeal a block. However, simply ignoring the community's decision is impolite. There's some very good advice for how to properly request unblocking here and here. Papa November (talk) 18:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I sent letters to arbidation, or what ever this is calles, comitte. Emails. No one answered. If you and more administrators could come to my talk page here and talk to me that i would offcaurse like. You could ask me whatever you like, put your conditions, and i will agree to them all. How could it be a community decision if i recived Emails from people saying i shouldnt have been blocked and if i need help in the checkuser? That means that some people understood that the blockings got to far. Or read this. This user, Maria-Yulia, always had opinions contrasting mine. I'm a Russian patriot, she supports the Orange revolution in Ukraine. And even she haven't belived i'm M.V.E.i. That shows i really have changed. Forward Belarus (talk) 18:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Guys, the point is like this. I dont mind to leave wikipedia forever. Never to create account, articles or edit here. Less work for me, less time wasted. But i will do this after explained one thing:

Why cant i start from scratch? I really have improved and i think Papa November to noticed it. Why cant i start from scratch? After reciving the answer here, i forever leave Wikipedia. I'm simply to tired starting all over and then getting blocked. My writing style is to obvious, and i'm to buisy with University studies. Forward Belarus (talk) 19:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is true that I received your e-mail where you asked for some help a month ago. You have asked for a clean come back while acknowledging what you've done wrong. I appreciate your sincerity. But you haven't stopped sockpuppeting since then. You have been here long enough to understand that the sock game is a bad game. It is true that Moreschi blocked you for a year but he left the door open in case you'd "come back with sanity refreshed." But instead of showing patience you went sockpuppeting non-stop. It is also true that you seem dedicated to the project but you know there are rules around here. The thing is that you were blocked for a reason. Then you got your block extended for another reason. And you are still violating policies. If you need a fresh come back then you need to stop sockpuppeting first (no excuse) before asking for anything. Take a short break of a few weeks and get back to me or to the blocking admin to re-discuss the issue. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 08:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
No problem, i will do it. The thnig is sometimes i can not enter Wikipedia for month. It gets hard when i see something needed to be added or edited, then i get this bug if i wont do it nobody will do it. Some might say it's good to have such etnhusiasts on Wikipedia (esspecialy if they learn to behave, which i work on), but it's result is not only many edits but also many accounts. The complete plan was not to get caught and stay out of troubles. With the Log in, log out, account it worked even with those who dont agree with me and i got along with them. Anyway, i will do what you asked. Forward Belarus (talk) 16:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
"With the Log in, log out, account it worked even with those who dont agree with me and i got along with them". Yeah right. I'm sorry, but no way does this sock-puppeting National Bolshevik troll get to edit Wikipedia again. --Folantin (talk) 19:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Your not to decide. I've got the right for free thinking and to belive in the political ideology i want. You had a strong case against you for such behaviour, your the last to speak. And by the way, Papa November who complained on me, can witness some not good things on you. I will eventualy get my second chance because i changed my behaviour, you're on your way down with your to high self opinion. Forward Belarus (talk) 20:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


[edit] RRaunak

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