Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser: Difference between revisions
m →Outstanding requests: probably the one joke I'll allow myself today on here |
|||
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
<center>If this page is displaying outdated contents even after you refresh the page in your browser, please '''{{purge}}''' the cache.</center> |
<center>If this page is displaying outdated contents even after you refresh the page in your browser, please '''{{purge}}''' the cache.</center> |
||
==Poor requests== |
|||
==Decent requests== |
|||
==Pretty good requests== |
|||
==Outstanding requests== |
==Outstanding requests== |
||
<!-- ### Add new cases to the top of the list, directly below this line. Thanks! ### --> |
<!-- ### Add new cases to the top of the list, directly below this line. Thanks! ### --> |
Revision as of 13:11, 1 April 2008
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: | |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Information: | |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Clerk actions: | |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Specific to CheckUser: | |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() ![]() | |
![]() | |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Poor requests
Decent requests
Pretty good requests
Outstanding requests
Declined requests
Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Representation Theoretician
Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Gni
Cprice
request links: view • edit • links • history • watch Filed: 22:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC) |
- Cprice (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Canadiana2008 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- G
- Supporting evidence: [1] [2]. These are only two of the diffs, their are a few more in the Page history of Hellomagazine.ca
The page Hellomagazine.ca was created by Cprice and soon after it was tagged to be speedy deleted, then an IP 24.114.255.19 blanked the page, which was restored by cluebot, then Cprice came on, made some edits, and then blanked the page only to revert the edit moments later. Then Jobjörn marked the page for speedy, and not long after, the IP (24.114.255.19) was back and proceeded to remove the templates multiple times. Then after a final warning the IP stopped, but a little bit later another user Canadiana2008 came on and made the EXACT same removal as the IP had made (removing the speedy delete template). Another editor besides myself (Momusufan) soon added a suspected sock template to 24.114.255.19's talk page, after I saw that I then added a suspected sock template to Canadiana2008's talk page, I am requesting this checkuser because I believe that the two accounts and the IP all belong to the same. Thanks, Mifter (talk) 22:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment on this: It's pretty obvious that it is the same person, so I don't know if checkuser would be warranted. Also, it seems more like a confused newbie who didn't know how to request deletion of his/her article that was tagged for speedy deletion, than anyone who is doing anything disruptive. - Bobet 00:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that this may just be a new user that is slightly confused, but what I don't get is why even when the speedy was contested and odds are it was going to be declined by an admin did the user create and use Canadiana2008 as well as their IP to keep removing the tag and blanking the page? Thanks,--Mifter (talk) 01:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Declined Canadiana2008 has only one edit, so regardless of the circumstances there's not a ongoing problem with this user. Let's let it go for now. Thatcher 03:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Completed requests
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jvolkblum
This page is a soft redirect.
Jvolkblum 15
request links: view • edit • links • history • watch Filed: 12 January 2009 (UTC) by Orlady (talk) |
- Suspected sock puppets
- Moriarty09 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Jjespere (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Supporting evidence:
Most of the recent Jvolkblum-like activity has been from IPs that are used no more than once or twice, but there also are some registered users. I don't think I've captured the full list of IPs.
- Moriarty09 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) has an edit record that is strongly consistent with Jvolkblum; has been blocked and reverted by Wknight94.
- Comment by doncram Is this where discussion of evidence occurs? If not, please advise me and/or move this comment. On the case of Moriarty09, the four edits currently showing do not provide evidence that convinces me this is the same editor as Jvolkblum, because I believe that it is possible that there are more than one New Rochelle area editors who have been swept up in the accusations here. I note this as a kind of technical objection here, because I do think it likely that Moriarty09 is the same editor as some other socks previously swept up into this, and there may be no practical difference in treatment which can now be implemented. I cannot and do not want to review the entire Jvolkblum history and separate out which ones in the history were in fact separate persons. But as I stated in discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#Banned user Jvolkblum and New Rochelle, NY articles, I believe that it would be very difficult for any new wikipedia editor to emerge in the New Rochelle area without editing some of the articles previously edited by any of the previously identified socks, and then experiencing heavy-handed deletions and being labelled a sock. If an unfair sock accusation happened, i do not see what other recourse a would-be new editor would have, other than opening a new account and continuing to edit.
- Anyhow, the Moriarty09 editor made 2 entirely unrelated edits (a copyedit to the the Gridiron building article that improved the article in my view, and an edit to the Ann Street (Manhattan) article about which i have no opinion). Then, the editor added a New Rochelle red-link to a list of Cemeteries named Holy Sepulchre Cemetery, which seems like a fine edit, although perhaps revealing an interest in New Rochelle-area articles. I don't see that as adequate to identify the editor is Jvolkblum. Then, the editor made one comment in the above-linked wt:NRHP discussion, defending an edit made by another account in the article about New Rochelle, an edit which Orlady brought up as an example of probable source fabrication by Jvolkblum socks. I take it was then that Wknight blocked the Moriarty09 editor. I don't dispute that Moriarty09 is likely the same as the other account. However, with further research it turns out that Orlady's allegation of fabrication was incorrect, and that Moriarty09's comment was substantially correct. So, I don't see any evidence of destructive editing by Moriarty09; it is only an association to previous socks (and not necessarily to the original Jvolkblum) which is likely here. And, I don't see that justice or whatever is served by blocking this one account. Given the discusson at wt:NRHP in which i stated an interest in making an unban proposal, i think that it could be helpful to allow Moriarty09 to be unblocked, if only to allow the person to show restraint. By this comment, though, i want mainly to note the possibility that this Moriarty09 editor is not the same editor as Jvolkblum. doncram (talk) 19:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- In partial response to Doncram's comments, Jvolkblum socks have done extensive editing in some Manhattan articles. Ann Street (Manhattan) is one of these. It has been edited previously by at least three different Jvolkblum sockpuppets. Moriarty09's edit to that article restored language previously provided by one or more of these socks. --Orlady (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- Jjespere (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) apparently recreated one or more Jvolkblum articles before being blocked and reverted by Wknight94.
- restored a Jvolkblum edit that I had deleted a short while earlier.
- Beechmont (New Rochelle), which is one of Jvolkblum's articles. added an unsourced paragraph to
- posted on Doncram's talk page to complain that Wknight94 and I are picking on people interested in contributing content about New Rochelle.
- New City, New York, including deleting an image without explanation and for no apparent reason. This may be coincidence, but Jvolkblum has sometimes inflicted this type of minor damage on articles for New City and other communities that are near New Rochelle. made three edits to
- No comment concerning Jvolkblum, but I would note that New City is not really near New Rochelle. New Rochelle is on the east side of Westchester, on the Long Island Sound, and New City is in Rockland County about 30 miles away, across the Hudson River and inland and north. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 09:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Added a little bit later:
- Ann Street (Manhattan), calling them "vandalism." --Orlady (talk) 19:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC) has just one edit. A little while ago this IP user reverted Wknight94's changes to
Possible that Moriarty09 is related. A good deal of his editing is through an98.14.133.106 open proxy (since blocked).
Jjespere is also Possible, although I would rephrase that as "very likely" on behavioural evidence, looking at his deleted contributions. The same user is also the IP 98.14.133.106.
174.133.55.25 appears to be a proxying/IP-masking service -- WHOIS shows network:Organization-Name:My privacy tools
. The range appears to be 174.133.55.16/28.
174.34.157.70 may also be an open proxy -- the WHOIS information gives Ubiquity Server Solutions Chicago
, but I haven't got access to a port scanner at the moment. The range is 174.34.156.0/22.
I don't see any technical reason to suspect 76.99.17.30 of being Jvolkblum.
64.255.180.74 also might be a proxy -- it is registered to Jupiter Hosting Corporation
. The range is 64.255.160.0/19.
These need further investigating -- I think it is likely that these three are proxies and that the user behind them is indeed Jvolkblum.
[[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 01:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- I see the 64.255.*.* addresses in my sleep since Jvolkblum uses them often. FWIW, I perused one subrange and almost every edit was to New Rochelle articles and some Indian television list. That seemed like a strange pattern to me so a range of open proxies makes perfect sense. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC
- Thanks. Jvolkblum has been a heavy user of "My Privacy Tools." Also, Jupiter Hosting is one of the ISPs that Jvolkblum has used in the past, and there's been a long history of Jvolkblum edits from open-proxy and suspected open-proxy IPs. A major reason for requesting checks on these users is to see if there are any sleeper users on the same IPs -- I hope that any such users on these IPs have been quietly tagged and blocked. --Orlady (talk) 04:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- Looking again, 64.255.160.0/19 probably isn't a range of open proxies. It does appear, however, to be a range used by Opera Mini users, which ties in with other Jvolkblum patterns of editing. Going on a wider check of the range and taking editing behaviour into consideration, it appears that Tenagrimes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and BQEDUDE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are also related. There were no unblocked accounts on any of the other IPs. [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 09:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- Both accuonts blocked and a couple articles deleted. BTW, to Doncram, for a reminder of why Jvolkblum is banned, see Talk:Suburb#Copyvio and plagiarism. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note. I hope you don't mind that I provide, at that Talk page, a devil's advocate-type of response. I understand the example is one where one of the users caught up in this added material to an article without providing properly explicit sourcing. Eventually, the contribution is tracked down and entirely removed. I don't know how to say this without perhaps appearing a bit sarcastic, but this provides a complementary example to at least one case where the user added material with essentially proper sourcing. In the properly sourced case, the contribution is similarly removed, completely, by one of the enforcers here, with erroneous accusations that the user must have fabricated the source. So, why bother with the semi-difficult work of composing proper footnote references? It seems to me that there is an incredible amount of time and resources being put in here, to suppress a would-be contributor, and that you leave no alternative for the user(s) but to create more accounts and to keep editing and to play the big game that you and he/they are playing. I apologize if this does sound wrong; i don't mean to offend and I am not confident that I am expressing this properly. As I state in my devil's advocate-type response at the Suburb talk page, I do abhor the addition of unsourced material to articles, and I have devoted a lot of energy to discussing the general problem. Further, not said there, i have devoted a lot of thought and energy to specifically addressing the problem in NRHP / historic sites articles, and to trying to keep the problem out of this broad area that i work in. So, I should summarize that I am torn here, between defending someone who seems to be unfairly treated, vs. agreeing whole-heartedly that the actions of that person deserve to be censured. doncram (talk) 14:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- This went beyond plagiarism into copyright violation. Most was copied word-for-word. But this isn't the right place to discuss that issue. I responded at Talk:Suburb and maybe it's time to raise this at WP:AN. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note. I hope you don't mind that I provide, at that Talk page, a devil's advocate-type of response. I understand the example is one where one of the users caught up in this added material to an article without providing properly explicit sourcing. Eventually, the contribution is tracked down and entirely removed. I don't know how to say this without perhaps appearing a bit sarcastic, but this provides a complementary example to at least one case where the user added material with essentially proper sourcing. In the properly sourced case, the contribution is similarly removed, completely, by one of the enforcers here, with erroneous accusations that the user must have fabricated the source. So, why bother with the semi-difficult work of composing proper footnote references? It seems to me that there is an incredible amount of time and resources being put in here, to suppress a would-be contributor, and that you leave no alternative for the user(s) but to create more accounts and to keep editing and to play the big game that you and he/they are playing. I apologize if this does sound wrong; i don't mean to offend and I am not confident that I am expressing this properly. As I state in my devil's advocate-type response at the Suburb talk page, I do abhor the addition of unsourced material to articles, and I have devoted a lot of energy to discussing the general problem. Further, not said there, i have devoted a lot of thought and energy to specifically addressing the problem in NRHP / historic sites articles, and to trying to keep the problem out of this broad area that i work in. So, I should summarize that I am torn here, between defending someone who seems to be unfairly treated, vs. agreeing whole-heartedly that the actions of that person deserve to be censured. doncram (talk) 14:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- Both accuonts blocked and a couple articles deleted. BTW, to Doncram, for a reminder of why Jvolkblum is banned, see Talk:Suburb#Copyvio and plagiarism. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- Looking again, 64.255.160.0/19 probably isn't a range of open proxies. It does appear, however, to be a range used by Opera Mini users, which ties in with other Jvolkblum patterns of editing. Going on a wider check of the range and taking editing behaviour into consideration, it appears that Tenagrimes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and BQEDUDE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are also related. There were no unblocked accounts on any of the other IPs. [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 09:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
NisarKand (1 October 2010)
request links: view • edit • links • history • watch • talk Filed: 1 October 2010 |
- NisarKand (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Lagoo sab (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Mlbnk (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Kaki joe (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- PanjshirPashtun (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- PashtunArtist (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
I think all three of these new Users are NisarKand's new sockpuppets. All of them have been changing the same articles that the previous socks have changed so please check these users before they cause any problem for other editors on wikipedia. Thank you--Inuit18 (talk) 06:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Please also do a checkuser on the filer, Inuit18 (talk · contribs), he is likely a sockpuppet of banned User:Anoshirawan [3]. His every edit is identical to Anoshirawan and they both are in USA (likely California).[4] [5] An admin had already established that Anoshirawan was in the US.[6] Inuit18 and Anoshirawan both decorated their pages identically [7] [8], both do small edits periodically, both edit same Afghanistan related pages with same identical POVs and both watch around for Pashtun editors only--Lagoo sab (talk) 00:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
NisarKand (8 March 2009)
request links: view • edit • links • history • watch • talk Filed: 8 March 2009 |
- NisarKand (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) (may be idle)
- Alishah85 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) (banned as a sockpuppet)
- Afghan25 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Banigul (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) (evidently a sockpuppet of NisarKand)
- Omidirani (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Abdul Wali (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Code letter: F
I think that User:NisarKand has created new sockpuppets, namely User:Omidirani and User:Abdul Wali. Both accounts have the same field of interest, and the writing style is similar to that of NisarKand. Tajik (talk) 14:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
![]() | 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.
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.
request links: view • edit • links • history • watch Filed: 16:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC) |
- Signshare (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Manyevent (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Thiss Guy (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Code letter: E
- Supporting evidence: There are likely other accounts as well, undoubtedly operating from the 66.207.0.0/16 range from the looks of things. Most recently user Manyevent has shown up to provide curious support for unsupported edits by Signshare in a WP:BLP article. (jarbarf) (talk) 16:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Additional information needed I'm not seeing evidence of persistent or long term disruption. It looks like both suspected socks were active for only one day and neither violated or assisted in a 3RR violation. Thatcher 12:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Delisted. I will also notify the filing party as to Thatcher's request for information, above. Hopefully, input will be received shortly, to allow this case to be processed. Regards, Anthøny 21:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)