Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Einsteindonut

I don't know what's going on with this case, but it seems some of it got overwritten. Could someone see if they can figure it out? I've not been able to add it to the archive for this reason. -- how do you turn this on 16:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the history since Tiptoety's original archive, the rest was just Einsteindonut talking to himself. But he managed to botch the case page so bad that Tiptoety accidentally relisted it. I reverted to the original archive version so hopefully archiving can proceed (I notice it was never added to the Case page back then...) —Wknight94 (talk) 18:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

autobiography

Hi,

I'd like to check to see if two-three users are using the same IP, but it isn't necessary to block anyone if they are. User:Ethiopic wrote an autobiography at [Aberra Molla], which I consider an unsubstantiated vanity page and have put up for AfD. Users Blahblah99992 and Blahblah99993 (openly the same person) have responded on the AfD page with rants and personal attacks. I have been told (offline, private email) that such behaviour is typical of Molla when his claims of being "the Father of Ethiopic" etc. are challenged by people who actually are working in this field, or even when someone makes an independent contribution and doesn't "credit" Molla. I'd like to check if these nonce accounts are the same as User:Ethiopic (that is, Molla), but that is merely to inform the AfD discussion; if they are socks, they are not disturbing anything else, and I don't care about them being blocked.

Are informal IP checks allowed, or do I need to go through a formal sock check? I was hoping not to further antagonize anyone.

Thanks, kwami (talk) 08:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

New User:MascotGuy request

I've only requested a checkuser once before and I'm unsure how to proceed on this one. According to this user's long term abuse page, three previous checkuser requests have been granted. A recent discussion on the talk page led me to believe that this character may not be the "autistic tenager" we've been led to believe he is but a real and very persistent vandal operaing from a university IP. Would it be possible to request a checkuser of the most recent socks via this page? I'm at a loss as to how to file a fourth check against this guy. It's simply become chronic. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 18:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

It's actually not as daunting as it looks. Add something like the following to the very top of the MascotGuy RFCU:
=== [[Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/MascotGuy|MascotGuy 2nd]] ===
{{Checkuser requests to be listed}}
{{rfcu box|case=MascotGuy|filed=~~~~~}}
<!-- please do not edit above this line -->

* {{checkuser|MascotGuy}}
* {{checkuser|Dr. Doofenzmertz's Perry Destroyer}}
* {{checkuser|Happy vs. Sad}}

* '''[[WP:RFCU#code letters|Code letter]]:''' F

* '''Supporting evidence:''' Blah blah blah words words. ~~~~
Include whatever recent socks you want - the more recent the better I imagine. Say what you said here - looking for IPs and sleepers, etc. A clerk will be along soon to list it on the RFCU page (the {{Checkuser requests to be listed}} tag puts it into a category that is patrolled by clerks). Then profit. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

LOL! I like that link, W.  :) Gogo Dodo has mentioned that a checkuser has been run on the last batch and that there were two IPs based in Texas which have been blocked for three months. I'm keeping an eye on the new accounts log anyway. Thanks for the info and the chuckle. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

So how does this work...

Does the requester have to identify the alleged socks, which are then confirmed or ruled out by the checkuser, or can one simply point to a user one has credible evidence of being a sockmaster and ask checkusers to uncover the sock accounts? the skomorokh 11:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

You need to present evidence that suggests two accounts may be operated by a single individual; in practice, this means that—by and large—both a sock master and a sock puppet will need to be identified and linked by behavioural evidence in order for a CheckUser to have grounds for running a check.
Simply stating user X looks as though he's probably been socking—please check is colloquially referred to as {{Fishing}}: the image being, one is "throwing one's fishing net out there" and seeing if any fish sock puppets bite are identified by the Check. Fishing is regarded as grounds for rejecting a request for checkuser.
It's a complicated business. There's no definitive answer; for a Check to be ran, evidence of socking must be presented. Whether that means identifying both the suspected sock master and 'puppet, varies; usually, it does. My fellow clerks and the checkusers may be able to advise further.
AGK 20:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your extensive and very helpful response. I suspected there might be such difficulties, and I am sure there are good reasons for having things arranged that way. If someone in the know could have a gander at the lower section of User talk:Be Black Hole Sun and decide if there's anything worth investigating, it would be most appreciated. The user in question has had a previous SSP or CU investigation under the account Wellwater Conspiracy (talk · contribs) that yielded fruit, I believe. Mahalo, the skomorokh 23:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Threats like this are certainly actionable. You can list them as a case or contact a checkuser privately. Unfortunately, "What are user Smith's other accounts" is often technically more difficult to answer than "Are user Smith and Jones the same person", but with an open threat like this it is certainly worth asking. Thatcher 01:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
With that said, there don't seem to be any new accounts yet, but that is not conclusive. Thatcher 01:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

SPAs at recent AfDs, which I think are too knowledgeable of Wikipedia policies not to be socks of some long-standing editor:

Normally, I don't bother with AfD SPAs beyond marking them as such in the AfD itself, but in this case they seem to span several articles. They could well be family members and not socks. I'll let someone else decide it this is worth pursuing. Thanks, VG ☎ 21:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm a bit busy at the moment to get into this too much but there does seem to be a pattern of behaviour around a small group of articles. Those are - Kuzhinapurath Family, Thomas Kuzhinapurath, Salvific Law, Aero Controls Inc.. I cannot determine if it's a single individual or a group but certainly appears to be some co-ordination. Having said that, I don't think the edit patterns are enough at this time to support check user (if I understand the criteria for it's use correctly). --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

actually it seems that who is who is more complex than we thought. In summary, it seems that a) someone created at least some of those accounts and b) they handed them over to the subject of the article - or something.. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

For the record, there are a couple more related articles:

Also, references to Kuzhinapurath were added mostly off-topic to articles like Veritatis Splendor; use search to find them. VG ☎ 23:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Is this right?

Just want to make sure I'm doing this correctly. My apologies in advance if this is the wrong place for reporting acts of persistent vandalism. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Smk42 (talk · contribs) . Also saw the IP address of 142.161.178.14 undo the fixes. Could it be the same account?

  • You need to go to the main page and enter the name Smk42 in the box and click "Submit". That will create a page called Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Smk42 where you list your evidence. However, checkuser is only for finding out if two or more accounts are operated by the same person. If this is just one person you want to report for vandalism, simple obvious vandalism should be reported at WP:AIV, and complicated or subtle sneaky vandalism should be reported at WP:ANI for investigation. Be sure to give your evidence. Thatcher 20:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you so much for the helpful advice. I just saw some blatant, albeit, harmless vandalism on a page and continuous vandalism/ undoing revisions by this individual. But, I want to make sure I'm correct in identifying the user (yes, I know, pretty daft of me, but the numerous revisions make it hard to identify who is making the change) Matt Hasselbeck and definitly have others take a look at it. The irony is, its for a sports figure(s), the last thing I would ever care about. Aruhnka (talk) 07:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

SSP2 close

We're close to implementing SSP2. See WP:SSP2 and it's talk page to review and comment. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Case closed?

I noticed the Apteva checkuser case has been listed as completed. Was a checkuser performed? Were the sock puppets identified? What happened? Mrshaba (talk) 20:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done I discussed it on my talk page. -- lucasbfr talk 21:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Possible socks on either side of the Israel/Palestine debate

I've been suspicious for a while of the activities of a couple of userids, one on each side of the I/P debate.

Poss case 1

NoCal100 (talk · contribs · count) has from it's first appearance attracted suspicion [1], http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NoCal100&diff=prev&oldid=204731595]. I think User:Gb's arguments about this account being originally conceived as an anti User:Calton are quite compelling. And I had already asked User:Jdforrester to look into the possibility of this account being run by the same person as MegaMom (talk · contribs · count). (See [[2]].) Unfortuntely James has not been active for a litle while.

Today, however, my attention has been drawn to this edit [3] by 76.21.2.27 (talk · contribs · count) which has occurred when NoCal100 has reached the 3rr limit on Sbarro_restaurant_suicide_bombing. Looking at [4], the Shuafat edit by the IP occurred in the middle of when NoCal100 was interersted in thaqt article. However, the other article Administrative detention has no contributionsby NoCal100. The Ip edits occur close to ones by Jaakobou (talk · contribs · count). As Jaakobou is almost solely concerned with I/P issues, I thought it woudl be hard to make a case connected this id with NoCal100, until I notied both were interested in I'm a PC.

I came here already to make an accusation based on that amterial but now I notice that Canadian Monkey (talk · contribs · count) also edited [[Administrative detention and went to have at Calton [[5]] less than a mont after the account being created. And the thread topic was about Megamom potentially being a sockpuppet.

So, mow many fo these ids am I allowed to bring into things to mae this a legitimate request and not a fishing exercise?

All of these are  Unlikely; I don't see anything that looks like mutual socking/work with malintent. James F. (talk) 00:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Poss case 2

Avayaricoh (talk · contribs · count) looked like a troublemaking sockpuppet to me from first appearance. Yesterday, after Bufort2000 (talk · contribs · count) appeared, my interest was further piqued. (See User talk:Gwen Gale#Hummus a là sockpuppet.) Today I have noticed this Talk:Falafel#Removed "History" section in particular the link to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jamiechef2. So am I allowed to put 2 and 2 together and accuse these of being sockpuppets of the old puppeteer?

And is one or other case is legitimate, could someone tlak me through the process.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

You can ask anything you want; the evidence will be evaluated by a checkuser who will decide whether or not to run a check. Don't be worried about asking. Thatcher 01:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, a link is  Possible between the two recent accounts; however, Bufort2000 is seemingly not acting in bad faith, though it has made only 3 edits, so there's not really enough to go on. As to Jamiechef2, unfortunately that IP data fell out of the DB a good while ago -  Stale. Sorry I can't be of more help. James F. (talk) 00:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

a request

When creating a category for a sockpuppet or suspected sockpuppet, please include {{Sockpuppet category}}. This will prevent the category from showing up on reports such as Wikipedia:Database reports/Uncategorized categories. Best wishes, - Stepheng3 (talk) 19:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I try to remember but it sounds like you might need WP:BOTREQ. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I've put a bot request there. Fingers crossed. - Stepheng3 (talk) 08:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Some help needed

In Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kermanshahi, I have added a new name to the not yet archived section. However, this page is not listed on the active cases (not among the completed requests). I have no idea what, if anything, I have to do now, to get this page listed correctly. If anyone can assist me, I'ld be grateful! Fram (talk) 08:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. Case is now active. JodyB talk 16:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Archive question

When a request is declined, should we still archive the case? JodyB talk 00:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can remember, practice has pretty much been to archive all cases in the same fashion, regardless of their acceptance or result, with the obvious caveat that users researching past cases should probably check case subpages directly, rather than merely relying on the summary archives. That said, if you (or anyone) thinks we might benefit from changing that, by all means feel free to propose something. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 10:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I really don't have an opinion one way or the other. I just don't want to deviate from accepted practices here. Thanks for the response. JodyB talk 11:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.

No, really, thank you. I take great offence to being called disruptive. Apart from my interactions with G2, there's nothing. I wanted to help, and got called disruptive instead, and not a single shred of evidence to back it up. Way to WP:BITE, way to respond to someone who only wants to help out. This was the only way I know of to get a message to all of you. // roux   editor review 15:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

IP checkuser requests

I'm sure there is some reason for this, but why are requests for ip checkuser handled differently than others. For example, when requesting a check on an ip account the request is created directly on the page and not in a subpage that is transcluded to the main checkuser page. I understand that archiving is would be difficult but this process seems confusing for the users and I am not sure what that accomplishes? JodyB talk 12:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not like the current system either and that is why myself and FT2 have been working on WP:SSP2. But, for the time being the reason we do IP requests this way is because the requests are never archived, they are simply removed (for privacy reasons). So, creating a whole subpage that will only be deleted is a waste of time and energy (also it allows for non-admins to go through the page history to see the results after it has been removed). Tiptoety talk 16:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
What's the holdup on WP:SSP2 ?? I thought it was well regarded. ++Lar: t/c 14:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
The consensus at SSP2 was to treat IP checks like all others. As to the hold up, we either wait for FT2 to finish it our just implement ourselves. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Clerking backlogged

There is a big backlog of clerking tasks on RFCU. Can we get some CU clerks to pitch in? — Rlevse • Talk • 02:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll get on that soon. Xclamation point 00:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
/me leaves for four days and this is what happens? /me sighs. Tiptoety talk 20:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

iw

Please add interwiki to bs bs:Wikipedia:CheckUser--Seha (talk) 08:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Might I ask, why? Tiptoety talk 22:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 Done -- lucasbfr ho ho ho 10:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Listing of requests on RfCU mainpage

It took some looking to figure it out, but I guess that line about clerks reviewing means that others will take care of listing a request in the 'open cases' list on the main page. This is not readily clear in the instructions. Can a line about this be more prominently displayed ,or perhaps added as another all caps line of instructions in the new case template in the edit window? On most other similar pages, like SSP and AfD, the editor filing needs to list as well. Thank you . ThuranX (talk) 20:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a bit muddy, yeah. Does this clear that up a bit? The distinction between "general procedure" and "specific procedure" seems a bit vague, now that I've thought about it. Tricky to convey that people can list cases, but can also leave it for clerks to take care of. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

What am I doing wrong?

I'm trying to add a new RFCU to an archived entry, but I seem to be screwing something up. I think I've got it down now - the only issue is the section title isn't wikilinking right. Help! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, may have taken you a few tries but you got it right. :-) Tiptoety talk 19:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Well that's weird. The other entries are showing up with piped links with single words as the section title. Mine displays as the whole section title i.e. using:
  • ===[[Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ResearchEditor|ResearchEditor]]===
I see an unlinked level 3 heading
  • Requests for checkuser/Case/ResearchEditor
in the TOC and body rather than the linked blue level 3 heading of
But when I try editing the RFCU page, it shows up normally. It's only when I'm viewing the main page RFCU to read, even when I bypass my browsers' cache. But if the RFCU is fine, then I'm fine (but curious). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
That appears fine too. Also, the problem is it is RFCU/Case NOT RFCU/Cases (with a "s"). But, like I said. Everything looks fixed. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 19:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I hit an edit conflict trying to clarify (the original links were typed in manually). Thanks, the important thing is that the guts are right. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if I've done it right

Hi, I've added User:Joyful-janner to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mike-Jones-at-dc as it seems to be the same person from their attacks on another user. I'm not sure if I added it correctly (the instructions are not clear). DuncanHill (talk) 13:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks fine to me. OhanaUnitedTalk page 13:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Šāhzādé

The input box at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser isn't showing up properly, so I had to create Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Šāhzādé manually. Kingturtle (talk) 23:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:RFCU does not redirect here

{{editprotected}} Can someone update this? WP:RFCU goes somewhere else now. -- Kendrick7talk 22:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:RFCU is not protected so I've disabled this request. However it was probably changed for a reason. Please check with the person who changed the redirect. Martinmsgj 23:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I think you've misunderstood. This page says "WP:RFCU redirects here." It does not, nor should it. I just found this confusing. -- Kendrick7talk 05:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
This is no longer an active page, so anything on it shouldn't be taken at face value. --Bobblehead (rants) 05:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_checkuser/Archive_6&oldid=1142264878"