Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 06:24, 5 April 2006 view sourceBitola (talk \| contribs)867 editsmNo edit summary← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 19:04, 23 July 2020 view source Sro23 (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators53,146 edits rm, this page is inactive
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{pp-protected\|small=yes}}
			{{historical}}
			{{notice\|header=Attention!\|1='''''To request a CheckUser please see ]'''''}}

	{{Requests for checkuser header}}		{{Requests for checkuser header}}

	==Outstanding requests==		==Outstanding requests==
			<!-- ### Add new cases to the top of the list, directly below this line. Thanks! ### -->
	<!-- Please make CheckUser requests using the following format (COPY it to the end of the section and fill in)

	==={{user\|<USERNAME>}}===
	Explanation of request for CheckUser. ~~~~

	* DON'T FORGET TO SIGN WITH ~~~~ (for the timestamp).
	* PLEASE USE ENCLOSE REQUEST WITH === ON EITHER SIDE OF HEADER (three double hyphens).
	* NEW REQUESTS SHOULD BE PLACED IMMEDIATELY UNDER THIS NOTICE. -->

	==={{user\|Edwy}} and {{user:LionKing}}===

	] is created on 1 April by the former ], as he admits that in this discussion:
	. However, ] doesn’t want to admit the relation with his previous account:
	* deletion of the following comment from his new talk page:
	* ] makes a redirect to his new users page and Edwy reverts that:
	'''Reason for check user request:'''
	User Latinus was pretty much involved in the Macedonia related articles and famous by his constant Greek POV pushing: and now we are seeing another newly created ] that is again mostly engaged around the Macedonian articles:. I noticed that this new user has very good understanding of WP policies as Latinus had and has the same altitude and vocabulary as Latinus. I would like a user check in order to be sure if the former user Latinus is not trying to cover up his past on the Macedonian articles with ], but still trying to continue with his contributions there through the use of his possible sockpuppet ]

	] 17:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

	== Declined requests ==

	==={{user\|Hpuppet}}===

	I have a strong feeling this editor is a sock puppet and using several accounts, would you please do a check. Thank you ] 23:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
	:Please provide specific evidence supporting your feeling that this editor is engaged in sockpuppetry. ] (]) 23:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

	* '''Declined.''' Also, I have removed the off-topic discussion in this section; those involved may take up the matter elsewhere if they wish. ] Co., ] 16:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

	==={{user\|WinniePooh}} and {{user\|Korab}}===
	These two users have both created an account today and have almost exclusively been bothered in reverting the article ]. They may be sockpuppets of ], ] or ], since, although they are new, they seem to know all about Misplaced Pages and cause the last of the 3 users mentioned has violated the 3RR again in the past. --] 01:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

	* '''Declined.''' This request does not meet any of the criteria listed in the instructions. ] Co., ] 02:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

	==={{user\|Science3456}}===
	Can I have a list of account that have edited from {{vandal\|169.157.229.67}}, {{vandal\|169.157.229.69}}, {{vandal\|169.157.229.75}}, {{vandal\|169.157.229.87}}, {{vandal\|64.192.107.242}}, {{vandal\|64.194.44.178}}, {{vandal\|64.194.44.220}} or {{vandal\|64.200.124.189}} and are not yet listed in ]? Cheers, —'']'' 01:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

	* '''Declined.''' This request does not meet any of the criteria listed in the instructions. ] Co., ] 02:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

	==={{user\|Jason_Gastriggs}}===
	Not sure if this is an impostor or a disruptive sockpuppet, but it would be helpful to know if there are any additional sleeper accounts to be aware of. ] 00:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

	* '''Declined.''' This request does not meet any of the criteria listed in the instructions. ] Co., ] 02:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

	==={{user\|High Elf}}===
	Clearly somebody's sockpuppet as demonstrated by his ] "contributions". I believe it is {{userblock\|Bomac}}, as he reverts in edit wars in which Bomac has participated, e.g. ] (). He also adds interwiki links on articles which Bomac (he is know as Boyan on the mk Misplaced Pages - check the e-mail addresses on both ] and ]) has done the same over at mk, for example, here is Bomac/Boyan adding interwiki links at an article over at mk and then High Elf appears and adds the interwikis over here using the same edit summary as Bomac is known to use, eg , and . The same coincidence, with High Elf adding interwikis which Bomac had added over at mk happens every time: , and . If it is a sockpuppet, please ban it as it has been double voting on the same RFA and . 13:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

	* '''Declined.''' This request does not meet any of the criteria listed in the instructions. ] Co., ] 02:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)




	==={{user\|Hpuppet}}===

	I have a strong feeling this editor is a sock puppet and using several accounts, would you please do a check. Thank you ] 23:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
	:Please provide specific evidence supporting your feeling that this editor is engaged in sockpuppetry. ] (]) 23:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
	::I am an admitted sockpuppeteer - I retired this username and created a non abusive sockpuppet. I did no mix contributions between accounts, and when I felt the extreme need to comment on an old issue, I went back to my initial account to avoid making it appear an issue had more support than it did. Please protect both of the above usernames, as I have left this encyclopedia, 50% due to abusive trolls like the one above, and 50% due to a conflict with the goals of the project. ] - ] 02:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
	::He's not a troll. He's got your number, that's all. Three different editors have reported you. Admins, please see the disruptive edits and uncivil edit summaries in the history of Hpuppet and his IP address for the abuses of this "non-abusive" sockpuppet. is my favorite. I am removing my redundant request below. ] 02:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

	===] ] and ]===
	These one, two or three users have been accused of sockpuppetry and using different accounts to stalk, vandalise harass etc. Could you please determine if all or any of these are related to each other? Thanks.] ] 21:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

	:No need to check if Crusading composer is Count Of The Saxon Shore. We know he is; there's no mystery about it. . However, it would be nice to have it established once and for all whether or not there is a link between the two, as ] keeps insisting that they are, and keeps insisting that there's a cabal. ] ] 23:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

	::If it speeds up the process - check the requests to change usernmae logs. Crusading composer became Count.... last week. So I should imagine that these 'two' editors might share the same ISPs - one a home ISP, and a few work ISPs. However, unless I am a schizophrenic with a memory disorder, I doubt that any of these ISPs will match Bakewll Tart's ISPs. Good luck!] 00:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
	::: Mind you, reading the box above, what reason is there for the request? It doesn't specifically mention harrassment or stalking. Shouldn't there have been a request for these to be '''investigated''' first? I'm pretty sure that there is '''no''' genuine reason for this request to be logged = other than to end the complaints of Mr Steadman, but since he seems to have retracted his accusation, this request is a bit moot. But don't mind me, look it up, I don't mind.] 00:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
	::::I agree that it's not a usual request. There's no voting going on, and there's no suspicion of 3RR violation. It's really because ] has been going on and on and on about the cabal and calling for other editors to be banned, and making generally unfounded accusations. It would be great if we could put a stop to it, and Count Of The Saxon Shore says he doesn't mind being checked. ] ] 07:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

	:Rather than running a checkuser, just block the disruptive editor. I don't see a case for a checkuser, and without the permission of both parties, I'm not inclined to run one. <font color=#696969>] <sup>] • ]</sup></font> 16:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

	:::I didn't ask for a checkuser, I was aware of the name change and I am tired of the stalking that ] in his previous incarnation on here and as other names on a different internet forum has been using to stalk and harass me. What I said is that there is a "link" with ] - I didn't say they were the same person.... both the Bakewell Tart account and the Crusading COmposer account were set up for the sole purpose of stalking me - hence their names 9 I work in Bakewell and I am a composer who often uses music for campaigning purposes. Both accounts should be removed if there is any justice - although Crusading Composer has attempteed to disguise the fact he is a single issue editor it is clear, from a look at his edit hostory, that this is the primary purpose. Bakewell Tart's edit history is even clearer. Surely WP should get rid of stalkers and abusers? I would be interested to know if there is any link with ] and ] - boith similarly single issue editors. ] 17:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

	=== 204.56.7.1 and Reddi ===

	Any chance of ] against ]? Reddi is arbcomm-limited, and 204 edits much like Reddi and is potentially skirting those restrictions. ] 21:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

	* '''Declined.''' Please provide a link to the case. ] Co., ] 18:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

	==Completed requests==
	==={{user\|WikiMB}} and {{user\|Bormalagurski}}===
	Is accused of being a sockpuppet of {{user\|Bormalagurski}}. The evidence is circumstantial, but not wholly without merit. This new user seemed mighty experienced during casual editing. One of was on his userpage (at 02:17), making a link to photos he had contributed to the project, whereas he had not yet added them. The page he was referring to appeared half an hour later, at 02:48. Of course, this could also be explained by a great deal of enthusiasm on WikiMBs part, but such planning of uploading pictures is uncommon among new users to say the least.
	Also, some strange edits on seem to suggest that WikiMB, Boris and perhaps also ] are coordinating edits.

	Because of the severity of the accusation (and doubly within the mine-field of Balkan-related topics), it merits some investigation at the very least. Like I said, evidence is mostly circumstantial, but it seems a good idea to nip this in the bud - either to clear WikiMB's name, or to demonstrate abuse.

	Cheers, ]]] ] 13:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

	:I have also been harbouring suspicion that ] is, in all likelyhood, another account that has been opened by ]. Given the number of his edits and the approach he is using he is probably aiming at '''eventually getting adminship at Misplaced Pages''' which ] failed to secure on a couple of attempts for all the known reasons. Needless to say, this would have interesting consequences on articles related to Croatia. I had suspected this for some time, but I didn't have any evidence until yesterday (April 2) when ] made a mistake of deleting a left on ]'s discussion under Re:Template. Luka Jačov appeared 5 minutes after this deletion and left a slightly modified comment (without the previously included phrase - ''Boris why do you have two accounts;)?''). Pretty interesting tempering with another user's page on the part of ]. Of course, ] re-appeared 5 minutes later as if nothing had happened to add another PR remark. For more info check ] 13:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

	As I have stated , I deny these accusations and am horrified of such a claim. I will still be editing for Misplaced Pages while I'm on "trial" for these accusations. --] 23:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

	:Request denied. Just from looking at the contributions I find it unlikely that these two are sockpuppets of one another; they appear to me to be distinct editors. ] (]) 23:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

	Thank you very much. I'd like for EurowikiJ to send messages to all of his ''buddies'', who he tried to unite against me, that I'm not a sockpuppet. Also, Mr. Minister of War, you mentioned something about clearing my name... I feel like I've been disgrased by Misplaced Pages with this accusation, and even though the request is denied, I feel sad because of this akwardness. All I wanted was to write geographic articles about Croatian villages. The accusation came only days after I said how everyone is friendly here. Minister of War was right, "''not everybody here is friendly and helpful''", and he was also right when he said to me that "''there's enough spirit to make & keep you addicted''". --] 00:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
	:I've reopened this request based on additional evidence provided via my ]. '''Confirmed''': ] and ] are the same editor, or at least two editors working in close concert. ] (]) 18:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

	This is amazing! I don't have a sockpuppet, and here's my reasoning:

	--] ] ] ] 01:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

	==={{user\|JeffT}}, {{user\|ABrowne}}, {{user\|Ulsterman81}}, {{user\|PaulMcCartney}}, {{user\|Activevision}}, ===
	]s and probably sockpuppets of {{user\|JASpencer}} (= ]?) who tries to push his anti-freemason edits (edit war). These accounts only revert other contributions. Possibly all identical with ] perhaps even ] but unsure. --] (]) 04:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

	Accounts are performing mutually supportive reversions with no substantive explanation or discussion across ], ], ] and ]. New accounts with no edit history yet demonstrate an understanding of process and are clearly identifying contentious and disputed versions with no effort to engage in discussion. I would not assess a likelihood of being JASepncer but given that it's now a couple of days since the last {{user\|Lightbringer}} sock ( {{user\|Oregano}} ) was blocked would suggest it's a change in tactics. Useful comparison would be {{user\|Fyodor Dos}} as an alternative. ]] 11:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

	Add {{user\|MicroMacro}}] 11:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
	Add {{user\|Activevision}} ] 11:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

	Based on the fact these (suspeced) socks are trying to revert ] to a version also pushed by the banned sockpuppet ] (compare edit by JeffT with Oregano ), I believe they are socks of ]. Due to the fact it's been a long time since that account was active, I would suggest checking agains ], ] or other recent socks from Lightbringer. Personly, I do not suspect JASpencer or SeraphimXI to be behind these socks. ] 11:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

	:You are right, JASpencer is from Texas and has nothing to do with Lightbringer. --] (]) 05:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

	:I nailed all these, as well as several others. Keep bringing them here as they show up. I've also blocked the underlying IP, as there was no activity on it other than Lightbringer. <font color=#696969>] <sup>] • ]</sup></font> 12:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

	::Thank you, that's great! --] (]) 13:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

	==={{user\|Rick Browser}}===

	I think it would be in the best interest that I restate my request. I admit, my original stating of the facts was a bit vague- it was certainly lacking in essential details.

	For the past half a year, I have been stalked by an indefinitely banned user who originally went by the name ]. He wikistalked me and my friends, vandalized my userpage (and theirs too) repeatedly and viciously ], ], ] insulted me repeatedly using his sockpuppets of BreakingRules, GroundZero, ForeverWatch and others ] and interjected into any possible conflicts that might arise; and finally, somehow he managed to find out my WIFE'S NAME and created derogatory harassing sockpuppets ], ], using the aforementioned name .

	Which brings us to the present week. There was a disagreement regarding the ESRB article between me and ]- and we each created one edit. All at once, however, my instant message box began to flood with harassing links to a "ha ha" website, one that bore the label "No ESRB on Misplaced Pages" and crashed my computer, causing me to lose over an hour's worth of work. I assumed that it was Pagtarak (an error on my part), and I ''' admit''' that I wasn't tactful in the next couple edits. Feeling desperate, I even went so far as to erase my userpage.

	However after calming down, I felt that I needed to resolve this conflict, I contacted Pagrashtak about the IMs. To my surprise, he had no knowledge or involvement in them at all, which led me to suspect that B4L was the one responsible. I apologized via email to Pagrashtak, and almost immediately after, ] begins to push into the argument, applying some rather vicious labels towards me ] (and at the exact same time, IP addresses that trace back to Brazil4Linux begin to post gloating messages on my friend's pages, bragging about me leaving)], ].


	Look, I know that users are entitled to privacy and respect. But I feel that have the right to know if ] is another Brazil4Linux sockpuppet. Given the above facts, I believe I have stated my case appropriately. Brazil4Linux uses DialUOL and Veloxzone addresses that end with the .br suffix.

	If after reading this, you still feel that my request is inappropriate, then I can do nothing more. Cheers, ] 01:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

	:: Doom127 vandalized my because I supported in ESRB dispute and '''' my answer on this section today. --] 05:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

	::: Actually "Rick", a "this user is a suspected sockpuppet of" template is NOT vandalism, given the fact that you ARE a suspected sockpuppet, and on top of that, I put it there at Pagrashtak's '''own''' suggestion, after we had discussed you at length. You've never "supported" anyone, all you did was call me a troll, just like you've always done from the start. That's the entire reason why I've PUT this check out- because I believe that you are the very same Brazil4Linux that's been stalking me for over half a year. A "suspected sockpuppet" template isn't vandalism- what you did (which I have very carefully detailed above), is vandalism, stalking (both on and off wikipedia), AND personal attacks. I don't think anyone who looks at the evidence will be disinclined to show me that you are indeed the very selfsame Brazil4Linux who was banned for bad behavior. ] 05:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

	:Could you provide a list of known IPs used by Brazil4Linux for us to compare to? We don't generally reveal personal information like IP addresses; without a list, all we can do is reveal the IPs we find, which would be a violation of Rick Browser's privacy if they do not match. Providing a list of known IPs, particularly if you can provide on-Misplaced Pages evidence that they have been used by Brazil4Linux, will make it much easier for us to run a check, and for appropriate action to be taken if there is a connection. <font color=#696969>] <sup>] • ]</sup></font> 06:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

	:: I have placed ] the list of IP known IP addresses that Brazil4Linux and his known sockpuppets have used on Misplaced Pages. There may be other IP addresses, of course- he has a tendency to switch his IP after each edit (but they all trace back to the same veloxzone or dialuol location).

	::: Further revelations- even as I was compiling the list, this user placed a personal attack on the Request for Admin page of user Jedi6, someone whom with the Rick Browser username has had NO prior contact with- in fact, the only person who has ever to my knowledge bore a grudge against Jedi6 was in fact Brazil4Linux. You can take a look at it ]. ] 06:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

	:'''Confirmed.''' The evidence suggests a strong link. <font color=#696969>] <sup>] • ]</sup></font> 07:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

	==={{user\|Annalina}} and {{user\|Curettage}}===
	As mentioned at AN/I ], {{Vandal\|Pro-Lick}}, having caused a lot of trouble at the abortion article, is now using sockpuppets. An earlier checkuser revealed that {{Vandal\|Halliburton_Shill}}, {{Vandal\|Cry_Me_a_Shill}}, and {{Vandal\|Vote_Machine_Malfunction}} were the same user as Pro-Lick. There was also technical evidence linking them to {{Vandal\|Undermined}} and {{Vandal\|Ban.wma}}.

	At the time of the earlier request, {{Vandal\|Curettage}} had not edited, and so was not included in the check, but from the edits, and even the name, it was obviously the same person.

	Pro-Lick recently linked to . There, he calls on people to come to Misplaced Pages and change the ] definition to things like "Abortion liberates the uterus" and "Abortion is fertilization for flowers." Then, a new editor {{Vandal\|Annalina}} appeared and began to make those edits. And there was a similar edit from {{Vandal\|64.42.88.22}}. An investigation would be appreciated. Many thanks. ] ] 01:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

	:'''Confirm''' Curettage, definately a HS/Pro-Lick sock.
	:As for Annalina, if it smells like HS/PL it probably is, but the checkuser is inconclusive. There is, however, a vandal sock farm coming off that IP, mixed in with some legitimate editing. <font color=#696969>] <sup>] • ]</sup></font> 05:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

	==={{user\|Cooldc19}}===
	Believed to be the original username of the , with a growing list of . I would simply like to make sure that the IPs of users are the same as the anonymous IPs tracing to Georgetown University to provide verification that it's one vandal. ] ] ] 09:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

	:Could you provide a list of these anonymous IP addresses, as well as a summary of the situation? We are not in the habit of revealing the IP addresses used by contributors unless there is definate proof of serious policy violation. <font color=#696969>] <sup>] • ]</sup></font> 21:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

	::The article has been vandalized well over a hundred times with the same claim that Matt Leinart is gay . The only verification that has come from the vandal(s) is a random blog , an ambiguous ESPN article , and a fake blog news article . The vandalism has been recurring for over two months; the page has been protected at least 4 times because of the vandal. , followed in no order by 141.161.12.151, 141.161.12.65, 141.161.12.188 and 141.161.92.134. Additionally, Comcast Cable IPs have been rotating, usually 68.something or other, or 67. My suspicion is one user editing at school and home. The point of the checkuser is to affirm ''one'' vandal, as that would make warnings and admin notices much easier after such long term abuse. I would like to be clear: I am looking for no personal information, simply that the registered users are coming from a similar IP to the ones mentioned. A "Similar" or "Dissimilar" will suffice. ] ] ] 00:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
	:::*The 67. IPs trace to RoadRunner. ] ] ]

	:'''Confirmed.''' <font color=#696969>] <sup>] • ]</sup></font> 05:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

	==={{user\|Jason Gastrich}}, {{user\|Benapgar}}, et al.===
	Suspected voting fraud at ] by sockpuppets of the abovementioned two users, believed to be in connection with ] case. ] for details if further reference is needed. - ] 14:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

	Suspected users are as of follows :
	* {{user\|Nutter1}}
	* {{user\|Jon Calla}}
	* {{user\|Rookwood}}
	* {{user\|Michaelwmoss}}
	* {{user\|Angelina Y.}}
	* {{user\|No Jobs}}
	* {{user\|Shindig Me}}
	* {{user\|Scifiintel}}
	* {{user\|Doe, John}}
	Two more users with three messages, including two with personal attacks on ] :
	* {{user\|BryanW4C}} (blocked)
	* {{user\|Jeffrey Tuttle}}
	Further spamming by {{user\|Jayson Marx}}, and a number of throw-away accounts at ]

	*'''Confirmed''' that {{user\|BryanW4C}},{{User\|Jeffrey Tuttle}},{{user\|Jon Calla}},{{user\|No Jobs}},{{user\|Angelina Y.}},{{user\|Shindig Me}}, and {{user\|Doe, John}} are Gastrich sockpuppets. Inconclusive results on all the rest. I'll be blocking presently. ] ] 02:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

	*'''Comment''': That's a very serious accusation, since Gastrich is on a 1 year ban. Are you saying that those accounts are using the same IP address that Jason Gastrich used to use when he posted, before he was banned? --] 07:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Note''': Users third edit. ]]] ] 19:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
	**I'm not obligated to disclose that kind of information; it would be an invasion of privacy. By the by, thanks for reminding me that I missed that account the last time around. ] ] 11:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
	***With all respect, I think you're either lying or mistaken. What is the process for having someone review your findings? You may not be '''obligated''' to say why you think all these people are Gastrich, but you certainly should have some sort of reason that you can tell us. It's hard to believe all of these are Gastrich, so you have the burden of proof and the burden of proof can't be met with "I say so". --] 18:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
	***'''Note'''. Users fifth edit. ]]] ] 19:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
	****Indeed. I suggest that he stop creating socks (like the one above). My reasons are that your puppets have the same behavior, edit the same articles, edit from the same IPs, and in many cases were obviously created by the same badly-written script. They also have the common behavior of wasting my and other user's time. Cheers, ] ] 21:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
	*****I know some things and I believe you, Mackensen, are being dishonest. I believe you are abusing using your IP checking privileges and making assumptions, not based on facts. I've posted this discussion on your talk page . --] 00:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
	******So tell me, what is it that you know? I'm bound by privacy concerns and common courtesy from not revealing the IP addresses involved. The findings are devastating. Do you have any facts of your own to offer? I've removed your post from my talk page; this discussion deserves the full scrutiny of this forum. Incidentally, repeating the claim that he "hasn't edited in quite a while" is laughable; his main account hasn't edited because it's ''blocked''. Funny, that. ] ] 01:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

			==Declined requests==
	==={{user\|SlashDot}} and {{user\|Karaveks voice}}===
			<!--put declined requests at the top of the list-->
	They are working in tandem to keep unsourced images in the ] article. Despite several editors telling to them to stop, they seem to take turns making the reversions so they don't violate ]. ] 20:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
			<!--declined subpages begin below this mark. -->
	*Please post diffs of alleged behavior. ] ] 21:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
	**I should note that until they came along, the images in were accepted by all the participating editors as acceptable for the article. The editors who have been helpful in trying to stem this spate of edits (either by reverting these two editors' edits, or by commenting on this the use of unecessary explicit images on the page) include ], ] and ]. Feel free to contact them if you wish.
	**Here's a list of the diffs for these two editors' changes:
	***, , , , , , , , . --] 21:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
	****'''Inconclusive'''. By the by, SlashDot seems to be uploading copyrighted pornography (and it isn't even ''good'' pornography). --] ] 15:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
	*****Well, thanks for checking. The way they were working together, and the fact that both were brand new, seemed to indicate something. Karaveks voice even issued a challenge, basically saying that I wouldn't be able to prove sock puppetry. I'll take a look at SlashDot's contribs and mark any unsourced pics as appropriate. Thanks again. (^_^) --] 17:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
	==={{user\|Adityanath}}===
	This user is being investigated for sneaky ongoing vandalism, 3RR violations, and general incivility and intractability. Please check:

	*{{user\|Adityanath}} (First edit: 15:33, 14 October 2004) against the following:
	*{{user\|999}} (First edit: 22:17, 24 May 2005) '''note''': user has caused page to redirect to user SamH
	*{{user\|SamH}} (First edit: 21:31, 21 December 2004)
	*{{user\|Chai Walla}} (First edit: 05:38, 11 March 2006)
	*{{user\|Baba Louis}} (First edit: 03:01, 11 March 2006)

			==Completed requests==
	There might be 2 individuals with 5 different IPs... ] 17:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
			<!--put completed requests at the top of the list-->
			<!-- completed subpages begin below this mark -->

			<!-- IP check section -->
	==={{user\|Robsteadman}}, {{User\|Robeaston99}}, {{User\|Vhjh}}===
			{{Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/IP check}}
	] has asked that I release the evidence of his sockpuppeting, using the accounts ] and ]. It is not Misplaced Pages practice to release private information like this, nor to release this kind of evidence to individuals. However, I have passed the evidence along to the other Misplaced Pages editors with CheckUser access, and asked that they review my work and provide their own analysis. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 21:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

			== Non-compliant requests ==
	:Having seen the evidence, I concur with ]'s analysis. ] (]:]) 23:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
			{{Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Non-compliant message}}
	:Seconded. ] ] 23:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
			<!--Non-compliant requests should now be listed here, not on a subpage-->
	:I have reviewed the evidence in this matter and concur without reservation in the conclusions reached by JayJG. ] (]) 23:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
			<!--non-compliant subpages begin below this mark -->
	:As do I. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
	:Ditto the above. There is simply no other way to read it. <font color=#696969>] <sup>] • ]</sup></font> 01:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 19:04, 23 July 2020

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.

Attention!To request a CheckUser please see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations

v t e Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

Read this first

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

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

Requests likely to be rejected

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 Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets
Vote fraud, closed vote, did not affect outcome	List at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets
Other disruption of articles	List at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets
Open proxy, IP address already known	List at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Open proxies
You want access to the checkuser tool yourself	Contact the Arbitration Committee, but such access is granted rarely

When submitting a request

If submitting a new case subpage, use the inputbox below; if adding to an existing case subpage, see WP:RFCU/P#Repeat requests.
Choose the 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.
You may add your request to the top of the #Outstanding requests section, by adding {{Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/CASENAMEHERE}}. If you do not, clerks should check for pages in Category:Checkuser requests to be listed and will do this for you.
Sign your request.

After submitting a request

Purge cache

Checkuser clerks assist with maintenance of the page but do not directly respond to checkuser requests. If you need help, post at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for checkuser.
Responses will be brief in order to comply with Misplaced Pages's privacy policy. Likewise, the privacy policy often prevents us from running a check which has the effect of revealing IP addresses.
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 Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Case subpages are typically archived several days after a checkuser responds.
More procedures at Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Procedures.

Privacy violation?

If you feel that a checkuser has led to a violation of the Wikimedia Foundation privacy policy regarding yourself, please refer the case to the Ombudsman commission.

this header: view • edit

File a Checkuser Request

Cases are created on subpages of Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case.
If you require help or advice, ask at Misplaced Pages 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:
Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/John Doe

<inputbox> type=create editintro=Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Inputbox/Header preload=Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Inputbox/Sample default=Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/ buttonlabel=Request a checkuser bgcolor=#F8FCFF width=50 </inputbox>

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

Declined requests

Completed requests

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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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

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.

Categories: