Misplaced Pages

:Requests for checkuser: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 12:48, 15 April 2006 view sourceMangojuice (talk | contribs)19,969 edits →{{user|Theonlyedge}} and {{user|Pm shef}}← 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)

* 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|Skinmeister}} and {{user|Rennix}} ===
It is suspected, based on editing style and voting-stuffing on ], that {{user|Skinmeister}} and {{user|Rennix}} are the same person. (The most recent indicator that Skinmeister is a sockpuppet is that he/she made a sarcastic comment about getting "another" 24 hour block, when he/she had never been blocked before from that account by that point. Please conduct a CheckUser to check whether these accounts are sockpuppets of each other and of any other account. --] (]) 11:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

=== {{user|Muslim_sunni}}, {{user|Muslima_sunnia}}, {{user|Fatimah_Sunnia}}, {{user|Cronodevir}}, {{user|Aiysha}}, {{user|Mariam_07}}, {{user|Iicandream}}, {{user|64.83.74.214}}, {{user|67.68.246.46}}, {{user|65.92.130.151}} ===

I would like to invite you to read Complete background in a nutshell which can be found . Complex Vandalism and delibrate Revert War on Misplaced Pages-NPOV Compliant (written by a NEUTRAL, non-Muslim and non-Al-Ahbash party ]), to replace it with a partially and promotionally written was started precisely on April 07, 2006 by the above users. These user have also been using Misplaced Pages to insert hidden links for link-framing to drive more traffic to their group's web-sites. Consequently, I request that an investigation should be conducted to track all the SockPuppets. Thanking you in anticipation. Sincerely, ]

=== {{user|Theonlyedge}} and {{user|Pm shef}} ===
The issue with Vaughan below and his (suspected) sockpuppets are claiming these two users are the same person by continuing to drop sockpuppet notices on the two pages. This was what caused the below user(s) to get blocked, and therefore causing sockpuppetry to circumvent blocks. Please check just to have concrete evidence. &mdash; ''']]]''' 03:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
::I wouldn't mind having this evidence, but I'd like to point out that on ], the first such sockpuppet allegation actually claims that Theonlyedge is pm_shef's ''father''. ] 12:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

=== {{user|Kerry ( work IP address for DB)}}, {{user|Joanne ( work IP address for DB)}}, {{user|Peter ( work IP address for DB)}}, {{user|Uni student}}, and {{user|Johntheclivefan}} with {{user|ZoeCroydon}} ===

All these editors are new accounts that oppose a neutrality and cleanup edit to the article {{la|Clive Bull}} on grounds such as 'poor wording' and 'flow'. The article is deadlocked due to 3RR constraints and the accounts refuse to work with other editors to correct the problems they claim to have. There is a strong possibility that these accounts are indefinitely blocked vandal, hoaxer and puppetmaster ], who has a ], largely proven by previous CheckUser, which was also used a month ago to create illusions of a false consensus on this very same issue (as well as on ]).

Apart from their shared but otherwise unique opinions, they also share a similar style of writing, knowledge of obscure Misplaced Pages "rules" such as ] and ] despite being focused on one article , and the first three accounts share the same interesting typo in their bizarre names (the unnecessary space after the opening bracket), suggesting rapid account creation using copy-and-paste. --]<sup>]</sup> 08:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

(Alternatively, the space after opening a bracket .) --]<sup>]</sup> 09:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

=== {{user|No More POV Please}}, {{user|Bluegold}}, {{user|MacPhersonAndy}}, {{user|Bel air}} and {{user|Sea horn}}===

{{user|No More POV Please}} has suddenly appeared from nowhere with some knowledge of wiki culture (etc). I suspect there to be some connection somewhere, owing to similatirities in both editing interests and POV, similar mistakes in style and similar visiting places, and to other things like general timing (two have been away for two years) and recent editing timing. I suspect {{user|MacPhersonAndy}} least as being a sock, but it seems possible. But it doesn't seem likely that {{user|No More POV Please}} and {{user|Bluegold}} really are different people. - '''] ('']'')''' 01:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

:I compared and and was suspicious, so {{user|Bel air}} can be added. {{user|Sea horn}}, who's edited ] may be another, see . Interestingly, ], ] and ] have all had edits where single quotes were double-escaped (i.e. \\\'), evidently some hopeless script kiddie I've requested a block of the unblocked anons used, {{user|72.232.33.146}} and {{user|84.245.75.24}}, used only for scripted updates and vandalism. ] ] 13:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
:: He <s>edited</s> may have edited again as {{User|67.15.0.68}}, which has since been blocked by ]. - '''] ('']'')''' 16:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

:::To which could be added {{user|72.21.56.146}} and {{user|72.232.89.58}}, both banned by ]. But as these are all open proxies and throwaways, I don't see much point myself. ] ] 18:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

These pair of users should not be entertained with their request. I did very little or nothing to these users, maybe just to hurt their pride a little. Maybe I just picked a provocative name that's getting under their skin (a name I must reconsider in light of their reaction, see ] page and ] talk page). If you study my edits, you will see that there has been no violation or vandalism on my part. My IP address never starts with 6 (as stated above)and always begins with an 8, and it varies from time to time. And ], I have traced to Slovakia, not local to me, and was most disgusted at some of it's edits. A complete storm in a teacup. Thanks ] 00:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

:: IMHO, there isn't much room to doubt the use of bad faith socks among the 5 users, but I readily admit the possibility than one or two may just be coincidences. However, on ] I asked {{user|MacPhersonAndy}} if he was {{user|No More POV Please}}. The reaction was interesting to say the least. Here's another opportunity, {{user|No More POV Please}}, do you deny you are a sock? Admitting it now and saving hard-working wikipedians some distraction will go some way to compensating for the misdemeanors. If you aren't, I fully apologize for the accusation. - '''] ('']'')''' 01:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

:There you go again ], alway having the last say. Actually don't know what it is, but there is something about I like, true! In a court of law the defendant always gets the last say, and that's me. It's you and your friend ] who are wasting good Wikipedian time, as the outcomes of these 'investigations' can be uncertain to say the least. So you took the charges, now up to administration, and I believe the reasons for your case are flawed. ] 02:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

:::: Indeed it is. You shouldn't be worried if you are innocent. I offer you again the chance to deny sock puppetry. - '''] ('']'')''' 02:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

:::::There you go, last word again. i am not worried, maybe you are! ] 02:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

:::::: Yeah yeah. Answer the question please; you only have a short opportunity, just say "no, I am not". - '''] ('']'')''' 02:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

:::::::Seriously, I have to now retire. yawn! ] 02:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

], I see 2 new addresses added, {{user|72.21.56.146}} and {{user|72.232.89.58}}. Anyone looking at this spat could have used these to up the temperature on this topic. I am not buying! I'll say no more! ] 19:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

==={{user|JimTS}}===
It's been noted recently that all of this user's edits are to AfDs. This, I think, gives an inference that this might be a vote-stacking sockpuppet. I therefore request a CheckUser to see if that's what this user is, so that appropriate actions can be taken if he/she is. --] (]) 01:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

==={{user|HK30}}===
There is reason to believe that this is a sockpuppet of ] and/or ], created to avoid violating ]. Please note that I do not feel that Giovanni33 is involved but ''do'' believe the anonymous user to be related to this new user. Rationale/evidence can be found at the history page and talk page for ]. Thank you... ] ] 18:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
:I was just coming here to make the same request. {{Vandal|Giovanni33}} has been shown to use sockpuppets before. {{Vandal|BelindaGong}}, as established by Usercheck, and {{Vandal|Freethinker99}}, as established by signing as one editor, forgetting he was logged on as another, having pretended that the other was a brand new editor with no connection to him. Both those socks began their career on Misplaced Pages by saying on the talkpage that they agreed with him, and then reverting to his version, when he had run out of reverts, or while he was blocked.

:We also suspected {{Vandal|Kecik}} and {{Vandal|MikaM}} of a connection to Giovanni, as Kecik's seventeen article edits contain sixteen reverts to Giovanni, and his talk page edits are 100% supporting Giovanni, or voting for what Giovanni votes for, on different articles that he'd be unlikely to find by himself as a new user. Usercheck showed no connection, however. The same with MikaM; the account seems to exist for the purpose of reverting to Giovanni, voting for Giovanni's version, on multiple articles, but the usercheck found no connection. All five editors continued to ignore 3RR, after it was brought to their attention. (Not just an accidental slip into a fourth revert, but as many as eleven a day.)

:There were also, some time ago, two brand new editors that appeared when Giovanni had not edited for a few days. {{Vandal|RTS}} turned up after Giovanni had been absent for about two days (I think), said on the talk page that he agreed with Giovanni, and then reverted to Giovanni's version seven times, if I remember rightly, despite multiple warnings and pleas. I reported him at ], and he was blocked. Immediately after, brand-new {{Vandal|NPOV77}} appeared, and reverted to his version, saying in the edit summary that he was aware of the rules and had two reverts left. Having typed up lengthy explanations of the rules for RTS, and polite requests, in an effort to AGF, knowing quite well that he was a sockpuppet, I acted on instinct, and blocked NPOV77 immediately, even though I was involved in the article. (Blocked for sockpuppetry, not for reverting.) I then reported it at ], to get a review of the emergency block, and got a lot of support from fellow admins. I didn't ask for a usercheck, because there was a backlog at the time, and I knew that since the person I (and others) suspected had been caught before, he was aware of IP checks; and since he hadn't edited in the previous few days, I thought he might be away from home, perhaps in a hotel, and taking advantage of an unconnected IP address to get as many reverts as possible, knowing he'd be blocked if he made four, but that we were more lenient towards new users.

:Another point, these sockpuppets and suspected sockpuppets are in disagreement over article content with me, ], and ]. The two recent suspected socks, RTS and NPOV77 seemed to have chosen their names as a variation on Str1977. Has the new editor based his name on KHM03? The pattern of reverting, the language used in the edit summaries, etc., are 100% consistent with the pattern we've already seen. There could also be a connection with {{User|Trollwatcher}}, {{User|John1838}} and {{User|J1838}} though I think that's less likely. Trollwatcher has as his apparent purpose keeping an eye on how Christians treat new users who disagree with them, and is directing people to , which attacks several Christian editors by name (me, KHM03, Str1977, Storm Rider, DJ Clayworth, and Tom harrison). John1838 and J1838 are the same user. Like Trollwatcher, there was no evidence of wanting to contribute to Misplaced Pages. He just wanted to build "case studies" about the behaviour of KHM03 and others. His John1838 user page was deleted as an attack page, so he registered a new account as J1838, and his new user page was deleted as well. Much of the material is now found on the new website which Trollwatcher is advertising.

:P.S., at this moment, HK30 has now reverted five times under that name, plus possibly three times as ]. Three of the reverts have been ''since'' I informed him of the rule (which of course he was already aware of, in my opinion). ] ] 19:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
::*comment: This is not a valid CheckUser request in my opinion because the user already admitted on his/her talk page that the anon IP is his/hers, and he used it before he created an account and did not know about the 3RR rule. After he recieved the warning message, he apologized and agreed to follow that rule. I see that he has so far. So, this user check serves no purpose at this point. Also, rehashing ancient history about me, even though its said above that I'm not involved, is also not appropriate here as I have no connection to this other than the fact that this user shares a similar POV, it seems. Certainly all the speculations above about other users and when I was away for a few days (I'm often away!), it a bit funny. Such speculations it seems to me is not warrented for their negative predjudical effect it has, and its not fair. Anyone can be creative and try to connect tenuous leaps of logic and speculate openly in such a negative manner without any evidence (incuding bring up things in the past that have been proven to be wrong), but such is not fair and its an exmaple of assuming bad faith. ] 02:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

:::*I am sorry to clog up this page, but I would urge that the check still be carried out. Giovanni has a history of massive edit warring and sockpuppetry to get his way. The BelindaGong account showed up shortly after he registered, reverted immediately to his version, continued, like him, to violate 3RR when warned (i.e. not an accidental fourth revert having lost count), followed him to several other pages to ''vote'' for what he was voting for, to revert to his version, and to support him on talk pages, giving the impression of consensus. The two accounts pretended to have no connection to each other, despite being repeatedly asked. Finally, after a user check ], he ''then'' said she was his wife. Then, while he was blocked, the Freethinker99 account turned up, said he was new and had read the talk page and agreed with Gio, began to revert to his version, several times, and then answered a question addressed to Gio on Gio's talk page, forgetting he was logged on as Freethinker, hastily changed the signature, and then, since we had seen it, said that in fact he did know Gio, and had let him use his computer while Gio was showing him how to use Misplaced Pages. The whole of ] is devoted to the issue of Giovanni's sockpuppetry.

:::*As the user has agreed on his talk page that the IP address is his, there is no need to verify that. I would still request a usercheck, however, as there is a disturbing history of brand new editors turning up to support Giovanni, and as two of them have been shown to have an IP connection, and as two others show from their contributions that they are on Misplaced Pages for the purpose of reverting to his version, as HK30 is using similar arguments, similar behaviour, and similar edit summaries, as he is showing non-newbie familiarity with terms such as "NPOV" and "pushing a POV" (despite claiming that he wasn't aware of the 3R rule), and as he has now, a few hours after registering, started voting at an AfD. The claim that he wasn't aware of the rule is unlikely, given his obvious familiarity with Misplaced Pages, and the fact that he made his last three reverts plus two talk page contributions after I informed him of the rule on his talk page, so that orange bar would have been flashing up on his screen for every single edit, until he went to his user talk page. Thank you. ] ] 10:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

::::*This is just a fishing expedition of sorts. As I've said the digging up of questionable history, only parts of which are true, is a rather lame attempt to justify further user checks without sufficient probably cause. Its not true that this user has the same style, and comments in the edit summaries and elswhere--at least not anymore than almost anyone else. Its clear this is part of an agenda, a vendetta based on the fact that I've been in various content disputes over POV's with Musical Linguist, so she has an axe to grind, hence the pasting of the above ancient history, which Im frankly not even going to bother to refute, except to point out that past user checks proved I was innocent, and BelindaGong is my wife, who I offered to prove (but no one cares that its true); the other user was my friend I was introducing to Wikipeadia, and I used his computer while at his house to respond ONLY to a commment on my own talk page. Again, all this is rather irrelevant. I just think its inappropriate to make this about me, again. But, if you want to check on me again (I guess they will keep checking anytime there is anyone who is not a Christian), then I will continue to be proven innocent. Its a wild goose hunt. ] 02:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

::::] has been indefinitely banned - see ]
:::::In this users defense, he/she was new and did not originate that site or spread it. He seems to just want a response from the users who it is about, in effect alerting them, and having the real problem it talks about openly discussed. I also note that the user, after being notified of his vio for the 3RR reverted himself so as not to violate the rule, and promised to follow the rules. I think he/she is a good user and that this bann is not just, esp. not indefintitely. ] 02:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

==={{user|Northmeister}} and {{user|1010011010}}===
See ]. It is suspected that the latter is a sockpuppet of the former, to evade 3RR and to manufacture consensus on a policy page. --]] 18:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

==={{User|Cunado19's sockpuppet}}===
This account was created to insult ] during an ongoing discussion. The user page was a deliberate personal attack. Thank you for your time and attention. ] 15:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

:This is a bit vague; what's the reason for the checkuser, and who are we checking against? If we know it's an attack account, then we wouldn't be checking against Cunado19; is there someone else you have in mind... <font color=#696969>] <sup>] • ]</sup></font> 05:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

::Sorry — first timer mistake. Thought one could see what this IP address is and see if it hits anybody else's. {{User|Jeffmichaud}} has been engaged with Cunado, and me frankly, across a number of pages, so he's a possible candidate. Sorry for the inconvenience. ] 13:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

=== {{user|64.231.242.202}} and {{user|69.156.148.61}} ===
{{vandal|64.231.242.202}} and {{vandal|69.156.148.61}} have been launching personal attacks and vandalism against ]. I suspect they are being used by {{vandal|Eyeonvaughan}}, who is currently blocked for personal attacks, or {{vandal|VaughanWatch}}. The IPs resolve to Bell Canada. Although they have been blocked for 24 hours, if Checkuser finds they are being operated by VaughWatch, this should help admins block new IPs that launch similar attacks and may be evidence in what seems like the inevitable ArbCom case. ] 05:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
*Please also look at
:{{vandal|67.71.84.112}}
:{{vandal|67.70.149.60}}
:{{vandal|69.156.150.188}}
which are making personal attacks against {{user|pm_shef}} and are from the same Bell Canada range. ] 03:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

{{user|Westernriddell}} is a related issue.
Suspected sockpuppet of ]. Similar edits under {{vandal|64.228.149.140}} and {{vandal|69.156.150.188}}. Edits consist of accusing ] and ] to be sockpuppets of each other, just like the mother account. Also, Westernriddell has less than ten edits, half fo them to AfDs over five months old (some of which he supported claims made by Eyeonvaughan), with the rest being immediately after the block on Eyeonvaughan being put into place. Although this is a somewhat obvious case of sockpuppetry, I decided to put it here to be "just". Also, see the above request for more information relating to this case. ] asked me to request this checkuser as a somewhat neutral party. &mdash; ''']]]''' 03:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
:Also include {{vandal|67.70.148.144}}, {{vandal|67.71.84.112}}, {{vandal|67.70.150.98}}, {{vandal|67.70.151.196}} & {{vandal|67.70.149.60}} who have all been adding or reverting to the sockpuppet tag and like the above have made few if any other edits. ] ] 03:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
::{{vandal|67.71.85.253}} is also doing the same thing. ] 08:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
The only edits by {{vandal|64.231.172.2}} are to vote on the Simon Strelchik AfD and complain about Eyeonvaughn's block. ] 08:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

<small> Moved here from above, once I realized there is already a request going on. </small>
Eyeonvaughan is the subject of an ongoing ] in which massive sockpuppetry has been suspected and confirmed, but not yet linking Eyeonvaughan to any. A related user, {{user|VaughanWatch}} was found to have a large number of sockpuppets via RFCU recently. The remaining suspected sockpuppets for Eyeonvaughan from the RFC are as follows: {{user|CasanovaAlive}} {{user|Hars Alden}} {{user|Hars Aldenn}} {{user|Jazzabelle}} {{user|Partzhair}} {{user|UndergroundRailroad}} and {{user|67.71.84.110}}. A connection between VaughanWatch and Eyeonvaughan is suspected as well; a list of confirmed sockpuppets of VaughanWatch may be found at the RFC. Furthermore, some recent activity suggests sockpuppetry between {{user|69.156.150.188}}, {{user|64.228.149.140}}, {{user|64.231.172.2}}, {{user|Eyeonvaughan}}, and {{user|Westernriddell}}: all have made a rather bizarre unjustified assertion that {{user|Pm_shef}} and {{user|Theonlyedge}} are sockpuppets of each other, and some have tried to force sockpuppet suspect tags onto their user pages. Obviously, some of these users have differing IPs, but the activity is still suspicious; I would like to know if those IPs are related somehow. ] 12:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


==={{User|Sampa}} and {{User|Peyman.a}}===

The article ] has been attacked by these two users and a number of anonymous IPs for a couple of month now, and as result got protected yesterday. I suspect that these 2 user accounts are sockpuppets, all they do is revert the article to a very old POV edit. Please check the history of the article for IP addresses used to vandalise the page, the list is long. ] 06:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

:Yes, it seems that the two users are trying to avoid the 3RR by switching accounts. --] 06:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

==={{User|Eastern_section_of_the_nation}}===
We believe this is blocked user MuslimsofUmreka getting around his block. He is acting in the same manner and trolling for an edit war on ]. ] 14:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

==={{User|Johnc1}} possible sock of {{User|Waya sahoni}}===
Because of Johnc1's recent edits to {{article|Joe Byrd (Cherokee Chief)}} and {{article|Chad "Corntassel" Smith}}, I've begun to suspect that Johnc1 is a sock of WS. WS also started supporting Johnc1 on the Joe Byrd talk page. &middot; ]<sup>]</sup>/<small>]</small> 13:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

=== ] and ] and ] ===
These users are active in the pages related to ] and ]. I think both ] and ] are sock puppets of ] (previously known as ]). ] had previously contributed in Persian Misplaced Pages by using three usernames (, , and ) in controversial pages. ] 17:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
:Yeah, Zanyar only seems to edit when Xebat is blocked, which he is right now. If so then we have a block evasion. --] 18:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
:: It's not just block evasion. It's deception . ] 18:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
:::But Xebat is currently blocked for 1 month, how is it not block evasion? --] 18:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
::::Ofcourse it is block evasion. I'm saying that it is also deception (by impersonating several users in controversial pages). ] 18:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
:::::Ah. --] 18:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

== Declined requests ==

==={{User|Haham hanuka}}, {{User|62.0.118.79}}, {{User|207.232.8.4}}, {{User|85.250.100.4}}, {{User|85.250.168.182}} ===
Haham hanuka seems to evade his block time and again, this time from IP 62.0.118.79 and several other IPs. The 207 IP I am more doubtful about. Can you check them all out? ] 13:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

: No. Please read the policy, above. '''Declined.''' ] Co., ] 12:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

::Hello UninvitedCompany, please state what part of the policy led you to believe that this RFCU should be declined. Regards, ] 12:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

: The policy is that we only fulfill requests that meet the fairly narrow criteria listed in the policy. Which of the criteria do you think this request meets? ] Co., ] 15:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

=== {{user|149.68.168.147}} and {{user|149.68.168.138}} ===
Suspected sockpuppet of {{user|Zarbon}} who has been blocked and is using various IP addresses to bypass the block. Placed on checkuser per ]. ] 16:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

: He's already moved on to 149.68.168.138, and I'm assuming he can cycle through most of that netblock, since most of his ] are in that block. Everything from those IPs appears to be Zarbon at least in terms of editing the same articles he edits in the same way he does. ] 22:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

:: '''Declined.''' ] Co., ] 12:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
:::Why??? ] 13:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
::::Please read the policy above. This doesn't meet it. ] Co., ] 01:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
:::::In what way? As I stated above, an admin asked me to post this here so she could be absolutely sure before blocking this IP. Just because he moved on to another IP doesn't mean that he won't be back - if you look at the history of all of his IP address contribs, you'll see he cycles through them. I'm not the one who wrote the whole "editing the same articles in the same way" stuff. The IP address I asked about (149.68.168.147) is clearly tagged and linked with actual proof. If that's too much effort, .
:::::What's the use of this page if not to link an IP address with an established Sockpuppeteer? In fact, what's the use of this page when everyone has to wait days for a reply, just to get summarily denied without explanation? ] 11:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The use of this page is to deal with hard cases, where it is not clear whether sockpuppetry is going on, and where the answer to that question has significant ramifications. The criteria are deliberately narrow due to a consensus that privacy concerns govern except in the most egregious cases. You have to substantiate that the user is disrupting the site in an way that can't be dealt with using any other means as per the criteria listed. If someone is clearly being a pest from multiple IPs, just block them, don't list them here. ] Co., ] 16:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
:There, was that so hard? Why couldn't you just say that to begin with? Obviously, most of the people who are posting users to this page are spending a good amount of their time trying to improve Misplaced Pages, and in my case I specifically said that an admin asked me to post that IP address here before she blocked it. It wouldn't kill you to have enough courtesy to offer more than a "declined". ] 14:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
:: I'm not trying to be difficult or discourteous. This is a fairly new page and we're getting dozens of inappropriate requests, so I'm merely being brief. The majority of the the requests placed here don't meet the criteria, and I'm puzzled as to why people even post them since the page header makes the criteria pretty clear. I have tried to tighten up the wording somewhat on the front matter to help prevent such misunderstandings in the future. ] Co., ] 15:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

==Completed requests==

=== {{user|OghuzRaider}} ===
This account is a suspected sockpuppet of ]. See ] for a list of 35 other anonymous addresses and accounts employed by this person. Activity by this user is consistent with that if -Inanna- but official confirmation is needed. ] 19:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

:'''Oh, quite'''. That was the basis of my indef block. ] ] 19:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


==={{User|Jason Gastrich}}===
At the ] (Gastrich related) article {{user|SYITS}} white washes criticism.
*{{vandal|Alyssa1440}} white washes accreditaion at the LBU article at 01:02, 3 April 2006
*{{vandal|Jayson Marx}} white washes accreditaion at the LBU article at 00:58, 3 April 2006
*{{vandal|SYITS}} Makes his only of the day at 00:50, 3 April 2006
*{{vandal|Neil Bonetti}} white washes accreditation at the LBU article at 0:37, 3 April 2006
These others are suspected or confirmed socks. ] 02:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
:Three of the four listed here have been blocked already as socks. ] ] 02:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
::Regarding the fourth, he is '''not a sockpuppet'''. ] ] 02:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


==Declined requests==
==={{user|Please, do}}===
<!--put declined requests at the top of the list-->
Possible Gastrich sock, listed separately because he requested unblock, which is atypical, and I have unblocked. Contribs follow Gastrich pattern: communication does not. May be meat not sock. ]<sup>]</sup> 04:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
<!--declined subpages begin below this mark. -->
*Doesn't really follow the usual pattern. Check was '''inconclusive'''. Let the fellow edit. ] ] 05:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


==={{user|Stop war!}}===
<s>New user, very little ammount of edits. Put ] article up for deletion part of reason "As this guy does not want an article about himself on Misplaced Pages" ],
I think it could be brandt or close support that may of in past been banned
IP is probably 70.245.238.114 )<br>
Check to see if this could be ]
--<b><font color="#FF9900">]</font>] ] </b> 01:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Also they are a vandal ] and just now blocked for 1 hour (ban should be extended) --<b><font color="#FF9900">]</font>] ] </b> 01:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
</s> indef blocked so no need --<b><font color="#FF9900">]</font>] ] </b> 01:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


==Completed requests==
=== {{User|9A}} & {{User|Daniel Brandt}} & {{User|Stop war!}} ===
<!--put completed requests at the top of the list-->
User 9A just listed Daniel Brandt's article for deletion AGAIN stating Daniel wants it deleted, user is new as of today. Also User Stop war was investigated as a sock of Daniel so I'd like to check 9A against him too. See http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_12#Daniel_Brandt for latest AFD of the article. ] <sub>(] ])</sub> ] 03:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
<!-- completed subpages begin below this mark -->


<!-- IP check section -->
* {{User|9A}} and {{User|Stop war!}} are '''highly likely''' to originate from the same source.
{{Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/IP check}}
* There is no IP evidence tying these accounts to {{User|Daniel Brandt}}


== Non-compliant requests ==
] Co., ] 12:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
{{Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Non-compliant message}}
<!--Non-compliant requests should now be listed here, not on a subpage-->
<!--non-compliant subpages begin below this mark -->

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
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
Articles and content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
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

    Privacy violation?

    this header: view • edit

    File a Checkuser Request
    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.
    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}}
    information 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}} Red X Unrelated  {{Unrelated}}
     Confirmed with respect to the named user(s). no No comment with respect to IP address(es).  {{Confirmed-nc}}
     Technically indistinguishable  {{Technically indistinguishable}}
     Likely  {{Likely}}  Unlikely  {{Unlikely}}
     Possible  {{Possible}}  Inconclusive  {{Inconclusive}}
    no Declined  {{Declined}} no Unnecessary  {{Unnecessary}}
     Stale (too old)  {{StaleIP}} no No comment  {{Nocomment}}
    crystal ball CheckUser is not a crystal ball  {{Crystalball}} fish CheckUser is not for fishing  {{Fishing}}
     CheckUser is not magic pixie dust  {{Pixiedust}} magic eight ball 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

    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 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

    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.

    Categories: