Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser
![]() | CAUTION In a few days, both the suspected sockpuppets page and the requests for CheckUser page will be merged into Sockpuppet investigations (SPI). SPI is designed to make the process of dealing with sockpuppets much easier, by using one central page for all sockpuppet discussion, rather than fragmented discussion between SSP and RFCU. SPI is very similar to both of these, so users of these pages should find SPI familiar. In addition to the merging of both pages, the RFCU and SSP shortcuts will also be redirected to the new SPI page and the current processes will be discontinued. The co-ordination page for this is at Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations. |
This is the place to request sockpuppet checks and other investigations requiring access to the Checkuser privilege. Possible alternatives are listed below. Requests likely to be accepted
Requests likely to be rejected
Privacy violation?
|
Indicators and templates (v · e) | |
---|---|
These indicators are used by Checkusers, SPI clerks and other patrolling users, to allow easier at-a-glance reading of their notes, actions and comments. | |
Case decisions: | |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Information: | |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Clerk actions: | |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Specific to CheckUser: | |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() ![]() | |
![]() | |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Outstanding requests
Declined requests
request links: view • edit • links • history • watch Filed: 14:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC) |
- Ericorbit (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Code letter: C
- Supporting evidence:
- User:Ericorbit and his believed to be sock User:Realist2 team up together on pages and keep reverting. On pages like "New Amerykah Part Two (Return of the Ankh)" and "User:Realist2's talk page". After leaving a comment for User:Realist2, User:Ericorbit shows up to answer the question.[1] Another example of this, would be when I leave a comment for "User:Ericorbit" in response "User:Realist2" shows up. My request was for User:Ericorbit to stop personal attacking my talk page. User:Realist2 comes and says that no personal attacks have been made against me. One follows another or itself and is strongly believe to have a sockpuppet. User: Realist2 confessed that he is a sockpuppet of User:Ericorbit.[2]
- That "confession" on my talkpage was a very obvious joke, given that it followed this joke "outing" in the same thread, as part of a long discussion about legitimate uses of multiple accounts. I highly doubt Realist would be creating sockpuppets to post replies on his own talkpage. I don't want to do it myself as I'm technically involved now, but can someone close this RFCU, please? – iridescent 22:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Clerk note: Inappropriate comment removed, for details please see the page history. Tiptoety talk 23:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- But in truth, Ericobit is backed up by Realist2. It seems way to obvious that he has a sockpuppet.Tarysky (talk) 14:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- That "confession" on my talkpage was a very obvious joke, given that it followed this joke "outing" in the same thread, as part of a long discussion about legitimate uses of multiple accounts. I highly doubt Realist would be creating sockpuppets to post replies on his own talkpage. I don't want to do it myself as I'm technically involved now, but can someone close this RFCU, please? – iridescent 22:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Contribution history of User talk:Ericorbit
|
---|
New Amerykah Part Two (Return of the Ankh)
|
Tarysky (talk) 14:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Declined. No evidence of socking. [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 21:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
request links: view • edit • links • history • watch Filed: 19:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC) |
- Fipplet (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Code letter: F
- Supporting evidence:
User:Fipplet, who on his/her user-page identifies as a Swede, was blocked on Jan. 8 for 48 hours for edit-warring: [3]
About the same time the two above IP´s (which geolocate to Sweden) start edit-warring with User:Spool 26 and myself on a number of churches: Church of All Nations, Church of the Pater Noster, Church of Maria Magdalene Dominus Flevit Church,
Also; IP:85.230.108.108 edits User:Fipplet´-s user-page: [4]
Also, with this edit it seem that s/he admit to being ip number 85.230.108.247 ("Read what I (ip number 85.230.108.247) have written").
Regards, Huldra (talk) 19:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment. See also Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fipplet, from September 2008, in which this editor was believed to have used 85.230.109.191 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a sock in a 3RR case. EdJohnston (talk) 19:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- I thaugh't you only were forbidden to create a new account wile being block, not just editing when you're logged out? Anyway, I admit it and I am very sorry for this, but it is very hard for me to stay away from Wikipedia. I love wikipedia and live in an environment with a high density of computers. Very sorry, won't do it again. I think it is unnecessary to block me again since it happened such a long time ago and I didn't broke any rules while being blocked and the disgrace is punishment enough, also; doesn't admitting reduce your time being blocked? But do what you think is just. Again sorry. --Fipplet (talk) 21:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- But it didn't happen "a long time ago"; it happened this weekend, when Fipplet was blocked for edit-warring. And, as shown above, it is the second toime s/he has done the same thing. The argument above is specious and barely credible; the whol;e point of being blocked is that you are not permitted to make edits. This is as clear a case as I have ever seen of sockpuppetry to beat a block, and should be dealt with accordingly.RolandR (talk) 08:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- I thaugh't you only were forbidden to create a new account wile being block, not just editing when you're logged out? Anyway, I admit it and I am very sorry for this, but it is very hard for me to stay away from Wikipedia. I love wikipedia and live in an environment with a high density of computers. Very sorry, won't do it again. I think it is unnecessary to block me again since it happened such a long time ago and I didn't broke any rules while being blocked and the disgrace is punishment enough, also; doesn't admitting reduce your time being blocked? But do what you think is just. Again sorry. --Fipplet (talk) 21:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- This weekend is about 4 days ago. That is a very long. And it isn't the second time I did this. Last time I created a new account and got blocked consequently for creating it. This time I didn't, I just continued to edit from my school cause I thaught you just blocked the account and not the person. Now I have learned this.
- What is the point of not being permitted to make edits? (This is a quote from Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses:
In this case blocking obviously surves no purpose). The point is to prevent further vioalations of Wikipedias' rules by that specific person. Since I didn't vioalate any rules while being blocked and since I didn't vioalate any rules during this four day period since being blocked and since I now have learned alot more about what is allowed and not, there is no point of blocking me. I won't do this again and i've certanly felt the disgrace of being punished. I am sorry for this but I urge you to do what is just and do it quick so that I then can return to wikipedia.--Fipplet (talk) 09:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)Blocks should be based on the protection of Wikipedia rather than the punishment of offenders. Most IP addresses should not be blocked more than a few hours, since the malicious user will probably move on by the time the block expires.
- What is the point of not being permitted to make edits? (This is a quote from Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses:
Declined. He admitted it. No check needed. Also, Fipplet, you can't just say "Oh this block served no purpose so I evaded it". You do not get to decide that. --Deskana (talk) 23:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Completed requests
request links: view • edit • links • history • watch Filed: 05:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC) |
- Chellaney (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Harshray (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Legaleagle86 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Code letter: A
- Supporting evidence: Same vandalism interest on a very specific article and very specific content. The editor Chellaney vandalized specific information from the article for which the editor was warned. After restoring and warning, the IP appears and the very first edit from it is vandalism of exactly the same article and information. This vandalism was caught, reverted and warned by ClueBot and then a very soon a new account Harshray appeared whose very first edit on wikipedia is vandalizing exactly the same content as done by Chellaney and IP within a few days of the first vandalism. ClueBot caught this again], reverted and warned Harshray. Harshray vandalized the same content again. I've reluctantly added Legaleagle86, because I myself somewhat doubt he is among the other three, but he seems to have problems with the same report and had deleted it from other article. --Roadahead ★ 05:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- While the blatant vandalism from Harshray continues, another IP has appeared on the same article (forgot to log on?). I'm adding this IP to the list as well to check the possibility. --Roadahead ★ 20:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Likely that Chellaney, Harshray and the IP are the same user. Very
Unlikely that LegalEagle86 is involved. [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 15:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Clerk note: blocked the users indef (except LegalEagle86), the IPs for a week. -- lucasbfr talk 10:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
In email, HR asserts he is a colleague of C, not a sock. I decided to believe him and set the block on HR to 24h (for 3RR). I've left the C account alone, err, though it doesn't make sense for it to be blocked as a sock of the other if the other isn't also blocked. Ah well William M. Connolley (talk) 21:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- Bill, in that case HR is meatpuppet of C because HR is deleting over and over again - the same sourced content and from the same article. --Roadahead ★ 17:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
request links: view • edit • links • history • watch Filed: 21:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC) |
- Shane91c (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Code letter: A
- Supporting evidence: Possible Sock Puppet used by Shane91c. This User has Resently Vandalised using Scurless and the account is now blocked for 1 month. I know Shane91c in person and belive that shane91c might be a "Good hand, bad hand" account. I know shane91c's full name and both account names seem strangly the similar to his real name. Arctic Fox 21:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Clerk note: Scurless's edits seem to be targeting Arctic Fox. -- lucasbfr talk 09:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- Both accounts Edits are targeting my user. Arctic Fox 15:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Additional information needed. Could you provide some diffs of the two accounts attacking your account? [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 00:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- I Will get round to finding the Difs When i get back from college. Bit busy at the moment. Please don't close the case yet. Arctic Fox 10:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Very highly Likely to be related. [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 15:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Clerk note: indefed Scurless, blocked Shane91c for a week. -- lucasbfr talk 10:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for looking into this. Arctic Fox 11:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
request links: view • edit • links • history • watch Filed: 06:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC) |
- Tool2Die4 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) (anonymous)
- Code letter: G
- Supporting evidence:
The IP address has no other contributions except anonymously 'corroborating' Tool2Die4's baseless accusations of sock puppetry against me.[9] (A WP:CHECKUSER already found me unrelated to the alleged puppet.[10])
I contend that Tool2Die4 has a pattern of bullying and apparently passive-aggressive retaliation, as detailed in this WP:ANI entry: [11]. Tool2Die4 placed a request on the BLP noticeboard, and when all substantive comments agreed with me (and disagreed with Tool2Die4), suddenly this anonymous URL started 'corroborating' Tool2Die4's false accusations of sock puppetry against me.
Google returned only one other instance of this IP address, where it appears this IP shares Tool2Die4's interest in football.[12]
It seems unlikely to me that an anonymous IP would somehow be lurking innocently on the BLP noticeboard, while ignoring all BLP issues, and then suddenly jump in to support a false accusation of sock puppetry made elsewhere by Tool2Die4. The BLP page did not even mention Tool2Die4's false accusation until the anonymous IP added it. It seems likely to me that, frustrated by the failure of his/her efforts to bully me, Tool2Die4 resorted to engaging in exactly the conduct (sock puppetry) that had earlier sprung so readily to his/her mind.TVC 15 (talk) 06:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Note to investigating Admin: When this is turned up negative, I do not want my IP revealed, for privacy concerns. Tool2Die4 (talk) 11:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Unrelated. That said, your behaviour with your alternative account User:WikiKingOfMishawaka wasn't exactly above board. --Deskana (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- That's probably why it got indef-banned, huh? Tool2Die4 (talk) 16:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
request links: view • edit • links • history • watch Filed: 20:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC) |
- SuperSonicx1986 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Gethomas3 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Code letter: G
- Supporting evidence: On 11 January, User:Gethomas3 was blocked for a week for reverting Intercontinental Cup and FIFA Club World Cup statistics to an earlier version despite the article having been split into two new articles. Today, User:206.209.102.182 performed the same action. I suspected that the IP might have been a sock of User:Gethomas3's, but then I found out that the IP belongs to User:SuperSonicx1986. Therefore, I suspect that the three users may in fact be one user. – PeeJay 20:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Likely that SuperSonicx1986 and Gethomas3 are the same user.
Inconclusive technically as to the relationship with the IP, but note that the IP belongs to a university range; this by no means excludes the possibility of their being one user. [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 00:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Clerk note: the same admin blocked both users in Dec/Jan, I'm contacting him to follow up. -- lucasbfr talk 09:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- Blocked the IP for a month, and indefinitely blocked the accounts. PhilKnight (talk) 13:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
request links: view • edit • links • history • watch Filed: 04:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC) |
- Alkclark (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Dancefloor royalty (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- KM*hearts*MC (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Code letter: G
- Supporting evidence:
- This shows almost perfect non-overlap of editing sessions between the four editors listed above over two months (can crank the list up to 1000 edits if needed). Notice the first three of these editors warring against Madchester's changes at Viva la Vida Tour. Seems to be an editor who has used multiple accounts in the attempt to win slow-moving revert wars on music articles. If confirmed I think the socks should be indeffed and the master account sanctioned as well. EdJohnston (talk) 04:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Confirmed that the three accounts and the IP are the same user. [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 00:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Clerk note: Main account blocked for 48 hours, all other named accounts indef blocked. I blocked the IP for one week with account creation disabled. Tiptoety talk 06:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- Tiptoety (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) extended the block to indefinite. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 16:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
request links: view • edit • links • history • watch Filed: 18:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC) |
- BenH (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Supporting evidence: I have filed this under BenH (2nd) because of a pre-existing case. Here are the IPer's contributions. If these edits are consistent with BenH's editing style, then he is evading his block. Willking1979 (talk) 18:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- User has used several other IP addresses for his vandalism. - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 13, 2009 @ 19:08
Clerk note: Errr, the last contributions of BenH were in the summer of 2006. Got anything newer to compare with? -- lucasbfr talk 20:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- Anything in this category can be used. - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 13, 2009 @ 22:19
- Benh34 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) might not be stale, if CUs wish to work with it. -- lucasbfr talk 22:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Inconclusive, technically. There might be a relationship -- it should be assessed on behavioural evidence. [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 00:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
request links: view • edit • links • history • watch Filed: 20:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC) |
- Mike-Jones-at-dc (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Lucyatchalk (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- — adding external links in the middle of articles relating to the University of Plymouth (which is located at Drake Circus). This occured after drakecircus.net was blacklisted, therefor forcing the user to chose a different external link.
- Code letter: C and partly F
- Supporting evidence: Both SPAMing articles with drakecircus websites. Mike-Jones-at-dc and a few hours later Lucyatchalk. This is part of the ongoing Drake Circus vandalism, as discussed at Talk:Drake Circus Shopping Centre and at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#www.drakecircus.com. See Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Whiteworks for more suspected sockpuppets and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/86.146.197.193 of which 86.137.47.66 and 86.146.197.193 match WHOIS reports. Jolly Ω Janner 20:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Likely that these two accounts are related, as is the IP. [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 01:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Clerk note: Named accounts already blocked. I went ahead and blocked the IP for two weeks. Tiptoety talk 02:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- Joyful-janner (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) seems to be the same person. DuncanHill (talk) 13:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- The-web-hamster (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) also similar activity. DuncanHill (talk) 16:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- Webham:ter (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) and again. DuncanHill (talk) 16:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- All three of these are blocked, for various reasons. Could definitely use another CU check, though, it's obvious we've got a sockfarm going. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed. A rangeblock would be nice. Jolly Ω Janner 17:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- There's some more information at Wikistalking - the shrine and Profile of our friend. Jolly Ω Janner 17:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- Regarding the above - I don't believe the user who never signs in, and it described in the sections on my Talk Page by Jolly Janner, is the same user as is being discussed on this page. The user on this page seems to be fixated with Drake Circus. My pet IP user tends to hand out at Plymouth College and Plymouth in general. I think this are distinct users, and so the material on my page shouldn't prejudice the user being discussed. Stevebritgimp (talk) 21:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- Also the user described on my page (IP/Whiteworks) tends to remove all mention of Drake Circus, rather than spam pages with websites promoting it. Stevebritgimp (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- Exactly. The user is playing the system. Making it seem as though Drake Circus shopping centre is actualy behind the SPAMing. It's just wasting people's time. As far as I'm concerned, any of the users doing disuptive edits to Drake Circus are the same people. What are the chances of two seriel vandals picking the same article to target? Jolly Ω Janner 21:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- Also the user described on my page (IP/Whiteworks) tends to remove all mention of Drake Circus, rather than spam pages with websites promoting it. Stevebritgimp (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- Regarding the above - I don't believe the user who never signs in, and it described in the sections on my Talk Page by Jolly Janner, is the same user as is being discussed on this page. The user on this page seems to be fixated with Drake Circus. My pet IP user tends to hand out at Plymouth College and Plymouth in general. I think this are distinct users, and so the material on my page shouldn't prejudice the user being discussed. Stevebritgimp (talk) 21:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
A handful more. Their contributions and comments to each other suggest a concerted effort to use WP for advertising and to evade blocks via multiple accounts:
- Lucyatdc (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Harrythe hill (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Markyatdc (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
I've indef-blocked 'em. By behavior, seems likely to be a few meatpuppets, each with a drawer of socks. DMacks (talk) 21:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- Jeremy-parkurst-junior (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Another one. This user's creating accounts faster than I can report them! Jolly Ω Janner 21:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Confirmed that all these accounts are related. I'm afraid there is no IP block that can be done -- the range is at least a /14 and possibly larger, as well as being highly dynamic. [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 00:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll try to report these accounts as soon as I spot them. Jolly Ω Janner 00:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
request links: view • edit • links • history • watch Filed: 22:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC) |
- Argyle2006 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Existentialist1969 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Desperado58 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Karakoram0719 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Yargle917 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Xenophon09 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Zorba991 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Siegfried742 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Uhlaner45 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Outbacksteak (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Desperado57 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Existentialist68 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Junker1871 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Code letter: C
- Supporting evidence:
I've been dealing with a long-term vandal who creates new accounts about weekly to insert opinions, counter-factual statements and WP:BLP violations in a variety of articles. A great number of blocked socks can be found here. Common article targets include those listed below plus Doris Kearns Goodwin, The Librarians, M*A*S*H (TV series), Charlie Rose, and Cryptdin, among others.
I have listed all the accounts that I've personally dealt with since October. All of the above accounts have been indefinitely blocked (mostly by me), and the listed IP still has another month to go on its latest block. However, it would be useful to identify any as-yet undetected accounts or sleeper accounts for this individual. Perhaps blocking the underlying IP(s) may be warranted. Thanks, — Scientizzle 22:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Confirmed to be related to the above accounts:
- Yargle968 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Verboten1313 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
All recent IP addresses are already blocked. [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 00:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Clerk note: Blocked & tagged. Tiptoety talk 00:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks! — Scientizzle 01:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump. |
IP/A |
Requests for IP check
- Vandal and attack accounts may be listed here for the purpose of identifying and blocking the underlying IP address or open proxy. Requests to confirm sockpuppets of known users should be listed in the sockpuppet section above.
- If you already know the IP address of the suspected open proxy, list it at Wikipedia:Open Proxies instead.
- Use === Subsections ===; do not create subpages.
- List user names using the {{checkuser|username}} template. Add new reports to the top of the section.
- Requests may be acted on or declined according to the discretion of the checkuser admins. Responses will be noted here. Specific evidence of abuse in the form of diffs may be required so as to avoid the impression of fishing for evidence.
- Answered requests will be moved to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/IP check/Archive for 7 days, after which they will be deleted. No separate archive (other than the page history) will be maintained.
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.