Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) at 07:01, 14 November 2008 (Archiving 2 thread(s) from Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Einsteindonut

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

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

autobiography

Hi,

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

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

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

New User:MascotGuy request

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

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

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

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

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

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

So how does this work...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_checkuser/Archive_6&oldid=251725589"