Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Sockpuppet or checkuser

I posted a checkuser request when I think I should have posted a sockpuppet request. Should I speedy the Checkuser case and copy the text into a new sockpuppet case? -Andrew c 14:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

More to the point the documentation seems confused. I opened this SSP: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jeff Defender. In the course of affixing the {{Socksuspect}} tags on the likely socks' pages, I noticed that the "information for the accused" link in the template goes to a page that says that if I don't request checkuser on the suspect within 10 days they are free to removed the Socksuspect warning, yet none of the checkuser "are you in the right place?" options appears to appy. I am I supposed to request checkuser in the SSP, the way the page here says to request checkuser from within ArbCom cases? Some guidance here would be great (as would updating the dox, if that is needed.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

IP Check delay

Just curious, but why do the 'general' RFCUs get done fairly quickly, but the Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/IP check ones seem to not get done? I know you guys are overworked, so I'm just genuinely curious. Specifically, the current "However whatever" one I had was moved to IP check by Real96 some time ago, and in the interim quite a few others have come and gone while that one has languished. Thanks, - Denny 06:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been wondering that too. It looks like it's being done in a weird order, too--stuff has been added above and below the one I'm watching, newer on both sides, and stuff has disappeared from both sides as well. --Masamage ♫ 17:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
If it's anything like other administrator processes, they're probably avoiding harder or more troublesome ones for the easier and more clear cut ones. We've all done it at some time. --Deskana (ya rly) 17:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I figured as much, was just curious. :) - Denny 17:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Just cherry picking, really. If I've got a couple of spare minutes, I'll hunt for an RFCU that looks like an easy hit. On the other hand, ones with dozens of names can take hours to resolve, and are not very tempting. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Question?

My question is this: How does one become a checkuser? Is there are requirment?(Yes I know, but what is it?) Please reply ASAP! Dreamy 21:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Take a stroll through m:CheckUser Policy--Bobblehead 21:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
You need the Arbcom's approval. Only the most trusted of the most trusted administrators have any chance at being given it though. Prodego talk 22:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Second case for a check user

I wanted to create a case for User:LegoAxiom1007, but there's already an old case that was rejected. Is there any special process for submitting the same user again?--Wafulz 04:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I archived the previous case, you can go ahead. Don't forget to add the link to WP:RFCU/P -- lucasbfr talk 15:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the help! --Wafulz 03:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Request not showing up on main page

Okay, I obviously did something wrong or missed a step. A case I opened yesterday isn't showing up on the main page. How can I fix this and what did I do wrong? --ElKevbo 13:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The case/Shac1 page wasn't transcluded on the Pending page. I ficed it. Don't know how it happened. DES (talk) 14:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! If anyone has any insight into what may have happened and how I can avoid doing it in the future, please let me know! --ElKevbo 14:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I see some changes were made in the way new requests are created, maybe you filled your case at the wrong moment? The template seems to be ok now. -- lucasbfr talk 15:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

page layout

Do you see any way to put the table of content below the new case box? The box would be easier to spot this way. I tried to play with the TOC magic word, but I didn't succeed. If by any chance there's a wiki syntax guru nearby... ;) -- lucasbfr talk 14:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed the magic word from the header template. But now I need to resize the imput box so it looks better. Funpika 00:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I reverted my edit until I can resize the input box. Funpika 00:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Situation Codes

Shouldn't the "decline" ones also have a code for easy referance when chases are declined? It could be like N1 for " Obvious, disruptive sock puppet" -- Cat chi? 11:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

  • It would be useful to have a shorthand for "look up on the table on the top of the main page and notice the second entry that says blah blah blah". On the other hand, saying "Decline. X." isn't any less rude than just "Decline". --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I have a really stupid question

Why doesn't WP:RFCU have the "Abuse/Noticeboards" template that appears at the top of WP:AIV, WP:ANI and so forth? It is listed on that template. YechielMan 07:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe you mean {{Editabuselinks}}? Can't recall for sure if that used to be there, or not (thinking not). I personally wouldn't mind either way. It's a little extra clutter, but it might be helpful for people finding their way around. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

new listing process?

Procedure seems to have changed. Am I correct in reading that I should now wait for a clerk to list the new request at /pending? ··coelacan 23:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

No need. I only trimmed that last step as part of an effort to simplify the whole process (several people had reported being confused, over the span of a few months). If you'd like to list it on your own, feel very free. I should have a look at the particular wording I used; if you have any suggestions for a change, likewise, feel free. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 00:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
It was the "Once submitted, your case will be listed by clerks, who can assist with formatting, request information, and help you with your request" in the red box on the new request page that made me think that; I don't know what else it should say. I listed it and removed the "to be listed" tamplate. ··coelacan 00:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Should I relist for a followup question?

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/MyWikiBiz got a "Likely" rather than "Confirmed" on User:WikiGnosis, who was blocked on that basis. Since I have serious doubts about that case, I'd hoped for clarification, and asked questions. However, the case has already been moved to "Completed requests", and my questions remain unanswered. Should I relist it on "/Pending"? Or could some kindly checkuser answer my questions anyway? Thanks! -- Ben TALK/HIST 22:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The Fobo64 case

On this case, I am highly thinking about sending these edits to oversight and having the user blocked indef. for personal attacks. Does anyone want to weigh in? Real96 21:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Yeah. It doesn't qualify for oversight. On the other hand, the RFCU does qualify for oversight, as it lists the full name of the victim of the harassment it is complaining about (as opposed to the edits themselves.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Jp, sorry for not being specific. I believe that the RFCU case should be sent to oversight, because we already know who made the edits. Real96 03:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Can a confirmed case be re-listed?

Fred Bauder has revealed that the confirmed sock accounts are not the only ones operating from the IP range identified on WP:RFCU#COFS. So I can stop saying "Fred Bauder said so..." and to investigate potential other socks would it be appropriate to request re-listing? (I know how to do it, I just don't know if I can). Anynobody 02:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Very much like that, but including the results from the first checkuser re (COFS/CSI LA) Anynobody 03:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Sure. I can tell you up front that there are lots of editors using the IPs that were also used by COFS and CSI LA (and Misou). Some of them seem puppetish, others just seem to be using the same IPs (and not editing Scientology-related articles). --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt and informative reply, jpgordon∇∆∇∆. Your answer makes me wonder if this is perhaps a proxy server of some kind? If it is then I'm not sure what to do next, since legitimate editors could also be using the same server for similar privacy reasons. I could be wrong though, so please correct me if I am. Anynobody 04:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Any idea about how many is lots ? Curiouser and curiouser.... Smee 09:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC).
    • Actually, fewer than I thought; a couple dozen, max. (Nowhere near as many as the "lots" we commonly see on open proxies; and only one particularly active one who isn't focused solely on Scientology issues.) Other than that single editor, the bulk of the edits are from CSI LA, COFS, and Misou, and User:Grrrilla. My personal opinion is that we've got a combination of open proxies and sock- and/or meatpuppets, but I've not done careful analysis of te edits of the various Scientologists to know for sure. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Another possible sock???

So so far we have possible socks for a new Checkuser:

  1. COFS (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log • rfcu)
  2. CSI LA (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
  3. Misou (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
  4. Grrrilla (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)

At what point does this begin to become a potential systemic/disruptive issue... Smee 20:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

Smee 20:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

Question

If all are supposed to be affected by block, why is Misou able to still post outside his talkpage?

Contributions

COFS CSI LA Misou

A few (but not all) possibilities
  1. Misou is the persons usual name when not editing at work/school/church(wsc) and CSI LA /COFS are only used from wsc, allowing editor to access Wikipedia at home but not IP at wsc.
  2. Misou is COFS/CSI LA's friend who sometimes edits from this person's wsc.
  3. COFS/CSI are two different people in the same wsc and don't have access to a different IP like Misou does.
  4. They are all the same person who happens to use a proxy server to edit.
Also

They appear to be very careful about not violating WP:3RR or all voting on the same WP:AfD but they show the possibility to by their teamwork below. all 3 contributed to the discussion mentioning Goebbels on Talk:L. Ron Hubbard but this is unusual too. It seems COFS/CSI LA appear to maintain a sensible distance from Misou. COFS and CSI LA with Justanother vs Antaeus Feldspar on Talk:L. Ron Hubbard. This looks like calculated gaming of the system. Anynobody 20:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking about how to make successful sock puppets given what I have seen so far here. Looking at it from their perspective here is what might explain the other edits:

Problem
Socks easily identified with minor research

The primary giveaway is their tendency to dive right into Scientology topics almost exclusively, exposed by a simple look at their contributions.

Solution

The solution I came up with is to "grow" new "sleeper" socks by editing anywhere but Scientology for a good long while so that in an important WP:AfD or anything like it could be dominated by engineered CoS socks. Anynobody 21:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

AN, you are not the first to come up with those ideas. Not by a long shot. But the real point is that lots of Scientology critics also jump right into the Scientology series articles, e.g. User:Like.liberation and any number of others that I could point out to you. How come you only complain about Scientologists doing that? I also do not appreciate that you are insinuating now that pro-Scientology editors with history in other areas of the project could be "sleeper socks". Both of your premises are major violations of WP:AGF if you ask me and it is paranoid thinking to boot. I could as well ask you, by your "logic", if your edits in military areas to "beard" (as you would have it) your anti-Scientology edits make you yourself a "sleeper sock"? --Justanother 15:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Question for jpgordon and coelacan

Hi. I had studiously avoided commenting up until now but I want to be sure that I understand the issue and the constraints on COFS and CSI LA. From what I understand from your conversation with Anynobody, you discovered that a number of editors are editing from a block of IPs assigned to the Church of Scientology. Let me clearly state that, to the best of my knowledge, only an employee of the Church or someone with access to an employee's computer would be able to edit from such an IP. Please confirm for me that we are talking here about such a range and not about, say, a range of Earthlink IPs for a certain area of LA; that we are talking about a range of IPs assigned by ARIN to the CoS. I understand the issue now and will address it further very soon. --Justanother 19:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Assuming that to be the case then I imagine that the constraints would be identical to the constraints that would be placed on any set of employees editing from their firm's computers on subjects directly related to their firm. I do not think that we need to use insulting terms such as "meatpuppet"; if two otherwise unrelated Microsoft employees were editing Microsoft articles and both were concerned about a certain critical (mis)representation and both were attempting to address it and they were (naturally) supporting one another edits, what would be the constraints there?

The bias against and misrepresentation of Scientology in these pages is obvious and painful to any Scientologist that happens across a Scientology-series article. If you look at my first edits here you see how it goes. Scientologist sees something odd, something misrepresented; fixes it (that should be easy, right?); Scientologist reverted, disrespected, and soon discovers that the series was largely written by and is largely controlled by a small group of off-wiki Scientology critics and their on-wiki supporters. Fair enough, we will deal with it. My point is that we all seem to have the same agenda because there is only one agenda; remove the "taint" (my latest term for it thanks to another editor) from these tainted articles. I invite neutral editors and fair-minded critics to help and some are helping. But until we break the hold that a small agenda-pushing group has on these articles I think that all Scientology editors may well "look the same" to you; please do not hold that against us. I look forward to your reply. --Justanother 11:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC) (copied and minor editted from my post at User talk:COFS 15:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Not intended as an insulting comment at all, but you're speaking in broad generalities here, Justanother.
Also, you'll find you are incorrect in assuming that an agenda is being pushed. For one thing, I'd challenge you to point to one Scientology article where reasoned concensus on the part of the editors involved (at least a majority of them) didn't cooperate in its creation. Also, there have been many occasions such as this [1] where you've been asked to provide an itemized list of what parts of a given article do not coincide with Wikipedia's policies and quality standards, and have not as yet done so. The only way the existing editors, who I am sure are insulted by your seemingly random accusations that any and all Scientology articles are biased/slanted, but then you do not give examples, on the talk pages of said articles, of constructive things which could be done to help, or parts of the article which violate Wikipedia's standards.
Additionally, the statement that COFS and CSI LA should not be considered meatpuppets suggests you don't know the definition of "meatpuppet" as defined in the policy. Anyway, it's been decided, and really, if there are problems with the Scientology articles, instead of trying to "put it right" immediately, presume you may in fact have a possibility of being incorrect about things, and that the encyclopedia is built by concensus, and ask about the changes on the talk page first instead, mayhaps? Like, -before- you make them? 24.224.195.30 19:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I can speak in broad generalities if broad generalities are what I am discussing. Would you rather have me name by name each editor here that is an off-wiki critic of Scientology and edits solely in the Scientology-series articles? I.e. WP:SPA and meatpuppets for all intents and purposes that always vote together to stack the deck. I can name those names if an admin asks me to. You can also look at most any Scn-series AfD to see them - Tim Bowles, for instance (and for those that like to misrepresent my views, I do not mean every editor that voted Keep; I mean a certain handful. Look at the edit histories of the repeat voters and judge for yourself.) I have not seen anyone complaining about them (I usually point it out). But let two (or three) Scientologists a world apart (or in the same city) who do not even know one another try to simply get the policies here applied and look at all the noise. As far as your other point, there is a lot of "taint" here and I address it as I address it. I am one guy and have more than my share of WP:TE opposition. Take a look at my edit history if you want to know precisely where I have a problem, what I have to say about it, and what my edits in the subject articles are. And if I did not have to fight so hard to get Scientology critics to follow the rules here I would have a lot more time to be the more rounded editor that I would like to be. And again, if you do not like the "generality" there, just look at my article talk page edits to get the specifics. I am very specific in specific instances. Here I am talking in general terms. --Justanother 22:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Question for Justanother
Does the CoS offer Internet access at their churches for their members? Anynobody 02:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I have no direct knowledge but I can almost guarantee that the Fort Harrison has a business center with internet access as many of their guests are businessmen and women. There may even be wireless broadband. You could call the front desk at the hotel and ask them. Same at Celebrity Center. But I have not stayed at Flag in many years. And it is not inconceivable that there may be internet access in the library of some orgs but you would not sit there and surf the net, I don't think. So I think the hotels, likely; the orgs, not likely. --Justanother 03:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I understand you don't know about all of the orgs, do they have internet access like that in the org you worship? Also, why wouldn't a CoS member w/o a computer websurf at an org if available? Anynobody 03:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I already gave my best estimate. A non-staff member would not be allowed on a staff computer; that is basic computer security and I would get in trouble at my (non-Scientology) job if I did something like that - we are not even supposed to use each other's computers. Like I said, AFAIK, orgs probably do not have computers available for public but the hotels probably do. --Justanother 04:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
So then it would be reasonable to assume that only staff members OR businessmen staying in the hotel you mentioned would be the only ones having access to Wikipedia disrupted if someone on their IP was blocked (for example when COFS was blocked early last month?) Anynobody 05:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Just so you know, I was given the data on the IP issue. It is simply the proxy for the firewall/gateway that every single CoS computer world-wide must go through to access the internet. I guess they use VPN to the firewall computer and then go out from there. This is similar to what is done where I work, an agency with about 15,000 employees. We all have the same IP. The Microsoft analogy I make above is exactly right and treatment of these editors would be analogous to how we treat any editors from the same firm or organization that edit in an area of interest to them. Imagine a few Army guys a world apart editing in Army-related articles. --Justanother 17:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
You've said that only staff members would be using the computers with this IP, or people accessing the internet at Fort Harrison. We should not have to treat CoS members any different than we would anyone else because the church wants to use a proxy IP. I think given the technical situation it would behoove CoS members to watch each other's posts carefully since a block to one is a block to all. (Or are you saying CoS members should never be blocked?) Anynobody 23:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually I am saying that employees of the same company have to be aware of COI issues but the "meatpuppet" idea does not apply to established editors and I will stop using it to refer to the alt.religion.scientology + friends crew. This is not really a problem as most issues are decided by non-involved editors. These are separate editors, different people, each of whose opinion has value. So normally we would not treat them any differently. Other than that, if one of them needs a block then the user can be blocked but the IP not. So we can keep an eye out for that and help the admins out if they miss that. --Justanother 23:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
You said
Other than that, if one of them needs a block then the user can be blocked but the IP not.
Unfortunately it doesn't work that way, when blocking a user the corresponding IP is blocked too. Anynobody 00:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Are you sure? The IP block is by autoblock and that can be undone I think. --Justanother 00:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Apparently not as told by COFS, Misou and CSI LA. They're saying the block on COFS/CSI is affecting Misou too. Anynobody 00:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

That is because the autoblock would have to be specifically removed, perhaps by someone above admin level. That should be done. Not to mention that COFS' "one-week block" is more like two weeks long. He should be unblocked too. --Justanother 00:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'm confused then, are you saying that this was not true: CSI LA? Anynobody 22:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed security policy

Please see Wikipedia:Security for a proposed policy that may have ramifications for checkusers discovered to have weak passwords. --Tony Sidaway 15:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If you don't mind me tailing along, here is another proposal for a guideline on Wikipedia:Personal security practices that I was working on independently of these incidents, mainly out of the discussion on this thread at Wikipedia_talk:No_personal_attacks#Part_two. Any comments or concerns would be appreciated. Thanks,—ACADEMY LEADER FOCUS! 00:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion/MFD of Check User Cases

Please see this. I haven't submitted any comments on the MFD. Can this be done? Real96 19:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Speedied some pages

Before you all die from cardiac arrest, let me rephrase: I moved some cases that were in the wrong place to their correct location, and I am speedying the redirections under R3 (implausible typo)

The last one is a duplicate of an existing case filled in 2006:

I just wanted to point it. -- lucasbfr talk 13:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

There are a handful that have links to them still. Would you mind cleaning those links up to direct them to the correct pages? I think the two with that issue are Crisspy and Hardvice. Neither of them are active and they exist as links in archives so I'll delete them now, but if you could just go to each of their "What links here" and tweak the case names, I'd appreciate it, Metros232 12:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Woops you were right, done (even in the archived stuff... I hope nobody will mind) -- lucasbfr talk 12:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Dereks1x

I have mixed feelings about this, to be honest. On the one hand a short look at the case might give the impression that Bobblehead is a sockpuppet of Dereks1x, on the other hand I don't like the idea of removing content from a case. Let's remove the redirection and put a notice at the top of the case maybe? -- lucasbfr talk 15:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I have posted my thoughts at Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser/Case/Dereks1x and also asked for input at ANI. Basically, I don't see the point of the banning policy if the banned user may still edit in places like RFCU, saying whatever they want about users in good standing in so doing. · jersyko talk 15:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • They can't. Kind of a no-brainer. Banned is banned. Banned users sometimes get special dispensation to edit arbitration cases they are involved with; and they're allowed to use their talk pages if they don't abuse the privilege. That is it. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


I reverted the same kind of removal made by a single purpose account. Of course, feel free to revert me. -- lucasbfr talk 14:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

VK35

Dmcdevit confirmed my suspicion that VK35 is a sock puppet of banned user Dereks1x. VK35 is currently serving as an RFCU clerk. I do not know how much if any damage VK35 might have done here. Please check his RFCU contributions and remove his name from the list of clerks. · jersyko talk 03:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed his name a minute before you posted this. —Kyриx 03:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Jimbo Wales determined that this was a case of mistaken identification, i.e. not a sock. VK35 23:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Diffs would be good. --ST47Talk 23:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
And yes, I know he unblocked you, but is there some relevant discussion? --ST47Talk 23:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
It's in the archives of Jimbo's talk page and the noticeboard. VK35's statement of what occurred, however, is not entirely correct. Jimbo did not flatly state that VK35 isn't a sock, but stated that VK35 supposedly provided some evidence (off-Wiki) to Jimbo that satisfied Jimbo that the original reason for the ban was somewhat undercut. I disagree with Jimbo, and it's clear to me that VK35 is a sock and is, in fact, continuing to use socks abusively (i.e., other socks, not necessarily VK35). · jersyko talk 16:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
"satisfied Jimbo that the original reason for the ban was somewhat undercut." appears above. This is an argument against User:Jimbo Wales and his decision. I have condemned Dereks1x several times, including to Jersyko, and have never supported undercutting or lifting the ban. As far as I know, there has been no change to the ban. I did provide clear and convincing evidence of mistaken identification.
What ever happened to AGF? In May, Jersyko did mass reverts of my contributions, some of which have not been undone. In fact, he didn't repair any of his damage. VK35 18:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Distancing themselves from Dereks1x's actions has been a common action by his sockpuppets as indicated by the numerous times that his socks have tried to submit RFCU's against myself, Jersyko, and Tvoz claiming that we are the puppetmasters.[2] [3] [4] So I'm not sure if condemning his actions is valid proof that you are not a sock of Dereks1x. But that being said, going with Jimbo's decision that your clean editing history and confirmation of medical credentials should be taken into account, I'm willing to let this account slide as long as it's not used abusively. --Bobblehead (rants) 18:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Ditto what Bobblehead said, provided that no more socks are being used. But they are. · jersyko talk 19:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I'm going with the stamp out the abusive sockpuppets, but leave the constructive ones alone. Feddhicks (talk · contribs) did some decent work on the Astronaut Hall of Fame article before he came back to the Barack Obama page. --Bobblehead (rants) 19:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Feddhicks has been difficult regarding the HoF page too, if you'll recall, but yes, if he stuck to that editing he'd be within the realm of acceptable I suppose, although his complaints about being stalked are not helping his case. Do you not agree, however, that the disruption the Feddhicks sock is doing on Obama is abusive? He is clearly not content to edit peaceably as VK35 and has created other socks that continue the Dereks1x-style disruption. The current Feddhicks abuse is the same M.O. that Dereks1x's socks have repeatedly used - Annalissette comes to mind, or was it KMCToday and others - RFC, RFCU, AN/I, requests for mediation, and much more. The completely unnecessary Obama FAR is just another example, and anyone who has followed Dereks1x and company can spot it a mile away. Apparently no lesson was learned, despite the 20+ of his socks that have been blocked. False credentials are not the only reason for which a user can be community banned. Tvoz |talk 05:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Limiting the number of clerks...

Because of the above development, I propose that the number of clerks be limited. In addition, the clerks must be of good standing. The checkusers themselves can run some sort of "screening process" as well to determine if the candidate is a good CU. (i.e. some sort of test, w/an example CU). Real96 06:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

No. That was the problem last time. Daniel 08:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay. We just have to be watchful. Real96 08:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
My concern about this. I am not questioning the "last time" you're referring to, as I don't know anything about it - but I am concerned about the VK35 situation. Tvoz |talk 09:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the number of clerks needs to be limited. But I think there is a need to emphasize more on the good standing within the community, and are experienced with Wikipedia part of the clerk requirements. A more formal application process than adding oneself to the list might be a good idea (I am not talking of creating a whole new WP:RfA, but just some form of approval from a checkuser (or someone else, but let's not transform it into a voting process). I don't think a clerk learns more of checkuser processes than someone reading the pages everyday. We don't have access to any "hidden" information, we are just formatting the cases. But I am more worried of someone delisting a case when nobody is looking at it. -- lucasbfr talk 10:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
A bit of background may help here. Previously, checkuser clerks added their name to a standby list. Essjay [now departed], who managed the clerks, would select users from this 'pool' which he felt would do a good job at it, and appointed them as clerks. A clerk could be removed by any checkuser at any time.
This was perceived by some as an 'exclusive club' of some sort, with too much 'needless bureaucracy'. One user even proposed abolishing clerks of all kinds, until Daniel and Thatcher revamped it, making it what we have today.
So, my opinion? I thought we'd have a problem with status seekers, and proposed this [archived] change instead. I still think it's a good idea. (in short: the clerk list becomes a protected page, and admins [presumably clerks themselves] can add others to the list. It seems to have worked a treat at the open proxy project) --Michael Billington (talk) 10:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Lucasbfr, yes stealth delisting is absolutely one of the concerns - as I said here, this user volunteered a few hours after one of his new socks was listed for an IP check. And I also think just learning more about how the process works so his approach to sockpuppetry and ban evasion might perhaps have been refined is a reason he volunteered. I understand that you don't have access to hidden material, but what you do have is a community of people who appear to gain some kind of status as clerks which can then be used as a shield against questions about an individual's identity. Just like the same banned user-turned-clerk I'm referring to established an identity as a doctor, complete with a photo of "his diploma" and proceeeded to edit medical articles and ingratiate himself with other people identified as doctors all over the project to establish his identity, and, I assume, provide him with cover. The point here is not so much that a person like this will actually have access to sensitive material - I am sure you have protections against that - it's that they will be accepted into your group and be considered above suspicion when their less altruistic activities are noticed. I think your idea, then, of emphasizing "good standing", experience, and approval from a checkuser/experienced admin or the like are very important. I understand the fallout from the Essjay experience, but throwing open the doors to allow anyone to self-select and gain any access doesn't make sense. By the way, this guy was also getting into the checkuser's IRC if I understood it correctly - again, probably hoping to befriend someone who knows more than he does, to find out more about how it all works. Finally - I have to say that I'm a very active, inquisitive editor, but I was here for many months before I even heard of "checkuser" and I wouldn't have had the chutzpah to volunteer to be a clerk after a month of editing - so my suspicions would be raised if a supposedly new user shows so much knowledge so quickly. Tvoz |talk 15:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
VK35 isn't banned people. Jimbo has unblocked the user. Funpika 20:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, something isn't adding up here. Tvoz |talk 20:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Even though VK35 isn't banned, I think we should continue to discuss some kind of "screening process". Funpika 21:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
We could use The Standby Page again. I rewrote the page. Funpika 20:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Question to the checkuser clerks: would it be possible to merge all the following request archives into a single page, for greater ease of reference? They are basically all about the same situation and it's difficult to keep track.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

self-request

What's the rationale behind the prohibition of self-request to prove innocence? WooyiTalk to me? 01:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

It's just not the best thing to do, and they can tricked anyway. Cbrown1023 talk 01:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Interesting question.
It strikes me that it cannot only be a self-request unless the other listed usernames are, in fact, your sockpuppets - otherwise you're still requesting a checkuser on someone else, but minus any code-lettered allegation of misconduct.Proabivouac 01:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
No, it still is, that's the point. You are comparing the IPs to supposedly prove your "innocence", but the CheckUser tool can be fooled and if the person is asking for it, they probably did one of the tricks. Cbrown1023 talk 02:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Certainly. I was only pointing out another way a "self-request" might be abused. Say I wish to discover if Fishhead and Bishhead are the same user, but have no code-letter basis to do so. I e-mail Wooyi and ask him to accuse me of being both Fishhead and Bishhead. When he does, I say no, and I will prove it by this self-request. Would that not amount to an uncoded RfCU on Fishhead vs. Bishhead?Proabivouac 02:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
kinda. :-P Cbrown1023 talk 02:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Interesting scenario...Proabivouac, I wouldn't do that if you told me to, unless in urgent circumstances :-P. Another thing is you don't know what actually those checkuser guys do back-doors, they probably know who's who already :-). WooyiTalk to me? 02:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • It's pretty simple. Checkuser can't prove the absence of sockpuppetry; it can only demonstrate the presence of sockpuppetry. So requests to "clear yourself" don't really do that. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, in some cases it does demonstrate the absence of sockpuppetry, if one is in United States, one is in Britain, and the other is in France :-)? WooyiTalk to me? 15:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Nope. Ever hear of open proxies? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I've seen cases where it was 100% obvious from the user's edits that they were sockpuppets, but checkuser placed them on other sides of the world. --Deskana (talk) 15:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
How's that possible? Sorry for my ignorance in computer science. WooyiTalk to me? 16:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Proxies, VPN, remote access to other computers. If I really felt like it, I could edit from a couple dozen different locations right now, and that's just the computers I have legitimate access to. Mackensen (talk) 16:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
And, of course, WP:BEANS. It would be a lot easier for us to deal with if it required any computer science knowledge. All it requires is the ability to type, which, sadly, too many fools have. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Brya check user request

How come my request does not appear on this page? I followed all of the directions, none of which include my adding it to the project page, so I assume it's added automatically, but it doesn't appear to be. This is very frustrating for Wikipedia editors who are not full time editors, finding instructions on how to do something on Wikipedia is almost impossible. KP Botany 20:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

An idea

In case the active checkusers don't watch the clerks' noticeboard, some checkuser opinions would be nice at WP:RFCU/C/N#Brainstorm. Cheers, Sean William @ 03:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Archive request

Would someone archive the old checkuser for user Brya, so I can put in a request for some newly discovered accounts? Or should I just title it Brya (2nd)? It just keeps the old one under completed requests. Thanks. KP Botany 21:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Old rfcu archived now at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Brya. ··coelacan 10:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

user requesting release of own checkuser info

In a recent response at User talk:Klamber I told this user that we do not release CheckUser information, but I got a reply from someone else at User talk:Coelacan#Releasing Checkuser information that wonders if the information can be given to Klamber at Klamber's request. It does appear that the privacy policy says something like that. So, could someone take a look at the request on User talk:Klamber and see if this is something we would release? The user disputes being anyone's meatpuppet, and I don't know anything about the case, really. The request for CheckUser info is inside the second unblock template on that page. ··coelacan 10:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Slow process

I have noticed that the checkuser process takes a long time, sometimes several days. Why is this, and is there anything that can be done about this?--SefringleTalk 04:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Checkusering is, I gather, a rather intensive process. Not all of the checkusers are active on RfCU in particular; perhaps they could be encouraged. It's been awhile since we've seen any really terrible backlogs, but if we run into them, it may be worth asking if there are other users we trust with the technical role. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Question

My request somehow has not appeared at the top (even after a purge). Have I done anything wrong? Alæxis¿question? 13:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for the late reply; judging from your user contribs in the Wikipedia namespace, I found my way to the Bonaparte case, and it looks like this one got a CU response, and everything's in order. Let me know if you still need help. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Proving oneself innocent

This page's policy: Checkuser on yourself to "prove your innocence" - such requests are not accepted. Please do not ask is directly at odds with meta's stated policy: m:CheckUser Policy#Use of the tool (see the last line). This is not good - we should not have directly conflicting policies. The Evil Spartan 17:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Why not? We (as in the Wikipedia community) can be more restrictive than Meta if we feel it's desirable. We shouldn't be less restrictive. At any rate, the Meta policy isn't well thought through; "proving innocence" requires the sort of magic pixie dust which Checkuser cannot provide. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Without commenting on this specific issue, it's also my understanding that the policy on meta is more of a "minimum" -- individual communities can (and regularly do) implement policies and practices which place further restrictions on the use of various technical tools. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Comparing users for similar set of interests

Is there a script to find the list of common/similar articles edited by two users? Let's say I have a user X and a user Y, and I want to compare their contributions to get a list of articles that have been edited by both of them. Also, are unusual coincidences (X and Y both edited lots of same articles on subjects not related to each other) in this regard considered part of valid evidence (along with other evidences, of course) of sockpuppetry? deeptrivia (talk) 05:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

A request

Guys, is there any particular reason why this case has been pending since a couple of days now? Thanks. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 05:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

We occassionally get mini-backlogs. They usually clear up inside of a few days. Apologies for the wait. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

TfD

Note: a template used by the Requests for CheckUser system has been nominated for deletion. The discussion can be reviewed here. SalaSkan 21:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Specifically, it's the "Checkuser is not a crystal ball" template, which if I recall correctly was created at the request of one of the Checkusers (probably Mackensen). Newyorkbrad 14:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
This template has been relisted at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 July 23 so that it can be more thoroughly discussed before either keeping or deleting. Please comment on the TfD there. Thanks. Mike Peel 20:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Are socks blocked?

If a CU finds a confirmed or likely sock of a previously banned/blocked username, does it get blocked right away? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 14:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

If they are clearly abusive, then the clerk or checkuser may block or report to AN, however this does not always happen. Of course, even if they aren't blocked by the checkuser or clerk, you can post them to WP:AN/I or block them yourself if you're an admin, Any particular case you're looking at? --ST47Talk 14:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes its this case, where two usernames have been found to be likely socks. This is an indef blocked user. It would save time if confirmed/likely socks of currently blocked users are blocked right away by the CU admin. I'd suggest an IP block too but its likely they get a slightly different IP every time. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 14:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Symbols sending the wrong message?

Currently, if the checkuser shows sockpuppetry, there is a green checkmark symbol. If the editors are not related, there is a red "x". Isn't this sending the wrong message? Socks are bad, not good. A wrong report of socks is a better situation.

Shouldn't we reverse the symbols? A green checkmark would then mean "good! these editors are not socks". Bad behavior would be the red "X".

If our symbols were used for car theft, we would say (the current sitation) "Green check! My car was stolen. Yes!" and "Red X - My car was not stolen but I initially couldn't find it in the big parking lot. Darn, it wasn't stolen". Shouldn't it be the reverse? VK35 19:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Hm, that's an interesting point. I've grown very used to the current system, but it's worth considering. Your analogy assumes we're looking at this from the perspective of the victim, where I think the current system looks at things from more of an "enforcement" perspective -- if you will, telling the police team in charge of retrieving the stolen car either "yes, do your thing," or "no, hold off." For whatever reason, this perspective makes intuitive sense to me, but I admit this may only be because I'm used to it and saw it first. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

A 'positive' outcome for a user who has posted a WP:RCU request is that the sockpuppetry is proven. Let's stick with the status quo --Hayden5650 11:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Pointless RfCU's

I don't understand why people feel the need to RfCU cases like Connell66 and Chubeat8. In both instances, the identity of the IPs was already known, Connell66 due to the autoblocks, and Chubeat due to posts such as this. What do we do if puppetmasters have access to several IPs, or when the CU is declined (e.g. Grandia01, whose case was as obvious as they come)? CU is not a substitute for common sense.Proabivouac 20:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

checkuser request for user:Thikeboylove

Hi, I put a checkuser request about a week ago, and it seems to be getting passed over for "easier" requests.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Thikeboylove

I also plan to submit a "suspected sockpuppets" page for this user, but would like to do so once the checkuser analysis has been done. The problem is that the 'suspected sockpuppets' page is supposed to be submitted within a week of the misconduct, but that window has almost closed now.

thanks, --TextureSavant 15:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Congregation of socks

Could someone have a quick look at the history of WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2008? I fully protected this article after a request on WP:RFPP. Appears to be disruption by multiple socks which are now turning against me and Talk:WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2008. Do we have a case for WP:RCU here? Húsönd 23:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to see what is going on, but from what I see, not yet. Voice-of-All 23:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

My checkuser policy

Hey, what do you guys think of [5] my stance of checkusers/my compromised checking instructions. Are these sorts of things considered by checkusers and/or allowed, and what are the opinions of checkusers on these sorts of things?

Thanks! Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 23:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that anyone else using your IP could be implicated in a check of you, and they would not have given permission. So I would have to say that personal policies can't release more (or withhold more) then the checkuser policy. Prodego talk 23:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
My main IP is static (I know, I pay good money for it), so not much of an issue there. My one dynamic IP does not change that often, so that isn't too much of an issue. And I did give exception to the main problem IP, that of NorthTec. I think I covered it enough for it to count, but could you recommend anything else to make it more applicable? Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 01:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Well you can't permit people to use Checkuser on you because (a) Self-requested checks are not preformed, and (b) it is not only you that will be affected. You could just create a public list of all your IPs and that will do the same thing. Prodego talk 01:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Why is this worth doing...? Voice-of-All 03:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I was under the impression it allowed Checkusers more freedom, and gave me no rights under the privacy policy regarding IPs. At least that is what I intended, it appears not to be. And since one of my IPs is dynamic, I cannot easily give out all my IPs. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 04:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser

We need a check user to clear up the massive backlog, please. Kwsn(Ni!) 16:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It's in progress. If you can't find a checkuser, try contacting the arbitration cmte. Miranda 18:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

Normally CU's decline a check if it's just an username and an IP. Would it be possible for clerks to delist those types of requests without a CU closing it? Kwsn(Ni!) 01:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

There's a pretty narrow set or circumstances where clerks can decline checks without input from a CU (mostly established by UninvitedCompany somewhere in the archives of WP:RFCU/C/N). While those sorts of checks are usually declined, it's probably worth pointing out that they sooometimes are (I think). – Luna Santin (talk) 06:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Found it (I think). Otherwise it'd be this. Kwsn(Ni!) 14:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

What now

Lar identified two accounts as possible sockpuppets and suggests monitoring them (Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser#Shinedrc). In the mean time, what should I do? Wait? Warn them they might get blocked? (Imagine not.) Or start editing the article where I encountered them, so they will do more edits so they'll be easier to spot for you guys? Or do you do that? (Also unlikely, I think.) DirkvdM 06:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hm... I suppose you have a few options, here. You could compile more evidence and submit a case to suspected sockpuppets, noting the "possible" checkuser result. You could wait for more evidence, and submit another checkuser request (I can't guess whether it'd be run, probably depends on what you find). You could post to the admin noticeboards to ask for more input. Hopefully one of those works out. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Precisely. Small wonder this privledge is limited to only a few editors -- namely Bureaucrats and Arbitration Commitee members. They're smart enough to know that two editors from one IP doesn't necessarily guarantee User A belongs to User B if you consider that some IPs can be dynamic. Another thing of not is that the editor who runs the check isn't always the one who blocks the additional accounts. VoltronForce 13:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Of the two accounts, one has only three edits to its name (all the same page), so I imagine that would make it hard to spot sockpuppet behaviour. Hence the question. And the other account has done 27 edits, about half of which to that same article, so that doensn't help much either. Or do I get this wrong?
Btw, that second editor has warned me on the talk page (in all caps) not to edit that article again. :) DirkvdM 18:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

"Stale" status

I considered changing the term stale in the statue chart to dormant since it's more clear. Hoever I would like to know if anyone approves of this. VoltronForce 13:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, please don't. Stale is more descriptive of the situation than dormant. Logged information is stale... not dormant. --Deskana (banana) 18:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad I asked. I won't change it. I also glad Deskana provided an explanation. VoL†ro/\/Force 03:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
VoltronForce, you have <300 edits and only a few months experience here on WP. Why are you commenting on CUs and wanting to change templates here, especially when you aren't listed as a clerk? MSJapan 03:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Case heading typo...

The case involving User:TorstenGuise is actually listed as "TortenGuise", so the case page needs to be fixed, but I'm not sure how to sort that without making a mess. MSJapan 05:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorted. I've moved the page to the correct title and linked to it properly from WP:RFCU. We'd better keep the old title as a redirect given that it has incoming links. The redirect isn't doing any harm and redirects are cheap. WjBscribe 05:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser search for other meatpuppets

Here's the scenario. One meatpuppet account indefinitely blocked and the IP address of meatpuppet blocked. The abuser of these multiple accounts was blocked then unblocked in July 2007. I would like checkuser to use these three accounts to search for other meatpuppets. Is this an appropriate use of checkuser? I looked for information from Wikipedia:Checkuser, but could not answer my question. -- Jreferee (Talk) 18:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

That's kind of fishing for sockpuppet accounts. Due to static and dynamic IPs constantly changing, the accounts may be stale. However, you can file an IP check listed on the main page. Miranda 07:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

When should the "Requests for checkuser" page be used instead of making an off-wiki communication to a checkuser rightholder

Is there a policy on why this page should be used instead of contacting the checkuser off-wiki?

This page appear to provide a method for auditing what checkusers have been performed which is available to everyone - why isn't the log of what checkusers have been performed available for checkuser requests made off-wiki? [I believe that the French Wikipedia has this ability - It seems to be a useful way to guard against possible checkuser abuse] Uncle uncle uncle 20:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Archiving cases backlog

New clerks need to learn how to archive cases. There are cases which are over a week old and not archived. There may be instances where me, Luna, et. al. won't be as active on the encyclopedia due to RL concerns. Miranda 06:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

If you need help, see this guide. Miranda 07:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

RE:Admin Misuse of Powers

A message to any admin. I would like to bring to your attention of admin Dmcdevit. I have did a usercheck here and here. The case was thrown out by admin Mcdevit without even looking into the matter. Not too long ago, he has confirmed that Sarvagnya/Gnanapiti are sockpuppets here and a couple of months later he let them off the hook here under the condition that both usernames are not used to edit the same article which they have notoriously have ever since. I am taking this as favoritism and abuse of powers on his part. Please advice me what I should do. Furthermore, I am now being harassed here by users Amarrg here, KNM here, Sarvagnya here, and Dineshkannambadi here. Please advise me as what I should do. Thank you. Wiki Raja 04:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as alleged abuse of the checkuser priviledge, you'll need to get in touch with the m:Ombudsman commission, the arbitration committee, or make use of the dispute resolution process (possibly filing a request for comment if the dispute cannot be resolved). As far as harassment, you should probably be making use of the admin noticeboards for that; this talk page tends not to see too much activity. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
There was no abuse. Wiki Raja's complaint is that the RFCUs were not acted upon, which is entirely at Dmcdevit's discretion, especially since there was no substantiating evidence given in either request. These users WR claims he is being "harassed" by also seem to be people with whom he is involved in content disputes. MSJapan 19:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

New RFCU?

A recent RFCU[6] could not substantiate suspicion of sockpuppetry by a permablocked user. One of his accounts now came to life[7][8] would that warrant a recheck as we now have a "fresh" IP to compare with?Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 19:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

non admin sockpuppet categorization in obvious sockpuppetry

I hope this is the right place to ask this. The case is about User talk: Sstakis, an editor from Macau who loves to insert {{GRC}} at arbitrary places. He (maybe she) is currently banned for a period of 1 month for 'persistent POV-vandalism and block evasion'. There are at least five anons that do his type of edits, see his talkpage for them. Now, my question is, should I feel free to add {{sockpuppet|Sstakis}} to those anons? I am not an admin. I could ask for a checkuser, but I see that 'obvious cases' are rejected. Thanks. DenizTC 19:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

If they're greek flags, I'd say yes, if pattern is similar. Rlevse 18:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Deniz and the rest of your wikipedia.. be correct, and try to be honest, do not put turkish flags at the bottom of the Greek islands, because this is the reason that i put the Greek flag at any turkish coastal city,to be equal , at the Aegean sea. You are not objective...it is not that i like to put GRC to each Turkish city, is because your action is not right...ask Nikosilver about, if you want your wikipedia to be objective....you have to understand that in Greece and balkans generally the historical matters are very sensitive....stakis - from Macau —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.86.142.247 (talk) 09:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

There isn't really any need to tag these. Pattern is obvious, block-revert-ignore. We can safely assume that the one-month block is now an indef ban anyway. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

procedure

This is separate from the question at the top of the page--which in any case does nt seem to have been answered here. Realizing that one can not be totally specific, when should checkuser requests be made off-wiki? Is it--as I would hope--the policy that they be made on-wiki unless there is some compelling reason otherwise? DGG (talk) 13:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

In my own experience, off-wiki requests are generally very urgent in nature, and have more to do with heavy serial vandalism or other mass disruption, more than the smaller-scale policy violations usually dealt with on-wiki. I'm not aware of any specific policy on the matter, but that seems to be the general practice. If there's a specific case where this becomes controversial, you could always request confirmation from the acting checkuser. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The more private CUs I read about, the more I think we should we should codify some standards, not only regarding when private CUs are appropriate but also concerning how results should be handled. Actions like this raise some interesting questions. Any thoughts on what direction we might take (if any)? — xDanielx T/C\R 09:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Question

I edit Wikipedia using a business IP, but through a VPN, so it's not the IP of where I am. Is there any way you can work out *that* IP? I have my identity to hide... 81.149.250.228 17:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Generally, a simple trace will only reveal the proxy server. Going back further requires the assistance of the proxy. Do remember that most internet service providers do no tie one IP to a single machine in any case. Michaelbusch 17:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok dokey! 81.149.250.228 11:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Can we get rid of...

The "If you do not follow the below format exactly, and do not provide the supporting evidence, your check will not be carried out" section. Lets make it easier to request checkuser. Perhaps we can axe the code letters also. Thoughts? Mercury 04:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Given the likely great increase in demand for checkuser in that case, and the few editors with checkuser authority, I would advise against it. There need to be very clear guidelines for when checkuser can be invoked, although I suppose less tight formatting limits would also save time for the posters. Michaelbusch 05:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, it seems like something should be done, this is the most bureaucratic page I've ever seen here. RxS 06:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Checkusers don't have much time. The less time they spend digging through the various contributions of a user to find evidence before carrying the check, the more time they have to analyze the data. That's the reason for this sentence. If you want to make RFCU easier, you need more CU, and that is not going to happen :). -- lucasbfr talk 17:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
In addition to what lucas said, if it's worth invading someone's privacy, it's worth providing evidence. This isn't to say that the process can't be streamlined, or that we couldn't perhaps be more helpful, but there are hurdles here, for a reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luna Santin (talk • contribs) 09:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
We need more CUs too. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Pre-baked sockpuppets

How do we go about flushing out any and all prebaked sockpuppets as one abusive sockpuppeteer seems to have hundreds of socks, most of them registered in 2006 but never been "activated" until now.  Avec nat...Wikipédia Prends Des Forces.  07:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Edits/Accounts creations made in 2006 are long Stale , unfortunately. -- lucasbfr talk 16:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Help with likely sockpuppet

I have an almost certain sockpuppet in User:Swarm Internationale (see earliest contribs, all indicating a well-established user). The POV pushing indicates a pro-Taiwan anti-China editor [9] [10] [11] as well as a touch of incivility: [12]. The user has conducted himself well, but I believe he is a sockpuppet of a previous user, whose name I cannot remember, that was banned from both zh and meta for incivility and rants about Taiwan. If I could have an experienced checkuser who knows who I'm talking about, it would be apprecaited. The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Tor Accounts

If an editor is editing from a Tor, is this indicative of a sockpuppet if the behavior is similar? Torturous Devastating Cudgel (talk) 22:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that Tor exit nodes are supposed to be blocked as open proxies, no? — Coren (talk) 15:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Tor nodes are usually blocked because they are used extensively by sockpuppets and other vandals. If an editor is using the same IP addresses as these vandals and sockpuppets (as is always the case with Tor), and their behaviour is similar to others, then they may be viewed with some suspicion of being a sockpuppet. If a Tor node turns up in the middle of a deletion debate or an edit war, then they fall squarely within the description of a sock/meatpuppet. There are some editors from China and other places who edit exclusively from open proxies without breaching the sockpuppet policy. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Can this be listed?

Hi, I am unsure if this should go on the project page, so I am consulting the talk page first. 121.209.232.196 posted this on my talk page. The user only made two other edits, one of which was to a bureaucratship request, so I suspect that they are an established registered user whom I have met before. Can I find out who they are? –thedemonhog talk • edits 21:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC) EDIT: The user's fourth edit. 06:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, no. They've not done anything abusive which would warrant compromising their privacy, from what I can see. Also, it's within policy for people to have multiple accounts, either in series or in parallel, so long as they are doing so within the rules and are not being abusive - Alison ❤ 06:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You need to do something about this user!

He is abusing wikipedia, see his history. This user is hiding under these usernames: Sh3 and AlexandarNYC. He created pages slandering people who criticized him in the media, and also he opened other spam pages under different username - all of them were deleted. Take a look http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:AlexandarNYC&action=history and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Sh3 .AccountInquiry (talk) 22:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

New archives?

As we move into 2008, it's probably best if we begin to coordinate the switch to the "2008 archive", if that is to come around in the same way as 2006-into-2007 was handled.

The question is, are we going to start a new archive at all? If so, do we wish to handle it in the same way Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case was superseded by Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/2006?

Just looking for some input...
Anthøny 19:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably a good idea, thanks for bringing it up again; last year, we just moved /Case to /Case/2006, duped up a new (blank) /Case page, and left a notice atop /Case about where they'd all gone to. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Clerks/Noticeboard/Archive2#Case page has the original discussion on that, as a point of reference. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay, we'll move it tomorrow (which is Hogmanay) so we've got a fresh 2008 archive for New Year's Day. Cheers for the input ;) Anthøny 22:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Thanks for bringing it up in advance of the impending year rollover! :) - Alison ❤ 08:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:Checkuser requests to be listed

Category:Checkuser requests to be listed is getting backlogged. Are only clerks permitted to list a case on the main page or if I know what I'm doing, can I list it myself? --B (talk) 06:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Whole affair was getting a bit behind; should be better, now. In the future, feel free to help out as much or as little as you like, if you're pretty sure what you're up to. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 11:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Listing messed up

There's a comment directly after the Wholives case that I think is meant to be attached to the Khampalak case - which is archived and hence noincluded, but to which I think User:Anoshirawan is trying to add to (but making several mess-ups in the process). Can someone see how to fix this up? Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 00:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'll fix it up as best as I can. Keilanatalk(recall) 00:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I see you are working on it. Here's the text I removed.

The user making this checkuser request is a chronic vandal. He unilaterally reverts constructive edits by everyone except for himself and banned users Beh-nam (talk · contribs) and Tajik (talk · contribs). There is no doubt that he also serves as a proxy for these banned users until they can introduce new sockpuppet accounts. His edits are considered controversial, if not inflammatory, by a majority of editors. He reverts all edits, even if those are made in accordance with consensus or majority decision. Lastly, his grasp of the English language is so weak that the very word "vandalism" encompasses everything that he disagrees with. --Anoshiravan39 (talk) 22:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll leave to you. -JodyB talk 00:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I restored it to the Tajik case and relisted it. Keilanatalk(recall) 00:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Video Professor.

According to Consumer affairs an IP address was incorrectly revealed. It may just be that they don't understand non account editing and that the IP was in the history log, but if that's not the case can someone please check it out? -- Jeandré, 2008-01-03t18:53z

From what I read of this, the IP addresses were revealed by unregistered editors of the article. There is also suggestion in the article that WMF may have handed out IP addresses as result of a challenge from VP. That's obviously a question only the Foundation can answer - Alison ❤ 19:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed template change

I'm proposing an additional category in the Template:Editabuselinks to reduce the number of posts at WP:AN and WP:AN/I, please feel free to comment here. {This project is already on the template, hence the notification)User:Mbisanz/TemplateSandbox. MBisanz talk 13:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

How far back can checkuser be used?

In a current RFAr, an allegation has been made about sockpuppeteering that would have occurred in the March-April 2007 timeframe. I have not been able to find a reference that clarifies how far back a checkuser can go, so is it possible to go back 10 months? I'd rather find out whether it is technically possible before submitting a request. Horologium (talk) 04:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

While for reasons of WP:Beans, the exact length of time the information is kept for Checkuser requests is unknown, it's generally believed to be a maximum of two months. (I'm not a Check User, but I've posted enough requests to get a feel for it). So 10 months back would likely be rejected out of hand as stale unless a checkuser did a request back then, AND kept the info (rather unlikely) SirFozzie (talk) 04:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. So much for that idea... :\ Horologium (talk) 13:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Check user for self not allowed?

Does the ban on "Checkuser on yourself to "prove your innocence"" apply to all self requests? I am not in a dispute, but instead am wanting to know how long I have had the (exact) IP address I am currently using. I believe my address is at least somewhat static and I am wondering if I could do without Dynamic DNS if I want to set up Internet services. Jason McHuff (talk) 00:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The checkuser permission is very restrictive by design. Doing a CU on you could reveal personal information about someone else who happens to have been assigned the same ip address. You are probably better off to check with your isp as this cannot be done here. -JodyB talk 12:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I dont get how to file these guys for a check.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/84.217.244.70

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/84.217.253.130 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/84.217.229.118 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/217.24.240.11 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Burrash http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/DODONA_e_Epirit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Durim_Durimi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/84.217.228.74 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/84.217.244.169 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/84.217.228.139 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/84.217.228.139 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/84.217.229.244 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/84.217.244.152 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/84.217.244.70 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Taulant23 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/tolaci http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Burra http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/77.242.25.223 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dardan_of_Macedonia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/81.208.36.87 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/PIRRO_BURRIMegistias (talk) 18:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

We are glad to help format a request, but please make an attempt to follow the instructions. For example, you must include a code letter and your reasoning for requesting the check. A listing of names and ip addresses isn't enough. If you will explain why you want these cases checked and offer clear reasons behind your request, we will be pleased to assist. -JodyB talk 12:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_checkuser/Archive_4&oldid=1140164333"