Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser
From the Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can change
Checkuser is the process of checking the information about two or more users (including named users and IPs) to check if two accounts belong to a same person, or if a user is editing from an open proxy.
On this page, users can request some users or IPs to be checked. Good reasons should be given for why a checkuser is needed; you should provide links which show the questionable edits, etc. Responses will be short in order to comply with Wikipedia privacy policy. Sensitive information (like the IP addresses a user uses) are usually not reported. The results are not always clear, and a decision should not be made only on the basis of checkuser results.
Contents |
[change] Use of the tool
This tool is to be used to fight vandalism, to check for sockpuppet abuse, and to limit disruption of the project. It must be used only to prevent damage to the project.
The tool should not be used for political control; to apply pressure on editors; or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to check a user. Note that alternative accounts are not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of the policies (for example, to vote more than once or to make it look like more people support an idea).
Please see the CheckUser policy for all the rules related to CheckUser.
[change] Archives
[change] Current requests
Please add requests to the top of the list.
[change] RfA Trouble
This user opposed Razorflame's RfA immediately after his account was created. Appears to be IonasRand, Benniguy or Simple11. Chenzw Talk 11:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- This user created an account at 11:50 and then !voted 3 minutes later. -- Ryan†Cross (talk) 12:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- Or it could just be a random user. Is there any need to run one if he's not even disruptive? Archer7 - talk 12:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with Archer7 - no disruption, just an oppose which can be excluded at the discretion of the closing 'crat. No need for checkuser here. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, I think I got too worked up over that. Chenzw Talk 12:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- Although, with three virtually "single-purpose accounts" have just happened upon the RfA - worth keeping an eye on it... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, I think I got too worked up over that. Chenzw Talk 12:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with Archer7 - no disruption, just an oppose which can be excluded at the discretion of the closing 'crat. No need for checkuser here. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- Or it could just be a random user. Is there any need to run one if he's not even disruptive? Archer7 - talk 12:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
(unindenting) Not three, two. There was one that received a welcome message. Chenzw Talk 12:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- Heh. Most of Grawp's accounts get a welcome message! Just a curious !voting pattern, three in the space of 29 minutes... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Done Abusing multiple accounts to vote (that is: Sockpuppetry) is an offense. Biscuits and Tycoon share at least part of their IP range. I have therefore blocked them for a week, for sockpuppetry (until further investigations can be done to ascertain if they are really the same person). --Eptalon (talk) 13:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- You got it right first time Chenzw, nice one...! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
[change] Optimus Prime and others
- Devastator (talk • changes <deleted> • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
- Ironhide (talk • changes <deleted> • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
- Optimus Prime (talk • changes <deleted> • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
- Starscream (talk • changes <deleted> • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
- Bonecrusher (talk • changes <deleted> • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
- Blackout (talk • changes <deleted> • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
- Barricade (talk • changes <deleted> • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
These Transformers accounts are created and each of them has made a single edit – to create a very long user page copied from Wikipedia, table of contents and all. Don't know what's going on about here, but if they're all the same person I'd really like to know. Cassandra 21:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Not done. - There is no justification for use of Checkuser here. It is not a violation to have multiple accounts as long as they are not used in a disruptive or abusive manner. -- Creol(talk) 00:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- Hmm, I can get that. But vandals could use heavily in their advantage to create problems. -- America †alk 00:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- And if this were vandalism (or they continue the trend to the point that it gets to be disruptive, then action is warranted. Also, given the editing patterns and name choice, there is little doubt that this is all the same person so CU action really doesn't need to be taken to confirm the obvious unless taking further action requires that information. (ie. IP blocking to stop disruption by mass account creation) -- Creol(talk) 05:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- My apologies Creol. Cassandra 01:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm, I can get that. But vandals could use heavily in their advantage to create problems. -- America †alk 00:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
[change] IuseRosary again
- QuotemeSilly (talk • changes <deleted> • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
- IuseRosary (talk • changes <deleted> • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
Razorflame's post on the AN raised the alarm. The user's writing style seems to be similar, with the most disturbing clue being that he/she voted in the current RfA shortly after the first edit. Chenzw Talk 01:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Done - Current information can neither confirm nor deny they are the same. -- Creol(talk) 01:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
They even use the same kind of punctuation in their names (look at both usernames. The I and Rosary are both capitalized, while the Quote and Silly are both capitalized. Razorflame 01:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
[change] One of the two we just banned
- Have Some Priest (talk • changes <deleted> • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
See WP:ST. -- Da Punk '95 talk 21:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Done No match to any of our known (recently-active, ie. in the log) vandal, much less to those cited. Note that users are free to chose their username. Usernames do not have to match - you do not need to use Unified Login if you don't want to. --Eptalon (talk) 21:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
[change] IuseRosary
- IuseRosary2 (talk • changes <deleted> • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
- IuseRosary3 (talk • changes <deleted> • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
- IuseRosary4 (talk • changes <deleted> • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
- IuseRosary5 (talk • changes <deleted> • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
- IuseRosary6 (talk • changes <deleted> • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
- IuseRosary7 (talk • changes <deleted> • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
- IuseRosary8 (talk • changes <deleted> • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
- IuseRosary9 (talk • changes <deleted> • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
- IuseRosary10 (talk • changes <deleted> • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
- IuseHosiery (talk • changes <deleted> • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
--Gwib -(talk)- 16:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- There are different blocks. 1-6 were created from the same IP, 7/8 from another, 9/10 from still another. IuseHoisery is completely unrelated to the ones before. --Eptalon (talk) 18:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- To clarify: These ranges are outside those normally used by IUseRosary. --Eptalon (talk) 19:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
