Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:RFCU)
Jump to: navigation, search


Shortcut:
WP:RCU
WP:RFCU
WP:CHECKUSER

Checkuser is the process of checking information about two or more users (including named users and IPs). Special users are able to check if two or more accounts have been used from the same computer. These users also see User agents. This can help them decide if two accounts are related in the way described above. It is also possible to see 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. Questions should usually be formulated so that they can be answered by yes or no. Responses will be short in order to comply with Wikipedia privacy policy. Sensitive information (like the IP addresses used by an account) are usually not reported. The results are not always clear, and a decision should not be made only on the basis of checkuser results.

Use of the tool[change | change source]

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). Checkusers will refuse a request, if the reason for checking is not good enough to warrant the use of the tool.

Please see the CheckUser policy for all the rules related to CheckUser.

User with Checkuser access[change | change source]

The technical list can be found at Special:ListUsers/checkuser.

User:Barras User:Jamesofur User:Djsasso User:Mentifisto User:Peterdownunder User:Barras User:Bsadowski1 User:Jamesofur User:Fr33kman User:The Rambling Man User:Majorly User:Eptalon User:Creol User:M7


Archives[change | change source]

Current requests[change | change source]

Please add requests to the top of the list.


Archives
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011-2013
2014


67Johnboy and Dan476768 and Devadosex2[change | change source]

Editing the same articles related to Paul Easter and his work and nothing else. See the sockpuppet investigations at enwiki: even more aliases were found, and some are now globally locked. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

 Confirmed are: 67Johnboy (talk · contribs), Dan476768 (talk · contribs), Devadosex2 (talk · contribs), JackJonesKB (talk · contribs), Jones771 (talk · contribs) for this wiki. -Barras talk 22:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

FDR and Lucifergavemeag[change | change source]

Editing the same articles as FDR and his/her various socks, same kinds of edits. Started actively editing only after the other socks were blocked. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)f

Verified. And also this account was already blocked on en.wiki for being a sock of him. Pretty lazy to sock with an already known sock. -DJSasso (talk) 13:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Next time (!) I'll try to remember to check enwiki so I could block without bothering our editors with the checkuser right. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
A question is: should we revert all his edits? Many are tendentious, but it would take quite a bit of time to assess them individually. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I've reverted a lot of them. Most are fairly complex. Besides that, leaving them sends the message that all this user needs to do is keep creating new accounts and he can edit here. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I think that's a decisive argument. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah I have no problem with that. It is standard policy on en to revert all edits of a banned user. Even if FDR is not actually banned, just blocked, I think its a case of WP:IAR to do so. So go ahead. -DJSasso (talk) 21:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Pistolplay[change | change source]

Please compare to the various users listed at en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/River_Stumpf/Archive. I deleted this user's talk page, because it was a string of multiple articles that the linked enwiki page indicates are hoaxes. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't actually see much of a reason to run a CU here. It wouldn't serve any purpose, would it? -Barras talk 11:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

C.G.Pharmacy and Carly-pharm[change | change source]

Are probably one and the same. Aunt blocked C.G.Pharmacy indef as a company ad, and Carly-farm took over on the same page (Cefalexin) while an e-mail request for unblock was current. Macdonald-ross (talk) 20:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

They may be the same person, but Carly-pharm had edited that page before the other user was blocked. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I am user:Carly-Pharm and am a different user from user:C.G.Pharmacy. We are both pharmacy students and have no connection to a company. Please let me know how C.G.Pharmacy can be unblocked. Thank you. --Carly-pharm (talk) 20:39, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I suggest that the other user create a new account with a name that can't be mistaken for a company name. That way there wouldn't be an issue with it. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Not sure about that. The account has not been blocked at enwiki. Not sure about their policies. I think we should either unblock them here or have them requesting a rename. -Barras talk 11:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Might be wise to ask them to stay away from topics where commercial interests might be especially active, for example exciting new pharmaceutical products. It's up to them to behave in a way which is above suspicion. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Not if they're just studying the topic, as they say they are. I didn't think any of their edits were promotional. In fact, I'm going to unblock the one I blocked. Feel free to keep an eye on his/her edits, though. --Auntof6 (talk) 12:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
A username block on the first one would be appropriate until they requested a rename. That is how promotional/orginizational names are handled on en.wiki. -DJSasso (talk) 13:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello. I have been keeping an eye on this discussion during the entire blocking process. I appreciate being unblocked and have made a rename request. I would also like to personally say that myself and user:Carly-pharm are purely involved in Wikipedia academically as pharmacy students from the University of Waterloo. --C.G.Pharmacy (talk) 13:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I've just renamed you. So that issue should be solved. -Barras talk 13:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

FDR and 108.192.73.8[change | change source]

The IP started editing about the same time as FDR was indef'd. It's working on the same articles that FDR was. Looks like a duck to me. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Fine its me. I give up. I guess all of the wikipedias have decided that they do not want me as an editor.--108.192.73.8 (talk) 07:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Why does simple English wikipedia not want me as an editor? Is it because I'm considered a bad editor? My record here has been good or at least mediocre. --108.192.73.8 (talk) 07:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The reasons are explained at User talk:FDR, in the block notice, the unblock decline messages, and the other notes there. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Wouldn't be able to comment on this request as a CU because it would link a user to an IP. But they have done it to themselves at this point. Already blocked so nothing to see here. -DJSasso (talk) 15:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Dao98 and Dao57k[change | change source]

User Dao98 created Dao ranaldo. I QD'd it for lack of notability. After it was recreated and re-deleted two more times, I salted it. After that, the user created Dao ranaldo (MC) and Young rhymes (MC) with the same content, which I also deleted.

After all that, user Dao57k created Young rhymes (MC), which was deleted, recreated, and deleted again.

The fact that these users created the same content within such a short time is the reason for this request. I also draw your attention to en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dao2k/Archive, which appears to be related to the same user(s) and articles. Thank you. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:13, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Pretty much a en:WP:DUCK case but I did verify with CU and blocked. -DJSasso (talk) 13:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, DJ. Could I please a couple more to this same group? The following user created articles about the same person.
I blocked the second one, but you might have some special block settings for socks that I don't know about. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:38, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Based on the edits, and the data, I'd say  Confirmed. I blocked the account. -Barras talk 13:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)