Open main menu

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser

(Redirected from Wikipedia:RFCU)

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 created 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.

Contents

Use of the toolEdit

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 accessEdit

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


ArchivesEdit

Current requestsEdit

Please add requests to the top of the list.


Archives
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011-2013
2014
2015
2016
2017

Suspected SKS socksEdit

Same username style, editing style, and subject of editing as previous SKS socks. They've been inactive on this Wikipedia for a few months (or perhaps evading being noticed), and have been active on the English Wikipedia. Both users have edited and created topics about Ekta Kapoor and related people, which historically has been the target of SKS (and very few constructive users). Thank you, Vermont (talk) 11:26, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely, per evidence on their talk page (it's design) and editing style. Vermont (talk) 23:13, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Sm Kaif editorsEdit

The above per WP:DUCK on this discussion. New accounts first edits were discussion and even contained same phrasing. Operator873talkconnect 16:55, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

  • I am sorry to say so, but I have no indicatioin that these were used to violate any policy; editing an article that later gets deleted is no reason to perofrm a checkuser.--Eptalon (talk) 17:44, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but attempting to vote twice in an RfD is against policy. Two of the accounts above commented on the RfD with the exact same phrasing. All three are new accounts editing on the same non-notable subject which had previously garnered no attention. I find it highly unlikely they are different people. Vermont (talk) 18:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Also note an enwiki SPI for this user. Vermont (talk) 19:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
This single diff requires reconsideration, I think. Operator873talkconnect 19:00, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
┌─────────────────────────────────┘
All three use a similar browser, and IPv6 addresses. Munroe Watson is unrelated, Urtone and Warren Bliky use the same IPv6 address. --Eptalon (talk) 22:38, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Charlotte ChanXDEdit

All of these users have an edit history which shows they are related. As you can see here, here and here, they edit only related to some Yat-sen's Mausoleum. Knightrises10 (talk) 12:48, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I believe these users are part of a class that is working on China-related articles. I suspect they have been working on each other's articles. I will ping their teacher for confirmation. Unless this has caused an actual problem, I don't think a checkuser report is needed. --Auntof6 (talk) 12:59, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

JaySmith2018Edit

I'm about 90% certain SuperShadez is JRS based off of their first edit to the RfD of a page created by JRS, userpage content similar to JRS socks, and the addition of a talk page header to their user talk in custom with JRS socks. I'm not comfortable making a duck block yet, so I'd like to request a check on these two accounts to see if they are related. Thank you, Vermont (talk) 22:43, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Recent events have caused me to be confident in duck blocking the account. Vermont (talk) 21:51, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Shaunak Chakraborty editorsEdit

Two relatively new accounts used to develop Shaunak Chakraborty; both !voted in the RfD with the same grammatical style, ending their first sentence with "should not be delete". Also see en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shaunak Chakraborty and en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Annoimot. The AfD on enwiki had multiple socks !voting in it, and they were CU confirmed, where the socks also used the wording "should not be delete" in their keep reasons. I'll note that Kumar Nadim's user page starts with "A Editor from Jaipur, Rajasthan." and one of the CU confirmed socks on enwiki, Shivangi646, has "A editor from Punjab" starting their userpage. Vermont (talk) 10:11, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I'll also note that the lead of the deleted enwiki article (deleted October 3rd) is the same lead as the one created here by Kumar Nadim. Vermont (talk) 10:17, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
  Done. -DJSasso (talk) 11:26, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Is the Rahulkumar983127 account unrelated? Vermont (talk) 13:19, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Sorry my bad I didn't even notice the two I found weren't the two you reported. Too early in the morning. They are in the same country but a fair distance apart from the other two. So its possible. I will leave that up to you as an admin as its not supper conclusive but behaviour could be a duck. -DJSasso (talk) 13:34, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. It's a possible meatpuppet then, although considering they both include "Kumar" (which is popular as I understand but still an odd coincidence) and their actions are very nearly the same. If it becomes more evident I'll look into a duck block. Thanks, Vermont (talk) 13:43, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
@Vermont: Be aware that the "same grammatical style" you mention might merely be Indian English. That version of English is a bit different than we are used to seeing. It has a different tone, and things are said in different ways. It's very possible that multiple people using this version of English could sound the same. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:21, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes. Two editors using the same style of English on the same pages at the same time with the same objective. Vermont (talk) 18:34, 30 October 2018 (UTC)