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)

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)

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)

Pontifical editorsEdit

Accounts share the same editing pattern, including the same sort of messages left on administrators' and editors' talk pages with a section title of "Read this please" or some variant. Accounts edit articles pertaining to popes, as well as capitalizing the first letters of words in the same fashion in talk page messages. Thus, probably socks. But, they don't seem to be using these accounts for blatantly nefarious purposes, and stopped using one account before using the next, so I'm not completely sure on how this should be handled. Thanks, Vermont (talk) 02:34, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

If they don't appear to be doing anything wrong I can't actually do a check for socking because it is not against the rules to have multiple accounts. It is only against them if they were using them to avoid scrutiny, or block evasion, or being disruptive etc. Sounds like you looked through their edits and found nothing disruptive so you can consider this closed unless I am mistaken and they were doing something not on the up and up. -DJSasso (talk) 02:54, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Okay, thanks! I'll continue watching their edits. Vermont (talk) 02:58, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
If their edits start overlapping on the same articles at the same time then let me know, as that is a more grey area as you aren't really supposed to edit with two accounts in the same area unless you have disclosed the two accounts. But seeing as how their edits are all different time periods, if they they were the same person it almost looks like they are creating an account each time they edit. -DJSasso (talk) 03:00, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Antony2635Edit

Probably socks. Used solely to vote keep on Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2018/Joseph Kalimbwe. ⇒ Lucie Person (talk) 19:23, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Non-checkuser comment: could be socks, or maybe just the result of canvassing. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Blocked the user accounts and some sleepers. Can't comment on the IP, leave that to an admin. -DJSasso (talk) 23:28, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Louise R. SmithEdit

May be a sock of JaySmith2018 who has today been blocked on En wiki: their wp:sockpuppet investigations/JaySmith 2018 Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:04, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't find either on SEWP, are you sure the usernames are correct?--Eptalon (talk) 17:18, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
User:Louise R Smith and this is enwiki investigation.-BRP ever 18:35, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Another account involved might be user: Sienna Smith(g-locked) and probably special:contributions/46.233.77.201 is the ip involved. Thanks-BRP ever 18:55, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
All G-locked so nothing to do here. -DJSasso (talk) 11:54, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Aticle 2018, User:Update-PlusEdit

Many strange redirects. May be one user acting on two or more accounts at the same time.Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Aticle and Update-Plus geolocate to the same area (in Asia), Global-Plus to another area. Browser choices are similar. Problem though: As these are cities with over a million people in their urban area, I think I cannot conclude the users are the same. --Eptalon (talk) 07:27, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  Done All blocked per WP:DUCK. -DJSasso (talk) 11:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

SKS's sock probably, editing in same area. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 16:43, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Probably sock, is editing similar pages and the pages created by earlier socks.-BRP ever 03:58, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

FPMovaghar and othersEdit

This user and their socks have consistently been trying to get themselves and their apparently related family members on Wikipedia (ours and the English one) for some time now. There have been articles which have had to be salted, multiple RFDs and there is already Intel from the English Wikipedia that this is a sock farm. There is an active RFD where two of these users have contributed, and I believe them to be the same person. The user FPMovaghar has also published a list of articles they have made, tying them to other accounts. DaneGeld (talk) 16:59, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

  Done Blocked the accounts, though one was already globally locked. -DJSasso (talk) 01:32, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Supplemental request - against these other accounts, could you please also checkuser ChevauxB (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log)) as being a potential sock of these users and thereby of the globally locked Parissa Official from enwp? Another "Movaghar" from the family has appeared tonight and is up for RFD, and so far, all of the Movaghar's which have made it here, have all been from Parissa Official's socks, doing a bit of family self promotion. Any help with this one would be appreciated. DaneGeld (talk) 22:10, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

  Done and blocked. -DJSasso (talk) 02:11, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Lukuna19 & MisterF19Edit

Insertion of adult links to an Escort agency on Cologne (diff) - duplicated each others work despite reversion by myself, reinserted same link. Duck, but still handed over. DaneGeld (talk) 16:52, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@DaneGeld: I can't reply to the request, but why have you not warned these users? At the very least, they have tried to use Wikipedia for promotion. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
@Auntof6: - I would say that the reason I haven't warned them is that I was going on advice I've had in the past about reverting and ignoring, re. WP:RBI at the English Wikipedia, except I can't block them. A couple of things struck me as ducky with them, like the 19s in their usernames, adding the exact same link in the same place, etc, so I brought it here as possible socks. DaneGeld (talk) 19:15, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
I would say you could block as a duck, at the very worst they are meatpuppet spammers. On the surface they don't appear to be the same individuals but one of them is an IP for a hosting company so it is very possible they are the same person. I would say the duck test is enough to block, but I will leave that up to an admin to handle. -DJSasso (talk) 17:41, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Dylan Cerbone 2018Edit

Obvious sock is obvious. I'll be requesting glock shortly given the x-wiki nature at this point but am hoping at least to stop the crap here first. Chrissymad (talk) 15:36, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

The second user didn't make any contributions (in the last few months) here; having multiple accounts is no offense. Where was the case of checkuser again? --Eptalon (talk) 08:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Ma'az and SameeEdit

Coming here from en.wiki where I have documented their sock puppetry violations. I can also see some violation of multiple accounts here as well, for example tag bombing same articles:

[1][2]
[3][4]
[5][6]

All on same day. Raymond3023 (talk) 11:36, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I looked into it but the data I have is inconclusive. Looks unlikely to me. @Bsadowski1: can verify if he wants as he tends to dig a bit deeper sometimes. -DJSasso (talk) 12:08, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
The ‘evidence’ presented here was not worth enough to warrant a CheckUser in my opinion. In all these diffs, I had edited first and the timings were around the creation of the articles. Nevertheless, what I did was not ‘tag bombing’. Here on this page, it’s written that 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). Hence, I am not convinced the request was eligible to be entertained on Simple Wikipedia even on the basis of both assumptions.  samee  talk 13:42, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
I did a cross check, even though the "violations" do probably not warrant checking: Yes, both of them geolocate to the same area in Asia. One of the problems is that the area in question is quite densely populated. With tthe evidence we have, concluding both editors are the same person is difficult to impossible; also note that the "tag bombing" mentioned is no clear case of vandalism. In that sense I conclude that likely, they are not the same user.--Eptalon (talk) 08:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

iPhone VandalsEdit

Extremely likely to be the same person. I think that there should be a indef block-on-sight for all "IPhones-are-for-[insert profanity here]" accounts, for LTA rather than just username abuse. Vermont | reply here 22:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

@Djsasso: as a recently active local CheckUser, please respond to this request - TNT 17:49, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
It's already been looked at by Bsadowski1 and all accounts are already blocked. -DJSasso (talk) 17:54, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, as long as it's been communicated to the requester as such :-) - TNT 17:58, 12 March 2018 (UTC)