Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser/Archive 4

message: 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)
replies: text: More to the point the documentation seems confused.  I opened this SSP: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jeff Defender.  In the course of affixing the  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)
thread_title:  Sockpuppet or checkuser 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I figured as much, was just curious. :) - Denny 17:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  IP Check delay 

message: 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)
replies: text: Take a stroll through m:CheckUser Policy--Bobblehead 21:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Question? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Thanks for the help! --Wafulz 03:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second case for a check user 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Request not showing up on main page 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I reverted my edit until I can resize the input box. Funpika 00:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  page layout 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Situation Codes 

message: 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)
replies: text: I believe you mean ? 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)
thread_title:  I have a really stupid question 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  new listing process? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Should I relist for a followup question? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The Fobo64 case 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Proposed security policy

message: Please see this.  I haven't submitted any comments on the MFD. Can this be done? Real96 19:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speedy Deletion/MFD of Check User Cases 

message: 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)
* Wikipedia:Requests for checkuse/Case/Tajirk
* Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ RodentofDeath
* Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Crisspy
* Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Hardvice
* Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Instantnood
* Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/case/shervink
The last one is a duplicate of an existing case filled in 2006:
* Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/case/Georgewiliamherbert
I just wanted to point it. -- lucasbfr talk 13:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Woops you were right, done (even in the archived stuff... I hope nobody will mind) -- lucasbfr talk 12:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speedied some pages 

message: * Do we remove this soapbox text?
* Do we remove the redirect I created from Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Bobblehead
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Dereks1x]] 

message: 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.
*MarkStreet
*Mark us street
*William Mauco
*Dikarka
*Buffadren
*Britlawyer
*Pernambuco
Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transnistria-related archives 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[User:Brya]] check user request 

message: 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)
thread_title:  An idea 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  user requesting release of own checkuser info 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Slow process 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Question 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Proving oneself innocent 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Comparing users for similar set of interests 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  A request 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  TfD 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Are socks blocked? 

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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Symbols sending the wrong message? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Pointless RfCU's 

message: 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)
thread_title:  checkuser request for user:Thikeboylove 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Congregation of socks 

message: Hey, what do you guys think of  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Why is this worth doing...? Voice-of-All 03:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  My checkuser policy 

message: We need a check user to clear up the massive backlog, please. Kwsn(Ni!) 16:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in progress. If you can't find a checkuser, try contacting the arbitration cmte. Miranda 18:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Checkuser 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Found it (I think).  Otherwise it'd be this. Kwsn(Ni!) 14:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Stale" status 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Case heading typo... 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Checkuser search for other meatpuppets 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: If you need help, see this guide. Miranda 07:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving cases backlog 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  RE:Admin Misuse of Powers 

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

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  non admin sockpuppet categorization in obvious sockpuppetry 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  procedure 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Ok dokey! 81.149.250.228 11:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: We need more CUs too. — Rlevse • Talk •  16:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we get rid of... 

message: 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. </font> 07:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Edits/Accounts creations made in 2006 are long , unfortunately. -- lucasbfr talk 16:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pre-baked sockpuppets 

message: 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    as well as a touch of incivility: . 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)
thread_title:  Help with likely sockpuppet 

message: 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)
replies: text: My understanding is that Tor exit nodes are supposed to be blocked as open proxies, no? — Coren (talk) 15:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Tor Accounts 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Can this be listed? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  You need to do something about this user! 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Sounds good to me. Thanks for bringing it up in advance of the impending year rollover! :) - Alison ❤ 08:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New archives? 

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Checkuser requests to be listed]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: Yes, I'll fix it up as best as I can. Keilanatalk(recall) 00:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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  and .  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)

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Video Professor. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Proposed template change 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Thanks. So much for that idea... :\ Horologium (talk) 13:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  How far back can checkuser be used? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Check user for self not allowed? 

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  I dont get how to file these guys for a check.