Wikinews:Requests for CheckUser

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to: navigation, search


Shortcut:
WN:RFCU
WN:CU

This is the place to request sockpuppet checks or other investigations requiring CheckUser privileges by people with those privileges.

Operating Guidelines[edit]

Copied in part from Wikipedia's CheckUser -- this seems like a good CheckUser policy to begin with.

Introduction[edit]

CheckUser is an additional right that is granted to a small number of administrators. It is a delegation of a developer right that gives limited access to server logs of edits. Uses include identification of sockpuppets, block evasion, and use of open proxies. All usage of the privilege is logged and results may be shared with other projects via the private checkuser-l mailing list. The mailing list is covered by the Foundation's privacy policy, and checks may be executed as a result of reports from other wikis where vandalism or other disruption has occurred.

Caveats[edit]

  1. Due to the effort involved, difficulty of interpretation of results and privacy issues raised, checkuser is a last resort for difficult cases. Use other methods first.
  2. Obvious sock puppets may be treated as such without using checkuser.
  3. Please do not list cases involving non-disruptive "throwaway" accounts that are only used for a few edits.
  4. Data is kept for a limited time so we cannot compare against accounts that have not edited recently.
  1. Block evasion: may be listed where the problem is ongoing.
  2. Routine 3RR violations: do not list unless there is (a) an ongoing problem (b) reasonable doubt as to whether or not sock puppets are being used, and (c) disruption of editing that can't be addressed any other way.
  3. Vandalism: only for ongoing serious vandalism.
  4. Vote fraud: only where (a) there is reasonable doubt as to whether or not the votes are valid (b) the vote or discussion period has closed, and (c) the possible sockpuppet votes actually affect the outcome of a decision. Provide a link to the closed vote and discussion.

Procedure[edit]

  • List your request in this section.
  • Clearly indicate the usernames or IP addresses you suspect. This is not the place to post long disputes over the merits of the check. If a compact, reasonable request, with the necessary diffs, cannot be made, then post it on WN:ALERT.
  • Use *{{Checkuser|USERNAME TO BE CHECKED}}
  • You must clearly lay out the evidence for sockpuppetry.
  • You must explain how your request fits the policy above.
  • Sign your request.

Outcome[edit]

  • Responses will be cursory in nature in order to comply with Wikimedia privacy policy; supporting data is not provided.
  • Results are not always clear due to the internal organization of some ISPs, and the fact that technically savvy users sometimes deliberately edit from unrelated IPs.
  • Responses to CheckUser requests will be placed beneath your request. Old requests will be archived. Please check back here for responses.
  • Possible outcomes: Artículo bueno.svg Confirmed, Likely, Symbol possible vote.svg Possible, Symbol unlikely.svg Unlikely, Symbol unrelated.svg Unrelated, or Symbol unsupport vote.svg Inconclusive.

Archives

Requests[edit]

Immigration 'lawyers'[edit]

  • Immigrationlawyerla (talk · contribs) was a no-brainer to block for spamming, but Kevinbecker1 (talk · contribs) didn't spam a link; instead, xyr non-English contribution looked to be the same advert in Spanish. would prefer a quick (simple) CU on this pair to shake any other spammy socks, and confirm Kevinbecker1 can be perma-blocked. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Artículo bueno.svg Confirmed--Cspurrier (talk) 21:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Troll on AAA[edit]

This user has been trolling at AAA, and shows obvious stylistic similarities to the blocked user on whose behalf xe's spewing vitriol. --Pi zero (talk) 08:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment I'd suspect time delay between block and this new account appearing may render local CU inconclusive. Whether the person undertaking CU can make the case for checks elsewhere is something I'll leave them to on the closed mailing list. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Comment — I'm pretty sure it's the same person. Same peculiar convoluted writing style. I'd be very surprised if it was two different people. — Gopher65talk 14:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Two similar vandals[edit]

These two fairly recent vandals have both used words that could be interpreted as death threats. We should know whether there's technical evidence linking them. (I'm also unsure who to inform of possible death threats but, now that there are two and they're so close together, I have a desire to report it to... somebody.) --Pi zero (talk) 00:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)