Welcome to the MedLibrary.org Wikipedia Supplement on Wikipedia:RCU -- Please Click to Return to Front Page

General help	General issues • Site directory • Image & media copyright • Userpage help • New user help • Community assistance
Report abuse	Vandalism • Spam • Edit warring (3RR) • Improper usernames • Open proxies • Sock puppets • Copyright violations • Long term abuse • ISP reporting • BLP sanctions logging
Request assistance	Editor assistance • Page protection • Checkuser • Oversight • Arbitration • Mediation: Formal / Informal • Requests for comment • Wikiquette alerts
Noticeboards	Administrators' • Incidents • ArbCom enforcement • Conflict of interest • Biographies • Fiction • Fringe theories • Original research • Neutral point of view • Reliable sources • Ethnic and cultural conflicts

WP:RFCU redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct (WP:RFC/U), CheckUser policy (Wikipedia:CheckUser), or Wikipedia:Changing username (WP:CHU).

Shortcuts: WP:RCU WP:RFCU Read this first This is the place to request sockpuppet checks and other investigations requiring access to the Checkuser privilege. Checkuser is a last resort for difficult cases. Whenever possible, use other methods first. Possible alternatives are listed below. Acceptable requests Code Situation Solution, requirements A Blatant attack or vandalism accounts, need IP block Submit new section at #Requests for IP check, below B Evading blocks, bans and remedies issued by arbitration committee Submit case subpage, including link to closed arb case C Ongoing, serious pattern vandalism with many incidents Submit case subpage, including diffs D Vote fraud, closed vote, fraud affects outcome Submit case subpage, including link to closed vote E 3RR violation using sockpuppets Submit case subpage, including diffs of violation F Evading blocks, bans and remedies issued by community Submit case subpage, including link to evidence of remedy G Does not fit above, but you believe check needed Submit case subpage, briefly summarize and justify Unacceptable requests Situation Solution Obvious, disruptive sock puppet Block, no checkuser needed Disruptive "throwaway" account used only for a few edits Block, no checkuser needed Checkuser on yourself to "prove your innocence" Such requests are rarely accepted, please do not ask Related to ongoing arbitration case Request checkuser on the arbitration case pages Vote fraud, ongoing vote Wait until vote closes before listing, or post at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets Vote fraud, closed vote, did not affect outcome List at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets Other disruption of articles List at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets Open proxy, IP address already known List at Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies You want access to the checkuser tool yourself Contact the arbitration committee, but such access is granted rarely or by invitation only General procedure If submitting a new case subpage, use the inputbox below; if adding to an existing case subpage, see WP:RFCU/P#Repeat requests. Choose one code letter that best fits your request. Provide evidence such as diff links as required or requested. Note that some code letters inherently require specific evidence. When listing suspected accounts or IP addresses, use the {{checkuser}} or {{checkip}} templates. Please do not use this template in a section header. Sign your request. Specific procedure Checkuser clerks assist with maintenance of the page but do not directly respond to checkuser requests. If you need help, post at Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser. You may add your request to the top of the #Outstanding requests section, by adding {{Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/CASENAMEHERE}}. If you do not, clerks should check for pages in Category:Checkuser requests to be listed and will do this for you. In many cases, the privacy policy does not allow us to make a check that has the effect of revealing IP addresses. More procedures at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Procedures. After submitting a request Responses will be brief in order to comply with Wikipedia's privacy policy. Due to technical factors, results are not always clear. Check back regularly to see the outcome of your request. Checkusers and clerks do not generally issue blocks. You may need to do this yourself or submit a request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Case subpages are typically archived several days after a checkuser responds. Privacy violation? If you feel that a checkuser has led to a violation of the Wikimedia Foundation privacy policy regarding yourself, please refer the case to the Ombudsman commission.

File a Checkuser Request

Cases are created on subpages of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case. If you require help or advice, ask at Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser. If a case subpage already exists, edit the existing page instead, either adding to the currently open section (if the case is not yet archived) or adding a new section to the top (if the case has been archived). When editing an existing case, be sure to list it here or add Category:Checkuser requests to be listed to the subpage. If creating a new case subpage, add the name of the main account (or "puppetmaster", not the sockpuppet!) in the box below. Leave out the "User:" prefix. Do not remove the text in the box, add the name to the end only (that is, append the name to the existing text). Then press "Request a checkuser" and you will be taken to a page where you can fill out the request. Example: if you want to request a checkuser on User:John Doe, enter the text: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/John Doe

Indicators
Request completed:
Confirmed	Likely
Possible	Unlikely
Unrelated	Inconclusive
IP blocked	Stale
Completed
Request declined:
Declined	Unnecessary
Checkuser is not for fishing	Rejected
Checkuser is not a crystal ball
Information:
Additional information needed	Deferred to
Note:
Clerk actions:
Clerk assistance required:	Clerk note:
Delisted	Relisted

Contents 1 Outstanding requests 1.1 Cody7777777 2 Declined requests 2.1 Newshounddog 2.2 User:Wikzilla 3 Completed requests 3.1 Sumerophile (6th case) 3.2 Giovanni33 3.3 VivianDarkbloom 3.4 Ethionet 3.5 Bebrahmin 3.6 Dbalderzak 3.7 DoDaCanaDa 3.8 Marcobadotti 3.9 PoliticianTexas 3.10 Micov 3.11 GENIUS(4th power) 3.12 Giovanni Giove 3.13 4.154.238.219 3.14 75.4.236.78 3.15 Jvolkblum 3.16 Sindhian 3.17 William Saturn 3.18 Beh-nam (27 June 2008) 3.19 L.L.King 3.20 Maurice27 3.21 Bonaparte 3.22 Dan d dog20 3.23 WorkerBee74 3.24 Jack Forbes 3.24.1 Discussion 4 Requests for IP check 4.1 IP:84.172.79.123 4.2 User:Hiwhispees 4.3 User:Tariqbiz89 5 Non-compliant requests 5.1 75.57.201.254

Outstanding requests

Cody7777777

request links: view  links history  watch Filed: 20:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Cody7777777 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Goremite (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Molot Gorla (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• 193.227.242.2 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)

• Code letter: G)

• Supporting evidence: All these users are participating in a debate at Talk:Roman Empire. All these user accounts are very recent creations and haven't contributed previously anywhere else at all. Their sentences are very similar and their arguments are the same. I believe that this is simply the same person using various identities in a 'false demonstration of numbers' trying to push his POV. In the case that I'm mistaken I humbly apologize but I hope that you agree this case raises justifiable suspicion. Flamarande (talk) 20:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Declined requests

Newshounddog

request links: view  links history  watch Filed: 22:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Newshounddog (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)

• Code letter: G

• Supporting evidence: I copy the following from User talk:Alison#A weird unofficial request for checkuser. She has not responded. Yechiel (Shalom) Editor review 22:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I know checkuser is not for fishing, but...I would like you to consider checking this user:

Newshounddog (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)

Here's what happened: Newshounddog filed Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Rreagan007 alleging that Rreagan007 edited while logged out from an IP address that has recent talk page warnings. I determined that this was, in fact, correct, but that no violation of policy occurred. However, I noticed that Newshounddog's contribution history lasted a grand total of 27 minutes and was exclusively limited to filing this SSP case against Rreagan007. I honestly doubt that this is a legitimate new user. I wonder if it might be someone involved in a content dispute, but I have not found an obvious candidate. I know it's evil to wonder about such things, but still...

I have a real problem allowing any user to throw an accusation against another user without being accountable on his own username. If Newshounddog made this accusation in bad faith - certainly a possibility given the fact that Rreagan007 did not actually violate policy, and explained his actions to my satisfaction - then Newshounddog needs to be held accountable on his main account, and that main account needss to explain why it resorted to such underhanded tactics instead of just flat out making the accusation fairly. I know this is a really unusual request, but it's been bothering me for a couple of days, and I finally decided to come forward and ask. Yechiel (Shalom) 23:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Part of the reason that Checkuser is not for fishing is that it is often difficult to impossible. Here, the user apparently edited from a public terminal at a university. I can find nothing definitive to tie the user to anyone else in the university. It could have been someone from the community walking into the campus library to avoid using their usual and traceable IP. Checkuser answers the question "Does A=B" fairly well; the question "Who is A" is often impossible to answer without more info. Thatcher 01:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

---

User:Wikzilla

request links: view  links history  watch Filed: 2008-06-24

• Wikzilla (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• 70.184.190.120 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log • checkip) 70.160.0.0/11
• 162.83.255.109 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log • checkip) 162.83.0.0/16

Wikzilla is continuing to taunt myself and other admins from new IPs ( [1] ) that he's making widespread vandalistic edits in non-standard areas from IPs outside existing blocks. I'm checking the IP ranges nearby those IPs, but if you can review for any users using the netblocks above (well, nearby subnets, those are wide blocks 8-( ) and see if they're unidentified Wikzilla blocks, I'd appreciate it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• Additional information needed Please add this to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Wikzilla and then relist the case. Thatcher 18:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Y Done -- lucasbfr ^talk 07:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser is not for fishing An /11 range, and even most /16 ranges, will have too many edits to check, and there is rarely sufficient technical evidence to block users of different IPs unless there is also behavioral or other evidence. Thatcher 01:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Completed requests

Sumerophile (6th case)

request links: view  links history  watch Filed: 14:27, 3 July 200 (UTC)

• IansAwesomePizza (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)

Perma-blocked user, I have ignored this obvious sock until now, but it is once again beginning to edit war. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Additional information needed Tiptoety ^talk 14:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• What information do you need? The contributions should give it away (See the first 5 cases below). The original account, Sumerophile, was perma-blocked, for repeatedly evading his blocks for persistent edit warring. Soon after that, more socks started appearing and continuing to edit war, in the same topics. This one appeared on June 1, shortly after the last of these was blocked. I have had better things to do than spend all my time reporting these endless socks, but now that it has begun more aggressively revert-warring again, it's time to shut it down, since perma-banned users aren't supposed to be evading their blocks at all anyway. I am fully confident that this will prove to be the same user from the same location as the below (Wisconsin), if a check is performed. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I second that.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 00:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Additional information needed "Banned user, trust me" is insufficient for a user check. Minimum required information includes at least some of the articles involved and some diffs of the new user and of Sumerophile or an earlier confirmed sock showing the similarity of content edits and behavior. Yes, I could check this all myself. But I have answered about 20 RFCUs this week, and if I had to do all my own investigation on all of them, I never would have had the time to do them all. Thatcher 13:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• • I, on the other hand, am in a less testy mood (on this front) than Thatcher, having long ago passed my RFCU burnout phase. Confirmed. Also:
    1. Categorystuff (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
    2. Thewildblueyonder (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
  • jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Clerk note: all 3 blocked indef. -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

---

Giovanni33

request links: view  links history  watch talk Filed: 04 Jul 2008

• Giovanni33 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)

Suspected sockpuppets

• Aliciahjoy (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
  
• Ratatoui (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
  

Code letter: E,B

Giovanni33 was placed on 1RR by the arbitration committee for a year.

While blocked for a violation, these two editors mysteriously appeared to revert. They only did it once but it is odd behavior for new users to simply revert to earlier version supported by Giovanni33. Giovanni33 currently claims he doesn't use sockpuppets. Giovanni33 hails from a Bay Area locaiton. Aliciahjoy was created very recently while Ratatoui is a sleeper who reverted to Giovanni previously [2]. --DHeyward (talk) 07:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Likely that Giovanni33 = Ratatoui from the CU evidence. Different ISPs, but they appear to be very close in location. Some other technical evidence also suggests strongly that they are the same user.

Aliciahjoy appears Unrelated.

Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 11:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed that Ratatoui is Supergreenred (talk · contribs) and Likely based on topic selection and behavior (and taking logged out edits into account as well) that this is Giovanni33. Thatcher 12:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Clerk note: blocked and tagged Ratatoui and Supergreenred. Giovanni33 banned per ANI thread: Wikipedia:ANI#Giovanni33 — Rlevse • Talk • 01:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

---

VivianDarkbloom

request links: view  links history  watch Filed: 21:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• VivianDarkbloom (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Nick mallory (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)

• Code letter:'F'

• Supporting evidence:

Both users use extreme language against contrary views viz: "Now I recognize that article deletion is a holy and privileged activity, and that deletion of articles about women whose claims to notability don't involve performances emphasizing, flaunting, or exposing their mammaries is a virtual sacrament which shouldn't be disrupted or contested, however ridiculous or inaccurate the basis, unless the circumstances are really really unusual. But while one of England's "leading cultural critics" is apparently not, by Wikipedia editor consensus, as notable as a moderately obese middle-aged woman who films herself having sex with dogs, and the TLS is apparently by the same consensus not a "major" publication with the stature and reputation of Color Climax Anal Sex or Big Fuckin' Tits, or even Juggs, I think she deserves to be included in Wikipedia." (VivianDarkbloom 20:32, 31 October 2006 )

and : Thanks for the order but I'm not your slave sunshine, it's referenced in SIX other publications too and those are in the article. If you want more sources then look for them yourself or put the article up at AfD. Nick mallory 14:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC

and seek to prop up the articles which appear non-notable, which are linked viz: Jeremy Stangroom and Ophelia Benson and Butterflies and Wheels and The Dictionary of Fashionable Nonsense: A Guide for Edgy People and The Philosopher's Magazine.

All of these pages have been challenged over notability and defended, albeit at times, I would say, unpleasently and abusively by obviously partisan editors, possibly sockpuppeteers. The pages seem to be linked via the edits of one Nick Mallory.They also appear to 'spin off' from Stangroom, Benson and Baggini's magazine, the Philosopher's Magazine. Wikisquirrels (talk) 21:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Clerk note: — Wikisquirrels (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. -- lucasbfr ^talk 06:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Stale Thatcher 10:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

---

Ethionet

request links: view  links history  watch Filed: 13:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Ethionet (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Habeshawoman (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Somali24 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Gadaa (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)

• Code letter: C

• Supporting evidence:

Causteau has copied the evidence below from Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ethionet. (Based on my own review of contribution logs, I think it is very likely that these are sockpuppets.) Yechiel (Shalom) Editor review 22:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

This user has regularly been making disruptive, POV edits to pages relating in some way to Ethiopia. His editing pattern essentially involves portraying groups involved in conflicts with Ethiopians in a negative light, and/or giving Ethiopia credit for feats, cultures or events it has little to do with.

He likes to back up these assertions with either:
1) no sources at all
2) primary sources such as direct links to the very articles he is criticizing
3) self-published sources like blog articles
4) articles written by and hosted on websites administered by partisan groups. For example, on the Ethiopian-Adal War page, Ethionet asserted that the Ethiopian-Adal war was a civil war, an assertion which runs counter to all the available data on the subject. To support this assertion, he linked to a website which is, according to its own description, a "news media outlet run by reporters both in Ethiopia and the Ethiopian Diaspora" -- hardly unbiased.

There is more on this user's problematic edits on the Press TV article's talk page.

The users Ethionet, Habeshawoman, Somali24 and Gadaa like to edit the same pages (e.g. 1, 2, 3). They tend to revert changes other editors make to any one of their own edits i.e. they back each other up. They are all also in some way connected to Ethiopia:

• Habesha refers to the Amhara and Tigray Semitic-speaking ethnic groups of Ethiopia and Eritrea
• Somali24, despite his handle, only ever makes edits (most unsourced) that are complimentary to Ethiopian interests, and on Somali-themed pages to boot
• Gadaa refers to a system of social stratification developed and historically observed by the Oromo ethnic group also in Ethiopia.

The above usernames have together repeatedly attempted to insert the same original research, POV material, and self-published sources on the same page: (1 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7)

The Gadaa handle has also just attempted to remove all traces of this pending sockpuppet case from his talk page under the pretext that the warning message was unsigned.

Given all the above, I strongly suspect Ethionet, Somali24, Habeshawoman and Gadaa are one and the same person. Can someone please run a Checkuser on these accounts?

Causteau (talk) 13:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Confirmed Thatcher 02:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

  I've blocked the socks, left the main account User:Ethionet unblocked for now. Kevin (talk) 05:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

  After a discussion with Kevin, I have blocked Ethionet indefinitely and Habeshawoman for one month (the latter actually appears to be the main account, it was created in 2006). Khoikhoi 03:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

---

Bebrahmin

request links: view  links history  watch Filed: 22:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Bebrahmin (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Shyam sunder pune (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)

• Code letter: E

• Supporting evidence: These user accounts apparently violated 3RR according to evidence and diffs at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Bebrahmin. Yechiel (Shalom) Editor review 22:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Clerk note: main account blocked for 31 hours, socks all blocked indef and tagged. Tiptoety ^talk 05:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

---

Dbalderzak

request links: view  links history  watch Filed: 21:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Dbalderzak (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Tolivero (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)