In a few days, both the suspected sockpuppets page and the requests for CheckUser page will be merged into Sockpuppet investigations (SPI). SPI is designed to make the process of dealing with sockpuppets much easier, by using one central page for all sockpuppet discussion, rather than fragmented discussion between SSP and RFCU. SPI is very similar to both of these, so users of these pages should find SPI familiar. In addition to the merging of both pages, the RFCU and SSP shortcuts will also be redirected to the new SPI page and the current processes will be discontinued. The co-ordination page for this is at Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations.
This is the place to request sockpuppet checks and other investigations requiring access to the Checkuser privilege. Possible alternatives are listed below.
Requests likely to be accepted
Code
Situation
Solution, requirements
A
Blatant attack or vandalism accounts, need IP block
Choose the 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.
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.
Responses will be brief in order to comply with Wikipedia's privacy policy. Likewise, the privacy policy often prevents us from running a check which has the effect of revealing IP addresses.
Due to technical factors, results are not always clear.
Check back regularly to see the outcome of your request.
This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump.
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to the currently open section (if the case is not yet archived) or adding a new section to the top (if the case has been archived).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
<inputbox>
type=create
editintro=Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Inputbox/Header
preload=Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Inputbox/Sample
default=Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/
buttonlabel=Request a checkuser
bgcolor=#F8FCFF
width=50
</inputbox>
User:Ericorbit and his believed to be sock User:Realist2 team up together on pages and keep reverting. On pages like "New Amerykah Part Two (Return of the Ankh)" and "User:Realist2's talk page". After leaving a comment for User:Realist2, User:Ericorbit shows up to answer the question.[1] Another example of this, would be when I leave a comment for "User:Ericorbit" in response "User:Realist2" shows up. My request was for User:Ericorbit to stop personal attacking my talk page. User:Realist2 comes and says that no personal attacks have been made against me. One follows another or itself and is strongly believe to have a sockpuppet. User: Realist2 confessed that he is a sockpuppet of User:Ericorbit.[2]
That "confession" on my talkpage was a very obvious joke, given that it followed this joke "outing" in the same thread, as part of a long discussion about legitimate uses of multiple accounts. I highly doubt Realist would be creating sockpuppets to post replies on his own talkpage. I don't want to do it myself as I'm technically involved now, but can someone close this RFCU, please? – iridescent 22:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk note: Inappropriate comment removed, for details please see the page history. Tiptoetytalk 23:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But in truth, Ericobit is backed up by Realist2. It seems way to obvious that he has a sockpuppet.Tarysky (talk) 14:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This user has been going back and forth to User:Realist2. They have been collaborating way too much, reverting together, asking the other for help, leaving messages on another's page, and never disagree. In my belief, they have recently teamed up to revert an page, New Amerykah Part Two (Return of the Ankh). Both users "User:Ericorbit and User:Realist2" revert other user's edits to keep the page the same. Here is the history of the page,
(cur) (prev) 23:22, 9 January 2009 Realist2 (Talk | contribs) (1,264 bytes) (please provide a direct link to the article because i can't find that in the search engine) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 23:10, 9 January 2009 Tarysky (Talk | contribs) (1,657 bytes) (These were the only songs mentioned in that article. This article doesn't not need to be reverted anymore by no one.) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 20:55, 9 January 2009 Ericorbit (Talk | contribs) m (1,264 bytes) (Reverted edits by JC STARR729 (talk) to last version by Realist2) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 18:37, 9 January 2009 Realist2 (Talk | contribs) (1,264 bytes) (no it isn't, please provide a link to whatever version of the article you are using) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 18:34, 9 January 2009 198.86.17.162 (Talk) (1,452 bytes) (This is mention in the article) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 18:23, 9 January 2009 Realist2 (Talk | contribs) (1,264 bytes) (Undid revision 263012891 by 198.86.17.162 (talk) ive seen the essence magazine source and it doesn't mention this) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 17:10, 8 January 2009 Realist2 (Talk | contribs) (1,264 bytes) (Undid revision 262765172 by 198.86.17.162 (talk) i read the essence magazine piece and it doesn't mention this album) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 21:45, 6 January 2009 Tarysky (Talk | contribs) (1,465 bytes) (Undid revision 262387718 by Ericorbit (talk) "She said so" is not apart of this article) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 21:43, 6 January 2009 Ericorbit (Talk | contribs) (1,492 bytes) (provide a source pls. "she said so" is not a source.) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 21:42, 6 January 2009 Tarysky (Talk | contribs) (1,465 bytes) (Undid revision 262386512 by Ericorbit (talk)) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 21:37, 6 January 2009 Ericorbit (Talk | contribs) (1,414 bytes) (forums and message boards are not reliable sources) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 21:30, 6 January 2009 Ericorbit (Talk | contribs) (1,402 bytes) (unsourced material removed again. corrected formatting to header and also improper capitalization in song title.) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 21:24, 6 January 2009 Tarysky (Talk | contribs) (1,603 bytes) (Undid revision 262382167 by Ericorbit (talk) S/he edits were sloppy. This page is under watch) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 21:17, 6 January 2009 Ericorbit (Talk | contribs) (1,409 bytes) (there is no confirmation that these are singles (if so pls provide them). Also fixed header capitalization per WP:MoS) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 21:02, 6 January 2009 Tarysky (Talk | contribs) (1,498 bytes) (Reverted the edits of User:Ericorbit (talk) back to 198.86.17.162, Confirmed tracklisting not just tracklisting) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 16:14, 6 January 2009 Ericorbit (Talk | contribs) m (1,255 bytes) (Reverted edits by 198.86.17.162 (talk) to last version by Ericorbit) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 15:27, 6 January 2009 198.86.17.162 (Talk) (1,251 bytes) (Undid revision 262009081 by Ericorbit (talk) (Confirmed tracklisting)) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 01:50, 5 January 2009 Ericorbit (Talk | contribs) m (1,255 bytes) (moved New Amerykah Part Two (Return of the Ankh) (album) to New Amerykah Part Two (Return of the Ankh): naming conventions) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 01:49, 5 January 2009 Ericorbit (Talk | contribs) (1,255 bytes) (this section has no sources, other fixes) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 23:59, 4 January 2009 Tarysky (Talk | contribs) (1,251 bytes) (Started the page on New Amerykah Part Two (Return of the Ankh))
Notice how one "User:Realist2" follows the other "User:Ericorbit" and doesn't allow the edits of other users. I have chosen to leave this page along after "User:Ericorbit" runs to "User:Realist2's talk page" who is probably an admin to do the job. Because three reverts on one page are against Wikipedia rules. This is his earliest edits
14:31, 10 January 2009 (hist) (diff) m Lotus Flow3r (format and link title) (top)
14:30, 10 January 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:Jagamijs (Madonna singles discography) (top)
14:29, 10 January 2009 (hist) (diff) m Madonna singles discography (Reverted edits by Jagamijs (talk) to last version by 167.64.85.73) (top)
14:27, 10 January 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:Realist2 (→Erykah Badu: go ahead.) (top)
11:30, 10 January 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:Efe (→Hot 100 number-one hits of blah blah blah: reply) (top)
11:27, 10 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Peer review/Hot 100 number-one hits of 2008 (United States)/archive1 (→Hot 100 number-one hits of 2008 (United States): comments) (top)
11:05, 10 January 2009 (hist) (diff) m Number-one dance hits of 2008 (USA) (Reverted edits by Jay Phillippe (talk) to last version by Ericorbit) (top)
11:03, 10 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Hot 100 number-one hits of 2008 (United States) (ack!!! didnt meant to do that.) (top)
10:59, 10 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Hot 100 number-one hits of 2008 (United States) (small corrections.)
00:35, 10 January 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:Realist2 (→Erykah Badu: comment)
00:29, 10 January 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:Tarysky (re:Erykah Badu)
21:21, 9 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia talk:Record charts (→Korean charts: reply)
21:08, 9 January 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:JC STARR729 (→January 2009: Soldier (Erykah Badu song))
21:07, 9 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Soldier (Erykah Badu song) (remove unsourced first phrase and rumors about her next album, which has nothing to do with this song) (top)
20:55, 9 January 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:JC STARR729 (→January 2009: New Amerykah Part Two (Return of the Ankh))
20:55, 9 January 2009 (hist) (diff) m New Amerykah Part Two (Return of the Ankh) (Reverted edits by JC STARR729 (talk) to last version by Realist2)
I thaugh't you only were forbidden to create a new account wile being block, not just editing when you're logged out? Anyway, I admit it and I am very sorry for this, but it is very hard for me to stay away from Wikipedia. I love wikipedia and live in an environment with a high density of computers. Very sorry, won't do it again. I think it is unnecessary to block me again since it happened such a long time ago and I didn't broke any rules while being blocked and the disgrace is punishment enough, also; doesn't admitting reduce your time being blocked? But do what you think is just. Again sorry. --Fipplet (talk) 21:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But it didn't happen "a long time ago"; it happened this weekend, when Fipplet was blocked for edit-warring. And, as shown above, it is the second toime s/he has done the same thing. The argument above is specious and barely credible; the whol;e point of being blocked is that you are not permitted to make edits. This is as clear a case as I have ever seen of sockpuppetry to beat a block, and should be dealt with accordingly.RolandR (talk) 08:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This weekend is about 4 days ago. That is a very long. And it isn't the second time I did this. Last time I created a new account and got blocked consequently for creating it. This time I didn't, I just continued to edit from my school cause I thaught you just blocked the account and not the person. Now I have learned this.
Blocks should be based on the protection of Wikipedia rather than the punishment of offenders. Most IP addresses should not be blocked more than a few hours, since the malicious user will probably move on by the time the block expires.
In this case blocking obviously surves no purpose). The point is to prevent further vioalations of Wikipedias' rules by that specific person. Since I didn't vioalate any rules while being blocked and since I didn't vioalate any rules during this four day period since being blocked and since I now have learned alot more about what is allowed and not, there is no point of blocking me. I won't do this again and i've certanly felt the disgrace of being punished. I am sorry for this but I urge you to do what is just and do it quick so that I then can return to wikipedia.--Fipplet (talk) 09:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Declined. He admitted it. No check needed. Also, Fipplet, you can't just say "Oh this block served no purpose so I evaded it". You do not get to decide that. --Deskana(talk) 23:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Likely that Chellaney, Harshray and the IP are the same user. Very Unlikely that LegalEagle86 is involved. [[Sam Korn]](smoddy) 15:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk note: blocked the users indef (except LegalEagle86), the IPs for a week. -- lucasbfrtalk 10:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In email, HR asserts he is a colleague of C, not a sock. I decided to believe him and set the block on HR to 24h (for 3RR). I've left the C account alone, err, though it doesn't make sense for it to be blocked as a sock of the other if the other isn't also blocked. Ah well William M. Connolley (talk) 21:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bill, in that case HR is meatpuppet of C because HR is deleting over and over again - the same sourced content and from the same article. --Roadahead★ 17:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting evidence: Possible Sock Puppet used by Shane91c. This User has Resently Vandalised using Scurless and the account is now blocked for 1 month. I know Shane91c in person and belive that shane91c might be a "Good hand, bad hand" account. I know shane91c's full name and both account names seem strangly the similar to his real name. ArcticFox 21:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk note: Scurless's edits seem to be targeting Arctic Fox. -- lucasbfrtalk 09:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Both accounts Edits are targeting my user. ArcticFox 15:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional information needed. Could you provide some diffs of the two accounts attacking your account? [[Sam Korn]](smoddy) 00:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I Will get round to finding the Difs When i get back from college. Bit busy at the moment. Please don't close the case yet. ArcticFox 10:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Scurless Difs, [5]Scurless states "elliott" which is obviously my name. Another Dif, [6]
Shane91c Difs, [7]Shane91c States again "elliott". But with a different name. How in all honestly can these two accounts not be related if they both in there edits state my name. [8]. Thanks for looking into this. ArcticFox 14:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The IP address has no other contributions except anonymously 'corroborating' Tool2Die4's baseless accusations of sock puppetry against me.[9] (A WP:CHECKUSER already found me unrelated to the alleged puppet.[10])
I contend that Tool2Die4 has a pattern of bullying and apparently passive-aggressive retaliation, as detailed in this WP:ANI entry: [11]. Tool2Die4 placed a request on the BLP noticeboard, and when all substantive comments agreed with me (and disagreed with Tool2Die4), suddenly this anonymous URL started 'corroborating' Tool2Die4's false accusations of sock puppetry against me.
Google returned only one other instance of this IP address, where it appears this IP shares Tool2Die4's interest in football.[12]
It seems unlikely to me that an anonymous IP would somehow be lurking innocently on the BLP noticeboard, while ignoring all BLP issues, and then suddenly jump in to support a false accusation of sock puppetry made elsewhere by Tool2Die4. The BLP page did not even mention Tool2Die4's false accusation until the anonymous IP added it. It seems likely to me that, frustrated by the failure of his/her efforts to bully me, Tool2Die4 resorted to engaging in exactly the conduct (sock puppetry) that had earlier sprung so readily to his/her mind.TVC 15 (talk) 06:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note to investigating Admin: When this is turned up negative, I do not want my IP revealed, for privacy concerns. Tool2Die4 (talk) 11:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unrelated. That said, your behaviour with your alternative account User:WikiKingOfMishawaka wasn't exactly above board. --Deskana(talk) 15:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably why it got indef-banned, huh? Tool2Die4 (talk) 16:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting evidence: On 11 January, User:Gethomas3 was blocked for a week for reverting Intercontinental Cup and FIFA Club World Cup statistics to an earlier version despite the article having been split into two new articles. Today, User:206.209.102.182 performed the same action. I suspected that the IP might have been a sock of User:Gethomas3's, but then I found out that the IP belongs to User:SuperSonicx1986. Therefore, I suspect that the three users may in fact be one user. – PeeJay 20:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Likely that SuperSonicx1986 and Gethomas3 are the same user. Inconclusive technically as to the relationship with the IP, but note that the IP belongs to a university range; this by no means excludes the possibility of their being one user. [[Sam Korn]](smoddy) 00:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk note: the same admin blocked both users in Dec/Jan, I'm contacting him to follow up. -- lucasbfrtalk 09:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked the IP for a month, and indefinitely blocked the accounts. PhilKnight (talk) 13:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This shows almost perfect non-overlap of editing sessions between the four editors listed above over two months (can crank the list up to 1000 edits if needed). Notice the first three of these editors warring against Madchester's changes at Viva la Vida Tour. Seems to be an editor who has used multiple accounts in the attempt to win slow-moving revert wars on music articles. If confirmed I think the socks should be indeffed and the master account sanctioned as well. EdJohnston (talk) 04:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed that the three accounts and the IP are the same user. [[Sam Korn]](smoddy) 00:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk note: Main account blocked for 48 hours, all other named accounts indef blocked. I blocked the IP for one week with account creation disabled. Tiptoetytalk 06:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting evidence: I have filed this under BenH (2nd) because of a pre-existing case. Here are the IPer's contributions. If these edits are consistent with BenH's editing style, then he is evading his block. Willking1979 (talk) 18:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User has used several other IP addresses for his vandalism. - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 13, 2009 @ 19:08
Clerk note: Errr, the last contributions of BenH were in the summer of 2006. Got anything newer to compare with? -- lucasbfrtalk 20:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anything in this category can be used. - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 13, 2009 @ 22:19
Inconclusive, technically. There might be a relationship -- it should be assessed on behavioural evidence. [[Sam Korn]](smoddy) 00:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All three of these are blocked, for various reasons. Could definitely use another CU check, though, it's obvious we've got a sockfarm going. Tony Fox(arf!) 17:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. A rangeblock would be nice. JollyΩJanner 17:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the above - I don't believe the user who never signs in, and it described in the sections on my Talk Page by Jolly Janner, is the same user as is being discussed on this page. The user on this page seems to be fixated with Drake Circus. My pet IP user tends to hand out at Plymouth College and Plymouth in general. I think this are distinct users, and so the material on my page shouldn't prejudice the user being discussed. Stevebritgimp (talk) 21:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also the user described on my page (IP/Whiteworks) tends to remove all mention of Drake Circus, rather than spam pages with websites promoting it. Stevebritgimp (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. The user is playing the system. Making it seem as though Drake Circus shopping centre is actualy behind the SPAMing. It's just wasting people's time. As far as I'm concerned, any of the users doing disuptive edits to Drake Circus are the same people. What are the chances of two seriel vandals picking the same article to target? JollyΩJanner 21:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A handful more. Their contributions and comments to each other suggest a concerted effort to use WP for advertising and to evade blocks via multiple accounts:
I've indef-blocked 'em. By behavior, seems likely to be a few meatpuppets, each with a drawer of socks. DMacks (talk) 21:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed that all these accounts are related. I'm afraid there is no IP block that can be done -- the range is at least a /14 and possibly larger, as well as being highly dynamic. [[Sam Korn]](smoddy) 00:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll try to report these accounts as soon as I spot them. JollyΩJanner 00:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've been dealing with a long-term vandal who creates new accounts about weekly to insert opinions, counter-factual statements and WP:BLP violations in a variety of articles. A great number of blocked socks can be found here. Common article targets include those listed below plus Doris Kearns Goodwin, The Librarians, M*A*S*H (TV series), Charlie Rose, and Cryptdin, among others.
I have listed all the accounts that I've personally dealt with since October. All of the above accounts have been indefinitely blocked (mostly by me), and the listed IP still has another month to go on its latest block. However, it would be useful to identify any as-yet undetected accounts or sleeper accounts for this individual. Perhaps blocking the underlying IP(s) may be warranted. Thanks, — Scientizzle 22:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump.
Vandal and attack accounts may be listed here for the purpose of identifying and blocking the underlying IP address or open proxy. Requests to confirm sockpuppets of known users should be listed in the sockpuppet section above.
If you already know the IP address of the suspected open proxy, list it at Wikipedia:Open Proxies instead.
Use === Subsections ===; do not create subpages.
List user names using the ((checkuser|username)) template. Add new reports to the top of the section.
Requests may be acted on or declined according to the discretion of the checkuser admins. Responses will be noted here. Specific evidence of abuse in the form of diffs may be required so as to avoid the impression of fishing for evidence.
Answered requests will be moved to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/IP check/Archive for 7 days, after which they will be deleted. No separate archive (other than the page history) will be maintained.
Requests that do not follow the instructions at the top of the page will be moved here. Common reasons for noncompliance include:
Did not cite a code letter, or cite more than one code letter.
Did not cite any supporting diffs if the code letter requires diffs.
Included IP addresses.
The specific deficiencies may be noted with Additional information needed. Cases which are corrected may be moved back to the pending section. Cases which are not corrected will be deleted after 3 days.
Please note that meeting these three criteria does not ensure that your check will be run. The checkusers retain final discretion over all cases.