Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Its contents should be preserved in their current form. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

What happened?

What happened? It seems like nobody has been checkuser-ing for a while. Look at how many requests there are. What is the problem? --GeorgeMoney T·C 00:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Since I'm the only one running checks here, it gets done when I do it. I'm a volunteer here too, and people would do well to remember that. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 02:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I thought there were about 5 more checkusers other than you? --GeorgeMoney T·C 03:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think George was implying any laziness on your part Essjay. I think he was simply saying it was backlogged and wondering why. Why are you the only one doing it? Paul Cyr 04:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. --GeorgeMoney T·C 04:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

There are thirteen users with checkuser on this project:

  • The majority are current members of the Arbitration Committee, and are occupied with thier Arbitration duties.
  • The others are former Arbitrators, and have done thier turn running public requests; they have all come to the realization that attending to RfCU is a never-ending and thankless task, and that thier efforts can be better directed elsewhere.
  • The vast majority of people with the permission are quite active in using it, just not for public requests (that is, RfCU); they run checks at the behest of the Arbitration Committee, the Foundation, and in response to other situations that arise.

That leaves me to run requests, and I have been more than happy to do it. I am quite capable of keeping up with the queue, I handled over 75% of the requests in May, though I estimate I ran between 70-80 hours worth of checking last month, minimum; people tend to forget/not know that checking is not just clicking buttons and watchig IPs pop out, it's a very involved and time consuming investigation based on the results produced. I'm currently reassessing whether I want to spend hour upon hour running checks, as well as the time spent trying to streamline and standardize the system, when all I seem to get for it are complaints.

I could offer a long list of suggestions that would increase the liklihood that checkusers would pay attention to these requests, but I don't feel my warnings that this was coming were listened to, and I don't want to waste time. There was a time not too long ago when the only way to get a checkuser was to file an Arbitration case, and I fear that time is very quickly returning. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 04:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I now understand that checkusering takes hard work and understand that you want thank-yous. But, people actually do appreciate your checkusering, because you help ...... alot. So, everybody, what do we say to Essjay?

Thank You! *Imagine a whole group of little kids screaming "Thank You Essjay" *

--GeorgeMoney T·C 04:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not about thank yous. Granted, having people say thanks does mean a lot, but I can deal with not having people jumping up and down screaming "We love you."
What I want, not for a few days, but from now on, is:
  • Some backup from regular editors and admins.
  • People to check back on requests they've made, provide extra information when requested, and see that the results are acted on.
  • A few people, preferably some experienced and trustworthy editors, to check in every so often and make sure things are getting in the right sections, that old requests with new sections are getting moved back to the top where I can find them, and that old stuff is getting attended to and archived off.
  • People to stop turning RfCU into ANI; RfCU is for requests, ANI is for discussing.
I don't think any of the above are unreasonable, nor are they really anything I should have to say.
  • Perhaps people feel like they're "not supposed to touch anything": Please do, you're welcome to. If you see a section that should be in the outstanding requests section, move it there. If you see that there are several dozen week-old checks in the complete and rejected sections, archive it off.
  • If you requested a check, expect you're going to get a result here, and make a note to check back. If you request it when I'm online, you'll probably have a result within a couple hours; there are cases where I have to wait to talk to another checkuser, to get additional information or something, but most checks are answered fairly quickly, giving consideration that it may take an hour or longer to check and investigate.
  • Admins especially, but to all experienced editors, watch what goes on here (one or two passes a day will do), and when you see someone biting my head off for doing my job, back me up. If they're ranting without any basis whatsoever (as quite a lot do) then warn them off; if they've got a legit question but are wrapping it up in personal attacks, then give them a few pointers on how to get things done without being hateful.
  • For the love of Jimbo, if you're arguing about the merits of a check, please, please, please do it somewhere else. Move it to ANI and discuss, or here on the talk page, but please don't turn requests into discussion threads. If you feel confident enough to do so, move such threads off the request page, preferably by cutting out everything past the initial request, unless what is being said sounds like it's something that really, absolutely, positively has to be included.
  • Finally, don't argue over the trivial. There are a number of rather trivial things that assist me greatly in doing this job and keep me doing it, and I'd greatly appreciate it if they were left alone. I really don't want to be one of those people who says "Give me my toys, or I won't come out and play," but it's much easier for me to just not run any checks, and thereby avoid the arguments, than it is to spend several hours running checks and several more arguing over something stupid that isn't hurting anyone.
So, there you have it. That's why checks aren't being run, and a pretty good outline for how to get them running again. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 06:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Alternatives

What are some alternatives to use before requesting a checkuser to try to determine if an account is a sock? I'm asking for more technical means, as opposed to looking for similar contribution patterns, targets, etc. Tijuana BrassE@ 20:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm not an expert by any means, but other than the basic analysis you can do on an IP (whois, reverse DNS, etc) I don't know of any way to dig into a registered user's identity except checkuser. You might want to look at Wikipedia:Privacy policy. If you look at WP:SOCK, I believe sockpuppetry is determined by behavior. Checkuser is an imperfect type of confirmation. Thatcher131 21:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • AFAIK there aren't any, other than perhaps catching the sockpuppeteer changing a tilde signature from one of their accounts to another. What you said (contribution patterns, similarities in editing and edit summaries, new users who seem to have an amazing grasp of wiki policy) is what I use as basis for requesting a CheckUser. Syrthiss 21:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Followup question

What is supposed to be done next? There's a case where some new users suspected a sockpuppet being used to issue personal attacks and get around 3RR. They complained to an admin, the admin told them to back it up with a checkuser request, and it came back "likely". So what should the new users now do with that "likely"? What's the next step? Thanks, --Elonka 16:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Checkuser is for investigation, not enforcement. Thatcher131 16:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
It can be reported back with the checkuser evidence to the admin you complained to before. It can also be reported to the Admin Noticeboard with the checkuser evidence & appropriate diffs of the violations. Since checkuser evidence is present, you are very likely to get a positive response. --Srikeit (Talk | Email) 16:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
True, except in this case it has been discussed ad nauseum on WP:ANI and there do not seem to be any admins willing to take action. At this point, I would compose a polite message for the regular noticeboard WP:AN, which gets less traffic and is a bit more serious discussion. Include some diffs of uncivil behavior and proof of the two accounts working together to avoid 3RR. Point out the section on WP:AN/I so no one thinks you're trying to gloss over the previous discussion. Ask for simple remedies (at this point I would ask to block Victrix and strongly caution DreamGuy). Do not bad mouth the admins who commented before. Be polite. (I suggest workiing it all out on a subpage in advance to get it just right).
You can report future cases of 3RR avoidance on the 3RR noticeboard. And I suppose you can start collecting diffs of reversions and incivility for an RFC or Arbcom appeal. In all things be nice yourself, to put yourself in the best possible position in the future. Thatcher131 16:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Enforcement of policies

Please note my statement at Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy#presenting_evidence_to_support_an_accusation. As it is relevant both to the checkuser policy and the blocking policy I repost it here. My suggestion is to post comments where they are more appropriate.

I got blocked by Jayjg for being a sockpuppet of two users I had not even heard of. The admin did not present any evidence supporting the claim nor did she or he try to contact me in advance. She or he did not leave a message on my talk page as the blocking policy instructs to do. I looked up what the users I was accused of being identical with had edited, and there were not even similarities in the articles they focussed on with mine. I looked it up at the checkuser page. There was nothing about the two users I was accused of being a sock of. Concerning me there was a case concerning a fourth user. It was a user whose block I had protested as he was blocked for a "personal attack" that in my eyes was none. The admin who blocked me had disagreed about this with me. As this was the only event when I was in contact with her or him, I had the impression of getting censored. The case was labelled "inconclusive" by a user with a comment about the two of us editing from two different European countries: Best advice is: If it smells like a sock, it probably is. As a sidenote, it disturbs me that someone ignorant of the principle of the benefit of the doubt and with a history of blocks, even for vandalism, apparently nearly exclusively handles such a sensitive field as checkuser.
I requested to be unblocked, but the blocking admin did not answer, and others told me I should email him. I could not because I already get enough spam and do not want to provide an email address. She or he did not answer my unblock request, which was removed three times by admins claiming I needed to contact him first. Unblock requests are there for cases where a user feels a block was unfair, thus they are unlikely to trust the admin who blocked them and should not be asked to contact her or him. As Zocky agrees with me:
A request for unblock is not a request to get told to email the blocking admin. The above comment by Shell Kinney is entirely inappropriate. Zocky 10:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
So I asked another admin, Theresa Knott, who provides a link on her user page to her webpage where an email address can be found. She was very kind and replied fast and asked Jayjg who had blocked me. All he replied was this, showing he actually had no evidence supporting his claim.
With this experience in mind, I suggest four changes to the policies:
1. Blocking admins should be instructed to post verifiable evidence for the accusation against the blocked user on her or his talk page.
2. Blocking admins should be instructed to watch the talk pages of users they recently blocked to ensure they see if any protest arises.
3. Unblock requests should not be removed unless an admin can present verifiable evidence for the accusation against the blocked user - of course if the originally blocking admin already presented this and the blocked user did not counter it convincingly the request can be removed stating just this.
4. The checkuser policies should be enforced:

Checkuser is a last resort for difficult cases.
Even if the user is committing abuse, it's best not to reveal personal information if possible.
If you're in any doubt, give no detail.

Socafan 16:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

  • First point, mistakes happen, we are only human.
  • Second point, per the sockpuppet policy, the primary means of determining if someone is a sockpuppet is by their behavior. Checkuser is a technical means of investigating suspected cases, but it may generate false positives as well as false negatives. Thus, Essjay's comment is entirely correct and there are many user accounts that have been blocked with no technical proof at all. Thatcher131 17:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Of course mistakes can happen. Afterwards one should apologize and try to figure out how to prevent similar ones in the future. Stating that the same mistake has been made often does not in any way indicate that it should be done again or was ok in any particular case. Furthermore, I insist that Essjay's unnecessary revelation of two user's country of residence was not ok, nor was his refusal to give the benefit of the doubt. Socafan 18:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Where did he refuse to give the benefit of the doubt? He said he couldn't tell via checkuser if you were or not and advised the person asking to use thier judgment. In what way is that advice bad? I have personally blocked lord knows how many socks and i have never once even asked for checkuser. If i did do so, and was advised "if it smells like a sock it probably is" then I'd take it that the decision is mine. So please, pretty please with a cherry on top, stop attacking Essjay. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Saying "if it smells like a sock it probably is" means refusing to give the benefit of the doubt and is thus unacceptable. What I write in no way is an attack, it is a factual description of what happened. Socafan 21:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It may help you to understand that checkuser (the ability to look up some of the details about a user's posting history) is an imperfect means of detecting sock puppets. If you look at Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, the primary means of determining sock puppets is by analysis of behavior. There are many ways, which I will not discuss per the WP:BEANS policy, that a knowledgable computer user can avoid "conclusive" detection by checkuser methods. If only 100% checkuser-proved sock puppets were banned, wikipedia would be a very unpleasant place. Essjay's "If it smells..." comment is simply a reminder of the basic fact that sock puppets are determined primarily by behavior and can not always be proven or disproven by technical means. Your initial edits were very much in the manner of a sock puppet. You showed sophisticated knowledge of wikipedia formatting, extensive use of edit summaries (including embedded wikilinks in your fourth edit) and you lept to the defense of another user on the administrator's noticeboard on about your twentieth edit. You are either a very quick study or you have edited wikipedia before, either as a different user or as an unregistered user. Giving people the benefit of the doubt and assuming good faith is a commendable goal but it does not mean we should entirely suspend our analytical faculties. To make a very crude analogy, suppose a policeman, chasing a mugger, radios in that the mugger has twisted his ankle and is limping. Five minutes later, another policeman sees a limping man on the next block and arrests him on suspicion. The second man in in fact innocent and limps due to a previous injury. The incident in unfortunate, and while the police may owe the second man an apology, it is unreasonable to demand the police ignore the second man altogether because identity has not been proven with a DNA match.Thatcher131 00:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


Well of course I had edited wikipedia before, the English version is not the only one, and there is no need to register for the first edit. A simple question would have been sufficient to clarify this. As I had not in any way disrupted the project, the policy that checkuser is only for severe cases where other means have been exhausted was violated. But, please, we should not focus on my particular case here, I am suggesting an improvement of the general policy. Socafan 22:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Sections moved from Essjay's talk page

I removed the section that had been moved here from another page. It was not directly related to the above suggestion and not intended to be placed here. Socafan 18:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure what the consensus is regarding where the discussion should be placed, but in any case the old version, where a portion of the conversation was moved from Essjay's talk page and continued, can be found here Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 18:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I simply think that a 3-way conversation not involving Essjay that only partly involves Essajys actions should not take place on Essjay's talk page. (Particularly the part where you and I try to explain to Socafan why he is wrong). Socafan has now left a reasonably brief and relatively calm complaint and it seems best to let Essjay respond to that. Socafan's general complaints about process can go here or elsewhere. I'm sure if Essjay thinks I did wrong he'll tell me. Thatcher131 19:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
You are probably right, but in the interest of accurate talk pages, the removed stuff has been archived with links to the page histories. This is also likely to affect my nomination to become a mediator - if Essjay disapproves of the way I handled this, he should probably say so there. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 20:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Can a checkuser be asked for without an open request?

The section header asks the question, but this is my reason. I have just stumbled over some clues that one of the most notorious troublemakers that Wikipedia has struggled with has returned under another name, & it would be beneficial if this banned editor were quickly rebanned. (No, he's not Lir, although that's as far as I'll commit to here.) The reason why I don't want to ask openly is that if I'm wrong, a public request might create bad-will for an innocent editor.

If nothing else, I would appreciate another long-time editor contacting me in email to confirm my suspicions -- or convince me I'm being paranoid. -- llywrch 17:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

There are about 14 people with Checkuser privilege, listed here. You can e-mail one of them privately. Thatcher131 17:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I am always getting lost trying to find something on Wikipedia -- unrelated to the encyclopedia portion, that is. -- llywrch 19:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I find this questionable. If you have not enough evidence to provide it without shame you should not request a checkuser. Secrecy makes the project vulnerable to abuse. Socafan 00:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I've heard its been done. If Essjay is actually still doing RFCU(or ever does them again), he doesn't fufill them "unless it is a very serious issue" If its extremely serious someone may do it. That's not to say they also won't just tell you to go here. Kevin_b_er 00:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Using the checkuser tool creates a log file that can be checked to make sure the tool is not being used improperly. The current checkusers are the (community-elected) members of the arbitration committee, plus a couple of trusted bureaucrats who were appointed by the Arbcom. I am aware of a a number of cases where requests have been performed without being posted here first. That is at the checkusers discretion and he/she may of course decline or ask that it be posted here instead. Any resulting action, like a block, would be announced at the administrators' notice board in the usual fashion and some sort of evidence or statement would be required at that point.Thatcher131 01:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
As my own recent case showed, there was no evidence, neither here nor at the administrator's noticeboard nor anywhere else. Secrecy makes the system vulnerable. Socafan 01:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
That request came back "inconclusive", meaning the allegation couldn't be ruled in or out based on technical evidence alone. Therefore, Jayjg blocked you primarily on your pattern of behavior. If the request and answer had been made privately, so Jayjg knew nothing of it, he still could have blocked you based on your behavior. If no request had been made at all, or if it had been denied for some reason, you still might have been blocked based on your apparent pattern of behavior. (You made eleven posts to WP:ANI defending Dabljuh, certainly calling attention to yourself.) Finally, Jayjg is a member of the arbitration committee himself, and could have decided to run a CU after seeing you behaving "like" a Dabljuh sockpuppet on AN/I regardless of the existence of a public request. Frankly, you called attention to yourself as a brand new account defending someone who was being a pest and deliberately provoking a negative reaction. Your behavior and an inconclusive CU report were more evidence than a lot of blocked socks get, and the fact that you were unblocked after less than 2 days is, as far as I'm concerned, evidence that the system generally works pretty well, all things considered. Which wikipedia did you write for where brand new accounts rushing to the defense of blocked users are not considered suspicious? Thatcher131 01:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
You seem to be ignorant of the benefit of the doubt, too. People should not get punished for suspicions but for violations of policy for which there is evidence. Supporting someone who was blocked for a personal attack that was none in no way is wrong. I was not blocked for being a sockpuppet of that user but some other one completely unrelated that I had never heard of, and Jayjg failed to present even a single piece of evidence, making me get the impression he was trying to censor me because he did not like that user you call "a pest". I invite you to write without incivilities next time. Socafan 01:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Link Request

Can someone add this protocol link to my list ? 66.82.9.69 18:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

MALFUNCTION

Can someone add the Check-user link to the Martial Law user page ? I have a on site malfunction that is messing up my sig. Was told that some program config. is fouling up my sig. Testing sig. I log in as "Martial Law", all I get is a mess. 66.82.9.69 18:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I log on as "Martial Law", this mess appears: 66.82.9.69 18:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
This malfunction has happened to other users as well. Only trying to head off trouble before it starts. Do appreciate the assisstance. 66.82.9.69 18:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I still don't understand; it certainly has nothing to do with the checkuser pages. Try asking at the administrator's noticeboard. If there is a technical problem with the servers they may know about it. You should also try clearing your browser's cache. Thatcher131 18:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Bonaparte=/= Brasoveanul

I request a CheckUser to demonstrate that no relation there is between the User:Bonaparte and User:Brasoveanul accounts. Please.

Result of the CheckUser: "The evidence is inconclusive" [1] Jayjg (talk) --Brasoveanul —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.254.231.79 (talk • contribs)
Jayjg has the same checkuser permissions as the folks who usually do the public requests. There's no reason to think that a public check would have a different result. You can post a request for unblocking on your talk page or post a request at the administrator's noticeboard. Thatcher131 12:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I see no reason to fulfill this guy's request. Brasoveanul clearly misquoted Jayjg. Jayjg said the evidence was inconclusive, but you don't need CheckUser if the editing patterns are the same. I blocked the IP for block evasion. --Lord Deskana I VALUE YOUR OPINIONS 12:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Open arbitration proceeding?

I'm not sure what an "Open arbitration proceeding" is. Does it only includes accepted arbitration proceedings, or does it also include intiated, but not accespted arbitration proceedings? BlankVerse 17:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

If there is an open case (i.e., there is a Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Casename page), then the matter should go there. If the check is in relation to a closed Arbitration Case, then the clarification section of RfAR is the appropriate venue. If a case has been filed, but not yet accepted, then requesting it in the request itself (if you aren't the requester, add a ===Statement by ...=== section) is appropriate. The standing basis for this is that a) the Arbitration Committee has thirteen checkusers available, seven being current arbitrators, while RfCU is maintained by two checkusers, and b) that the Committee is in the best position to judge when a checkuser is necessary and has access to all the information involved in a situation. Essjay (Talk) 21:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser requests

Suggested policy:

  • Individual editors or administrators wishing a sockpuppet check should place a request on Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser rather than making a direct request to a user with CheckUser privileges through email, request on a user's talk page, IRC or other some other method. Editors with CheckUser privileges receiving a request should direct the editor to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. This requirement does not extend to the Arbitration Committee.

Individual editors shouldn't have special access to Check User because they are friends with someone who has the premission and can do them a favour and there should not be a perception that CheckUser can be used in this manner. Homey 15:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

See [2]

I currently have Jayjg's talk page watched because of some interaction previously between me and him. I notice you brough up an Ontario, Canada "sockpuppet" although technically it is just someone that is not logged in. I think it is incorrect for you to appeal directly to your favorite admin -- its really not proper. You should bring first try to establish that it is who you think it is very a user check -- see Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser. --Ben Houston 08:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Is there any indication that CheckUsers are being run under inappropriate circumstances? In other words, what is the problem that this policy change would fix? Before we create new policy and new restrictions, there ought to be some indication that harm is happening or likely to happen.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a perception that some users have greater access to CheckUser because of their relationship with editors who have the permission. There is certainly a perception by a number of editors that they don't have to come to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser since all they have to do is make a personal request without needing to provide the justification they would have to give here. Such perceptions damage wikipedia by promoting the impression of cronyism and double standards. Homey 15:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Checkusers are bound by the policy governing when checks are and are not appropriate regardless of whether the check is made publicly or privately. Thatcher131 15:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
There's no requirement for admins with CheckUser permissions to complete requests in the order that those requests appear on WP:RFCU. In other words, CheckUsers can jump any request to the top of the queue anyway, and they can accept requests with only the thinnest justification. Note that I don't see a problem with them doing so—they've been given these privileges because they're trusted members of the community and have demonstrated good judgement. One should also remember that in some cases it is most appropriate to make Checkuser requests by email or another private medium to avoid hampering certain types of investigation.
If you're going to throw around accusations of 'cronyism' and 'double standards', you're going to have to provide concrete examples. Vague accusations and veiled insults are a lousy justification to write policy, and they damage Wikipedia by poisoning the atmosphere of collaboration, dontcha know? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
There's no requirement for admins with CheckUser permissions to complete requests in the order that those requests appear on WP:RFCU.

That's not what I was suggesting, merely that unless there is a good reason or it is a request by Arbcom, requests should only be fulfilled if they have been made on WP:RCFU. The order in which they are fulfilled is not an issue. Homey 15:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

If you're going to throw around accusations of 'cronyism' and 'double standards',

Actually, what I said was "Such perceptions damage wikipedia by promoting the impression of cronyism and double standards."

See the above comment by Ben Houston "I think it is incorrect for you to appeal directly to your favorite admin -- its really not proper"Homey 16:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

(Disclaimer: Homey just gave me a shout about this issue on my talk page here [3].)
I am not a Wikipedia policy wonk, but just like 3RRs have to go through the appropriate administrator incidents page, it would seem appropriate for check users to also go through proper channels -- it ensures that there are not two classes of rights, one for people who have friends with check user priviledges and one for the rest of us. To me it is just common sense -- but again, I am not a policy wonk. --Ben Houston 16:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Er, 3RR doesn't have to go through WP:AN/3RR, though. An admin who sees an uncontrolled edit war can block for 3RR without a posting to the page. Indeed, admins can – and do – block for edit wars that don't strictly violate the 3RR if the participant(s) are trying to game the rule or are behaving otherwise obnoxiously.
Listing the checkuser request here rather than on a specific CheckUser's page doesn't prevent a CheckUser from showing some sort of favoritism. Remember that CheckUsers are permitted and encouraged to use their own discretion in determining which requests are fulfilled and when. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course, admins are discouraged from implementing a 3RR block on a user they are having a content dispute with - instead they list it on WP:AN/3RR.Are CheckUsers similarly not supposed to run checkuser on an editor they are in a conflict with?Homey 16:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The elephant in the room

I'm tired of pretending there's no elephant in the room. Homey, if you're upset because Jayjg checked you privately, just say so. The fact is that when Felonious Monk asked Jayjg about you and Sonofzion (on his talk page, which is semi-private at best, certainly not as private as as e-mail), Jayjg replied that he was suspicious too and had already run the check. Accusing an admin of using socks to evade a block is exactly the kind of accusation that probably should be made privately to avoid damaging the admin's reputation if the check turns up negative. Felonious blocked Sonofzion but did not otherwise announce that an admin was caught evading a 3RR block with a sockpuppet. No one (certainly not I) would have known if you had not filed a checkuser request on Sonofzion yourself.

On the issue of your proposal that checkusers not run checks requested by others except as posted at RFCU, that wouldn't have stopped this situation. The proposal also fails to assume good faith that checkusers will follow proper policy when deciding whether to answer privately-communicated requests.

On the issue of checkusers not running checks when they are in conflict with another editor, The Uninvited has confirmed Jayjg's findings. Do you think the answer would be different if Felonious had made a public request that was answered by Mackensen or Essjay?Thatcher131 16:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Given that Homey uses a "back channel" to circumvent due process [4] and asks other admin to do his blocking for him (instead of wating for the end of the checkuser requests) this is a very puzzling policy change. Should we first ask Homey to avoid such back channels cordination to get others blocked (when he himself concerned that blocking a person will be understood as his continued personal vandeta) Zeq 19:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
    • No further comment, as this page should really be about checkuser in general. Thatcher131 02:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Requesting a checkuser on yourself

I've noticed that many RFCU requests are declined stating that "asking checkuser to be ran on yourself is pointless". Would it possibly be a good idea to turn that into policy point, that way when people come here to make CU requests, they'll avoid wasting time on the request? Just a thought! ~Kylu (u|t) 17:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, its not really policy (at least, it probably doesn't belong on meta:CheckUser Policy), it's more personal experience that since checkuser can be fooled, suspicious editors are not generally convinced by self-requests. It could be put in as a point in the header on the CU page here, but the page header already fills the screen on one of my monitors, and I tend to think that the more you put in there, the less people will read any of it. Thatcher131 19:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I was discussing RFCU policy with someone earlier and realized another potential problem (Not too beans-ey, really): If someone were allowed to request checkuser on themselves, then it's possible that others might end up demanding such in the old "If you don't have anything to hide, then why not go ahead?" school of argument. ~Kylu (u|t) 07:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that too. However, the primary reason for rejecting is, and will continue to be, that self-requested checks are of little value due to community perception and consitute a waste of time. (Just in case anyone who doesn't know is listening.) Essjay (Talk) 10:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

In fact, requesting a checkuser on yourself is specifically addressed in the Checkuser Policy:

It is allowed to check an editor's IPs upon his specific request, when this user wants to publicly prove his innocence.[5]

The current practice of refusing such requests appears to be in violation of policy. Homey 21:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

  • The fact that it is allowed doesn't mean it is practical. If user A accuses user B of being a sockpuppet, and replies to a negative checkuser report with, "well, of course it's negative, because you wouldn't have asked for it unless you had arranged things so it would be negative; you're still a sock" then the checkuser admin has wasted his/her time for nothing. And if that happens regularly over a period of months, you can't blame the checkusers for being wary of the whole concept. That said, I count 13 checkusers who are more or less active; if you have a real problem with another user, and ask nicely, one of them may accept. Thatcher131 21:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
For that matter, while the policy states that checkuser may be requested on onesself, it doesn't state that it's needed for it to be done on RFCU, or that a checkuser must reply at all. I'd imagine the best bet for this case would be to request checkuser on Meta if nobody on your home Wiki wishes to do so. (Kylu@Work) 207.145.133.34 20:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
It occurs to me, hours after the fact, that stewards are prohibited from performing checkusers on wikis with checkusers on them already, so nevermind the last bit. Still, while policy allows you to request a checkuser be done, I don't see how policy requires them to do it for you. They're still volunteers, and if they don't want to do something, they shouldn't be forced to. ~Kylu (u|t) 04:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Clarification on procedure

Just for clarifying how someone goes about this, should you first add the information to suspected sockpuppets then if you get any kind of agreement should you then request a check user, or should you request the check user right away?--Crossmr 06:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure there's any specific rule. Labeling someone with the sockpuppet tag on their talk page is likely to make him upset whether its true or not, so it might be better to have your confirmation first. You need some evidence that the accounts are being used for disruptive purposes, like vote stacking or avoiding 3RR blocks. If you're not sure, you could try requests for investigation first, to get someone else's opinion. (I personally would also ask nicely on the talk pages of the accounts you suspect. It only take a few minutes to be polite, even if you get the expected "how dare you" answer.) Thatcher131 11:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Experimenting with checkuser

I recently stumbled on editthis.info which allows you to create your own wiki with a steward account. You can experiment with checkuser but the one thing that is obvious is that Special:CheckUser works their but here it generates a "No special page" error as opposed to the usual "permission error" you get when trying to perform a restricted function. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.100.6 (talk • contribs)

That's because editthis.info doesn't have the checkuser extension. You have to have the right MediaWiki extensions for checkuser to work. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 01:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Interestingly it does, at least the correct interface comes up. I have noticed for a while that checkuser isn't under Special:Version. It seems RobKhor (editthis.info's creator) modified the extension. Prodego talk 02:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Ah, so it does. I've had a editthis.info wiki for testing for some time, but hadn't used it in months. At any rate, checkuser there worked just fine for me. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 08:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Correct link for editthis.info: Special:Version & Note that it references "wfCheckUser" extension. ~Kylu (u|t) 20:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Temporary hiatus

I've been informed that there's an AMA request regarding Essjay and myself; apparently we're not allowed to take umbrage at degrading remarks. If that means we're heading into the dispute resolution process (despite the absence of a dispute and the failure of said user to contact either of us directly), I feel I've little choice but to temporarily suspend the active checking of requests for the next few days until the situation becomes more clear. Please feel free to continue adding those requests you deem necessary; I'd appreciate it if the clerks could continue to keep the page in such excellent shape as they have in the past. I trust this won't be a long suspension. Mackensen (talk) 03:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Rather a shame that the work RFCU does would be paused like this, though it's understandable that you have no choice in the matter, really. Good luck to you both, I hope this doesn't end up causing too biga stir, as it'd be nice to have your services available once more! Seems like a rather large disruption to the working of Wikipedia, to me. ~Kylu (u|t) 06:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
It's unfortunate to see things going in that direction, I do hope it's all resolved quickly. I can understand why you feel it best to suspend checking and I guess it's pretty disheartening that the majority of the feedback both you and Essjay get is hostile, I'm conscious that I rarely express any apprciation for your efforts in this area. Regards ALR 07:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Based on a number of past interactions (primarily centered around their "advocacy" - and I use the term loosely - of problem users in arbitration), I can say conclusively that AMA is absolutely worthless - a gigantic waste of time. Until there is an actual requests for arbitration, just ignore the AMA and go about your normal checkuser stuff. Raul654 07:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I imagine there's a little bit more involved than the AMA situation, Raul. (btw, try Bracers of Defense AC 2 next time.) (User:Kylu@Work) 207.145.133.34 17:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I was rather wondering what the wikibreak template was doing - thought it was the work of a vandal at first. ViridaeTalk 07:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to insert myself into the AMA discussion but its worth pointing out that unless there has been off-wiki discussion, CovenantD has not publicly complained (except once on his talk page, which he later self-removed) and has resumed editing. The AMA case involves Kickstart70, who seems to feel he is owed an explanation for something that happened to his friend, and has been driven by comments on CovenantD's talk page by Steve block and SBHarris, who incidentally holds a grudge against Essjay for a prior incident. Even Steve block has now seemingly modified his original stance [6] so I am not exactly sure why Kickstart70 feels he is owed a more comprehensive explanation than those already offered. [7] [8] Thatcher131 (talk) 18:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I've poked the AMA advocate (Jossi) regarding these concerns. The situation as it exists is both intolerable and insulting. Clerks: thanks for keeping the requests in order. I owe you folks a drink sometime. Mackensen (talk) 03:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

We appear to be moving towards a resolution of some kind, I think. With luck we'll be running again this afternoon or this evening. Thank you all for your patience and understanding. Mackensen (talk) 16:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I love a good farce as much as the next man, but we've moved into uncharted territory at this point. I'm bring this page back into action, but with a "one-strike you're out" penalty for incivility clearly stated in the header, since apparently this needs to be spelled out. Mackensen (talk) 17:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser guidelines

Is it correct to say that checkuser should generally only be used as a result of an RFC or a request by the ArbComm? Are editors with checkuser privileges allowed to "freelance" and run checkuser in response to direct appeals to them via email or their talk page? Are there also any guidelines or principles regarding possible conflicts of interest eg an editor with checkuser privileges running checkuser on an editor with whom he is engaged in an editing or content conflict?

It certainly wouldn't be fair if some editors can ask a friend who has checkuser permission to run the program on their behalf while everyone else has to go through RFC. Homey 21:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Just curious, what is the worry? RfCU seems to work fine. I noticed when setting up my request that you have used it successfully. The preamble says “CheckUser privileges are granted by the Arbitration Committee, but only to a very few users. It requires both technical skill and discretion, and is not granted lightly.” I hope we all can trust ArbCom, and if one doesn't, then nothing is sacred. Seriously, is there something that needs to be hidden that a rogue checkuser will uncover? -- Avi 21:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
The concern isn't with RfCU but with RfCU being bypassed. I've noticed a practice of friends of individuals who have checkuser access habitually asking for checkusers to be done. It seems inappropriate for some editors to have special access to checkuser searches because they have a friend with checkuser access. Homey 21:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
More or less, checkusers can run whatever checks they want. However, the use of checkuser creates a log that other checkusers can see, so if one checkuser is using the tool inappropriately it would be pretty apparent. Checkuser is often used without a public request in cases of ongoing vandalism sprees; if a batch of vandal accounts suddenly appear, often a check will be run to ID the IP so it can be blocked. There is a page, WP:RFCU/SORT, where informal checkuser results that are reported on a talk page or at WP:ANI can be noted, and the clerks will create public records archived at the main WP:RFCU/Case page, to keep things as transparent as possible. Thatcher131 21:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there a public list of editors with checkuser permission?Homey 21:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, on the meta checkuser policy page you were already looking at. Thatcher131 21:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Also Special:Listusers/checkuser. Essjay (Talk) 21:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Most of my checkusers are run either because I wandered across something that looked suspicious, because another CheckUser asked me to confirm their work, or because someone I trust (such as, say, Brad Patrick or Danny Wool) asked me to check something for them. We're trusted not to misuse the tool, and if we are caught misusing it, we will lose it instantly and permanently. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Query on checkuser

I'd like to request a checkuser against an anon ip that made the last edit on the 5th of July 2006. I was wondering if it was possible, considering the time elapsed since then. The policy statement "Data is kept for a limited time so we cannot compare against accounts that have not edited recently." isnt really specific on the time. Thanks. -- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK13:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

  • The specific answer to your question is, there is no specific answer. The exact nature of checkuser information is not revealed, so as not to make life easier for sock puppets. If you believe you have a request that meets the guidelines (serious policy violation, not a throwaway account) open it up and someone will look at the merits. Thatcher131 (talk) 17:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I'll post a request then. -- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK10:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Privacy

I have a concern about the use of this page. Is it not a violation of our privacy policy, and privacy legislation in a number of countries, to openly publish that it's confirmed or likely that a user is editing from a certain IP? I realize that, in cases of disruption, the website has to be able to defend itself, so I have no problem with that. But in cases where there has simply been a suspected policy violation (e.g. using a sockpuppet to get round 3RR), but without major disruption, if I ask whether User:ABC is the same as IP address 206.xx.xxx.xxx, and you publicly say "likely," then that user is being "outed," because even if it's not his actual IP address, you have given away the area he lives in, which he may not himself have publicized. And if it is his IP address, and you say "confirmed," you're publicly telling the world how to find him (or the part of the world that knows how to do it). That seems to me a harsh penalty for violating 3RR.

I also noticed here recently a request for checkuser from an editor who I know has tried to personally identify and out people in the past via an attack website.

All in all, I feel this page is not a good idea. Any thoughts? SlimVirgin (talk) 23:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a rare occasion indeed that an editor is linked to an IP address and we're usually quite careful to avoid doing so. Moreover, in the case you've cited, the editor is revealing his IP address himself (usually quite obviously), and we generally reject such cases because they don't meet the threshold. Mackensen (talk) 02:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I feel I've seen it done quite a few times, the linking of editors to particular IP addresses, where the editors have not themselves revealed where they live. For example, if an editor is not a particular IP, but technically might be (i.e. he edits from within the same geographical area), then he has not revealed his IP address, but if you answer "likely," you have revealed where he lives. Perhaps I'm imagining how often this happens; I'll keep an eye open so I can give specific examples. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Archiving

Though I'm not actively checking the main page here, and it has it's own archiving via the clerks, I've noticed that old threads tend to hang around here on the talk page for a while. Would anyone object to me having EssjayBot II archive anything older than 7 days? Essjay (Talk) 06:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind, heck VoABot could do it :).Voice-of-All 06:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I've been doing it manually around 7 days but I left the Homey stuff up a while longer due to the RFAR. Either bot will do. Thatcher131 (talk) 06:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll put EssjayBot II on it since it's already doing a number of similar pages. Essjay (Talk) 07:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
All set up (yeah, I know, that was fast, but it's like 2 seconds to do) and the first run done: [9]. Essjay (Talk) 07:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

German checkuser?

Is there a German checkuser page? Agathoclea 12:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know specifically of a de.wiki equivalent of RfCU, but there are three checkusers on de.wiki. You can find them here; any of the three should be able to tell you the process for requesting a checkuser investigation on de.wiki. Essjay (Talk) 13:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Mantanmoreland

User:Fred Bauder ran a check user on Mantanmoreland and Lastexist several weeks ago that confirmed they were the same users. Shouldn't this be noted somewhere?Barbamama 16:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide a diff where Fred said that? Thatcher131 (talk) 16:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
[10] [11] [12]. Barbamama 16:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I looked at that; its rather oblique. Also, I don't plan on taking advice from yet another sockpuppet of a banned user. There is a page where people with checkuser access can post results not related to a specific public request, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Unsorted results. If Fred wants to post his results there, one of the clerks will create a record of it. Thatcher131 (talk) 16:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I am not a sockpuppet of a banned user, I'm an alternate account of a current user as permitted under WP:SOCK. It's not all that oblique, Fred says point blank that Mantanmoreland was using a sockpuppet and doing so in contravention of policy. Barbamama 16:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Whatever you say. Ask Fred if he will post the result to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Unsorted results. Thatcher131 (talk) 16:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Question about checkuser data

On the Checkuser page, it says "Data is kept for a limited time so we cannot compare against accounts that have not edited recently." How long is such data kept? Semperf 12:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

A precise date range is not given, as giving a specific figure aids those who seek to avoid detection. The data is kept anywhere from several days to several weeks or longer. Essjay (Talk) 13:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Clarification of policy

An anonymous IP created and subsequently edited a biographical article about a physician. The article has recently been placed on AfD. The physician, who has a Wiki account, has identified himself as the subject of ther article and is arguing for "keep". Although the anonymous IP that edited the article has not commented in the AfD (i.e. no vote fraud), I suspect that it may be the physician's sock. I believe this knowledge could influence the AfD, but I'm not sure that it falls under point 9 (vote fraud). Is it likely the checkuser request would be granted or denied? Thanks! -AED 04:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

You can go ahead and post it but it sounds like a decline at this point, especially if the IP hasn't voted yet. You can note your suspicions on the AfD, and in any case, the decsision to keep/delete should be made on the basis of notability and verifiability. If its an obvious vanity article, it should be deleted no matter who wrote it, and if the guy is verifiably important, it should be kept no matter who wrote it (although maybe significantly rewritten if its autobiography at this point). Just my opinion. Thatcher131 (talk) 11:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your input, Thatcher. It doesn't look as though I'll need to do this. As the AfD process moves along, it appears as though others agree that he isn't verifiably important. Thanks, again! -AED 15:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Question about autoblock logs

Am I correct to assume that the autoblock logs are accessible only to those with Checkuser rights? And am I also correct to assume that these logs (unlike checkuser data) do not have a use-before date? Bucketsofg✐ 16:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Idea

There are two types of requests that get handled here: sockpuppetry, and open proxy identification. These are both useful functions and should continue. I'd like to propose, however, that we set up some kind of separation between the two. Not necessarily a sub-page, but maybe a different section. Furthermore, I'd like to encourage the listing of username blocks and egregious vandalizers there so that we can crack down on the worst stuff. Thoughts? Mackensen (talk) 18:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

You want to separate the standard "I think this person has this sockpuppet, and is using it abusively." and the "Here's 50 accounts that are all Willy, can you please find and block their IPs?"? I mean, the section can be split into two different kinds of pending requests, just need clarification on what they are. Or what of the "Its another sock set of Leyasu or HeadleyDown!"? Kevin_b_er 20:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
The former. At the moment it's JewAardvark and EnthusiastFRANCE. Again, I'd like to encourage those kinds of accounts being listed for checking, not subject to the usual threshold for a request. We need to be identifying and stopping that kind of vandalism. Mackensen (talk) 20:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Look at User:Thatcher131/Sandbox1. I think it;s self-explanatory, although if we adopt it the checkuser header may also need to be updated. Some of the things I was thinking are

  • these don't really need to be archived, since we're not building a record against a particular user. This is more like AIV than traditional sockpuppet checks
  • but if we leave them on the main page for 4 days it might get really long, so I created a holding page for completed requests, after which deletion, like the village pumps.
  • I removed the clerk attention needed section since we never use it; if a checkuser tags a request {{Clerk request}} someone is usally on it pretty fast.
  • Some of the wording in the IP check section or the subpage infobox may need to be tweaked to clarify what you want.
  • Can we keep the main checkuser header more or less the same size? It's already pretty big. If we must clarify the IP check section there maybe we could delete a sentence or two?

Thatcher131 (talk) 21:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

It'll break the recommendations of the inputbox's templates, which direct a person to edit section #1. Switch around the IP check and sockpuppet check, and put a note next to the archivebox to go furhtur down the page. See the changes I made to User:Thatcher131/Sandbox1. It needs to be formatted nicer, possibly with an annoying colored box around it the note to go furhtur down the page. Again, this is only to make it easy as pie for people to know what section to edit to list subpages. Kevin_b_er 21:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I would tend to put the IP check at the top, since it is one section while the sockpuppet check is 3 sections. We definitely need to keep the 3 sockpuppet sections together. If we have to change the input box we can do that. Anyway,no rush. I'll think about color boxs and you can mod the sandbox some more to try things out. Thatcher131 (talk) 21:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I moved the sections around and added some color. I also copied the header into Sandbox3, edited it, and transcluded it into Sandbox1. What do you think? Thatcher131 (talk) 03:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I like this. It solves the issue of having a staticly numbered section for outstanding sockpuppet checks. I added a link to the bottom of the page using an html anchor in the yellow box. Kevin_b_er 03:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I need someone familiar with wiki markup to look at the page. When I click on "edit" next to the IP check request section, I get the Jew Aardvark subsection, and when I click on the Jew Aardvark section edit, I get a blank section. It's like the edits are shifted down one place internally somehow. Is this fixable, but still keeping the yellow box? Thatcher131 (talk) 02:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC) Fixed it. The problem was Lightbringer was transcluded on the page twice. Thatcher131 (talk) 03:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Question about autoblock logs

Am I correct to assume that the autoblock logs are accessible only to those with Checkuser rights? And am I also correct to assume that these logs (unlike checkuser data) do not have a use-before date? Bucketsofg✐ 16:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser request. Do some statistics and you will find out that "confirmed" isnt a wise answer.

Stop this "Iasson again" and "Confirmed" nonscense! In my country we have two major internet providers. 80% of the internet traffic originates from these providers. It is very likely two persons to have the same provider, but this definitely NOT a proof that they are sockpupets eachother. Better use your checkuser tool wisely, do some statistics and you will find out that I am right. Faaaagain 23:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

And here is the conspiracy. As shown in the first checkuser request "160.97.4.204" originates from Italy and it is confirmed as an Iasson sockpuppet. Aldux also states that he is from Italy. I dont want to reveal my country, but I can reveal (and everybody who is using the checkuser tool can confirm this) that I am not from Italy. So who is the sockpuppeter? Faaaagain 00:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Help me

I need some help with a particular user. I'm not sure how to go about requesting a checkuser, so could someone help? I'll watch this page for responses. Chris53516 21:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Well first lets make sure a CheckUser is actually required. What kind of dispute are you in, and with whom? (Please respond on either my or your talk page). Prodego talk 21:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Prodego. Just so everyone knows, I'll get help from Prodego. Chris53516 00:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Clerk

I would like to apply to be a Clerk. Geo. 22:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I see you already found Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Clerks/Standby. Likely the checkusers will let it be known when they need more people to tend to the RFCU pages. Kevin_b_er 23:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Active

I have been an inactive clerk for a while and want to start clerking again. So can someone please sum up what has changed or link me to something, because I have noticed alot of changes in the system, and I don't want to mess anything up. If anyone can that would be great! GeorgeMoney (talk) 05:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Everything new has been discussed I think, either on the checkuser clerk noticeboard/noticeboard talk and/or this talk page. Read up, and post any specific questions on the clerk noticeboard. Thatcher131 (talk) 05:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
New section at the bottom of RFCU you should familarize yourself with the existance of. But yeah, noticeboard and guide has the rest of it. Kevin_b_er 06:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Back

Sigh, I suppose my wikibreak is over. I'll start poking at the backlog sometime today. Mackensen (talk) 11:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

CheckUser on self?

Is it apporpriate to request a CheckUser on yourself in order to clear one's name? I have been accused of being a sockpuppet for a blocked user Ste4k. See [13] and related discussion here [14]. I am not this user. Not a dog 17:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

There was a previous discussion on it here Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_checkuser/Archive_2#Requesting_a_checkuser_on_yourself. GeorgeMoney (talk) 18:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Not a dog 18:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Break

It's Labor Day weekend here in the states and I'm going on a short holiday. I might have Internet access but it's unlikely. This probably means that RFCU is on hiatus for lack of anyone else to do it. I'll try to deal with the remaining backlog tonight, one way or another. Mackensen (talk) 02:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Notes for checkusers

In order to assist the guest checkusers, (i.e. ones that do not frequent RFCU), would it be helpful to create a page that assists them in completing/declining requests? Mainly info on what happens on RFCU, so the layout is always understood. Recommendations, etc. Thoughts? Kevin_b_er 02:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you should use a different term. A "guest checkuser" is a person who has been given temporary checkuser status on a project based on being a checkuser on another project, to provide services to a project that lacks its own checkusers. Enwiki would never need a guest checkuser. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Eh. You're mainly talking about those little icon tags Essjay started with. If a checkuser doesn't know the template names we (the clerks) can always add them later. Are there any other issues you were thinking of? Thatcher131 (talk) 18:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Disreguarding the 'guest' term then. The icon templates, yes. Where the previous requests are, how the page is formatted as of currently. Things that several of them know already, esspecially Mackensen and Essjay, but people sometimes get confused by the layout. I can only expect that there are enwiki checkusers whom don't frequent here, yet would be assisted in knowing stuff to help them utilize the page to complete/decline requests more easily. Nothing to do with policy, of course. To be honest, this page is one of the more complex pages in the project, and I'd to hate to have a checkuser come and look at this page and get scared away or something. But hey, maybe they all know exactly what's going on, and just don't ever comment on it. The framework to request is pretty good, but to respond.. not so much. As an example, it's not totally clear that sometimes requests end up back in Outstanding because someone keeps asking questions. There's talk pages that excess commentary often ends up on, but directly editing from the base page makes the talk page much less noticible. Kevin_b_er 19:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
directly editing from the base page makes the talk page much less noticible exactly. There is rarely anything in the discussion needed to help the checkusers make a decision to check/not check or to help interpret results. The talk page is psychologically useful to the participants, who often feel strongly about wanting to have their say. It's less stressful to move their commentshan to simply delete them with a diff saying "no discussion here" (which was Essjay's original intent before the subpages were introduced). Thatcher131 (talk) 19:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
For my part, I ignore the talk pages unless my attention is specifically drawn to them. Mackensen (talk) 20:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Thatcher, keep in mind that all of us with Checkuser know each other pretty well and are in rather good communication with one another. If one of us needs to know something about that, we'll just ask one of the others. And there's no need to make that information public. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Archives

Are any RFCU archives kept so we can check past results? SlimVirgin (talk) 14:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case. Prodego talk 14:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
This generally only includes public requests and not things disclosed by the "other" checkusers on talk pages and such, although we are trying to catch those when we see them. Thatcher131 (talk) 02:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

A rumination

The efficiency of this page has had an unexpected side effect. There seems to be an idea going around that the checks performed here are "formal" and that other checks are "informal." This suggestions a division which simply doesn't exist. The purpose of this page is to provide public access to the feature for those who need it. Otherwise, my inbox (or that of another checkuser), would be full. In the end, I or another checkuser has to decide whether to run the query. The policies at the top of the page are a good framework and craft a reasonable expectation of what will and will not be done, but they aren't binding on anything or anyone. It would be a grave error to assume that there's anything special about a check requested here, and an even graver mistake to suggest that a check requested elsewhere carries any less weight. Mackensen (talk) 02:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I alsways thought of checkuser as a "formal" check of user logs (i.e. formally matching users to IP addresses and vice versa). It can confirm sockpuppet suspicions. I always thought of it as a way to confirm suspicions in cases that are not as straightforward. There are reasons why certain accounts are suspected in the first place so checkuser is a tool to confirm those suspicions. But even if checkuser comes back negative, there is still the behavior that triggered the checkuser in the first place. My recent experience is that trolling accounts that act like sock puppets are requesting checkuser as an exoneration. Most of them do it as a demand on a talk or discussion. It is not uncommon for someone to demand a checkuser when they are suspected of sock puppetry or trolling. The problem isn't that they are "sock puppets." The problem is their participation is disruptive and a negative checkuser isn't the "formal" exoneration for disruption.
What I would like to see is that "indefintely blocked" users get checkusered automatically and the sock puppets/IP's blocked. I wouldn't want the links be made public. For example, JoeEditor gets and indefinite blcok from ArbCom and checkuser reveals that he has a sockpuppet, JoesUnknownSock. I think it would be prudent to block JoesUnknownSock but not necessarily reveal that the two accounts are link. Just a ban by a checkuser admin to match the master ban. I have encountered occasions where ending up finding a disruptive editor is really a sock of indefintely banned user. If the editor really has been reformed, he can request unblcok from the checkuser admin and his sockpuppet status is known only to them. This allows someone to turn a new leaf but also protects the community from having to deal with the same disruption. It will also "speedy" the block process if the user is not reformed as the blocking checkuser admin has the history and knows if the editor is repeating the offending behavior. This would have found Rex/Merecat and also sleeper accounts that really problem users create because they know they will be banned. --Tbeatty 03:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Doubt about the efficacy of Checkuser

The new RFA from NSLE/ Chacor presents much of the basis of the argument on doubt about the checkuser evidence. Now I'm conscious that the detail of discussion about that incident should remain private however I would infer from the debate that there could be sufficient doubt about checkuser outcomes to subject the process to excessive levels of dispute, rendering it essentially pointless.

This is more food for thought than anything else, but there might be mileage in generating some statement on the general efficacy of the process in future.ALR 13:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • With all due respect, NSLE's unwillingess to admit what he did does not throw any doubt on the efficacy of checkuser evidence. There's absolutely no doubt in the minds of the checkusers, and we all looked at the evidence. Sockpuppeteers dispute the results all the time; that doesn't change the fact that they did it. Mackensen (talk) 14:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Question

How can I be able to do Checkusers myself? --HolyRomanEmperor 15:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

You can't. Because of the privacy issues involved, Checkuser access is conferred only on a select number of highly trusted and experienced users. Newyorkbrad 17:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Ahh - well then how can I receive a check user responce? I think its already too late by now (and I posted a long time ago). --HolyRomanEmperor 16:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Wait until a checkuser replies. Its been 1¼ days since your request. They'll get to it. --Kevin_b_er 18:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
May I know why was my Check User request denied? --HolyRomanEmperor 14:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
You can post a note on the user page of the Checkuser who denied it. It's within that person's discretion whether to explain or not. Newyorkbrad 15:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Unexplained decline

Hi folks. Just a question - can admins trusted with CU powers please make a concerted effort to educate requesting users by explaining their decisions (even briefly)? User:UninvitedCompany recently declined a CU on what appeared to be an obvious disruptor sock of a banned user. he neglected to provide any rationale, and neglected to respond to requests to do so - and of course that emboldened the troll (who, after subsequent misbehavior, was blocked). I fully understand the need to protect privacy, and that CU is not a 'fishing expedition', but as a long-time contributor and good-faith editor, I found the peremptory 'Declined' that User:UninvitedCompany provided, without a single word's explanation, to be most unhelpful and in fact rude. if it was not intended as such, a bit of explanation would have prevented that perception. In any case, thanks. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have to second this...even a simple, "you haven't provided enough rationale/evidence for checkuser" or something along those lines would be helpful.--MONGO 18:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Generally speaking (and I can't speak for UninvitedCompany), when I decline a request without giving reason it's because it does not, in my judgement, rise to the level of a request. Sometimes the sockpuppetry is so obvious that I see no need for a check. Sometimes there's no or very little evidence of disruption. Checkusers have a threshold of what they're prepared to check, based on their interpretation of Foundation policy and their standards of evidence. Mackensen (talk) 19:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Read the criteria and instructions at the top of the page; this particular request failed on all three grounds. We do not ordinarily perform checks on throwaway accounts; these should instead be blocked if they pose a problem. "Sound and Fury" has fewer than 20 edits according to the request, making it a throwaway account. We do not ordinarily perform requests where the outcome is already clear; the request states that "the anon account is clearly his account." There is no policy at Wikipedia that prohibits trolling; several attempts to make such a policy have been defeated by the community; a NPA block is not the sort of difficult case that would require us to resort to checkuser. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the response, Uninvited. And I hope you consider my request to consistently provide a 'little more' information, so users better understand the criteria for (God forbid) the next time. Educating one another in a congenial way is part of the Wikipedia ethic, I think - and as a user new to CU, I'm grateful for your explanation here and for your good faith. Thanks again! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Sometimes we clerks can also help with this, in a general way being careful not to assume to much on behalf of the checkusers. Thatcher131 19:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I also thank Mackensen and UnivitedCompany for responding...I prefer to err on the side of caution, but the accounts definitely looked spurious and once Ryan posted the information about them to AN/I, I took the liberty of blocking them and noted as such there. Thanks for further explanation, as I too don't think I have ever used this procedure.--MONGO 21:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

"Fishing" expedition?

When one doesn't have any evidence that a user is the alternate account of a specific banned/problem user, what is the protocol for discovering any shenanigans? I can't quite put my finger on what's wrong, but a user with less than 300 edits and multiple disruptive/spurious/flippant answers in AFDs, many implying the brokenness of either the process or Wikipedia as a whole, makes my spider sense tingle.. -- nae'blis 16:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Not much, I'm afraid. There's no policy against being a pain in the ass. As long as the mystery editor keeps his account activity separate (one for AfD and the other for editing articles and such) it's not a violation of the sockpuppet policy either. Unless he does something bannable, or you can reasonably guess who it is and that he isn't keeping his activities separate, there's not much you can do. Thatcher131 16:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets

On the table, you may wish to divert attention to WP:SSP. Iolakana•T 12:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Disaster

What in the name of all that is holy happened to make someone think that the nightmare of horrors on the project page is somehow going to make anything useful? -Splash - tk 16:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Two things about it: (1) the vote fraud advice: there's no point in waiting until the vote has closed, because that would mean the admin who closed it might have to re-count/change her decision. (2) there's probably no need to provide four diffs in the case of a sock check prompted by a 3RR violation. 3RR violations are reported on the 3RR page, not here; that a 3RR violation triggered the suspicion of sockpuppetry doesn't mean the suspicion would go away if only three diffs could be provided. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I've changed the first. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Ask checkuser UninvitedCompany. Thatcher131 16:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The fact that we don't run checks on votes until the vote is closed is settled policy, because in most cases the sock votes are either obvious or do not affect the outcome.

And regarding the nightmare of horrors I have perpetrated, Splash, it is because people will not list cases properly any other way. Fewer than a quarter of the cases meet the criteria and I and the others maintaining the page are left wondering exactly what criteria the requester had in mind when they made the listing. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The code letters

May I suggest that the lack of specifying them be made a delay rather than a decline? Normally the declined ones have been clean cut, but insted the only thing failing is a possibly simple extra piece or two of information. {{MoreInfo}} (Rendered as Additional information needed) would be excellent for this to be tossed at people who don't make it clear what type of problem it is, but profess a serious issue. If they don't answer within a week, they probably didn't care enough, and the request can be moved to the declined section. Also, as for "Other disruption of articles", what if referred from the Suspected sock puppets pages? I'm thinking of the case where sockpuppets display a false sense of consensus where there's no voting or polling, and they come to RFCU from elsewhere or from suspected sockpuppets. Next, "Vote fraud on ongoing vote" doesn't have one of those nice code letters, though its been recently altered throug a discussion just above. And if those code letters are going to alter around, they won't match historically to now. Kevin_b_er 19:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest we change the input box so there is a place designated for the code letter. Daniel.Bryant 02:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
That inputbox can't contain such things. The extension is fairly nice, but not by any means a full fledged form system. So unless you want to go more with the AfD route of using a template, that won't work like you want it to. Kevin_b_er 07:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Ah, you can edit the inputbox. I can do it if you like. Daniel.Bryant 10:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I have switched to using {{moreinfo}} as per the suggestion. If someone would like to update the input box, that would be wonderful. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Made a change to the inputbox. Dunno if it is what you want, though... to edit it further, go here. Daniel.Bryant 00:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Conflict between new procedures and WP:ANI

To UninivitedCompany: It frequently happens that somone will post a complaint to the noticeboard about a group of editors suddenly appearing to edit a contentious article; often in service of an editor who was previously on the wrong side of a consensus. Most admins will tell them to list a complaint here before they are willing to take action. For example the Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Appleby report filed on 30 July, or Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Bright888, where there was only one 3RR violation by the main account and then the socks showed up. The new code letters do not seem to cover this sort of case. Thatcher131 21:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Code E works for the latter. I agree, there is nothing for the former. Daniel.Bryant 00:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Why in gods name is the check user page protected?

Am I missing something here?

This is what I wrote here:

Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Clinks.7Chistory.7Clogs.29


[Posting begins here]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The actual page is here: [15] This link is the button you press to do a check user request.

This is a stupid and counter-productive protection. Why can only admins currently request a checkuser? This needs to be removed ASAP. Travb (talk) 13:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[End of posting on Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection]]

Again, am I missing something here? Travb (talk) 13:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


LOL, I figured it out Requests for checkuser/Case/NuclearUmpf‎ Need to read the instruction better.... :) Travb (talk) 13:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Wha...? Daniel.Bryant 03:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, my ga! [sic] Iolakana•T 19:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Why the codes?

I want to clarify the reason for the code letters. The code letters implement existing policy that has been present for some months on this page. They serve as a convenient means for requestors to state which criteria they are attempting to follow. This helps requstors and checkusers alike -- it reduces the number of "decline, does not meet criteria" responses and the hard feelings they engender, and it eliminates the need for checkusers to guess at which criteria the requestor was trying to use when the request lists several rationales.

That brings us to the reason for the policy and the rationale for having a limited number of criteria which requests must meet. Prior to this being done, this page had a large backlog of poorly justified requests that the checkusers were generally allowing to expire unfulfilled combined with a backround buzz of complaints of preferential treatment. So we adopted objective criteria. Exceptions can still be made for exceptional cases but the point remains that the checkuser tool exists for arbcom investigations and other matters of unusual importance to the project.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 14:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Another code letter may be needed

What about listing possible sockpuppetry by users banned by Jimbo Wales, like Primetime? Jesse Viviano 05:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Probably Code F, and link to the statement from Jimmy. Daniel.Bryant 05:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

And what of people using sockpuppet accounts to astroturf a particular point of view? The garden-variety sock? Guy 18:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like "other article disruption" -> WP:ANI. Which is less than satisfactory. Might want another code letter. OTOH, just imagine the buckets of crap requests. OTOOH, "No." or ignore is an easy answer - David Gerard 19:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
And if people at ANI suggest RFCU? This is also where the 'garden variety' ends up at WP:SSP and gets referred here. --Kevin_b_er 21:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Since I have checkuser but don't make a habit of dealing with this page (and don't intend to start), I won't add a letter myself - I'll leave that to those who do - but I did send a note to checkuser-l to visit here and say yes or no to the idea - David Gerard 00:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, if we have a user who got community banned as a suspected sockpuppet, but is asking to be unblocked claiming innocence, which code would apply to a check to verify if they're telling the truth or not? F? Is the intent that post-facto investigations of innocense claims would be in the same category? If so, can you tag in a note... Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 02:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

In general, we don't do such checks. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 14:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh? Why not? That would seem to be a legitimate reason for someone to ask for one... Georgewilliamherbert 00:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with George; also, the guidelines page on meta would indicate it's a valid type of check: "It is allowed to check an editor's IPs upon his specific request, when this user wants to publicly prove his innocence." While I would hope that 'innocent until proven guilty' always applies during blocks / bans, miscarriages of justice do take place, and asking for checkuser during an appeal would be a good way for legitimate users to clear their names... - Valarauka(T/C) 01:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't see how checkuser can prove innocence, not when an editor can use different IPs to host their main account and their socks. Regards, Ben Aveling 02:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
There are any number of explanations of why self tests are not run in the archives of this talk page. Thatcher131 02:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
One from July, at least. The problem with this is that it leaves someone accused of being a long term problem user Sock, and banned as such, no avenue for appeal on factual grounds. This is more than a slight potential problem... Requesting a CU to clear yourself can be gamed, after you've been blocked it's much less gameable. Georgewilliamherbert 23:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
A person can always ask. There are 18 or so checkusers and they have different personalities, attitudes, etc. Besides this page, the checkusers all have e-mail, and the arbcom-l mailing list could be used to contact arbitration committee members. Since the arbcom all have checkuser permission, and lately are automatically taking any appeal from a community ban, one of them might answer the request to head off a full blown RFAR case. On the other hand, "checkuser is not magic wiki pixie dust" (I think that's attributed to David Gerard) and in cases where the checkuser evidence is inconclusive, sockpuppet determinations can be made on the basis of behavior, so if some reasonable number of uninvolved admins agree that two users are sockpuppets, checkuser probably won't overturn that. The real bottom line is a person can always ask. Thatcher131 02:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I just thought of two reasons for a code letter. If someone is uploading child porn (which I actually stumbled upon in the Wikimedia Commons by accident, fortunately the child porn has been speedied), issuing death threats (which I stumbled on while searching the WP:AN or the WP:AN/I archives), or committing other crimes on Wikipedia, we will need a code letter for a request for CheckUser and for immediate contact with ISPs the criminals are using and the appropriate law enforcement agencies that can put a stop to the crooks. The other reason is when there is a subpoena. For the letter for criminal activity, I would propose requiring links to the alleged criminal activity. For subpoenas, I would propose requiring that the subpoena be uploaded to Wikipedia as a PDF and linked to in the CheckUser request. Jesse Viviano 10:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as I've seen, most everything here that I've seen seems to be the following two of 6 conditions in the checkuser privacy policy: "Where the user has been vandalising pages or persistently behaving in a disruptive way, data may be released to assist in the targeting of IP blocks, or to assist in the formulation of a complaint to relevant Internet Service Providers" and "With permission of the affected user" Subpoenas would likely not be handled on this page, but insted through the foundation office, which has multiple methods for getting a checkuser done on the english wikipedia besides this page. Kevin_b_er 21:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Huh?

I added a checkuser request + tag at the top of the list as asked, but I can't get it to show on the page. Is this normal, a bug, or just a purge/cache/technobabble issue? yandman 08:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Not the normal way. It is there but it does not show, refreshing the page does not help either. Agathoclea 08:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I'll put a link or something, hopefully the clerks won't hate me too much for it. yandman 08:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Fixed. MER-C 09:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Vote fraud

Why is the suggested course for suspected voting fraud on ongoing vote "Wait until vote closes before listing"? Why let voting fraud go forward, and why allow the possible evidence to possibly go stale before a checkuser can be performed? --Calton | Talk 22:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Many a time, an attempt at frauding a "vote" (or rather, a consensus-building discussion) can be easily spotted and dealt with by Administrators, without the need to perform a checkuser. A check is an extreme measure, so to speak, to be used only when everything else has either failed or yielded uncertain results. I won't go into more details, per WP:BEANS. Regards, Redux 23:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Right, "many a time" and "can be spotted by admins". This is GENERALLY true for any situation -- meaning that ANY time that a sockpuppet can "easily spotted and dealt with by Administrators", ANY checkuser request is unnecessary. So the singling out of "vote fraud" problems being unavailable for checkuser is either redundant (easily spotted sockpuppets are already dealt with elsewhere in the policy) or overly restrictive (NO checkusers can be done for this category, period/full-stop). Beans, schmeans, I can't imagine why a general prohibition is necessary or even desirable. --Calton | Talk 02:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure you understand that every individual case is looked into for its own particularities. You asked a general question, I gave you a general answer. We don't deal in absolutes here, neither should you. Redux 03:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

What code do I use?

This page is kind of confusing. I basically want to know conclusively whether E.Shubee (talk · contribs) and Perspicacious (talk · contribs) are the same user, and if so, should the recent block of E.Shubee be extended to the other user. I think it is a code A, but the page is kind of confusing as to this effect. Sorry for posting this here! Ansell 02:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Hum, no. If it's a registered account being used by another registered user to evade a block or ban (sockpuppet) that has been imposed by someone other than the Arbitration Committee (e.g., Admins), the letter would be F. But you don't need a check necessarily: if it is clear that it is the same individual using a different account (example: he picked up exactly where the blocked account left off, and behaves exactly the same) you can request that the block be extended (in such a case, usually a indefblock for the sockpuppet) immediately, using the Administrators' Noticeboard. Regards, Redux 19:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)