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

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

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

Outstanding requests

Cumulus Clouds

• Cumulus Clouds (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)

Suspected Puppet

• TGH1970 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Code letter: G
• Supporting evidence:

The possible connection between new account TGH1970 and CC was brought to my attention on my talk page (User_talk:Protonk#TGH1970) by User:RMHED noticed a behavioral similarity between the two accounts. The initial suspicion for filing this is listed the the previous (declined) RFCU for TGH: Wikipedia:RFCU#A_plague_of_rainbows. I'm opening this up and will ask RMHED and Banime to provide specific diffs and evidence as they are more familiar with possible relationships. Please do not archive this until they have commented, a reasonable period of time has passed, or you feel that it is very unlikely that a request would be granted at all. Protonk (talk) 04:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment

User:Cumulus Clouds is a user in good standing who has not edited since November 7.

This account was registered on November 20, fully 13 days later. There is no overlap. Cumulus Clouds has not edited since November 7 and since that time has not been suspected in any violations of policy or sockpuppetry. Nor am I. This is a fishing expedition at it's finest and it should be rejected. TGH1970 (talk) 04:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Mordechai

• MordechaiBenEmet (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Mordechai Israel (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Mordechai Cohen (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Ben Menelaus (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Choccyteapot (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• WentworthDilly (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)

• Code letter: G
• Supporting Evidence: After following a request for page protection for the page Stephen Sizer, I came accross a page with what has been a slow edit war amoungst several single purpose accounts. I blocked three accounts given the almost identical edits and similar names. After enquiring with a checkuser, many other accounts turned up to be possible socks. I believe that a more thorough checkuser is required, to confirm these accounts as socks, and then to look into the possibility of further socks. I have been through suspected sockpuppet and checkuser, so I do not easily make such accusations, simply on the linking in user names, I would suggest that the master account was User:Mordechai however I have no substantial evidence to base this on and as such leave it to the discretion of the checkuser to look into this. Seddσn ^talk 01:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

This case needs a more thorough review than I can give right now. I did some initial checking and advised the user to file the case for more extensive review. Intense socking on Stephen Sizer, indications on checkuser of possible sleepers, and behaviors as seen on-wiki and in checkuser, suggests an extensive socking agenda, with careful checking of further IP ranges and suspect accounts needed. The above 6 and some IP ranges are the initial socks apparently confirmed. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

In progress As FT2 indicates a need for a deeper CU check, I've begun it. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Naj-GMU

• Eteklema-GMU (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Naj-GMU (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Amrit-GMU (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Skhanal-GMU (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Fshaikh GMU (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)

• code letter:G

• Supporting evidence: A bizarre pattern of editing by apparent socks or meatpuppets in HIV-related articles. Beginning on 31 October, user/s (using a sequence of related names, different with each group of edits) began adding unsourced or poorly sourced information. On 21 November, user began using a 2001 Nature article by Gary Nabel as a source for additional edits, copying multiple lines from the article on 1 Dec. I attempted to explain the copyvio policy to user, but under a new name (or whatever, I'm at a loss here), the user introduced a four-paragraph copy-and-pastiche from another copyrighted source several hours later, as well as another copyright violation (from this website at Antiretroviral drug. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Behaviorally, all of these users are very similar; from a technical perspective, it looks like they all have a certain institution in common. All are Possible along with Swithrow2546 (talk · contribs), Jgayoso-GMU (talk · contribs), and Dkabban-GMU (talk · contribs), but it's very difficult to sort wheat from chaff, in this check, and I'm not finding any direct overlap off of shared IPs; bear in mind the possibility that this is a class or club of some kind. This request might benefit from a more experienced eye, so I'd say Deferred to another CU for review. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Update I did some more digging, and found a syllabus for an honours biology course at the "certain institution"; in the interim, one of the users responded to my talkpage as well. Apparently, these are different users who are obliged to contribute to Wikipedia in return for a substantial portion (half, I believe) of their course grade. It's an interesting situation, and one that might require some discussion on a different board; one can only imagine the disruption that would occur if courses around the world began requiring all students to contribute to Wikipedia.... Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

BreakEvenMatt

• BreakEvenMatt (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Repner1 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Windymager (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• HoboJones (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)

• G:

• Supporting evidence:

I raised a SSP after user Windymager uploaded this[1] image and users BreakEvenMatt and Repner1 removed it as vandalism from the Nothing article[2][3]. Although I now agree that the image does indeed have some hidden vandalism, I am deeply suspicious of this whole episode and suspect that someone here is socking, either for the purpose of establishing "good" accounts or simple trolling to get a reaction. The vandalism is invisible in the image under normal viewing conditions, the word "bitch" is written in a colour value only marginally different from the white background, yet the "discovery" came very rapidly after the images upload. I failed to see it initially, not because I did not realise this was a possibility - I did and checked the pixel values. Rather, I seem to have failed to see it because the page had not been purged of the old version of the file (born out by my downloaded files record). I might be completely wrong on the technicalities here, but I thought if the page needed purging for me then it needs purging for everyone - is it not a server function. By that logic the only person who knows that the page is vandalised at that stage is the uploader, making the first two deleters socks of his. I am not so sure about HoboJones who came to the discussion later. However, I had already added him to the SSP report before realising that the image was genuinly vandalised. I would like to include him here to establish his innocence and provide the basis for a rapid apology if one is due. SpinningSpark 12:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• This is a bizarre case by User:Spinningspark. By his own words, he has no evidence except that I made comments at his SSP, which everyone should read for a background: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/BreakEvenMatt. He wants to add me to "establish [my] innocence and provide the basis for a rapid apology if one is due," ---a fishing expedition if I ever heard one.--HoboJones (talk) 15:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Please note, I have corrected User:Spinningspark's link to the image vandalism.--HoboJones (talk) 22:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
• As I already stated. I could still see the word faintly under normal contrast. Turning it down made it more obvious. All I did was try to cure the vandalism, and even though the accuser has admitted the vandalism exists, he has to keep up this annoying debate. I have one account on this site, and one only. I don't need two (or even three) to remedy one piece of vandalism. Windymager is the only one at fault here. I fail to see why HoboJones is getting dragged into this as well. From what I can see, anyone else who saw the Sockpuppet page would have done exactly the same thing. All he did was try to help, and now SpinningSpark sees that as an excuse to unfairly accuse him as well? This whole thing is ridiculous. --Repner1 (talk) 21:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Please note that User:Balloonman, who is admin coaching the editor who filed this report, has characterized this incides as such: "When an established editor (meaning me, HoboJones) approached you about it, and confirmed that he saw the vandalism as well, and provided a link, you included allegation that he was a potential sock as well." Here is the diff. Also, please note that the phrases: "ARGH!!!" and "I hate to say it, but you messed up my friend" were used to describe this situation. Again, I say that this checkuser request is bizarre and should be denied.--HoboJones (talk) 23:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

NisarKand(1 December 2008)

• NisarKand (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• PakistaniNisar (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Kirabono (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• KoonWoz (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)

I cannot make heads or tails of this. Someone in there is socking, and I think that both sides may be socking (see User_talk:Alison#Socks_and_banned_User). Unfortunately, without prior experience with NisarKand's modus operendi, I am completely confused. People are throwing accusations around like water balloons, and I can't figure out who is merely editing the same way, and who is socking. I would include more users, but I can't even tell for sure who is on whose side, much less who is socking. I apologize for not being more specific. I... well, I really cannot figure out what is going on here. I hope that these people's contribs (and the thread on Alison's talk page) are enough evidence to warrant a check (or six). I am completely at a loss :S
Sorry... :/ J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Kirabono (talk · contribs) is NisarKand. PakistaniNisar (talk · contribs) and EgyptianWikipedian (talk · contribs) are Beh-nam. KoonWoz (talk · contribs) is Unrelated. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 01:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Tagged and bagged, thank you. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 03:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

KoonWaz's fourth edit on Wikipedia was to add a sockpuppet|Beh-nam and a LOL; also KoonWaz has some rather harsh edit summaries (such as [4], [5] and [6]) . These indicate that this user has a history on Wikipedia. If it isn't NisarKand, then I suspect it is one of the others usually involved in these edit wars. Kingturtle (talk) 06:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Based on behavior, it's definitely someone socking, but from technical evidence, it's not NisarKand or Beh-nam as far as I know. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 17:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it then be Khampalak (talk · contribs), NisarKand's trusty sidekick and comrade-in-socks? I've blocked them in any case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

That seems to be a sound conclusion. KoonWoz displays the same anti-Tajik POV pushing as Khampalak. You can ask Thatcher or Alison if they still have old CU data from their previous checks on Khampalak socks. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 21:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, User:KoonWoz is a sock of User:Khampalak, not NisarKand. I know them both very well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.17.99 (talk • contribs)

Clerk note: can a knowledgable CU deal with this assertion? I'm guessing this is an old "friend" of ours. Thanks! -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Nimbley6

• Nimbley6 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Humberbreadcaliforniababe (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Cyrusmilleyhannana (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• United Kingdom & Northern Ireland (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• 89.243.228.149 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)
• 78.144.228.235 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)
• Brihemianrhapsody (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Spainton (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)

• Code letter: F

• Supporting evidence: Checkuser has previously confirmed that User:Nimbley6 has used multiple accounts abusively. It is believed that Nimbley6 is itself a sock of User:Bennet556, who has also been indefinitely blocked for abusing multiple accounts. Nimbley6 is perhaps the better known of the two, so I have listed Nimbley6 as the sockmaster. Note in particular recent edits to Scotland, and the resulting short block.

• Nimbley6 has a fascination for Scottish topics, images (particularly flags and coats of arms), and sub-headings. Nimbley6's edits are marked by poor spelling and grammar, inappropriate use of headings and sub-headings, a desire to change or fiddle with any and all images in an article, including an apparent desire to turn articles into photo galleries. Until fairly recently Nimbley6 appeared to have given up on registered accounts and simply edited from dynamic IP addresses. Since Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nimbley6 (2nd) (which resulted in Nimbley6's indef block) there have been several further SSP reports:
  • Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nimbley6 (3rd)
  • Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nimbley6 (4th)
  • Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nimbley6 (5th)
  • Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nimbley6 (6th)
• SSP reports have typically foundered due to either being stale or due to Nimbley6's use of ever-changing dynamic IP addresses - this renders blocks ineffective, since Nimbley6 simply resets their router to obtain a new IP address.
• Recently Nimbley6 has taken to registering accounts again; these accounts follow similar editing patterns to past behaviour - a fascination for Scottish topics, images (particularly flags and coats of arms), and sub-headings - plus attempts to initiate discussions on talk pages, particularly Talk:Scotland (note that