Redirect to:
Shortcuts WP:RCUWP:RCU WP:RFCUWP:RFCU WP:SPIWP:SPI CheckUser is the process of checking information about two or more users (including named users and...
Click to read more »archive of a successful permissions request. Please do not modify it. Result: RfCU successful. Chenzw Talk 13:59, 25 May 2026 (UTC) Barras (talk · contribs ·...
Click to read more »01:54, 15 November 2023 (UTC) I knew that running this RfCU at the same time as running Bobherry's RfA would cause some people to wonder about my judgment...
Click to read more »per what I said at the other RfCU. :p PeterSymonds (talk) 19:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC) What I'd like to see from a CU candidate would be some technical...
Click to read more »requests should not go via WP:RFCU? A:Any checkuser request can go to RFCU. I can think of maybe a couple of examples of RFCU requests not going on wiki...
Click to read more »the time to take a case on RfCU now and again is unfair. I'm proposing that we RfDCU those haven't been an '''active''' CU during that time has not shown...
Click to read more »successful permissions request. Please do not modify it. The outcome of this RfCU is Successful. Per multiple stewards a closing Bureaucrat even one that has...
Click to read more »bureaucrat. Restoration of the tools would require going through a normal RfCU at the request for permissions page and election by the community. The above...
Click to read more »-DJSasso (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC) CUs (at least the one posted at RFCU) are rarely time-critical, that said having one around can be helpful. --Eptalon...
Click to read more »19 December 2009 (UTC) Fairly new as an admin, but active enough on the RFCU page. Majorly talk 13:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC) - Maximillion Pegasus (talk)...
Click to read more »than projects many times its size. Look, there’s a question as to if this RfCU could even get 25 supports from people who are actually active on this wiki...
Click to read more »requests/Username changes to change your user name or take another user name. See WP:RFCU for CheckUser requests. See WP:OS for oversight. ~2026-41722-42 (talk · contribs)...
Click to read more »created with the proxy. I think it's most likely waste of time to perform a cu on an open proxy. Q: What do you know about XFF? A: XFF data are not always...
Click to read more »not at the time you self nominated for CU. Really, I don't want to troll, but I believe that even if this rfcu is not related with non simplewiki stuff...
Click to read more »whom I should reach. I would like to primarily handle the requests on WP:RFCU and try making things a bit easier to process. Thank you for your consideration...
Click to read more »"feature" of CU. We do not and can not work in solo. A lot of CU results (not all by any stretch) are shared amongst all of the WMF CU, globally. We...
Click to read more »Question: I'm noticing that there are a good number of oversighted diffs on WP:RFCU, and that the very first oversighted edit appears to have been made by the...
Click to read more »concerns of Ferien posted below. However, reading Djsasso's comments at the RFCU I'm not terribly concerned. It doesn't read as blatant. Perhaps he may have...
Click to read more »19 December 2009 (UTC) Fairly new as an admin, but active enough on the RFCU page. Majorly talk 13:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC) - Maximillion Pegasus (talk)...
Click to read more »Shortcuts WP:RCUWP:RCU WP:RFCUWP:RFCU WP:SPIWP:SPI CheckUser is the process of checking information about two or more users (including named users and...
Click to read more »were cast with even 24 supports and the oppose withdraws, by the book this RFCU would fail. The systems here need a bit of a shakeup... The Rambling Man...
Click to read more »interactions with TRM and I also don't see any history of having submitted any RfCU, so I don't know if you know what is appropriate or not. But, you've been...
Click to read more »consistent good work and collaboration behind you. Also, assuming Fr33kman's RFCU passes, do we really need five checkusers on such a small wiki? Please note...
Click to read more »users who run sock-puppet accounts. I have submitted multiple reports to WP:RFCU and have been able to justify each one. I am a trusted user on simpleWP and...
Click to read more »checkuser. Firstly, he is very active, and often at a time when no current CU is active. Peter is also a mature man with a mature man's wisdom and mind...
Click to read more »valid reasons why this RfB should go through the long process. Prominently, there is no urgent need for a new crat. Unlike RfCU or RfOS, there are no minimum...
Click to read more »you can ask a CheckUser to confirm this by adding the username on the WP:RFCU page. Sock puppetry is using more than one account in order to violate Wikipedia...
Click to read more »of policy. Ytf2 (talk) 21:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC) The above user has has a RfCU made for Benniguy sockpuppet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Da Punk...
Click to read more »CU is actually needed. I'd prefer it if someone else ran at the same time as well. Majorly talk 17:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC) Yes, I had a failed RFCU...
Click to read more »See Wikipedia:Wikipedians. Wikipediholic Someone addicted to Wikipedia RFCU Typically said in conversations relating to sockpuppets. The full meaning...
Click to read more »imposing a CU-block on both accounts. Thank you for reporting, Vermont (talk) 15:39, 10 October 2020 (UTC @Vermont: Thank you. In terms of the RfD votes,...
Click to read more »site. I would like to start having people post a tally in the RfA whenever they have an RfA so that it is easier on the bureaucrats to close out Requests...
Click to read more »The shortcuts I made are the same as with English Wikipedia, WP:RCU, WP:RFCU, and WP:CHECKUSER. It's the first time I've ever made shortcuts, so if I've...
Click to read more »time is poor form, but I'll make an exception here, per my comments on the RFCU, and the fact we could do with another experienced bcrat. Majorly talk 23:32...
Click to read more »regaining the tool despite these problematic actions. A recent response to a CU request at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser#Tata Socks convinces me you are...
Click to read more »place he wasn't but that the other account was vandalizing and looked like a CU match to wioow. In other words good hand bad hand accounts. It appeared that...
Click to read more »and dealt with for the most part). As to the activity and need for CU at times, RfCU is not the only source creating the need for checks. Cross-wiki vandals...
Click to read more »22:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC) Administrator note: A vote has been struck per CU investigation. Operator873talkconnect 22:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC) Delete -...
Click to read more »on the RfD for Decision Stream or edit the page itself. Behaviour is similar so it appears a CU is warranted. Side Note: Although nothing CU can do,...
Click to read more »another account blocked as a result of the RfCU. If they pass both then I would double-check with the blocking CU to see if they have any objections, and...
Click to read more »did when he came here was open an RfA. Therefore, I believe that that is sufficient enough evidence to support a CU of this user. Thanks, Razorflame 23:27...
Click to read more »re-reading my original message on the RfA itself, it could be construed I plan to immediately look towards CU or OS. ...In the future, I hope to continue...
Click to read more »sockpuppet. I can provide further info (on paid editing for this article) to CU's, if needed --Arian (talk) 01:10, 22 December 2025 (UTC) Delete Having mostly...
Click to read more »1 February 2009 (UTC) Majorly's RFCU was closed as "successful", and the rights were granted here. However, the RFCU still has more than half a week to...
Click to read more »votes of users with a small number of edits will not be counted in the RfCU. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC) Also, I'm not going to make...
Click to read more »pass an RfA with 70% now and would support upping the requirement to 80%. -- Lauryn Ashby (talk) 17:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC) <-Crat at 85 and CU/OS at 80...
Click to read more »07:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC) Wouldn't be able to comment on this request as a CU because it would link a user to an IP. But they have done it to themselves...
Click to read more »oppose to this reason. I stated already (see below) that I supported NVS for cu. If you look at why I opposed JC, you'll see that this was not to numbers...
Click to read more »all these should count as 1 valid CU action. Thanks Vermont for raising this, I was about to do it (per my !vote on RFCU) but was in slightly inclined health...
Click to read more »Do you really think that'd be a good idea? - Who answered the last few RFCUs? ;) --Eptalon (talk) 18:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC) There is no reason he can...
Click to read more »Zahedi. Ravensfire (talk) 18:33, 21 January 2026 (UTC) And Yorkhand has been CU blocked on en wiki as a Kagoz sock. Ravensfire (talk) 14:25, 27 January 2026...
Click to read more »benefit in blocking. If they edit again, please feel free to send it to RFCU as we'd have newer data to look at. Best, Vermont (talk) 03:13, 26 July 2021...
Click to read more »during that RfCU there was another candidate up around the same time so I think it was more a case of people picking whom they wanted to have CU more which...
Click to read more »clarity (and to keep things together) please ask for CheckUser on the WP:RFCU page - next time. The IP listed on Jimbo's talk page is indeed from a range...
Click to read more »constantly active (unlike me^^) editor. I can't see any issues with that CU either. The life of brian (talk) 13:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC) Support - I...
Click to read more »have another active CU back :) sonia♫ 08:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC) Supposing everyone is fine with the idea, do we need to run an RfCU just for the formality...
Click to read more »being related to each other. Thanks for bringing this to RFCU! Even though DUCK was met, a CU showed other accounts that had not been used yet. fr33kman...
Click to read more »prehaps we should do away with RfA and simply promote every non-vandal? mc8 14:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC) I don't know why RF didn't get promoted - people are...
Click to read more »the "suggested percentage" they need is higher than for admins. (Note that RFCU is a guideline, not policy). Oversighters can change what is shown of the...
Click to read more »nor in check with other elections that we have held (we've got 25 votes for CU elections in the past over 1 week, so why do we need three weeks for the OS...
Click to read more »It is just unconventional for the candidate to collapse, for the Vermont RFCU is some additional IRC conversations, not directly questions and answers...
Click to read more »raised it at RFCU and got told only one account is active here, which is fine, but even so, that doesn't stop IPs (which don't get checked on RFCU). The material...
Click to read more »Primarysorcerer (talk) 20:27, 16 November 2022 (UTC) A hoax article that I mentioned at CU has returned. Can we have this entry protected? MathXplore (talk) 03:59, 19...
Click to read more »that I think are related, which may be identified after the check, but I'll RFCU for these right now. – Cyber.Eyes2005Talk 20:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC) Wikicontributerr...
Click to read more »twice on being Chris19910 (his first en:CU and by both Eptalon and my own checks here) and is up for a second en:CU which would likely give similar results...
Click to read more »reason together. 07:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC) Relevant links: Da Punk's RFA, RFCU, Cometstyles' RFA, admission of sockpuppetry Note: User:Da Punk '08 has previously...
Click to read more »would be useful in assessing block times if offense could be shown 2) The CU policy is not about running such tests, it mostly deals with the modalities...
Click to read more »Are you in the right place? See WP:AN to speak to an administrator. See WP:RFCU for CheckUser requests. See WP:OS for oversight. See WP:RFRB to request the...
Click to read more »I talked with), he would need to create another account. Judging from his CU block on en-wiki, he isn't too good at keeping those activities constructive...
Click to read more »17:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC) Candidate's acceptance: In my previous (failed) RfA six months ago I closed by stating that I would not stand for adminship again...
Click to read more »for the sole purpose of creating invalid usernames (and voting against RfA/RfCU's). 43 separate accounts since August 21, 2007. - Blocked entire range for...
Click to read more »(UTC) The forums been quiet today, so I decided to create a header for WP:RFCU. It's at User:Spiderpig0001/CHUSR Header Draft. What do you think? I've still...
Click to read more »cases and the comment in the block is clear. If they are already blocked by a cu with such a reason, then there is no need for a request here. Case closed...
Click to read more »Kennedy and then renames a username of Kennedy's choice (confirmed by edit and CU) back to (the now, non-existent) "Kennedy". But, it's not supposed to be used...
Click to read more »this request for any trusted or advanced permissions such as sysop, crat, CU, oversight, now, or in the distant future. You have requested adminship once...
Click to read more »Sandysoil719 (talk) 18:04, 3 July 2022 (UTC) The user has been blocked per WP:RFCU. MathXplore (talk) 03:18, 13 July 2022 (UTC) The award section says Chiddie...
Click to read more »report. The creator of the article GhaniAshraf and the first !voter Ertyua are CU confirmed. User John muriu12 is a duck case of socking (see EN wiki SPI case-page...
Click to read more »--Trade (talk) 03:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC) Trade, please make a request on WP:RFCU. Thanks, Vermont (talk) 04:13, 27 May 2020 (UTC) this is the absolute most...
Click to read more »need in having people with access to sensitive data (doesn't matter if os or cu) when they are not really active and don't really use it. I don't know if...
Click to read more »100% sure that WashingManwithwings and Upperclassman are the same but this RFCU is pathetic. WashingManwithwings didn't do anything on Simple wikipedia to...
Click to read more »22:01, 17 July 2018 (UTC) What is RFCU put the link blue please ! ChevauxB (talk) 10:57, 18 July 2018 (UTC) An RFCU is a "Request for Checkuser". It is...
Click to read more »:-) Shappy talk 17:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC) Why are a lot of candidates (for CU/OS mostly) stating their offline credentials (to 'impress', perhaps) when...
Click to read more »I'll tell you that. But if you don't believe me, feel free to run a WP:RFCU. Thanks, RyanCross (talk) 22:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC) RyanCross: You are...
Click to read more »15 (talk) 07:59, 18 July 2022 (UTC) @Trade: - This should be posted at WP:RFCU - So a checkuser can verify it. Thanks. Da LambTalk to me!OMG, What have...
Click to read more »warn someone when you do not know it is them. Unless you suggest I should CU every user every day (completely out of the question) or every new account...
Click to read more »Checkuser policy, checkusers are not permitted to give out information (on RfCU) that would allow to link an account and an IP address. What is listed above...
Click to read more »Alirio & socks. Also, if this user is confirmed to be a sock, then I'd ask the CU to indef Alirio too. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 19:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC) Confirmed...
Click to read more »without directly asking a CU was wrong. However, in this case, I assumed two things incorrectly, 1. that the block was done using no CU evidence, and instead...
Click to read more »75%. CU/OS is 80% if I remember correctly. Crat on en is at 90%. So its not like we are difficult. -DJSasso (talk) 20:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC) CU/OS (source:Meta)...
Click to read more »Socking. 💠Ely - Talk💠 04:46, 22 September 2021 (UTC) @Elytrian: see WP:RFCU. I've submitted a report for these accounts and IPs. SHB2000 (talk) 05:15...
Click to read more »you probably have already participated in those RfPs too). I don't really buy the reasoning that RFCU/RFOS can be closed by non-sysops on the grounds...
Click to read more »but we could always use admin logged actions, for OS and CU I think it should be OS and CU actions, if your not using them do we really need you to have...
Click to read more »blocked" blocks? cassandra (talk) 04:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC) Perhaps a CU could try hardblocking the IP range? Majorly talk 04:53, 9 September 2008...
Click to read more »MathXplore (talk) 01:45, 7 July 2022 (UTC) The user has been blocked per WP:RFCU. MathXplore (talk) 03:23, 13 July 2022 (UTC) Hello, I have updated the article...
Click to read more »@Thegooduser: CU can be used for possible compromise, and the IP geolocation tool can then be used to find the location. No comments if a CU is appropriate...
Click to read more »(talk) 17:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC) I think it should be 60% for RfAs, 80% for RfBs, OS and CU. Pmlineditor 17:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC) I think we should lay...
Click to read more »investigations/Annoimot. The AfD on enwiki had multiple socks !voting in it, and they were CU confirmed, where the socks also used the wording "should not be delete" in...
Click to read more »who are CU and/or 'crat here on simple. Because they have enough to do. If we elect people to have this tool then people who aren't 'crat/CU. To many...
Click to read more »really such thing as an overdue RfD here as the 7 days is just a minimum here. And as a CU I definitely don't want RfCU cleared or if it is not any faster...
Click to read more »meta:Steward requests/Username changes to change your user name or take another user name. See WP:RFCU for CheckUser requests. See WP:OS for oversight....
Click to read more »checkuser here (RfO, RfB and RfCU). I dropped the crat and os rights quite some time (4 or 5 months?) back and about one and a half months ago the cu right. I...
Click to read more »(UTC) Very suspicious... I remember a similar thing at YW, and suggest a CU... (Though WP:DUCK could apply) Goblin 19:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC) I ♥...
Click to read more »work that needs doing (compared to CU/OS), and all work now centres around permission requests of some kind, be it RfP or bot/IA work. We don't get that...
Click to read more »has been mentioned to you before, you won't always get a comment back on RFCU cases. Secondly, just because they are socks elsewhere doesn't mean they...
Click to read more »IuseRosary after he swore numerous times on the RfA board and on my own talk page and inserted nonsense into his own RfA. He also inserted images of me (which...
Click to read more »Barras' RfOs by NonvocalScream. These elections have, in my opinion, been closed inappropriately for three reasons. Firstly, the closure of RfXs should...
Click to read more »and have to trust that your choice in them was right. If you make someone a CU, have faith that they will do what is best, tell you what they can, and remain...
Click to read more »them via Meta. Kennedy may reapply for these rights via the standard RfA and RfB processes. While there is some disagreement as to whether or not both...
Click to read more »was an edit to the Wikipedia names space (WP:RfCU) where he demanded an appology for someone suggesting a CU (which had been denied) I feel that his pattern...
Click to read more »17:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC) @Deppiyy: - You brought this same issue at RFCU a few weeks ago. Eptalon and I both indicated that this user (a single user)...
Click to read more »everyone else follows on. It doesn't really matter too much in RfAs and RfBs but for RfOs and RfCUs, it is definitely something we should follow. --Ferien...
Click to read more »month of activity and elected to CU a few months later and I think I've done well especially in the areas of QDs, RfDs, blocks, user mediation and stopping...
Click to read more »confrontational an attitude and 3) lack of understanding of consensus in the RfX process. Diffs were requested to show examples of confrontaion in the candidates...
Click to read more »through the range recently, there is one good, one unknown, and multiple bad. (CU check was re-run as a continuation of previous request)-- Creol(talk) 16:21...
Click to read more »people being this wrong in the exact same way could need CU opinion given part of the crowd is CU banned from en. How exactly is six sentences not written...
Click to read more »January 2016 (UTC) Previously, suspected sockpuppets (no confirmation by CU, typically means tagged due to WP:DUCK) were all placed together in Category:Suspected...
Click to read more »dont know is that ive had a sock on here for months and no-ones noticed. I'd CU your admins if I were you :D 82.40.44.71 (talk) 21:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)...
Click to read more »eat da 🐑! 15:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC) Btw, only having one account on a CU request is called a fishing expedition and isn't allowed. RiggedMint 15:28...
Click to read more »2023 (UTC) Comment: I feel like after the RfD is finished, the keep votes should probably be checked by a CU.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 11:35...
Click to read more »ahead and do a checkuser on me. The CU will definitely clear me of wrong doing and will come as a surprise to the CU. Yelromcc (talk) 16:20, 12 November...
Click to read more »to edit constructively, I'm not sure a CU would ever look into it, as there really isn't grounds to run a CU... If a user is banned by the community...
Click to read more »sockpuppets can be reported at WP:AN (if there's CU results already), and a CU can be requested at WP:RFCU.— *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 22:21, 16 June 2022...
Click to read more »wikimedia commons, wikidata, OS/CU elections tend to take 14 days. Given our smaller size, I am proposing we switch RFCU/RFOS to 14 days rather than 7 days...
Click to read more »weak evidence of sockpuppetry. Because I can't see the exact CU results, from a non-CU's perspective of the SPI report, a positive checkuser result on...
Click to read more »they use different ISPs, and there's no overlap of IP addresses. So, from a CU point of view, there's no match.--Eptalon (talk) 11:13, 31 December 2022 (UTC)...
Click to read more »clarifications are needed: The support percentages (65% for admin, 75% for crat/CU) are not cut in stone, the closing crat only takes them as a guiding rail...
Click to read more »reconsidered and responded there. EVula, you my read my response on Marjorly's RFcu and re-consider you vote if you wish (or/and ask for more information if...
Click to read more »that were basically a "hi, it's me" RfAs. Look at this RfA and this RfA the day after his first RfA. He threats RfA as a game in my opinion. And then he's...
Click to read more »answers except for #4. Any account blocked with the CU tag is only able to be addressed by a CU. Even if it looks like a bad block. There may be more...
Click to read more »checkuser who initially raised concerns about sockpuppetry. Along with another CU here and others elsewhere, I initiated an in-depth investigation. At one point...
Click to read more »User:Niehddydudyd. GoingBatty (talk) 06:04, 31 December 2021 (UTC) @GoingBatty:, I made a CU-case on these users. Let see if they are sock or not.--Jyoti Roy (talk) 08:57...
Click to read more »added a line to the header of this page linking to other parts of WP (ie WP:RFCU) that have their jobs done here. If you object, please revert me. -- Da...
Click to read more »steward or elsewhere)? EhJJTALK 19:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Not me. As with CU requests, we only requested CUs when we found that we were running over to...
Click to read more »probation..--Cometstyles 22:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC) I have filed a WP:RFCU to find out. Corruptcopper (talk) 22:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC) It has been...
Click to read more »person IS the banned user! fr33kman talk 00:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC) Maybe an RFCU should be filed? Shappy talk 01:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC) Done, they were inconclusive...
Click to read more »filling the role of CU is currently more important than that of Crat.--Eptalon (talk) 20:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC) Agree with eptalon. CU is more important...
Click to read more »IP should be a better idea, which means we may have to bring this to WP:RFCU. Chenzw Talk 10:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC) It's actually even more difficult...
Click to read more »have sufficient confidence this NOTHERE/CIR will stop. As of socking can a CU verify are they socking? I will say unblock only on 3 conditions, 1. no socking...
Click to read more »Spanish "está lloviendo fuerte". Incidentally, in Romanian it would be "plouă cu găleata" (It's raining with the bucket) -- a less idiomatic translation might...
Click to read more »and as there has been no CU unblock I can only assume that the ISP wasn't a schools. I can only say so much, as I'm not a CU and don't know the details...
Click to read more »this information on? Vermont (talk) 03:57, 27 March 2020 (UTC) This user is CU blocked on enwp, blocked on meta for NOTHERE (both with TPA revoked and email...
Click to read more »at DYK. However, you still need to be a little more careful. Your recent rfcu on AN OLD MAN seemed rushed, and a little bit bite-y. I think that so far...
Click to read more »given to local wikis to do? I always thought it was in the same group as CU/OS which had to be done by stewards due to the fact it can work x-wiki. -DJSasso...
Click to read more »was also their RfD on EN https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Garashov_Farhad. Thank you. I also sent in a CU request for this...
Click to read more »can collapse this entire chat and open a new one for the voting, but most RF anything's have their own page for the request (i.e. requests for permissions...
Click to read more »Hulged (talk) 17:18, 4 August 2021 (UTC) Talk with TGSL, the nominator. He is CU blocked, so he kinda is overenthusiastic and a bit, well, off the rope. Elytrian...
Click to read more »geolocates to the same area where other ips used by this LTA geolocates. A CU can confirm and extend the block if needed. Thanks-BRP ever 16:50, 21 October...
Click to read more »the discussion here has been derailed sufficiently to the point that this RfD should be reconsidered at a later time. Chenzw Talk 05:11, 29 June 2019...
Click to read more »is Cassandra? Whats all the drama she is hiding through her RfA? <self edit part> Our CU's could learn much without violating policy and our 'Crats are...
Click to read more »here. Majorly talk 13:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC) Endorse ban - per Majorly's CU check and the template on User:Sunstar NW XP's claiming it is not a sock....
Click to read more »new pages. It's not uncommon for me to post a QD or report an article to RfD (according to XTools, I have 372 deleted edits, most of which are QD, although...
Click to read more »possible QD G11 south Asian BLP (Nitul Das). Activity overlap also seen at RFCU venue with Rajan Varun 14522 (already blocked, special:diff/9241541) and...
Click to read more »Furthermore, just making bad edits doesn't warrant a CU. Marking this as Not done as patrolling admin/non-CU. -Barras talk 15:49, 12 May 2026 (UTC) These Tas...
Click to read more »accounts vandalizing one page at the same time would establish the need for CU action. MathXplore (talk) 21:50, 23 September 2024 (UTC) Skiditoiletsigmaman...
Click to read more »(UTC) I'd block on duck. Snow fun at alls CU data is all long expired so unless a CU kept a personal copy a CU won't be much help. -DJSasso (talk) 00:14...
Click to read more »(UTC) I agree with PeterSymonds here. I believe that we should only allow CU's to assign the permissions, however, I would not be opposed to the idea of...
Click to read more »2009 (UTC) Awful accusations without any proof... How can this be a w worthy CU request? Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 10:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC) It may...
Click to read more »--Eptalon 17:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC) I.R might have socked again, see RFCU. -- Spiderpig0001 Does whatever a spiderpig does! 06:43, 24 November 2007...
Click to read more »it should be fully protected, if not access-restricted to admins, crats, cu or similar (if that's doable). If off-wiki a maintained text-only file would...
Click to read more »its him on not. (The last information was according to Creol over on WP:RFCU.) Cheers, Razorflame 02:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC) I really don't get, why their...
Click to read more »as sockpuppet.-BRP ever 06:55, 8 June 2018 (UTC) As I pointed oit at WP:RFCU, two of them geolocate to the same area, and have simliar browser preferences...
Click to read more »other people with similar names. Several of their accounts were blocked at RFCU in November. The first one listed here is a new account that appeared today...
Click to read more »a set of guidelines, when an RFA/RFCU can be extended, and for what time. I suggest the following: Candidate of RFCU /Oversight is less than three support...
Click to read more »(talk) 18:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)MKil If you've evidence, then go to WP:RFCU, please. Barras (talk) 18:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC) Indefinite Full Protection...
Click to read more »26 January 2013 (UTC) The user passes the duck test with flying colors. a CU to confirm it is the same person is not needed (and should be declined anyway)...
Click to read more »--Hellothere4 (talk) 16:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC) @Hellothere4: The WP:RFCU page is for reporting socks to CheckUsers. Usually the tags should not be...
Click to read more »CountryANDWestern (talk) 15:24, 20 February 2026 (UTC) Note – 赛义菲 has been CU blocked on enwiki as a sock of Alakmarsaify/Edition of India. Emk9 (talk)...
Click to read more »--Auntof6 (talk) 20:07, 3 October 2014 (UTC) Can you file a request at WP:RFCU, so we have it on record, in the right place? - Thanks. --Eptalon (talk)...
Click to read more »being related to each other. Thanks for bringing this to RFCU! Even though DUCK was met, a CU showed other accounts that had not been used yet. fr33kman...
Click to read more »them.. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:09, 15 July 2021 (UTC) Hello everyone, Ferien's RfA was successful. There was no opposition, so I promoted him to Admin earlier...
Click to read more »month. -DJSasso (talk) 18:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC) If a handful at all. Most CU things get handled automatically by the CUs without a request on-wiki. Our...
Click to read more »considered autopatrol worthy creations. And the IP range is certainly him, no CU is required. They always edit at the same time – they clean up and patrol...
Click to read more »removing the admin themself, just their rights as admin (Im a former admin/crat/CU -my decision to give them up- .. former right holder but still a user. Only...
Click to read more »the cat issues, has nom'd one cat already for deletion). en:IP/simple:user CU would not be requested as the style of editing, wording, grammar, capitalization...
Click to read more »without informing AN or similar. In terms of CU work...yes, optimally people would send their requests to RFCU such that any CheckUser can action it. Vermont...
Click to read more »one, by 71.161.38.171 (talk · contribs), is the user's only edit. Would a CU or rangeblock be out of the question? Cassandra 01:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)...
Click to read more »prolific socker from en if it is who I think it is. I am going through some CU stuff right now.....he has used alot of IPs and I have already found a number...
Click to read more »that he has not changed. The account denies that it is really him, but the CU who ran this check is the same who dealt with his original case over there...
Click to read more »place where people volunteer to build an encyclopedia. His vote on James's RFCU was also immature at the time, and overall, I don't think that this user...
Click to read more »need is seen for other previous rights (B'crat, CU) to be also included. (Getting the vote #'s for a CU is a bit difficult but since I already passed the...
Click to read more »Rschen! I've blocked them (except for the one that's locked) and I'll get a CU to try to see if we can't find any more lying around. Osiris (talk) 20:33...
Click to read more »Qg Qh Qi Qj Qk Ql Qm Qn Qo Qp Qq Qr Qs Qt Qu Qv Qw Qx Qy Qz Ra Rb Rc Rd Re Rf Rg Rh Ri Rj Rk Rl Rm Rn Ro Rp Rq Rr Rs Rt Ru Rv Rw Rx Ry Rz Sa Sb Sc Sd Se...
Click to read more »Andymack1986, Taracka and Wiki-star --Isis§(talk) 12:39, 18 June 2007 I'm filing an RFCU, checkuser, this will determine whether they're socks.-- Tdxiang 02:08, 19...
Click to read more »There seem to be some SPAs involved in that RfD. Might be worth taking a look. Rambo Erval (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log ·...
Click to read more »Possible WP:EVASION. The 1st user is the author of the article and they are CU-blocked by Bsadowski1. After the block, new users have gathered at the page...
Click to read more »Shouldn't this be at WP:RFCU Plutus 💬 🎃 — Fortune favors the curious 09:19, 2 November 2025 (UTC) Hello, please post an entry at RFCU if you think it is...
Click to read more »at WP:rfcu. Eptalon (talk) 13:10, 19 September 2024 (UTC) A quick look at the logs show who is active and who isn't. My main concern is the RfCU page and...
Click to read more »being no history of abusive multiple accounts on the BG7 account. Also, a CU is permitted by the checkuser policy to see if BG7 has in the past edited...
Click to read more »two years. Upon coming back to SEWP, the editor immediately took me to WP:RFCU (See Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser#PotsdamLamb) for absolutely no reason...
Click to read more »volunteers and elect at least 2 people. Election would have to be like the CU elections, means a least 25 voters. Barras (talk) 20:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)...
Click to read more »Checking whether he were a newbie or not, I was stunned to find he are an admin, CU, crat and oversighter. I requested clarification of their two reversions at...
Click to read more »one additional user in that group is currently going through both AN/I and CU on en:wp but their actions here support their statement that it is a school...
Click to read more »en:User:Jenkins2011. --SEPTActaMTA8235 13:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC) Done Blocked per CU in en and the fact that they have a SUL account. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 13:58...
Click to read more »this RfD until a CheckUser has responded to the request. Thank you, Vermont (talk) 11:06, 25 February 2019 (UTC) Mentifisto's comment om the CU request...
Click to read more »appears to be a pattern, doing the bare minimum just to keep the admin and CU hats, and this has gone on for 9-10 years. It is also disappointing that despite...
Click to read more »should have no bearing on the CU blocked. I was actually cleared of the CU three days ago " TonyBallioni has performed the CU check and has verified no login...
Click to read more »deletion by Fr33kman. MathXplore (talk) 04:25, 1 September 2025 (UTC) From a CU point of view: completely different networks. Based on that evidence alone...
Click to read more »votes. Like will attract more UPE/Spam votes which should be reported to WP:RFCU. Operator873 connect 08:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC) Delete per comments above...
Click to read more »certainly going to end in a wp:Duck reply so I brought this here (although a CU may be needed to check for socks): Abuse of multiple accounts to evade a block:...
Click to read more »15:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC) Struck vote. Admitted to being same user as CU striked vote. --IWI (talk) 16:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC) Delete Looks spammy...
Click to read more »03:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC) Comment: Would it be worth doing a CU check as this RfD has been the target for sockpuppetry.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions)...
Click to read more »Are you in the right place? See WP:AN to speak to an administrator. See WP:RFCU for CheckUser requests. See WP:OS for oversight. See WP:RFRB to request the...
Click to read more »100% sure that WashingManwithwings and Upperclassman are the same but this RFCU is pathetic. WashingManwithwings didn't do anything on Simple wikipedia to...
Click to read more »created this page is an LTA who pushes this page, amongst others, and has been CU blocked on EN Wikipedia (with many, many socks) Global lock was requested...
Click to read more »two years. Upon coming back to SEWP, the editor immediately took me to WP:RFCU (See Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser#PotsdamLamb) for absolutely no reason...
Click to read more »Fermium (Fm) Mendelevium (Md) Nobelium (No) Lawrencium (Lr) Rutherfordium (Rf) Dubnium (Db) Seaborgium (Sg) Bohrium (Bh) Hassium (Hs) Meitnerium (Mt) Darmstadtium...
Click to read more »contribs). ···Lauryn 23:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC) Done No evidence from CU to support this. fr33kman talk 01:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC) Hmm, strange....
Click to read more »Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC) Actually the 25 votes for CU is a WMF requirement we do actually have to have that number. But you are...
Click to read more »blocked fr33kman 17:07, 8 March 2025 (UTC) RfD closed as QDd fr33kman 17:15, 8 March 2025 (UTC) Sign them in is CU blocked on en as a sock of Johnofred9999 (talk ·...
Click to read more »should have no bearing on the CU blocked. I was actually cleared of the CU three days ago " TonyBallioni has performed the CU check and has verified no login...
Click to read more »process easier and simple. Same goes for request for rollback, and patroller. RFCUs is already being handled like that. I haven't included PVGA since the request...
Click to read more »created after Sarcastic was blocked. These are some proofs that will help in CU. 1. Thakur he restored same content was added by Sarcastic kshatriya and his...
Click to read more »00:32, 7 October 2024 (UTC) Considering how RfCU works, I would want to see the bot be tested in a RfCU replica before firmly saying yay or nay.- FusionSub...
Click to read more »and grabbed another admin to pull into this. I have already spoken with a CU tonight via email and it was handled until once again this editor has now...
Click to read more »everything CU blocked and then globally locked. My question is what to do with the articles this sock farm has created here. As I noted in my RFCU report...
Click to read more »that time has come to be known as a daily fixture. In preparation for this RfA I have been mentoring Bobherry for over two months. This has included me...
Click to read more »If similar behaviour occurs, it can be added to the current report at WP:RFCU. --Ferien (talk) 22:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC) I'm shocked, shocked to find...
Click to read more »guess in hindsight that was the incorrect venue as I wasn't requesting a CU, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 18:43, 21 December 2024 (UTC) Not opposed to a block...
Click to read more »to be outside the range of the 90-day CU time limit, I'm forwarding this information to here instead of WP:RFCU. MathXplore (talk) 02:42, 28 September...
Click to read more »note: CheckUser strike applied along with confirming Auntof6's strikes as CU confirmed. Operator873 connect 22:34, 4 February 2023 (UTC) This request is...
Click to read more »invited to comment on a ongoing RFC on the compatibility of paid editing with CU permissions at this page. Sohom (talk) 16:41, 29 June 2025 (UTC) Hi! Can you...
Click to read more »Fermium (Fm) Mendelevium (Md) Nobelium (No) Lawrencium (Lr) Rutherfordium (Rf) Dubnium (Db) Seaborgium (Sg) Bohrium (Bh) Hassium (Hs) Meitnerium (Mt) Darmstadtium...
Click to read more »to me and blocked them. -Barras talk 17:05, 29 October 2025 (UTC) English RFCU confirmed all three are attached: en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ofus...
Click to read more »you are a good guy. Blocking all those who are disturbing the kindergarden. CU --77.0.146.51 (talk) 07:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC) Delete: Per my previous...
Click to read more »April 2024 (UTC) Comment: For any admin - See logs at Parvej Husen Talukder. CU request opened. Thanks, and be well! - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑...
Click to read more »FatalFit, for the future the best place to report socks (needing CU) is generally WP:RFCU. Best, Vermont 🐿️ (talk) 00:40, 21 May 2023 (UTC) All Confirmed...
Click to read more »believe these are connected accounts, you can present the evidence at WP:RFCU. CountryANDWestern (talk) 13:32, 16 November 2025 (UTC) @Fr33kman: You have...
Click to read more »2024)[ct] Most edits by an IPv6 subnet: 240D:1A:4B5:2800::/64 (76,605 edits[cu] as of 27 June 2022) Most edits on a single temporary account: ~2025-31148-92...
Click to read more »the time the 7 day block was served on the other RfD. DUCk says that it is a likely block evasion... A CU could verify the offense Pure Evil (talk) 04:56...
Click to read more »Administrator note: CU requested (Special:Diff/9754372). MathXplore (talk) 02:13, 7 September 2024 (UTC) Administrator note: Frwiki CU has been contacted...
Click to read more »Ruedas who appears to be a sockpuppet of this user. I've reported this at RFCU. #prodraxis connect 03:18, 2 September 2023 (UTC) thx fr33kman 18:51, 2 September...
Click to read more »easier. I am hoping to also be able to use it on WP:RFCU but that will be done after consulting CU and community members.--BRP ever 11:45, 3 November 2024...
Click to read more »2023 (UTC) Thanks to all who took part in my recent RfCU. I really feel we needed another active CU to take some of the pressure off of Eptalon who should...
Click to read more »Bot is "Freak222Bot" It's able to set Interwiki and to clean the sandbox. C.U. FREAK222|TALK| 08:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC) Comment. Bot currently blocked...
Click to read more »concerns about User:Yilangderen socking after being blocked indefinitely to WP:RFCU, but unfortunately, there's no technical evidence to show the socking. I...
Click to read more »2024 (UTC) @Lee Vilenski You are on our EN:WP:HD board. Then we have VIP, RFCU and finally WP:AN. That pretty much covers what we have for about 50 regular...
Click to read more »significant cleaning. With the similar MO as the blocked IP range, maybe a CU could look into this? Ravensfire (talk) 20:11, 25 June 2023 (UTC) Possible...
Click to read more »pages you do still need quite a bit of work, you recently responded to a CU request you shouldn't have. Also more knowledge about policies/practices to...
Click to read more »(a period at the end? Noooooo) and at Mohammad Safoyan. MathXplore has a RFCU open for the two editors, but would an admin mind deleting the two new junk...
Click to read more »votes. they also use other accounts. Either way either the closing admin or a CU will need to make the call, registered user or IP, it really matters not....
Click to read more »again and may be part of the blocked IPs from previous. This will require a CU investigatation. This is also a huge almost 100% copy vio from English Wikipedia...
Click to read more »global account; autocreated Javert renamed (to Javert_renamed). Note: I did a CU to verify your claim of ownership. Thanks. --Eptalon (talk) 21:25, 26 July...
Click to read more »2024 (UTC) Instead, I have requested CU action (Special:Diff/9583802). MathXplore (talk) 04:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC) CU is already Done. MathXplore (talk)...
Click to read more »2409:4085:9C87:B19C:0:0:8149:5A00 (talk) 19:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC) (Note) Talkback sent, CU requested. MathXplore (talk) 13:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC) Administrator note:...
Click to read more »dealt with a situation) - Angerxiety! 13:28, 17 April 2023 (UTC) o ye WP:RfCU lol Angerxiety! 13:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC) I made the category Category:Categorization...
Click to read more »encyclopedia and your complaint will be taken a lot more seriously. Lastly; WP:RFCU is that way →. –Davey2010Talk 20:34, 31 May 2025 (UTC) What do you really...
Click to read more »October 2024 (UTC) It's with a heavy heart that I request a crat remove my CU flag and notify meta. My days as a CheckUser on this project were sincerely...
Click to read more »acceptable but not for a user who had created 10 accounts on enwiki which all got cu-blocked. I'll be honest I was going to let this slide until their comment...
Click to read more »low-price UPE push on the article. I think the two named accounts are the same (RFCU next stop) and probably the same as the IP. Not sure if semi-protection or...
Click to read more »does not seem to be notable and the article has already been reported to the RfD. BZPN (talk) 10:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC) I have nominated the page for deletion...
Click to read more »2024 (UTC) Shall we elect Vermont and Eptalon to manage and set-up the new CU mailing list? fr33kman 19:38, 12 January 2024 (UTC) Hi, this is to let you...
Click to read more »other, more advanced privileges (bureaucrat, checkuser, oversighter; for CU and OS there are extra requirements imposed by MetaWiki). In the meantime...
Click to read more »𝕂𝕖𝕣𝕠𝕡𝕡𝕚𝕂𝕚𝕕 (talk) 17:56, 28 September 2023 (UTC) we know who it is, no need to CU fr33kman 18:00, 28 September 2023 (UTC) Note alos, that per polcy Checkusers...
Click to read more »topic on en wiki and clearly there's some spillover here happening (see this RFCU for example). I've only left a couple of notes on their page plus a rather...
Click to read more »Bv Bw Bx By Bz Ca Cb Cc Cd Ce Cf Cg Ch Ci Cj Ck Cl Cm Cn Co Cp Cq Cr Cs Ct Cu Cv Cw Cx Cy Cz Da Db Dc Dd De Df Dg Dh Di Dj Dk Dl Dm Dn Do Dp Dq Dr Ds Dt...
Click to read more »