Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations

This case has been marked as closed.

For any CheckUsers who are active in the request an account process there are currently requests awaiting CheckUser attention. (access) For any CheckUsers who are not active with the process and would like to help, create an account and a tool admin will promote you. NotAGenious (talk) 15:11, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

NotAGenious, I’m not going to edit war with you, but this really is not the correct place for this and I’d request you (or a clerk or other CU if they agree with me) to remove it. CUs are aware of what ACC is and that there’s a backlog. We don’t need a special announcement on the main SPI page. If you want attention to it, the talk page would be more appropriate rather than a quick CU request. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:00, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

I have closed the CU request template since this is obviously not the correct use. CoconutOctopus talk 22:48, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

If that's the case then Template:ACC-backlog should probably be revised or nominated for deletion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:53, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Probably what we want is something closer to the above UTRS support. Izno (talk) 00:14, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Didn’t realize it was a template. I think adding info on ACC to the UTRS banner makes the most sense so it’s just one location. I don’t see much point in the quick CU template for ACC as ACC historically has had a chronic backlog. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:49, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

See Template:ACC-backlog/doc, this obviously is the correct use. TonyBallioni, if you're a CU aware of the backlog, feel free to create an account to help with it.

There are 72 awaiting accounts for checkuser attention, most of which requested over 3 months ago and still awaiting. If there's a way to redirect any checkuser attention to ACC (even if all CU's are aware of ACC and it's backlog), as there's been from 2012 using this template, I think it should be used. The template is being used as intended and doesn't do any harm as a small notice at the end of the page, but if you're seeking for consensus that it should be revised or deleted altogether, Template talk:ACC-backlog would be a good place to start. Indeed ACC has had a chronic backlog, with some 11 bumps of over 50 CU-awaiting requests in the last 3 years until a CU has cleared them. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 03:29, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

So, for context, from what I can tell the template was used once in 2012 by the person who created it and then you decided to bring it back from the grave in January. You were reverted then, as you were this time, and both now and then you reverted the revert by citing the documentation page of a template that it appears only you have used in the last 14 years. That’s essentially just you insisting it belongs here after you’ve been reverted.

72 open requests isn’t a quick CU request. It’s just a backlog reminder, which is really better as a banner like the UTRS one or as a request on the talk page. The reason you keep getting reverted is because this isn’t usually used for long-term backlog reminders. Account compromises, someone claiming to be a user locked out of their account, block reviews, etc. are more typical. Anyway, I think Izno’s idea of a banner makes more sense. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:54, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

You're mistaken about no one but me and the creator using the template, which can be verified in the page history. However I understand that the nature of these quick CheckUser requests is typically different, but still emphasize the need to have some kind of on-wiki backlog reminder for ACC. I have no idea what the UTRS backlog banner is, a similar one for ACC may very well be sufficient and the necessity for this exact banner isn't a hill I'm going to die on. Sounds like you should nominate the template to TfD. NotAGenious (talk) 06:20, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

You’re correct, Callen also used it a few times in 2012. Missed that. Regardless: this is from what I can tell the last time it was used before January 2026. The template documentation saying to put it here is just a relic from the less than one year the template was used, and we don’t need to go through a TfD to decide on the SPI page that this isn’t the best way to handle it. If anything, resolving that first then sending the template to TfD is the solution. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:31, 28 September 2026 (UTC)