Steward requests/Checkuser

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
< Steward requests(Redirected from Srcu)
Jump to: navigation, search
Requests and proposals Steward requests (Checkuser) latest archive
Checkuser icons
These indicators are used by CheckUsers and stewards for easier skimming of their notes, actions and comments.
{{Confirmed}}: Confirmed Confirmed {{MoreInfo}}: MoreInfo Additional information needed
{{Likely}}: Likely Likely {{Deferred}}: Deferred Deferred to
{{Possible}}: Possible Possible {{Completed}}: Completed Completed
{{Unlikely}}: Unlikely Unlikely {{TakeNote}}: Note Note:
{{Unrelated}}: Unrelated Unrelated {{Doing}}: Symbol wait.svg Doing...
{{Inconclusive}}: Inconclusive Inconclusive {{StaleIP}}: Stale Stale
{{Declined}}: Declined Declined {{Fishing}}: Fishing CheckUser is not for fishing
{{Pixiedust}}: Pixiedust CheckUser is not magic pixie dust {{8ball}}: 8ball The CheckUser Magic 8-Ball says
{{Duck}}: Duck It looks like a duck to me {{Crystalball}}: Crystalball CheckUser is not a crystal ball

This page is for requesting CheckUser information on a wiki with no local CheckUsers (see also requesting checkuser access). Make sure to follow the following instructions, or your request may not be processed in a timely manner.

Before making a request:

  1. Make sure you have a good reason for the check. It will only be accepted to counter vandalism or disruption to Wikimedia wikis. Valid reasons include needing a block of the underlying IP or IP range, disruptive sockpuppetry, vote-stacking, and similar disruption where the technical evidence from running a check would prevent or reduce further disruption.
  2. Be specific in your reasons. Ambiguous or insufficient reasons will cause delays. Explain the disruption and why you believe the accounts are related, ideally using diff links or other evidence.
  3. Make sure there are no local checkusers or policies.
  4. Please ensure that the check hasn't already been done:

How to make a request

How to make a request:

  • Place your request at the bottom of the section, using the template below (see also {{srcu}} help).
    === Username@xx.project ===
    {{CU request
     |status          = <!--don't change this line-->
     |language code   = 
     |project shortcut= 
     |user name1      = 
     |user name2      = 
     |user name3      = 
    <!-- Max 10 users -->
     |discussion      = [[Example]]<!-- local confirmation link / local policy link -->
     |reason          = Reasons here. ~~~~

    For example:

    === Example@en.wikipedia ===
    {{CU request
     |status          = <!--don't change this line-->
     |language code   = en
     |project shortcut= w
     |user name1      = Example
     |user name2      = Foo
     |user name3      = Bar
    <!-- Max 10 users -->
     |discussion      = [[:w:en:Example]]<!-- local confirmation link / local policy link -->
     |reason          = Reasons here. ~~~~
  • Specify the wiki(s) you want to perform the check on.
Crosswiki requests
MetaWiki requests


See also[edit]


Relationship of these accounts to Dgolitsis account is unconfirmed. Pundit (talk) 17:50, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


I concur. -- Edinwiki (talk) 08:41, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
I concur. -- KWiki (talk) 12:58, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Question Question: I don't get the disruption, if third account is his sock, and as admin you are sure, simply block the account, but I don't see the relationship between his sockpuppety and applying adminship in other project, but please let me know, is there is another reason, like sockpuptery in voting page or not, if there is one, i can check all votes. Mardetanha talk 13:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
No it is not about a sockpupetry, but about his behavior he had with other accounts. Harrasement and more than disturbing behavior he had. The same comes up as he was nominated and as he confirmed to have socks. Therefore after some comments of other sysops and me, he withdraw the ellection. Our goal is to ban him and we can only do it if we have all socks. The problem could come up soon on other project whrer he confirmed five or more socks. --WizardOfOz talk 13:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
User WizardOfOz lies that I have confirmed that I have another socks. (Dokaz svoj dajte ako istinu govorite! Kur'an 111, Bekare) I had no other accounts except this one for about four months while I was editing Bosnian Wikipedia in a meantime. I don't have access to any other account besides this one, and it will remain that way. He nominated me for adminship on project and then everybody (including him) said NO! All that time of good editing for nothing to make a fool of me. This user is admin but he has no more than 50 edits for over a year. He should leave admin rights to other person (like me, see my quality contributions). --Munjanes (talk) 13:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Confirmation on sh wiki that you have at least two socks. You provided it to a sysop after been catched. --WizardOfOz talk 13:44, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Look at rules. It is allowed having multiple accounts if you don't use it for misuse. Like I said, I haven't used any of them for abusing, except on where I was banned, and stopped that agenda about 4 months ago. Multiple accounts are history. --Munjanes (talk) 13:50, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
You are calling me liar here and on If it will be confirmed that the accounts above are your, wich were used in not wikipedian manner for harrasement, than the rule doesnt count. So as you promised not to contact me, it will be nice if you follow that. Otherwise you could be blocked for one of wikipedia pillars which is no personal attacks on Thanks in advance. --WizardOfOz talk 13:55, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
No personal attacks. I was attacked by Wizard here (you can translate it). Nominated and then attacked: [2] --Munjanes (talk) 14:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 Not done per above discussion I mark this request as not done Mardetanha talk 14:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
No, please do the check! :) --Munjanes (talk) 14:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Mard, will handle it localy with those two known and allready blocked accounts. --WizardOfOz talk 14:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, This is best approach Mardetanha talk 14:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


Done by Savh and account locked. (log). Alan (talk) 21:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Era bastante obvio. Savhñ 21:31, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Lo se, pero una pasada de CU saca más cuentas y en el caso de geo23 lo raro es que no tenga más por ahí dando vueltas (ya le has pillado varias de hecho). Face-smile.svg Un saludo! Alan (talk) 21:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


It is not a valid reason for checkuser request. Ruslik (talk) 18:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, perhaps it is only a coincidence that three people independently took an interest in the obscure userpage of a professor at the University of Milan as their sole activity at en.wikiquote. Perhaps it is only a coincidence that all three promptly showed up at Votes for Deletion, a couple within minutes of each other. Perhaps I am just being paranoid because the last time we saw quotes from a professor's userpage plastered across scores of articles, a very unusual phenomenon at en.wikiquote, it turned out to be a confirmed puppet ring.

Perhaps ... or perhaps not. If I were sure about what is going on then I would not have asked for someone to check into the possibility of vote stacking. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Deletion decisions are not made by votes, so vote stacking should be irrelevant. The timing is not suspicious, because all three editors had previously edited the page, so they'd get watchlist notification of the VfD. Look, instead, to Kalki and UDScott. And some other arguments may show up. You have no support for your position there, so far, Ningauble, so you come here to attack relative newbies who disagree with you? I congratulate Ruslik0 for declining this. --Abd (talk) 16:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC)