Steward requests/Checkuser

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
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


Mala chaubey@hi.wikipedia[edit]

@Hindustanilanguage: And what is the point of the checkuser request? If the accounts are problematic then block them, you don't need a checkuser. The specific purpose of a checkuser needs to be identified.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:14, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
User1 is an admin on the Hindi Wikipedia. Holding undisclosed multiple accounts is itself serious issue to entail a block on Hindi Wikipedia. The purpose of this CU is to confirm the same, more so the efforts to use Wikipedias for popularising / promoting an individual. --Muzammil (talk) 00:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I've been directed by Sanjeev Kumar, admin of Hindi Wikipedia to request CU in the discussion link cited. Naziah rizvi a/c has suddenly gained more momentum after User1 became the admin. --Muzammil (talk) 00:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
@Hindustanilanguage: Is it contrary to an explicit policy at hiWP to have sock accounts? If yes, please link to the policy.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Here is the policy note. Also, here you will a case in which multiple accounts were discussed after CU and blocked on hiWP. --Muzammil (talk) 08:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Unrelated Unrelated  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


What is the purpose of undertaking a checkuser? What you have mentioned can be managed by administrators without needing checkuser response.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
they all had a problem with me. Lolokh and جمشید23 are blocked indefinitly. Rahnama54 was blocked for vandalism and personal attack just for 3 days and his edits is so similar to these users and I think at least one of them is sock-puppet of Rahnama54. Thanks ARASH PT  talk  12:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
If they are problematic, then block them; if not, then they can be left. What you are doing is considered fishing and the issue should be discussed on faWP where administrators can make comment, prior to it being brought here. So at this stage it is premature, and  Not done — billinghurst sDrewth 04:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

See also[edit]