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 {{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}}:  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.
Cross-wiki requests
Meta-Wiki requests

Requests[edit]

Power Flower Shower@pl.wiktionary[edit]

Hi, apologies for the slowness in actioning your request. I'll take a look at this later today if nobody else gets to it by then. Ajraddatz (talk) 14:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Ajraddatz: should I provide more information? Peter Bowman (talk) 11:57, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
None, just getting to this now. Ajraddatz (talk)
All are Likely Likely, but using mobile ranges so there's no way to be sure and they are also sharing IPs with a few established users there. Also potentially Ja_też_się_przygotowałem and Cezareuszek, but you should check their behaviour as well. Due to the public nature of the IPs and the large number of ranges being used, targetted blocks will not be effective. Ajraddatz (talk) 23:07, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Murbaut[edit]

This is not the place for asking for permission. And I can't see that you meet the criteria, so even if the request was places at Steward requests/Permissions it would probably be closed as "Not done". -- Tegel (Talk) 09:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Graaf_Statler@nl.wikiquote[edit]

Hi, Sir Statler, For old times' sake, Devil's Revenge, Arjuna and Graaf Dracula are  Confirmed. Long ago... is inactive so I was unable to verify; ReltatS riS‎ IS Sir Statler (redir between userpages), Ilovechersonissos is not a valid username. The IP used is currenntly blocked on nlwikiquote. I found also one more connected account: Hutsefluts, not yet blocked. einsbor talk 15:45, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you for this Einbor. The last edit of my account Hutsefluts was 30-12 2010, so it was also inactive. We only had a big fight. Graaf Statler (talk) 21:07, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Dwaraka King@ta.wikipedia[edit]

These are all  Confirmed. No other users found. --Stryn (talk) 16:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Stho002@wikispecies[edit]

Status:    Not done

A CU request involving this account is most likely pending in the next few days. I wish to ask stewards to look carefully at the issues surrounding this case, particularly looking into whether any alleged socks are editing disruptively, or is it a case of the WS sysop community effectively using CU as a political tool (contra CU policy) to aggressively enforce territoriality (involving a great deal of "poking the bear" which does sometimes get a bite back which can be spun into a "personal attack" and used to justify a block)? I ask stewards to also consider the massive overreaction to these non-disruptive edits. The non-disruptive nature of the edits may indicate that it is merely a non-serious local matter for WS to deal with, not requiring CU or any other steward action. The alleged socks haven't even been asked if they are the same person, the "duck test" is sufficient anyway, without need for CU, but yet the WS sysop community once again wants to run straight to stewards to get them to do their dirty work for them (they often seem to express a desire for an IP range block, which is an odd thing to want, unless one's agenda is to exclude as many potential contributors as possible from "their wiki"). I would also like to draw stewards attention to this diff, which, I suggest, is rather an inappropriate suggestion from WS crat Tommy Kronkvist (why would he even bother mentioning it if he sincerely advised against use of these alleged "tools"?) The instructions (above) for making a CU request require the applicant to "Explain the disruption". It will be interesting to see what they can come up with. Surely the purpose of blocking is to prevent disruptive editing, not to prevent constructive editing, and surely blocking is supposed to be preventative rather than punitive. If any of the alleged socks do make disruptive edits, they can be dealt with appropriately. --Stho002 (talk) 05:10, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Please note this diff, whereby crat Dan Koehl says [quote]Ill take the needed contacts regarding this issue, and ask for an IP-range block, unless someone else already did[unquote]. This betrays their real agenda, which is to exclude as many potential contributors as possible from "their wiki". There is absolutely no need for an IP range block, as I edit from a single IP. Also, they cannot know otherwise without being privy to private CU information detailing underlying IPs! An IP range block is an extreme countermeasure to prevent extreme disruption. There have been no such disruptive edits, only constructive edits (most of which haven't even been modified by them, because there is no need). ...Stho002 (talk) 22:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

In fact, I pretty much implore stewards, for the sake of all the future generations of people who may want to contribute to and/or learn from WS, to look at this issue seriously and please not just take the easiest option to making it go away. Wikimedia sites come up high on the list of Google searches, people do look to them for information, so they need to be kept clean of dirty politics whereby contributors are blocked just because others in the community have mobbed together against them to prevent them from contributing useful information, the mob trying to reserve everything for themselves. The core issue here is that certain contributors at WS want to reserve areas for themselves only to edit. I edit widely, which brings me into their "territory", which causes all the trouble, but my understanding of Wikimedia sites is that editors cannot reserve areas for themselves, and that anyone can freely contribute constructively to any article at any time. Please let me know if I am wrong about this, because it is what I am fighting for. If I have contravened policy in any way, while attempting to continue to make constructive contributions to WS, then I apologise and you will find me fully cooperative with whatever you think is best for me to do at this stage. I implore you not to let the WS sysop mob achieve their real agenda, which is to use me as an excuse to try to obtain an IP range block to exclude as many potential contributors as possible from "their wiki". Stho002 (talk) 23:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Not done - checkuser isn't to be used for ridiculous political battles. I will respond in more depth to your post on the stewards' noticeboard. Ajraddatz (talk) 23:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

See also[edit]