|← Requests and proposals||Steward requests (Checkuser)||latest archive→|
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:
Power Flower Shower@pl.wiktionary
- 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)
- All are 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 2007: 01, 07.
- 2008: 01, 03.
- 2009: 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12.
- 2010: 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12.
- 2011: 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12
- 2012: 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12
- 2013: 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12
- 2014: 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12
- 2015: 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12
- 2016: 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12
- CheckUser policy.