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.
Cross-wiki requests
Meta-Wiki requests



Where are these users participants and what makes you think there could be a link? --MF-W 23:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
[1], participant (Lakiditto098) said that his brother allegedly Gagik (Gagik18).--6AND5 (talk) 10:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
[2]--6AND5 (talk) 11:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
@6AND5: that still doesn't indicate the purpose of knowing that they are related parties. An interest in a relationship alone is not a reason for checkuser. There would be need for a proof of wrongdoing, circumventing votes, circumventing blocks, etc.  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
The question is that the participant (Lakiditto098 (same 1221nor, Lilit1345, Karenpetrosyan)The following accounts are Confirmed Confirmed) is blocked (unlimited), and now his brother allegedly began to write articles. --6AND5 (talk) 14:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
If it is his brother that may or may not mean the same IP address. It may or may not mean the same user agents, etc. There is nothing that we can do that is going to differentiate that sort of relationship and you will need to work it out for yourself.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Member admitted he and his brother one person.--6AND5 (talk) 14:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back to us. Closed Closed Issue resolved by community.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
User:Ruslik0, а можно показывать все новые записи этого участника в армянской Википедии [3] [4]?--6AND5 (talk) 14:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Syed Shahzad Ali Najmi@en.wikipedia[edit]

Dr. Syed Shahzad Ali Najmi[edit]

With reference to previous investigation Dr. Syed Shahzad Ali Najmi/Archive can the following two can be identified as the Sockpuppet.

Reason: Keeps on adding and supporting about Shahzad Ali Najmi and his book, used for commercial advertising.

As the previous Sockpuppets which were Blocked in English Wikipedia and later on Urdu Wikipedia, these two users are acting as the same.

Please confirm if the are Sockpuppets. --Tahir mq (talk) 05:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

 Not done. has local checkusers. Savhñ 13:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


  • Has this matter been discussed at elWP? The request should be discussed at that wiki prior to progressing here.  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Every time we (as users) want to discuss such matters (sock puppetry cases) with admins at el@wiki, they tell us first to ask for a checkuser so we can prove that our suspicions are right and, then, start a discussion about taking measures against those users if the checkuser is positive. So, I don't think that sending back the problem to el@wiki (and then being told, again, to send it to meta) would help in this case and in sock puppetry cases in general. Some of these two bodies (el@wiki admins and meta stewards) has to take a decision and sending (indirectly of course) the problem to each other won't help in that direction. Just an example to prove you what I'm saying here, in a quite similar case, with an obvious puppet, an admin responded me by saying "Κανείς διαχειριστής ή γραφειοκράτης δεν έχει δυνατότητα διαπίστωσης μαριονέτας (ή μη) στην ελληνόφωνη ΒΠ. Αν έχεις σχετικές υπόνοιες μπορείς να ζητήσεις Checkuser στο meta."-"No admin or bureaucrat is able to prove if a user is a puppet or not on el@wiki. If you have any suspicions you can ask for a Checkuser on meta." And there are numerous cases like this with this same (or nearly) answer from admins. Letting down the matter wouldn't help at all.--Glorious 93 (talk) 12:38, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
    Having multiple accounts is not contrary to WMF policy, so that itself is not a consideration for stewards. For a local policy for stewards to run a checkuser the checkuser policy directs us that a conversation should take place on the local wiki, so where a general user has a case it should be supported on the local wiki by those who are charged with enforcing the policy. In this case I believe that we need a local discussion at elWP.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
    Closed Closed stale discussion, no comment for a week.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Ridler o arnold@bg.wikipedia[edit]

I locked Ridler o arnold. All other accounts are already locked. Ruslik (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. --Петър Петров (talk) 21:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


All those accounts are confirmed sockpuppets from one of two IPs (one mobile the other fixed). Scargsmint, Elis20005 and Video Frankenstein are three socks not included in that list, though the last is already blocked. I'm not sure if they are good candidates for a global lock given that some accounts appear to be editing productively; if another stewards wants to look into it further they are free too. I need to go and write a test now. Ajraddatz (talk) 18:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, I have blocked two of the accounts not already blocked. - 4ing (talk) 09:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


Confirmed Confirmed for Viator313, م.سخایی, Hananeh.M.h and also Srahmadi, حسین وحید and M.Sakhaie (all blocked on commonswiki for sockpuppet abuse)
Likely Likely for امید ایرانی
Unlikely Unlikely for امید ایرانی, Mhhossein and Badieem. Elfix 13:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC) Updated Elfix 14:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


Seems to be three different users, though each has a sock
  • Confirmed Confirmed تولیش and شاه بابل
  • Confirmed Confirmed فرارو and Iroony
  • Confirmed Confirmed Polkash, Manoooood and LOVAKO
 — billinghurst sDrewth 14:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Yamaha5 (talk) 16:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


Comment Comment User Ab&bargh is sockpupet himself and is blocked in fawiki 13:02, Mardetanha User talk:Mardetanha 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 Not done please present consensus at faWP for this request.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: As much as I don't agree with behavior of this reporter, I don't agree with behavior users who this user reported, all of them are violent with NPOV, it's truly says that this user is actively edits against Iranian government which is against NPOV, I also checked some of edits by users who are reported, adding content to support Iranian government and telling will add the references or adding non-trusted resources, it seems some of them might match and already blocked in fawiki. some of fawiki admins can't take action against users being supportive with Iranian government because they live in Iran. if there is policy called "suckpopet" it must act same for all, not only for some specific users. could you please tell me where is the consensus for other two requests? Mjbmr (discussioncontribs) 15:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
This request was disputed. This was also a longer list of names and contained names of users previously checked. As it is a seemingly coverall rquest, rather than a specific case it is closer to fishing, which is not the basis for checkuser and without a better evidence-base it should not be undertaken. Administrators at faWP are aware of alternate means to have checkuser requests undertaken if required. Further, I doubt that we should be taking requests from sockpuppets who will not be able to implement any result from a checkuser.  — billinghurst sDrewth 16:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
To note that stewards undertaking checkusers is neither for nor against pro-/anti-government editing, it is for sock puppetry as per the policy. The community will decide about specific editing on the wiki, that is not the role of stewards.  — billinghurst sDrewth 16:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree with you we should not accept request from sockpuppets, but you said consensus. My latest CU request was also not done while I was the admin that wiki. according to [5] User:Dostatdaram was already matched and blocked. User:Badieem also has a very violent edits with NPOV, reed this, even a machine translated would say what this is about, it truly says there is no freedom for news reporters in the U.S. relying on an Iranian internal source, the content is still there, wikipedia is not what it suppose to be. Mjbmr (discussioncontribs) 16:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[edit]

Confirmed Confirmed Dmitryne, KuznecovGrigory, Ruþín16, OstapBinder, MedvedevDmitriy. He did a pretty good attempt to cover tracks. Almost had me missing it. I don't speak Russian, though I do speak CU and IP. <g>  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:46, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Thank you. I not undersatnd your last phrase "I do speak CU and IP", what's CU and IP? -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 18:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
@Sergey kudryavtsev: checkuser and IP4 addresses (, it was meant to be a joke, though not a good one. :-)  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


Picker78, Lonesome Warrior, Promiscuous man and Sakis Sg are Confirmed Confirmed to be the same user. LowRider69 is Possible Possible. Ruslik (talk) 17:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

See also[edit]