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 {{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.
  1. 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.
  1. Make sure there are no local checkusers or policies.
  2. 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


Németek and others[edit]

@DerFussi: For dewikivoyage Would you please link to a policy or discussion that does not allow to multiple accounts on your wiki prior to my publishing any results. Thanks. dewiktionary will need to approach stewards if they have a similar concern, though they will need to again show their policy, but they can join this case if they believe that we have crosswiki issues.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
@DerFussi: Rather than start a CU request here, have you considered a direct conversation with the person about your concerns and any relationship between accounts?  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I think, we don't have such policy. (Do all other wikis have that?) And no, there is no one at the moment for that discussion you've asked for. The reasons one can find in all the discussions we had over the last months with the named accounts and in our private lifes: We are just a very small group of active admins and we all have been involved in concerns of wikivoyage over years during the migration to the WMF until now. Most of us have to shift their priotities to private life now urgently, and we just want to clarify the situation for a moment, that new admins can take over. But if there are concerns on meta helping us in that situation, so we have to fit in. No idea, what we can do, if Fussis concerns are qualified. Hope they will not become to reality, the elections started yeasterday. Thanks for your time, --Tine (talk) 09:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The policy is stated here: "Ein missbräuchliches Vortäuschen unterschiedlicher Identitäten kann einen schwerwiegenden Regelverstoß darstellen, etwa bei einer Sperrumgehung, bei der Fälschung von Wahlen durch mehrfache Stimmabgabe oder bei Manipulation von Diskussionen durch Vortäuschen von Mehrheiten, und zu befristeten oder unbefristeten Sperren führen."
Translated: An abusive feigning different identities of the same person may be a serious offense, such as a lock bypass, with the falsification of election by multiple voting or manipulation of discussions by feigning of majorities, and lead to temporary or permanent blocking. --Bernello (talk) 09:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Bernello. Time to change jobs. ;-) --Tine (talk) 14:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Never trust a beautiful woman ;-)
@billinghurst This IP-ranges and the additional user seems to be related to, or the same user(s) above mentioned:
user:De ausputzers , written with a protected space in between (& nbsp ;)
2003:7A:4778:AD41:89B5:6354:49A4:6C4A 20:17, 17. Okt. 2015 (CEST)
2003:7A:4778:AD41:7C89:2762:52A8:FCAD 20:44, 18. Okt. 2015 (CEST)
2003:7A:4778:AD41:C1D9:C7E8:97D4:C67E 20:45, 1. Nov. 2015 (CET)
2003:7A:4778:AD41:2058:3AB5:2B2C:76B1 09:48, 2. Nov. 2015 (CET)
2003:7A:8526:801D:970:B273:4963:EFCF 09:30, 10. Nov. 2015 (CET)
2003:7A:8500:C884:D538:D40E:89A7:2194 21:19, 13. Nov. 2015 (CET)
Maybe this will help your investigations, greetings --Bernello (talk) 17:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
There are usually two distinct reasons to undertake checkuser. 1) Vandals and grouping them to put blocks on the underlying IP addresses, if possible; 2) Where someone is fleecing the system by having multiple accounts, be that to edit separately, or to push a PoV in votes or discussions.

If IP edits are problematic, and you can isolate them to a range then you already have the tools and information to put in blocking on the range (hard or soft). IP edits would generally not be as pertinent for any case about PoV pushing.

So for the case 2) type the WPs have a policy about editing from one account; and there is a generally accepted principle of One person, one vote. I am not certain that a public prod of someone to vote is necessarily an abuse, in fact it would seem unusual to do if trying to fly under the radar. I can also envisage obvious circumstances where you would do it with people with whom there is a close association or relationship. Further, criteria for voting or existing practices for judging the participation for voting have proven effective in preventing or controlling abuse. So I am declining a checkuser at this time. If there is an issue about sockpuppetry, then I would think that it is possible in both the for and against votes, and would rather that it be looked upon collectively towards the end of the process.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:35, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


See also[edit]