Meta:Requests for CheckUser information

Shortcut:
RfCU
This page allows you to request CheckUser information on Meta.
Procedure
  • Please read the CheckUser policy before asking for a check.
  • When adding new requests, please use the {{checkuser}} template to list the user names in question and {{checkip}} for IP addresses, which simplifies investigation.
  • List your request at the bottom of the "Requests for Meta-Wiki only" heading.
  • When asking for a check we need to know:
    • why do you believe that the accounts are related (please present evidence for that with the help of diffs, etc.),
    • why, if the accounts are related, they are being used abusively, in violation of policy; and
    • why a block or other measures can't be justified without the need of technical evidence.
Important
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}}: Doing...
{{Inconclusive}}: Inconclusive Inconclusive {{StaleIP}}: Stale
{{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
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day.

Requests for Meta-Wiki only edit

Dan Polansky edit

While it isn't strange for two users to comment on the same discussion a few times, it is strange that whenever Dan Polansky is involved in some sort of "controversy" (I use this in quotation marks for the lack of a better word), AP295 is also involved often in the same threads – at least since AP295's first edit on Meta-Wiki on Jan 18, 2024, such as Requests for comment/Global ban for Guido den Broeder and now Stewards/Confirm/2024/Vermont.

Both users are also blocked on en.wiktionary (Dan is blocked for racism while AP is blocked for disruptive edits/trolling), though AP is also blocked on en.wiki for w:WP:NONAZIS and trolling. The "commenting on the same discussion" also applies to the English Wikiversity, such as v:en:User talk:AP295#Block on Wikipedia, v:en:User talk:AP295#Allowed vs. prohibited and several on v:en:Wikiversity:Colloquium which makes me suspicious that there is either some sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry going on. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 09:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Check decision made - please move the commentary elsewhere. And it might be best if both "sides" avoided talking to each other, this doesn't seem to be productive. – Ajraddatz (talk) 00:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We don't even live on the same continent, afaik. And Dan and I only barely seem to get along, let alone conspire to influence meta. Frankly you seem sour from our conversation in the thread you linked above, which I withdrew from. At any rate you got your way and I had no real dog in the race to begin with, so kindly find someone else to bother. You had been scolded [1] for your behavior in that thread too, I seem to recall AP295 (talk) 09:13, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"so kindly find someone else to bother" – oh, I'm sorry for "bothering" you. I didn't know a CU request needed a response (obviously nothing preventing you from such) and was considered "bothering"... --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 10:13, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seems like you just took the occasion to dig through our linen baskets, though my articles are quite unsoiled, objectively speaking. I thoroughly resent the insinuation that I'm a "nazi", which is an egregious defamation. AP295 (talk) 22:45, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Support @SHB2000 and @Vermont I'm going to file this request, however it's exist. These two users have very similiar editing patterns, for example, filibustering during discussion or after being blocked, etc. Also, they both tried to put pressure on stewards after user being banned globally and so on.
In addition, this should be filed on SRCU for a cross-wiki case instead of a meta case. Lemonaka (talk) 09:55, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think I made it pretty clear in Vermont's stewardship thread that I intended my comments as feedback, explicitly abstaining from a vote. Vermont was not even involved in the global ban RfC, though you were, as was SHB2000. Hang it up. AP295 (talk) 23:13, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Very interesting, 🤔. You are trying to confuse us. I said both of you stressed the stewards who imposed the ban, one in planespotterA320 case, another in Guido case. Anything not right? Lemonaka (talk) 00:00, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I don't think there is enough evidence to justify a check here. Looking at their timecards (Dan Polansky, AP295) shows very different editing patterns that would be pretty impossible for a sockmaster to maintain across years of editing activity. I am also not sure that both participating in similar discussions and agreeing with each-other is sufficient evidence of similarity or abuse of multiple accounts. That said, I am not commenting on the quality of their contributions here.   Not doneAjraddatz (talk) 17:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See also edit