Steward requests/Checkuser/2014-08



Unfortunately, a request like this would violate a user's privacy by revealing their IP address. Please use behavioral analysis. --Rschen7754 05:26, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


@C messier: I am not sure of the reason for the checkuser, stewards would not normally publicly align a user account with an IP address. This looks to be a case of   It looks like a duck to me, and I am not sure of any advantage of running the checkuser.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  Closed inactive request  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

ხმელი ფოთოლი@ka.wikipedia

@David1010: What is the purpose of the checkuser? Why does it need a checkuser? Are they in breach of a policy? If so which? That people make similar edits or comments is not a sufficient reason to undertake a checkuser. If the editors are problematic, they don't need a checkuser, they can be managed by blocks, conversation, etc.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  Comment Besides similar editions and comments in articles these two user are making same mistakes Intentionally, despite many reverts and warnings. e.g. this record means "I won't go from here until finally left your nerves disappointed". George Talk 19:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  Closed problematic editors do not need checkuser. If they are problems, use existing tools to manage.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

آذر فرنبغ@fa.wikipedia

A checkuser does not resolve the issue. You can resolve the issue with existing administrator tools, without a checkuser showing any association.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


A checkuser is not required to resolve this situation. If the users are edit warring and otherwise problematic then administrators have available tools to manage this matter.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


Are they abusing their use? Are they double voting? Are they co-participating in editing conflicts? At this point of time, a suspicion in a controversial area, where there will be a swathe of editors to manage issues, does not seem sufficient to run a checkuser. There needs to a specific issue that is going to be resolved.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Editing with two different accounts on the same page, by itself, is an abuse according to en:WP:ILLEGIT. There is indeed an edit war -- to be fair, some may call it a slight one -- going on in the articles between users. For example here[6][7][8][9] Kharmagass and سپاهی are trying to change the phrase "the old land of Israel" to "the old land of Palestine" but other users have reverted their edits. (I know that the abuse is not so obvious as trying to circumvent the three-revert rule, but again if it was then the admins probably could have blocked them based on the duck test and there was no need to checkuser anymore). Dalba 03:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
@دالبا:I think that you are applying a stringent test on a policy. It is my opinion that unless there is a significant level of misuse, a checkuser for that level of discourse is overkill. That said, if you insist, then I will undertake it, though the only result at best will be you get to a block an account.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
After checking user:سپاهی's contributions more thoroughly, I'm now convinced that the accounts belong to the same user, so I withdraw this request. Thanks. Dalba 11:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)