Steward requests/Checkuser/2014-09



Relationship of these accounts to Dgolitsis account is unconfirmed. Pundit (talk) 17:50, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


I concur. -- Edinwiki (talk) 08:41, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
I concur. -- KWiki (talk) 12:58, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  Question: I don't get the disruption, if third account is his sock, and as admin you are sure, simply block the account, but I don't see the relationship between his sockpuppety and applying adminship in other project, but please let me know, is there is another reason, like sockpuptery in voting page or not, if there is one, i can check all votes. Mardetanha talk 13:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
No it is not about a sockpupetry, but about his behavior he had with other accounts. Harrasement and more than disturbing behavior he had. The same comes up as he was nominated and as he confirmed to have socks. Therefore after some comments of other sysops and me, he withdraw the ellection. Our goal is to ban him and we can only do it if we have all socks. The problem could come up soon on other project whrer he confirmed five or more socks. --WizardOfOz talk 13:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
User WizardOfOz lies that I have confirmed that I have another socks. (Dokaz svoj dajte ako istinu govorite! Kur'an 111, Bekare) I had no other accounts except this one for about four months while I was editing Bosnian Wikipedia in a meantime. I don't have access to any other account besides this one, and it will remain that way. He nominated me for adminship on project and then everybody (including him) said NO! All that time of good editing for nothing to make a fool of me. This user is admin but he has no more than 50 edits for over a year. He should leave admin rights to other person (like me, see my quality contributions). --Munjanes (talk) 13:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Confirmation on sh wiki that you have at least two socks. You provided it to a sysop after been catched. --WizardOfOz talk 13:44, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Look at rules. It is allowed having multiple accounts if you don't use it for misuse. Like I said, I haven't used any of them for abusing, except on where I was banned, and stopped that agenda about 4 months ago. Multiple accounts are history. --Munjanes (talk) 13:50, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
You are calling me liar here and on If it will be confirmed that the accounts above are your, wich were used in not wikipedian manner for harrasement, than the rule doesnt count. So as you promised not to contact me, it will be nice if you follow that. Otherwise you could be blocked for one of wikipedia pillars which is no personal attacks on Thanks in advance. --WizardOfOz talk 13:55, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
No personal attacks. I was attacked by Wizard here (you can translate it). Nominated and then attacked: [2] --Munjanes (talk) 14:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  Not done per above discussion I mark this request as not done Mardetanha talk 14:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
No, please do the check! :) --Munjanes (talk) 14:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Mard, will handle it localy with those two known and allready blocked accounts. --WizardOfOz talk 14:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, This is best approach Mardetanha talk 14:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


Done by Savh and account locked. (log). Alan (talk) 21:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Era bastante obvio. Savhñ 21:31, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Lo se, pero una pasada de CU saca más cuentas y en el caso de geo23 lo raro es que no tenga más por ahí dando vueltas (ya le has pillado varias de hecho).   Un saludo! Alan (talk) 21:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


It is not a valid reason for checkuser request. Ruslik (talk) 18:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, perhaps it is only a coincidence that three people independently took an interest in the obscure userpage of a professor at the University of Milan as their sole activity at en.wikiquote. Perhaps it is only a coincidence that all three promptly showed up at Votes for Deletion, a couple within minutes of each other. Perhaps I am just being paranoid because the last time we saw quotes from a professor's userpage plastered across scores of articles, a very unusual phenomenon at en.wikiquote, it turned out to be a confirmed puppet ring.

Perhaps ... or perhaps not. If I were sure about what is going on then I would not have asked for someone to check into the possibility of vote stacking. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Deletion decisions are not made by votes, so vote stacking should be irrelevant. The timing is not suspicious, because all three editors had previously edited the page, so they'd get watchlist notification of the VfD. Look, instead, to Kalki and UDScott. And some other arguments may show up. You have no support for your position there, so far, Ningauble, so you come here to attack relative newbies who disagree with you? I congratulate Ruslik0 for declining this. --Abd (talk) 16:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Ruslik, if vote-stacking isn't "a valid reason for checkuser request", then shouldn't it be removed from the instructions above (which read: "good reason for the check" ... "vote-stacking")? ~ DanielTom (talk) 16:40, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Checkuser requires prerequisite disruption, and the voting on Wikiquote has not risen to that level. Votestacking can be a reason to request checkuser, but the evidence here is not for vote stacking. It is for three users being interested in a topic and editing mostly on that topic. I'm not presenting evidence here, but I looked.
I suppose I should be grateful for Abd's explanation that this was declined because to inquire about this suspiciously unusual situation is actually a personal attack (on "newbies" who have been editing the same topic since Jan–Feb 2013). ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:54, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
There is no prohibition on being a single-purpose account, and it is simply not surprising if there is more than one person interested in a particular topic. I do not find the situation suspicious or unusual, beyond one fact: often such SPAs won't notice a deletion vote. However, they all have email enabled -- SPAS often don't -- and all have edited the page being discussed, so they may well have been notified by email. Is a checkuser request an "attack"? That's debatable. It's disruptive, that is, it causes users to spend time dealing with something that does not improve the project. It should be necessary. --Abd (talk) 19:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
@Ningauble: I would pay little attention to Abd and DanielTom on this page, they are just noise, and should learn to keep their opinions to the communities in which they participate, and to matters in which they have expertise. They are not experts on checkuser, nor its interpretation by stewards. Nor are they experts on identifying sock users, nor are they uninhibited by this lack of expertise in sharing their opinion. This is not a page for offsite debate.

With regard to your request, that a number of (new) users voted itself is not a reason to checkuser, as locally you can assess the value of the votes and the discussion that they bring. That said, if you have a local policy that is breached, eg. use of sockpuppets, and disruptive behaviour, and there is a requirement to identify sockpuppets, then there may be grounds to check these according to the policy.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you billinghurst for your clear explanation of the stewards' perspective. Since the present situation at Wikiquote does not represent a significant risk of wide or ongoing disruption, I can see that it is a sensible approach. (I will try to heed your advice about extraneous noise, and apologize for creating a situation that invites noisomeness.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:14, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
@Ningauble: I have exactly no concerns with your approach, nor the questions. Where there is not clarity (policy/process/need/output/...) that a CU check should be taken we will decline, usually with questions, until that clarity is there, and our approach is to protect the legitimate user, the requester (and even the steward). Noise is noise, grey is grey, it exists and there is no need to apologise for it. We welcome the inquiry, and we all learn from it and come away with more knowledge, just not the CU data.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)