Open main menu
Warning! Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created on 01 July 2015, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion.

Contents

Requests

Тэллэй@sah.wikipedia

Obviously   Not done as against CheckUser policy and privacy policy. Egerman 1) The CU tool is to fight vandalism, 2) We will not disclose IP history to anybody as forbidden by the Wikimedia policies. Sorry. —MarcoAurelio 12:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

A.berjis@fa.wikipedia

Sorush110@fa.wikibooks

Sorush110 is   Unrelated to Sadaf110. Sadaf110 has the following   Confirmed socks: 145maryam, 15mitra. Ruslik (talk) 20:11, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks but I don't see any 145maryam or 15mitra in Persian Wikibooks.--Doostdar (talk) 13:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
b:fa:User:145maryam and b:fa:User:15mitra. Ruslik (talk) 19:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh yes! You're right. Thanks.--Doostdar (talk) 16:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Seahunter4@ru.wikibooks

  Confirmed though their association was quite obvious based on their contributions. Ruslik (talk) 16:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Кръстоносец@bg.wikipedia

For me   Inconclusive, but if somebody else wants to recheck, be my guest. —MarcoAurelio 10:11, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

TimurKirov@wikidata

Timmy terner@el.wikipedia

Can you explain why you are blocked on elwiki? —MarcoAurelio 09:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

User Timmy terner has been blocked on el@wiki due to his behaviour here and also here, according to our local policy Βικιπαίδεια:Όχι προσωπικές επιθέσεις. --Glorious 93 (talk) 09:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I'd prefer if this request is endorsed by an user in good standing -an admin would be ok- as CU requests requires good faith and not be used as a tool against disputes. —MarcoAurelio 19:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but if you see the dates, the attack happened 5 days after. and here is the reason.Timmy terner (talk) 15:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm leaning to decline this request. CheckUsers to "proof someone's innocence" ain't usually carried at this project, nor we have a custom of doing them. I'll let other stewards to have a look at this one though. —MarcoAurelio 14:51, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Blocks are clearly attributed to user activity rather than accusations of sockpuppetry. Checkuser not clearly required.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Abdolrahman Khazeni@fa.wikipedia

@Ruslik0: Could you please verify this request too? Actually the request is going to be stale after one week! ● Mehran Debate 05:22, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Apparently stale.   Closed  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Seiavoshy@fa.wikipedia

Sorry but you copied my previous requests even without one minor change! I am a sysop in fawiki and as far as I know, the user has not been banned and this request is not legitimate based on the above facts. ● Mehran Debate 02:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Apologies for the copyright violation! But user:Seiavoshy was editting during the time user:Maahmaah was blocked. As for the original banned user, I am talking about the notorious user:Truth Seeker. who has abundance of socks--Kazemita1 (talk) 07:00, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
All right, that would be an acceptable reason, however I did not understand the relationship between Truthseeker and the accounts. ● Mehran Debate 07:28, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

  Closed Please take discussion back to local wiki to determine the need and value of a checkuser.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@billinghurst: The consensus in the above discussion was that the request is legitimate. Can you do the checkuser? Because right after this request, both of the users announced retirement Seiavoshy, Maahmaah; but because of the delay in the process, they started their activity again. Best, Taha (talk) 03:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  Unrelated between the two accounts. I do see a relationship between Maahmaah and Basp1, though the latter account only edited for a month.

To note that if you are going to start using the "Truth Seeker" reasoning then we would be expecting to see editing in that style mentioned for the check, so we have some evidence that it is the user. I think that checks like this should be proposed with admins at faWP first.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)