|Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created on 01 January 2016, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion.|
- The association between UnnamedWikiReturns and UnnamedWiki is obvious and we do not match users to IP addresses. Ruslik (talk) 18:51, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
- Not done - This page is to request CU actions from stewards. For gaining checkuser status, please review Checkuser policy and then, after you meet the criteria (local election, at least 25 votes etc), you can request the right on SRP. -Barras talk 13:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Status: Not done
- Courtesy blanked. See previous revision.
- This page is for requesting CheckUser information on a wiki with no local CheckUsers. Korean Wikipedia has 3 CheckUsers and local request was done by IRTC1015. --Sotiale (talk) 08:46, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- Additional information needed rather clarification. If you think both editors are unrelated ("I expect that the two user accounts indeed belong to different people"), why are you asking for a check? From your statement above it is not clear to me why an edit war between this two very editors can be solved with a CU query. Best regards. —MarcoAurelio 18:03, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, Marco, let me rephrase it, indeed.
- User Rebelheartous requested help from the administrators, because of a conflict between him, from one side, and Okalinov, Vtd and a bunch of IP's, from another. Rebelheartous, who is an active editor from eight years and thus has plenty of experience, expressed his belief that behind this group against him is a single person, who tries to gain the upper hand in the conflict by creating the false impression that his/her point of view has much wider support. This is something explicitly forbidden by our rules of conduct concerning the use of sock puppets, which is why Rebelheartous requested that Okalinov, Vtd and the IPs be blocked for abuse.
- Okalinov and Vtd, in turn, claim that they are totally different people, who merely share the same point of view. I may or may not have reasons to believe them, but in the end it's their word against Rebelheartous's judgement, and I prefer to base my decision on something more solid than someone's words or beliefs. I shouldn't have indeed shared my own expectations from the CU either, because being expectations and not facts they are just as irrelevant.
- To summarize, the CU can help, and in fact is the only way to determine if Okalinov and Vtd are in breach of the rules against the unfair use of sock puppets in conflicts. This suspicion has been raised by an experienced member of the community who has followed the conflict for years now, so I have little reason to reject his request outright. At the same time, however, as administrator I cannot impose the blocks he requests unless I have solid proof that there *is* in fact a breach of the rules, i.e. a case of sock puppetry.
- I hope I've managed to make the case more clear now.
- Cheers, — Luchesar V. ILIEV • T/C 20:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
- I should've probably added that user Vtd has already been blocked once by another administrator for his aggressive behaviour, and I have reasons to believe that he (less likely she) has also been behind the threats of physical violence in the past, made from an IP address. While the link with the IP can only be guessed, it'll certainly help to determine if there's also a case of sock puppetry involved. — Luchesar V. ILIEV • T/C 20:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
- System don't let me check. I receive repeat "Session error. Please try again" message. —MarcoAurelio 16:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- I continue to receive this error message. No check performed by me. Leaving to other stewards. —MarcoAurelio 16:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- All Confirmed --MF-W 14:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)