Steward requests/Checkuser

Shortcut:
SRCU

Checkuser icons
These indicators are used by CheckUsers and stewards for easier skimming of their notes, actions and comments.
{{Confirmed}}: Confirmed	{{MoreInfo}}: Additional information needed
{{Likely}}: Likely	{{Deferred}}: Deferred to
{{Possible}}: Possible	{{Completed}}: Completed
{{Unlikely}}: Unlikely	{{TakeNote}}: Note:
{{Unrelated}}: Unrelated	{{Doing}}: Doing...
{{Inconclusive}}: Inconclusive	{{StaleIP}}: Stale 百度今年的两会上，史无前例的提到了一直以来呼喊声很高的房地产税立法。
{{Declined}}: Declined	{{Fishing}}: CheckUser is not for fishing
{{Pixiedust}}: CheckUser is not magic pixie dust	{{8ball}}: The CheckUser Magic 8-Ball says
{{Duck}}: It looks like a duck to me	{{Crystalball}}: CheckUser is not a crystal ball

This page is for requesting CheckUser information on a wiki with no local CheckUsers (see also requesting checkuser access). Make sure to follow the following instructions, or your request may not be processed in a timely manner.

Before making a request:

Make sure you have a good reason for the check. It will only be accepted to counter vandalism or disruption to Wikimedia wikis. Valid reasons include needing a block of the underlying IP or IP range, disruptive sockpuppetry, vote-stacking, and similar disruption where the technical evidence from running a check would prevent or reduce further disruption.
Be specific in your reasons. Ambiguous or insufficient reasons will cause delays. Explain the disruption and why you believe the accounts are related, ideally using diff links or other evidence.
Make sure there are no local checkusers.
- Wikimedia: meta ? commons ? species ? data
- Wikipedia: ar ? bn ? ca ? cs ? da ? de ? en ? es ? fa ? fi ? fr ? he ? hu ? id ? it ? ja ? ko ? ml ? nl ? pl ? pt ? ru ? simple ? sl ? sr ? sv ? th ? tr ? uk ? vi
- Wikibooks: en
- Wikinews: en
- Wiktionary: en
Please ensure that the check hasn't already been done:

How to make a request

How to make a request:

Place your request at the bottom of the section, using the template below (see also {{srcu}} help).

=== Username@xx.project ===
{{CU request
 |status          = <!--don't change this line-->
 |language code   = 
 |project shortcut= 
 |user name1      = 
 |user name2      = 
 |user name3      = 
<!-- Max 10 users -->
 |discussion      = [[Example]]<!-- local confirmation link / local policy link -->
 |reason          = Reasons here. ~~~~
}}

For example:

=== Example@en.wikipedia ===
{{CU request
 |status          = <!--don't change this line-->
 |language code   = en
 |project shortcut= w
 |user name1      = Example
 |user name2      = Foo
 |user name3      = Bar
<!-- Max 10 users -->
 |discussion      = [[:w:en:Example]]<!-- local confirmation link / local policy link -->
 |reason          = Reasons here. ~~~~
}}

Specify the wiki(s) you want to perform the check on.

Cross-wiki requests
CheckUser information Global blocks/locks Permissions (global) Permissions (bot) Permissions (other) Username changes/ usurpation requests Miscellaneous requests URL blacklisting Title/username blacklisting Email blacklisting
Meta-Wiki requests
CheckUser information Deletion Permissions Requests for help

Requests

EuSuntTuDinViitor@ro.wikipedia

Status: ?? In progress

List of users: Renamed user 5b17e92b249d4d04aee3b25bb3c788d3 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Renamed user 807b7d1034e1359ab3b3d81ea2b93b45 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); ESTCV (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Vellion Eagle (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

CU log
Discussion: local guideline on courtesy vanishing

Reason(s): On May 30, 2025, the account EuSuntTuDinViitor was renamed to Renamed user 5b17e92b249d4d04aee3b25bb3c788d3 and then globally locked following their vanishing request.

Immediately after that, a new account was created on June 1st, under the name VTDES, which is an anagrammatic acronym of the former user name ("Eu Sunt Tu Din Viitor" means "I Am You From the Future"). Subsequently, this account was also renamed to Renamed user 807b7d1034e1359ab3b3d81ea2b93b45 and then globally locked following a new vanishing request.

Finally, two new accounts were created that are still in use up to this date: ESTCV and Vellion Eagle. According to the Romanian guideline ro:Wikipedia:Dreptul de a p?r?si proiectul, which coincides in this point with the English guideline en:Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing, ?Vanishing is not a way to start over with a fresh account. […] Should you vanish and then continue editing under a new account, and are later discovered, the vanishing can be reversed, and your old and new accounts may be linked.”

The abovementioned accounts share the same patterns of behavior, some very specific spelling errors and even their similar names. They may pass the duck test, without any need of further technical evidence. However, in order to reverse the courtesy vanishing process, the proof provided by a checkuser should be decisive. --Pafsanias (talk) 18:43, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note, "vanishing can be reversed" is outdated. The current vanish/lock process is designed to be one-way. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:49, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see. But does it mean that the vanished person may continue to use other newly created user accounts, or should these accounts be locked anyway? --Pafsanias (talk) 11:00, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone disruptively using accounts may be sanctioned. If these accounts are disrupting your project, you can block them. None of these accounts, including the vanished ones are blocked anywhere - we do not globally lock accounts simply because someone has multiple non-disrupting accounts. This does not necessarily mean that a check isn't warranted. Are any of these accounts causing disruption on rowki? — xaosflux ^Talk 12:24, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact, they violate the local guideline on courtesy vanishing currently in force. --Pafsanias (talk) 14:10, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that'd constitute as a valid violation purely because user vanishing is done locally on Meta. A09|(pogovor) 10:52, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure if I get your point. I do not claim that any local procedure on meta has been violated, nor that any action has to be taken on this project. The present checking of accounts was requested here because there are no local checkusers on ro.wikipedia. --Pafsanias (talk) 15:47, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The checkuser policy is very narrow. See CheckUser policy#Use of the tool. Creating local rules does not expand the limits on this tool. If someone has locked one account and started using a new account, they only have one account - so they wouldn't be actively socking. Not a single one of these accounts appears to have disrupted any project enough even have a block. There also is no local discussion linked where behavioral evidence has been examined. Regarding what actions you would take even if these were related, "the vanishing can be reversed": account vanishing under the newer vanishing process that also locks accounts is considered a one-way process, so that is no longer an viable remedy. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:13, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I wasn't clear enough. There are two accounts currently in use: ESTCV and Vellion Eagle. Behaviorial evidence has been examined here for the first of them and here for the second one. Regarding what actions we would take if these accounts were related, maybe we should consider indefinitely blocking them? --Pafsanias (talk) 16:56, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those accounts have appeared to have done anything to get blocked so far. Unless there is a specific disruption that is being caused by these accounts editing in combination, that is suspected to be because both of the accounts are being controlled by the same person, there isn't a good reason to checkuser them. Is that present? Of course, if either of the accounts are being disruptive, you can just block them for that. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:51, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

┌───────────────────────┘
@Xaosflux: Thank you for your advice. As far as I can see, there are two different issues related to this case:

Both English and Romanian Wikipedia guidelines about courtesy vanishing must be updated, because they no longer reflect the current status of the vanish/lock process, which is one-way and cannot be reversed. I intend to open a discussion about this on the Romanian language project. Could you help us with providing a link to the corresponding discussion that took place on meta and the final decision leading to this change of status?
Nevertheless, account vanishing still designates a permanent leave from Wikimedia project, which implies that the vanished user will not return. This is also mentioned even in the corresponding meta rules, which furthermore specify that “if you want to edit using another username, you should use changing username and clean start instead”.

If the above accounts belong to the same person, as all the indications suggest, then they are in violation of the second point. Moreover, this blatant violation is extremely defiant, since the second account was created on June 1, immediately after the first vanish request was approved, and a new vanish request was submitted at the same time. In the meantime, in one of his edit descriptions the user wrote: “My Global Vanish Request hasn't been accepted yet, so I'm still working a bit”! The other two accounts were created 3 days and 6 days later, respectively, and they are still in use. This behavior does not correspond to the purpose of the described account vanishing procedure.

If meta checkuser cannot assist local administrators with verifying those accounts, there is no problem, we may proceed by applying the duck test and analyzing only the behavioral evidence, but this clearly doesn’t change the nature of their infringement and the need to clarify the rules to be followed in case of courtesy vanishing. --Pafsanias (talk) 10:30, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly local projects should maintain accurate information. "Account vanishing" is about global accounts - not necessarily people. In general, abandoning one's account and starting a new account is acceptable. Abandoning one account that is being disruptive or that was sanctioned to start a new account is generally unacceptable. Also, using multiple accounts disruptively at once is generally unacceptable. Please note Account vanishing is not a policy, and also note that the concept of account vanishing (including the new processes that include locking and scrambling the account as well as making this a one-way workflow) were updated in the last year in order to comply with various laws across the jurisdictions we operate in.

So regrading the 4 accounts above: None of them apparently did anything to warrant blocking, so none appear to be causing direct disruption or using multiple accounts to bypass blocks. The unlocked accounts don't even seem to have overlapping contributions. ESTCV appears to have stopped contributing almost 2 months ago. So what is left? There is one account that is actively contributing (Vellion Eagle). If that account is being disruptive, block it. If that spurns ESTCV to reactivate - that would be good behavioral evidence of disruptive socking. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:54, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We agree that in general, abandoning one's account and starting a new account is acceptable. This is not what account vanishing seems to refer to, however. Account vanishing is about permanent leave from Wikimedia project and is different from changing username and clean start. It is not a policy, indeed, but the corresponding document has been discussed and approved by the community. I found no information about the recent changes on the talk page, nor do they appear to be reproduced in the current version of the page. What authority do we need to rely on in order to update our local guideline? --Pafsanias (talk) 13:58, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To change a page on a local project, discuss with the local project.

The most important recent change to keep in mind is that in order to comply with laws in multiple countries, as well as the requirements for participation in services such as the Google Play Store and the Apple App Store - the Foundation implemented a close my account utility. This utility has replaced the courtesy "vanishing" that we used to do by manually renaming accounts. Using this utility is a one-way workflow. The Foundation's Terms of Service do not require that someone that closes an account in this manner will be forever barred from ever contributing to Wikimedia projects in the future. Local projects do continue to have wide moderation powers over their contributors, and in general may block their users for any reason supported by the local community that don't violate global policies such as the Universal Code of Conduct. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:32, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information. Where can I find more details about this new utility and the process leading to its adoption by the Foundation? I think this is an important change that should be widely communicated to all local projects in order to be duly mirrored in their policies and guidelines. Or has it already been communicated and I didn't notice? --Pafsanias (talk) 15:30, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most of this is contained within these tasks - local updates to Account vanishing / Global_renamers/FAQ#Vanishing are likely also still needed. Some updates have been sent in Tech News (e.g. Tech/News/2024/30) - but the non technical aspects have been a bit understated. One important thing that hasn't changed is that disrupting our projects, no matter what mechanisms are used - is still not acceptable. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:57, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chunks124@so.wikipedia

Status: ?? In progress

List of users: Chunks124 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Xaliimo123 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Muuseaadan12 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

CU log
Discussion: so:User talk:Ternera, Wikipedia:Khariibaad

Reason(s): CC @Ternera:. Users are disrupting so:Gedo by inserting large blocks of untranslated English text. I suspect it is the same group that wouldn't be easily dealt with normal blocks, given the page history (same exact edits minutes after previous sock was blocked) and given local admin absence I believe an IP range block (in case of additional sleepers) would benefit. A09|(pogovor) 21:36, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MissUAlyhsc@zh.wikipedia

Status: ?? In progress

List of users: MissUAlyhsc (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); ScottishBoy2025 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Ashikaga Takauji (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

CU log
Discussion: zh:Wikipedia:傀儡調查/案件/MissUAlyhsc#2025-08-07

Reason(s): Similar editing behavior in Houthis related article by performing minor edits to conjunctions (for MissUAlyhsc and ScottishBoy2025). Original discussion also included evidences such as ScottishBoy2025, who is newly registered, calling to block MissUAlyhsc once registered and suggests that Ashikaga Takauji and ScottishBoy2025 are related. ScottishBoy claims later in local discussion that he/she is not a sock of Ashikaga Takauji, so a check is requested to verify the relationship between the accounts. Thanks in advance.

\int

（?） 17:40, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

叶酸每天什么时候吃最好	昱这个字念什么	前胸后背疼是什么原因	什么样的嘴巴	肾阳虚什么症状
一什么山泉	避重就轻什么意思	儿童用什么牙膏最好可以保护牙齿	口腔癌早期有什么征兆	六月一号什么星座
老年人嗜睡是什么原因	大保健是什么	普洱茶属于什么茶	错构瘤是什么意思	切莫是什么意思
云南在古代叫什么	什么是速写	湿阻病是什么病	不拉屎是什么原因	月老叫什么名字

唇炎用什么药膏hcv8jop7ns6r.cn	血常规检查能查出什么hcv8jop8ns5r.cn	精制盐是什么盐hcv9jop2ns7r.cn	家婆是什么意思hcv7jop7ns2r.cn	胸贴是什么hcv9jop8ns2r.cn
那好吧是什么意思hcv8jop5ns0r.cn	银装素裹什么意思hcv8jop5ns9r.cn	阵容是什么意思hcv7jop5ns5r.cn	白细胞正常c反应蛋白高说明什么hcv9jop2ns5r.cn	联票是什么意思hlguo.com
什么牌子的护肝药最好hcv7jop9ns2r.cn	飞刃是什么意思hcv9jop6ns3r.cn	指甲硬是什么原因hcv7jop7ns2r.cn	牙龈肿痛吃什么药快速消肿止痛bfb118.com	UFS是什么意思hcv8jop6ns8r.cn
什么消炎药效果好520myf.com	肛裂是什么症状hcv8jop0ns6r.cn	心源性哮喘首选什么药hcv9jop1ns4r.cn	专科是什么意思hcv9jop5ns3r.cn	七月十日是什么日子hcv8jop5ns1r.cn

清明于慎终追远之时不忘初心

Requests

EuSuntTuDinViitor@ro.wikipedia

Chunks124@so.wikipedia

MissUAlyhsc@zh.wikipedia

See also