Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser

From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:SPI)
For the place to request access to the tool, see Wikipedia:Requests for permissions.
Shortcuts

CheckUser is the process of checking information about two or more users (including named users and IP addresses). Some administrators are able to check if two or more accounts have been used from the same computer. These users also see User agents. This can help them decide if two accounts are related in the way described above. It is also possible to see if a user is editing from an open proxy.

On this page, users can request some users or IPs to be checked. Good reasons should be given for why a checkuser is needed; you should provide links which show the questionable edits, etc. Questions should usually be created so that they can be answered by yes or no. Responses will be short in order to comply with Wikipedia privacy policy. Sensitive information (like the IP addresses used by an account) are usually not reported. The results are not always clear, and a decision should not be made only on the basis of checkuser results.

Use of the tool

This tool is to be used to fight vandalism, to check for sockpuppet abuse, and to limit disruption of the project. It must be used only to prevent damage to the project.

The tool should not be used for political control; to apply pressure on editors; or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to check a user. Note that alternative accounts are not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of the policies (for example, to vote more than once or to make it look like more people support an idea). Checkusers will refuse a request, if the reason for checking is not good enough to warrant the use of the tool.

Please see the CheckUser policy for all the rules related to CheckUser.

The list of users with CheckUser access can be seen at: Special:ListUsers/checkuser.



SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 3 days and sections whose most recent comment is older than 90 days. For the archive overview, see Archive.

Current requests

[change source]

April 20, 2025

[change source]

This account was registered on the day following the CheckUser block of Tuscan Ant as a sockpuppet of Kk.urban. The account concerned seems to be highly familiar with a series of site operations (e.g. page move, Template creation, script manipulation) ‒ does not look like a new user. Similar to Tuscan Ant, the account concerned also seems to be pretty interested in articles related to U.S. localities. Both accounts show the pattern of performing uninterrupted series of identical operations within a short time, and patrolling random articles to make trivial copyedits. I may be wrong, but the behavioural patterns of the two accounts do come off as pretty similar. Steven1991 (talk) 22:31, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not confirmed fr33kman 00:05, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Eptalon (talk) 09:26, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Users at Hamed Abbasi

[change source]

Two new users that have both edited Hamed Abbasi and Mohammadreza Khodadai to remove RFD and Notability tags. These are new articles, one of which Mehdibhafoni65 created. NoteBaseWriter was created after warnings were left on Mehdibhafoni65's page. The other page was created by an IP editor who's probably the same person, but I know you can't connect them. Either sockpuppetry or WP:MEAT is happening here. Ravensfire (talk) 22:21, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the information I have, they locate to different countries. However: NoteBasedWriter uses a VPN/Open proxy, which we fobid; as a consequence, that account has been blocked. Eptalon (talk) 22:53, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22 April 2025

[change source]

Bensebgli is community banned from English Wikipedia due to his history of socking and caste POV pushing, which seems to be repeating here. After his request for unblock was rejected at WP:AN on en-wiki, he has started editing simple-wiki on 21 March 2025 [1][2]

On 23 March, Durjan Singh Jadon joined the simple Wikipedia and started reverting others on caste pages to restore gujjar clan articles. [3][4][5][6]

Both of these users are working in tandem with one another in order to promote Gujjar caste POV. [7][8][9][10][11][12]

Bensebgli is seemingly aware of previous caste based disruption in the topic as well as English Wikipedia [13] so is Durjan Singh Jadon who is supporting them. [14][15] Koshuri Sultan (talk) 05:24, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This report is entirely misleading also simple-wiki has nothing to do with En-wiki, if a user is constructively trying to contribute. Thanks. Bensebgli (Talk) 07:17, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Koshuri Sultan Keep in mind CU is not going to help because I'm 100% confident and honest that Durjan is a different person also Durjan is not blocked/banned on En-wiki and you need to file a SPI report on En-wiki, if you think he is my sock. Also you should provide solid evidence only about my Simple-wiki's conduct not en wiki.
Note for the admin this user on En-wiki posted a oppose vote in my unblock appeal now he posted this misleading report. I'm honest or not CU will declaire soon.. Bensebgli (Talk) 07:24, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Koshuri Sultan "Both of these users are working in tandem with one another in order to promote Gujjar caste POV." Really? I think you are not aware about Retaliatory SPI reporting? If I'm not wrong first you voted on En-wiki against my unblock appeal even when we had zero interactions before? How you find my unblock appeal there this is very suspecius. In 2025-2024 you were unblocked with some conditions on en-wiki before that you were blocked for sockpuppetry on En-wiki. For the last 22-23 months any filed SPI report didn't prove me commiting any sockpuppetry. Still I'm 1000% confident I have zero connection with any other accounts except with one and the only account (Bensebgli). Also if you're not aware Durjan was accused by a disruptive Editor/related IPs as belonging to another caste/group. At WP:AN this report is filed against another user and admin will respond there if user conducted side-wide editing. [19][20][21][22][23][24] these provided diffs only show I reverted disruptive edits of Blocked IPs those are blocked by MathXplore and these diffs all show I've provided edit summaries for all these edits mostly against (disruptive blocked IPs or a user who is accused for side wide editing) . Bensebgli (Talk) 07:35, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello all. I ran a check, and I don't see any overlapping IPs. The IPs listed are from different countries. So, they are likely not the same user. And yes, Bensebgli is blocked on EnWP. From CU point of view, no action is required. Eptalon (talk) 07:47, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Eptalon Thank you. I was aware about the result that's why I confidently said I'm (100% confident Durjan is a different person) also I found this report as Retaliatory because same user on en-wiki out of no where casted his oppose vote on my unblock appeal (without any proper objections). Now he filled this report and citing here En-wiki's matters as an evidence? As you said Durjan and I'm from two different countries/locations. I'll repeat again on en-wiki I tried hard to prove that "for the last 22-23 months I didn't commit any sockpuppetry will also not in the future". I'm here on Simple Wikipedia just to start my new journey. Now I'm mature enough to understand that if I will commit mistake of sockpuppetry in future, I'll be blocked globally. Also there is not a point to use the account that is blocked on en-wiki and an alternative account at the same time. Bensebgli (Talk) 08:01, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Bensebgli, yes, the statement that I wrote is public, and you can reference it. When you do, it would likely be best to reference a specific version of the page, as these reports get archived periodically. Eptalon (talk) 08:07, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your quick response and clarifications. Yes I'll reference a specific revision of this report, if I'll need to cite in future. Bensebgli (Talk) 08:23, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Eptalon (talk) 09:26, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Users at Tatiane Forte

[change source]

The 1st user is the 1st author of this page, and it was deleted due to Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2025/Tatiane Forte. After the RFD, the 2nd user recreated the page. MathXplore (talk) 13:56, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a direct match, I'd conclude it as  Possible.-- BRP ever 12:15, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. BRP ever 12:21, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Users at Hamidreza Elahi (football analyst)

[change source]

Possible WP:EVASION. The 1st user is the author of the page, and the 2nd user (already blocked) uploaded a related file to Commons (File:حمیدرضا الهی آنالیزور.jpg). MathXplore (talk) 08:36, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not confirmed. BRP ever 12:21, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. BRP ever 12:21, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser&oldid=10216417"