Contents

Wikivoyage:Requests for checkuser

This page exists to allow users to request for checkuser information on the English Wikivoyage.

Before requesting a check, please make sure to do the following:

  • Read Wikivoyage's checkuser policy
  • List your request at the bottom of Requests
  • State why:
    • a check is needed;
    • how those accounts are possibly related.

To file a request, use the "Add new report" button below. You will be able to submit up to 20 accounts using the tool. Your signature will also be automatically added.

If you're manually adding a request, please use {{checkuser}} individually to list users. An example request would be as follows: 

===Foo=== * {{checkuser|Foo}} * {{checkuser|Bar}} Foo, an indefinitely blocked user, previously extensively edited [[Canberra]] articles before being community-banned. Bar is a newly recreated account that also similarly extensively edits [[Canberra]] articles and thus may potentially be block evading. //~~~~

Please use the checkuser template, as this adds a permalink to the request in the (non-public) checkuser log.

As per this site's checkuser policy, stewards may also handle requests placed on this page.

Requests

[edit source]

FrederikTopper

[edit source]

Three of these accounts are blocked, as suspected sockpuppet accounts of Brendan, a well-known Long-term abuser. See these edits from Suburbs, Queensland, and Riyadh. Please do not forget to see the edit filter and tags too. Requesting an IP check for sure. //--~2026-69216-3 (talk) 23:51, 31 January 2026 (UTC)reply

Procedurally marking this as not done since IPs cannot be publicly connected to accounts. //shb (t | c | m) 04:33, 15 February 2026 (UTC)reply

HenrikKitzel

[edit source]

I assume HenrikKitzel (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • CA • AllContribs • checkuser • investigate) is yet another sock of Brendan, but please check. Difference here. Also, ping to @User:Pashley, who took them seriously and sent them a greeting as if they were a new good-faith user: I think you should note the outcome of this checkuser. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:31, 4 April 2026 (UTC)reply

Why isn't the ping working? Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:32, 4 April 2026 (UTC)reply
Yes Done – although no sleeper accounts found, account is likely a match (both technically and behaviorally). Blocked and reverted accordingly. //shb (t | c | m) 04:59, 4 April 2026 (UTC)reply
(btw @Ikan Kekek:, one small thing: could you use {{checkuser}} to link user accounts needing checking – only ask this because the template exists to provide a permalink to the request when submitting a reason for checking on the checkuser interface. //shb (t | c | m) 09:08, 4 April 2026 (UTC))reply

Heathhenry66

[edit source]

Three accounts, are blocked as Spambots / spam-only accounts. I assume that there are more spam accounts to see on the block list. One of them, are globally locked, with the reason of Spam-only account. Please check for sleepers, if these are lurking around. //--~2026-69216-3 (talk) 05:12, 4 April 2026 (UTC)reply

Not done Having looked at the deleted contributions, the spam in question seems unrelated to each other, thus making a checkuser as merely a fishing exercise (which isn't permitted). However, I've globally locked the other two accounts in question as spambots. //shb (t | c | m) 06:59, 4 April 2026 (UTC)reply
Thank you! ~2026-69216-3 (talk) 08:24, 4 April 2026 (UTC)reply

ThatEquatorialGuineaEditor

[edit source]

@Ikan Kekek, Ground Zero, SelfieCity: (pinging you three since I know you lot have most interacted with this user) continuing from this discussion, it seems this user, along with a bunch of other socks, are all related to Te Reo Ahiteraria, a glocked LTA who's also been involved with creating hoaxes (I can't remember whether they've been involved here, though). From the CU check I conducted, all of these appeared likely:

...and ThatEquatorialGuineaEditor already self-disclosed that ThatEquatorialGuineaEditor (alt) is their sock. All of these have been gblocked accordingly, but my question is, should we delete all of their articles as potential hoaxes? I know they've made quite a fair few changes to the Equatorial Guinea structure, and I think those too would need to be reverted (though maybe GZ already reverted them? I haven't checked). //shb (t | c | m) 05:02, 24 June 2026 (UTC)reply

Oh brother! This is sad, but we have no choice if someone is known to have made hoax edits. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:47, 24 June 2026 (UTC)reply
w:mg:Manokana:Fandraisan'anjara/ThatEquatorialGuineaEditor is gonna be a massive cleanup for me too :( – can't use the nuke feature there (since the creations were >90 days ago). //shb (t | c | m) 06:52, 24 June 2026 (UTC)reply


Schinnosuke

[edit source]

Appears to be a sock of Lesothe, etc. See deleted contributions. Currently blocked for 3 days for vandalism. --Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:39, 10 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Yep...confirmed as a sock. Indeffed. //shb (t | c | m) 09:04, 10 July 2026 (UTC)reply
(btw your first req was almost there – the template only failed since there was a double link //shb (t | c | m) 09:18, 10 July 2026 (UTC))reply


User:~2026-40148-79

[edit source]

I presume this is Brendan again, although their edit to Bolivia was more specific than usual this time. Please confirm or refute. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:20, 16 July 2026 (UTC) --Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:20, 16 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Confirmed using TAIV (based on geolocation). //shb (t | c | m) 23:43, 16 July 2026 (UTC)reply

See also

[edit source]