Steward requests/Checkuser/2009-05



ko:user:chomin9710 and ko:user:피챌. i am suspicious these accounts are same, so can youfigure it out? -- Shyoon1 14:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello, multiple accounts are not forbidden, please can You explain why You think they are abusing it? Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 14:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
because chomin9710 canceled the edit of voting ko:user:피첼 for bureaucrat which has ended, then 1 minute later, account ko:user:피챌 (not to be confused with 피첼)has made. (almost same pronounciation of 피첼, and fake account) And 피챌 requested chomin9710 as admin with in 10 minutes. No one does know what this chomin9710 user has done for in korean Wikipedia,(actually he signed in 24 April 2009) and i am suspicious that 피챌 requested chomin9710 as admin within 10 minutes since 피챌 has joined to wikipedia, so please confirm these two accounts and sorry that did not say what was exact reason to checkusing these two accounts. -- Shyoon1 22:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
um, how is it going? can you figure that out please? -- Shyoon1 21:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

  Confirmed chomin9710 == 피챌  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I also want to know if chomin9710 is a sockpuppet of ko:user:통합로그인 or ko:user:Betalph(a habitual abuser) 08:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
  Note: Please log in to request! Regards, Dorgan 10:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
sorry. I thought I was logged in. ^^;; adidas 14:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Chomin9710 is   Unrelated with 통합로그인 and with Betalph. Regards, Dorgan 14:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed.
kinda improper request from anonymous user.. what's your real identity? adidas 09:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
The anonymous might be a user in ko.wp. ko.wp users are investigating on him. adidas 10:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
나는 의심가는 사용자에 대하여 체크유저를 신청했을 뿐, 이것은 수사를 할만한 범죄가 아님을 밝혀둡니다. ko:위키백과:사랑방 에 관련한 과거토론 링크를 읽어 보시기 바랍니다. Mhha 15:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I use the term 'investigating' as only for 'examining', not for 'manhunt on a criminal'. For the further discussion, let's go back to our local project. adidas 15:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed.

Sorry for bothering you again^^..

Recently, Cheta requested the termination of permenant ban of ko:User:Unypoly(and it was his 'first' edit). But, many users suspect that Chetastar may be one of sockpuppets of ko:User:Unypoly(the best habitual and heaviest vandalism user in ko.wp). I totally agree with them, but I think checkusing should be done to make it clear.

I want you to check these users.

and also

  • ko:User: trolling ip user)
  • 211.189.36.* (may be one of Unypoly's ip. I don't know the exact location of this.)
  • 211.241.93.* (Unypoly's highschool ip. He did vandalism several times using this ip.)

Thanks. adidas 10:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC) are owned by public computers in en:Kyobo Book Centre. --ITurtle 10:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  Unnecessary - single-purpose accounts or obvious sockpuppets should simply be blocked - no CU needed.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 13:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply 8^) adidas 03:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Stewards are not servant of you. Do not think they have much time, please. :-( Mhha 11:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that these words are better fit for you as you are ''. adidas 03:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed.

..... They appear to be socks using open proxies. This vandal has been abusing vi.wp to talk obscenity. Please block the open proxies involved. Thanks. 10:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Proxies used were
and Dupbopenetration is another sock (already blocked).  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 13:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed.

This is a request from ko.wp sysop ko:User:S.BULLET.

This user is a vandalism user and of course has been blocked for 1 month. But after that, ko:User:Sm12333333445456 registrated on ko.wp and did almost the same thing Ggfgfdhf did.

S.Bullet. wonders if they are one same person or not. They've already been blocked but that is not a permanent ban. If they are one person, the sysop(Bullet) will give them a permanent ban. adidas 14:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Is the check really necessary? the duck test might suffice. ++Lar: t/c 15:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
That's right. But in ko.wp, 'duck test' is not considered as a clear proof of verifying a sockpuppet. adidas 15:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Sm12333333445456 has no matching IP found, those edits are far-off. Anyway, Sm12333333445456 has edited before Ggfgfdhf. As for the rest, I agree with Lar about duck test--Nick1915 - all you want 16:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much adidas 16:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed.
  • st:User:RockMatton
  • Reason: This could be the same person as this one, a person blocked at the swedish Wikipedia. A check could be good, for the user to become totally blocked./Account 09:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  Unrelated but clearly a vandalism only account which got blocked, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 11:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

en: and en:

The following discussion is closed.

Can it be checked if these IP-addresses are used by the same computer as the blocked sv:User:Torvindus and the belowmentioned accounts on stwiki. I have certainly had enough wiki stalking now./Account 14:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Please do also block these slandering IP addresses./Account 15:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  Declined, sorry but has local checkusers, please ask for a check there, thanks for Your understanding, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 15:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
( checkusers can use the data we already gave to them and these IPs, if do want to perform a check, it would not make much sense to look these IPs up in, since the other accounts were from open proxies and the older ones are too old, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 15:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC))

A large number of accounts @ zh.wikipedia

The following discussion is closed.

I have discovered the following users behave similarly. They often making a few edits to the articles (some establish a new article) right after registration, but then the account is abandoned. As a result, no communication / teaching is possible even we found out the problem. Such abuse of new account registration disturbed the operation of zh.wikipedia. In view of this, I am asking if all the following accounts are all related. Thank you.--Altt311 18:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

  • LATung
  • Danghwongha
  • Honkenloo
  • LAUming
  • Heavibeandos
  • Hamwingso
  • Tanxialuang
  • Eizosaumtong
  Declined: Disruptive single-purpose accounts should simply be blocked - no CU needed here as far as I can tell.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

ko:사용자:Mhha, ko:사용자:양재온천 and related IP users @ ko.wikipedia

The following discussion is closed.

Mhha made the article ko:하민호, ko:하민호 (경영인, ko:하민호 (변호사).(All three articles are deleted) 하민호 is Mhha's real name. An when they were nominated for article for deletion, ([2], [3], ko:사용자: and ko:사용자: appeared and claimed that those articles were not to be deleted.

At first 양재온천 appeared, he proposed some articles to "articles for deletion", and made articles shorter than stubs. When ko:사용자:RedMosQ and admin(also a bureaucrat) ko:사용자:ChongDae pointed it, He trolled two and requested blocking RedMosQ on admin attention. [4] And he blamed all admin by this message. "위키백과재단에 한푼도 기부하지 않은 관리자가 있다고 하니 그런 관리자는 스스로 관리자 직위에서 물러날것! 관리자 자격 없음!" It means, "All admin that do not donate any coins for Wikimedia Foundation MUST quit their admin status. They aren't have qualification for admin status."

Recently Mhha's many proposal about policies and guidelines of Ko.WP was severely criticised, and Mhha almost quited his wikipedia edition. And at last, he candidated admin status for confirm user's trust for himself. ko:사용자:Junpei first suspected that if first four account are sockpuppet of Mhha, and when he questioned on Mhha's user talk page, Mhha recognized that they were his sockpuppet.[5] and is added to suspection list of sockpuppet, but they weren't recognized. and does not have any obvious problem, but they only edited ko:이기문. This article was first made by Mhha, so they are suspected another sockpuppet. At present Mhha and his suspected sockpuppet is requested for being blocked undefinitely,[6], and Mhha denies that they were not sockpuppet of him in here. --Mintz0223 05:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment: In thesedays, some of users were ignored law of South Korea. It is big problem. Some of people, opposite people to make wikimedia south korea, not agreed people, they changed means of my words and fishing problems by attacking asks. mhha "하" Mr Ha 09:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with Mhha, but I think this request should be rejected. First, discussion in local wiki is still going on. Second, Mhha already stated that these User Names and ip contributions are his[7]. In my opinion, local discussion should be ended first. adidas 13:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Local administrator decided the permanent ban of 양재온천(sockpuppet), and 1 year ban of sockpuppet ips adidas 14:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
It is right, and now the remained IPs (, are connected lower than blocked IPs and 양재온천. So I think this checkuser request is lost its nessecity, and I'm willing to cancel this request. Sorry for disturbing. :)--Mintz0223 16:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Our community have to sort in the local C. mhha "하" Mr Ha 00:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

  Not done then.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Truth Seeker@fa.wikipedia

The following discussion is closed.

fa:کاربر:Truth Seeker appear to be socks using open proxies. His contributions consist of obscenity antisemitic and has been abusing pro Israeli and other users.

I want to know if Truth Seeker is a sockpuppet of fa:کاربر:Sicaspi, fa:کاربر:حشر, fa:کاربر:SalmanParsi, fa:کاربر:Ab2llah and fa:کاربر:Natanaeel83. in fa.wikipedia. Many thanks --Kaaveh Ahangar 22:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

  CheckUser is not for fishing What is your evidence that this user is a sockpuppet of one of the others? --Thogo (talk) 22:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  Comment All mentioned users are involved in anti Judaism edit wars in Truth Seeker edits exhibit a background of experienced user and started with assaulting others and edit war in -- Meisam 06:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  Comment Some of the above users, have also voted to keep the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewish spies (fa:ویکی‌پدیا:نظرخواهی برای حذف/رده:جاسوسان یهودی ) in fa.wikipedia, which would warrant running a check. --Kaaveh Ahangar 10:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  Comment Per some discussion in fawiki i am convinced that we need to get this request to be done . --Mardetanha talk 11:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
  Unrelated no connections between truth seeker and other accounts--Nick1915 - all you want 19:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks indeed for help --Mardetanha talk 20:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

S2 Lovely Boy@ko.wikipedia

The following discussion is closed.

these people's contributing catergory is same and especially S2 Lovely Boy is saying something rediculous at serious situation, both 기름통휘발유 and S2 Lovely Boy are postive to unblock ko:user:Unypoly(habitual and malignant vandalism user) which has blocked. So, i want to figure it out these 3 accounts are related. Thank you very much. -- Shyoon1 04:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

[8] Check this if you can understand Korean. adidas 05:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Can you please show some evidence that these users have similar patterns of behaviour/editing? At present, I don't see any disruption which would warrant running a check.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Of these accounts only one has been blocked, so I'm not sure there is sufficient disruption to justify a check.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 20:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Mike here, I can't see a justification to check the accounts, btw. "휘뚜루마뚜루" is too old to check, so it can't be compared. Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 10:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
[9], check this. '기름통휘발유' edited the subpages of 'S2 Lovely Boy' several times. 기름통 said that he got permission of editing from 'Lovely Boy', but he never showed an evidence of permission. adidas 04:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
[10] Also this. 기름통 supported the opinion of Lovely Boy. If they are one same person, it might be a 'disruption' in discussion, I think. adidas 05:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but this is not disruption IMHO, please do note that using multiple accounts is not forbidden. Also, as said, "휘뚜루마뚜루"'s last contributions are too long ago, we simply can't compare this user with checkuser. Therfore marking this as   Declined (don't worry about that, if a request gets declined, it is not a problem, we have to check if a request is inside the policy not You, so no harm done), best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 08:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
i think there is very wrong with supporting vandal user without reason, so they cause some bad atmosphere in ko.wikipedia. (even if they got blamed by most users) -- Shyoon1 22:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Be that as it may, that is not a reason to run a check. The request is   Declined. Thanks.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed.

these people are editing history in korean wikipedia, but they are editing with fiction and i and some other users are doing hard for canceling their edits to original. Mostly, these people make document as very short, but they are keep making long, complicated infobox instead of editing documents. As their similar editing style, i can assume these are same accounts and sockpuppets and i request one more so can you figure it out please? thank you. -- Shyoon1 05:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

  CheckUser is not for fishing  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
no, it is not for fishing, but these 4 accounts are ruining history articles in korean wikipedia seriously, so please consider again. -- Shyoon1 02:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't see similar editing patterns which might make it acceptable to run a checkuser. Can you please provide some evidence in the form of diffs?  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Like for example 러브위키피디아 did this kind of edit, [11] and 조박사 did also similar edit. [12] they are always using template to make article, and they don't even edit summary or some written thing. and 소비에트 연방 also edited similar edit, but his article was erased (like French national motto is L'etat c'est moi) so please consider. -- Shyoon1 22:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  Declined - that is not disruption which warrants running a check.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed.

We would like to reuest for a checkuser verification on the user Lee2008. Lee is causing trouble by flaming in discussions and sysop election --Anoopan 06:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

  Declined, sorry but a CU verification is not needed in this case, it's just a problematic account, try to solve it locally--Nick1915 - all you want 10:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Kftsang hk, Raytsui1983 @ zh.wikipedia

The following discussion is closed.

I and 1 other wikipedian suspect that Raytsui1983 is a sockpuppet of Kftsang hk, which is being used in supporting Kftsang hk's view in current deletion requests. Last year, Kftsang hk has done the same thing to fabricate supports of his views (sockpuppet User:Ericng) about article naming discussion. Therefore, I would like to request for a check if these two users are related. Thank you.--Altt311 16:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Please also check the relationship with ip user (122.17.*.*) which edited the deletion request (History of Request Page) because he declares himself Kftsang hk. Thank you.--Altt311 19:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
possible meatpuppeting, but   Unrelated: there aren't any connections between kftsang hk and raysui1983. If the anon declares himself kfrsang, then probably he is really kfrsang ;)--Nick1915 - all you want 12:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
OK, thank you very much for your help.--Altt311 07:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)