Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in May 2009, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion.
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)
Reason: From the words on page  they wrote same type disagreement words about topic "increase admin users for us". I think they are one person, and some of words are highly insulted to other side people. 126.96.36.199 16:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
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.
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)
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:188.8.131.52 and en:184.108.40.206
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 en.wiki sv.wiki has local checkusers, please ask for a check there, thanks for Your understanding, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið(:> )=| 15:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
(sv.wiki 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 st.wiki, 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)
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)
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. 
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. 220.127.116.11 and 18.104.22.168 is added to suspection list of sockpuppet, but they weren't recognized.
22.214.171.124 and 126.96.36.199 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,, 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. 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 (188.8.131.52, 184.108.40.206) 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)
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 fa.wiki. Truth Seeker edits exhibit a background of experienced user and started with assaulting others and edit war in fa.wiki. -- Meisam 06:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
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)
 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)
, 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)
 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)
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)
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,  and 조박사 did also similar edit.  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)