Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in January 2011, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion.
Reason(s): The user Bhahia Lacerda, who was blocked for three months to create more than 10 accounts recently, it has editing by IPs (that's what I thought), all Ips from Curitiba, City in South of Brazil. But before and after that, I had some problems with IPs (who edited as if they were well familiarize yourselves in Portuguese Wikipedia policy, which began to chase me across IP discussions, since the lock request to make unfounded accusations. But I was blocked for three months on the account that has promoted IP vandalism (even requesting a review under lock contention dynamic IP) and yet the request was refused and won again blockade of 2 free months (total of 5 months), that me and blocking policies are illegal. Before and after the blockade were some strange facts:
Come receiving emails Márcia da Silva Katzir who blackmails me, do me harm and threat, saying it is connected behind the "bastidores da Wikipédia" (“scenes of Wikipedia”, in Portuguese) with @lestaty and other users in order to block/remove problem users after controlling for Wikipedia and Portuguese’s side projects, to prevent Wikimedia intervened in Wikipedia. This is serious because it involves many of those users. Proves in my talk: 1,2,3 ("bastidores da Wikipédia"),4 and 5.
When ended the mandate of single checker in November 2010, emerged complaints of departures by @lestaty against Ruy Pugliesi (now former verifier), due to the checks against illegal users, it was not in public, through e-mails (which he refused to name) to those who have never had problems. Those complaints led the revolt against the verifier verified. The details are here. I was also blocked by illegally and posted questions and until evidence here.
Additional information needed What is the violation for which you are requesting a checkuser? More than one person may share an opinion. -- Avi 07:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, yes. I explained the above case (and with evidence that the user is abusing the cross-wiki, because Lacey has a blocked account and still uses IP to attack several users (including me, who took the lock). In addition, this IP illegally requested verification of my account, which took the block of 3 months and still had another administrator gave + 2 months (total: 5 months lock) without any basis for it, despite my protests. In short: This user (or users) uses dynamic IP addresses to circumvent the blockade. See below IPs discovered by me: 22.214.171.124 ( local | logs | global )
126.96.36.199 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser) Bruno Leonard 03:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I have checked (there's a clear case of block evasion if this is positive). Unfortunately the ranges are highly dynamic, and there seem to be unrelated users in the same range, so it will be hard to block him. I have checked the mentioned addresses, with the following results:
The following address is definitely Lacerda Bhahia:
However, there is at least one more sockpuppet farm that seems likely. To avoid giving out the information only to find it is not the same user, could I please get some information about editing habits of the blocked user (what subjects does he write about, what kind of edits does he make, which users does he prefer to attack?) - Andre Engels 00:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I ask immediate review of the Check user made by Ruy Pugliesi at pt.Wikipedia in the last hours of his term  and unblock me, it is clear that I'm not Guru2001.
Nor was even asked to check by anyone, nor was there any just cause for verification.
And evidence of behavior are totally unfounded. I was considered related with Guru2001 to issues in politics and Workers' Party. Check my contributions, I never edited in politics! The only edits were to include a picture of the future brazilian president , in an article of the most accessed and edited from pt.Wikipedia. And in the commons, I just include the image I wanted to put on the page and then voted at Valued image candidates for Dilma Rousseff. This is not political issue, as Guru2001 was specialized.
So there is no valid reason to check and no evidence of relationship between the two editions of the accounts. And if they check the IPs of course not shared IP with this account Guru2001.
This infinite block of mine is a pursuit of Ruy Pugliese, because I voted against him to ArbCom  and other votes that probably did not vote as he wanted.
It is a matter of justice checkuser this review, because I have nothing to do with Guru2001 and the Wikimedia Foundation can not allow an editor to use a function to create relationships between users that do not exist, only those who want to block. Please, justice! Ricco21 13:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm a member of pt.wiki ArbCom. As I said on his talk page, Meta is not the right place to ask for this block revision, made by local checkusers. The project has local arbcom, and we'll discuss this block, considering the user's request. There's no need to use Meta on this issue. CasteloBrancomsg 21:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Since pt.wikipedia ArbCom seems that he's going to review this case I am marking this request as not done for now. Should the ArbCom need checkuser evidendence in order to clarify this case the ArbCom as a body must do a formal request here (unless local users are avalaible). --dferg☎ talk 14:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
We discussed this on our mailing list and we kindly request that you (or some other steward) send the logs of this check to the mailing list: email@example.com as we don't currently have checkusers onsite. Cheers, GoEThe 22:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Given the special nature of the data contained on those logs and thegoverningpolicies; this request is being discussed in our mailing list. It may take a while before a reply comes. Regards, --dferg☎ talk 23:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I have done no vandalism but I'm blocked since November 12 on Wikipedia. And the ArbCom, everybody knows, waste months, years to make a decision. I'll be blocked until there? The violation of my privacy is so evident that the stewards do not want to open checking for ArbCom, then why do I have to stay blocked as they solve the situation and apply punishment to those who violated the privacy of others? Gentlemen, I'm blocked irregularly since November 12 and just got the meta to make my defense. If the privacy violation is so flagrant, the least we can do is cancel the abusive block while debating the issue better. Cheers, Ricco21 13:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
The PtWiki policy is to allow checks to prove innocence. As such, if you, Ricco, are specifically requesting a check, and your local ArbCom is in agreement that a check would help unblock you, then it may be possible to proceed. Please respond here, and ask a representative of PtWiki ArbCom to confirm here as well. Thank you. -- Avi 04:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
It's funny to know that if I want to be unblocked after having my privacy violated wrongly, I have to again allow my privacy be violated "to prove my innocence." If there is no other way, I authorize.
And I pray that the user Castelobranco is prevented from acting in this case because he was checkuser when there was the violation and he have tried to stop me writing here, after I was completely blocked in the Portuguese Wikipedia.
And I wonder what the reliability of logs kept by Ruy Pugliesi only on your computer. There really how to know if these data were not edited offline? This former checkuser is widely known for hundreds of suspicious checks he have did, even against two former sysops who also did not agree with everything he have did. Just because I voted against him, will I be considered multiple account, if it is obvious that there is any relation between that old account and mine? This all is ridiculous! Ricco21 18:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
We have no access to Ruy Pugliesi's computer, so I don't understand what you mean. If you can get a member of PtWiki's ArbCom to agree with your request for a CU, we will run one on you. -- Avi 05:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Since, for all that was said so far, it is clear that I will remain blocked if not authorize another check: OK, I agree, I authorize it.
As I said, it's ridiculous that I have to authorize new violation for I may be unblocked because anyone has made an evident violation of my privacy and has invented a relationship between two accounts. Ricco21 14:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi, if this is way is faster to clear things up (as Ptarbcom has not received any logs of the previous check), I don´t see any reason not to perform a check on this account, given that the user has allowed it. I have not discussed this with other members of ptArbCom, so they might have something to add. Cheers, GoEThe 18:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
When checking pt:Usuário:Ricco21, I do not see the IPs listed in the three checks linked to in pt:Wikipedia:Pedidos a verificadores/Arquivo/2010/11#Guru2001 (namely , , and . However, the earliest edit is 29 September 2010, so it is possible that Ruy saw something that has since been removed from the logs (older than 90 days). If PtWiki ArbCom requests, I will e-mail Ricco's IPs to the PtWiki arbcom e-mail list. Thank you. -- Avi 07:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Yep, Avi. Some logs which establish connections between both accounts have expired. However, I've kept that on my computer and I just sent it to Arbitration Committe in November 2010. Although, they haven't confirmed if my e-mail was received. Tkx. Ruy Pugliesi◥ 14:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Reason(s): The user has been locked for editing by IPs. However, it appears as another account with similar name and also edit the other pages (TV Brasília, Diários Associados, Distrito Federal and Brasília). There is a suspicion that uses IPs for vandalism, which is not found, only just mentioned in the historical pages 1,2,3 e 4.
Sorry if my English is not good, but I can understand. Bruno Leonard 02:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Stale: no data avalaible--Shizhao 07:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
What does "no data avalaible"? Why not check? Bruno Leonard 03:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Note: I did not checked however there's no user called FaeldF or FaelDF. Please check your spelling. Thanks, --dferg☎ talk 16:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
The names are correct, but I can fonercer possible IPs connected to that user (which are many), which falsifies signing up for multiple users. Bruno Leonard 03:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Check  and  - there ARE no users by these names. If there are no users, it is impossible to check them. - Andre Engels 06:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Reason(s): IP address used for personal attacks and harassment on user talk page. Possible sleepers. Thanks in advance. Ruy Pugliesi◥ 15:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I do not think a CheckUser is needed here. If the IP doesn't warranted even a block then it does not warrant CheckUser IMHO. Leaving open for other opinions. Regards, --dferg☎ talk 18:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I desagree. This IP address has been used to offend a registered user on his talk page. Furthermore, there're also other personal attacks in this IP range. Please, check it. Ruy Pugliesi◥ 19:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Dferg - having edited under ip address is too little evidence to make the existence of sleepers likely. Users who insult other users with personal attacks should be dealt with for making personal attacks, not for sockpuppeting. - Andre Engels 00:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Reason(s): These and others IPs, probably belonging to the same user, there are for several months by entering false information in several articles, especially those related to Troféu Imprensa (Press Trophy). Again and again I asked for the protection of these articles and little was done. I daily have to be reverting vandalism committed by these IPs (, ). So, I wonder stewards of two things:
If these IPs belong to any registered user.
If there is any way to avoid such vandalism, preventing the subject in a matter of editing on Wiki-pt. Robertogilnei 20:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
According to the Who.is, most of these IPs is from Niterói, Rio de Janeiro. However, the IP 188.8.131.52 has a geographic location in Rio and the coordinates are coincident with other IPs of the blocked user Quintinense (See address of IP of these verifications: ). Robertogilnei 20:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
After the opening of this request, IPs have continued to vandalize articles (, ) and no administrator of the Wiki-pt took a step. Robertogilnei 20:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Not done I see no reason for doing a check here. What you need is is not a checkuser result, but co-operation from the local admins - which is something that you have to work on yourself, not something that can or should be found through a checkuser or other Steward intervention. Checkuser is not a magic wand. - Andre Engels 06:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Since there is no reason? For random insertion of false information in the articles is not reason enough? The stewards will be accomplices of the Vandals and allow such acts to continue (as happened again today  and )?? Robertogilnei 15:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
No, insertion of false information is not reason enough. It definitely is serious misbehaviour, but to do a checkuser I need more than just disruptive behaviour: I need to have a question that you want an answer to, and I need to have a statement about how knowing the answer to this question makes it easier for you to fight this miscreant.
In other words, you say that by not doing a checkuser we allow these acts to continue. Tell me how it is that this helps them to continue. Convince me that getting a checkuser result is likely to help you stop this user, and the next thing I will do is perform the checkuser. - Andre Engels 16:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
A Thousand Nightmares Coming Your Way@simple.wiktionary
Reason(s): The IP requested an unblocked on simplewiki which I declined. THe IP there was blocked, because it belongs to a vandal. The IP says it is the user mentioned above, see here and here for information. Thanks, -Barras 12:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
According to my findings, both user and the IP address share the same characteristics as another globally locked vandal account. --Mercy 12:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
OK, thanks. That's what I thought. Account locally blocked as the account now also disappeared on simplewiki where we could confirm this ourself. Thanks, -Barras 12:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Reason(s): User wikiquote:ru:User:Подлюка is indefblocked due to harassment, we need to check, if it is the same user as wikiquote:ru:User:Russian Nature (who was indefblocked for the same reasons in ru.wikiquote, ru.wikipedia and other projects). It is needed e.g. to make decisions about possible unblocking of the Russian Nature in ruwiki or other projects (he recently tried to file a case to ruwiki Arbcom with a ban appeal). Also, block of IP ranges may be needed due to block evasion. Thanks. Ilya Voyager 12:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Reason(s): Possible block evasion of banned user Diabo e Santo. These users are making edits very similar to the mentioned user, however, we need be sure it's him before taking action. Strikertalk 13:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
No check performed yet but Diabo e Santo is Stale (we have no data because its edits are very old). Unless you can provide us recent confirmed sockpuppet accounts of him we will not be able to attend this request. --dferg☎ talk 15:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Reason(s): Reasons here. →Spiritia 15:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Please, investigate the cases of the usernames "ЧеренРасист" (meaning "black racist") and "Spiri" which is a mock with my username and Latin transliteration of my signature, combined with a kind of identity theft (malicious recreation of the contents of my legitimate user page bg:user:spiritia into the sock's userpage). I'm afraid it is a continuation of the previously submitted requests. →Spiritia 15:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
The culprit is probably the person that you earlier met as the anonymous under ip address 184.108.40.206, although they used a different ip address for the edits under the Spiri name. - Andre Engels 15:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Reason(s): SPU (atack account), which tried to harass a user from Portuguese Wikipedia, inserting in a discussion page external links containing personal attacks personal attacks. No valid edits; only this attack. Please compare to this SPU and look for possible sleepers. Samurai BruxoTalk page 00:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
SupportDissemination of mistrust and Disruptive editing. Their only edit was that defamation on talk of another user. Obviously it's a sock puppet of another editor, that it defames against the user and wants to hide in another account... MetalBRasil@# 03:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Support?? That is not a pool MetalBrasil. If you have any more reasons to made the CheckUser (for example, another user to compare with that one) you can post here. Opinions don't help. Another piece of info here: The user is block (since yesterday) and without another account tocheck against is almost impossible find something. Béria Limamsg 08:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
The supposed attack that is linked to does not exist (anymore). Unless more evidence warranting a cu is provided, this request can not be granted. Wutsje 12:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Attack accounts can be checked even without another user related to. Moreover, it demonstrates the same behavior of this banned user, who only performs attacks on talk pages, as you can see:
Almost all accounts mentioned here are stale, but the bahavior is basically the same. Full support for checkuser action here. Please, check it. Thanks. Ruy Pugliesi◥ 12:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, the page about User Fredxavier (google cache version) was created by User Samurai Bruxo (he even confesses he created the page here). His intention was to mock Fredxavier, as it can be observed here. I believe it's a problem since he's a pt sysop. Gladhigh 13:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
"Zoar" doesn't necessarily means that I want to mock Fredxavier. Samurai BruxoTalk page 13:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Not done - The extra links provided do not constitute new evidence and the checkuser tool is not for fishing. I may add that it is hard to believe that a Wikipedia community that currently has 665,232 arcticles and 815,575 users (of which 5,708 are active) (see List of Wikipedias) is as a result of internal disputes incapable of appointing some cu's (and crats). A community thus large should not expect stewards to solve all of their internal problems permanently. Wutsje 14:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
The user Mrbobjeff/Gladhigh has been blocked in pt.wiki. Samurai Bruxo is the author of the page with insults against me. The page had a link to my discussion page, showing the sock edit. Therefore, Samurai Bruxo posted the link on the page of insults. Other users were also insulted in that site. In my opinion, the sock is an editor with fear of retaliation, and he don't attacked me. The use of checkuser tool is unnecessary. I don't see reason to use. Thanks. Fred Xavier 15:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Gladhigh, I blocked Beria as a request from Rhubella Marie, an user from UnMeta (Uncyclopedia equivalent of Meta). "Raped" is a joke, the default block log entry. I don't know how to explain, but see here. (MediaWiki:Blocklogentry). It has nothing to do with Beria. Several humorous wikis do so. Samurai BruxoTalk page 19:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
All three accounts with my name are mine Samurai. I created for avoid impersonalization, since you created a page to said nasty things about me. You could have ask me before do that kind of thing. And btw, you already knew about it. Another user with more sense unblock me.
But, that is not talk for here. If you want to talk with me i have talk page. Béria Limamsg 19:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Reason(s): Account with same behaviour and objectives of accounts blocked a few days as SP (please see: here and here). Probably a block evasion, again. Thank you. Leandro Martinez msg 03:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Done. Lauper Costa seems to be a sock of the Rehab2, who has already been blocked. There is another user with the same user agent as Lauper Costa/Rehab2 whose username is also suspicious, but their edits seem to be legitimate. Shanel 03:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Reason(s): Feens is our crat who disapeared quite suddenly somtime last June. Now there is this new user who claims that he is Feens and that he ``did something stupid`` which keeps him from using his original account. There seems to be someone else who is sockpuppeting, but no one has been able to put finger on it. Please see, if there is any relation between these two accounts and, if possible, if it isn`t some other user ~~Xil...(talk) 02:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
If Feens has been gone that long his account is likely stale. We couldn't check for any relationship between the two accounts. Shanel 03:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Can you chech, if his IP is foreign or Latvian? Because this sockpuppeting guy seems to use proxies at times, not sure if he would do it when he can hide under username, but who knows ~~Xil...(talk) 03:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Are you asking if I can check Feens Atgriezies, or Feens? Feens won't have any IP information. Shanel 03:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
The new account ofcourse. The thing is that one or more persons is\are harasing comunity with no agenda whatsoever. I hate to point fingers, but I guess user Seksīgais could be relatively new account from that source. We certanly wouldn`t want to give benefit of trust we would give to acctual Feens to that guy, so it is important to know if there isn`t anything fishy ~~Xil...(talk) 03:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I added some users who might be related to sockpuppeting issue, please check. ~~Xil...(talk) 22:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Um, now we have another trouble - Feens reemerged saying that Feens Atgriezies is not his account and Feens Atgriezies says that he lost acces to his original account because his workplace's e-mail server crashed ans someone is using his old account. So Feens probably has some IP information now ~~Xil...(talk) 14:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Added my own account (Digital1) to prevent some involved users suspect of my own commitment to this case. Thank You. --Digital1 23:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I removed Feens, by now there is no reason to doubt his the real guy ~~Xil...(talk) 02:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Added users Kapteinis Puplaksis, Ārietis and Traisijs — vandalism continuing. --Digital1 21:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Kapteinis Puplaksis is confirmed as a sockpuppet of Feens Atgriezies. No evidence of abovementioned or other logged-in users being connected to him.
Seksīgais is a sockpuppet of xxx, Edgars2007 likely is. xxx here is a user that I will divulge to you in private - there is something fishy here, but I'm not sure whether it smells enough to give out the sockpuppeteer's identity.
For Krishjaanis and Zemgalietis I see no evidence of connection to these or other users.
Ārietis cannot be checked for lack of edits; Traisijs is hiding behind an anonymous proxy.
Well, as he has already admitted guild, I think there's no point in not putting it in the open: The user that I found as being Seksīgais and probably being Edgars2007 is lv:User:GreenZeb. He has admitted to be the sockpuppeteer on the other accounts as well. - Andre Engels 11:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Reason(s): GreenZeb confessed to vandalizing and sockpuppeting since 2006. It's hard to believe he has no agenda doing so, please, check if he has any sockpuppets that we don't know of. Edgars2007 is his friend in real life, need to establish, if he is innocent or not. And check Zemgalietis as his behaviour has been erratic - he welcomed Komodors Kanēlis, who is clearly a sockpuppet and seems to be conected to whoever used Feens Atgriezies and Kapteinis Puplaksis (see also request above; Feens said both used his e-mail when registrating) ~~Xil...(talk) 22:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Likely: Komodors Kanēlis, Kapteinis Puplaksis, Feens Atgriezies.
You didn't answer my question ~~Xil...(talk) 17:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
The explanation that Edgars2007 is a friend of GreenZeb's seems correct - it would be a good explanation of the data (the two in a few cases edit from each other's ip address but with their own computer). Strangely, Shizhao's result seems to be correct. That is, the checkuser seems to indicate it is unlikely that GreenZeb = Feens Atgriezis, even though he seems to have admitted to this himself?!? According to checkuser results, apart from GZ-Bot the only sockpuppets that can be connected with GreenZeb are Seksīgais and Kinomāns. Feens Atgriezies can be connected to the two names provided by Shizhao and to Grupenfīrers Plekste. No connection seems present between Zemgalietis and other editors. In short:
group 1: GreenZeb, Seksīgais, Kinomāns (GZ-Bot)
group 2: Edgars2007
group 3: Zemgalietis
group 4: Feens Atgriezies, Komodors Kanēlis, Kapteinis Puplaksis, Grupenfīrers Plekste
The checkuser recognizes the users within each group as likely the same, but between these groups only confirms that group 1 and group 2 arre likely to know each other. - Andre Engels 20:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
As an aside, I did a check on Edgars20007, whom I had not done in the last check. That one is a sockpuppet of Tiitarins; apart from that, they can only be connected with a number of not-logged-in edits. Ārietis cannot be connected to any other user (except for the unused ones that he created, of course). - Andre Engels 20:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
What do you want the checkuser for? Vandals can be blocked without a check, no? - Andre Engels 09:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
The reason I summit this request is to confirm those registered users are control by the same person, it will be an evident for zh local community's discussion, the IP address I listed above just shows the same behavior as the registered users.-Mys_721tx(talk) 14:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
All Confirmed except for 220.127.116.11 which is Likely. There are probably more ip addresses involved, but I found no other logged-in usernames. - Andre Engels 20:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Reason(s): The user Stuckkey was blocked yesterday for personal attacks. He said in his own page that he is a sock that will create another sock after "destroying" the account 'Stuckkey'. Today the account 'Estação azul' was created naming itself as a sock of Stuckkey . The edits of 'Estação azul' were undone. After that, the IP 18.104.22.168 redid them. It's probably him, but might be an impersonation too.” TeleS (TPT@CG) 18:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Stuckkey is using multiple IP's and many OS, and, if the new account says to be a sock, we could believe him--Nick1915 -all you want 09:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. The thing is that if he is telling the truth, the account "Stuckkey" is not the master account. He says here that "Stuckkey" is a sock. If it is not a lie, there's a third account created before the account "Stuckkey". Thanks for responding.” TeleS (TPT@CG) 02:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Likely Because the ip address is highly dynamical, checking for unspecified is impossible, but the ones mentioned seem very likely. - Andre Engels 21:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Ok. Thank you. We are discussing this case locally.” TeleS (TPT@CG) 20:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I suspect those tree accounts are the same person. --HTLK3521 08:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Additional information needed: what reason?--Shizhao 12:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Reason: They told their excuse instead of them, and supported them. --HTLK3521 13:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
StillAdditional information needed - please explain why do you suspect they're the same user, which policies they're violating and why technical evidence will prevent or stop any possible abuse (if any). See checkuser policy. Thanks for your understanding. Best regards, --dferg☎ talk 23:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
They edited User talk:Idh0854 one after another.
Their edit is arbitrary and problem. --HTLK3521 04:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
User 'HTLK3521' is Vandalism user in korean wikipedia. The user nurse rancor against 3 user(This has already been mentioned above at the user.). :( --Idh0854 05:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I am not a korean. I am not a Vandalism user in korean wikipedia. But, User Idh0854 is a Vandalism user in korean wikipedia. --HTLK3521 06:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Nobody doesn't said "You're Korean.". And If you think you can find wrong of my contribution, you should find it. Also, I hope you have no illusions on this project(checkuser). --Idh0854 07:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
┌───────────────────┘ Rejected: no valid reasons provided for checkuser. --dferg☎ talk 14:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
There seems to be a problem in our correspondence. I want to know when you will deal with our problem. I would like to know specifically what you will do to take care of our problem. User Idh0854 in laws are full of trouble and jealousy. --HTLK3521 18:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Excuse me, Sir. I think too that there's a problem but it is not of communication but of your understanding of what CheckUser is and what is for; in my opinion. Could you please show us where's the disruption, the vandalism, the sockpuppet abuse that warrants a check as stated by current policy? Best regards, --dferg☎ talk 18:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I am not going to write these things. I found an error about the user Idh0854. User Idh0854, has been editting the information about Harvard university on Korea's wikipedia since last december.
As a result of user Idh0854 editting the information, This january the administrator Ha98574 started to protect this document. When I was looking at the document on Harvard University on Korea's wikipedia, I could see that User Idh0854 has made President Obama's picture very awardly.
User Idh0854, has done something which cannot be forgiven, and can be a problem between America and Korea, so User Idh0854 has to accept the truth. If User Idh0854, has uploaded the English wikipedia of Harvard University then it would have been blocked. --HTLK3521 19:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Those may be reasons for _blocking_ this user. I still don't see how they are reason to do a _checkuser_ on this user. What is it that you want to know about him, and why is it important that you know that? - Andre Engels 08:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't going to write these things. I just happened to look up Korea's Wikipedia. There has been many cases where there has been edition. In Korea's wikipedia discussion, there is nothing about the problem of the expressions used in Korean, and eventhough there is a problem. User Idh0854, User 행유 and User Tsuchiya Hikaru have blocked it.  A user, would edit the Korea's wikipedia with an article with a problem. And then the other users, would follow it and they will start to edit it,
and that is one of the dark points. --HTLK3521 12:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
reason: It has contour lock Bruno Leonard //// Blocked : ptwikinews : Yes (on 00:32, 18 October 2010 till infinity by Sir Lestaty de Lioncourt; Reason: Uso ilegal de sockpuppets: Tentativa de contorno à bloqueio, uso de contas múltiplas sob argumento "prima" ///// Attempt to outline the blockade, use of multiple accounts under the argument "first cousin") Juan Juarez 12:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
The identical language . Identical interest in articles . There is already confirmation that Sir Lestaty de Lioncourt is sockpuppets (see above). Juan Juarez 13:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I hope to finish this message with this mess. My account and verification (Simone) is my cousin (who occasionally uses my computer), then I'M NOT SOCKPUPPERT and she actually does exist and I am using to bypass the lock. But the accuser hidden across IP 22.214.171.124 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser) and 126.96.36.199 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser) and the same is being verified, which is here, accused of using IPs and bills to attack users, especially me. This user trading insults through the mail and from unfounded accusations against me in order to harm me while I'm locked in until April 2011. I hope I've made these clarifications, vandalism because that user wants this to me and the deception involved. I request the suspension of verification, as already explained the details. Bruno Leonard 02:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
WARNING: I did a check on that user is sockpuppert! This verification request is illegal because it came from the SAME USER BLOCKED connected with Lacerda Bhahia, see here.Bruno Leonard 02:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Not done As Bruno Leonard writes, the user asking for the check is himself blocked on pt:. As such, it seems unclear what he could do with the result. If there comes an admin from pt: wikipedia backing the request, I will happily make the check, but at the moment it does not seem to have a useful effect. - Andre Engels 14:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
User was blocked on wikinews  as an illegal sock, not sure if there was a check though. I believe that Bruno Leonard is using his cousin's (whether real or not) account to evade the block. GoEThe 15:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Inconclusive On the one hand Bruno Leonard's claim that Simone Lira is a cousin seems plausible. However, on the other hand all but one of the recent edits by Simone Lira seem to have been made while he was visiting Bruno Leonard, and Simone Lira's editing went up considerably after Bruno Leonard got blocked. This leads me to the conclusion that the most likely explanation is that Simone Lira is acting as a so-called meat puppet of Bruno Leonard - another person, but making his edits on Bruno Leonard's request or at least influenced by him. - Andre Engels 19:10, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Reason(s): A lot of attack account creation at Portuguese Wikipedia, with offensive usernames against me and Ruy Pugliesi (mainly against me). I had to surpress the names, but the stewards can see all of them. I'm under attack in Wikipedia since last week. Samurai BruxoTalk page 00:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
You need to check not only the link between the accounts (which is already obvious), but also whether these accounts are linked with some other (primary) in ptwiki, in particular the penultimate, which was the first account that appeared..
Reason(s): continous accusation of sockputtery and vandalism/trollism of the user hoferaanderl in the community of bar.wikipedia in connection with the user names1+i.
Comment: The users "Kaputtes Faxgerät", "Der Geistreiche", and "Matthias Kosetzky" have been blocked in barwiki because of vandalism. The IPs, which are mented in this request, have also been vandalizing in the same context.
The user "Kernstock" has made some edits, which have been rolled back.
Now, the are some users in barwiki, who accuse user Hoferaanderl to be connected with these vandalizing accounts and IPs (difflinks: ,  ("Chemical Ali" stands for Hoferaanderl), . --Holder 04:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Confirmed Kaputtes Faxgerät, Der Geistreiche, Matthias Kosetzky and the 188.8.131.52, 184.108.40.206, 220.127.116.11, IP 18.104.22.168 ip addresses are the same vandal. I can add 22.214.171.124 to the list.
Inconclusive 126.96.36.199 has no edits, and thus cannot be checked.
Unrelated Kernstock and Hoferaandl are not this vandal, nor are they the same person (as far as can be judged from the checkuser result)
Thank you so far. To go sure everything is OK: You typed Hoferaandl instead of Hoferaanderl – did you investigate the correctly typed user name or unluckily not? → «« Man77 »»[de]·[bar] 12:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes I did - if I had checked the wrong one, I would have noticed that they had no edits. - Andre Engels 14:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Reason(s): User Stukkey was recently blocked in ptwiki as an attack account. StopPower and YekkutS are new users registered a few days ago. StopPower has tried to delete some of Stuckkey's proposals  and Yekkcuts (Stukkey backwards) accuses StopPower of being a sockpuppet of Stuckkey . GoEThe 16:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Reason(s): I would like to find out if they are same user's sockpuppets.
User named "LightofFullMoon" had started to contribute Wikipedia at January 6th, 2011. He wrote several articles though he signed wikipedia up just a few days ago, and some of the articles were already on Good Article Nominations.
However, the user "윤성현", known in other language's wikipedia as "ShYoon1", read LightofFullMoon's articles meticulously and wrote some opinions that likely means "I don't think that these are sufficient to be Good Article yet". LightofFullMoon, the major contributor of those articles, had accepted these opinions first. But when he found out that 윤성현 made the negative opinions continuously, he thought that "윤성현 made his negative opinions to treat me just negatively", and he is asking 윤성현 to apologize him. I won't mention who are right in here.
However, describing his disappointments about 윤성현, LightofFullMoon also mentioned that "이 유저의 글이라면 무조건 찬동하는 유저들도 조금 있는 것 같습니다. ... 그러한 행동을 시정하길 권합니다. (I think that there are some users that approves of this user(indirectly meant 윤성현) mechanically. ... I suggest you to correct such behaviors.)" And many of users are suspected by him to be 윤성현's "admiring satellites." I, seems to be in his watchlist, too. "그 분이 오랫동안 위키에서 큰 권력을 휘두르고 있으니, 그 편을 드는게 유리하다고 생각하신겁니까? (Are you thinking that it is advantageous to follow him, since he has more powers in wikipedia so long?) (original articles )
Today, user named "특수문서" signed up. Can you guess what was his first edit? It was to charge that I gave user named "Irafox" a barnstar several days ago. What surprised me is that 특수문서 wrote it just a couple of seconds after he signed up, and there are no reason that he can even find Irafox's talks. Actually, Irafox left wikipedia last year, and there where rare changes after I gave him a barnstar last December 27th. (original articles )
Reasons I think why they are the same person are something like this.
They use emoticons that are same (correctly, ^^) in many places, to ridicule someone.  (특수문서's)  (LightofFullMoon's)
Also, the word "ㅋㅋㅋㅋ", which means laugh. 
Aside from them, both of two users wrote talks that can be shown as personal attacks.
From the reason I wrote here, I would like to find out that they are same user's sockpuppets. Thank you. 행유 06:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Reason(s): Probably a block evasion. User with 30 min making comments of admin requests and using scripts (see , , ). Abusive behaviour. Vini 175 16:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
This looks a bit fishy to me. Leaving to others to comment on this. -- Dferg☎ talk 15:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
A probable block evasion by whom? And are there any indications that these comments were made by that user? Wutsje 15:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I think that Bomba Z and SpeedUser (blocked) have a similar behaviour. I forgot to indicate before. Vini 175 17:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
You also make claims of «abusive behaviour» yet the user is not blocked nor I can see any warning on his talk page... -- Dferg☎ talk 18:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I really think that it's a block evasion, but, now, the user is doing a good job. I created this request when the account had just some minutes and a very suspicious behaviour. Thanks. Vini 175 13:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Reason(s): Sorry for asking another request, since the first one has checked a few days ago. However, many active users of korean wikipedia wants to find out if they are the same users.
After former request, I made a request to block the user "LightofFullMoon." I cannot explain how was the situation when I just made the request and some hours after it, but what is certain that LightofFullMoon announced that he felt disappointed and would leave wikipedia.
However, the user "Chominhun"("조민훈" in korean) made a request to block ME.  Also, he insisted that "The user 행유 is a kind of social evil." Because of his aggressive attitude and personal attacks, he got blocked in a few minutes.
The user "바른소리다" also got blocked, because he was certain that he was a sockpuppet of Chominhun. (He called the names of the administrator that blocked Chominhun. )
The user "조두금" signed wikipedia up at January 20th. His first contribution was about a general article, but no one seems that it was A GENERAL CONTRIBUTION because he just rolled back exactly what he wrote. His PRACTICAL first contribution was about the request that I wrote. There are no reason for newcomers to find the page of user administrating request all at once. Since many users mistrusts him, he is still insisting that he's not a sockpuppet.
All of those users seems to be related with LightofFullMoon, because all of them can be guessed that they signed up for LoFM's request. And this is what several korean wikipedia users wants to find out immediately. Therefore, I would like to find out if they are the same user's sockpuppets. Thank you. 행유 09:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I am not a sockpuppet. I think it is deceiving us to cover User 행유's mistake and trying to blame it on me. And If User 행유 think User 행유 can find wrong of my contribution, User 행유 should find it. --조두금 10:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I am not a sockpuppet too. I think the center of this problem is due to all the Korean Wikipedia Users. User account was closed for a reason that was unjustifiable and that wholly came from an individual's emotion. I never cursed or used violence. User 행유 etraped us and wrote this. --조민훈 11:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
The list of Users`s contribution list are very very few. i doubt that how they know where is ko:백:사관, ko:백:다검 and about LightofFullmoon Incident. but i think the Lightoffullmoon user is not soukpuppet. because of... just my sense.--Altostratus 04:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
For those with «(blocked)» next to his username the interface says me that they're blocked, but I did not checked for how long. As always, please pay attention and do review the above mentioned confirmed accounts before blocking. Thanks, -- Dferg☎ talk 10:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Reason(s): I would like to find out if they are same user's sockpuppets.
"Dongmyun" user had started to contribute about "하버드 대학교" document immediately after the join. But contribution of the user is included(inhere) Back & talk down("문서훼손 니 마음대로 생각해라" → "Vandalism. Think whatever you want." - This is mean, lack courtesy and abasement in Korean language, unlike English.) and block threat(But the user is general user.).
The user take break short about contribution after refusal of Requesting blocks.
The next, "Choosangho" user had started to ontribute about "하버드 대학교" document immediately after the join in same days. And the user is included(inhere) Back & block threat("문서훼손 행위를 중단바람 차단감임." → "Stop to Vandalism action, this is block feeling."), too. Also, "Choosangho" user keep saying the same talk of "Supsupii" user.(talk of "Supsupii" user, talk of "Choosangho" user) (But "Supsupii" user isn't contribution for "하버드 대학교" document. However, have contributed of similar document.) "Choosangho" user dodged the question when asked his opinion about why keep saying the same talk of "Supsupii" and take break short about contribution after the question. (Story of today)
Today, "민호준" user had started to ontribute about "하버드 대학교" document immediately after the join in same days, too. And the user is included(inhere) Back.
In its final analysis, "Choosangho" user, "Dongmyung" user and "민호준" user same contribute about "하버드 대학교" document the day of join. And same try to ungrounded Back.
From the reason I wrote here, I would like to find out that they are same user's sockpuppets(= abuse accounts). Thank you. --Idh0854 15:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I am not a sockpuppet. User Idh0854, has been editting the information about Harvard university on Korean wikipedia since last december. User Idh0854 can't apply this checkuser without Korean Wikipedia User's consent. --Choosangho 19:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I am never a sockpuppet. This application can never be justified. Also Used Idh0854 is making a trouble consistently by the insistence. In spite of Korea's wikipedia discussion, Used Idh0854 has disputes between the Korean Wikipedia Users. Korean Wikipedia Users feel User Idh0854 should be managed. --민호준 21:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Note: Humm this was very suspicious and indeed tells otherwise. I confirm that 민병호 (talk • contribs) & 민호준 (talk • contribs) are at meta sockpuppet accounts of each other & they've been blocked as such. As they're SUL accounts, they're also sockpuppets at kowiki, but did not checked at kowiki yet. Please stop the disruption of this page with sockpuppets. Thanks, -- Dferg☎ talk 21:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
But it is a misunderstanding. That's not true. User 민병호 is my cousin. I asked my cousin for what I wanted because of the my personal reasons. I hope you will understand that I took all the appropriate steps. --Minhojoon 22:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Whoever say so in that situation. --Idh0854 05:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
You really didn't have anything to do. --Minhojoon 08:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Note: "Min"(= "민") is one of Korean family name. So, maybe, A correlates to user "민호준", user "민병호", user "Minhojoon". --Idh0854 05:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I just happened to look up Korean Wikipedia. There has been many problems where there has been edition. And because the majority of people are amateurs, there could be good points, however it would be a good idea where the specialists could get together. I think that Korea's Wikipedia, could have a reasearch strategy, and people would have to use the encyclopedia dictionary. I usually never edit the wikipedia, I only look at it. Some of the information on Korea's wikipedia are negative. User Idh0854, would edit the Korea's wikipedia with an article with a problem. So Korean Wikipedia Users feel User Idh0854 should be managed --Minhojoon 09:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Excuse me, sir. I want to listen you about "Korean Wikipedia Users" you mentioned. And Do you know? Your comment is same comment of user "DongChung" in korean wikipedia. ("저명한 백과사전이 아닌 열린 공간에 불과한 한국어 위키백과에 별 할일 없이 다른 사용자들과 편집분쟁을 일으키며 사용자 Idh0854와 사용자 SEVEREN의 개인 연구 도구로 만드는 것에 여러 사용자들이 분명히 공감하고 있다고 봅니다."(As mentioned similar this korean language writing) of  in ko:위키백과:사용자 관리 요청/2011년 1월#Idh0854님 차단 요청 - ※ This request is denied  and extend a warning to this comment.) These facts shows you to be a sockpuppet. Thank you. --Idh0854 15:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Note: Actually as things stand now I'm inclined to check but it seems that we need some sort of community consensus as stated at here. -- Dferg☎ talk 15:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)