Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Shi03066

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you are creating a new request about this user, please add it to the top of the page, above this notice. Don't forget to add
{{Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Shi03066}}
to the checkuser page here. Previous requests (shown below), and this box, will be automatically hidden on Requests for checkuser (but will still appear here).
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.


[edit] Shi03066

main edit links history watch
Filed: 15:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Code letter: G

Shi03066, this account is use since June 20, 2007, but Sce03066 is inactive already since June 17, 2007, is 3 days since the new account is open, and what obvious is it just change Sce to Shi.

I believe Sh1900 also the same person, this account is inactive since April 14, 2007, only 2 weeks before the Sce03066 was created. Sanghak is also another one who in my suspicious list, his last active date is January 15, 2007, only five days before account Sh1900 was created.

The obvious things is he is switch the account once is got final warning or blocked, and much suspicious between this user is they edit same page after account created (Page history) or mainly edit on football related articles. --Aleenf1 15:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Additional information needed I fail to see any justification; use of multiple accounts is acceptable as long as there is no abuse. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • This is not a checkuser case. It appears, as the nominator has suggested, that the same soccer fan switched accounts in order to start over with a clean record after incidents of vandalism. There is no rule prohibiting this, so long as the old account was never banned and it remains inactive. I'll leave the most recent incarnation of the user a note asking that he try WP:CHU if he wishes to change his identity again.

The oldest of the four accounts ended his participation in January after a one-week block, and the second account started up after the week expired. None of the accounts has been blocked since then. Even if checkuser confirmed that they are all the same person, a block would not be appropriate. This case may be rejected and archived. YechielMan 02:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's how it looks to me too. Declined . --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.
Subsequent requests related to this user should be made above, in a new section.