Commons:Requests for checkuser

Shortcut: COM:CHECK, COM:RFCU

Does your request belong here?
This is the place to request sockpuppet checks or other investigations requiring CheckUser privileges. Checkuser is a last resort for difficult cases. Use other methods first. You can try posting on the administrator's noticeboard for example.
Please do not ask us to run checks without good reason:
These indicators are used by CheckUsers to allow easier at-a-glance reading of their notes, actions and comments.
Request completed
Artículo bueno.svg Confirmed Likely
Symbol possible vote.svg Possible Symbol unlikely.svg Unlikely
Symbol unsupport vote.svg Inconclusive Symbol unrelated.svg Unrelated
Symbol redirect vote.svg Completed Time2wait.svg Stale
Request declined
Declined Checkuser is not for fishing.
Checkuser is not magic pixie dust. 8ball The CheckUser Magic 8-Ball says
Cyberduck icon.png It looks like a duck to me Checkuser is not a crystal ball.
Information
Additional information needed Deferred to
 Doing… Pictogram voting info.svg Info
  1. Running a check will only be done to combat disruption on Commons, or as required to assist CheckUser investigations on other Wikimedia wikis.
    • Valid reasons for running a check include vandalism where a block of the underlying IP or IP range is needed, disruptive sockpuppetry, vote-stacking, and similar disruption where the technical evidence from running a check would prevent or reduce further disruption to Wikimedia projects.
  2. Requests to run a check with ambiguous reasoning will result in delays - please provide a rationale at the time you make the request
    • Show what the disruption to the project is, and why you believe the accounts are related.
  3. Requests to run a check on yourself will be declined
  4. The privacy policy does not allow us to make a check that has the effect of revealing IP addresses.
Outcome
Responses will be brief in order to comply with Wikimedia privacy policy. Due to technical limitations, results are not always clear. Check back regularly to see the outcome of your request. Closed requests are archived after seven days.
Privacy violation?
If you feel that a checkuser has led to a violation of the Wikimedia Foundation privacy policy regarding yourself, please refer the case to the Ombudsman commission.

If this page is displaying outdated contents even after you refresh the page in your browser, please purge this page's cache.

To request a check:

Cases are created on subpages of Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case.

Creating a request
  • Insert the name of the suspected sockpuppeteer (the main account or puppetmaster, not the sockpuppet!) in the box below, leaving out the "User:" prefix. Do not remove the text in the box, add to the end only.
  • Please explain/justify the request by saying what it is you suspect and why it is important that the check be carried out. Indicate the usernames you suspect, using {{checkuser}}. Please do not use this template in the section header, as that makes it difficult to read the account names. Include the diffs or links required to support the request and reason for it.
  • There are people to assist you and help with maintenance of the page. Just ask for help on the admin noticeboard if you really are stuck, or take your best shot and note that you weren't completely sure of what to say.
  • If a case subpage already exists, edit the existing page instead, either adding to the currently open section (if the case is not yet archived) or adding a new section to the top (if the case has been archived). When editing an existing case, be sure to list/transclude the subpage here.
Example
If you want to request a checkuser on User:John Doe, enter the text Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/John Doe then click "Request a checkuser." You will be taken to a page where you can fill out the request. Please make your request there brief and concise.


Then transclude your subpage on the top of the list at Commons:Requests for checkuser and remove {{Checkuser requests to be listed}} from the top of the case subpage.

RequestsEdit

BlackwhiteuplEdit

Suspected related usersEdit

Rationale, discussion and resultsEdit

Reason: New account, contributions are only to pages that have been editted by Blackwhiteupl and Kuothij. See the history of here, here and here. Riley Huntley (talk) 01:53, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Elcobbola, you've been faster than me (edit conflict), would you please also check User:Comksinme and User:Leadstory (see here), thank you. --Achim (talk) 15:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Both Artículo bueno.svg Confirmed. Эlcobbola talk 16:47, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Contrary to comments at the linked discussion, an explicit condition of COM:BLOCK is "Abusing multiple accounts to mislead, deceive, disrupt, distort consensus or to evade blocks or other sanctions" (emphasis added). A general requirement to be unblocked is "An acknowledgement that the block was appropriate and a credible promise that the behaviour that led to the block will not be repeated" (emphasis original). Use of socks in this circumstance, even if the edits thus far have been non-controversial, is both explicitly unacceptable per our block policy and a de facto disruption (i.e., the issue has not been acknowledged and contempt has been shown towards community sanctions). Assumptions (AGF was cited) are not necessary when evidence exists; block evasion is inherently bad faith. Accordingly, I've blocked Comksinme. If he wishes to edit constructively, he is free to post an unblock request with the Blackwhiteupl master. Эlcobbola talk 17:02, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Blocked per Cyberduck icon.png It looks like a duck to me. For future reference, we're generally unable to comment on IPs for privacy reasons. Эlcobbola talk 22:08, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Elcobbola, it's not a secret that both of these IPs are from the IP pool of the SLUB Dresden. These are likely not proxied but static IPs of PCs which can be used by visitors. I don't know which block expiration would be appropriate in such a case. --Achim (talk) 15:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Riley, thanks for notifying. Same behavior, blocked for 1 day only as it seems to be a dynamic web access IP. --Achim (talk) 11:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Artículo bueno.svg Confirmed and blocked. Эlcobbola talk 18:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Tanktopbra (talk contribs Luxo's SUL deleted contribs logs block user block log checkuser) suspected too. --Achim (talk) 11:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
  • and pinging 32X for clearifying the Category:Sockpuppets of Kay Körner connection. --Achim (talk) 11:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
    X-Weinzar has informed me about Blackwhiteupl quite some time ago, but I couldn't find the time to dig deeper. (The next thing is, that it’s not a good sign when a person is blocked again and again always from the same admin.) The obvious connections are photos of places in Dresden (where he lives since a couple of years) and the nearby city Pirna (where he went to school, according to a stayfriends profile that matches with a Wikipedia account (en:User:Kay Körner 20.12.1983) – I am not sure about the connection of Fox53 and KK on the English Wikipedia, maybe that was just a coincedence of misbehaviour of two people at the same time in the same topics, but on the other hand: 1953 is the year en:SV Dynamo was founded and KK is a fan of Dynamo Dresden). Several IP adresses of en:Saxon State and University Library Dresden (SLUB) have been blocked on Wikimedia Commons and on the German Wikipedia due to Körner and now due to Blackwhiteupl. Quite some years ago I saw a guy acting in a very strange way (excuse my polite woring) at one of the public computers at SLUB Dresden. By chance I saw the same guy some days later in an appartment house checking his postbox before leaving the house. I went inside, had a look at it and could read the name Kay Körner.
    I remember a post from KK where he accused people at Geibeltbad Pirna for their bad behavour against him as nazis, BWu had edited there (and within the file pages), too. Some years ago KK was asked not to mark every Commons-photo of a building that was built during the nazi era in Dresden as nazi architecture, BWu has left his foot prints in Category:Nazi architecture in Saxony and his oldest not deleted upload contains the information that the style was misunderstood as […] nazi-[…]architecture. At German Wikipedia KK has been blocked after uploading copy vios (1960s/70s photos of Dynamo Dresden) and accusing people as Bundis (= Bundesdeutsche, "en:Wessis") after they have removed the copy vios. In his last message BWu wrote Der Achim ist vom Innenministerium also Büttel vom Russen/ USA, using the same characteristic style. Therefor (even without digging deeper) the connection KK-BWu has been quite obvious to me. -- 32X (talk)



For older requests, please see Commons:Requests for checkuser/Archives