Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Blackwhiteupl

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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
{{Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Blackwhiteupl}}
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.

Kay Körner

[edit]

Status: open • view • edit • history • watch
Filed: 10:24, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results

[edit]

Reason: Block evasion, next sock. --Achim (talk) 10:24, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.

Blackwhiteupl

[edit]

Status: open • view • edit • history • watch
Filed: 21:51, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results

[edit]

Reason: Block evasion, same behavior. --Achim (talk) 21:51, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Elcobbola: Still pending for nearly 2 weeks, I'm not sure if it was a good idea to do an IP range block of SLUB Dresden. Gruß, --Achim (talk) 19:38, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Achim55: Another CU is/was working on this; I will ask them about the progress. The blocked range has historically (since the first Körner/Blackwhiteupl check) only had two users, one of whom is Kay Körner. If the range block is causing collateral, please be more specific. Эlcobbola talk 15:35, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed that Malhierarchy = Inferioritycomplexbaldness = Kay Körner. Эlcobbola talk 16:02, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.

Blackwhiteupl

[edit]

Status: open • view • edit • history • watch
Filed: 17:29, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results

[edit]

Reason: Block evasion, 3rd CU request regarding Blackwhiteupl who in the meantime was found to be identical to Kay Körner. --Achim (talk) 17:29, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.

Blackwhiteupl

[edit]

Status: open • view • edit • history • watch
Filed: 01:53, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Both Confirmed. Эlcobbola talk 16:47, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Blocked per  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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Confirmed and blocked. Эlcobbola talk 18:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tanktopbra (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log ) suspected too. --Achim (talk) 11:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • and pinging 32X for clearifying the Category:Sockpuppets of Kay Körner connection. --Achim (talk) 11:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    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)
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.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.

Blackwhiteupl

[edit]

Status: open • view • edit • history • watch
Filed: 19:34, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results

[edit]

Reason: User:Blackwhiteupl has been blocked indef (see also Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 56#Blackwhiteupl, Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Vandalism/Archive 8#Didym and Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/01/Category:Human rights memorial Castle-Fortress Sonnenstein). 12 days later User:Kuothij started editing in the same manner. User:Kuothij made less than 70 edits in 2013 and 2014 and had been passive since then. So Blackwhiteupl seems to use the account data of Kuothij. In case of confirmation I suggest blocking indef though among his edits have been some useful, but this behaviour is not acceptable. --Achim (talk) 19:34, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elcobbola, thank you. For the records: User:Rainerhaufe doesn't match the pattern of behavior (private proxy?), User:Blankasame might do, but was by now active for 2 days only. --Achim (talk) 20:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, I had meant to list Rainerhaufe as Possible. That account and Blankasame edited with identical characteristics on the same day, including an IP whose only users are Blackwhiteupl, Kuothij, Blankasame and Rainerhaufe. That IP, however, could potentially be available to multiple users. Эlcobbola talk 21:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.


Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Blackwhiteupl&oldid=696660760"