Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Hannoveraner1981
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.
Hannoveraner1981
[edit]
- Hannoveraner1981 (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log )
Suspected related users
[edit]- Julian Meier Pädo-Jäger (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log )
Rationale, discussion and results
[edit]Reason: Similar editing pattern of BLP violations. Trade (talk) 14:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Declined. Per COM:RFCU "Checkuser is a last resort for difficult cases; pursue other options first" and "Running a check will only be done to combat disruption on Commons". Both accounts are already blocked locally and globally. Эlcobbola talk 14:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- The other CU requests are also for accounts that are blocked locally and globally but that didn't seemed to be an issue?--Trade (talk) 15:51, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- This is w:WP:OTHERSTUFF, and incorrect anyway. If you have a request that conforms to the instructions at COM:RFCU, you are welcome to make it. Эlcobbola talk 15:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- But you just told me we are not allow to request checks for accounts that "already blocked locally and globally" Trade (talk) 16:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Trade: There is no point in doing that when the subjects are already blocked and locked. The subjects of the other requests were not already blocked or locked at the time the pages were created. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Wait how? Both Adamvase and Gapingprolapse were blocked the 8th April and the CU were created the 9th Trade (talk) 16:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Trade: That was a formality, and Trijnstel is a former Steward, and therefore already had CU access. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- No. While I don't believe in dignifying fallacies by entertaining them, to the extent there is confusion about the Adamvase RfCU: those who actually read that RfCU, and read critically, will note my comment of "I did look into this yesterday when you pinged at ANV but forget to note the same". The check was done the day before the RfCU was opened and before all potential socks were blocked. As above, Trade is objectively wrong and, like his failure to follow plain instructions 1) to transclude properly, 2) to remove the listed indicator, 3) to read RFCU instructions, and 4) to read OTHERSTUFF, is not genuinely engaging with information available to them. If there is request that conforms to the instructions at COM:RFCU, feel free to make it. Эlcobbola talk 14:12, 13 April 2024 (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.
- No. While I don't believe in dignifying fallacies by entertaining them, to the extent there is confusion about the Adamvase RfCU: those who actually read that RfCU, and read critically, will note my comment of "I did look into this yesterday when you pinged at ANV but forget to note the same". The check was done the day before the RfCU was opened and before all potential socks were blocked. As above, Trade is objectively wrong and, like his failure to follow plain instructions 1) to transclude properly, 2) to remove the listed indicator, 3) to read RFCU instructions, and 4) to read OTHERSTUFF, is not genuinely engaging with information available to them. If there is request that conforms to the instructions at COM:RFCU, feel free to make it. Эlcobbola talk 14:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Trade: That was a formality, and Trijnstel is a former Steward, and therefore already had CU access. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- Wait how? Both Adamvase and Gapingprolapse were blocked the 8th April and the CU were created the 9th Trade (talk) 16:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Trade: There is no point in doing that when the subjects are already blocked and locked. The subjects of the other requests were not already blocked or locked at the time the pages were created. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- But you just told me we are not allow to request checks for accounts that "already blocked locally and globally" Trade (talk) 16:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- This is w:WP:OTHERSTUFF, and incorrect anyway. If you have a request that conforms to the instructions at COM:RFCU, you are welcome to make it. Эlcobbola talk 15:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- The other CU requests are also for accounts that are blocked locally and globally but that didn't seemed to be an issue?--Trade (talk) 15:51, 12 April 2024 (UTC)