Commons:Requests for checkuser

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Shortcuts: COM:CHECK • COM:RFCU • COM:SOCK

This is the place to request investigations of abuse of multiple accounts or of other circumstances that require use of checkuser privileges.

Requesting a check

These indicators are used by CheckUsers to allow easier at-a-glance reading of their notes, actions and comments.
Request completed
Confirmed  Technically indistinguishable
Likely  Possilikely
Possible Unlikely
Inconclusive Unrelated
 No action Stale
Request declined
Declined Checkuser is not for fishing
Checkuser is not magic pixie dust. 8ball The CheckUser Magic 8-Ball says
 It looks like a duck to me Checkuser is not a crystal ball.
Information
Additional information needed Deferred to
 Doing…  Info

Please do not ask us to run checks without good reason; be aware of the following before requesting a check:

  1. Checkuser is a last resort for difficult cases; pursue other options first, such as posting on the administrator's noticeboard. (This is not a venue for requesting administrative action such as blocks or file clean-up.)
  2. 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, for example: vandalism where a block of the underlying IP or IP range is needed and suspected block evasion, vote-stacking, or other disruption where technical evidence would prevent or reduce further disruption.
    • Requests to check accounts already confirmed on other projects may be declined as redundant.
    • Requests to run a check on yourself will be declined.
  3. Evidence is required. When you request a check, you must include a rationale that demonstrates (e.g., by including diffs) what the disruption to the project is, and why you believe the accounts are related.
    • Requests to run a check without evidence or with ambiguous reasoning will result in delays or the request not being investigated.
  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. Closed requests are archived after seven days.

Privacy concerns

If you feel that a checkuser request has led to a violation of the Wikimedia Foundation privacy policy regarding yourself, please refer the case to the Ombuds 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 using {{subst:Commons:Requests for checkuser/Inputbox/Sample}} (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.

Checkuser requests to be listed (empty)
nothing found

Requests

[edit]

WalterDz

[edit]

Status: open • view • edit • history • watch
Filed: 11:05, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results

[edit]

Reason: check their contributions. near time created accounts and near time contribs. also check these two images that uploaded very near time: File:Zonguldakspor Logo.png (WalterDz file) - File:Zonguldakspor FK.png (9.Alan Shearer file) modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 11:05, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is the actual abuse by these users? --Krd 08:24, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
lemme get this straight, there is two accounts with suspicious edits that shows they controlled by same person. and you wont do anything about it?
no... they didnt do any abuse, there is no harm. but i believe they are sock puppets. modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 09:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Summerry2024

[edit]

Status: resolved • view • edit • history • watch
Filed: 17:58, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results

[edit]

Reason: Files uploaded by ChristianPC1998 (talk • contribs • block log • filter log) had the same pattern as files uploaded by users Walter4123 (talk • contribs • block log • filter log) and Summerry2024 (talk • contribs • block log • filter log) (both blocked globally). These files are usually screenshots and clippings of copyrighted videos found on YouTube, TikTok, etc. Ovruni (talk) 17:58, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just found that the oldest user account Sonia197881 (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log ) (also blocked globally) had also uploaded files in a similar manner. Possibly the user Augustinsson (talk • contribs • block log • filter log) (blocked in commons for multiple account abuse) could also be related. --Ovruni (talk) 19:47, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Summerry2024, Sonia197881 and Augustinsson are stale. ChristianPC1998 and Walter4123 are Confirmed. --Krd 09:35, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so Category:Sockpuppets of Sonia197881. Yann (talk) 11:37, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArionStar

[edit]

Status: resolved • view • edit • history • watch
Filed: 12:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results

[edit]

Reason: ArionStar was just blocked for 12 months (see Special:PermaLink/936836772#ArionStar) and indefinitely banned from FPC due to repeated disruptive editing on 10:15, October 10, 2024 by Yann. This new account was created on 10:53, October 10, 2024 and their very second edit happens to be a delist nomination (though with much better English than ArionStar's). The timing of it seems far to coincidental, hence the CU request. --SHB2000 (talk) 12:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely Krd 12:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I don't think this is ArionStar. I agree with the assessments by Cmao20 here, but I can't believe this is a new user. Yann (talk) 12:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The same here. I cannot imagine that RealPhotoManiac is ArionStar (the new user seems to know much about technical fine points of photography, that’s definitely not Arion’s cup of tea), but I also doubt that this is a new user – they seem to be very familiar with typical FPC discussions etc. Would it be possible to do a more general checkuser, I mean, to check whether RealPhotoManiac is a new incarnation of some other banned Commons user? The most probable candidates are certainly banned users who (1) know much about photography and (2) were regular contributors to the FPC page. I imagine that doing a comparison of the list of banned users with the users in our FP statistics would yield some good candidates to be checked; people like User:PumpkinSky … Just my 50 cent, – Aristeas (talk) 13:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indiaawik

[edit]

Status: resolved • view • edit • history • watch
Filed: 15:31, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results

[edit]

Reason: Recreation of feet pick of the other 3 accounts. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 15:31, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inconclusive, blocked per behaviour. Krd 15:41, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are King.godrat according to @Belbury. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 15:47, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's right, Indiaawik was already checkuser blocked on enwiki last week. See en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/King.godrat/Archive#18 September 2024. Belbury (talk) 15:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sending to SRG for locking for all accounts involved. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 15:58, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ribus157

[edit]

Status: resolved • view • edit • history • watch
Filed: 19:29, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results

[edit]

Reason: Update: In my original version of this checkuser, I failed to mention Ribus157 is blocked, and I suspect Defendersofhistory of being their block evasion sock.

Defendersofhistory appears to have reuploaded many non-free images (dubiously claimed as own work) that Ribus157 had previously uploaded. Using a new account appears to be an attempt by Ribus157 to evade their block.

Ribus157's deleted images:

Defendersofhistory's uploads:

Risedemise (talk) 19:29, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ribus157 is stale, nothing to check. Krd 13:41, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't mention: Ribus157 is blocked, so if Defendersofhistory is a sock, then they are block evading. Risedemise (talk) 16:00, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have reopened this request. My understanding is staleness of an indefinitely blocked account (Ribus157) shouldn't disqualify this request. Risedemise (talk) 16:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no more data available for Ribus157, so no useful check can be performed. --Krd 04:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GMatteotti

[edit]

Status: resolved • view • edit • history • watch
Filed: 16:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

[edit]

Yuonn is interested in same files as GMatteotti and even wants to rename same files. Next sockpuppet? Taivo (talk) 18:35, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would call this Inconclusive. (Perhaps Elcobbola has additional information from previous check?) --Krd 08:31, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


MihaiMet3aWi3ki123

[edit]

Status: resolved • view • edit • history • watch
Filed: 18:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results

[edit]

Reason: Vandalism only accounts operating within a short time-span. The last ones appeared after the first ones got blocked. Please check for sleepers. Yann (talk) 18:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the evidence these are related to each other? Эlcobbola talk 18:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To me, there is a similarity in the usernames, and the account creations within a short time suggest the same person. Yann (talk) 18:32, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Creation dates are nothing alike:
  • PikminLover4587 was created 5 March 2023
  • MihaiMet3aWi3ki123 was created 8 January 2024;
  • Unfixingpizza89 was created 28 August 2024
  • Crm12345678901 was created 30 September 2024
And username similarity is not close enough in the absence of additional evidence (e.g., if names were, say, PikminLover4587 and PikminLover4588, that would be another matter). Эlcobbola talk 18:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For older requests, please see Commons:Requests for checkuser/Archives
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Requests_for_checkuser&oldid=941049299"