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
Artículo bueno.svg Confirmed Symbol confirmed.svg Technically indistinguishable
Likely Symbol version generic.svg Possilikely
Symbol possible vote.svg Possible Symbol unlikely.svg Unlikely
Symbol unsupport vote.svg Inconclusive Symbol unrelated.svg Unrelated
Symbol no support vote.svg No action 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

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.
  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.
  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.
  5. Requests to run a check on yourself will be declined.

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.

nothing found

Requests[edit]

A3cb1[edit]

Suspected related users[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results[edit]

Ulcarco77 is a new user requesting undeletion of files uploaded by Lûgnûg, another sock of A3cb1. This is the usual partern for A3cb1's socks: uploading a few files, and then request undeletion of A3cb1's socks files. Yann (talk) 11:35, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Artículo bueno.svg Confirmed, as well as Custainor99 (talk contribs Luxo's SUL deleted contribs logs block user block log ) and Lødrionatta (talk contribs Luxo's SUL deleted contribs logs block user block log ). --Krd 03:58, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]



Stephane szyller[edit]

Suspected related users[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results[edit]

Reason: Create the same DR with almost identical (invalid) reason at File:Michale Boganim from "Tel Aviv Beirut" at Red Carpet of the Tokyo International Film Festival 2022 (52461587778).jpg. A1Cafel (talk) 15:51, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

JavadNazari[edit]

Suspected related users[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results[edit]

Reason: Obvious sockpuppet per uploaded image + account name (not the first time he calls himself Achim) --Johannnes89 (talk) 10:12, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Cyberduck icon.png It looks like a duck to me, and indeed blocked as a sock ca. 4 days before this request on fa.wiki. Эlcobbola talk 18:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Elcobbola was not blocking + nominating the file for deletion/deleting intentional on your part, or can I do it? —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    RFCU is for "circumstances that require use of checkuser privileges" and "a last resort for difficult cases" (verily, {{Duck}} is a "request declined" indicator), and is not to be used as "AN/U-lite". We do generally block when it is convenient as part of the process, but that administrative function is not really intended to be part of RFCU, and all the more so when the request is declined (compare, for example, with en.wiki where CUs more often than not enter their finding and leave administration like blocking, tagging, etc. to clerks or passing admins--Commons CUs are much more "full service," but that is not absolute.) Эlcobbola talk 20:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


TheRaihanRahman[edit]

Suspected related users[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results[edit]

Reason: Account with a history of upload falsely licensed files of Bangladeshi politicians. Account has a history of free files with copyrighted official versions.

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 22:04, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Panagiotis Tóki[edit]

Suspected related users[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results[edit]

Reason: Brand new accounts repeatedly removing sections from Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Vandalism. See history. Please check for sleepers. Yann (talk) 17:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Artículo bueno.svg Confirmed that Panagiotis Tóki = Narses Olivér = Hédi Shalmaneser = Braelyn Sylwia. Ericka birth is Declined as their edits are fundamentally different; better evidence of a connection is needed (FWIW Ericka birth is not in the range with the others). Эlcobbola talk 18:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hfive5sgd2 May 16[edit]

Suspected related users[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results[edit]

Spam for the same type of websites, using the same style. Famiwo12 and Uifami12 are spamming the same websites as prior socks Famiwocom, Famiwocom1, Uifamicom, and Uifamicom1. However, a complication is that in prior checkuser results Jameslwoodward identified Uifamicom and Famiwocom as likely socks of Hfive5sgd2, but later elcobbola identified Uifamicom1 and Famiwocom1 as a distinct group of socks. Marbletan (talk) 13:06, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Marbletan, I said "seem clearly," which is an expression of appearance, not of fact or certainty ("elcobbola identified Uifamicom1 and Famiwocom1 as a distinct group of socks"). There are a very high number of ranges involved, so data from Jim's previous check was not the same as was available to me (verily, Uifamicom1 and Famiwocom1 were the only two accounts in the range). This is not a complication or an issue needing resolution; spam socks can be blocked as is, and knowing a "true master" is of no importance. Эlcobbola talk 14:23, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Cyberduck icon.png It looks like a duck to me - Note that "Checkuser is a last resort for difficult cases; pursue other options first, such as posting on the administrator's noticeboard" (COM:RFCU); please stop bringing obvious socks here. Эlcobbola talk 14:23, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Previous checkuser requests turned up more socks than were listed, so it was useful in identifying additional spam which I nominated for deletion. But per your suggestion, I will report future socks to the administrator's noticeboard rather than making additional requests here. Thanks for your help and for your suggestions. Marbletan (talk) 15:19, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hfive5sgd2 May 12[edit]

Suspected related users[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results[edit]

Spam for the same type of website, using the same style. Please check for additional accounts, as previous checkuser requests have turned up ones that I've missed. Marbletan (talk) 17:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Artículo bueno.svg Confirmed. (Uifamicom1 and Famiwocom1 seem clearly to be a separate spammer--e.g., ads are photographs of computer screens--but are confirmed to each other with no sleepers at the moment.) Эlcobbola talk 18:08, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Artanisen[edit]

Suspected related users[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results[edit]

Reason: they anytime presented them own theory without evidence on COM:VP/ja. fyi: any accounts blocked as a pappet by user:Artanisen on jawp. see: special:diff/761906362. --eien20 (talk) 00:53, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Declined - Please review the instructions at COM:RFCU, including "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" (underline in original). Presentation of "the[ir] own theory without evidence" is not disruption to the project as offered, and no diffs or other evidence connecting Artanisen to the other accounts has been presented (Artanisen has never even edited COM:VP/ja (Commons:井戸端)). This is also the Commons, not ja.wiki; whatever may or may not have happened there is not relevant ("Running a check will only be done to combat disruption on Commons." (underline added)) Эlcobbola talk 17:21, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are a couple of reasons why eien20 suspects the wrong person. 1. I cannot write in fluent Japanese or native sounding Japanese. I only know basic writing skills in Japanese. So the writing style is different. 2. I live on the other side of Earth compared to those 3 accounts you mentioned (different geographic location). 3. I have a different IP address. 4. Artanisen is my only account as far as I can remember. I did help a cousin use Wikipedia and sometimes I use it as a guest. 5. I probably use a different web browser. 6. My Internet Service Provider (ISP) is completely different. 7. I have not had such an issue in the 17 years that I've contributed to Wikipedia. 8. I knew little about this issue until he mentioned it. 9. I am not active on COM:VP/ja, since my Japanese writing skills are too low. I'm literally incapable of conducting advanced written discussions in Japanese except if I look up the meaning of lots of kanji and words. Thus I usually communicate in English, because my native tongue is English. 10. I do solemnly and sincerely swear that I have nothing to do with those other accounts and I have no clue about it. -Artanisen (talk) 07:14, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Digvijay Mishra 99[edit]

Suspected related users[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results[edit]

Reason: Re-uploading files deleted at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Aarya.xd; x-wiki abuse. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That was an oversight. Related to the response to the other referenced query ("same here"), feel free to block/tag in circumstances like this; it need not be done by a CU. Эlcobbola talk 20:09, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bmmederos[edit]

Suspected related users[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results[edit]

Reason: Looks like a new account naming scheme of this glocked LTA, similar behavior. See also my User:Achim55/Sockpuppet investigations/Bastian. --Achim55 (talk) 08:42, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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