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]

Mammadli99

[edit]

Status: resolved • view • edit • history • watch
Filed: 17:13, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results

[edit]

Reason: User:Memoli13 (I know he is not listed here as sock) was blocked globally (blocked here by Yann for LTA) for undisclosed paid edits and LTA, he also has multiple blocks on different projects for same reason. Here he confirms that Zaur Darabzade is his friend and thats why he created an article for him on multiple wikis (ukwiki, afwiki). Here is article for Zaur Darabzade created by Mammadli99 12 days ago: en:Zaur Darabzada. Mammadli99 also created Mehrali Gasimov, an article heavily edited by Memoli13 on azwiki. If we look at history of Mehrali Gasimov, we can see that an anonymous user added new image for this person. Image (File:Mehrali Gasimov.jpg) was uploaded here by Farahim1992, a 2 days old account. I believe he created a new account to avoid WP:SCRUTINY, and I'm sure these users are the same person. Nemoralis (talk) 17:13, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexus002

[edit]

Status: resolved • view • edit • history • watch
Filed: 17:47, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results

[edit]

Reason: File:Rare Image of Terry a O'Neal.jpg uploaded by Teonea4815 at 18:56 UTC +3, and after that a duplicate file uploaded but with metadata by Alexus002 File:Terry a. O'Neal's Wedding Day Shoot.jpg . so, i suspect (meat)sockpuppetery. modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 17:47, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Declined - Meat/sockpuppetry is the abuse of multiple accounts, not the mere use of multiple accounts. This photograph has not been previously deleted and both referenced uploads occurred before any talk page communication noting a concern. There is no articulated, or apparent, abuse here. Even assuming these are the same person, cessation of the use of the Teonea4818 (account has not edited since before Alexus002's first edit) and instead uploading another, higher resolution version of an existent image as Alexus002 violates no policy and is nowhere near a "difficult case" requiring the "last resort" of a CU. Эlcobbola talk 18:10, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    oh.. im sorry.. we have strict rules about sockpuppetery in tr wiki. when i suspect sockpuppetery i rush to RfCu because im used to it. modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 18:15, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That tr.wiki is substantively different would surprise me. The Meta Checkuser Policy is mandatory for all Wikimedia projects, and it includes the notion I referenced: "Note that alternative accounts are not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of the policies". Эlcobbola talk 18:19, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sthubertliege

[edit]

Status: resolved • view • edit • history • watch
Filed: 15:04, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results

[edit]

Reason: LeHardi45 recently started contributing on the same files as Sthubertliege. Looking at the contributions for both users, there could be a pattern of logging in and out to contribute under one or the other user. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 15:04, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Calsecale5

[edit]

Status: resolved • view • edit • history • watch
Filed: 11:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results

[edit]

Reason: Uploading a few files of the same kind from similar sources, and then vanish. Also Desire1906 and Cosmic1908 are similar usernames. Yann (talk) 11:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All stale. --Krd 12:38, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Krd: OK, I will block them for advertising if you can't find evidence of sockpuppetry. OK to consider Calsecale5 the oldest account? Thanks, Yann (talk) 17:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not stale. They were uploading copyright violations just 2 days ago with
Yes stale. Each of the accounts listed in Yann's request, and their last Commons edit, are as follows:
  • Calsecale5 - 18 January 2024
  • Kakolarca - 28 February 2024
  • Dzekoy - 19 March 2024
  • Papazon8 - 21 March 2024
  • Sinanotz - 28 February 2024
  • İsikliyol1 - 10 March 2024
  • Formender1 - 26 March 2024
  • Papazovski - 24 February 2024
  • Nukasio - 22 February 2024
  • Turanimsi - 15 February 2024
  • Cosmic1908 - 18 February 2024
  • Kazovaz - 21 March 2024
  • Desire1906 - 13 February 2024.
For the new accounts you've only now added, please provide evidence of a connection as described and required by COM:RFCU. Эlcobbola talk 15:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked and nuked some who share an IP. Krd 15:14, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, never posted here so hadn't realized that, now having concrete evidence is made harder by me being an idiot but all these accounts uploaded the same type of content (mostly 3D stock images with another stock photograph in the background behind a gradient, or a solid color background) with a description starting with "It is a ..." or "It is the ...", often followed with descriptions containing "dreams", "visual", "depict", "carefully created", "main topic", "universes", "virtual", "site", an entirely different description mentioning Canva, or Turkish descriptions, which had no recurring theme I believe, sourcing to a spam website despite the author being the name of the account that uploaded the file (not an {{Own}} template) alongside logos with bare descriptions like "Sites logos pictures" (plural random), most of which were categorized in Category:Canva, Category:Logo (specifically this redirect) and Category:Photos. Although the older accounts only uploaded logos, or names of websites against a white background with the same font style (compare File:Dijitaldental.png, File:Sikayetmerkezi.png, File:Ilanpet.png and File:Avokadokonsept.png). Also none of the files these accounts uploaded had any spaces in them, despite consisting of multiple words. Nutshinou Talk! 16:20, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Found Sturudige (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log ) just now, who has uploaded files with the description mentioning Canva. --Nutshinou Talk! 16:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stale. Krd 07:15, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gabetucker2

[edit]

Status: resolved • view • edit • history • watch
Filed: 17:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results

[edit]

Reason: Both accounts uploaded a lot of 2024 Ohio State University pro-Palestinian campus protests images that are taken from an external source, without permission. Probably avoid scrutiny. A1Cafel (talk) 17:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are we to believe, for example, that Onlineone22 (the creator of w:2024 Ohio State University pro-Palestinian campus protests, and effectively sole contributor thereto as of 11 June 2024), after hours of editing that day: a) took a break at 17:13, 11 June 2024‎; b) despite no existing controversy, decided to log into a sleeper sock (Gabetucker2 created 30 August 2022) to make its first ever edit to the article at 17:38, 11 June 2024; and c) then logged out of Gabetucker2 to resume editing as Onlineone22 three minutes later at 17:41, 11 June 2024 and with that edit removing the link just added by Gabetucker2? Эlcobbola talk 19:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Not done - Connection acknowledged by Onlineone22 account, so no check is necessary. Note, going forward, COM:RFCU requires evidence that "must include a rationale that demonstrates (e.g., by including diffs) why you believe the accounts are related" (underline in original). The question above was not rhetorical and was not answered. Эlcobbola talk 18:30, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mazbel

[edit]

Status: open • view • edit • history • watch
Filed: 04:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results

[edit]

Reason: Hello. I would like to have a check of suspected sockpuppetry. The reasoning for my request is the following: Seconds after uploading an image to Wikimedia the suspect puppetmaster requested deletion for it. That in itself is not the issue. The issue is that minutes after the deletion request was done an IP address (new with no previous activity recorded), and which is from the same region in the world as the suspected puppetmaster, supported the deletion request. One can examine the reduced time frames. My mistake was to confront the suspected puppetmaster, which afterwards, and very strangely, received a quick combative reply from both the suspected puppetmaster and the IP user. So all these circumstances, which tied all together, is making me to call for this request. A decision not taken lightly. Other than that, that is the main issue, not the deletion request. I believe deletion requests can and should be discussed organically by anyone. Not my first deletion request, since I sometimes upload images related to sexuality. Just that particular situation of suspected puppets is what bothered me. Thanks. Miguel Angel Omaña Rojas (talk) 04:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

弥助は本物の忍者だった

[edit]

Status:  to be archived • view • edit • history • watch
Filed: 14:34, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results

[edit]

Reason: 弥助は本物の忍者だった appears to be a LOUTSOCK [1]

The only 弥助は本物の忍者だった contributions has made are related to deletion requests for files that User:Dronebogus uploaded.

1.152.111.98 has not contributed since 2019, but suddenly appeared only to edit on the same pages as 弥助は本物の忍者だった

Although I strongly disagree with user:Dronebogus in many positions, I still find the use of sockpuppetry unacceptable 💚Kelly The Angel (Talk to me)💚 14:34, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roxibaby

[edit]

Status: open • view • edit • history • watch
Filed: 18:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results

[edit]

Reason: see: Commons:Deletion requests/File:IMG rox bruneau.jpg , both users uploaded same image in very near time. i suspect sockpuppetery. modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 18:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Declined - This is, at best, premature. The first warning either account received was at 16:29, 9 July 2024. Neither account has edited since then--Roxibaby last edited 16:18, 9 July 2024 and Meglavoie last edited 16:26, 9 July 2024. ("Checkuser is a last resort for difficult cases; pursue other options first"). I thus see no evidence that the two accounts are being used to circumvent scrutiny, stack votes (indeed, neither has edited a DR, let alone a DR for the other's file(s)), or otherwise edit disruptively. They haven't even edited concurrently. Roxibaby has only a single edit; all of Meglavoie's edits have come thereafter and, again, before a talk page warning that there was a copyright issue. Эlcobbola talk 19:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now, however, Katheb05 has just emerged and uploaded the image again; so  Doing…. Эlcobbola talk 20:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Possilikely/ Likely based on technical evidence. Эlcobbola talk 20:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Thank you. modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 20:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I look further, Made417 and Naomielalande01 have also been created today (9 July 2024) as SPAs to upload this image. This may be a case of the subject using social media (or another means) to ask others to change a profile image they dislike. Meatpuppetry is, of course, abusive use of multiple accounts and the aforementioned have been so blocked. We do not, nor should we, have a meatpupet template, so {{Sock}} has been used for organisation, not necessarily to assert literal sockpuppetry. Эlcobbola talk 20:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For posterity: yep. Эlcobbola talk 19:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Elcobbola I was just following this thread myself from a different starting point and reaching the same conclusion. fr:Discussion:Roxane Bruneau#Modification de la photo principale shows Roxibaby engaging with other editors on a talk page and claiming to be in contact with the subject regarding obtaining proper licensing - we'd probably want to unblock them so they have the freedom to actually sort this out, if their only misuse of Commons has been to upload a single copyrighted image. Belbury (talk) 13:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that I need to be told how to suck eggs, and that is not how any of this works. 1) Roxibaby is  Technically indistinguishable from other accounts not listed here; 2) Roxibaby lied about licensing (there is a world of difference between "source: x.com" and "source: self", no wiki experience is needed to understand the distinction, and the latter cannot appear but by misrepresentation); and 3) copyright initially vests in the author, not the subject. Correspondence with the latter is thus without meaning. As blocks are preventative, there is no reason to lift a block until we get an understanding of the issues and credible commitment to discontinue. Roxibaby has talk page access; they may make a request addressing those criteria at their leisure. Эlcobbola talk 14:13, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No eggs intended! I wanted to share some context that I'd found on my goose chase, that post-dates the discussion above.
From the route I took to get here, the block on Roxibaby may be preventing them from uploading a correctly-licenced image that would sort this whole business out. Having to file a formal unblock request and wait for it to be processed may be enough for them to give up on doing that, prolonging the problem while we wait for a different fan to care enough to make it to a talk page. Belbury (talk) 14:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that's not how this works, and that could be said for every. last. block. ever placed. There is no deadline, and Roxibaby has demonstrated their purports are not credible, careful, or informed. Please reread my comment above for what is needed. Эlcobbola talk 14:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a bit of a deadline in the fact that fans are actively uploading unlicenced images because a pop singer vaguely told them to, this week. I don't know how long they'll keep doing that for, but it'll stop when a licenced image is in place.
I don't know what technical distinguishability is at stake, but a careless user engaging with editors on a talk page and trying to get a licenced image in place seems a world away from most blocked accounts, to me! But I'll defer to you on it, all the best. Belbury (talk) 15:35, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keylansual3882

[edit]

Status: resolved • view • edit • history • watch
Filed: 06:35, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results

[edit]

Reason: Possible new sock of Malttew9983. Same pattern of uploading political flags under fair use (specially from Panama). Taichi (talk) 06:35, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Malttew9983 is stale, nothing to check. --Krd 18:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Krd: A whole bunch more which aren't stale. All uploading copyrighted Panamanian political party logos, sometimes the same bit-for-bit:
Also we may want to rename this Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Malttew9983Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 15:52, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay, I didn't notice the addition here. The non-stale users are confirmed to be all related to each other. Two additional sleepers blocked. Krd 14:12, 23 July 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=904382917"