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]

ملكْ الصواف

[edit]

Status: resolved • view • edit • history • watch
Filed: 10:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results

[edit]

Reason: Using a second account to upload the same deleted pictures/pictures of the same person. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 10:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PatrickFound

[edit]

Status: resolved • view • edit • history • watch
Filed: 12:00, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results

[edit]

Reason: I am submitting this request for verification as a member of the jury responsible for judging the photos submitted during the DRC's participation in the WLE2024 contest. We have noticed that three accounts submitted images through the same user, who acknowledges this detail but denies that the same person is operating all the accounts. This situation hinders our ability to make decisions on the contest winners, especially as we are racing against the deadline. We are unable to reward them fairly, as we suspect that these users are linked. In our WhatsApp group discussions, PatrickFound confirmed that they are part of the same team and that he helped them create very recent user accounts to participate in the contest and maximize their chances of success. We also have screenshots of both individual and group conversations as evidence to support this claim. CapitainAfrika (talk) 12:00, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CapitainAfrika: please review the instructions at COM:RFCU. Where are diffs? What files? Is there double-voting? How is doing nothing but uploading free images (PatrickFound, the account you've identified as the master, has done nothing but upload six images) disruption at all, let alone disruption at the level of needing a CU "last resort for difficult cases"? Эlcobbola talk 13:54, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are the three pictures (just an example) :
File:Champignons sauvages trouvés dans la forêt de Mai-Mpili.jpg
File:Les Plantes vert dans la réserve biosphère de Yangambi (1).jpg
File:Réserve de Bombo-Lumene (1).jpg
Thank you, these images are likely to be promoted as winners of the WLE2020 contest in the DRC, but they appear to come from secondary accounts of the same user. This user acknowledges a connection with the other two accounts but claims that they belong respectively to his brother and one of his collaborators. Unfortunately, the conversation took place via WhatsApp in our group, and it is difficult for us to fairly reward these images. We would prefer to disqualify them from the contest, but we want to be sure if these accounts belong to three different individuals before making a final decision. CapitainAfrika (talk) 14:30, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The meta checkuser policy, which applies to all projects and which CUs must follow, includes "alternative accounts are not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of the policies". All PatrickFound and Mongala43 have done is upload free, unproblematic images. What policy is being violated here? Also, if they've already acknowledged a connection, why is a CU needed to establish a connection? Эlcobbola talk 15:09, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Elcobbola alright, thank you. However, if we are uncertain about whether we are rewarding the same person, wouldn't that be considered cheating, depriving other participants of the opportunity to benefit as well? CapitainAfrika (talk) 15:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the WLE2024 contest rules. In the absence of double-voting, I don't see why this would be cheating or why anyone would care which account receives credit. Again, though, if they have already acknowledged the connection, you have everything a hypothetical {{Confirmed}} finding would give you. Why would they be lying? You're effectively asking for a CU to disprove their claim, which, notwithstanding the absence of a policy violation, is itself not a valid reason for a check. Эlcobbola talk 15:47, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I understand. However, if we choose to reward other participants, would we be breaking any rules or violating the codes of conduct related to inclusion and diversity? Thank you @Elcobbola. CapitainAfrika (talk) 16:17, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the WLE2024 contest rules; that would be a question for the organisers. Эlcobbola talk 14:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Minor889102

[edit]

Status: resolved • view • edit • history • watch
Filed: 23:02, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results

[edit]

Reason: Both registered today on Commons before the account "Minor889102" uploaded an a file and another one that was apparently "accidentally uploaded", but clearly were violations of Commons:Nudity. Due to the extremely similar names, creation date, and the clear troll file, I believe this other account is a sockpuppet. You don't just "accidentally" upload an image of a penis shortly after joining Commons. Wheatley2 (talk) 23:02, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kalinators

[edit]

Status: resolved • view • edit • history • watch
Filed: 02:42, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results

[edit]

Reason: Uploaded File:Sportspeople1.png, a recreation of File:Stefanov120524.jpg/File:Kalinator Geneva.jpg after being blocked C F A 💬 02:42, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anzekos

[edit]

Status:  to be archived • view • edit • history • watch
Filed: 6 September 2024 (UTC)

[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results

[edit]

Reason: Uploading clear copyright violation images, same filename as well as same content. Please see File:Anze Kos - TNT Towers (2023).jpg, which was reuploaded by K1dMag1c1an after the upload of Anzekos got deleted. A09 (talk) 08:58, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

6042*UB80*2K36*1890*7269*9WBK

[edit]

Status: open • view • edit • history • watch
Filed: 15:35, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results

[edit]

Reason: I was not sure, that the users are related, so I only warned one of them and gave relatively short block to another. But they both are new users interested in category:Shikei Syokatu. If sockpuppetry is confirmed, then longer blocks are needed. Taivo (talk) 15:35, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daeva Trạc

[edit]

Status:  to be archived • view • edit • history • watch
Filed: 10:44, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results

[edit]

Reason: I’m kind of busy today, so I probably won’t be able to attend in the next 5-6 hours. Anyway, someone accused me to be the sock puppet of C/Đăng Đàn Cung/Musee Annam (that guy), so I request for an IP check for comparison (it seems that my uploads of Canadian landscapes and stuffs aren’t good enough).

Other of my defence included:

1.’Fake flags’: I asked before uploading and editing them

2. Haiphong and RVN Police flag: check the sources would ya

3. That guy have already bothered me

user Nguyentrongphu, you took every of my interest which C also had to accuse me, but any evidences that separated us apart and boom, “he was just faking”. What a win-win logic. And “confirmed sock”? You banned me immediately after I was accused as C in Viet Wikipedia. How the heck am I gonna defend myself when I have already shot dead?

After this has been done, I hope you and your friend would stop with such harassment against me. Consider this as I kneel down and beg. — Daeva Trạc (talk) 10:44, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • There's currently no issue here that needs a solution. "Running a check will only be done to combat disruption on Commons"--Daeva Trạc is not blocked, so what disruption would a check prevent? If Nguyentrongphu, or someone else, believes Daeva Trạc has been socking, they are welcome to present appropriate evidence of a connection and use of those accounts to disrupt the Commons. That would be a valid reason for a check. Эlcobbola talk 12:50, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nguyentrongphu: the IPs in the ban discussion you referenced are Vietnamese. Can you elaborate on what you mean by "If Trạc's IP are from Canada"? Эlcobbola talk 19:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:elcobbola Trạc claims he's living in Canada. Musée Annam lives in Vietnam, so if Trạc's IPs are real and from Canada, then it's unlikely that he's Musée Annam. This is a problem because Musée Annam has caused a lot of trouble over the years to be global banned by the global community. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 01:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
“Same interest”? Should I go outside and call every artist “neo-nazist” for having one same interest with Hitler?
And for your information, I don’t have an “obsession” with fictitious flags. I have other topics that I take interest and spend way more time in for (see here). — Daeva Trạc (talk) 21:03, 4 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=923371919"