Commons:Requests for checkuser

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Jump to: navigation, search

Shortcut: COM:CHECK, COM:RFCU

Does your request belong here?
This is the place to request sockpuppet checks or other investigations requiring CheckUser privileges. Checkuser is a last resort for difficult cases. Use other methods first. You can try posting on the administrator's noticeboard for example.

Please do not ask us to run checks without good reason:

These indicators are used by CheckUsers to allow easier at-a-glance reading of their notes, actions and comments.
Artículo bueno.svg Confirmed Symbol question.svg Additional information needed
Symbol support vote.svg Likely Symbol deferred.svg Deferred to
Symbol possible vote.svg Possible Symbol redirect vote.svg Completed
Symbol unlikely.svg Unlikely Symbol note.svg Note:
Symbol unrelated.svg Unrelated Symbol wait.svg Doing...
Symbol unsupport vote.svg Inconclusive Time2wait.svg Stale
Symbol declined.svg Declined Crystal 128 babelfish.png Checkuser is not for fishing.
Pixie dust.png Checkuser is not magic pixie dust. 8 ball icon.svg The CheckUser Magic 8-Ball says
Cyberduck icon.png It looks like a duck to me Crystalball.jpg Checkuser is not a crystal ball.
  1. 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 vandalism where a block of the underlying IP or IP range is needed, disruptive sockpuppetry, vote-stacking, and similar disruption where the technical evidence from running a check would prevent or reduce further disruption to Wikimedia projects.
  2. Requests to run a check with ambiguous reasoning will result in delays - please provide a rationale at the time you make the request
    • Show what the disruption to the project is, and why you believe the accounts are related.
  3. Requests to run a check on yourself will be declined
  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. Check back regularly to see the outcome of your request. Closed requests are archived after seven days.
Privacy violation?
If you feel that a checkuser has led to a violation of the Wikimedia Foundation privacy policy regarding yourself, please refer the case to the Ombudsman commission.

If this page is displaying outdated contents even after you refresh the page in your browser, please purge this page cache the 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 (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.

Contents

[edit] New Requests

[edit] Estrilda

view edit history watch
Filed: 16:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Suspected Related Users


[edit] Rationale

  • Reason:
  • 1. User name connections: "Lycaon" is a genus of African Wild Dog; "Estrilda" is a genus of a finch found in Africa. Biologist Lycaon is very well aware about Estrilda a genus of a finch. As a matter of fact I've seen an image of Estrilda the finch, which was uploaded by Lycaon. Yes, I've found it File:Estrilda astrild.jpg. IMO the user names have too much in common for just a coincidence.
  • 2. Voting pattern on picture of the year. There were 40 images in the gallery Other animals for Picture of the Year 2008. Estrilda voted only for four of them, three of which were taken by Lycaon, and the one that was edited by Lycaon.
  • 3. Similarity in edits: [1] [2] In both situations the users used "don't add nonsense" Mbz1 (talk) 16:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Mbz1, if you would not mind could you provide us with a link to the FP pages that the alleged vote stacking took place on please? Thank you, Tiptoety talk 05:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Here are few samples, but there are more: [3];[4];[5];[6];[7];[8];[9]--Mbz1 (talk) 06:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • 4. The significance of the date December 12, 2007. Estrilda account was created 21:57, 12 December 2007.So I wondered why it was created on that very day. Now I know why. I have just checked Lycaon's contributions for that very same day, and here what I have found [10]. So, as you could see Estrilda account was created just about 4 hours later after Lycoun promised to stop his contributions to Commons. I believe at first the creation of the account was rather innocent, but later the account was used to stack the votes and to harass me personally by opposing my nominations 2 times (a time per each account).--Mbz1 (talk) 18:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I appologize for the voting (supporting my husband). That will not happen again. I do agree that he was harrased by MBZ1, after which I kicked back. I should not have done that. Please do not block my account as I still would like to upload african pictures. Sorry. Estrilda (talk) 20:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

My husband cannot answer now because he has no internet access until friday (or earliest maybe thursday). Estrilda (talk) 20:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Results

Yes, connected. -- Drini 18:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, but what does it mean? Is Estrilda a sock of Lycaon, and if it is the case, will Estrilda account be blocked?--Mbz1 (talk) 19:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, before any action is taken I would like Drini to clarify his comment. Is this {{confirmed}}? Tiptoety talk 23:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I checked as well, given that Drini gave a rather terse answer (he's very efficient that way! :) ) Technical results suggest a correlation, yes, but I think jumping to conclusions (calling it "confirmed" for example) may be a bit hasty. I think an explanation ought to be sought, and I've left Lycaon a request for one. Hold open please. ++Lar: t/c 04:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Connected means they're related. Now, what do do or what to action to take I think it's not for me to decide, I just provide the information requiered from the checkuser tool. -- Drini 15:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
While I agree with Lar that no action should be taken until we have the opportunity to hear from Lycaon, the fact that the CheckUser tool came back as "related" is some pretty strong evidence (especially coupled with the behavioral evidence). If in fact Lycaon has been using Estrilda as a sock to vote stack I feel that Estrilda needs to be indef blocked and Lycaon needs to be desyopped. Tiptoety talk 17:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I believe that Estrilda's votes should be stricken out, at least in those nominations, where because of them there was a different outcome, like for example in that one of mine [11], where Estrilda vote made the difference between promoting and not promoting of the image.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Argghh. Yes of course they are connected. User Estrilda is my wife and she is African. She is not that often active on commons so I can't see any COI here. Accusing us of socking is of course absurd. Lycaon (talk) 20:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't consider it that absurd. I mean, just looking at the evidence I can see why Mbz1 came to the conclusion he/she did. That said, I feel we all assumed good faith here by not taking any action until you had had a chance to comment. Now, in regards to your wife's account. It is probably best that the both of you do not vote on the same things, and that you clearly declare the account as your wife's on both yours and her userpages. I am also interested to hear if she created her account because you were going to resign (per the diff Mbz1 linked to above). Cheers, Tiptoety talk 20:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
What is surprising is that an administrator of Lycaon's experience allowed such an appearance of impropriety to exist without disclosing it proactively. Durova (talk) 20:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Even, if it is truth that the other user is the wife of Lycaon, and I have some doubts about it, for me it does not change a thing. It only means that not only Lycaon himself, but also his wife have harassed me.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Just because they opposed a FPC nomination of yours does not mean they have harassed you. Could you please provide some specific diffs to back up such a claim? Thanks, Tiptoety talk 20:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
To find out why I consider they opposes as harassment, one have to see a rather long history of me being harassed by Lycaon. I could provide many samples of that, but I do not think CU is the right place for it. I am ready to answer all your questions on my talk page, if you're to post them there or via private email. Right now I will only refer you to this. I have been on his so called "'shit list" for a while now, and other users have noticed it as well. That's why I do consider double oppose votes of him and his wife(?) as a harassment.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
If you would mind, could you email me the other evidence you have? Thanks, Tiptoety talk 21:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
On its way. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • One more interesting observation Estrilda (the wife) was not contributing to Commons since 24 February 2008 to 3 June 2008, which makes it about 3.5 months. Why did she(?) reappeared on June the third? Wasn't it because she and Lycaon were missing a single oppose vote on this nomination of mine [12] to make it not to pass? I'm trying hard to AGF, but...--Mbz1 (talk) 01:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Lycaon: First, acknowledge the crosslink please. That's mandatory, and if it's not done and soon, I will block the secondary account. I think you owe the community an apology for the deception. Second, even if crosslinked, no more votes by her, if that's all she does here or just about all. If your wife builds up a solid record of real meaningful contribution, and if the link is acknowledged, as it is on my and Josette's pages (any wiki we're both on to any significant extent has the crosslink, I'm pretty sure), I'd be ok with both of you voting. Jo and I both vote on things from time to time. But there cannot be any doubt that she's independent of me. Our contributions differ vastly... mine... hers. That's not the case here, which is a problem. You wasted the communities time with this when disclosure and common sense would have avoided it. That's a problem too. ++Lar: t/c 20:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I appologize for the voting (supporting my husband). That will not happen again. I do agree that he was harrased by MBZ1, after which I kicked back. I should not have done that. Please do not block my account as I still would like to upload african pictures. Sorry. Estrilda (talk) 20:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The real problem here is that your husband allowed you to do this, and potentially encouraged you to do so. Also, can you provide some diffs or evidence to support your claim that Mbz1 did in fact harass your husband? Thanks, Tiptoety talk 00:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Estrilda , if you are to provide some diffs or evidence to support your claim that I did in fact harass your husband, may I please ask you provide those diffs that happened before June 11, 2009? It was the date your husband first claimed that I was harassing him--Mbz1 (talk) 00:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Hi, Estrilda. it is very nice to meet you at last after you made that very first edit of yours:) I understand that you "do agree that your husband was harassed by me". I am more than ready to apologize, but I do hope that you will agree with me too that before I do, at the very least I have to know what I am apologizing for :) So far that husband of yours has refused to explain to me what my sins are. Maybe you will? BTW, Estrilda, do you know how I know that the above edit is the very first edit that was made by you, and not by your husband Lycaon? The thing is you've made two spelling errors. On the other hand your husband's English is perfect. Please take a look at this edit of yours(his) [13], where you(he) have corrected Slaunger's spelling. So what happened with your spelling now? Nothing happened. You spelled the way you always do. The edit I am refering to was made by your husband, who just forgot he was logged in as his sock (I am sure about that now). That edit from English Wikipedia [14] was not made by you either. It is not your style. Once again it was made by your husband's sock account. BTW it is great you removed your support vote from your husband's nomination. It would have been even better, if you've removed your oppose vote from my nomination. Of course you do not know what I am talking about, don't you, Estrilda? I understand it weren't you, who opposed my image, it was your husband's sock account :) I'd like to thank you for finally admitting my images were opposed not because they were bad, but because you(your husnand) "kicked back". --Mbz1 (talk) 21:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
My husband cannot answer now because he has no internet access until friday (or earliest maybe thursday). Estrilda (talk) 20:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd like this page (as with all CU request pages) to stay focused on the "what" rather than the "why". So discussions of alleged harassment probably don't belong here. I would suggest the individual user pages of those involved, or failing that, the appropriate subsection of COM:A. This page should remain focused on the justification for checks, the evidence that directly corroborates suspected associations, and the findings and results, and actions taken as a direct result of the findings. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 08:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Lar. I will probably post my questions about alleged harassment on AN/U later in the week, when Lycaon gets his Internet access back :)
Now I'd like to ask 2 specific questions concerning this CU request please.
  1. Estrilda, could you please explain why one of the first edit you've made on Commons less than an hour after you have started your contributions was that one:

    "22:38, 12 December 2007 (hist | diff) m User talk:Estrilda ‎ (←Created page with '13:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)') "

    I might be mistaken, but IMO it is rather a very unusual edit for a bran new user :)
  2. Estrilda, could you please explain what prevented you from the acknowledging the crosslink as it is required, and as it was requested by Lar? You do have Internet access, don't you?
Thank you in advance for responding my questions. --Mbz1 (talk) 13:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

As it has been several days with no response to the crosslink requirement, I have added one to both user pages. They are free to reformat it as they like, it's pretty bland. ++Lar: t/c 14:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Will we be hearing again from Lycaon? He hasn't edited since the 18th. The Estrilda account stated that he would have no Internet access until Thursday or Friday. Now it is late Sunday in his time zone. While it's best to extend good faith in light of his long service to this project, it is worrisome to see him so slow to respond now that actual concerns have arisen. Is there a reason for this additional delay? Durova (talk) 17:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Like Durova this concerns me. Whatever else Estrilda's contributions are rather focused and there would seem to have been collusion on some votings.
I had hoped that we would have heard from Lycaon by now and I am disappointed we have not. With respect for Lycaon and his contributions to Commons I will leave taking this further for 24 hours. However after that I feel the wider community should be consulted anyway. I will leave a link to this posting on Lycaon's talk page. --Herby talk thyme 08:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

See Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Concern_over_admin_actions_and_possibly_collusion_on_voting ... further general discussion probably should be there I think? ++Lar: t/c 12:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

That section has since been archived, should this request follow suit? Tiptoety talk 17:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, actually I posted to Estrilda's user talk yesterday to ask about the followup from Lycaon that she promised a month ago. Am a bit worried that he remains unavailable more than three weeks after the time frame she had given, with no further word from either of them. Let's leave this open for now. When the admin board thread was live I posted in the expectation that he would return and communicate within a few days. Durova (talk) 22:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good. I too am concerned about the lack of comments from Lycaon. Tiptoety talk 06:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I have been a reader for this topic since the start and I think its a good thing we used AGF and waited for a responds, but the fact that both users are now almost gone for a month let me think that there was really a sock in this case, maybe its still to soon to say or I just don't want to say it but lets wait for say on week and otherwhise close it as any normal Checkuser request, what would mean on of the two accounts get locked and maybe we should consider actions against the adminship for Lycaon, but I do really hope he would respond soon. Huib talk 06:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
One step at a time... but yes, that's where that road leads. I think waiting one more week seems a good approach. At that point lock one, and if there is no further response after another reasonable wait, decide what to do next. ++Lar: t/c 12:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I would suggest to just leave it for now, without considering a desysopping. It will be noticed if Lycaon returns in which case this RFCU could be reopened, and if not if we have a procedure for removing a sysop flag due to inactivity. Desysopping makes no effective difference for an inactive user. Basically I agree with lar that we are in no hurry. --Slaunger (talk) 13:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm with Lar & Slaunger. Nothing is spoiling for now. Lycaon has been a good contributor to Commons. I would not wish to see judgements made in his absence I think. --Herby talk thyme 13:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Let's wait until the first of December. There's a balance to be reached between patient understanding, and fairness to all our contributors. Lycaon is a wonderful content producer who has also locked horns with at least three other excellent content contributors at featured picture candidates, which is the same process where this second account raises fears of possible double voting. On the one hand it wouldn't be right to rush to judgment; on the other it wouldn't be good for the site as a whole to create the impression that certain users could sock with no accountability at all. I don't know whether he was socking, but this is the type of situation where accountability and followup should happen, and Lycaon has enough experience to know that. Ample time is appropriate; closure is appropriate too. Durova (talk) 20:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


[edit] Completed Requests

[edit] Archives

Retrieved from "http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_checkuser"