Commons:Requests for checkuser

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Commons:RFCU)
Jump to: navigation, search


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.
Request completed
Artículo bueno.svg Confirmed Likely
Symbol possible vote.svg Possible Symbol unlikely.svg Unlikely
Symbol unsupport vote.svg Inconclusive Symbol unrelated.svg Unrelated
Symbol redirect vote.svg Completed 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.
Additional information needed Deferred to
 Doing… Pictogram voting info.svg Info
  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.
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'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 (if the case has been archived). When editing an existing case, be sure to list/transclude the subpage here.
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.



Suspected related users[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results[edit]

Reason: These accounts are created on a daily basis to immediately upload just one or two similar style images, which are immediately uploaded to numerous Wikipedia project articles. All show similar formatting/wording. User:カシスウーロン's sole upload was speedy deleted as a blatant copyright violation, and the images uploaded by other accounts are also suspect. --DAJF (talk) 06:50, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


Suspected related users[edit]

Added following tips from en.Wikipedia:

Less certain:

Rationale, discussion and results[edit]

Reason: Two of three Bill Wong’s accounts have names well within observed Meterrs’s repertoire; intersections and purely behavioral evidences are also abundant. Also note that Taivo recently hid a visible evidence implicating Hvslo. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I did not hide anything, I deleted userpage and his/her talkpage. Taivo (talk) 17:55, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
It hid a behavioural pattern from non-sysops. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Hiding is what you can see in file:Vogelpark Walsrode 2012 (147).jpg, where I hided a first version. Hiding and deleting are different things. Taivo (talk) 19:33, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't know what the evidence is. The entire deleted history is:
  • (diff) 2018-02-16T23:39:50 . . Hvslo (talk | contribs | block) (empty) (←Blanked the page) (Tag: Blanking)
  • (diff) 2018-02-16T23:39:38 . . Hvslo (talk | contribs | block) (1 byte) (←Created page with 'H')
--Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 21:28, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

en.Wikipedia also confirms “our” known socks Pastratopi (talk · contribs), Gasexpert (talk · contribs), and TVcommercialpro (talk · contribs). Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:49, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

It seems that some people open account by following me or something like that. For my activities, I'm going by hazard when I find things to edit. My name should be removed from this investigation. It's a very strange thing that some users involve me in that.--Bill Wong (talk) 21:07, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I removed my account from that, I'm really not involved in that. I opened just one account, I need just one account. I don't know what would be the utility to have other accounts.--Bill Wong (talk) 21:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Bill Wong: you should not. It is perfectly possible that you intersected with Draftpong and Omergreat accidentally and Hvsmtl was erroneously attributed to the Meterrs’ farm while in fact belonging to Bill Wong’s ring. But relation of Hvslo and Mediapow to Bill Wong is pretty obvious. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:27, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
@Incnis Mrsi: the only thing of evidence is that someone copy me, I watched the activities of these two and I see that Mediapow has uploaded a file like me.--Bill Wong (talk) 21:36, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Relation of Hvsmtl and Havas Montreal (talk contribs Luxo's SUL deleted contribs logs block user block log checkuser) (not listed) to Bill Wong is clear as a mountain spring: File:REM map.png (histlogsabuse log). Too many coincidences to leave the case without check. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
@Incnis Mrsi: About these accounts, I think it's probably the author of the file who has opened these accounts. I contacted them for a permission about the file publishing. He probably didn't know the policy of accounts on Wiki Commons, and he probably wanted to edit on that when I sent them by email the link of the file.--Bill Wong (talk) 21:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I removed my name again of the list, like I said I just have and I just need one account.--Bill Wong (talk) 21:58, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Suspected related users not necessarily means that's multiple accounts for one user. The proof will surely be more decisive in my future activities, I hope that's clear that I did'nt need multiple accounts, this also true for now and in the future. Thanks.--Bill Wong (talk) 00:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


Suspected related users[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results[edit]

Reason: Very similar usernames and upload histories, plus their user talk page clearing methodologies and edit summaries today.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 04:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)


Suspected related users[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results[edit]

Reason: Vathlu appeared to be upset that some of their uploads were filed for deletion and that they were subsequently blocked when they re-uploaded them, see here and here. Vathlu asked then to have all their uploads to be deleted (including those photos they appeared to have taken themselves). When I told them that free licenses cannot be revoked and that we consequently will not delete their uploads which appear to be without problems, Vathlu responded: We'll see. While Vathlu is still blocked, the IP started today with deletion requests or {{no permission since}} that focus exclusively on Vathlu's uploads. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:49, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Vathlu provides a statement on his talk page regarding this case. --AFBorchert (talk) 19:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Cyberduck icon.png It looks like a duck to me - We cannot run a check that would have the effect of revealing a user's IP. Unless there is a suspected named account, actions need to based on behavior (and this seems perfectly telling). Эlcobbola talk 19:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC)


Suspected related users[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results[edit]

Already confirmed on enwiki, see here, requesting ban on Commons as well. Raymondskie99 was temporarily blocked for uploading unfree files, and he's been using the Raymond9Santos and Yournewsboy socks to upload more copyright violations. Sro23 (talk) 05:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Artículo bueno.svg Confirmed and blocked. --Krd 07:56, 14 February 2018 (UTC)


Suspected related users[edit]

Reason: With regards to GeorgeWent they have uploaded two similar images with Riyen Karia in them. One of these images has been inserted by an account on the English Wikipedia on a page which has been edited by sockpuppets as shown on the SPI there. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:50, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

What about based on behavior evidence. Can admins see the deleted images? --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 09:53, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Both of them did upload 2 files and both of these files are identical. --Achim (talk) 16:11, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Feel free to blocked based on behavioral evidence. Checkuser is not magic pixie dust. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:27, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
If only there was an Admin about...   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:30, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Achim please block the sock based on behavioral evidence per the above.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 04:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
@Achim55: Just letting you know they were confirmed on en to thepoliticsexpert, who often uploads this garbage hereChrissymad (talk) 14:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
✓ Done by Magog the Ogre, can be closed. Sorry Jeff, I've been visiting my dad and thus have been offline for 5 days because his web access didn't work... --Achim (talk) 20:25, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
@Achim55: Thanks, and welcome back!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 21:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

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