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]

Weber Johnson

[edit]

Status: resolved • view • edit • history • watch
Filed: 15:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results

[edit]

Reason: I believe the three accounts are the same user. The problem here is that after the uploads of the first user were removed, the two other accounts tried uploading again. And because the are likely the same user, they uploaded knowing well that it was a copyright infringement.

Reason for thinking they are the same user:

Dajasj (talk) 15:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 2018 Schoof photo doesn't reflect his modern appearence Weber Johnson (talk) 15:10, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Weber Johnson, if you acknowledge the fact that these are your accounts and if you promise not to upload these images again without approval of the Dutch government, then I'll drop this checkuser request. Would that be an acceptable compromise? Dajasj (talk) 15:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is. I only hope the Dutch government one day will let wikipedia use these types of images. Weber Johnson (talk) 15:21, 12 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: open • 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]

Marwenwafi

[edit]

Status: open • view • edit • history • watch
Filed: 20:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results

[edit]

Reason: This user appeared just a few days after Marwenwafi started editing the Quality Images Candidates page. During those few days, all of Marwenwafi's photos were dismissed as technically very poor. Roberto9191, after registration, appeared immediately on QIC. There, he tries to promote all of Marwenwafi's photos. He also does other reviews, but in my opinion, this is an account created specifically to promote Marwenwafi's photos.

I confirm he wants to earn more quality photos Mounir TOUZRI (talk) 07:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{Pro}} This user was not willing to comply with the guidelines for QIC. Many users tried to explain him the idea of categorizing images unser QI standards. But he never changed anything to his nominations. The suddenly appearing user Roberto9191 behaved in the same way. --August Geyler (talk) 18:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A3cb1

[edit]

Status:  to be archived • view • edit • history • watch
Filed: 17:33, 03 July 2024 (UTC)


[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results

[edit]

Usual edit pattern. Please check also for other possible SP.--Friniate (talk) 17:33, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Likely Krd 05:04, 4 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=897948407"