Jump to content

Commons:Requests for checkuser

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

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.
Transcluding the request
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.


Checkuser requests to be listed (empty)
nothing found

Requests

[edit]

Alatiara

[edit]

Status: resolved • view • edit • history • watch
Filed: 13:35, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results

[edit]

Reason: The above account re-uploded some (now deleted) out-of-scope coats of arms related to a same unknown blazon/family than 3 other (already) blocked accounts (Alatiara, on top, Miravo and Heraldyka Kresowa). Kontributor 2K (talk) 13:35, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Confirmed RexAura is Alatiara. Already blocked by Nux. Tagged.
Possible Dagaa111 may also be Alatiara. They have no edits yet on any project, and Alatiara has a pretty obvious behavioral pattern, so I'm leaving that account unblocked/untagged.
The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 17:38, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply

BieniekS

[edit]

Status: resolved • view • edit • history • watch
Filed: 16:50, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results

[edit]

Reason:

where he was complaining that his Wikipedia articles "were attacked and without an explanation delated.(sic!)"

But as you see above: That was by no means all and and they have continued their global activities unhindered ever since, promoting the person and work of Bienek.

I see many "paid contributions as a violation of the m:Terms of use" made by obviously single purpose accounts using sock puppets without no sheer limits. This is my first CU case, but I couldn't stand these findings without noticing. Since the recent uploads were here on the commons I posted this case here. --Emha (talk) 16:50, 29 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Declined Unfortunately, all of these accounts are either stale (last contribution too old for use to have data) or not registered on Commons. There's nothing we can do on the CheckUser front. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:45, 29 September 2026 (UTC)reply
@Emha Because there's nothing we can do here, I've copied your post to Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#Undisclosed_paid_editing_/_socking_accusation_against_BieniekS, where hopefully someone can look into all this on behavioral evidence. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:53, 29 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Hi @The Squirrel Conspiracy - As far as I know there is a CU wiki and you can use this collected information as a foundation for working with the new information. Emha (talk) 13:10, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply
None of the accounts above has been blocked at any wiki for sockpuppetry. Even if so, not all sockpuppetry leads to an entry at checkuser wiki. Hence there is no data at checkuserwiki we might refer to. Checkuser is not for fishing --Lymantria (talk) 05:58, 1 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Well, @Lymantria, I linked Wikipedia:Checkuser/Anfragen/Bieniek-Umfeld:_Hamm-Ging,_Hansi-Klump,_Balint-Gabor,_usw. and thought that therefore I don't have to write down the checked accounts here again. If it's useful for you, I can do it. As i wrote: it's my first CU case and I am lucky getting help and advice. Best, Emha (talk) 08:56, 1 October 2026 (UTC)reply
I'm afraid you're not getting our point: there is a time limit for data to be used in CU-investigations. Usually users that have not edited for 90 days are Stale. Sometimes we can use notes at checkuser wiki, but in such cases another CU must have taken place on that account. None of the accounts above have indication that they have been CU investigated. As a consequence we can only rely on edit behaviour. You have been giving some good reasons to have that looked at, but that can be done by administrators and does not need CU tools. Therefore The Squirrel Conspiracy copied your request to the administrator's noticeboard. With CU tools we can do nothing. --Lymantria (talk) 12:40, 1 October 2026 (UTC)reply

TimeoRN24

[edit]

Status: open • view • edit • history • watch
Filed: 13:50, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Rationale, discussion and results

[edit]

Reason: Duck test. Both users uploaded the same file. Gyrostat (talk) 13:50, 29 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Results: Confirmed:

Blocked and tagged. --Lymantria (talk) 17:03, 29 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Hninsiphyutoxica

[edit]

Status: resolved • view • edit • history • watch
Filed: 17:27, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results

[edit]

Reason: uploaded a previously deleted photo from a blocked user User:Hninsiphyutoxica, and add the photo to the same article (myiki). Ninja✮Strikers «☎» 17:27, 26 September 2026 (UTC)reply

 It looks like a duck to me Per upload and account name. Blocked and tagged. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:43, 26 September 2026 (UTC)reply


A1Cafel

[edit]

Status:  to be archived • view • edit • history • watch
Filed: 21:19, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results

[edit]

Reason:

  1. One is editing uploaded pictures of other.
  2. Similar voting in very uncertain situations (1 ,2). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex Blokha (talk • contribs) 21:28, 17 September 2026 (UTC)reply
For anyone who knows me (especially in person, which would be well over 100 Wikimedians) this is laughable, but let me explain: A1Cafel uploads a few too many images which contain just-above-incidental copyvios due to elements of the image (e.g. toys, signs). I try to fix those when I see them in the DR list (Gaussian blur or solid-color blackout). As for sometimes voting the same, we're both pretty active on DR, if we never voted the same, that would be weird. - Jmabel ! talk 06:21, 18 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Declined I don't see enough substantiality in the request to check these two long active users against each other. --Lymantria (talk) 06:31, 18 September 2026 (UTC)reply
FWIW, from my side you have permission to proceed. A1Cafel is currently blocked, apparently (below) precisely for sockpuppeting, so I'd be happy to have this settle any doubts Alex Blokha might have. - Jmabel ! talk 08:57, 18 September 2026 (UTC)reply
@Jmabel A1Cafel is not currently blocked. Phương Linh (talk) 11:54, 18 September 2026 (UTC)reply
I stick to my decision, there is not enough substantiality to justify an investigation. --Lymantria (talk) 08:44, 19 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Seconding. There's ample behavioral evidence they're not the same person, and in the extremely unlikely chance that they were, that would have been detected in the 2023 case, below. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:45, 23 September 2026 (UTC)reply
No, that would not have been detected in the 2023 case. Alex Blokha (talk) 11:06, 23 September 2026 (UTC)reply
@Alex Blokha: Why not?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:34, 23 September 2026 (UTC)reply
I guess user is not checked against thousands of Commons users. Alex Blokha (talk) 18:48, 24 September 2026 (UTC)reply
@Alex Blokha: My understanding is that sleepers are checked for, whether or not such is requested.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:06, 24 September 2026 (UTC)reply
They would have if the technical data had been pointing in that direction. Apart from that, insufficient substantiality. Case closed. --Lymantria (talk) 20:34, 24 September 2026 (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=1282513370"