Commons:Requests for checkuser

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.
Request completed
Artículo bueno.svgConfirmed Likely
Symbol possible vote.svgPossible Symbol unlikely.svgUnlikely
Symbol unsupport vote.svgInconclusive Symbol unrelated.svgUnrelated
Symbol redirect vote.svgCompleted Time2wait.svg Stale
Request declined
Declined Checkuser is not for fishing.
Checkuser is not magic pixie dust. The CheckUser Magic 8-Ball says
Cyberduck icon.png It looks like a duck to me Checkuser is not a crystal ball.
Information
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.
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'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.
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.

New requests

↑Jump back a section

Completed requests

Kabupatentolikarapapuabarat

view • edit • history • watch
Filed: 09:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Suspected related users

Rationale

  • Reason: A match is very probable: same crosswiki-spam habits, same words used ("tolikara papua indonesia"), same write-only behaviour. I can't even realize who can be considered the "master" account. Two of them were also blocked on Wikidata, however I'm requesting a CU here, since Commons seems to be the most damaged project. A CU should also help Stewards setting some global blocks for those IP ranges. --Ricordisamoa 09:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Results

The following are all Likely the same user.

  • User:Kabupatentolikarapapuabarat - Previously blocked indef by Denniss
  • User:Jigarrynorea - Previously blocked indef by Denniss
  • User:Komunitastolikara - Previously blocked indef by Denniss
  • User:Tolikaraindonesia - Blocked indef by me

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Probably time to run another check. I suspect (at least) these new accounts are also related:
—LX (talk, contribs) 18:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Yep, Artículo bueno.svgConfirmed. Tolikarakondaga (talk · contribs) is also related to the above sockpuppets. Trijnsteltalk 20:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
For reference, w:en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alorkalabahi/Archive and Wikidata CU. --Rschen7754 18:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
The older account Karubaga is also a rather obvious duck. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Could be, but I can't check it anymore (it's stale). Trijnsteltalk 14:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
As expected. I've done some more digging. As it turns out, this vandal has a history going back two and a half years; the oldest account I've found is User:Tolikara. I've set up a category at Category:Sockpuppets of Tolikara and tagged the sockpuppet accordingly. The following accounts need to be blocked:
Most of them should be quite obvious, but I'm happy to elaborate on how I identified them as sockpuppets. (Since I'm not a checkuser, it's all based on modus operandi here and on other projects.) Thanks, —LX (talk, contribs) 20:20, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Since they are all stale -- more than 90 days old -- I have blocked them all based on LX's research without a CU investigation. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Sendker

view • edit • history • watch
Filed: 22:35, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Suspected related users


Rationale

  • Reason: User:Overberg, who crossed my way when I dealt with some of his strange deletion-requests, shows the same edit characteristics as User:Sendker. Both very often use as edit-summary "erg"[1] [2], which is rather uncommon and probably an abbreviation for the German "ergänzt" (engl. completed). Both share an interest in river Glane in Germany. Sendker has uploaded 2 Glane-related images, Overberg has uploaded 4 such images.
    More importantly, which is also my reason for this request, both have filed deletion-requests for own uploads which are obviously abusive. For example, User:Sendker filed his year 2006-upload File:Ladberger Mühle.jpg on May 12, 2012 for deletion[3] due to "Rückzug ich will nicht mehr" (engl. withdrawal, I don't like anymore). When advised to file a DR, he claimed "badname"[4] on May 20, 2012, but didn't provide another name/file. On May 2013 he filed it again for speedy[5] due to "Urheberrechtsverletzung meinerseits" (engl. copyright violation by me).
    User:Overberg shows an identical behaviour. He filed his recent upload File:Glane.JPG for deletion, first due to "my own"[6], then due to "Urheberrechtsverletzung meinerseits"[7], using the identical wording as Sendker. After the DR Commons:Deletion requests/File:Glane.JPG had been opened by a different user, he expressedly assured me of committing a copyright violation[8], whereby I voted for deletion in the DR, before I became aware of the similarities between the 2 accounts.
    Note: User:Sendker had been indef-blocked on :de already in 2010 for sock-puppeting[9]. --Túrelio (talk) 22:35, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Results

  • Nice catch. All are definitely Artículo bueno.svgConfirmed - he editted once from a public library (so obviously some collateral there - but that's OK) and elsewhere from other IP addresses, but otherwise no more clear sockpuppets as far as I can see. I can't block an IP address though, so if you decide to block, you can only block the accounts. Trijnsteltalk 15:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 16:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Tortela123 (again)

view • edit • history • watch
Filed: 19:338, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Suspected related users

Rationale

  • Same M.O. as previous socks (e.g., File:If i lose myself cover art.jpg. Эlcobbola talk 19:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Results

  • Artículo bueno.svgConfirmed, without a doubt. No more (new) sockpuppets found. Trijnsteltalk 21:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Polina8395

view • edit • history • watch
Filed: 12:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Suspected related users

Rationale

  • Reason: some time before I've blocked indefinetely Nastya563 for massive copyvio uploads. And now I identified Polina8395 who is also uploading copyvio of the same topic (Rostov-na-Donu), has the similar approach to nickname (Russian_name&numbers) and even uploaded some of the previously deleted images with the same name (although with another copyvio images - File:Набережная реки Дон, Ростов-на-Дону.jpg). The user has the same design of own userpage with the Rostov galleries on it (compare Nastya563 and Polina).
  • It seems to me that it's the same user who I previously blocked, am I right? Or is it a new user who I need to explain Commons rules once more... rubin16 (talk) 12:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Results

↑Jump back a section

Archives

↑Jump back a section
Last modified on 1 June 2013, at 13:00