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.
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]

World's Lamest Critic

[edit]

Status: resolved • view • edit • history • watch
Filed: 19:10, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results

[edit]

Reason: The suspected user is blocked in enwiki as this reported globally-blocked user (SPI page). I don't need to provide diffs, do I? Also, some other accounts are globally locked. George Ho (talk) 19:10, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho: We do not need another check if there was one on another project, unless you suspect that there are sleeper accounts on Commons. So I blocked 4 accounts above. Reasonable Funk doesn't exist on Commons. Yann (talk) 20:00, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Declined No need for an investigation, already confirmed at enwiki. --Lymantria (talk) 21:35, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wlaak

[edit]

Status: open • view • edit • history • watch
Filed: 23:08, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results

[edit]

Reason: Relevent information can be found here [1], but I will restate everything. It will also be helpful to take a look at this SPI on English Wikipedia [2]. Both of these accounts were made to be "Possible" there, but based on their activities after mid-September, there are still concerns of renewed sock/meatpuppetry.

Wlaak has previously used a confirmed sockpuppet account, DavidKaf, which has been blocked on Commons [3]. 777network attempts to restore DavidKaf's revert of Flag of the Syriac-Aramaic People.svg [4], which is noted in this Arbitration Enforcement on English Wikipedia last month [5].

AramaicFuse made a number of edits on Commons in October related to the dispute Wlaak is involved in [6], some of them are personal attacks on me and my editing directly, and they recently returned to English Wikipedia [7] shortly after Wlaak had his global block lifted. They are listed at COM:ANU as probably a sock account [8]. They had previously been CU'd to me by Wlaak and found to be unrelated [9].

Based on the previous connection made by SPI, as well as their editing behaviors since mid-September, I am willing to wager that there was ongoing off-Wiki coordination on Commons before and during Wlaak's global block, which may again continue if left unaddressed. Surayeproject3 (talk) 23:08, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not very familiar with the disputes, especiall at enwiki, at hand. From a technical point of view I can say that the connection between Wlaak and 777network is Possible, while AramaicFuse is Stale. Perhaps a checkuser more familiar with the enwiki history can say a bit more. --Lymantria (talk) 10:23, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Lymantria Should I ask for a relevant English Wikipedia checkuser to provide more information? I am still otherwise concerned about the meatpuppetry given the Arbitration Enforcement case there. Surayeproject3 (talk) 13:38, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Surayeproject3 Notes by enwiki CU I have been able to access already. That did not yield more than I concluded above. The number of recent edits by 777network is very limited. --Lymantria (talk) 15:05, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Internationalnews27

[edit]

Status: resolved • view • edit • history • watch
Filed: 03:18, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results

[edit]

Reason: Each of these users has followed precisely the same pattern: uploading about ten publicity photos of a non-notable person, sometimes with a file page describing them as a "social media manager". (Some of the files may already be deleted by the time you see this; see logs / deleted contribs for details.) This looks like a coordinated spam campaign; are there any more users in this group I haven't spotted yet? Omphalographer (talk) 03:18, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Results: Confirmed:

Group 1
Group 2
Group 3

Very Likely:

  • Group 1, 2, and 3

Blocked and tagged, no sleepers found. --Lymantria (talk) 06:52, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Three more suspects:
Omphalographer (talk) 02:07, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed Civic Point = Public Wave, all three Likely to this case. Blocked and tagged. --Lymantria (talk) 10:40, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Waera

[edit]

Status: resolved • view • edit • history • watch
Filed: 02:52, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results

[edit]

Reason: Both created nonsensical code pages, here as well as on Meta. See archived cases below for other targets to check against. Please check for sleepers and perform range blocks as necessary. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 02:52, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed to each other. Blocked and tagged. --Lymantria (talk) 06:23, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

GMatteotti

[edit]

Status: resolved • view • edit • history • watch
Filed: 15:15, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

GMatteotti (talk • contribs • Luxo • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log)

[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results

[edit]

Reason: per file move requests diff., diff. and status on it:wiki. --Kontributor 2K (talk) 15:16, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed Blocked and tagged. --Lymantria (talk) 21:11, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

GMatteotti

[edit]

Status: resolved • view • edit • history • watch
Filed: 15:18, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

GMatteotti (talk • contribs • Luxo • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log)

[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results

[edit]

Reason: Reuploaded a deleted file originally uploaded by GMatteotti.[10] Already blocked on itwiki. --Titore (talk) 15:18, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Results: Confirmed

Blocked and tagged. --Lymantria (talk) 17:22, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Convert12

[edit]

Status: resolved • view • edit • history • watch
Filed: 17:20, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results

[edit]

Reason: Background: Convert12 (aka Lam Thuy Van on enwiki) was blocked on Commons for socking to continue copyvios; Daniel Friss was a suspected sockpuppet per enwiki RFCU.
Behavior: Both users uploaded a photo from actress vi:Lệ Hằng's Facebook page, which temporary accounts then successively added to her article (log). 0x0a (talk) 17:20, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed Dabiel Kriss = Daniel Friss. Daniel Friss is already globally locked, so I indeffed Dabiel Kriss. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 17:54, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Minod39355

[edit]

Status: resolved • view • edit • history • watch
Filed: 16:43, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results

[edit]

Reason: Farm of linkspammers, please check for sleepers I don't see, thank you. --Achim55 (talk) 16:43, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Results: Confirmed

Group 1
Group 2

Likely: Group 1 & Group 2.

Blocked and tagged. No comment on temporary accounts. --Lymantria (talk) 17:49, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thatgdperson

[edit]

Status: resolved • view • edit • history • watch
Filed: 07:36, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

[edit]
  • Confirmed CluckSupreme73 is Slurpyturky 73
Likely CluckSupreme73 is Thatgdperson
Blocked and tagged. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:20, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale, discussion and results

[edit]

Reason: Newcomer shows the same editorial interest in Doha Metro stations as previous accounts, leaving overlapping edits at

Capturing a screenshot of Google Maps to make "own work". (Qatar University Station.png vs. Google Maps URL)--0x0a (talk) 07:54, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ияд и Фирас

[edit]

Status: open • view • edit • history • watch
Filed: 20:35, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results

[edit]

Reason: The main account is blocked on Wikimedia Commons by The Squirrel Conspiracy for "lots of warnings for other things, like hoax flags", and the other accounts are uploading similar "hoax flags". Also, the checkuser at Arabic Wikipedia showed that all these accounts belong to the same user. --Alaa :)..! 20:35, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Possible for Eyad X
Slightly stronger Possible for إياد2026
Neither of these are strong technical matches from the Commons data. @علاء: Can you please put the ar.wiki results in the CheckUser wiki? The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:01, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@The Squirrel Conspiracy: , please see "Wikipedia/ar/Ияд и Фирас" at the CheckUser wiki --Alaa :)..! 16:31, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Leonardos777

[edit]

Status: resolved • view • edit • history • watch
Filed: 21:17, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results

[edit]

Reason: This user (re)upload deleted files of blocked user Severus777. He started editing after blocking Severus777. I hope this a block evasion. --VadymTS1 (talk) 21:17, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed Blocked and tagged. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:07, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Samathaishwarya

[edit]

Status: resolved • view • edit • history • watch
Filed: 13:35, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results

[edit]

Reason: Both originated on tewiki with similar registration times. They plagiarize images from stock photo websites and add emojis to descriptions, as well as camera location in the file infoboxes, (e.g. Clerodendrum speciosissimum.jpg vs. Dear Duchess Deer.jpg). 0x0a (talk) 13:35, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Results: A difficult one to draw definite conclusions. Users below may sometimes be meatpuppets rather than sockpuppets.

Very Likely, leaning to Confirmed:

Likely: Group 1 and 2. Blocked and tagged.

There are however more users in the (narrow) range these users are active in. Therefore I'll leave this case open for other CU's to have a look. Or I'll be closing in a couple of days. --Lymantria (talk) 15:56, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I deleted all files by all users from , per DENY. Many of them are obvious copyright violations. Yann (talk) 17:14, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I identified additional suspicious accounts by tracking overlapping edits across other projects:

--0x0a (talk) 09:36, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this additional info, the following accounts are Likely:
Blocked and tagged.
Inconclusive to this case are:
--Lymantria (talk) 16:38, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I deleted all files by Chinnu26 and Ammu29. Other accounts do not have uploads. FTR, as 0x0a was contesting the deletion, I would not delete files if there are only one or two socks. But here, we have a LTA with a huge farm. There is a clear intend to circumvent Commons rules by socking. Yann (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Waera

[edit]

Status: resolved • view • edit • history • watch
Filed: 02:52, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results

[edit]

Reason: Both created nonsensical code pages, here as well as on Meta. See archived cases below for other targets to check against. Please check for sleepers and perform range blocks as necessary. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 02:52, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed to each other. Blocked and tagged. --Lymantria (talk) 06:23, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]


Jaredryandloneria

[edit]

Status:  to be archived • view • edit • history • watch
Filed: 13:48, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results

[edit]

Reason: I request a CU for both accounts. And I wanna prove the admin wrong Because they were suspected Socketpuppet to this investigation and is just feels weird to me that a random person on Wikimedia commons is got blocked without any contribution~2026-36283-4 (talk) 13:48, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@The Squirrel Conspiracy, Krd, and Jameslwoodward: Apparently wants a second opinion. --Lymantria (talk) 07:57, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Declined Globally locked. See my comment in the section below. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 10:40, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Jaredryandloneria

[edit]

Status:  to be archived • view • edit • history • watch
Filed: 14:18, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results

[edit]

Reason: The sockmaster is blocked since December. The suspected sock Jloineann was recently registered. There is some behavioural evidence for them to be connected. The alleged sock went to Special:Diff/1147586186/1147588098 as their first edit, in a file uploaded by the master. The suspect nick has evident phonetic similarities to the master's nick. The content and English communication abilities shown so far in the suspect's contributions give a vibe that feels similar to the vibe of the master's talk page (but that's just a hunch). In any way, if a comparison shows a technical relationship between these accounts, then the sock abusing was continued. Please take also note of Special:Contributions/~2026-27096-2, that TA both posted an unblock request on the master's behalf and edited the same file as the suspected sock (diff above). Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 14:18, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed:
Likely:
Blocked and tagged. --Lymantria (talk) 17:28, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No comment on temporary accounts. --Lymantria (talk) 17:31, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Lymantria: Any Wikimedian opening a CU case is encouraged to produce as much evidence as possible. Thus, I named the TA which is, per ducktest, a sock, as I saw the possibility of it serving as CU-visible link between accounts (maybe helping to upgrade a "possible" to a "likely" or a "likely" to a "confirmed" relationship) or as additional behavioural evidence. I wasn't expecting any public result communication, otherwise, I'd have included it above in the suspects list using the checkuser templates. I certainly know that publicly linking TA to nicknames is forbidden. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 18:18, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Grand-Duc: Thank you. I wasn't doubting that you'd know that connection of TA/IP and accounts is not revealed by CU's. But there are others reading the cases and it is good that all are aware. And indeed, pointing to this type of info can be useful in some cases. --Lymantria (talk) 21:16, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
i wanna comment on this the two likely account is isn't have any contribution and this just wrong and is needed another CU test to prove that I'm right ~2026-36283-4 (talk) 13:37, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Declined The two likely accounts are globally locked. As such, a second CU has already reviewed the data (the locking Steward) and tied the accounts to an LTA. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 10:39, 18 January 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=1156524310"