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.

Requests

[edit]

Leonardos777

[edit]

Status: open • 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]

Samathaishwarya

[edit]

Status: open • 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]

Blackrosetaemin

[edit]

Status: resolved • view • edit • history • watch
Filed: 18:57, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results

[edit]

Reason: DUCK. Re-upload File:Taemin Grammy Museum 2026.jpg after the previous uploaded by sockmaster was deleted. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 18:57, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Likely. Blocked and tagged. Normally, I'd reject the CU and just block the accounts per behavioral evidence, however Blackrosetaemin's message on their talk page meant that I felt it prudent to do a sleeper check. No sleepers. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:55, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Filker123

[edit]

Status: resolved • view • edit • history • watch
Filed: 02:40, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results

[edit]

Reason: The first three accounts have all edited Template:Blocked talk-revoked-notice and created nonsensical templates/code pages. Ameru-chan (talk · contribs) was blocked and tagged as a sock of OHHOM389 (talk · contribs). NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 02:40, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note that OHHOM hit many abuse filters and claimed to be Nahida in Special:AbuseLog/12808661 before being renamed.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 06:22, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Results: Confirmed:

Group 1:
Group 2:

Likely:

Many of the accounts were already blocked or locked. Blocked the others. Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/JoinKepper will be merged into this case. Tagging and retagging. --Lymantria (talk) 10:26, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Lymantria: Thanks a lot for checking this. I was wondering if the Category:Sockpuppets of Arnulfo1952 case is related to this one because they also liked fiddling around with templates. However, there was a focus on poodles. Now I found the history of File:Three Poodles.jpg what might be a link between these cases. --Achim55 (talk) 16:58, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That is quite possible, see also for instance Q38904 at wikidata. Perhaps The Squirrel Conspiracy has kept notes of Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Arnulfo1952 to check against. --Lymantria (talk) 08:06, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, no notes, sorry. However, with this many socks, taking notes now seems like it might be useful. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:38, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the CheckUserLog and based on what I see there, combined with my findings and the poodle connection, I consider these cases Likely the same. I'll merge (again). --Lymantria (talk) 11:55, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Carlosarevalohn

[edit]

Status: resolved • view • edit • history • watch
Filed: 09:50, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results

[edit]

Reason: Repeated deletion nominations without a reason with a similar pattern: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Noticieros Telecinco.jpg. Alvaradohn is already blocked indef., Carlosarevalohn and Yovanyhn were already blocked for a week each. Yann (talk) 09:50, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos'arevalohn' and Alvaradohn also have some similarities in their usernames. Nakonana (talk) 16:11, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking and tagging now. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 17:00, 23 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.[1] 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]

DJRubinitoYtxd

[edit]

Status: resolved • view • edit • history • watch
Filed: 06:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results

[edit]

Reason: After the previous accounts were blocked, this account began uploading non-free files about players of the Comerciantes Unidos club of Peru. --Ovruni (talk) 06:09, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed Blocked and tagged. --Lymantria (talk) 06:30, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nurabdi11

[edit]

Status:  to be archived • view • edit • history • watch
Filed: 20:34, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results

[edit]

Reason: Special interest in vandalism related to Gashamo, and sockpuppetry to further it. See Special:Diff/1147761544.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:34, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed:
Blocked and tagged. --Lymantria (talk) 06:36, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nurabdi11

[edit]

Status:  to be archived • view • edit • history • watch
Filed: 17:52, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results

[edit]

Reason: More block evasion and special interest in vandalism related to Gashamo. See Special:Diff/1144688758/1144939198.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:52, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed Blocked and tagged. --Lymantria (talk) 09:03, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nurabdi11

[edit]

Status:  to be archived • view • edit • history • watch
Filed: 19:10, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results

[edit]

Reason: Block evasion. Special interests in vandalism related to Gashamo.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:10, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Results: Confirmed:

Likely:

Blocked and tagged. --Lymantria (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Jaredryandloneria

[edit]

Status: resolved • 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: resolved • 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=1153437710"