Please do not ask us to run checks without good reason; be aware of the following before requesting a check:
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.)
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.
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.
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.
Insert the name of the suspected sockpuppeteer (the main accountorpuppetmaster, 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.
Reason: Uploading a few files of the same kind from similar sources, and then vanish. Also Desire1906 and Cosmic1908 are similar usernames. Yann (talk) 11:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Krd: OK, I will block them for advertising if you can't find evidence of sockpuppetry. OK to consider Calsecale5 the oldest account? Thanks, Yann (talk) 17:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not stale. They were uploading copyright violations just 2 days ago with
Ah, never posted here so hadn't realized that, now having concrete evidence is made harder by me being an idiot but all these accounts uploaded the same type of content (mostly 3D stock images with another stock photograph in the background behind a gradient, or a solid color background) with a description starting with "It is a ..." or "It is the ...", often followed with descriptions containing "dreams", "visual", "depict", "carefully created", "main topic", "universes", "virtual", "site", an entirely different description mentioning Canva, or Turkish descriptions, which had no recurring theme I believe, sourcing to a spam website despite the author being the name of the account that uploaded the file (not an {{Own}} template) alongside logos with bare descriptions like "Sites logos pictures" (plural random), most of which were categorized in Category:Canva, Category:Logo (specifically this redirect) and Category:Photos. Although the older accounts only uploaded logos, or names of websites against a white background with the same font style (compare File:Dijitaldental.png, File:Sikayetmerkezi.png, File:Ilanpet.png and File:Avokadokonsept.png). Also none of the files these accounts uploaded had any spaces in them, despite consisting of multiple words. NutshinouTalk!16:20, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Hello. I would like to have a check of suspected sockpuppetry. The reasoning for my request is the following: Seconds after uploading an image to Wikimedia the suspect puppetmaster requested deletion for it. That in itself is not the issue. The issue is that minutes after the deletion request was done an IP address (new with no previous activity recorded), and which is from the same region in the world as the suspected puppetmaster, supported the deletion request. One can examine the reduced time frames. My mistake was to confront the suspected puppetmaster, which afterwards, and very strangely, received a quick combative reply from both the suspected puppetmaster and the IP user. So all these circumstances, which tied all together, is making me to call for this request. A decision not taken lightly. Other than that, that is the main issue, not the deletion request. I believe deletion requests can and should be discussed organically by anyone. Not my first deletion request, since I sometimes upload images related to sexuality. Just that particular situation of suspected puppets is what bothered me. Thanks. Miguel Angel Omaña Rojas (talk) 04:42, 24 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. Эlcobbolatalk19:36, 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. Эlcobbolatalk20:24, 9 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. Эlcobbolatalk14:13, 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. Эlcobbolatalk14:36, 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]
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]
Sorry for the delay, I didn't notice the addition here. The non-stale users are confirmed to be all related to each other. Two additional sleepers blocked. Krd14:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]