Commons:Checkusers

This page explains the role of checkuser (sometimes called "CU") on Wikimedia Commons.

There are currently 3 checkusers on Commons.

If you want to request checkuser help, please post at Commons:Requests for checkuser or alternatively make a private request to any checkuser by email. In an emergency, and if no Commons checkuser is immediately available, please contact a steward.

Checkusers as of March 2025 [+/−]

Number of checkusers: 3

Elcobbola, en, de
Jameslwoodward, en, fr-1 (bureaucrat)
Krd, de, en-3 (bureaucrat)

What is a checkuser?

Checkusers are highly-trusted administrators with the technical ability to see private data for a user, such as their IP address. This is done to determine whether a user is misusing multiple accounts (multiple undisclosed accounts all controlled by the same editor that are used for fraudulent, deceptive, or otherwise disruptive purposes are normally referred to as sockpuppets).

Checkusers are technically able to:

Determine from which IPs a user has edited or done a logged action or password reset on the Wikimedia wiki;
Determine the edits, logged actions and password resets on the Wikimedia wiki of a specific IP (even when logged in);
Determine whether the user being checked has sent an email using MediaWiki interface to some other user.

The tools are typically used to fight vandalism, to check for sockpuppet abuse, and to limit disruption of the project. Such abuses may have to be dealt with blocks performed by checkusers themselves. The use of the checkuser tools and release of the private data is limited by the Meta CheckUser policy, the WMF Privacy policy and the WMF access to nonpublic data policy. CheckUser actions are logged, but for privacy reasons the logs are only visible to other Checkusers. Because of this, Commons must always have no fewer than two checkusers, for mutual accountability.

How do I become a checkuser?

First, read Commons:Checkusers/Howto.

When you are ready, make your request using the box below, replacing Username with your own user name.

For greater visibility, all requests made here are transcluded onto the central Commons:Requests and votes page.

Voting

Please note any registered user may vote here although those who have few or no previous edits may not be fully counted. It is preferable if you give reasons both for Support votes or Oppose ones as this will help the closing bureaucrat in their decision. Greater weight is given to argument, with supporting evidence if needed, than to a simple vote.

Requests for CheckUser rights

watch

When complete, pages listed here should be archived to Commons:Checkusers/Archive.

Please read Commons:Checkusers before posting or voting here. Any logged in user may vote although those who have few or no previous edits may not be fully counted.

The Squirrel Conspiracy

Vote

The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

Scheduled to end: 18:20, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Dear community,

today I would like to nominate The Squirrel Conspiracy as checkuser for Commons.

Squirrel is an experienced admin in good standing, and active in CU related areas.

They have agreed in private to accept the nomination, and will add some details later.

Thank you, yours, --Krd 18:20, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As the other active CU, I join in strong Support for this nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:57, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the nomination. I’m pleased to accept.

I’ve been an editor for just over 15 years (since September 2009), and I’ve been an admin from 2012-2015 and from 2020-present.

I do a grab-bag of admin tasks; mainly processing speedy and revision deletion requests, closing DRs, and monitoring the admin noticeboards to help with anti-spam and anti-vandalism efforts. I’ve filed a fair number of CU requests as a result of those efforts. Outside of admin tasks, I upload images from open access journals and do a lot of cropping borders.

Elcobbola has been inactive since October and Krd does a huge amount already (#1 by count of admin actions over the last 12 months, a huge amount of VRT work, and is the more active of the two remaining CUs), so I’ve volunteered to help share some of the CU workload. I’m familiar with how IP ranges work from taking a Security+ cert course last year, and I'm on the project pretty much daily.

I think that’s everything. Happy to answer any questions.

The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:27, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

Support Good candidate. --Yann (talk) 19:13, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support 1989 (talk) 19:27, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fit India 20:53, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support! Queen of Hearts (talk) 21:20, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support been nothing but impressed in my interactions with this user. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:22, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 09:32, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support $999$ REAL 💬 ⬆ 15:32, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 16:30, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support i dont know too much about him, but also community supports. so, it is weak support. good luck. modern_primat^ඞඞඞ^----TALK 16:42, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sure thing! _signed,Aafi ^(talk) 17:10, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support per Magog, and my own experience. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 17:53, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support nihil obstat. Good luck! RodRabelo7 (talk) 17:56, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support unconditional support Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 19:37, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good candidate Abzeronow (talk) 22:51, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Adamant1 (talk) 04:07, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Riad Salih (talk) 04:20, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support We are about to see one of the fastest close. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 11:36, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Takipoint123 (💬) 16:06, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rosenzweig τ 19:47, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ternera (talk) 21:47, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --— D Y O L F 77^[Talk] 11:00, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Günther Frager (talk) 13:39, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Hehua (talk) 14:30, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Long-term experience user, no concerns. Jianhui67^T★C 18:59, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Taichi (talk) 05:22, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support no concerns here. Elli (talk) 06:13, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support HouseBlaster (talk) 06:17, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ameisenigel (talk) 20:21, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per answer given below. Glrx (talk) 23:37, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support no reason to oppose. --A1Cafel (talk) 04:58, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

@The Squirrel Conspiracy: can you list "what must have happened" before a checkuser uses the checkuser tools?--RoyZuo (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RoyZuo: Sure! Before running a check, the checkuser needs to make sure the check passes three tests:

Test 1: Demonstrated disruption to the project – CheckUser is only used to combat disruption of the project where the bad actor is suspected of using multiple accounts or IPs to perpetrate that disruption. Most commonly this is spam or vandalism, but it could also be things like flooding a discussion to try to sway its outcome. The disruption is typically demonstrated in a requests for checkuser case with diffs to support the allegations.

Test 2: The check is necessary to stop the disruption – CheckUser is only used when its use is necessary to stop the disruption. Or to put it another way, if the behavioral evidence is strong enough that an admin is comfortable issuing a block without asking for a check, then they should just do so. The caveat to that is sleepers: if a filer creates a case and the behavioral evidence is strong enough to block the identified accounts without needing a check, but the filer presents a reasonable argument that - based on the actor's behavior - there are likely additional accounts that haven't been identified, the checkuser can still run a check to identify those other accounts.

Test 3: Running the check doesn't violate the privacy policy - Checkusers aren't allowed to reveal an account's IP, because that can reveal their location. If someone created a case accusing user:Example of logging out to double-vote in a discussion as IP 127.0.0.1, the checkuser would have to decline that case.

The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:36, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thx. Good answers.

Although there's 1 extra thing in my mind:

the reported accounts must have some similarity. that similarity needs to be backed up by url.

if the accounts are obviously two different people, or very unlikely a single person/entity, then a check might not be necessary. this is like a polar opposite to, as you mentioned, the scenario of accounts whose "behavioral evidence is strong enough", which also doesnt need a check to connect them.

In my opinion, "disruption to commons" and "similarity" are two necessary elements for a check. What do you think? RoyZuo (talk) 22:53, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RoyZuo: In my mind, similarity was built into the first test. To make that explicit, where I said "where the bad actor is suspected of using multiple accounts or IPs", I could rephrase it as "where there is credible suspicion that the bad actor is using multiple accounts or IPs", and then where I said "The disruption is typically demonstrated" [with diffs], I could change it to "The suspicion is typically demonstrated" [with diffs]. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:03, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for being longwinded. I wrote the reply above purely based on common sense and logical deduction, but afterwards I realised it's already all summed up at the top of Commons:Requests for checkuser: "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."

Your answers are satisfactory. I hope you stick to such common sense. Thank you. RoyZuo (talk) 08:33, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Current Checkusers

For an automated list of current checkusers, see Special:Listusers/checkuser.
To edit the annotated list of checkusers, click here.