Commons:Checkusers

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

There are currently 4 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 May 2025 [+/−]

Number of checkusers: 4

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

What is a checkuser?

A sample CheckUser log. Special permission, the *`checkuser-log`* (View the checkuser log) right is required for viewing the log.

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.

Lymantria

Vote

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

Scheduled to end: 14:08, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

The three active Checkusers nominate Lymantria for the position of Checkuser.

We believe that they are highly qualified and well trusted and will be an excellent addition to the team as well as adding languages we do not have.

Lymantria became a Commons Administrator in 2011, with 29 positive votes of 30. They have 133,000 edits on Commons and 19,000 deletions. They are also very active on Wikidata, where they are an Admin, Bureaucrat, and Checkuser and have made almost two million edits.

. Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:16, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
--Krd 14:26, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 13:26, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating me, very special to be nominated by no less than three colleague checkusers. Of course, I accept the nomination. --Lymantria (talk) 14:08, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

Support Taivo (talk) 14:45, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
im ok with that request. modern_primat^ඞඞඞ^----TALK 14:54, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- DaxServer (talk) 16:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Queen of Hearts (talk) 22:51, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like clubs who choose/deny (on) their new members alone. Inbreeding never was a good idea. So black smoke from me. --Mirer (talk) 23:19, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mirer: As the person that led the search for a fourth CheckUser, let me illustrate the process, in case that helps: I went through every case filed at Commons:Requests for checkuser in the last 12 months and made a list of everyone that filed cases that were actionable (had proper rationales that justified using the tool, targeting accounts active recently enough for the tool to work). Then I removed anyone that wasn't an admin, because the community won't approve a CU that isn't already an admin. From there, I looked at who was regularly active on Wikimedia projects (CU isn't as time sensitive as OS, but it's still important that we have ample coverage because sometimes we need range-blocks to stop ongoing, high-volume abuse). Lastly, I checked their RfAs and searched for threads on the admin noticeboards to make sure we weren't putting forward someone controversial (no one was removed from the list at this step). This gave me a shortlist of three folks, and all three of us were comfortable with any of the three of them, so we reached out to all three to gauge interest. Lymantria stood out because they're already a CU on another project. (There really isn't much onboarding for CUs - a few pages on the CheckUser wiki, and asking existing CUs questions on the CU mailing list or over Discord - so knowing what you're doing from day 1 is a huge plus.) I haven't really interacted with Lymantria much prior to this nomination (just one CU case on Wikidata, IIRC). TLDR: This wasn't "let's pick our friends", it was "let's search for folks we think can do the job". The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:40, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Mirer: With all respect for your vote, I want to stress that I did or do not belong to the "inner circle" of the three CUs that nominated me. With neither of the three nominators I have had a lot of interaction at one of the projects. Their common action to find and nominate a new CU I interpreted as a sign of urgency/necessity to have more manpower. That convinced me to accept the nomination. --Lymantria (talk) 05:27, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Mirer: There's no club here -- as TSC says, the three of us believe that Commons will be better served if there are four Checkusers, so we went looking for suitable candidates. I have had very little interaction with Lymantria in the past, but all of it was positive. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:50, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support ToadetteEdit (talk) 07:44, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Being an Admin is a tough responsibility and this is more work. But Lymantria can handle the task. --Leoboudv (talk) 07:52, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 08:29, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support if it is Lymantria, for sure. No issues. Always seen them as doing what they are doing. _signed,Aafi ^(talk) 08:36, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support I've talked with TSC about the 4th CU in the past, and I think that 4 (or even 5!) CUs can only be a benefit to commons, especially someone who already has experience, is a huge benefit. The only possible downside is that the average checks done by an individual CU will go down, but that might not be a bad thing. Anytime we can avoid being dependent on 1 or 2 people for a critical task, I'm all for it. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 15:33, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --— D Y O L F 77^[Talk] 16:35, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 16:49, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bedivere (talk) 17:46, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- per the comment from User:The Squirrel Conspiracy above. --Schlurcher (talk) 20:17, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- More hands make lighter work, and I trust the 3 nominators on this matter. Abzeronow (talk) 21:17, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I think that volunteering to improve Wikimedia projects is too valuable. Lymantria is an experienced user. As they are sysop here, and already have CU rights on Wikidata. So, they are familiar with the CU interface. It is beneficial to have one more CU here. No objections. --Kadı Message 22:12, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. Would support more CUs if there are qualified candidates. Lymantria looks like a trusted user. --JackFromWisconsin (talk) 03:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per TSC. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 08:38, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rauenstein (talk) 12:41, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 00:33, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nemoralis (talk) 00:44, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support as above. 〈興華街〉📅❓ 09:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:23, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. RodRabelo7 (talk) 21:02, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 21:19, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uschoen (talk) 08:40, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Msb (talk) 15:56, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support per Kadi. I know them from Wikidata and they are very active and experienced there. Jianhui67^T★C 18:27, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Incall ^talk 18:55, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support--Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 11:09, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Haven't interacted with them much (if at all). But, already CU at other project, I don't see any issue why they can't be a good one here as well. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 16:37, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. — ArtSmir (talk) 19:53, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 07:49, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Rkieferbaum (talk) 00:00, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Do the current CUs feel that there is enough work for 4 CUs on commons? --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:04, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, certainly. There is a great deal of behind-the-scenes work. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:23, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can this checkuser handle such cases like the sockpuppets of Anonymous Hong Kong Photographer 1? 〈興華街〉📅❓ 09:13, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, that has not been a straightforward CU-request and it is clear why the complexity of this CU-request led to a discussion, which I think led to a good outcome. The complexity is not so much in the CU part itself (the sockpuppetry seems to be quite clearly visible), but in the judging if this sockpuppetry is to be considered disruptive or not (commons and wikidata do not have exactly the same standards on that), the deletion of uploads and the long history. I certainly would be able to take up such a case, but not without trying to discuss with my colleague checkusers and/or ask them for advice. All by all these tasks are meant to serve the community as well as possible and should not be solo projects.--Lymantria (talk) 13:25, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No opposition, but I am wondering about your level of activity with only 13 admin actions during last month. Yann (talk) 09:20, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I may not have been very active on the admin side (and I have been on holidays for a week during last month), I think my edit count shows that I am active at commons, be it that I am more active at wikidata. --Lymantria (talk) 13:27, 10 May 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.