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]

Chrismb 11

[edit]

Status: open • view • edit • history • watch
Filed: 21:52, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results

[edit]

Reason: The page log of File:Font Awesome 5 solid moon (1).svg show two suspected socks and there was a recent upload on this non-trivial filename by a third user. There may be worth in trying to technically confirm the relationship between these accounts - and maybe also catch some sleepers. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 21:52, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AlkyzawyHsyen

[edit]

Status: open • view • edit • history • watch
Filed: 01:25, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results

[edit]

Reason: After the two accounts of this user I reported earlier were blocked, an anonymous user appeared and started to engage in suspiciously similar activity (namely, adding references to terrorism to the captions and data of files related to Syria - see [1]). I suspect that this is the same user, and again ask to check this. Поль Крол Злой Диктатор (talk) 01:25, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Toad4707

[edit]

Status: open • view • edit • history • watch
Filed: 00:16, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results

[edit]

Reason: Same behavior as other socks, including exact same attack to reporting users. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 00:16, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could also be related to the account Bobbybigboy657, exact match vs rough match for Toad. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 00:23, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Or lta257, hard to say. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 00:24, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Theron2

[edit]

Status: resolved • view • edit • history • watch
Filed: 16:44, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results

[edit]

Reason: Both accounts were involved in vandalizing the file page, by addding YouTube spam links. When both accounts were blocked by administrators, both accounts abused their own talk pages by adding YouTube spam links. Maybe checkuser could check the sock accounts found besides those two accounts. Astrinko (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The second account is stale, nothing to compare. --Krd 17:07, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Messichelsea

[edit]

Status: open • view • edit • history • watch
Filed: 16:35, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results

[edit]

Reason: DUCK with similar username and re-uploading the same topic like File:Baby-V.O.X-2025.jpg which was previously uploaded by sockmaster as File:Cosmopolitan-Korea-Baby-V.O.X.jpg. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:35, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thantzintun98 seems to be the master. See also: COM:ANB#sock_of_User:Thantzintun98. --0x0a (talk) 16:49, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adggy

[edit]

Status: resolved • view • edit • history • watch
Filed: 11:25, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results

[edit]

Reason: All are interested in uploading the same photo. User:Adggy uploaded File:Shazahnpadamsee2.jpg. After it had been deleted as copyvio, User:Adghll re-uploaded it as File:Shazahnpadamsee.jpg immediately. And finally, User:Jhddgyu9 re-uploaded it as File:Actress12.jpg after it had been deleted again. --0x0a (talk) 11:25, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Possible --Krd 18:59, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ecotto29200

[edit]

Status: open • view • edit • history • watch
Filed: 20:09, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results

[edit]

Reason: Same reverts to election map files. C F A 20:09, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ DUCK block This one is obvious. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:30, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Karthickkrishna M S

[edit]

Status: resolved • view • edit • history • watch
Filed: 10:11, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results

[edit]

Reason: After the first block due to spam, a new user uploaded File:Karthick Krishna M S.jpg, which is same as User_talk:Karthickkrishna_M_S#File:Karthick_Krishna.jpg and User_talk:ARR00300#File:Karthickkrishna_M_S_wikipedia.jpg. Please see w:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Karthickkrishna M S for related IPs. MathXplore (talk) 10:11, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed Karthickkrishna M S = ARR00300 and Likely for Shankarxxx. --Krd 19:03, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jagdeep99

[edit]

Status: open • view • edit • history • watch
Filed: 09:49, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results

[edit]

Reason:

  1. Same pattern of username.
  2. Jagdeep99, Diljit46 and Jagdeep Dhillon1 have engaged in uploading copyvio as File:Jasmin_Bajwa.jpg.
  3. After the copyvio uploaded by Jagdeep Dhillon1 was deleted, DeepTV8 recreated it as File:Jasmin Bajwa (actress).jpg within three days.
  4. When user Diljit46 uploaded File:Jasmin_Bajwa.jpg, it was inlcuded into the English-Wiki article Jasmin Bajwa by Jagdeepsingh7 just a few hours later.

--0x0a (talk) 09:49, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Inconclusive --Krd 10:07, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Krd: What about Jagpreetsingh9? Another suspected sock I just noticed. --0x0a (talk) 17:14, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let's keep this open for a few days, perhaps the missing link between the accounts will appear. --Krd 05:56, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nasim Rana Masud

[edit]

Status: resolved • view • edit • history • watch
Filed: 05:47, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results

[edit]

Reason: These users have similar usernames and similar deleted uploads (User_talk:Nasim_Rana_Masud#File:Nasim_Rana_Masud.jpg, User_talk:Nasim_Rana_Masud#File:Nasim_Rana_Masud_2.jpg_2, special:redirect/logid/369332979). CU information is given at w:simple:Special:Diff/10136063. MathXplore (talk) 05:47, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Possible. All uploads are already deleted, no further action. --Krd 10:02, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I blocked Nasim Masud for socking. Similar username, similar content. Yann (talk) 10:30, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus-rojas 232

[edit]

Status: resolved • view • edit • history • watch
Filed: 22:19, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results

[edit]

Reason: Apart from the similar name (same pattern with previous sockpuppets), the user recreated Carrefour logos (the aim of these sockpuppets) deleted several times on DRs. Günther Frager (talk) 22:19, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 It looks like a duck to me. 7 accounts blocked. --Krd 06:31, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Ricardinho da Souza Silva 7

[edit]

Status: resolved • view • edit • history • watch
Filed: 18:04, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results

[edit]

Reason: Just found these new socks making company/banking edits here. They don't seem to have the intention to stop. --Stïnger （会話） 18:04, 15 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Possible for Cmonro and Mriggaldo, Inconclusive for Lrum (who doesn't even haven edits at Commons). No further action except one deleted file. --Krd 09:40, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rickard Elofsson

[edit]

Status: resolved • view • edit • history • watch
Filed: 07:46, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results

[edit]

Reason: Hi, never posted a checkuser here before but I've been suspicious about some things on en:Kevin Marx Norén and stumbled on to what I believe is a sock farm. I've got some points of connection, and several timelines.

Connections:

1. All five of the listed accounts were created on the same day, that being yesterday, and several within a few hours or even just a few minutes of each other. If you click the "logs" links above, you'll see that Kamps was created at 8:12, Andresson at 8:17, Smith at 8:40, Engstrom at 10:39, and Smith at 16:44.

2. All five have suspiciously similar one-line bios, some of which sound like they could be AI-generated. Verbiage generally seems the same, as they do with en:User:Rickard Elofsson. Both Smith and Engstrom include the phrase "proud photographer."

3. All five include a full name rather than a username, which is a bit unusual.

4. Most importantly, all five's contribs have, up to this point, solely to re-upload photos from the Norén article that had previously been deleted (see timeline).

Timeline(s):

  • 11 March, 15:03: File:Kevin Marx Noren Live photo (2023).png is deleted by @Krd: for "VRT: invalid ticket permission."
  • 12 March, 8:15: Cara Kemps re-uploads what I believe is the same photo (original title is a little more ambiguous, but figured it via process of elimination) as File:Kevin Marx Norén First Game At Berry Events Center, (2023).jpg.

==

==

==

==

==

==

My suspicion is that these were created in an attempt to make the file permissions look legit as being sourced from "real" people, while hoping nobody dug around to realize all of what I've posted above. The Kip (talk) 07:46, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have the same impression and already mentioned the sockpuppet suspision here... Xgeorg (talk) 08:22, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed --Krd 08:28, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Xgeorg Glad I wasn't the only one. @Krd, considering they're fairly active on enwiki, is there anything I should do over there, or does a sock-block here also get them blocked over there? The Kip (talk) 08:46, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@The Kip: I don't know the details, but I believe accounts with evidence of sockpuppetry are blocked on English Wikipedia. Please ask on en:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Thanks, Yann (talk) 10:40, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that blocking was denied on English Wikipedia. I mean with evidence of sockpuppetry on English Wikipedia. If the accounts are only active on Commons, there is no point to block them on English Wikipedia. Yann (talk) 18:18, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User blockage was removed. I would not have agreed, Xgeorg (talk) 08:35, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Me neither. No idea why a checkuser block is removed without consultation. Krd 09:53, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Taivo as unblocking Admin.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:26, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I considered Rickard's story plausible. The unblock request was 2 days open and nobody commented, so I was bold. Next time I will consult the blocking user. Rickard has not edited after unblock. If you reblock him, then I will not intervene. Taivo (talk) 17:51, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous Hong Kong Photographer 1

[edit]

Status: open • view • edit • history • watch
Filed: 00:42, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results

[edit]

Reason: Raised by m:Requests for comment/Blatant sockpuppetry in good faith, it looks like there may also have sleepers IDK before?! Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:42, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See Category:Sockpuppets of Anonymous Hong Kong Photographer 1. There are over 650 of these sockpuppets, without a main account that the user is associated. The name "Anonymous Hong Kong Photographer 1" is a term that describes this user by the community (this name was never created by this user). 〈興華街〉📅❓ 09:43, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These are a real lot of accounts with a real lot of uploads each. What is the exact behaviour pattern? What is the proposed action against the confirmed socks? --Krd 12:14, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Commons:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Liauyu_Riuhwa#c-Elcobbola-2019-08-12T16:45:00.000Z-Rationale,_discussion_and_results. RoyZuo (talk) 13:21, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is the exact behaviour pattern?
  1. Extremely serious socking without a main account, even though there are no warnings to the user (except FoP-related deletion requests).
  2. Using strange names in accounts.
  3. Serious FoP-violation in respective countries/regions.
  4. Systematic, but inconsistent categorization.
  5. Creation of categories with bilingual names.
  6. User pages only created as galleries.
  7. Never replied in talk pages.
  8. Intentionally removing sockpuppetry tags.
  9. Indirect disclosure of personal information.
What is the proposed action against the confirmed socks?
Getting the user globally locked. And if new socks appear, immediately lock it. 〈興華街〉📅❓ 15:33, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no use by means of using the admins' noticeboard as this is now a difficult case. The best thing to do is to get the new accounts locked and contribs deleted just like what used to be done with MOHLEAOSONDWN 2300. If this was taken into account, he is deliberately evading blocks, and this is spamming. 〈興華街〉📅❓ 15:49, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are different instances of Confirmed, Likely and  It looks like a duck to me here. All blocked. --Krd 15:58, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Krd: Thanks! See also Category:Sockpuppets of Anonymous Hong Kong Photographer 1.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:27, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I'm currently deleting all uploads of two dozens of the socks mentioned here or found directly connected. Is is real large amount of files, but the majority of them has FOP issues and it is impossible to evaluate them one by one or even crop them individually. The files can be restored by anybody without notice if the issues can be resolved. Krd 18:45, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Krd: Thanks! Along the way, if you could identify the oldest account, that would help with naming.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:41, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Impossible to determine. Krd 06:41, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Krd what is this user's abuse for you using checkuser tool here, and then blocking them? can you give some links?
How has this case differed from Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Liauyu Riuhwa which was thrown out by @Elcobbola, and multiple community discussions that concluded without any punitive action taken against this user? RoyZuo (talk) 19:25, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The mentioned checkuser case is 5 years old, so this abuse, i.e. uploading unfree files after warnings, continues for more than 5 years with hundreds of socks. Krd 06:40, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Krd what do you mean by "unfree files"?
The latest community consensus Commons:Village pump/Archive/2024/11#Derivative works (FOP etc.) is that such derivative works are neither discouraged nor prohibited.
Are you aware of a different community consensus on the matter of derivative works restricted on commons due to com:fop com:packaging etc., that justify a massive deletion by you a single user overriding community discussions and community consensus? If yes, please link.
And what's percentage of such files being unfree due to com:fop com:packaging etc. relative to the total number of files you nuked? Does it reach double digit (>=10%)? RoyZuo (talk) 08:49, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think they are above 50%. What consensus shall that be? Please provide a link. Krd 16:59, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that blanket deletion of HKTA ("Hong Kong Throwaway Account") uploads is inappropriate and unwarranted. I'm not even sure we can really say that HKTA has been warned about anything, unless the warning is left during an account's three-day activity period. DS (talk) 14:23, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Krd 50%? 2100 of the 4200+ you deleted this time? RoyZuo (talk) 18:58, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "Checkuser is a last resort for difficult cases"

    Everyone knows these accounts are related. No one needs checkusers to confirm the relation between them.

  2. This page is one of the many forum shopping attempts by the same user since Jan 2025. They finally succeeded here after commons community rejected:
    1. Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 119#User uploading own pictures over multiple usernames
    2. Commons:Village pump/Archive/2025/02#Discussion of sockpuppetry issue for Anonymous Hong Kong Photographer 1 on Meta
    3. meta:Requests for comment/Blatant sockpuppetry in good faith
  3. In all discussions since many years ago, commons community has always been aware that these accounts are related, and has always decided to deal with them by:
    1. not blocking any accounts
    2. categorising uploads into Category:Photographs by Anonymous Hong Kong Photographer 1
    3. starting deletion requests where appropriate
    4. not mass deleting all uploads
  4. As such, I ask @Krd to:
    1. either, respect and follow the conclusions of the past discussions and community consensus, by unblocking these accounts and undeleting their uploads (so that other users familiar with copyright rules of those countries (I am willing to take as my responsibility) can correctly sort them),
    2. or, find a new community consensus that justfify your blocks and mass deletions.
RoyZuo (talk) 19:20, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to unblock the accounts if this is community consensus (which I currentlys don't see). Restoring the files, which includes copyright violations, doesn't appear like an option to me. As said, if anybody else would like to do that, they are free to do, but I won't. Krd 06:03, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. @Krd commons community is fully aware that the accounts are related but there is no consensus to block even with that knowledge. You have unilaterally overrided the multiple community discussions and consensus to block them.
  2. your unilateral mass deletions override multiple discussions in which users oppose deletion (including but not limited to: )
    1. Commons:Deletion requests/File:HK 上環 Sheung Wan 歌賦街 Gough Street Kau Kee Restaurant opening hours February 2025 R12S 02.jpg
    2. Commons:Deletion requests/File:HK SKD 西貢 Sai Kung 敬民街 King Man Street 西貢政府合署 Sai Kung Government Offices 西貢公共圖書館 Sai Kung Public Library bookback February 2025 R12S 03.jpg
    3. Commons:Deletion requests/File:HK 上環 Sheung Wan 德輔道中 Des Voeux Road Central 龍記大廈 Loon Kee Building 星玥 Sky Cuisine Restaurant 下午茶點 afternoon meal food February 2024 R12S 100.jpg
    4. Commons:Deletion requests/File:HK 上環 Sheung Wan 歌賦街 Gough Street Kau Kee Restaurant menu February 2025 R12S 01.jpg
    5. Commons:Deletion requests/File:HK CH 中環 Central 德輔道中 Des Voeux Road Central shop 小女孩找換店 Small Girl Money Exchange February 2025 R12S 02.jpg
RoyZuo (talk) 07:25, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is your proposal, taking into account that I cannot mass-restore the deleted files and accept that many of them are copyright violations? Krd 10:18, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have already offered, that I would inspect all 4200+ you deleted this time, mark all that are actually incompatible with com:l for deletion, so the other uploads can be kept. RoyZuo (talk) 11:04, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd apprechiate that. So we put these files into a new category? (Which one would that be?) Do you have an estimate how long the review will take? Krd 11:10, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think I can finish every 200 in 10 minutes, so I can finish checking this entire batch (4200+) in maximally 200 minutes. I can do it today, now, 11:37, 17 March 2025 (UTC).
I plan to add all files for deletion to Category:Commons file maintenance - temporary holder. Once checking is finished, I will reply, and they can all be deleted.
For the other files that are to stay, I will also improve categorisation.
If everything is in order, I will create the temporary holder. RoyZuo (talk) 11:37, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please see: Category:Photographs by Anonymous Hong Kong Photographer 1 needing review Krd 14:45, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Watching. Triaging files will start as soon as undeletion is completed. RoyZuo (talk) 15:29, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I assume the undeletion process ends as of now? Even though here're 57 files that are not undeleted: special:diff/1010957904.
Nonetheless, I am now triaging files. When I am done I will reply again. RoyZuo (talk) 20:30, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Krd thank you very much. Of the 4160 you undeleted yesterday, I identified 304 to be deleted, which are now in Category:Commons file maintenance - temporary holder, because most of them are derivative works that do not meet exceptions like com:fop com:too.
For the other 3856 files, most of which are shots of cities and outdoor areas or items that are not protected by copyright, I will sort them into topical categories in the next few days if everything is in order. RoyZuo (talk) 23:29, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What about File:GD 廣東 Guangdong 中山 Zhongshan Bus 035 遊車河 1415pm tour view 東區 Dong February 2025 R12S 53.jpg? Krd 05:27, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Commons:De_minimis#Guidelines case #4.
A picture of that shopping mall (only the semi-circular cylindrical part in the middle bearing the mall's name 创达仁汇 can be seen) is impossible without also capturing the posters.
So it's a borderline case, not a definite case for deletion.
All borderline cases should be best decided by the community in deletion requests (DR) or discussions. The 304 I identified are cases that most likely have no chance to survive DR. RoyZuo (talk) 07:32, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've also just checked these 57 files special:diff/1010957904, and identified 2 for deletion.
As such, in total I identified 306 of 4217 for deletion as of now. RoyZuo (talk) 07:48, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I plan to start moving all files kept to topical categories by thur, 20 mar. RoyZuo (talk) 19:03, 18 March 2025 (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=1012352673"