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.

Yann

Vote

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

Scheduled to end: 06:02, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Dear community,

today I would like to nominate Yann to be the next checkuser for Commons.

It appears that the most active CU for the last years, Elcobbola, is currently inactive, and I have the impression that there is some need for more hands. Per my personal perception Yann is currently the most active admin in CU releated areas. They have been CU already from 2007 to 2009, and appear to be consistently active in the last two years.

Yann has agreed in private to accept the nomination.

Thank you, yours, --Krd 06:02, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot Krd for this nomination. I accept it again, and I would be glad if I could help. Yann (talk) 11:02, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

Support --— D Y O L F 77^[Talk] 07:16, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --— Túrelio (talk) 08:10, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per my and other comments at Commons:Administrators/Requests/Yann (de-adminship). DrKay (talk) 14:12, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Though he could get things done, I’m concerned the inactive CU called him the singular worst admin on the Commons and routinely demonstrates ignorance of and disregard for policy [sic] in the link above. I’m interested to hear how they feel now, though from the looks of it, that is not possible right now. 1989 (talk) 14:38, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Full disclosure: this commentator is also involved, per their comments at the de-adminship discussion. Brianjd (talk) 14:46, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support he is OK modern_primat^ඞඞඞ^----TALK 15:23, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i checked discussions about this and my suggestion to yann is please do your work with consedaretion of community's concerns(bad english sory). you are hard working user. we are here voluntary, dont burnout. modern_primat^ඞඞඞ^----TALK 15:43, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Jeffrey Beall (talk) 17:01, 18 February 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose per Brianjd's first bullet point. Queen of Hearts (talk) 19:05, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support I trust Yann. And he has the checkuser experience already. Abzeronow (talk) 20:03, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per 1989, and the inactive CU has previously had to confron Yann on when CU checks can be performed. This does not bode well, but Krd's nomination statement lays the problem out pretty clearly: we need another CU. Whether Yann is the person to fill that role? I don't know. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 03:10, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm changing to Oppose,the incidents highlighted by AntiCompositeNumber are not indicative of the trust needed of CUs. We need another CU, but that CU shouldn't be Yann. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 17:00, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per my discussion in the comments section. Brianjd (talk) 03:27, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - not sure where I exactly belong. While I agree that Yann is experienced and I have had good time with them, but the issues raised are equally concerning. I am staying neutral. _signed,Aafi ^(talk) 06:11, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Aafi. --TenWhile6 11:45, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like Yann. He's very active and very responsive. Having said that, my issue is that checkuser is a right that requires buy-in from the community, e.g. trust, and reading through the comments here I'm not sure he has that trust. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 16:26, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Checkusers are highly-trusted administrators..." - seeing the comments here, maybe not. —kallerna (talk) 16:34, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support trusted admin Bedivere (talk) 21:50, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support, No concerns.--Kadı Message 22:54, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support --— Fit India 16:06, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support While Yann and I often disagree on the status of some images, I trust him completely to use the CU tools appropriately. The CU team can certainly use an experienced CU who has shown the willingness to put in long hours. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:45, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've been on the fence because, when it comes to advanced permissions, I trust the people in the role to know who the best candidates are. Krd nominating Yann counts for a lot, but so does Elcobbola's historical opposition. Jim being on board is enough to push me into support. I am slightly concerned though that, should this pass, two of the CUs are bus criticalities (Commons will have a very hard time absorbing their workloads should either retire). I'd like to see 4 or 5 CUs so that krd and Yann have more room to breathe. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I too have been thinking about this. I think it would be great if some relatively newer admins (with a good tenure both as admins and users) put themselves forward for the role. --Ratekreel (talk) 06:53, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Always a strong Support for Yann. Trusted & experienced contributor for over a two decade. Kind regards, Tulsi 24x7 13:27, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jakubhal 19:12, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support There are undoubtedly several points of disagreement that I could find regarding Yann's contributions. However he is very involved and ~~experimented~~ experienced . But the more important, two members of the CU's team, who are both very experienced and trustworthy support this candidacy. I support that. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 07:01, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Christian Ferrer: Did you mean ‘experienced’? Brianjd (talk) 07:08, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Brianjd: English is not my native langage, isn't it the same thing? Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 07:12, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  You did use the word ‘experienced’ in the third sentence. I missed that. The second sentence says ‘experimented’. To ‘experiment’ means to try something, as in a science experiment. The word ‘experimented’ does not make any sense in this context. I’m not an English teacher; someone else might be able to explain better. Brianjd (talk) 07:19, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks you, I fixed it, it is because in french we can literally use "expérimenté" in both senses. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 07:25, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Trustworthy admin. I'm confident that Yann can be a good CU. --A1Cafel (talk) 15:48, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Due to the issues other people have raised. Although I'm on the weak side since I don't really see him abusing the checkuser right like he seems to love doing with the normal administrator privileges. Really, he should just be desysopped. The project would certainly be a lot better off if he was. That's a discussion for another time and place though. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:36, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support We definitely need way more help, and Yann is fully qualified. Jianhui67^T★C 09:23, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:19, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - thanks Yann for volunteering and doing this mostly thankless work: the more someone is doing this, the more they get involved in possible controversies. Yet I would urge you to try and moderate your messages when editing in such a responsible position. "lol" comments and borderline trolling are unbecoming. --Enyavar (talk) 21:36, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. During last de-adminship vote I supported de-adminship, but during last years behavior of Yann has improved considerably and now I support him. Taivo (talk) 16:07, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lukas Beck (talk) 10:40, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Иованъ (talk) 16:54, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 98#Unacceptable threats by Yann and User talk:Yann/archives 61#Wheel warring on File:Flag of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham.svg are far too recent to be considering granting Yann any further rights. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 00:51, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain your reasoning on the wheel warring case? Based on the discussion you cited, it looks like Yann apologised and fixed their mistake within 2 minutes, with no further issues, so it was no big deal. But the undeletion discussion (not as easy to find as it should be, once archived) paints a different picture. Brianjd (talk) 02:08, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was a mistake. I don't remember exactly what happened, but I may have come across Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, and saw that it was not deleted, and thought it was an oversight, not seeing the undeletion discussion. Adminship duty is difficult: deleting/blocking, and some people get angry; not deleting/blocking, other people get angry. Yann (talk) 09:02, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --0x0a (talk) 11:02, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support I personally found Yann as one of the most helpful admins in the project; he is very active and all of my interactions with them were overwhelmingly positive. I do think the community has raised valid concerns for some of their previous actions. But Krd's support does say a lot about Yann's ability to checkuser, so I will support this one. I do wish you keep the opposes to heart, however.--Takipoint123 (💬) 12:38, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I would normally support active users to get more involved, and Yann has been a hardworking community member, and I am thankful for their tireless commitment to improving Commons. Yet, considering the flag that is being discussed, I believe they need to show a little bit more temperance in their decisions and commit more strongly to the principle that people in this project are contributing in good faith even when they make mistakes. I had initially opposed, but now after a second thought I think neutral is more aligned with what I have stated, and I hope that if approved Yann does a great job. --Joalpe (talk) 14:09, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Checkusers need to be overwhelmingly trusted by the community. Janhrach (talk) 09:15, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. ---Mateus2019 (talk) 15:12, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose same opinion as Janhrach. // Kakan spelar (talk) 22:13, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Absolutely trustworthy user. RodRabelo7 (talk) 05:08, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The votes section above has already raised concerns from the de-adminship discussion. Since those concerns are being discussed anyway, I also mention the following:
- Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 98#Unacceptable threats by Yann: A discussion from this year where another admin and I listed such threats.
- Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 98#Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:Mirror_Selfie_of_erect_penis_with_removed_pubic_hair.jpg: An even more recent discussion about an incident involving me, where the candidate both formed a wrong conclusion based on non-public information and expressed that conclusion in a poor way, making me look bad.

In both cases, the candidate addressed some of the underlying deletion/undeletion issues but failed to acknowledge any communication issues. ~~Even worse, in the first discussion, the candidate said:~~

~~Big LOL. This is supposed to be a joke, but your sense of humor is quite obviously lacking... Do you have anything serious to say? Otherwise, please stop wasting my time and others'.~~

It is the second case that I find particularly concerning, since the community depends on checkusers to carefully analyze very non-public information and carefully communicate their conclusions. I was tempted to vote oppose on that basis, but I want to see more discussion first. Brianjd (talk) 15:07, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The candidate did say that, and I still find it concerning, but it might be taken out of context. Or not. I’m too tired to decide. Brianjd (talk) 15:11, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, in my more than 20 years on Commons, that's the weirdest complain I have ever seen against anybody. OK, I got that someone didn't like my little joke on my talk page, but reproaching me that in relation to my work as admin or check user, sorry, but I don't understand. For those you might want to know the context, File:God is busy.jpg was on a T-shirt in India, and I find it funny, even more today than when I took the picture. In our world falling apart in every ways, God is probably busy fixing all problems, so They can't bother with the little problems of our community. Yann (talk) 17:33, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You deserve credit for participating in this discussion, and for clarifying the meaning of my struck out quote.

But your response also clarifies something else: you insist on continuing your petty dispute with Andy Dingley, while ignoring the real issues here. Brianjd (talk) 03:25, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, Andy Dingley made the negative comment you linked above, but I don't have any issue with Andy, so I don't understand why they were so aggressive. Yann (talk) 08:58, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Dingley made the negative comment you linked above I linked directly to the diff by you, with your signature. Brianjd (talk) 09:40, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianjd: Just to understand, what are you complaining about exactly? The erroneous closure of File:Mirror Selfie of erect penis with removed pubic hair.jpg, which I reverted? Or the disagreement about File:Indy Fuel new logo.png, which I undeleted and created a regular DR? FYI, the DR is still open, and for good reason: the outcome is far from obvious. Or File:God is busy.jpg on my talk page? Yann (talk) 11:58, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought my unresolved complaints were clear. Here is a summary of those complaints, which you have not addressed (or even acknowledged) at all:

Per my contribution to the ‘unacceptable threats’ section, you gave an unnecessary ‘last warning’ to a new user who had already improved their behavior after previous warnings. (That section also raises other serious issues that you have not acknowledged either. One of those issues is an unjustified accusation of incivility together with an unjustified threat of a block, both made towards a fellow admin! I have not looked at the other issues closely.)
Per the subsequent section about the erroneously closed undeletion request, you falsely implied that I had knowingly requested undeletion of a recent naked picture of a minor.
~~Per the comments above, you seem to have falsely attributed your own negative comment to Andy.~~

Also, the fact that you have not even acknowledged the complaints described above is itself one of my complaints. Brianjd (talk) 13:00, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I don’t give a damn about this ‘God is busy’ thing. I didn’t realize that my struck out quote was actually about that. (I would be more worried about the template {{Busy}} at the top of your talk page, but actually, you do respond swiftly to most queries, to the extent that you respond at all. So that is one good thing I can say about you.) Brianjd (talk) 13:06, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a lot of misunderstanding here. I mistaken read "Minor" for "Mirror". I am sorry that you thought that I had accused you of anything.

When I talked about negative comments by Andy Dingley , I mean the ones they made there. I didn't attribute my comment to Andy.

Leyo said that I threatened them linking this. I don't see any threat there. OK, I deleted this file shortly after tagging it. A regular DR would have been better, but I still think it is too complex to be on Commons without a VRT permission.

I tagged File:Finnischer Eishockeyverband logo.svg with missing permission, and the DR created by Andy Dingley is still open. The Squirrel Conspiracy also thinks that is should be deleted. Yann (talk) 13:34, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In view of all this, it seems to me that the complain raised by Leyo here lacks substance. In addition, the complain by Andy of the same page (which includes the ‘God is busy’ thing) looks like a bad faith attempt to criticize me.

I am always ready to apologize and/or revert my actions when necessary. I am more aware than anybody that, on a multilingual and multicultural project like Commons, some misunderstandings and disagreements can ready become big conflicts. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:34, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the undeletion request, I appreciate the belated apology.

Regarding Andy, I linked to the discussion as a whole, then later linked to your comment specifically. When you referred to my link, you were not clear about which one. So yes, there was some misunderstanding. I don’t think that was anyone’s fault.

Regarding the threat to Leyo, I accidentally linked to the revision prior to the correct one. The correct revision was Special:Diff/987704578, where you threatened Leyo, a fellow admin, with a block. Anyway, the correct link was already provided at the ‘unacceptable threats’ discussion.

Regarding the two files whose copyright status is in dispute, I have not looked at them closely, so I currently have no specific comment. I note that files that are considered copyright violations are often deleted immediately, regardless of tags or even discussions. I also note that these two files form context for the next issue.

Regarding the ‘last warning’ to Xgeorg, do you have any comment?

You have not acknowledged my complaint about the ‘last warning’ to Omar.idma. Brianjd (talk) 14:14, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a major issue in itself, but since we are digging up a lot of old discussions here, it would help if you maintained your talk page archives correctly. Your archive links only go up to archive 61, but you now have 63 archives. Brianjd (talk) 13:30, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done Yann (talk) 13:36, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If I had received so many "oppose", I would withdraw my candidacy. However I doubt my words would reach Yann, I have seen him block IPs in conflicts where he has not given the time to explain their edits or the required consideration to their opinions in the cases of several IPs. People with prejudices may work much but serve little. 200.39.139.21 16:27, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to suggest it myself as a good faith measure towards the opposers on his part, but maybe it's better to let the process play out. It would be good if he at least acknowledged the feedback and criticism though since it looks like he ignored Brianjd's last couple of comments asking him to. I. E. Brianjd's comment on the 19th of February "you have not acknowledged my complaint about the ‘last warning’ to Omar.idma." Really, it's not a good look on Yann's end. I could see admins just not closing this either way once the time runs out even there's enough support for it. But a statement from Yann on the whole thing would be nice regardless. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:35, 1 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.