A suspected impersonation needs a public-link check, not a guess about a photograph. Compare the destination with the creator's established public channels, preserve the specific mismatch, and use the relevant site's reporting route. Until the evidence is resolved, describe the account as unconfirmed rather than declaring a named person fraudulent.
This approach is useful whether the questionable link appears in a directory, a social message, or a comment.
Look for a concrete mismatch
Useful evidence is specific: an established creator website links to one handle, while a message claiming to be from that creator sends you to another. A public creator announcement may also explicitly identify an unauthorized account.
Less reliable clues include a low follower count, an unfamiliar writing style, a new profile, or a photo that looks different. Those observations do not establish impersonation on their own.
The FTC's phishing guidance recommends checking requests through an independently established route. Use that habit before entering credentials or paying.
Separate three different problems
Scroll across the table on smaller screens.
| Observation | What to investigate |
|---|---|
| A directory connects the wrong biography to a handle | A directory data error |
| A page claims another creator's identity | Possible impersonation |
| A message asks for codes or payment through an unrelated route | Possible account or payment deception |
These can overlap, but the correction belongs with the service responsible for the affected page. A directory cannot remove a social account, and a social report cannot correct a directory record automatically.
OnlyDetect's data methodology explains the public evidence used for its own records. A listing is not a guarantee that every outside message using the same name is authentic.
Build a concise evidence note
Include the questionable public URL, the established public source, the exact claim that conflicts, and the date you observed it. Keep the wording factual.
For example: “This listing points to handle A, but the creator's established website currently links to handle B. I could not find a public connection to A.”
That is more useful than “This person is definitely a scammer,” particularly when a stale link or data mix-up could explain the difference.
Do not publish payment receipts, private conversations, home addresses, identity documents, or authentication codes as proof. An official support process may need account-specific information through its own secure channel; a public comment thread does not.
Choose the right follow-up
For an OnlyDetect record, use Report and select the relevant request type. For a problem on another service, reach its help or reporting controls from that service's official site.
If the question is simply which page is official, follow the link-verification guide. If the creator has publicly changed handles, use the continuity checklist.
A report is a request for investigation. Do not claim a resolution, removal, or response deadline until the responsible service confirms it.