Wikidata:Requests for comment/Defining CheckUser
An editor has requested the community to provide input on "Defining CheckUser" via the Requests for comment (RFC) process. This is the discussion page regarding the issue.
If you have an opinion regarding this issue, feel free to comment below. Thank you! |
THIS RFC IS CLOSED. Please do NOT vote nor add comments.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- The majority of sections are pass. I will comment where I see questions remaining or where consensus is not obvious:
- IP block exemption passes.
- Disclosure does not pass. I see no consensus here at this time. Further discussion can take place at Project talk:CheckUser policy if necessary.
- Removal options — Of the four, only option 2 passes with clear consensus. The other options appear to be mutually exclusive ("only"). Further discussion can take place at Project talk:CheckUser policy if necessary.
- Access
- I feel a need to comment at some length on this discussion. It appears to me to have multiple facets, so I will attempt to summarize each and then give my assessment on what should be done.
- Supporters (and the majority by headcount of 7-4, not including Jasper or DangSunM) for admin-only claim that users with the CheckUser right but without the administrator rights can be crippled in his work, while supporters for all users claim that the CU package does not need the administrator package. Both sides evidence wikis with CU programs of this sort, though only the admin-only supporters make the positive claim that there exist wikis where CUs are crippled due to this. The users-only supporters do not attempt to negate that claim—which does not make the claim "there are wikis where CUs do not have administrator rights and which function normally with respect to CheckUser" less true, only that such a claim went unmade.
- There is an undercurrent, among both supporters of admin-only and supporters of all users, that adminship is easy to attain on this wiki. I find this argument unfortunate, as there may come a future where this is not the case. Speaking personally, I have noticed the opposite beginning to be the case.
- There is a second undercurrent, seemingly shared by three supporters of admins-only and one supporter of all users that blockers acting under the authority of a CheckUser should not make a block until another CU or admin has verified that block. This seems to tear a (small) hole in the argument that "a CU should be able to block by himself", in that he might not be able to block for himself even if he could, following this line of reasoning... As an aside, it is odd that one of the primary supporters of admins-only made comments to the effect of both.
- Given this odd mixture of points, I am closing this as no consensus, without prejudice to either option. I realize this may result in a "default" of all users, as the global policy makes no other comment than that a user be of the age of majority, be 18 years of age, have 25 votes in support (now-superseded by local policy), and be identified to the WMF. Users wishing to create local policy on this should show evidence—either through a second, more-widely-advertised RFC specifically on this subject, or through multiple CheckUser elections—that the community at large desires candidate of a particular type. It seems likely to me that there is a compromise position between the two offered here, and such positions may be wise to pursue.
- --Izno (talk) 23:28, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel a need to comment at some length on this discussion. It appears to me to have multiple facets, so I will attempt to summarize each and then give my assessment on what should be done.
Note: This is only in regards to the policy. CheckUsers are not being solicited at this moment in time as there is no real need for them. Once a need is seen by the community elections can occur. This is not to be seen as 'We can have CheckUser now'.
- Note: The global policy includes other requirements. In particular, CheckUsers must heed the foundation privacy policy, which includes keeping private information confidential unless revealing it is absolutely necessary to prevent abuse - specifically, IP address data generally remains private, but CheckUsers can declare two accounts related based on this nonpublic information.
The tool is to be used to fight vandalism, to check for sockpuppet abuse, and to limit disruption of Wikidata. It must be used only to prevent damage to any Wikimedia project.
The tool should not be used for political control; to apply pressure on editors; or as a threat against another editor in a dispute. There must be a valid reason to check a user. Alternative accounts are not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of the policy.
- Support John F. Lewis (talk) 20:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support but "valid reason" should imply the need of evidence.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support. Obviously. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 22:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --DangSunM (talk) 23:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support TCN7JM 23:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support — ΛΧΣ21 01:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Sotiale (talk) 02:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Stryn (talk) 10:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Ajraddatz (Talk) 15:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support IW 16:00, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support LlamaAl (talk) 16:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Goes without saying. Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 19:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Rschen7754 19:22, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support AutomaticStrikeout 20:00, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong oppose Your ignorance of actual CU practice and review and hatred of vandals is being exploited to create a class of super-administrators that will abuse the system just like administrators always have, except there will be less review. Valid reasons, according to current CheckUser practice, would be blocking long-time editors because they used the same IP as another editor. Regardless of disruption that editor. Regardless of a general Western European cultural requirement to punish after discussion, not before, and a general Northern European cultural requirement to be judged by the community, instead of the man of the hour. There is no requirement (only an assumption) for balance or reasonableness based on an editor's, you know, edits. Same IP can (which means will) mean same editor, 10000 solid edits or not. Under the proposed policy, the community cannot overrule a CU because a blocked editor has not been disruptive. Un-block Jimbo without "permission from a CheckUser", get de-sysop'd. I can already hear your counterarguments that that is unlikely to happen, that Supreme Court review (the highest appeal authority) will make LAPD (beat cop) abuse unlikely to go unremedied. Only ignorance can sustain such as assertion, and this ignorance is here and now being exploited. This discussion should stand as an example to prove Hitler was indeed not evil, but merely reacting to his circumstances with what his subculture viewed as reasonable and acceptable. Int21h (talk) 22:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want to call the whole community "ignorant", please provide more substantial evidence than that. If anything, I think this comment is nothing but expressing outrage at your being mistakenly blocked by a CheckUser on the English Wikipedia, which happens very rarely. CheckUsers are elected by the community and can be removed by the community, so they remain accountable. Given that you have made almost no edits to Wikidata except to this RfC, I really question whether you're interested in pushing your own grief about that block or whether you're genuinely interested in helping build a knowledgebase.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:12, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- @Int21h: I am feeling very inclined as to follow one of these paths: i) Struck your vote, as it doesn't really assess what we are discussing here; or ii) ask you to put up or shut up with these claims. Thoughts? — ΛΧΣ21 04:28, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd support a vote strike. John F. Lewis (talk) 06:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I would support that, but let's not do anything until Int21h has the chance to reply here.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:17, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what a vote strike is, or the policy here, but it sounds pretty drastic. (I didn't even know we were voting!) Is that how Wikidata deals with dissenting comments? And if you are suggesting I censor myself ("put up or shut up") on requests for comments involving a serious part of project operations, because you don't agree with me.. No. At least not on your say so. What is your excuse for adverse administrative action, that my espoused view does not "assess what we are discussing"? This is a rather good, basic example of what lengths people will go to rationalize their desire to hurt people, and what will inevitably happen with CheckUsers. That's 3 of the 14 editors, and I imagine it would have climbed to a majority if I would not have responded quickly enough. (It may yet, though I would like to let it, to prove a point about what will happen to those less able to counter such accusations and, well, mock them.) It is described in perhaps one the best known of the ancient fables, The Wolf and the Lamb. The Wikipedia group conflict article on "task conflict" seems rather on point here as well: "However, people who disagree with the group do so at their own peril, even when their position is reasonable. Dissenters often receive a high level of animosity from other group members, are less well-liked, assigned low-status tasks, and are sometimes ostracized." Eerie. Add in a lack of community judgement and "secret evidence" and what do you get? This. You get this proposal. Int21h (talk) 07:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC) Int21h (talk) 09:09, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Still, all you are doing here is ranting. Pasting big walls of text that say nothing about what we are discussing is not useful at all. The point of this section is to assess whether the current written draft is fit to be updated to policy with the amendments voted below. Your concerns about how CUs will behave are unfounded, and that's why I said put up or shut up. Why? Because you are not providing any evidence that such behaviour actually exists, and therefore all your claims are, de facto, unsupported by any evidence whatsoever and false. I don't really care about the English Wikipedia, since this is Wikidata and we make our own rules. Oh, and the most important of these rules is: The problems of the English Wikipedia stay at the English Wikipedia; don't bring them here. — ΛΧΣ21 03:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This was a response to the assertion that I am acting in bad faith, and against this notion of a vote strike. It was not to "provide evidence". My evidence, and I again thought this was self-evident, is all the administrator abuse on all projects that has happened before Wikidata came into existence. It is de facto relevant given Wikidata's age and the permanence of this policy, which will affect all editors, not just those that have editing up until now. And as if not providing evidence for a point of view is a reason to force everyone ignore it or censor it.. (Then how many of these other "votes" would be invalid?) All this is extraneous to my original comment. This "wall of text" was brought on by the responses, as I was requested to respond. Sometimes it gets long. Next time maybe bring the replies to my comment somewhere else?
- As for the notion that somehow CU abuse is going to limited to the English Wikipedia, that is the epitome of ignorance. To ignore. That's like saying administrator abuse will be limited to the English Wikipedia. That argument against my "non-evidence" fails as absurd, not to say wishful thinking. Its an excuse. The fact is it has happened, and you are making one excuse after another to ignore it, instead of accepting my argument as a valid argument to be addressed on its merits. You appear to be stopping at nothing to discount its applicability to the conversation at hand so you don't have to address the merits. (Although I admit, even saying its not an issue on Wikidata because it happened on Wikipedia is somewhat addressing the merits, just in a dismissive, and quite frankly ignorant, as in ignoring something, way. And its the first time anyone has addressed the merits of my argument, rather than just completely dismiss it implicitly and call for a vote strike.) Int21h (talk) 19:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, and I think it is ignorance from your part to think so, CU abuse has only happened in the English Wikipedia, prominently. Same with sysop abuse, mostly. I am an administrator at three Wikimedia projects, buraucrat in two, and I constantly edit at approximately ten projects. So far, in almost six years of career, I've only seen abuse at the English Wikipedia. Here, in Wikidata, which is what matters, such abuse is not going to happen, and has yet to happen.
- Why? Well, because we have a rather easy procedure to desysop any administrator that starts misbehaving under our current standards, and we won't hesitate on doing so if needed. Therefore, no admin would ever become abusive without facing the consequences. And not from ArbCom, but from the community itself. Same with CheckUser. You know, I understand where you come from. I know what happened to you over the English Wikipedia, and I can assure you that I won't let those mistakes to happen here. — ΛΧΣ21 01:00, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, thank you for actually addressing the merits of my argument. The excuse you just gave to vote strike is the exact type of excuse a CheckUser will give to abuse his privilege. You are here and now calling for an adverse administrative action, and you see absolutely nothing wrong with it. Your action in response to my comment could have very easily been "check his IP to see if he's a banned user" instead of "vote strike" if you were a CU, all because of what? How many reasons have you put forth? Not assessing, ranting, etc. You see absolutely nothing wrong with your desire to punish me. Nothing. And the 2 other CheckUsers, lets just say for the argument they were John F. Lewis and Jasper Deng, would also see nothing wrong with it. No one would ever know. There is reason (in your opinion) to censor my comment here, yet do you assert you would not have CheckUser investigated me? I mean, it really doesn't get any more obvious than this vis-a-vis the excuses people will give to start a CheckUser investigation.. It would be laughable if it weren't such a serious issue that has to be addressed.
- And Wikidata is what? 8 months old? That's 2 months older than my GeoSPARQL article! The next largest project behind the English Wikipedia is what? The German Wikipedia with how many users comparably? A fraction? And that somehow means they are immune from the English Wikipedia's problems? Yet I would bet that the German Wikipedia has more banned users as a percent of their userbase than any other project, with the French Wikipedia in close second. Yet again, there are many, many who are going to become CheckUsers here, who see absolutely nothing wrong with this. That is the problem here.
- In closing, answer me one thing: is my behavior not reason for a CheckUser investigation, and if not, how are the standards different for that of a vote strike? Int21h (talk) 02:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- To answer your question: Your behaviour here is not reason to hold a CheckUser investigation. Actually, now I see what is the problem here: You think that we want to strike your vote because we think that your are a sockpuppet or a sockmaster or whatever. You have misinterpreted my comment: When I said strike the vote, I meant not counting it because your original comment has nothing to do with what we are voting or discussing on this section. It is a matter of numbers. My intention was never to punish you, and I personally dislike the use of that word.
- Punishment is never beneficial, but your original comment made me think that you weren't here on a productive basis. And I acted preemptively by voicing my thoughts publicly instead of single-handedly striking your vote or blocking you for being "disruptive", for example. That's the main difference between Wikidata and the English Wikipedia. We prevent taking unnecessarily painful actions and discuss the matters at hand before performing any action. And any sysop that breaks this rule is dutily admonished.
- Now, about the standards: CU investigation is held only when abuse of multiple accounts is suspected. And evidence needs to be offered for that. As a multilingual project, like Commons, our standards for vote-striking are beyond sockpuppetry. We can strike a vote if we reach consensus that it is: i) not focused on what is being discussed, ii) trolling, iii) bad-faith comments, or iv) sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. Standards vary though. — ΛΧΣ21 16:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Still, all you are doing here is ranting. Pasting big walls of text that say nothing about what we are discussing is not useful at all. The point of this section is to assess whether the current written draft is fit to be updated to policy with the amendments voted below. Your concerns about how CUs will behave are unfounded, and that's why I said put up or shut up. Why? Because you are not providing any evidence that such behaviour actually exists, and therefore all your claims are, de facto, unsupported by any evidence whatsoever and false. I don't really care about the English Wikipedia, since this is Wikidata and we make our own rules. Oh, and the most important of these rules is: The problems of the English Wikipedia stay at the English Wikipedia; don't bring them here. — ΛΧΣ21 03:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd support a vote strike. John F. Lewis (talk) 06:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it is an oversight of mine to not define "your" as in "your ignorance". (I am always afraid my points, with too much supporting evidence, will be too long, like with the intro for Freedom of speech by country#United Kingdom which is actually 2 or 3 sentences. I can get quite technical.) I meant those who have either proposed or advocated this policy. I thought that was obvious. (Many may be ignorant of this fact, but the entire community does not hold your opinion. Or perhaps someone is looking for an excuse to ban/hurt/punish someone?) Neither did I accuse anyone of being "ignorant", quite a weasel word mind you, but accused you (again, refer to my clarification, as a generic you) of being "ingorant of actual CU practice", which is a considerably qualified form, and it is this ignorance with which I thereafter refer. (Yes, my semantics may be pedantic, but hey, look where we are.) I stand by that assertion, and offer not only my original paragraph as evidence, but to the lack of negative response to the above comment wishing to punish me for my comment. I mean, if its OK to punish someone for a comment on an RfC because of the content which it contains, then why would it magically be not OK for a CheckUser to punish someone for anything similar ("non-assessment" or whatever else one can, or cannot, think of)? As for Wikidata, you are correct I have made few (no?) edits. I find it very difficult to edit without an IPBE, and I have even been forced to stop editing Wikisource for the same reason. I wrote the Wikipedia article on GeoSPARQL 6 months or so ago, which was my first real introduction to knowledgebases, if you would like a taste of my related work. (I actually think you want me to have malicious intent, so you can discount my argument(s) without having to address the merits in any detail, which so far, no one has done. I have only received accusations of malicious intent, which, I argue, is a commonplace response.) As for "pushing my grief", yes, I guess you are right, but I believe it is beneficial for people to understand that not only can it happen, but it has happened, it will again, that this is likely, and it will be done for the weakest of excuses (excuses meaning that the real reason is not the given reason, is an invalid reason, or is otherwise unreasonable). In that, I think my comment(s) will help build the project. While it is unfortunate that people will get angry about my comments, I would like to say that I was a naysayer from the very beginning, warning those who would listen of the dangers of what they were proposing. Int21h (talk) 07:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Without reading through your comments thoroughly, I doubt such a crusade interests anyone else in this community. A "vote strike" was intended to mean to strike out and indent your !vote.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- @Int21h: I am feeling very inclined as to follow one of these paths: i) Struck your vote, as it doesn't really assess what we are discussing here; or ii) ask you to put up or shut up with these claims. Thoughts? — ΛΧΣ21 04:28, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want to call the whole community "ignorant", please provide more substantial evidence than that. If anything, I think this comment is nothing but expressing outrage at your being mistakenly blocked by a CheckUser on the English Wikipedia, which happens very rarely. CheckUsers are elected by the community and can be removed by the community, so they remain accountable. Given that you have made almost no edits to Wikidata except to this RfC, I really question whether you're interested in pushing your own grief about that block or whether you're genuinely interested in helping build a knowledgebase.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:12, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Glaisher [talk] 09:13, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Regards, — Moe Epsilon 23:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Jitrixis (talk) 16:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Byrial (talk) 08:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - would prefer to see an additional clause stating that it should only be used if other methods are insufficient to prevent abuse (e.g., does not need to be used for ducks). QuiteUnusual (talk) 14:12, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The following sections only apply once Wikidata has two active CheckUsers. Until then, Stewards are to continue current CheckUser duties against the decision of this section.
All situations
[edit]Stewards are permitted to run checks on users at Wikidata regardless of the reason providing the requests meets the local CheckUser policy and no local CheckUser is available to deal with the request.
- Oppose John F. Lewis (talk) 20:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose --DangSunM (talk) 23:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose TCN7JM 23:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose --Rschen7754 01:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 19:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Local situations
[edit]Stewards may perform checks on users at Wikidata if the outcomes of such checks will result in local actions be performed. Stewards must have tried to contact at least one local CheckUser or know no local users will be available.
- Oppose John F. Lewis (talk) 20:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose --DangSunM (talk) 23:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose if only because it seems more complicated than it needs to be. TCN7JM 23:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose emergency situations can generally result in global actions anyway. --Rschen7754 01:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 19:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't mind this being an alternative. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 23:39, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cross-wiki abuse
[edit]Stewards may perform checks on users at Wikidata if the outcome of the checks will result in global actions being performed. This mainly includes cross-wiki abuse. Stewards must have tried to contact at least one local CheckUser or have a valid reason for preforming this check themselves instead of local users.
- Support assuming no local CheckUsers are available. John F. Lewis (talk) 20:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - a "global action" is an action, regardless of nature, intended to prevent cross-wiki abuse (such as a local block intended to trigger an autoblock).--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per above--DangSunM (talk) 23:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Crosswiki abuse is one of the main things stewards deal with, anyway. TCN7JM 23:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support — ΛΧΣ21 01:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- On IRC? or onwiki? or on checkuser-l? --Rschen7754 01:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - With informing local checkusers. Ajraddatz (Talk) 15:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 19:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support AutomaticStrikeout 20:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Glaisher [talk] 09:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Regards, — Moe Epsilon 23:41, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum 3
[edit]- If this addendum is passed, it will be added to the above section if it also passes.
Option 1
[edit]For the purposes of this section, an on-wiki message is the only acceptable means of contact.
- Oppose as IRC and checkuser-l should be enough; added to address Rschen7754's concerns.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Too restrictive. --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 19:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per both above. AutomaticStrikeout 20:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Regards, — Moe Epsilon 23:41, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2
[edit]For the purposes of this section, IRC, on-wiki message, or any CheckUser-related mailing list (checkuser-l in particular) may be acceptable, but if questioned, a local CheckUser (preferably the one(s) the steward attempted to contact) should be able to verify that contact was made if it was done in any means other than an on-wiki message.
- Support--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Rschen7754 19:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 19:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support AutomaticStrikeout 20:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I would prefer not to have IRC as an option. Messages can be lost on IRC and never seen, so verification is sometimes not possible. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 23:41, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all
[edit]Stewards may not perform checks on users in Wikidata except for urgent emergencies
- Oppose in favour of xwiki abuse. John F. Lewis (talk) 20:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose as it could be needed in the case of the above subsection. TCN7JM 23:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 19:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose AutomaticStrikeout 20:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Notification
[edit]Stewards are required to notify local CheckUsers after they perform checks and note any local actions they perform based on those checks.
- Support Just generally good behaviour that Stewards notify local CheckUser about checks, actions they performed based on it and why the had the motive to do so. John F. Lewis (talk) 20:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support The primary noticeboard for this should be the administrators' noticeboard.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per above--DangSunM (talk) 23:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support and agree with Jasper Deng. TCN7JM 23:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support — ΛΧΣ21 01:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support good practice anywhere, but I'm not so sure about the administrator noticeboard part, considering that private information may be involved. --Rschen7754 01:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I support stewards leaving an ambiguous enough message on AN after performing a check - checkusers can then look in the log to see the summary for the check and who all was involved. Ajraddatz (Talk) 15:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support but I do not require a public notice. Telling local CU would be enough. Steward-checks have frequently been performed on the local wiki I was sysop on until recently. The local community were never notified, and I never experienced any problems with that. Hunting X-wiki-abuse is nothing the Stewards have to ask or tell the local community about. -- Lavallen (block) 18:22, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Not necessarily in a public way. --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 19:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per Lavallen. AutomaticStrikeout 20:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Regards, — Moe Epsilon 23:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum 2
[edit]- If this addendum is passed, it will be added to the above section if it also passes.
In addition to notifying the local CheckUsers, stewards must notify the community at the administrators' noticeboard that they did the check. They need not reveal any of the reasons why they did the check if doing so would unnecessarily violate a user's privacy.
- Support To clarify the above section.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose don't see this as necessary, if stewards running inappropriate checks is an issue then CUs can bring it up. --Rschen7754 19:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose As per Rschen7754. --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 19:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Rschen7754. AutomaticStrikeout 20:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose As I said above: X-wiki-abuse is nothing Stewards have to tell or ask the local community about in public, as long they do not find something worth telling. I have seen many local Steward-checks on "my" wiki without notifications and I never experienced any problems. -- Lavallen (block) 07:23, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IP Block Exemption
[edit]CheckUser may be used to verify a need for IP block exemption and to identify the target of the block if need be.
- Support Unless the case does not call for it (which is rare). It should always be a case-by-case situation not a straight forward check without motive. John F. Lewis (talk) 20:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support--DangSunM (talk) 23:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong oppose We ask for block messages to identify the target of the block. If we don't trust the requesting user to provide correct information, the right shouldn't be granted at all. There's absolutely no need to mess around with the emergency tool CU. Vogone talk 23:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The user need not reveal it on-wiki or to a non-trusted-user. With CheckUser, we can be sure of whether the requester is honest about the IP being used.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- More specifically, we need to be sure that the person requesting the IPBE isn't the person who caused the entire range to be blocked. --Rschen7754 00:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- and to identify the target of the block if need be which backs what Rschen said. John F. Lewis (talk) 01:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- @Rschen7754: Why? The tool with which we make that sure is trust and the guideline is called AGF. There is no need to assume abuse just if somebody requests IPBE. Vogone talk 02:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, then we might as well not block any IPs or ranges again, if they can just get around it by requesting IPBE. --Rschen7754 02:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "If we don't trust the requesting user to provide correct information, the right shouldn't be granted at all." Vogone talk 03:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But how do we know the user is not lying? You can't establish that trust for sure without actually looking at IP data.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Or if it is a user with few contributions. --Rschen7754 03:51, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jasper Deng: It is more than inappropriate to assume that people requesting an IPBE are generally lying. This is just paranoid. @Rschen7754: Wikidata won't die if a single user can escape from an autoblock. Vogone talk 15:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In today's world, you cannot be too careful. I'm not saying all requestors are lying, but if the user is new, there's reasonable suspicion of that. Likewise, if the user is blocked on another project, then CheckUser should be used to investigate.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jasper Deng: It is more than inappropriate to assume that people requesting an IPBE are generally lying. This is just paranoid. @Rschen7754: Wikidata won't die if a single user can escape from an autoblock. Vogone talk 15:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Or if it is a user with few contributions. --Rschen7754 03:51, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But how do we know the user is not lying? You can't establish that trust for sure without actually looking at IP data.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "If we don't trust the requesting user to provide correct information, the right shouldn't be granted at all." Vogone talk 03:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, then we might as well not block any IPs or ranges again, if they can just get around it by requesting IPBE. --Rschen7754 02:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- @Rschen7754: Why? The tool with which we make that sure is trust and the guideline is called AGF. There is no need to assume abuse just if somebody requests IPBE. Vogone talk 02:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- and to identify the target of the block if need be which backs what Rschen said. John F. Lewis (talk) 01:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- More specifically, we need to be sure that the person requesting the IPBE isn't the person who caused the entire range to be blocked. --Rschen7754 00:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The user need not reveal it on-wiki or to a non-trusted-user. With CheckUser, we can be sure of whether the requester is honest about the IP being used.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support We shouldn't hand out IPBE like candy. --Rschen7754 23:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per John F. Lewis. TCN7JM 23:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support — ΛΧΣ21 01:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 19:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support AutomaticStrikeout 20:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Vogone --Glaisher [talk] 09:17, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong oppose This makes no sense. If one needs an IPBE, it is because they cannot edit, so there will be no IP logs and there will be nothing for the CU to check. I, for example, have no Wikidata edits because it is so darn difficult to edit without an IPBE like I have on Wikipedia, so how would my request be verified? Would I be denied because I was able to edit this for a day? Because that's what this means. Both one's ability to edit, and one's ability to provide "[verification of] a need for IP block exemption", will be made impossible by this policy; or one's ability to edit a few times will forever more deny him the ability to edit. It is a classic unreasonable argument: prove you cannot edit by editing, and prove you are a good editor while not being able to edit. Or am I missing something? This proposal also borders on paranoia. Per Vogone, if an editor is untrustworthy then they should not have an IPBE. Int21h (talk) 11:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's still valid to check a user in this case to ensure they are not a long-term abuser. The proposal says "may" not "must" for using CU for this purpose.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So I am to understand it will be used to link an editor to blocked editors via the blocked IP (which is also a requirement for an IPBE)? So a CU may refuse an IPBE because other blocked editors used the blocked IP? Assuming (just accept for argument) the blocked IP is linked with a blocked editor, and the IPBE requester is always linked with a blocked IP, what will be the deciding factor? How will this not always allow preclusion of an IPBE? (For example, I can guarantee my IP is associated with a blocked editor, so how will this not allow precluding me from getting an IPBE, my 10000 Wikipedia edits notwithstanding? The CU may deny my IPBE, no?) I also think its reasonable to assume "may" means "will". Int21h (talk) 19:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's still valid to check a user in this case to ensure they are not a long-term abuser. The proposal says "may" not "must" for using CU for this purpose.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support As long as it's not a mandatory for IPBE. There's no reason to check without there being something suspicious about the request though. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 23:47, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This proposal does not say that a CU must have a reason, it says the CU "may", period. Which I assume they always will, which is why I oppose. Int21h (talk) 19:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose – Per Vogone. Byrial (talk) 08:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. If the requester of the IPBE is suspected as being a sock or vandal who the range block was intended to affect, then a CU can be performed under the policy as proposed. On the other hand, mentioning this in the policy may discourage the abusers from requesting the IPBE - which is good. QuiteUnusual (talk) 14:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Self Request
[edit]A CheckUser may conduct a check on an account at the request of the user if a CheckUser sees fit or the check will be beneficial to Wikidata.
- Support Only if the CheckUser conducting it is sure it is within the policy and checking will be beneficial to Wikidata. John F. Lewis (talk) 01:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per above. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 22:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak supportNeutral The English Wikipedia prohibits such checks and definitely users shouldn't be allowed to do POINTy things by requesting a self-check.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]Support per John F. Lewis.--DangSunM (talk) 23:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Switch to Oppose per Vogone.--DangSunM (talk) 06:24, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Strong oppose A self-check cannot proof whether an account has misused multiple accounts or not, so that it gets unuseful at all. Again, no need to mess around with the emergency tool CU in such cases. Vogone talk 23:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose really a waste of time. --Rschen7754 23:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - Something like that would be considered POINTy in my opinion, as well. TCN7JM 23:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose – It should not be possible for a user to feel pressured to request a check. Besides the tool should not be used without compelling reason. Byrial (talk) 09:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Per Byrial mainly. Ajraddatz (Talk) 15:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong oppose Som Byrial! -- Lavallen (block) 18:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Not necessary. --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 19:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Vogone. AutomaticStrikeout 20:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong oppose per above --Glaisher [talk] 09:18, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose nah. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 23:47, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Socking Prevention
[edit]The tool may be used to investigate credible and legitimate cases of sock puppetry or abuse of multiple accounts per policy.
- Support It is the tool's purpose. John F. Lewis (talk) 20:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per John F. Lewis. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 22:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support of course.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support of course.--DangSunM (talk) 23:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support obviously. TCN7JM 23:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What is "credible"? "legitimate"? --Rschen7754 01:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Conditional support If and only if addendum 1 passes, otherwise oppose. --Rschen7754 07:51, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support — ΛΧΣ21 01:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support LlamaAl (talk) 16:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Goes without saying. --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 19:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support AutomaticStrikeout 20:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Regards, — Moe Epsilon 23:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Byrial (talk) 08:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum 1
[edit]- If this addendum is passed, it will be added to the above section if it also passes.
A credible and legitimate case of sock puppetry is one for which sufficient evidence, especially in the form of diff links, has been provided indicating likely abuse of multiple accounts.
- Support as proposer to address Rschen7754's concern above.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Added "likely" because if it was confirmed, then we wouldn't need CU anyway. --Rschen7754 07:51, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support TCN7JM 19:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 19:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support AutomaticStrikeout 20:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support "The IP is in the HTTP header and it is modified." Int21h (talk) 23:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support--DangSunM (talk) 07:12, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Obviously --Glaisher [talk] 09:20, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Regards, — Moe Epsilon 23:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Byrial (talk) 08:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Collateral damage
[edit]The tool may be used to evaluate the collateral damage before blocking a range that has been used by long-term abusers.
- Support --Rschen7754 07:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support but not just for long-term abusers; rather, for any rangeblock that could have collateral (I once had a steward clear a rangeblock I made here for spambots).--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:00, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support for all rangeblocks that could have collateral damage. TCN7JM 19:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 19:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support AutomaticStrikeout 20:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --DangSunM (talk) 07:12, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Glaisher [talk] 09:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Regards, — Moe Epsilon 23:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Byrial (talk) 08:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hardblocking IPs
[edit]The tool may be used to hardblock IPs or IP ranges of users when blocks of accounts combined with autoblocks will not suffice to prevent disruption. However, appropriate care must be taken when conducting these blocks to protect the privacy of registered users.
- Support --Rschen7754 08:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: What it does it mean to hardblock? Byrial (talk) 09:51, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A hardblock is one that does not permit registered users to edit unless they are admins or have IP block exemption. A softblock still permits all registered users to edit (and is denoted with "anonymous users only").--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:51, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:51, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 19:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support AutomaticStrikeout 20:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support--DangSunM (talk) 07:12, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Glaisher [talk] 09:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Regards, — Moe Epsilon 23:50, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disclosure
[edit]A connection between an account and an IP address should never be directly disclosed (i.e. on a wiki page). Whenever possible, measures should be taken to obfuscate any indirect connection between an account and an IP address (for example, blocking an account immediately followed by blocking its IP address would be an indirect connection, as someone looking at the CU's block log would be able to guess that the two were connected). Of course, as allowed by wmf:Privacy policy, in extreme cases of abuse, CUs are allowed to disclose such information indirectly, if strictly necessary, to protect the interests of Wikimedia projects.
- Support --Rschen7754 08:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral I don't really see what this would add to the existing policy, as it's already a general requirement in the global policy that IPs not be revealed unless absolutely necessary.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This is, in my opinion, slightly stricter than the privacy policy, and slightly stricter than the standard some (but definitely not all) enwiki CUs use. --Rschen7754 19:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral I really don't know. --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 19:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Do your best to not make any disclosures unless it is absolutely, positively necessary. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 23:51, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. The Foundation policy applies here. While the proposal tightens it slightly, it also runs the risk of creating confusion or misunderstanding. CheckUsers will be judged against the WMF policy if there is a complaint to the Ombudsman and so we should not create our own version of the policy no matter how well intended it is. QuiteUnusual (talk) 14:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Blocks
[edit]A block is to be considered a CheckUser block when CheckUser-confidential evidence has been used to come to the conclusion and matters regarding the block (unblock, IPBE etc.) are required to be dealt with by CheckUsers only, for privacy reasons.
- Support John F. Lewis (talk) 20:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Jasper Deng (talk) 23:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --DangSunM (talk) 23:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support TCN7JM 23:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support — ΛΧΣ21 01:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support LlamaAl (talk) 16:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support With the proviso that not every block a CU makes is a CU block. --Rschen7754 19:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support ·addshore· talk to me! 19:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 19:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support AutomaticStrikeout 20:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Regards, — Moe Epsilon 23:53, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Removal
[edit]Option 1
[edit]- Any administrator is permitted to remove a CheckUser block under any circumstance.
- Oppose CheckUser authorisation at least. John F. Lewis (talk) 20:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Quite a dumb thing to do. --Rschen7754 22:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Kinda defeats the point if a CheckUser block. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 22:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per above.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - No way. TCN7JM 23:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support CheckUser's shouldn't block at all in cases where they are involved with a check (except for spambots). Vogone talk 02:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Which would be all fine and well until we wind up with a vandal that has 100 socks... good luck finding admins willing to do that. --Rschen7754 02:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 1. This is an event which is really unlikely to happen and 2. there are scripts to handle multi blocks. This shouldn't be an issue at all … Vogone talk 03:22, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- My issue is that CheckUsers may need to make a block for reasons they can't disclose publicly, such as blocking a sockmaster's IPs without explicitly saying a particular sockmaster used a particular IP.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This feature is called autoblock. Vogone talk 15:51, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What if 24 hours isn't enough? What if a range needs blocking?--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Then the range gets blocked. Where is the problem? Vogone talk 18:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a CheckUser block because the connection to a particular user of it remains private, and hence, only CheckUsers should handle it.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Then the range gets blocked. Where is the problem? Vogone talk 18:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What if 24 hours isn't enough? What if a range needs blocking?--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This feature is called autoblock. Vogone talk 15:51, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- My issue is that CheckUsers may need to make a block for reasons they can't disclose publicly, such as blocking a sockmaster's IPs without explicitly saying a particular sockmaster used a particular IP.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 1. This is an event which is really unlikely to happen and 2. there are scripts to handle multi blocks. This shouldn't be an issue at all … Vogone talk 03:22, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Which would be all fine and well until we wind up with a vandal that has 100 socks... good luck finding admins willing to do that. --Rschen7754 02:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose CheckUser blocks should be like any other block - removing any block without consulting the admin who placed it in the first place is a bad idea. Ajraddatz (Talk) 15:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong oppose --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 19:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose AutomaticStrikeout 20:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose --Glaisher [talk] 09:23, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Regards, — Moe Epsilon 23:53, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2
[edit]- Only administrators who have had permission from a CheckUser may remove a CheckUser block.
- Support Only if the CheckUser says it is fine on wiki. John F. Lewis (talk) 20:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Rschen7754 22:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Jasper Deng (talk) 23:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --DangSunM (talk) 23:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support assuming this includes the CheckUsers themselves. TCN7JM 23:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support — ΛΧΣ21 01:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per my comment above. Vogone talk 02:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Per my comment above - like any other block, admins should consult the initial blocker before removing a block. In this case, it will be a CheckUser (even if another non-CU admin did the block, it was done on CU advice) Ajraddatz (Talk) 15:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support LlamaAl (talk) 16:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 19:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Regards, — Moe Epsilon 23:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3
[edit]- Only administrators holding CheckUser permissions are allowed to remove a CheckUser block under any circumstance.
- Support I also feel this would be a better solution to the above but have no objections to either. John F. Lewis (talk) 20:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Rschen7754 22:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak oppose Permission given by a CheckUser should be enough for a non-CheckUser admin to unblock.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support --DangSunM (talk) 23:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak oppose - I agree with Jasper Deng. TCN7JM 23:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Vogone talk 02:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Ajraddatz (Talk) 15:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 19:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose AutomaticStrikeout 20:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose --Glaisher [talk] 09:26, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Regards, — Moe Epsilon 23:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Option 4
[edit]- Any Administrator may undo a CheckUser block if community consensus supports doing so.
- Oppose This doesn't make much sense because the community needs information about the block to decide, but by definition, CheckUser blocks are for private reasons.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Jasper. --Rschen7754 20:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I figured I'd throw it out there and see if it made sense. If not, ok. AutomaticStrikeout 20:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support The community is the supreme decision-maker. The secret evidence should not be the only reason for a block. If the community decides it is in their best interest, it should be end of discussion. This is proof that in practice, the goal of the proposal, is to circumvent community discussion, to allow good editors (think Jimbo) to be blocked once they edit from an IP linked with a sockpuppet regardless of any other considerations (or that only CheckUsers may judge these other considerations.) The community should not have to start an RfC proposal to get Jimbo (or any other obviously improperly blocked editor) unblocked. Int21h (talk) 23:00, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support The community is always the key and if the community decides to exempt an account which was blocked by a CU due to e. g. socking it should also be done. There's no need to give CUs the ultimative power over blocks, so that they cannot be undone without their agreement. Vogone talk 01:51, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Som Vogone! -- Lavallen (block) 09:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Glaisher [talk] 09:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - I don't understand why one would think a CheckUser disclosing this private information for the community to discuss a block is at all a good idea. The community should be empowered for most things on the site, but this would be a notable exception. TCN7JM 19:13, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose not without technical evidence from a checkuser to support that the user is no longer abusing what got them blocked in the first place. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 23:57, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Inappropriate removal
[edit]Administrators who remove CheckUser blocks against policy (see above) may be subject to desysoping.
- Immediate desysoping
Support If the undoing of that block had an impact on the project. John F. Lewis (talk) 20:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Oppose Regardless of what I said, now per below. John F. Lewis (talk) 01:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Oppose Not sure if the stewards would honor this, as we do not have an Arbitration Committee this could also lead to fighting. --Rschen7754 22:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose This would invite accidents.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Doesn't seem like a smart idea. TCN7JM 23:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose No CheckUser blocks should exist at all. Vogone talk 02:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose CheckUser blocks shouldn't be different from other blocks in this regard - if an admin removes any block without consulting whoever placed it, a discussion should start, not immediate desysopping. Ajraddatz (Talk) 15:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 19:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose too drastic. AutomaticStrikeout 20:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose --Stryn (talk) 07:25, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Regards, — Moe Epsilon 23:59, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- After discussion (Removal discussion)
- Support For continued removal of blocks which had no major impact on the community or in-line with other inappropriate uses of the tools. John F. Lewis (talk) 01:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per above. --Rschen7754 22:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Jasper Deng (talk) 23:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --DangSunM (talk) 23:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - A removal discussion should be needed. TCN7JM 23:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support — ΛΧΣ21 01:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose No CheckUser blocks should exist at all. Vogone talk 02:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose defining this as a rule - I think that the community could decide whether or not an admin was engaging in disruptive behaviour. Removing any block without notifying the original blocker would be grounds for an AN discussion, which is the first step towards a desysopping that we've established previously. Ajraddatz (Talk) 15:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support It is necessary to decide case by case. --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 19:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support AutomaticStrikeout 20:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, as Ajraddatz, no need for rule. If someone want to start a removal discussion, it's ok. --Stryn (talk) 07:25, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Regards, — Moe Epsilon 23:59, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Per Ajraddatz, reverting an administrative block is normally improper and grounds for de-sysoping as is. Int21h (talk) 21:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No desysoping
- Oppose Undoing blocks can have an impact on the project. CheckUser blocks are there for a reason and should not be reverted, if so consequences should follow. John F. Lewis (talk) 20:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Quite frankly, if an admin thinks it's a good idea to undo CU blocks, they should not be an admin on any Wikimedia project. --Rschen7754 22:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose --Jasper Deng (talk) 23:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Rschen7754. TCN7JM 23:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No CheckUser blocks should exist at all. Vogone talk 02:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 19:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose AutomaticStrikeout 20:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose CU do not know and see everything. We have users like 'Stefan2', who share IP with one of the most troublesome users in Sweden. He has been CU-blocked several times on several projects, but all the blocks have been reverted. I know it, several users on several projects know it, but our CU's maybe do not know it. -- Lavallen (block) 12:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Regards, — Moe Epsilon 23:59, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The global policy requires at least 25 supporting votes and for successful candidates to identify to the foundation before receiving access; successful candidates must also be at least 18 years old and of the age of majority in the jurisdiction in which they reside. There must also be at least two local CheckUsers or none at all (i.e. a single local CheckUser would not be permitted, as local CheckUsers must cross-check each others' actions). Requests for access must be advertised prominently.
All users
[edit]
|
Any user may hold CheckUser access after a successful request.
- Support For when the project grows, administrators may not be a role as it is today. Users may want to carry the CheckUser tools but without administrative tools, if we trust the user with CheckUser when we should let them have it. It will be limiting but they can contact others administrators to block if need be. John F. Lewis (talk) 20:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose A CU that cannot block is horribly crippled. --Rschen7754 21:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Rschen7754. --Stryn (talk) 21:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral Some wikis even make it compulsory for CheckUsers to be non-admin. I agree with John, but adminship here is pretty easy to obtain, on the other hand.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Just because other wikis do it" doesn't mean that it is a good idea - I can name quite a few Wikipedias that have a very crippled CU program due to very poor restrictions that their community has placed on their CUs. --Rschen7754 21:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, admin is not required is makes seance for me.--DangSunM (talk) 00:00, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support It should always be a case-by-case decision. CU doesn't require the admin toolset and in complete opposition to Rschen7754 I must say that CUs shouldn't block by themselves. They should just provide the results of the check (except for spambot checks by stewards, of course). Vogone talk 01:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support for ability to check results, et cetera. TCN7JM 01:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Per Rschen. CheckUsers should have the ability to do stuff, not just check and then defer to others. Ajraddatz (Talk) 16:00, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose A CU who cannot see all logs looks strange to me, even if it often can be a good idea to let other do the blocking. -- Lavallen (block) 18:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – pr. Vogone. Byrial (talk) 18:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - Reading the comments that have appeared since I voted in the first place, I have decided to change my mind, though results still need to be checked by the other CheckUser(s) before blocking. TCN7JM 19:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, that's not always practical; personally I believe that in cases where the results are less clear, other CUs or non-CU admins should weigh in before blocking, but that's not something that I would support mandating. --Rschen7754 06:32, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Per Rschen7754. --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 19:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I don't think we need to formally ban non-admins from having CheckUser. However, adminship is not hard to get here, so it may be a rather moot point. AutomaticStrikeout 20:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose without the technical ability to block, the function is near-useless. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 00:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sysops only
[edit]Only administrators may hold CheckUser access after a successful request.
- Oppose Per my above point. John F. Lewis (talk) 20:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Rschen7754 21:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Stryn (talk) 21:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral per my comment above.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Should be a case-by-case decision. Vogone talk 01:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Ajraddatz (Talk) 16:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support LlamaAl (talk) 16:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose – pr. Vogone. Byrial (talk) 18:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per my oppose above. TCN7JM 19:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 19:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose should be case-by-case. AutomaticStrikeout 20:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Regards, — Moe Epsilon 00:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I supported all users before, but if doesn't means this idea is not good. So I support is also--DangSunM (talk) 00:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting
[edit]80%
[edit]Requests with 25 support votes and 80% support is the minimum for a request to be considered successful.
- Support John F. Lewis (talk) 20:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support for consistency with Oversight. This is the ratio used on Commons, the Wikimedia community that is most like us in structure.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support It should be same or higher than Oversight. because these rights controls Personal Information. So trust of candidate is very important to give and remove rights--DangSunM (talk) 23:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support — ΛΧΣ21 01:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support keep it simple. --Rschen7754 01:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support TCN7JM 01:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Sotiale (talk) 02:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support consistent with everywhere else. Ajraddatz (Talk) 16:00, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per Jasper Deng. LlamaAl (talk) 16:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 19:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support AutomaticStrikeout 20:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Regards, — Moe Epsilon 00:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
85%
[edit]Requests with 25 support votes and 85% support is the minimum for a request to be considered successful.
- Support John F. Lewis (talk) 20:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Too much. --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 19:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose AutomaticStrikeout 20:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Regards, — Moe Epsilon 00:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting time
[edit]One week
[edit]One week of discussion is required for a candidate to pass.
- Oppose To keep in line with Oversight. John F. Lewis (talk) 20:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 19:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Regards, — Moe Epsilon 00:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Two weeks
[edit]Two weeks of discussion is required for a candidate to pass.
- Support To keep in line with Oversight. John F. Lewis (talk) 20:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Jasper Deng (talk) 23:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support It should be same or higher than Oversight. because these rights controls Personal Information--DangSunM (talk) 23:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support — ΛΧΣ21 01:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support TCN7JM 01:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Ajraddatz (Talk) 16:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support LlamaAl (talk) 16:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 19:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support AutomaticStrikeout 20:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Regards, — Moe Epsilon 00:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Evaluation
[edit]Bureaucrats will close requests for the granting or removal of CheckUser access, and will post at m:SRP accordingly.
- Support In line with Oversight and all other local advanced permissions.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support In line with oversight. John F. Lewis (talk) 21:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per above--DangSunM (talk) 01:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support TCN7JM 01:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support LlamaAl (talk) 16:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 19:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support AutomaticStrikeout 20:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Regards, — Moe Epsilon 00:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Vote
[edit]50%
[edit]The CheckUser flag can be removed by a removal request with 50% support.
Support High amount of community support for removal of the tools. John F. Lewis (talk) 20:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Oppose John F. Lewis (talk) 01:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Oppose--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 19:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1/3
[edit]The CheckUser flag can be removed by a removal request with a 1/3 support.
Oppose John F. Lewis (talk) 20:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Support In line with oversight. John F. Lewis (talk) 01:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Support Keep this in line with Oversight.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support It should be same with Oversight. because these rights controls Personal Information. This is very important to give and remove rights.--DangSunM (talk) 23:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support — ΛΧΣ21 01:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - A third is more than enough. TCN7JM 01:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Sotiale (talk) 02:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support LlamaAl (talk) 16:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support I would be in favour of 2/3, but I (weakly) support this only because of the oversight policy. --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 19:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support I would prefer a higher amount, but I guess we should keep oversight and checkuser the same. AutomaticStrikeout 20:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as above. --Stryn (talk) 09:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Regards, — Moe Epsilon 00:05, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Inactivity
[edit]CheckUsers will follow the inactivity policy discussed in this RfC.
- Support--DangSunM (talk) 09:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally I support this, as I believe that all CUs should be admins, but if that does not pass then this proposal is not complete. --Rschen7754 11:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per Rschen7754.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 19:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support AutomaticStrikeout 20:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - I do not like the idea of having a limit in "number of CU-actions", since I consider also the number of times somebody activly choose to not act as "activity". That is definitly relevant for CU-actions. An activity-level (of any kind) that shows that the user is still watching relevant pages is enough for me. -- Lavallen (block) 08:56, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The inactivity policy will not count CU actions, if this passes. It would just mean that if you lose adminship due to inactivity you also lose CheckUser access at the same time. Vogone talk 15:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not agree with the definition of inactivity of Admins either. -- Lavallen (block) 15:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay then. Vogone talk 15:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not agree with the definition of inactivity of Admins either. -- Lavallen (block) 15:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The inactivity policy will not count CU actions, if this passes. It would just mean that if you lose adminship due to inactivity you also lose CheckUser access at the same time. Vogone talk 15:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support if only administrators can have CU rights. --Stryn (talk) 08:59, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, and I reworded it a bit to make more grammatical sense. TCN7JM 19:18, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Regards, — Moe Epsilon 00:05, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Activity for a CheckUser includes monitoring the CU log, which does not get logged. We should not implicitly encourage use of CU by specifying a number of "checks" as CU should be used when it needs to be used and not at other times. Therefore I believe CU should only be held by admins and should be lost when the admin inactivity threshold is triggered. QuiteUnusual (talk) 14:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]