Talk:CheckUser policy

This page is for discussions related to the CheckUser policy page.   Please remember to: Sign posts using the four tildes (~~~~) Remain civil and polite during discussions. Place new text under old text (start a new post)   Archives: 1 2 3 4

Archives Proposition 2005 (November 2005) Archive 1 (Prior to June 2005) Archive 2 (Prior to January 2006) Archive 3 (Prior to April 2008) Archive 4

Page could do with some archiving

It may be worthwhile having a level of (slow) automated archiving. It would seem that 2008 conversations would be well to be but to bed. (my opinion only) billinghurst sDrewth 01:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I actually read almost thewhole page today, since the issue of "user inactivity", adjusting policy to 2008 privacy policy changes as well as issues pertaining checkuser appointment on English Wikipedia are still relevant....  « Saper // @talk »  03:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the heading code (subpage created) and ordered MiszaBot to archive threads older than 60 days in the the new /Archive 4 subpage. Max. size of the archives: 100K. Thanks. —Marco Aurelio (Nihil Prius Fide) 12:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Request for Checkuser at Wikiquote

There is an ongoing Request for Checkuser permissions, at Wikiquote. Those interested in the processes at the Wikiquote project, please see q:Wikiquote:Request for Checkuser and Bureaucrat/BD2412. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Moved to 2 pages, now at q:Wikiquote:Requests for checkuser/BD2412 and q:Wikiquote:Request for bureaucrat/BD2412. -- Cirt (talk) 18:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Stewards and local checkusers

A local checkuser check my IP wrongly. I sent e-mail to all local checkusers. But they have not been receiving an answer for three weeks. Two of them is inactive. Stewards cannot check on projects with local checkusers. Ombudsman Communission only deals with privacy policy violations. So, how can a user prove his or her innocence? I think stewards should recheck a finished checkuser request. And they should check by user's own request. Duke ^{ϡ»» message ^^} 22:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The only way that would happen is if the local CheckUsers specifically requested stewards to perform the check. In the absence of this, stewards cannot intervene. Generally, the CheckUser tool isn't used to prove one's innocence anyway, because you can't really prove anything with technical evidence. It is only what it is. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I know. Really thank you. But it does not help. I think the policy should reconsider. If someone (not me) was deliberately blamed, nobody can do anything. Because policy is deficient. Duke ^{ϡ»» message ^^} 23:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

We have your comment about a situation, and no knowledge of the incident that you say has occurred, nor the wiki to even know what checkuser approach is in play (such we have to respond generically). Are you saying that the CU was using it outside of the reason "The tool is to be used to fight vandalism …", or are you saying that the CU used it "to get control over you and your edits", or are you saying that they did a check and have misinterpreted the results"? I presume that you are not saying that they are breaching privacy provisions. To note that it is December and that is typically a quieter period for wiki activity, and one where there are many calls on people's time. billinghurst sDrewth 10:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

For general info see here and regarding the inactivity pointed by Koc61, here. Thanks. —Marco Aurelio (Nihil Prius Fide) 11:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)