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

Inactivity beyond one year

The following discussion is closed: Please see Talk:Oversight policy#Inactivity beyond one year instead.

If the account owner denotes that they will be inactive for a longer (but finite and predetermined) period of time they should be exempt from a demotion provided the wiki has two or more other CheckUsers. This is particularly a problem for people whom needs to be away form the site for a variety of reasons including draft, illness and other such real-world reasons. Users access can be removed until return date where they would need to verify their identity. -- とある白い猫 ^chi? 19:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

That is clearly not allowed under the policy. Nothing stops them from reapplying on their return. As for the "should", no they should not. There's plenty of valid reasons to be away from the site, and nobody would dispute that; but that makes them inactive. Inactive users should not have access to advanced and sensitive userrights. It should be removed as provided by policy, and they're free to reapply at any time. I'm sure if they were entrusted with it two years before, they would be entrusted with it two years later. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 19:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Reactivation of checkuser in a wiki

If Checkuser is deactivated in a wiki and has been done in metha wiki, can it be reactivated again without a new consensus? --Sicaspi (talk) 01:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Depends. The question is why they were removed. Also note that there must be at least two checkusers on a local project. If one was removed because the other stepped down, then we can just give back the right when there is a second one. But as said, it always depends. -Barras talk 07:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

"Founder" CU(s)

JW is listed under the subsubsubheading "Founder" for the English Wikipedia. That terse title leaves ambiguous whether the implication is "Ex-officio as 'founder'", or "Appointed by self". The rights log comment for the most recent CU grant to self implies the latter, especially as it states that it's for a particular, temporary purpose. That this happened five years ago, and hasn't been reset since, might be read as leaning more towards the former. 84.203.36.42 04:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Take it to enWP. No point stirring here. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I use CU on a regular basis and I'm likely to need to use it across all projects from time to time.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The consensus about the founder's flag, as far as I remember, was that it retains all passive rights of a steward (that is reading, checking, looking beyond oversight, etc.), while not the active ones. Checkuser is clearly a passive tool of this sort, and stewards use it the same way (whenever needed, grant themselves the CU rights, use them, and remove them), they do not hold CU on many projects as regular checkusers do. So I don't see what's the issue here (unless the whole comment is aimed at stripping the founder flag from passive insight as well). Pundit (talk) 14:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)