Please remember to:
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. 18.104.22.168 04:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Take it to enWP. No point stirring here. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:47, 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)
Sockmaster Kalki going for sysop at en.wikiquote
|Completely unrelated to CheckUser policy. PiRSquared17 (talk) 12:56, 21 February 2014 (UTC)|
Sockmaster Kalki going for sysop at en.wikiquote:
Notifying here as it is directly relevant when a sock master with over 200 plus sock farm seeks rights of trust such as sysop.
Thank you for your time,
Claims of CheckUser abuse
Is it possible to get an independent investigation about use of CU? Serious claims about CU used as a tool to get rid of one of the former leaders of Wikimedia Norge (Norwegian chapter of Wikimedia) is circulating at discussions board at Wikipedia in Norwegian (bokmål) . Both the former leader, in a private mail, and a former VP for Wikimedia Norge at the discussion board, have made clear statements about claims of abuse. According to one of the users with CU access, three of the holders of CU access at Wikipedia in Norwegian (bokmål) was agree about the CU. It is claimed to have been according to CU policies at the Norwegian wiki, but it may be violating the general Check User policy as stated here, and the privacy policies and the Privacy Policies presentet at Wikimedia Foundation (https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy).
While difficult to prove, it appears the current VP at Wikimedia Norge is involved in the CU request somehow. The current VP have a long record conflict with the former leader at wikipedia Norge. The conclusion of the CU was, she had two accounts. It was though no proofs of illegal use of those accounts, like voting double or supporting own claims. Regardless the outcome of a discussion whether she have broken any policies, it appears the CU was made on a way to thin basis according to the policy.
I doubt it will be possible to get a consensus at the Norwegian wiki for investigating. Way to many of the most active users are involved in Wikimedia Norge's current activities. If this is the wrong place for asking for an investigation, please let me know. Grrahnbahr (talk) 17:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- The Ombudsman Commission deals with CU/OS misuse complaints, I'd recommend privately contacting them. Ajraddatz (Talk) 17:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- We will investigate. On behalf of the Ombudsman Commission,
- --Stryn (talk) 17:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you. If more information is needed, please send me a private message, and I'll share what I have. Grrahnbahr (talk) 17:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- May I ask who the original complainer should be? As far as I can see, I am the only one who fits a description of an original complainer in a strict interpretation of the expression, while User:Jeblad, who first brought up the case at Tinget, could may be considered as well if using a broader interpretation (the first one afaik to bring it up at a serious level at Tinget). Since the involved users critical to the use of CU, is not been asked for their opinion in the case, and it is not asked for more information regarding details, I do questioning in a friendly manner whether the investigation is neutral and thoroughly. Grrahnbahr (talk) 16:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)