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

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)

Why can't stewards be allowed to do local checks on wikis with local CheckUsers or be local CheckUsers themselves?

I don't see a valid reason for either of these, especially the latter. A steward knowing that a user on a busy wiki like Commons is a long-term vandal that needs to be stopped immediately should not have to wait as long as many hours for local CheckUsers to check. Nor should a steward have to wait if the community has consensus for him/her to be a local CheckUser.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Of course stewards can be local checkusers, and many of them are. And stewards are permitted to do local checks by policy if it's an emergency or a crosswiki case. Jafeluv (talk) 23:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

It's for local and urgent cases (that are not necessarily emergencies). The following quote is what I'm talking about when I said stewards can't be local CheckUsers:

The community must approve local, non-steward, CheckUsers per consensus. The user requesting CheckUser status must request it within his local community and advertise this request properly (village pump, mailing list when available, ...). The editor must be familiar with the privacy policy. After gaining consensus (at least 70%-80% in pro/con voting or the highest number of votes in multiple choice elections) in his local community, and with at least 25-30 editors' approval, the user should list himself under Steward requests/Permissions with a link to the page with the community's decision.
If an insufficient number of voters vote for at least two CheckUsers on a wiki, there will be no CheckUser on that wiki. Editors will have to ask a Steward to check if UserX is a sockpuppet of UserY. To do so, simply add your request to Steward requests/Checkuser listing these users and explaining why you ask for such a check (with links). You also need a community consensus (like above). The Steward will answer you if these two users are from the same IP, same proxy, same network, same country, or are they completely unrelated (see discussion for what the Steward should more precisely say to the editor).

The boldened part probably means that stewards don't count for those purposes, but I take it to mean that stewards can't be local CheckUsers.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

That part means the community should appoint local checkusers that are not acting as a part of their steward duty. Users who are stewards can still be local checkusers. Normally when a steward makes themselves CU, they are performing their steward duty. Bencmq (talk) 01:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Let's clarify that then.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Causes problems on MediaWiki.org

On MediaWiki.org, we're trying to make some local CheckUsers. However, because this wiki is spammed frequently, we do not often have enough !voters to rapidly approve stewards, and the person who wants it only needs it for development purposes, this is frustrating to us.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi. This policy does not require stewards to be approved there. Stewards can go and check without being voted because we always use the temporary access and once we are done we remove ourselves the permission. However if we or any user wants the flag to be permanent they need to pass an RfCU. —Marco Aurelio (audiencia) 15:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Idea for new Extension

I think Wikipedia needs a new Extension, similar to Extension:CheckUser, but allow more people, like admins, to quickly check if they suspect two users are the same person. This would be a first step prior to kicking off a full investigation, and might help find more sock puppets.

The extension would compare the last "N" number of IP addresses of TWO named users, then report whether any IP addresses match. The extension would NOT accept an IP address NOR report any IP addresses in its output. The extension would optionally log (so you can determine if people are abusing it): person performing the search, date/time stamp of the search, two named users, output of search. The default "N" number and IP mask should be determined by someone at implementation time and allow override by a PHP variable.

Input Screen Fields

• Name of 1st User
• Name of 2nd User

Output Examples

• 5 of 10 IP addresses match between user "FIRST" and "SECOND".
• 10 of 10 IP addresses match between user "FIRST" and "SECOND" with IP mask of 255.255.255.0.

Sbmeirow (talk) 10:10, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

A match of an IP address does not mean that users are the same. Conversely the different IP addresses do not mean that the users are different. Ruslik (talk) 14:30, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Plus, proxies could be used. It would not be very useful in my opinion.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:20, 26 May 2012 (UTC)