Meta talk:Rewriting/Checkuser policy

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki


  • What should happen when someone uses the tool without broadcasting the information, but nevertheless without any need?
  • Is someone who can see the CU log at all allowed to tell a non-CU whether there has been a check?
  • Crosswiki checks have not been described very clearly. (i.e. if a cross check frwiki and enwiki is needed, should the enwiki and frwiki CU-people communicate, or should a steward do it?)
  • Is it advisable that a steward checks on his (her) home wiki?
I'll watch this page with interest. To me there is an issue as far as what the check was about and sharing any information. I do not see checks on vandal accounts as being as sensitive and private as those on others possibly?
I'd appreciate clarification of what is meant by the first issue? How is without any need defined? I have never made a needless CU check based on my understanding of a situation when I made the check - hindsight however is far more accurate!
As to stewards checking "home" wikis, again how would "home" wiki be defined here? --Herby talk thyme 12:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Valid reason"[edit]

Wouldn't mind seeing some discussion about this. I always have a valid reason for my checks but would others agree with me and would I agree with their "valid reasons"? I have no idea how to improve this (& would not favour a list of such reasons, just an opportunity for wikilawyering)...? --Herby talk thyme 11:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clarifications relating to inactivity and to steward access[edit]

For the record I support the clarification made to make it very clear that it is CU activity that the year applies to, not "any" activity. I also support the clarification that CU access granted to stewards (typically on Meta) so they can view logs should be lost at the same time at the steward permission itself is lost. I'd further like to see it made clear that no discussion is needed about it, the rights are coupled. I thought that was obvious but apparently it is not. ++Lar: t/c 22:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll place links to this on a few pages as it is deals with my thoughts on some scattered recent discussions.
I agree with all Lar has said & I completely support the idea that all current stewards should have log access "on Meta". this section can then be made far clearer as to the reason for the rights. It would allow stewards to be aware of, and monitor, Checkuser activity. This may well be of considerable assistance with cross wiki vandal fighting for example which is the most frequently use of CU, excluding en wp, probably. There should be no checks made that are solely Meta related as there are Meta elected checkusers (obviously cross wiki ones are vital).
Equally I feel that Arbcoms should allow all members "log access" on the home wiki so that they too can monitor the work being done there.
For clarity - I see "log access" rights as not be at all dependent on activity but on the continuation of the rights involved (steward/arbcom).
In a sense it would be desirable if the developers were able to create a sub CU category who could only access the logs for this purpose. --Herby talk thyme 09:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hm, I think stewards (and arbcom members) are trustworthy enough that the last part of your suggestion will not be necessary. :o) --Thogo (talk) 09:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. It's not a matter of trust, though... by having a separate group it might allow for better tracability of who did what, etc. Especially if at some point in the future there is an implementation of tracking who looks at the log (which I'd heard bandied about somewhere although I don't think it's really needed). ++Lar: t/c 15:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


In my opinion "An editor with CheckUser status on a wiki can in particular check if a user isn't a sockpuppet of another user on that wiki (not on all wikis)." is not correct. CheckUsers are not able to check if a user is not a sockpuppet. The same person could use for his accounts OPs, TORs or could visit internet cafés etc. They can check if the user is a sockpuppet—but even not that is a fail-safe method. Regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 14:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed - badly worded --Herby talk thyme 14:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, any other opinions? Imo it should be fixed before the voting starts. Regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 21:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I took a shot at it. See this diff: [1] What do you think? ++Lar: t/c 03:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Voting margins[edit]

I reworded policy to conform to practice, it has been 80% and 25 or more supports, not the bands, in all the elections I've seen so far. This is the diff: [2] ... comments? I did the same to Oversight. ++Lar: t/c 03:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Changes to the log[edit]

I made some changes because the log has changed. I don't know what log access we're going to have now (will stewards be given CU on all wikis with CUs so they can see the logs?) so that'll have to be added back in later.  – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 12:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe we should try to come up with a general wording, so that it is not really mattering how the logs are working? Effeietsanders 20:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, if possible. At any rate, I'm not sure I agree with these changes: [3] ... the loss of crosswiki logging is, we were promised, temporary, so I don't want policy not to make provisions for stewards and ombudsmen to have crosswiki log access, and everyone agrees it should be from Meta. Since this policy won't be rewritten again for another year, we should not be bound to a temporary state of affairs I think. If it can be written in a way that's not specific to whether the log does or doesn't work that way, great, but if not, I'd prefer the assumption that the log will be restored to prior functionality. ++Lar: t/c 02:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's fair; that change was from before we knew that the global log would likely make a comeback. Log-type-neutral language is probably best.  – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 04:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FYI, I have requested that the current checkuser right be split off into checkuser (to run checks) and checkuser-log (to access the logs) - this would allow the ombudspeople to have global access to the logs, but not global access to CU.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arbcoms vs. elections for CUs[edit]

See Talk:CheckUser_policy#Arbcoms_vs._elections_for_CUs ... I suggest maybe that change be explicitly discussed further ++Lar: t/c 06:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]