Talk:CheckUser policy: Difference between revisions

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Tag: 2017 source edit
Line 35: Line 35:
== RfC ==
== RfC ==
A RFC concerning this policy has been created and is being discussed at [[Requests for comment/Clarification to CU policy]]. —[[User:MarcoAurelio|MarcoAurelio]] ([[User talk:MarcoAurelio|talk]]) 12:27, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
A RFC concerning this policy has been created and is being discussed at [[Requests for comment/Clarification to CU policy]]. —[[User:MarcoAurelio|MarcoAurelio]] ([[User talk:MarcoAurelio|talk]]) 12:27, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

== CU policy - local ==

Hello, can any wiki make it's local CU policy, or all wikis must responds to the global one?

For example before few months in ar.wiki we define (Any user account with CheckUser status that is inactive for more than '''6 month''' will have their CheckUser access removed.) in global one it's (one year) '''--'''[[User:علاء |<font size="3" face="Script MT Bold" style="color:black;">Alaa</font> ]] [[User_talk:علاء |:)..!]] 19:53, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:53, 1 January 2018

Jakobludwigfelixmendellshon block

i beleive that check user is complete rubbish.It blocked me for no reason--Jakobludwigfelixmendelsshon (talk) 13:33, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The CheckUser extension can't block you. There is always some user behind of it, and blocks are not doing without a good reason. --Stryn (talk) 19:33, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Porque não permitem criaçõe de contas? João Thiago Camosso Tchivela (talk) 02:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Só quero resposta João Thiago Camosso Tchivela (talk) 02:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Limited Checkuser for all users?

I think it would help prevent sockpuppets a lot more if all users had a limited check-user-like ability. Now, clearly not all users should have access to the actual content of the check user information (they shouldn't have access to the underlying technical data including client IP address, HTTP user agent, cookies, etc.). Instead, what if all users had the ability to see if any two accounts had ever shared the same client IP address? All you would get are "plausible" (they shared the same IP at least once), or "impossible" (they never shared the same IP). It wouldn't prove that the two accounts are actually the same person (more detailed look at the technical data by an actual check user would be needed for that along with their behavior), but it would be enough to at least examine it closer. Also it couldn't be used when one of the accounts is an IP account (as that would reveal the underlying technical data about the non-IP user). Can anyone identify any potential privacy problems with this? -Obsidi (talk) 18:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

too long

maybe 75 days. not 90

If anything it is too short. We have massive families of socks carrying out undisclosed paid editing work / spamming Wikipedia. We should really be considering lengthening it. Or at least saving data from large families of socks as when blocked they do not go away, they just change their tactics. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:05, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

actual login

does check user log the actual log in? what about the log out?Shrian (talk) 00:02, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They do not log logins. Ruslik (talk) 18:12, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

A RFC concerning this policy has been created and is being discussed at Requests for comment/Clarification to CU policy. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 12:27, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CU policy - local

Hello, can any wiki make it's local CU policy, or all wikis must responds to the global one?

For example before few months in ar.wiki we define (Any user account with CheckUser status that is inactive for more than 6 month will have their CheckUser access removed.) in global one it's (one year) --Alaa :)..! 19:53, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]