Wikipedia talk:Quick and dirty Checkuser policy

Maybe this page should be merged on to the bottom of the RFA page like the request for bureaucratship is? That way it would be more visable as well, just a thought. Martin 22:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a very good idea to me, how do others feel? --fvw * 22:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. I'll move it now. R adiant _>|< 23:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

40 votes

Just noting that 55 votes have been cast now, and there's barely 80% support of the policy. Three hours left on the vote, and we got a result. Tito xd^(?!?) 20:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to see this passed. I should point out that generally, the minimum support for a policy proposal is 70%, so 80.4% clears that with a wide margin. I believe that some of the people who opposed it thought that this proposal was to give checkuser rights to all admins. That is not the case - the intent is to allow users to enter a Requests For Checkuser process, which is similar to a Request For Adminship or Request For Bureaucratship.
I propose that nominations be added to a new section on the WP:RFA page. I also propose that someone suitable be nominated by tomorrow, because that is ultimately the only way to see how it will work out. R adiant _>|< 22:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What nonsense

This isn't simply a matter we can vote on, it requires board involvement because we must change our privacy policy.
There wasn't enough time for this discussion in any case, I didn't get a chance to issue a counter proposal which would limit the information disclosed via a sockcheck-lite which could be given somewhat more freely, but only disclosed information about blocked users (consistant with the privacy policy which requires vandalism).

The effort to foist it on the community based on some bogus percentage criteria simply isn't going to fly. --Gmaxwell 02:40, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And lest there be any doubt, no from me, too. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 02:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. A hearty "no" from me as well. --Blackcap | talk 03:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, so let's inform the Board that a significant number of users would appreciate having a method of bestowing checkuser rights on trusted people. R adiant _>|< 12:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And while we're at it, let's make sure that they know a significant number of editors are extremely unhappy with this. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 13:03, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, nearly all of those who opposed the proposal indicated that they would appreciate having such a method, but they thought the proposal was lacking in detail and safety measures, or that a RFA-like procedure was inappropriate. The only one I see that is extremely unhappy with the principle is yourself. Radiant_>|< 21:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- See above. See also wikien-l. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 22:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed. --Blackcap | talk 04:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't read wikien-l. I would appreciate a link to the relevant discussion there. My words were "a significant number of users would appreciate having a method of bestowing checkuser rights", not that this page is policy, or that the method proposed here is the way to go. Radiant_>|< 15:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - For me, anyway, the point of contention around what you said was, "only one I see... is yourself." I think that more people than Tony Sidaway and myself have problems with the principle here; namely, having CheckUser be available to more users via a poll such as the one we just had. --Blackcap | talk 15:56, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - Nice to see that my objections have been ignored. :-/ Really my objection is twofold, the first part is that we can't just have a poll for this, the privacy policy must be amended, which requires board action. 2) the tool encourages fishing for socks, i.e. trying to connect good users to bad user when there is little reason to suspect anything, this wouldn't be so bad by itself, but because the tool is not foolproof (since we're considering users coming from the same ISPs to be probable socks) the liklyhood of a false positive is very high. Back when Wikipedia wasn't the thirty-somethingth most popular site on the internet coming from the same ISP might have ment something, today it means very little.. Yet it's fairly easy for a user on many providers to get a different IP, so only looking for exact IP matches isn't a solution either. --Gmaxwell 03:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think we don't need many checkusers, just a few. At present it's just David Gerard really, since Tim Starling is busy with other things. From his user page, it seems that David is also going to be busy with other things. The key, indeed, is trust. Many people (myself included) don't trust the average admin with checkuser rights. But we do need a select few of them. I'm not convinced that a community vote for them is the best option, but it seems the most wikish one (and we do the same for 'crats). By the way is there any response from the board on this? Radiant_>|< 11:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- A community vote is definitely not the most wiki-ish. Something that is much closer would be consensus, without ignoring extremely important aspects of working here, notably our privacy policy. A community vote would be a horrific idea. The result would be more voting (when we shouldn't be voting anyway), less consensus, and a large violation of our privacy policy. An RfA-like vote is no way to give someone the right to access that kind of information. If more CheckUsers are wanted, then a move by the board is the only way to grant it, as there is certainly no consensus here (and as I understand it, developers are the only ones who can grant CheckUser anyway). --Blackcap | talk 21:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd like to elaborate on this. While I agree with Radiant about general decision-making (I think votes are the best process, for the simple pragmatic reason that consensus is very hard to get in a large community), checkuser is not something that a community vote should grant. I'm sorry if you've heard this from me enough, but I'd like to belabor the point that while a solely on-Wiki process is perfectly good for promoting admins or deleting articles, it's not appropriate for taking any action that has potential off-Wiki consequences (i.e. violation of privacy). ~~ N (t/c) 21:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Exactly. --Blackcap | talk 22:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]