Commons talk:Requests for checkuser

Return to "Requests for checkuser" page.

CommentsEdit

I don't think that the amount of request will be that great that we need a seperate page for each case. If might be better to have a simple transcluded page that contains all cases and an archive; similar to COM:UDEL. It might probably also an option make this a sub page of AN, as proposed on Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Subpage_for_CheckUser_requests.3F. -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Why make it a subpage of AN? Most admins aren't CUs.
As to the page -- who are these alleged clerks? :P
And Use other methods first. - I have never understood this - what are these supposed other methods?? Prayer? --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 03:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
All clerk references that I could find have been removed... (as well as references to code letters), if you see some either remove them yourself (you can see in the comments where I left them how I tried to word around their non existance here) or complain here :) . Separate pages are easier to archive (you just move around the transclusion invocations) and preserve history better (the history stays with the subpages), but I'm open to however folks want to do it. I tested out the process by creating one subpage already, and it seemed to work ok. As for other methods... many sock cases don't warrant investigation, just block the ID as being abusive and be done with it, (i.e. either do it yourself when you see it, if you're an admin, or report it to admins via existing admin noticeboard channels...) only persistent repeated cases need explicit CU investigation, because the id keeps coming back, and so a block of the IP with no account recreation allowed, or whatever, is warranted... At least that's what I gather from elsewhere. Thoughts? ++Lar: t/c 14:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

ShortcutsEdit

Are five shortcuts really needed? I don't think so, so I'll be cutting it down to two. Picaroon (Talk) 00:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead, this is too crowded. -- Bryan (talk to me) 09:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes but you kept the WRONG TWO! (kidding!!!!!). I thought 5 was a bit much too... it was making some other things format funny for me. Good work. ++Lar: t/c 13:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

SubpagesEdit

Why are outstanding cases listed on the subpage /Case which is transcluded in the main page, and the completed/declined ones directly in the main page? That's not logical to me. -- Bryan (talk to me) 13:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to reorganise those declined ones to subpages if you like! I wonder if it is an artifact of how things were before or something? ++Lar: t/c 11:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser activityEdit

Discussion in Commons:Administrators/Requests and votes/Bryan (rfcu) suggests that Commons could use a policy for when to withdraw checkuser access from those no longer active as checkusers. Reasons that support a checkuser activity policy include:

  1. There is a reluctance for good reason to have too many checkusers. Users with checkuser access who do not make use of it block access to it for others who would make mor extensive use of the tool.
  2. Being able to keep the access indefinitely promotes the view of checkuser as a status rather than simply a tool with restricted access.

The meta checkuser policy requires only the removal of Checkuser access from all accounts inactive for 1 year. It seems that we should impose a requirement based on use of the tool (which is recorded in the log) rather than simple activity. Even if a checkuser is editing prolificallly, if they're had no need for the tool in a long period, they don't need to stay a checkuser. The onus to use it should not be unduly harsh either - having a bank of experience to cross-check is no bad thing. I would therefore propose withdrawing checkuser access where no use of the checkuser tool has been made in the last 6 months.

The following thoughts arise:

  1. How to handle checkusers who will be on know long absenses? If checkuser declares they will be away from Commons for a year, for example, does that mean the inactivity period is suspended until their return (as with our admin activity requirements) or should they then relinquish the tool?
  2. This is something that will in effect have to monitored by checkusers themselves (as only they can view the log). Although the Community could say "Checkuser X does seem to have been doing much checkuser related in the last 6 months", only other checkusers could confirm this.

What do people think? WjBscribe 15:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth I agree with this almost completely. Short of time and I'll look some more later/tomorrow. Bear in mind I do have strong feelings about being inactive with additional rights - my Meta matrix now authorises Stewards to remove any rights I have not used for three months.
I'd be quite happy with "I'm away for a period". I would certainly be obliged to confirm CU activity/inactivity with the community - after all they trusted me with the rights --Herby talk thyme 15:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I also support the removal after 6 months of no CU activity for reasons stated above by WJBscribe. Also, I think we should promote a custom and practice that encourages folks to voluntarily hand in the tool when they find themselves not using them for an extended period of time with the understanding that they will be returned automatically if not longer than 6 months have gone by.(6 months is an arbitrary number but I think fair).
I have no problem with the CUs monitoring themselves as they are the most trusted users on a site. We could set up a system of automatic review of all the activity of CUs to see if more are needed or if some need to be asked to turn it in, but I'm not sure that is really needed at this time. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
No question really about this in my mind. For me tools are about being active. Try getting admin, CU, 'crat with a "but I might not do anything for six months and see how the Rf* runs. Nothing against any of these folk at all - they have all worked hard for Commons and contributed strongly but a CU who has hardly edited for a year much less touched a now changed CU tool seems hard to support. I should have covered this better on the de-admin policy bit. The overall admin policy has stalled but I said to Fred I would try and get it going again (unless anyone else does?). --Herby talk thyme 17:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Seems a sound proposal to me, with the proviso that I'd like to see something similar to the admin one, that if someone steps up and asks forebearance, a bit more time is given. But really, this is just tightening up the base foundation theme here on inactivity. If you don't use the tools at all, (with certain exceptions as I've said before) you should give them up. Thanks, WJBScribe for starting this up again. ++Lar: t/c 01:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

{{Checkuser requests to be listed}}Edit

The above template is placed on every new CheckUser request. It is there so that users and Checkusers are able to see which requests have not been filed on the main page, and as such require someone to list it for Checkuser attention. When I went there today, I found that there were close to 55 cases listed in the category, which really defeats the point. I already went through and removed the template from the cases that were listed, and had a Checkuser respond. In doing so, I found at least one case that was left unattended/not listed since March of this year (I listed it on the main page). Because of all this, I am asking that once CheckUsers respond to a case, and/or once someone lists a case they remove the template from the case page. This will make it easier to track cases, and ensure that no case falls through the cracks. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 04:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

looks like we need a better write up of the process for listing, processing, delisting, etc... would you be willing to take a crack at that? ++Lar: t/c 11:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I would be more than happy to. I am also thinking a better archiving process is needed. Tiptoety talk 15:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand. ¿Could someone noticing old requests or archives poke priv or irc to some checkuser ? -- Drini 18:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
What don't you understand? Tiptoety talk 18:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

My changesEdit

As requested above, I made a few changes to the overall process. First I edited Commons:Requests for checkuser/Inputbox to reflect my comments about the Checkuser requests to be listed template [1], I also added some information about editing an archived case/starting a new request on a existing case page page [2]. Secondly, I (boldly) created two archival templates {{Rfcua}} and {{Rfcub}} (similar to en.wikis old RFCU archival templates). These are to be used when archiving a case to help avoid confusion about open/closed cases, and inform users how to reopen the case should they need to. I updated the instructions at Commons:Requests for checkuser/Archives to reflect that. An example of the template being used can be found here: Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/MRDU08. (Note: I already added it to all the archived cases). If there are other changes you would like me to make, I am willing. Also, I am open to constructive criticism along with general thoughts. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 20:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow. I had expected you to make a few suggestions but instead you've went to work. I'm keen to hear what Herby thinks of your improvements, which are many, but I like what I see. Thanks muchly. ++Lar: t/c 01:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Meant to get back to this one but other things got in the way :(
I'm not a Wikipedian so "process" to me is not a fave subject! I guess I have time to "do" or time to fill stuff in sadly. Lar on the other hand....:)
Anyway, I appreciate the help you are giving us Tiptoey & things look fine. Just point it out to me if I get anything wrong! Cheers --Herby talk thyme 12:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

CaseEdit

I admit that I'm not really active in the Checkuser area, but I was wondering if the "Case" prefix is really needed? This page hardly has any hardly any subpages subpages (only archive, header and inputbox, which are unlikely to conflict with potential sockpuppeteers) and I believe that longer names and more slashes in page titles are more difficult to remember and to link. I was wondering what other users think of this idea? --The Evil IP address (talk) 20:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any issue with nixing the /Case subtitle, but of course, that would either require quite a bit of work to move or lead to inconsistency. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't think the /case subpage is needed, but I agree with Julian that removing it at this stage in the game might create some headaches. Tiptoety talk 02:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Nah, that moving shouldn't be too complicated. It can probably easily be done with the option "Move subpages" similar to the way Rich Farmbrough moved the PUF over at Wikipedia. --The Evil IP address (talk) 20:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

AnfrageEdit

Wo finde ich alle Anfragen, welche mit CheckUser-Berechtigung durchgeführt wurden um zu prüfen, ob auch tatsächlich nur offensichtliche Problemfälle behandelt wurden. Desgleichen meine Frage, wer eine Anfrage beantwortet, ob jemals eine Checkuseranfrage bzgl. meines Accounts durchgeführt wurde. Ebenso möchte ich wissen, ob aufgrund eines SUL-Accounts auch projektübergreifende Abfragen möglich sind. Und zwar durch CU-Berechtigte, welche deren CU-Berechtigung ausschließlich durch eine Wahl in Commons erlangt wurde.--Hubertl (talk) 06:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Translation: Where can I find all the CU-requests that have actually been carried out (or literally: requests that have been carried out with CU-justification), in order to check whether only really obvious problem cases were treated. Likewise, if ever a CU was performed regarding my account. I would also like to know whether cross-project CU's based on a SUL account are possible. More specific, if they are performed by CheckUsers, who only obtained their CU-status by an election on Commons. Wikiklaas (talk) 20:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Projektübergreifend CUs durchführen geht nicht. Aber es ist hier möglich, dass gegen dich ein CU ausgeführt würde, wenn in einem externen Forum jemand behaupten würde, du wärest identisch mit Benutzer:XYZ, wobei es egal ist, ob du oder Benutzer:XYZ hier beide jeweils Zehntausende an Beiträgen hätte und es wäre auch egal, ob jemand von euch beiden hier und auf de-WP Adminrechte hätte. Gerüchteküche und Bauchgefühl eines Checkuser-Berechtigten ohne irgendwelche handfesten Indizien – es reicht für CU schon aus, dass du in einer Diskussion derselben Meinung wie ein anderer de-Benutzer bist, um verdächtigt zu werden, dass ihr dieselbe Person seid – reichen hier bereits aus, damit nach einer Anfrage, die nicht mal auf den CU-Seiten selbst stattfinden muss, ein Check durchgeführt werden kann (Beispiel des letztjährigen Checks von Saibo und Niabot, beide Zehntausende von Beiträgen und einer gewählter Admin hier und auf de:). Wenn eine Beschwerde hier auf Commons schnellgeschlossen wird, ohne dass der betreffende CUB überhaupt nur dazu Stellung bezogen hat, und man gegen ein solches Vorgehen protestiert, dann wird einem wiederum mit einer Sperre gedroht. So läuft CU auf Commons, und das finden die Meisten hier normal. Zu irgendwelchen Konsequenzen führen derartige CU-Checks hier nicht. --Geitost diskusjon 09:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Last modified on 20 June 2013, at 09:03