Wikipedia talk:CheckUser

The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.

Archives:

/Archive1 - to April 2008 (old page, prior to creation of policy page)
/Archive2 – to July 2009

hey so

I was kinda skimming the article, but question: is sockpuppetry the main motivation behind checking a user? if so, sin't that perhaps kind of limiting? dedicated enemies of the good 'pedia community are probably a little more clever than this policy would sugg.. Bingo Bob 20:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should read the m:CheckUser policy if you want to know more. In short, no, it's not limiting, and checkuser is a useful tool. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 18:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

k, I will look at that. meantime, I guess I wonder what's primary, fighting the trickiest IP-switching vandals, or developing a policy (assuming any development is currently going on) that gives a lot of weight to protecting the privacy (synonymous with anonymity? in this context) of the average user? hmm. I guess that's what I'm wondering right now. Bingo Bob 23:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We already have such a policy. m:Privacy policy. Based on your questions I'm guessing you've not actually read the project page associated with this talk page, since this question is answered directly on that page. Please do read it before asking further questions. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 19:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the account who posed the question has been blocked indefinitely as an abusive sockpuppet, along with several other socks. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 22:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Final call for voting in Checkuser/Oversight election

The August 2009 CheckUser and Oversight elections will end at 23:59 UTC on August 10, in approximately 3.5 hours. Voting is currently underway.

For the Arbitration Committee
Risker (talk) 20:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Three Audit Subcommittee vacancies: Call for applications

The process to appoint the three non-arbitrator members of the Audit Subcommittee is underway, with the election itself starting on 30 October. If you think you may be suitably qualified, please see the election pages for the job specification and application arrangements. Applications close 22 October 2009.

For the Arbitration Committee, Roger Davies ^talk 21:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fishing in reverse

This policy doesn't seem to address (or I missed it) a sort of "reverse fishing" that I'm contemplating.

That is -- unlike fishing -- you know exactly who the sockmaster is, and you want to identify the latest socks. Given a persistent sockmaster (in the instance on my mind, we've identified fifty-four accounts so far) and given that the socking is specifically done to evade an indefinite ban, is it possible to just run a routine "So, how many accounts did "dear little Jessica" create this month?" kind of check? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Make that 63 identified socks... WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Three Audit Subcommittee vacancies: Urgent call for applications

The process to appoint the three non-arbitrator members of the Audit Subcommittee is underway. If you are suitably qualified, please see the election pages for the job specification and application arrangements. Applications close 22 October 2009.

For the Arbitration Committee, Roger Davies ^talk 19:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IPBE monitoring

I believe most of the IPBE entries at Wikipedia:Database reports/Inactive users in user groups can be deflagged as totally inactive, but can a checkuser maintain that tracking and deflagging? MBisanz ^talk 16:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Audit Subcommittee elections: Urgent! Final call for applications

Time is rapidly running out. The closing date for completed applications is 23:59 (UTC) 22 October 2009. If you are interested in becoming one of the three non-arbitrator members of the Audit Subcommittee, see the election pages now for the job specification and application details.

For the Arbitration Committee, Roger Davies ^talk 17:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

I have been thinking about the solution on people who accuse innocent editors of sock puppetry. Here is my proposal. How about we enforce the rules for people who accuse innocent editors by telling them that they cannot accuse unless there are at least 20 articles that are similar and the editing style have to be similar. That means they cannot accuse innocent editors of sock puppetry if there are less than 20 articles that are similar. If the editing style is similar but there are less than 20 similar articles between the two accounts, they cannot accuse which means they cannot ask the clerks to use the CheckUser. It is getting abusive for clerks to have to use CheckUser on innocent editors. I think that we should assume good faith on innocent editors. It's not fair to them that they were accused of sock puppetry. Robert9673 (talk) 00:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course this would also enforce the rules of not allowing editors who use multiple accounts to disrupt Wikipedia. If they see that their behavior is unwelcome, clearly these people would stop and we will see a peaceful Wikipedia for years to come. Robert9673 (talk) 01:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons.

Discussion

Any additional comments: