Wiktionary talk:CheckUsers

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

Beer parlour bit[edit]

Moved from the Beer Parlor --Dangherous 20:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: This was not moved from BP after conversation died down, rather, it was moved while conversation was still active. Check BP or BP archives and re-synchronize before posting wayward comments here. --Connel MacKenzie T C 19:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Conversation archived without further changes to it prior to its copying here. — Vildricianus 12:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, considering our sock-puppet professional vandal (ex***t) I was thinking that it may be a good idea to give the CheckUser permission (help, policy) to some people here. According to the policy, these rights must be given to at least 2 people on a wiki if given to any. In my opinion, it should be given to bureaucrats, or maybe very trusted admins, that understands how ip works (ip ranges and whois). Could you organize a vote or something?

Also, does somebody know where to ask if we want to checkuser the vandal of yesterday? Kipmaster 09:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

In principle I have no particular objection to this idea. Currently, AFAIK the only admin with this power is Jon in his capacity as a steward. Extending, this to bureaucrats is fine with me, even though I have personally not sought this. Having this apply to selected other admins opens up the question of who would be trusted with it. The issue here is the ability to deal fairly with others, and a history of being able to avoid fights. I may not have the technical familiarity that is required, but that is learnable if circumstances require. I trust our other bureaucrat's social skills, but know absolutely nothing about his technical abilities. I look forward to his comments on this. Eclecticology 17:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I have no desire to have this privilege, if that is what you mean. My tentacles are spread out thinly enough already. And I could do without accusations of abuse of that ability. If you are uncomfortable doing nslookups, whois', traceroute/tracert's and learning the nuances of CIDR address notation, perhaps we should check the meta: pages more closely: meta does not demand that such a person be a sysop, let alone a bureaucrat, right? I'd be comfortable with anyone that knows how to check and comprehend these: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] and [7]. --Connel MacKenzie T C 19:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
If you do not desire the privilege, the question of your suitability is moot. Please note that the only persons that were identifiably mentioned in my above comments are Jon and Paul. (Maybe I should have mentioned George and Ringo? :-)) Thank you for the links, I'll look into them further when needed. Eclecticology 19:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I couldn't be trusted with checkuser! However, it may be necessary to create a Wiktionary:CheckUser page. --Dangherous 19:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I agree that our current bureaucrats seem like less than optimal choices for the CheckUser privilege. I'll start off some nominations of people I've seen demonstrate internet savvy that I'd be comfortable with having the ability. I do not know if each of these four desire this ability/responsibility. --Connel MacKenzie T C 19:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I think that the most trustworthy people on Wiktionary are our Bureaucrats, especially Eclecticology. I haven't taken a single remark from him personally, whereas every single word of criticism Mac has ever given me I have taken personally because I knew it was maliciously intended.--Primetime 20:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Our bureaucrats, although trustworthy perhaps, are clearly not technically savvy enough to notice your abuses, Primetime. That alone is perfect justification for excluding them from consideration with this complicated tool. --Connel MacKenzie T C 20:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I think it's ironic that you are lecturing me about abuses.--Primetime 20:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    • How about User:Uncle G? He's savvy, and gets involved with CheckUser on Wikipedia (to some extent at least). Anyway, I'm going to copy this to Wiktionary:CheckUser, and advise that you do similar. --Dangherous 20:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
      • If he's not too busy, I'd be happy with him being given this ability here. --Connel MacKenzie T C 20:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • First, User:Kipmaster, a request for CheckUser can be made here or in #wikimedia-steward, any steward can do this by request. Second, I know that Essjay has some experience with reading the output of a checkuser, and can probably be of some assistance to whomever gets these priveledges. While I don't think that WikiMedia requires that the person with CheckUser be a sysop or bureaucrat, I think that we should restrict it to people from these groups for two reasons: they have the ability to act on the results, which cannot be made available to people without the CheckUser ability (due to the privacy policy), and second a vote of confidence has been made in those people, they have established that they are trusted in the community, which is important also. - TheDaveRoss 20:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm certainly willing to act as a technical advisor for anyone with the priviledge; I have CheckUser on the English Wikipedia, and have experience with it on other wikis. I can also provide insight into the skill set required for checkuser, if the community is interested. It is generally taken that anyone with CheckUser on one project can be trusted with results from another project, so it should be no problem for whomever is elected here to share results with other checkusers (whether they be en.wiki checkusers, or stewards, or from other projects). If I were more active on this project, I would toss my hat in the running, however, I think my RfA is a demonstration that I've not put in enough time here. As it stands, if those elected need help with it (specifically when it comes down to decisions like "is this a case of two users on a shared IP, or one user with sockpuppets") I'm certainly willing to help out. Essjay 07:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


Sorry, I didn't realize I'd been nominated or that there was a thing called CheckUser. Now that I know if nobody objects to me I think I can accept this responsibility although I should state now that since I'm still backpacking through Central America, I'm often limited as to how much I can do. — Hippietrail 16:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I thank you for your display of trust ;) However, my time at the moment is quite severly restricted, and frankly I don't expect to be around very much over the next year or so... (Also, I'd hve needed to do some serious study of how to interpret correctly the results of such a check, and so on...) So thanks, but no. \Mike 04:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I nominate User:Vildricianus for checkuser. We may find that covering all hours of the day is as important to CheckUser as it is for regular sysop activities.

Before any voting begins, I think each nominee should indicate whether they've read the policy page(s) on meta: regarding this. The Foundation seems to be very serious about the privacy exposure issues. --Connel MacKenzie T C 02:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

  • As nobody else seems to have yet (if they have already then I apologize), I nominate Connel MacKenzie and (CMK already turned it down. --Dangherous 12:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC))SemperBlotto for it - in my eyes more trustworthy than the other ragamuffins dedicated and respected users. --Dangherous 12:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    • No thanks - being a sysop is trouble enough. SemperBlotto 13:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC) - but if I'm asked again, I don't mind being a bureaucrat (it would have been useful last night} SemperBlotto 16:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
      • While I agree that you'd be a fine 6th B'crat, it would not have helped last night...B'crats cannot remove the sysop flag, last I heard. --Connel MacKenzie 20:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I've changed my mind. After the recent Wonderfool/Dangherous/Anonymous editors/Thewayforward incident, I now do wish to run for CheckUser on the English Wiktionary. --Connel MacKenzie 00:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • For the record, if I ever become a bureaucrat, I decline the CU nomination. — Vildricianus 08:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Is there some reason we never nominated User:Jhs as an English Wiktionary CheckUser? As a steward, he has done a couple for us. I'm sure he'd appreciate not having to jump through the meta: hoops each time...but is there any reason he was forgotten in our nominations? Does meta: have some strange rule about not being a CU and steward at the same time? --Connel MacKenzie 16:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
ok, I add him to the list (Kip) -- 14:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


When do we vote? (Kip, public computer) -- 14:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC).

In a couple of weeks time, when more people are back from summer languor. — Vildricianus 21:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


I have experience on other wikis with Checkuser powers, I might as well throw my hat in the ring, since no one else seems interested. Geo.plrd 20:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Offer to extend guest status[edit]

I currently have guest checkuser status on Wiktionary per a request made through the Foundation, to deal with some specific recent incidents. I am not particuarily involved in Wiktionary, but if the community wishes for me to continue in that status, I am willing to do so, with one contingency: if elected to the Board of Trustees, I would necessarily have to resign. For those of you who don't know me, I've been a checkuser on enwiki since November of 2005, and as a result am something like the third heaviest user of checkuser in all of Wikimedia. Anyway, my services are available if the Wiktionary community is interested in having them. Kelly Martin 22:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Isn't there a mandatory redundant CU built into the foundation language on the subject? If we keep Kelly we should get a second one anyhow shouldn't we? - TheDaveRoss 16:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Requirements for Checkers[edit]

It may be beneficial to set up a criteria for candidates, we haven't yet for Sysops, but they are once in a while shot down for too few edits or for too short a stay at this project, so perhaps we can kick this role off right by determining what makes one eligable for being a CheckUser enabled person. My thoughts follow:

A nominee should have:

  1. Community support.
    At least 25 votes of support, ammounting to >80% of the total voters and abstainers, a vote being a registered user with more than 50 edits over at least 2 weeks prior to the start of the vote.
  2. Personal Edit Count.
    At least 500 edits to en.wiktionary.
  3. Long term dedication to the project.
    Have been a registered, contributing member of the community for 3 months.

The portions which I italicised I assume would change based on what people feel are more reasonable durations, but they are starting points, also there may be more criteria which people feel are important, ability and trustworthiness both can be established based on the first criteria I think. - TheDaveRoss 20:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

According to these criteria, some of the people nominated do not qualify. Should we do something about it? Kipmaster 14:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Ammend the criteria, or the list of nominees, I pulled most of the numbers out of thin air, and the other few (25 votes and 70-80% consensus) from meta's requirements. The requirements may be unreasonable, which is the purpose of this discussion ;) - TheDaveRoss 16:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

decision time?[edit]

We now have three people with more than 25 votes each. Can we progress this now? What do we have to do? SemperBlotto 16:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

It is now up to the nominees to request the status on Meta...or from Jon I suppose. But I agree, more than a month has transpired, they ought to do so. - TheDaveRoss 17:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
OK. I thought it was running for at least two months, though. I guess that was based on other smaller projects. --Connel MacKenzie 17:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
After a full month, with more than 25 supports and no opposition, I think it is safe to say that the community has spoken. If there were contentious candidates I would say keep it going, but as none of the folks who have more than 25 votes have debate attached...what is the point of waiting? - TheDaveRoss 17:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I've hit a snag. The m:Requests for permissions page (apparently a new change?) indicates that a local bureaucrat must do it. So, as soon as one of our b'crats feels like it, they can set all three? --Connel MacKenzie 17:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I verified on IRC that our b'crats cannot set Checkuser flags. So...


--Connel MacKenzie 05:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I, apparently (not tested yet), have been given the flag now. I think it's the same for the others. Thanks! Kipmaster 11:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)