User talk:FT2/CU

Note
We have a policy page for Oversight as used on English Wikipedia, but never had one for CheckUser, just an RFCU page and the brief policy at Meta. That's despite CheckUser being used a lot on this wiki.

Page contains the following, to put it in context. It is mirrored on the page we have for WP:OVERSIGHT (there isn't one for CU at present), but has more that needs saying due to the nature of the tool: FT2 (Talk 13:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Introduction - what is CheckUser, who can use it, who approves access to it
 * 2) Current WMF CheckUser policy (as it presently stands)
 * 3) Privacy policy (including statement of key provisions) and overview of how it historically interacts with CheckUser on English Wikipedia
 * 4) IP-user account linkage issues and how this is presently handled - both that it can happen and why, and to minimize it.
 * 5) CU data is not retained indefinitely
 * 6) Guidance (again copied from meta CU policy) on privacy and CheckUser
 * 7) Statement in bold that CheckUsers are expected to validate the need for a check whomever from, and be prepared to explain in future.
 * 8) Copy from Meta's CheckUser help page on using the tool
 * 9) CheckUser logs - what they show, what they don't - and again, the need to be able to explain ones actions (including checks)
 * 10) Assignment and removal of the right (copied from english WP's oversight policy
 * 11) Complaints and misuse from Meta
 * 12) List of current CheckUsers

Looks good
I'm quite surprised we don't already have a page like this. Anyhow, looks like you've got everything covered, and I see no reason not to move it to project space. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Everything looks fine to me, the page covers all the main points well, outlines the policy and isn't overly verbose to the stage where it can't be understood by newer users requiring checkuser assistance. I see no reason why this can't be moved to the project space. Nick (talk) 18:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Jolly good show
This appears to document existing practice, and does clarify a few points editors "in the know" are already aware of by osmosis but which could stand wider publication. Endorsed. &mdash; Coren (talk) 22:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I endorse that this is policy. &mdash; Coren (talk) 22:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)