Wikipedia talk:CheckUser/Archive 4

Request the log checked to see if I have been CUed secretly

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1. I request to have the log checked to see if I have been CUed secretly. I am concerned about the possible misuse of this tool (on me).


 * A. On or around 19JUL when I filed a public SPI, honorably and honestly. (I was assured by Risker that I had not been, but I would like someone other than her or Hersfold to check and let me know please whether anyone ran one on me around then.)


 * B. On or around 13JUL (I had opposed Hersfold in RfB and he did not take it well...I want to know if anyone ran a CU on me around then.


 * C. Ever (secretly, that is. I am already aware, now, of the negative from a public SPI in August.)

2. I request that any future SPIs that I file or are run on me, NOT be from Hersfold (I consider the previous handling improper given the tiff at the RfB) or by Risker. There are plenty of other people who can handle this stuff and I don't need a softie. Can be Elen or Allison since I hear good things about them or...just even whoever.

P.s. This is a legit request. The way you police each other's access is by being able to check on how each other is using the tool. I'd like someone trustworthy to check on the past CUs, please.

TCO (Reviews needed) 22:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I suspect you'd be happier addressing these questions to the audit subcommittee rather than us. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 22:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You seem pretty fair. How about you just answer question 1 A-C. 2.  is just a statement for the record.TCO (Reviews needed) 23:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Volunteers have enough to do without answering questions with no clear reason. I do not think a precedent should be made whereby someone can require an investigation in the terms outlined. Those with CU are trusted volunteers and there is no practical way to answer requests like this, particularly since there is no answer that could give satisfaction: What if someone did perform a CU—what does that show? What if someone says "no CUs were done"—how does that settle anything? Johnuniq (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

If someone says no CUs were done, it settles it. I would trust such a statement made in public. It's a serious concern. (The look on my face right now is very serious. This is not a game or a joke.)  If any of your colleagues will answer the question, I appreciate it.TCO (Reviews needed) 02:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

TCO, without screwing myself over, although I'm not a CU, I'm pretty sure the link you want for this is the Audit subcommittee. If your safety is in danger, is the place to go. Other than that, CUs have the right of not to inform you of a check. That's all i'm going to say and let the functionaries deal with the rest of this, and I hope i'm not impeding on any response from them. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  09:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Audit Subcommittee vacancies: Call for applications (2012)
The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint at least three non-arbitrator members to the Audit Subcommittee.

The Audit Subcommittee ("AUSC") was established by the Arbitration Committee to investigate complaints concerning the use of CheckUser and Oversight privileges on the English Wikipedia, and to provide better monitoring and oversight of the CheckUser and Oversight positions, and use of the applicable tools.

Matters brought before the subcommittee may be time-sensitive and subcommittee members should be prepared and available to discuss cases promptly so they may be resolved in a timely manner. Sitting subcommittee members are expected to actively participate in AUSC proceedings and may be replaced should they become inactive. All subcommittee members are subject to the relevant local and global policies and guidelines concerning CheckUser and Oversight.

If you think you may be suitably qualified, please see the appointments page for further information. The application period is scheduled to close 31 January 2012.

For the Arbitration Committee, – xeno talk 18:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Discuss this

Audit Subcommittee appointments (2012): Invitation to comment on candidates
The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint at least three non-arbitrator members to the Audit Subcommittee, and is now seeking comments from the community regarding the candidates who have volunteered for this role.

Interested parties are invited to review the appointments page containing the nomination statements supplied by the candidates and their answers to a few standard questions. Community members may also pose additional questions and submit comments about the candidates on the individual nomination subpages or privately via email to.

Following the consultation phase, the committee will take into account the answers provided by the candidates to the questions and the comments offered by the community (both publicly and privately) along with any other relevant factors before making a final decision regarding appointments.

The consultation phase is scheduled to end 23:59, 19 February 2012 (UTC), and the appointments are scheduled to be announced by 29 February 2012.

For the Arbitration Committee, – xeno talk 04:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Discuss this

Edit request on 28 February 2012
Under "Notifying the account that is checked", one of the links have a ) randomly placed.

Jarrodmaddy (talk) 15:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see it? Only a parenthetical phrase: "… (on a community process page like Sockpuppet investigations) …". Amalthea  15:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Clicktracking usage
Is clicktracking data used by the checkuser?Smallman12q (talk) 00:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope. mw:Extension:CheckUser is all that is used. --jpgordon:==( o ) 05:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Audit Subcommittee appointments (2012)
Effective 1 March 2012,, , and are appointed as community representatives to the Audit Subcommittee. The period of appointment will be 1 March 2012 to 28 February 2013. is designated as an alternate member of the subcommittee and will become a full member should one of the appointees resign their role during the term. The Arbitration Committee thanks all of the candidates, as well as the many members of the community who participated in the appointment process for these roles.

The Arbitration Committee also extends its thanks to who is expected to remain in office until 31 March 2012.


 * Support motion: AGK, Casliber, Courcelles, Elen of the Roads, Hersfold, Jclemens, Kirill Lokshin, PhilKnight, Risker, Roger Davies, Xeno.


 * Not voting: David Fuchs, Newyorkbrad, SilkTork, SirFozzie.

For the Arbitration Committee, – xeno talk 17:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Discuss this

Old Special:CheckUser/Log redirects to odd page
For your reference, the old Special:CheckUser/Log redirects to Special:CheckUser, not the new Special:CheckUserLog. I'm not sure if r112586 is responsible or not, but to aid in backwards-compatibility the old Special:CheckUser/Log should redirect to the new Special:CheckUserLog and not (as it currently is) to Special:CheckUser. I submitted a bug to enquire about this. AGK [•] 22:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Recommendation for a clarification of the rules
I am dubious as to whether this will be taken seriously but I would like to recommend that some clarifying guidance be given regarding when it is or is not appropriate to label a user as a sockpuppet. There has been several discussions lately, including several regarding my account, regarding labelling an account as a sockpuppet/master and I recommend this: The current rules seem to be very fuzzy in regards to when it is or isn't appropriate to add the tag and I personally feel if there has not been an SPI open and completed on a user then there is no grounds to lable them a sock.
 * If an account has not been the subject of an SPI then the sock tags are not appropriate.
 * If an account has been the subject of an SPI and is found then the tags are added as applicable.

Aside from my personal feelings on the matter, the stygma associated with being a sockpuppet/master is such that, to accuse some users of it, will likely provoke them to perform the behavior they are accused of. Additionally, it goes against the purpose of Cleanstart and other rules that are in place to allow users a chance to redeem themselves, to contribute and to 138.162.8.57 (talk) 20:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)(Kumioko)


 * Not an easy topic. I don't think that CUs have a common stance here, let alone the community as a whole. Here's my opinion:
 * Sock tags are generally useful if an account was used to mislead, deceive, disrupt with multiple accounts. It makes it explicit, and the accounts contributions can then be seen in the appropriate context.
 * If an admin blocks an account for abuse of multiple accounts, it is implicit that she thinks the account was used to mislead/deceive/disrupt, and the tag then is appropriate.
 * The admin must of course have cause to think that, and must be able to produce evidence for that. That can be an SPI page, but I wouldn't insist on it. I understand that you, being on the receiving end, want to have clear process, but then there's WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, which is important. I'd say an admin blocking for multiple-account abuse should either have an SPI page to link to, leave a talk page block notice that makes it explicit (with diffs), or consider it blatantly obvious by contributions. CUs probably have more leeway if they have technical evidence, and with LTAs it may depend on the situation what is considered appropriate or necessary.
 * CLEANSTART has some very explicit and very difficult requirements, namely that you must avoid "behaviors that would allow other users to recognize and identify the [old] account". That of course broke down when you posted to your old talk page on the second day.
 * Whether you have abused multiple accounts, and whether that required block, is a whole different question. I've only glanced at your talk page discussion, and it can maybe be argued that your insistence was an attempt to "mislead", but I'm not so sure: It was a lost cause at that point, but CLEANSTART does put you between a rock and a hard place. I don't think one can pull it off without being somewhat misleading.
 * Amalthea 22:31, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Request to reset password for a locked account with no Email
A couple of months ago I got fed up with the drama, removed my email and scrambled my password. Since then I have done a few edits but I have found that to be almost impossible due to the constant captchas (sometimes requiring 4 or 5 before it accepts it) and other limitations of IP editing that generally seem to be in place to force users to create an account. Before I give up in frustration or am forced to create a new account I want to use my old one. Plenty of editors have met me in person and can Identify me by sight, if needed. I still do not intend to do much but after only a couple months I am already tired of the IP issues. My username was Kumioko. If necessary I can send an EMAIL to someone as verification from that account with a link to an image of me on Wikipedia with several other members of the community. 138.162.8.57 (talk) 18:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you ever email anyone through the MediaWiki interface? ("This e-mail was sent by user "FOO" on the English Wikipedia to user "MBisanz". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents.") If you emailed the same person with the same email you had registered so they could say they had the earlier and current emails from the same address, I could do a usurption of the old username with a new account.  MBisanz  talk 19:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Yes I emailed quite a few users. I don't think a Userpation would work though. I have over 320, 000 edits and as I understand it there is a software limitation preventing usurpation for accounts with that high of an edit count (I think the limit is like 30K but I can't remember). I also had a global account that worked on Commons, Wiktionary and a couple of others so I'm not sure if that would cause a problem. If it is possible are there any drawbacks to doing that? If it helps here is a list of some of the users I haev Emailed and know my email as associated with Kumioko. Magioladitis, RichFarmbrough, Berean Hunter, Aude, Pharos, Sarah Stierch. I can provide plenty of others if needed. 138.162.8.58 (talk) 20:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Kumioko, send me an email to verify it is you. I believe you and can confirm this for you. I have to go out for a bit but I can respond here later. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  20:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have received email from Kumioko with the proper email address and other details which confirm that it is him. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  20:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. 138.162.8.57 (talk) 20:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If I delete your SUL, it might reset the password on your en.wiki account to whatever it was before you unified it. It also might reset your email to your prior email on your non-enwiki accounts. It's the only way I know of and is not a sure thing. Do you want me to try that?  MBisanz  talk 20:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This is my home IP. Sure go ahead and give it a shot. 71.163.243.232 (talk) 23:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, try it now.  MBisanz  talk 00:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It didn't work but thanks for trying. I tried to login with the old password and I tried to reset the lost password but it told me there was no email present. 71.163.243.232 (talk) 02:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know how, but I managed to rename it, so you should be able to re-register it. I hope I didn't break anything.  MBisanz  talk 02:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, It seems to have worked. It wiped my watchlist and set my edits back to zero though but its all good. Kumioko (talk) 02:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Request:
Could one of you good folk have a look at this thread in reference to User:Kim brownn and a possible phishing attempt for passwords? I blocked the account, but it's been suggested that a CU might be in order - and if this is the wrong place to post, feel free to move to whatever area it should be in. Thanks. — Ched : ?  17:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

2012 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Call for applications
The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint additional users to the CheckUser and Oversight teams. Experienced editors are invited to apply for either or both of the permissions, and current holders of either permission are also invited to apply for the other. There is a particular need for Oversight candidates in this round of appointments.

Successful candidates are likely to be regularly available and already familiar with local and global processes, policies, and guidelines especially those concerning CheckUser and Oversight. CheckUser candidates are expected to be technically proficient, and previous experience with OTRS is beneficial for Oversight candidates. Trusted users who frequent IRC are also encouraged to apply for either permission. All candidates must at least 18 years of age; have attained legal majority in their jurisdiction of residence; and be willing to identify to the Wikimedia Foundation prior to receiving permissions.


 * Current demand for users with regional knowledge: Because of the increasing activity from the South Asian, Southeast Asian, or Middle Eastern regions, CheckUser applications are particularly sought from people who not only meet our general requirements but also are familiar with the ISPs and typical editing patterns of any of these regions.

If you think you may be suitably qualified, please see the appointments page for further information. The application period is scheduled to close 15 June 2012.

For the Arbitration Committee, Risker (talk) 02:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Discuss this