Wikipedia talk:CheckUser/Archive 6

Rangeblocking
I quote from WP:RANGE —"If you propose to block a significant range, or for a significant time, consider asking a user with checkuser access to check for collateral damage – that is, for the presence of other users who may be unintentionally affected by the range block. Alternately, if you are unsure whether or not disruptive edits from a specific range can be matched to a single user, you can post a request at sock puppet investigations where an administrator or a checkuser will attempt to match users with IP addresses."Is all of this accurate? I seem to remember reading that the collateral damage check is fine, because the only answers are "go ahead, since you won't affect any registered users" and "don't do it, since you'll hurt some registered users"; nothing is said about any specific editors. On the other hand, is anyone really going to "attempt to match users with IP addresses"? Nyttend (talk) 03:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, it's badly worded, for certain; however, that's pretty much what checkusers do, with a little extra twist of reviewing user agents and other information as well. Having said that, yes, there are real benefits in having significant rangeblocks discussed with at CU before application, and there are some ranges that should probably never be blocked, even if there's significant disruption from them. (Examples: certain countries with small ranges can be shut out almost completely, certain ISPs - particularly mobile ranges - with extremely dynamic IPs often result in significant collateral damage.) The type of range block is also a factor. A "soft" block that only prevents logged-out editing won't affect accounts, but a "hard" block will block everyone who is not an administrator. Hard blocks of ranges of any size should be run by a checkuser, should never be indefinite, and even hard blocks of individual IPs should be time-limited.  Risker (talk) 03:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee review of procedures (CU & OS)
By resolution of the committee, our rules and internal procedures are currently being reviewed with the community. You are very welcome to participate at WT:AC/PRR. Information on the review is at WP:AC/PRR. The current phase of the review is examining the committee's procedures concerning advanced permissions (and the appointment and regulation of permissions holders). AGK [•] 11:22, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Participate in this review

Possible loophole - - Who has CheckUser rights, really?
I added this to the page, as an option for Contacting a CheckUser, with the edit summary that follows
 * A regular administrator on meta; meta administrators regularly self-grant CheckUser access only for the time needed to perform a CheckUser.
 * Contacting a CheckUser: Of last 50 edits, about 13 show CheckUser access self-granted, only for a brief time. https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=&year=2014&month=5)

Legoktm reverted with the summary
 * those are stewards who can't check on enwp by policy

I tried to verify that this is true. The closest I got was finding "Stewards generally do not perform actions on wikis where local users are available to perform them, except in emergency or cross-wiki cases.", at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards. However, that page isn't policy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Global_rights_policy#Stewards states that https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards_policy says that the global stewards policy says that stewards should not use their global rights to perform tasks that could be performed by local users. But I think it's just the non-policy page I linked to that says that; the actual global stewards policy page does not. Thoughts on how should this be addressed? Move content from the non-policy page to a policy page?

Also, I wonder why these stewards are just transiently giving themselves this right. Does that help or hurt the ability of the https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ombudsman_commission to perform oversight? , you're a member of the commission; can you comment, please?-- &#123;&#123;U&#124;Elvey&#125;&#125; (t•c) 20:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Speaking as a steward, I can tell you that among the active stewards, outside of certain clear-cut cases (an Arbcom requesting removal of rights, a self-req rights removal, active prevention of ongoing wide-spread cross-wiki vandalism) it is strongly discouraged for people who without local flags to use their steward flag on projects, outside of emergencies (which are usually time-sensitive OS issues). In these situations, it is incumbent on the steward to then immediately notify the local users (OS or CU) for them to review the stewards' actions. The stewards are all actively very careful of this; while I cannot say that it is policy, it is certainly treated as a very strong guideline. The reason why we give ourselves local rights instead of just assigning global rights to the steward group (which is permitted under the definition of stewards) is that we stewards voluntarily want to ensure that a check and balance exists on us and that we can be audited. While I believe (but have not checked) that even were we to run a global check on a project, the check itself appears in the local log, by requiring local rights, we ensure there is a log anyone can see on meta where we have granted ourselves said right. The only exception are members of the OC, which are assigned global CU rights for their use in following up on complaints. For steward/OC members, when we are acting as stewards, we assign ourselves local rights for the reasons listed above. -- Avi (talk) 14:55, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Considering nothing can be done about this from enwiki, meta would be the better place to discuss it. Stewards grant and revoke local checkuser access to their own accounts in accordance with two policies: the checkuser policy and the steward policy. The former specifies that stewards can use checkuser by granting and revoking local access. The latter specifies that stewards can perform the role of any user group when one does not exist locally. So, on projects with no local checkusers, we act as checkusers (or rarely we act on projects with checkusers when there is xwiki abuse or in an emergency). The fact that we add and remove ourselves to the local checkuser group from meta maximizes transparency - if this were not done, it would be nearly impossible for the OC and other stewards to review our actions. Ajraddatz (Talk) 20:31, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Something can be done fron enwiki. Enwiki could be more self-reliant / not make (?what have become?) untrue assertions about or rely on policies/pages out of its control.  So is ":those are stewards who can't check on enwp by policy" verifiable or not?  I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or not.
 * I submit that checkuser policy should not say "Stewards - upon request" unless they only have that right upon request, which does not seem to be the case. Rather, it should say "Stewards" or better yet "Stewards" plus something that's accurate - e.g. that stewards self-grant local checkuser access on meta only for a brief time, because that maximizes transparency, but I can raise that there.-- &#123;&#123;U&#124;Elvey&#125;&#125; (t•c) 21:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * To directly answer your question, stewards cannot check on enwiki by policy (specifically the steward policy which states that stewards replace local users when they are not available, such as when a wiki has no local CUs). The rest would be best brought up on meta. Ajraddatz (Talk) 21:28, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Link (to the steward policy which states that) please? I'm aware of the meta non-policy that says, "Stewards generally do not perform actions on wikis where local users are available to perform them, except in emergency or cross-wiki cases.", which I quoted in my original post.-- &#123;&#123;U&#124;Elvey&#125;&#125; (t•c) 21:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * s - the stewards page on meta is a policy, or rather reflects what is done. Specifically "Stewards are empowered to act as members of any permissions group on any project with no active member of that permissions group" and, as you have mentioned, "Stewards generally do not perform actions on wikis where local users are available to perform them". Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:02, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * En:WP can do something, the AUSC can record and publish the number of Steward and other non-local CU/OS actiosn, and ensure that they are properly accounted for. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:14, 31 May 2014 (UTC).

Audit Subcommittee vacancies: Call for applications (2014)
The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint three non-arbitrator members to the Audit Subcommittee ("AUSC"). The Committee is comprised of six members and is tasked with investigations concerning the use of CheckUser and Oversight privileges on the English Wikipedia. The AUSC also monitors CheckUser and Oversight activity and use of the applicable tools. The current non-arbitrator members are Guerillero, MBisanz, and Richwales, whose terms were to expire on June 30 2014 but were extended until August 27 2014 by the Committee.

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 given both CheckUser and Oversight access. They are subject to the relevant local and global policies and guidelines concerning CheckUser and Oversight.

If you think you may be suitably qualified, please email to start the application procedure for an appointment ending 31 August 2015. The application period will close at 23:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC). Further information is also available here.

For the Arbitration Committee, Worm TT( talk ) 09:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Discuss this

Audit Subcommittee vacancies: last call for applications
This is a reminder that the application period for the three non-arbitrator seats on the Audit Subcommittee will close at 23:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC).

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint three non-arbitrator members to the Audit Subcommittee ("AUSC"). The Committee is comprised of six members and is tasked with investigations concerning the use of CheckUser and Oversight privileges on the English Wikipedia. The AUSC also monitors CheckUser and Oversight activity and use of the applicable tools. The current non-arbitrator members are Guerillero, MBisanz, and Richwales, whose terms were to expire on June 30 2014 but were extended until August 27 2014 by the Committee.

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 given both CheckUser and Oversight access. They are subject to the relevant local and global policies and guidelines concerning CheckUser and Oversight.

Please note that due to Wikimedia Foundation rules governing access to deleted material, only applications from administrators will be accepted.

If you think you may be suitably qualified, please email with your nomination statement to start the application procedure for an appointment ending 31 August 2015. The application period will close at 23:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC). Further information is also available here.

For the Arbitration Committee, Worm TT( talk ) 10:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Discuss this

Audit Subcommittee appointments (2014): 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, 12 August 2014 (UTC), and the appointments are scheduled to be announced by 27 August 2014.

For the Arbitration Committee, Worm TT( talk ) 08:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

where to ask re true/claimed identity of a user
If not here, as this seems to be about checking on multiple accounts/sockpuppetry, where is there the appropriate forum to look into a very POV editor's actual identity? their username resembles that of a major PAC of some note, the views of which are mirrored in the discussion I've encountered them in, and their talkpage and contributions history, including not a small amount of misleading edit comments and mis-sourcing/conflating indicate something other than what is claimed on their userpage.Skookum1 (talk) 04:51, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

IP block exemption
I have some concerns and questions on the IP block exemption usergroup, specifically its abuse potential and possible split. I would appreciate some input here. Cenarium (talk) 22:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Questions embedded in text
I've removed these questions by embedded as comments:

, you should contact the Wikimedia Foundation   NE Ent 12:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Checkuser and Oversight appointments 2015: Voting on the candidates
Following community consultation, the Arbitration Committee is now voting on appointments to the Checkuser and Oversight roles at Arbitration/Requests/Motions. Comments are welcomed at that page.

For the Arbitration Committee;

Courcelles (talk) 19:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

2015 Checkuser and Oversight appointments: Candidates appointed
Following community consultation and voting. the Arbitration Committee is pleased to appoint the following users to the Functionary team.


 * is appointed as Checkuser and Oversighter to continue after his term on the Audit Subcommittee expires


 * is appointed as Checkuser and Oversighter.


 * is appointed as a Checkuser.


 * The following users are appointed as Oversighters:




 * The Committee thanks for his years of service as a Checkuser, who has recently resigned from the role.

The Committee would like to thank the community and all the candidates for bringing this process to a successful conclusion.

For the Arbitration Committee;

Courcelles (talk) 03:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Discuss this

Arbitration proposed regarding giving Philippe CheckUser and Oversight tools
A motion has been proposed by the Arbitration Committee to give CheckUser and Oversight tools. Community comments are welcome on the motions page. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Checkuser privileges
It doesn't seem like this talk page gets much traffic but I wanted to raise the question about former arbitrators retaining the checkuser right (see CheckUser). I think that if they are not actively using this ability to assist with sockpuppet investigations or other investigations, former arbitrators shouldn't have this permission indefinitely. Perhaps for a year after they aren't on the Arbitration Committee but I think that since it involves access to private information, if it's not being used for the betterment of Wikipedia, it should removed on the same basis that admin status is removed due to inactivity. If these former arbitrators are helping out at WP:SPI or are involved in doing some editor investigation (which I believe is true with Risker), then there is no reason to remove the privilege. But otherwise, it seems like it is a right that should be relinquished if it is not needed. Liz Read! Talk! 15:23, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Liz, anyone with CheckUser or Oversight permissions are subject to the activity requirements (5 logged actions in 3 months, including one community requested) unless they are a current arb, community auditor or on the Ombudsman Commission. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Regarding this policy
This policy is up for discussion at the policy village pump. Anyone is encouraged to contribute. 50.153.133.28 (talk) 01:19, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

What constitutes a need for CheckUser?
I'm aware that a CU needs quite a bit of evidence in an SPI to use the tool, but what constitutes enough evidence for a CU and what constitutes too much evidence (if there is such a thing)? I've searched several CU Wikipedia policies, but I have yet to find an answer.

Side note: If there is a good answer for this question, it might help to add that answer to a page about CUs somewhere on Wikipedia (if it hasn't already been done) so others know what exactly they need in order for a CU to look at the case.

-- Gestrid (talk) 16:33, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Question
Hi, I have a question as I am curious to know more about how a CheckUser investigation works. Can a CheckUser see if somebody is using the same device or using the same WiFi to edit (for example; just making a scenario up—if somebody got blocked, switched their router off and on again to change their IP address, created a sockpuppet account to get around the block—can a CheckUser check if a person was using the same device—such as a phone, laptop, or desktop computer etc., or using the same WiFi connection to edit)? Plankton55 (talk) 17:20, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Draft looking for feedback
I've started a preliminary draft about outing and COI procedures at User:Tryptofish/Drafts/COI List Draft. Feedback about it is welcome at User talk:Tryptofish/Drafts/COI List Draft. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

There is now a proposal at Village pump (proposals). --Tryptofish (talk) 21:34, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Is "sock puppetry" hyphenated or not?
I know it doesn't really matter, but for the purpose of internal consistency of spelling, should this page use the same unhyphenated form as the title of Wikipedia Sock puppetry? Right now there are six instances of "sock-puppetry", one of "sock puppetry" and two of "sockpuppetry". Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 01:36, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * "...it doesn't really matter". Correct. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 01:44, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I guess （笑） Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 08:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Self-requests
In this edit, User:AGK boldly changed the policy from "Such requests are typically declined on the English Wikipedia" to "Such requests are not accepted on the English Wikipedia". The edit also removed the reason: "note, however, that requesting a checkuser in these circumstances is sometimes part of the attempt to disrupt".

I didn't see any discussions in the archive about this, and I wonder whether that's the ideal form. I've got nothing in particular against a self-requested check, so long as the significant limitations are known (i.e., "can't prove a negative"). But I'm thinking that the practical difference is relatively low – depending upon how you read the sentence. Saying that self-requests are "not accepted, unless someone decides to IAR in extraordinary cases" works for me; "not accepted, meaning absolutely never, and we'll punish any CU who dares to make an exception to the rare case" would not work so well for me. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:40, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Active/Inactive status
It was suggested off-wiki, and I thought it was a good suggestion, that there be an alternate listing of checkuser by status, whether they are active, temporarily inactive or just plain inactive. It is actually the normal behavior for arbitrators, arbitration clerks and SPI clerks to declare their status and I don't see why it wouldn't be a good idea for checkusers, too. The rationale for adopting this standard was an observation that there are checkusers who regularly take time off and don't post a notice about it on their talk page. So, editors or admins who were seeking information about a block they had imposed or investigation they worked on would have no idea of whether they are around, if they are away for months and when they might be returning. If there was a list stating which checkuser were inactive, the editor/admin would know that they should consult an active CUer for clarification or considering an unblock request. I have the suspicion that, as on the arbitration lists, that CUers might post a notice about their unavailability on the functionaries email list. I think sharing this information (just a CUers current status, not when they might go active or inactive and when they might return) would be immensely helpful for editors and admins and I don't see a downside to incorporating this suggestion. Your thoughts? Liz Read! Talk! 15:11, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I approve. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 18:30, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Request to explain types of CheckUser privileges
This post is to seek knowledge on how CheckUser privileges work.

As a former webmaster, I can only assume that CheckUser Sysops can query variables such as client IP address, HTTP user agent (e.g. OS, browser version, device make/model), cookies, and session variables that are readily available and transmitted over the web, when certain user click actions occur:


 * login/logout
 * account creation
 * article creation
 * article update
 * article delete

What I want to know is whether CheckUsers can view browsing history of a given IP address. In other words, I want to know:


 * if CheckUsers can view what pages a given IP has read or navigated to?
 * and similarly, if CheckUsers can view what IPs have read or navigated to a given page?

Thank you for your help. --216.133.125.107 (talk) 01:52, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


 * You don't need to post a request across multiple noticeboards, so please just pick one and delete the others. And the answer is no. Checkusers can only view hidden metadata related to logged user actions, so they cannot see what pages an IP has browsed, or what IPs have browsed a given page. They cannot tell how an editor reached a page either. The Wikimedia foundation does collect limited amounts of information about this, but it is only kept in the minimal fashion required to observe the geographic distribution of readership, mitigate dDoS attacks, block TOS violating web crawlers, or whatever other analytics the foundation feels like doing in house. That data is not available to the checkusers. I'll crosspost this, so you can just send followup questions however you feel like, if you feel like, or just ask me at my talk page. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:CU reads like software documentation
I believe this page is neither concise nor thorough enough for the everyday user, a point that has occurred to me at times in many of the numerous SPI investigations I've worked with. WP:UAL explains the function much better. Should I be WP:BOLD and suggest some improvements? Mark Schierbecker (talk) 18:30, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * done. I'll continue tweaking later. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 22:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

CU on undisclosed paid editors
Back in 2015, there was a strong consensus at User:Doc_James/Paid_editing that standards for CU be lowered when investigating undisclosed paid editors and User:Risker recently pointed out on Jimbo's talk page that little had been done to take any of the proposals forward. In my opinion there is too much ambiguity in the current policy as to whether CU can or cannot be used to check suspected undisclosed paid editors and I would appreciate more clarity. I would only suggest that CU is used when it is evident that a user is creating suspect content, and it is highly likely that they are not a new user, or when editors established users are busted as UPEs. i.e. this wouldn't apply to newbies writing about themselves/the company they work for. To me, this falls under the points 3 or 4 of the current grounds for checking but it would help if this was written explicity into policy, either here or at WP:PAID. I guess SPI would still be the best venue, but it would differ from the current position where there needs to be evidence linking accounts, which there often is not if throwaways are used. A contemporary example of a throwaway where this would apply is and an example of an established user is. (Note that I will post on Jimbo's TP about this discussion.) SmartSE (talk) 11:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * First, I'll get a few administrative factors out of the way. First, my view on the legitimacy of the paid editing policy. Second, the "strong consensus" was very limited. Third, we are not able to expand the checkuser policy, we can only limit it's use further. (see the notice at the top of the page that says it's a global policy coming down from the Wikimedia Foundation.
 * On to the actual issue at hand. While we refuse to do checks solely on the basis of paid editing, there are definitely instances where we check accounts that are likely to be socking and paid editing. Looking into Wikiwookie11, I have to challenge your assertion you know this user is not "writing about themselves or the company they work for", how do you know that? I would decline to run a check on this as there is no indication that this account has spread within the article or to other articles. Now if they had recreated a similar page with a new user account after deletion, that would be grounds to run a check. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 13:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well no one opposed it, unlike other proposals that were made and as you point out, this is pretty much the way things are handled at the moment, it's just not written down anywhere. That's fine for those of us who know that CUs will handle it, but not for anyone else who comes across these suspicious accounts. Did you check the deleted contribs? They wrote about several different companies. SmartSE (talk) 13:31, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi all. This page got flagged to me, and I wanted to offer some clarification around the checkuser policy (policies, actually) that might be helpful. First, to the extent I understand the policy structure, I think Amanda is correct that the English language checkuser policy has to match with the global checkuser policy on Meta. Second, WMF legal recently discussed the global checkuser policy in a response to a request from the ombudsman commission where we explained that the global policy was drafted by community members and can be edited by community members (including expanded) if desired. There are limits to any expansion, due to the access to non-public information policy, which limits anyone with the checkuser right and is a WMF-drafted policy that can't be changed. But, within those limits, it's possible for the community to make alterations to the global checkuser policy and potentially then expand the English one to match. That doesn't address the substantive issue here, but I hope that helps with the discussion. -Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 02:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I think that ArbCom should approve any such investigation, possibly provately, to cover the CheckUsers against allegations of fishing expeditions, but yes, this seems like a good idea. Guy (Help!) 21:32, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Arbcom doesn't have anything to do with this, and I'm flabbergasted that anyone would think so. Arbcom can't protect CUs from anything. Someone can take a CU to the Ombuds, and they'll make their ruling based on the interpretations they're used to on their projects (many of which are much, much stricter than Enwiki), and Arbcom doesn't have any say in the matter. Now...having personally led an extremely ambitious "paid editing" related CU review, I can tell you that we *will* do such checks when there's an indication of socking in promotional articles. But also keep in mind, these tend to be very involved and labour-intensive checks, and we don't have great tools to track these things when we're in the middle of a major investigation. Checkuser Wiki isn't flexible enough, and we had to resort to spreadsheets to track our findings. I strongly suspect that only Enwiki CUs do this at all. I'm very certain that English Wikipedia has the lowest bar of all Wikimedia projects when it comes to the use of the CheckUser tool.   Risker (talk) 23:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, stamp me "clueless" and s/ArbCom/$HIGHERAUTHORITY/ of some kind. Point stands: in order for a CU to conduct a check on a possible paid editor, some reasonably transparent and accountable process ought to be in place, while not tipping our hand in advance. I don't think my worst enemy would accuse me of being a supporter or enabler of paid editing, this is all about making sure the CUs have proper air cover in an excrement / air movement system colocation situation. Guy (Help!) 00:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, JzG. There was a point at which I was concerned that I was digging too deep with Orangemoody and could potentially get blasted if someone complained to the Ombuds. The WMF and the Board weren't my worry - they'd actually been read into the situation very early in the investigation and were very supportive. It was the broader Wikimedia community that I was concerned about, and I've had some pretty respected Wikimedians tell me in person that they didn't consider it "best practice". English Wikipedia, for better or worse, is part of that broader community. That we would have even allowed 2/3 of the deleted articles to have been posted to our project instead of speedily deleted counts against getting much sympathy from other projects for our socking problems. Hmmm...some of those articles have been recreated...   Risker (talk) 01:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Allows All Users Limited Checkuser
I think it would help prevent sockpuppets a lot more if all users had a limited check-user-like ability. Now, clearly not all users should have access to the actual content of the check user information (they shouldn't have access to the underlying technical data including client IP address, HTTP user agent, cookies, etc.). Instead, what if all users had the ability to see if any two accounts had ever shared the same client IP address? All you would get are "plausible" (they shared the same IP at least once), or "impossible" (they never shared the same IP). It wouldn't prove that the two accounts are actually the same person (more detailed look at the technical data by an actual check user would be needed for that along with their behavior), but it would be enough to at least start an SPI and examine it closer. Also it couldn't be used when one of the accounts is an IP account (as that would reveal the underlying technical data about the non-IP user). Can anyone identify any potential privacy problems with this? -Obsidi (talk) 18:18, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Think about this: User A publishes their location as Amsterdam. User B is highly private and doesn't want their location to be known more accurately than Planet Earth. If both editors went to the same cafe/library/whatever and edited, your tool out out User B as probably being in Amsterdam. User B's wishes for privacy have just been lost.  &#91; stwalkerster &#124; talk &#93;  17:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The Wikimedia has stringent privacy policies in place for good reason. This proposal/musing violates them and would never be accepted by the community.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:20, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Sock puppetry, only one account identified
I have conclusive evidence of sock puppetry and bad faith editing in violation of both WP:SPAM and WP:PAID, but I have identified only one of the involved accounts. How can I request a CheckUser investigation in this case? It falls under points 2, 3 and 4 of the policy, so a CU intervention should be possible, but it seems that the WP:SPI process is used only for confirming connections between identified suspected accounts. Rentier (talk) 08:12, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * How can you have "conclusive evidence of sock puppetry" when you have only one account?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:34, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Off-wiki evidence in addition to a demonstrably bad faith edit by an editor. Rentier (talk) 15:54, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think this is an important discussion. When one has (1) an obviously not new account which is also (2) obviously involved in promotional paid editing, how do you connect their other potential accounts?
 * We see lots of cases of paid editors that use one account per job. A bunch more here were recently picked up Sockpuppet_investigations/Highstakes00/Archive
 * Per legal's comment here it appears we could adjust CU policy by adjusting the global policy via a meta RfC. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:50, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Meta discussion on CheckUser policy
An RfC has been raised for the CU policy, which would affect the en.wp policy. Meta:Meta:Requests for comment/Clarification to CU policy WormTT(talk</b>) 11:06, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Japan Network Information Center
There is some who is reverting the scandal reported on the Japanese wiki page on  (New York Times etc. ).

The Who is Japan Network Information Center but this isn't a provider is it? The user is using his work network? --Kiyoweap (talk) 15:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

CU/OS activity standards motion proposed: Community comments invited
The Arbitration Committee is currently considering a motion to amend the standing procedure on functionary permissions and inactivity. The proposed change is given below:

Community comments on the change are welcome at the motion page. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 05:15, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Discuss this at: Arbitration/Requests/Motions

Motion: CU/OS activity standards
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that: The standing procedure on functionary permissions and inactivity is amended as follows:

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 05:26, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

2018 CheckUser/Oversight appointments: Candidates appointed
The Arbitration Committee is pleased to appoint the following users to the functionary team:


 * is appointed as an Oversighter.
 * is appointed as a CheckUser.
 * is appointed as an Oversighter.
 * is appointed as a CheckUser.
 * is appointed as a CheckUser and Oversighter.
 * is appointed as an Oversighter.

The Committee thanks the community and all of the candidates for helping bring this process to a successful conclusion.

The Committee also welcomes back the following users to the functionary team:


 * , who voluntarily relinquished his CheckUser and Oversight permissions in December 2015, is reappointed as a CheckUser following a request to the Committee for return of the permission.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Katietalk 14:04, 8 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

MediaWiki:Group-checkuser.css
Hi. I figured that, given that this is directly applicable to check users, and I couldn't find a better place to put this notice, I should post here: I have requested that MediaWiki:Group-checkuser.css be created. See the full explanation and rational at MediaWiki talk:Group-checkuser.css. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 05:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Switching across multiple IPs
I seek a quick Yes/No answer, please:

If an already investigated and blocked sock user now resorts to switching between multiple IPv4 and IPv6 addresses (using each IP for just three or four abusive/threatening edits before each address is individually blocked and revdel-ed), is there anything that an SPI/CU investigation can uncover which can actually lead to substantive action being taken to prevent that person from ever accessing Wikipedia in this way again?

I ask simply so that I know whether it's worth me collating a dozen or so IP addresses and all the relevant diffs to reopen an archived investigation.

Assuming that a connection is definitely proven, can we actually take real measures against them so as to prevent this happening in the future? If they're using an open proxy or VPN to switch addresses and location every time they edit, I presume the answer will be 'No' and we'll just have to live with their disruption and abuse, and deal with each bad action once it has happened? Many thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:14, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * What you suggest is against CU policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:47, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Individual admins can calculate a range block if the IP hoping is public and block it if it is bad enough and it outweighs the collateral. As Bbb23 says CUs would not, however, publicly connect IPs to accounts. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:16, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for that response. Nick Moyes (talk) 07:53, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Birth date question
Are users who want to become checkusers or oversighters required to disclose their birth dates? —Jencie Nasino (talk) 11:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No, but they are required to answer if they are the age of majority in their jurisdiction. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:36, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

CheckUser and Oversight appointments 2019
The Arbitration Committee is accepting applications for appointments as CheckUser and Oversight team members. and are the arbitrators overseeing this process. The names of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, who will be asked for assistance with vetting candidates.


 * Applications: 23 September to 29 September
 * Review period: 30 September to 2 October – the committee will review applications and ask the functionary team for their feedback
 * Notification of candidates: 2 October to 3 October – notification of candidates
 * Community consultation: 4 October to 23:59 UTC, 10 October – candidates' statements published, community is invited to comment
 * Appointments: by 14 October

For the Arbitration Committee,

Katietalk 17:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Information available to CUs?
Is there a list anywhere of sort of information beyond IP addrs is available to CUs and how long that information is retained? I've picked up bits and pieces of this from e.g. CUs saying that an SPI is against accounts that are stale, but I was wondering if there's actual specifications somewhere (so that, for example, I can know whether it's worth requesting a CU when filing an SPA). Of course, if this is a WP:BEANS sort of situation, I'm fine with "can't tell you, sorry" as an answer. creffpublic <sub style="margin-left:-8ex"> a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 15:12, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * We have access to IP and user agent data for 90 days to the second. We have indefinite access to the any check ever performed on a range and the rationale via the CU log, and can search the CU log by time stamp using a user script. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:19, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , perfect, exactly what I was wondering. Thank you! creffpublic <sub style="margin-left:-8ex"> a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 15:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Connecting multiple IP addresses?
If there's multiple IPs suspected of being the same sock, is it within CU policy to see if they're the same device, without being tied to any specific account? For example, in WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Martinvito/Archive, could a CU have said, "based on technical evidence, these two IP addresses came from the same device". Presumably, user agent strings could be used to make that connection. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:50, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * In general, yes it's within policy if there's a good reason to look it up. There are limitations to relying on user agent strings, there are limitations to what a CU can disclose in terms of IP addresses, plus in the case you link I think most people would probably just say DUCK. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:04, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Proposed change to checkuser policy
I've opened an RFC at Village pump regarding a proposed small but important wording change in this policy. If editors watching this page are interested, please contribute to the discussion. Cheers. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Courtesy link: Village_pump_(policy). creffpublic <sub style="margin-left:-8ex"> a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 20:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Question on Wikipedia user accounts with same names (sort of)
I would assume that it's not safe to use CheckUser to determine if it's legit or not with a username having the same one.

In this case, I saw accounts that have the names "Malaysia 6" and "Malaysia 2" on this page history. Ominae (talk) 03:10, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Probably best to file at WP:SPI] and let their people look it over.. They are well suited for determining the need for a CU. Looks already sorted. -- Deep fried okra  User talk:Deepfriedokra 21:17, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

CheckUser works for military or government
Is it legal for a user who takes this tool if he is currently working for the military service or in government sectors? Alphama (talk) 17:00, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, but they would not be permitted to share the information with the government. If you have concerns that a CheckUser on any project has abused their access in this way, you should contact legal@wikimedia.org and ca@wikimedia.org. You can also contact OC. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * So it means that we have to wait for the incidents or abuses that will happen before contacting Wikimedia. But it makes some users do not feel safe btw. Thank you! Alphama (talk) 17:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It depends on the circumstances, but typically yes. Some projects have unique precautions. zh.wiki does not have CUs and to my knowledge fa.wiki has a de facto practice that their CUs do not live in Iran itself. I do not think the English Wikipedia has a practice or policy related to this. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * FWIW, it would be a violation of their non disclosure agreement. -- Deep fried okra  User talk:Deepfriedokra 21:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, I think the WMF would have question for a candidate if that came up in their application and background check. Might be a good question for the FOundation notice board. -- Deep fried okra  User talk:Deepfriedokra 21:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Technical aspects
Is there a place one can learn the technical aspects of running a check user? Imean interpreting the resulting information. -- Deep fried okra  User talk:Deepfriedokra 21:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm a bit late, but the CheckUser extension is public and you can host your own copy of MediaWiki (the software powering Wikipedia), and install the CU extension, and see how it works there. CU queries are done via the Special:CheckUser page. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:44, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

CU-only accounts and their inactivity?
I'd like to draw your attention to this question about the global CU policy. TL;DR: Should the CUs be allowed to have the CU rights attached to a separate user account that they would use only for CU checks? (possibly also with sysop rights for blocking if they have been elected as administrators as well) The point would be to give the CU rights a bit better protection. When 2FA is used, this, in theory, should be less of an issue, but it still makes sense to believe that stealing a CU account or otherwise gaining unauthorized access to it might be easier if the account is also actively used for editing and whatnot (e.g. in the mobile WP app). If you have some thoughts on this, please do share them in the discussion on Meta. Thanks! <span style="font-family:'Droid Sans', Calibri, Verdana, sans; color:silver;">— Luchesar • T/C 12:50, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

2020 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: announcement
The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint additional editors to the Checkuser and Oversight teams. The arbitrators overseeing this will be Bradv, KrakatoaKatie, and Xeno.

The usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will assist in the vetting process.

This year's timeline is as follows:


 * 7 September to 19 September: Candidates may self-nominate by contacting the Arbitration Committee at.
 * 20 September to 23 September: The Arbitration Committee and Functionaries will vet the candidates.
 * 24 September to 26 September: The committee will notify candidates going forward for community consultation and create the candidate subpages containing the submitted nomination statements.
 * 27 September to 7 October: Nomination statements will be published and the candidates are invited to answer questions publicly. The community is invited and encouraged to participate.
 * By 14 October: Appointments will be announced.

For the Arbitration Committee, Katietalk 23:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Contacting the English Wikipedia CheckUser team
Is there any official account for the English Wikipedia CheckUser team like User:Oversight is for the Oversight team through which I can directly email to the entire CheckUser team at once through Wikipedia itself or will I need to manually write an email to checkuser-en-wp@wikipedia.org? TheGeneralUser (talk) 00:44, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , there is no such role account for the CheckUser team at this time, so you will need to send an email to that address directly, I'm afraid. Mz7 (talk) 00:46, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you . TheGeneralUser (talk) 00:49, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Village pump discussion related to "CheckUser blocks" section
There is a village pump discussion on the wording in (WP:CUBL), which is related to the content in the "CheckUser blocks" section. If you are interested, please participate at. —  Newslinger  talk   10:46, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

ISP related discussion at technical village pump
There is a disccusion at which might use technical experince of CUs, and related persons. Regards, —usernamekiran (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

IP Masking Update
Duplicate post from WP:VPWMF

The IP Masking team have provided an update on IP Masking that can be seen here.

Given this will affect many editor's workflows, as well as a fairly significant WP:PERM change, please take the time to look and comment Nosebagbear (talk) 13:12, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: announcement
The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint additional editors to the Checkuser and Oversight teams. The arbitrators overseeing this will be Bradv and KrakatoaKatie. The usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will assist in the vetting process. This year's timeline is as follows:
 * 6 September to 18 September: Candidates may self-nominate by contacting the Arbitration Committee at.
 * 19 September to 23 September: The Arbitration Committee and Functionaries will vet the candidates.
 * 24 September to 26 September: The committee will notify candidates going forward for community consultation and create the candidate subpages containing the submitted nomination statements.
 * 27 September to 6 October: Nomination statements will be published and the candidates are invited to answer questions publicly. The community is invited and encouraged to participate.
 * By 17 October: Appointments will be announced.

For the Arbitration Committee, Katietalk 11:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Is it "CheckUser", "Checkuser", or "checkuser"?
The tool is called CheckUser. The permission is called  (because all permissions are lowercase). But what do you call a person with  who can use CheckUser to check users? The first sentence of this page says "Checkuser", which is also the name used by the software (e.g. at Special:ListGroupRights and Special:ListUsers, although all groups' first letters are capitalized there ), but other parts of the policy call the user group "CheckUser" (CheckUsers must be 18 years of age) and "checkuser" (Guide to checkusers).

This has been nagging at me for a bit, and then brought it up independently at Template talk:SPI archive notice, and I said I'd follow up here before changing the capitalization in the template (which is inconsistent, as it is on this page). So, which is it? -- Tamzin (she/they) &#124; o toki tawa mi. 20:16, 21 June 2021 (UTC), edited 20:41, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I was interested in this as well (and I have recently boldly unified the spelling on the page on Meta). I'm neutral as to whether it should be "CheckUser" or "checkuser", but "Checkuser" looks like an unnecessary capitalisation to me (as would be "Adminstrator"). User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)  20:37, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The comment at the top of the page is interesting: Typically, CamelCase is not used for every iteration of the word "checkuser". This page follows the following convention: an editor has access to "CheckUser" or "checkuser" but is themself a "Checkuser". Other iterations may be found elsewhere, and this message is merely advisory - so don't edit war over something silly like this. Not sure why the user role should be capitalised. User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)  14:05, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not even consistent within the document, but I think the intent is for CheckUser to be the name of the tool, and the users with access to it are checkusers, and yes, the permission itself is checkuser (rendered with the code template to indicate that it refers to a software component). It's not a proper name or formal title which would compel mid-sentence capitalization. If you're referring to a particular named checkuser then it might be appropriate to capitalize ("Checkuser Ivanvector") but I'm not sure; it's probably better to just refer to the intended user by their username, not whichever hat they're wearing. All of the permission sets are capitalized in the central listing, but IMO the only permission set that should be capitalized is Founder, because it inherently refers to one person. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:27, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * What about the users who come from here? -- RoySmith (talk) 20:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Ooold joke. User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:56, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Could have been worse. what if it was an ooid joke? Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 22:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Can we stay on topic please? User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)  08:24, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Since it's been a month, would anyone object to standardizing this (both in this policy and in relevant templates, e.g. checkuserblock-account, which uses three capitalizations across four references) as:
 * CheckUser is the tool
 * (always all-lowercase) is the permission to use CheckUser
 * A checkuser (capitalized according to normal English rules, including in cases where for whatever reason the software has decided all groups should be sentence-case) is someone with  and thus access to CheckUser.
 * A Czech user should be welcomed like any other user
 * -- Tamzin [cetacean needed] (she/they) 17:53, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That seems about right, and I definitely agree with you about that template. No objections from me. If I can add something as an aside though,  is something rarely seen (only at WP:UAL as far as I remember). It is the name of a permission, but it's also the name of the internal group with access to the set of permissions related to , such as viewing the CU log. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:23, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * As you saw, I went ahead with this, but just wanted to follow up on your last point: My understanding is that the lowercase code-wrapped format is just meant for permissions, not groups. The distinction can be important, since for instance a confirmed account is not autoconfirmed but does have the  permission. (You'd think it'd be the other way around, but no.) I don't think there's any standardized way to refer to a group itself. For my copy-edit of the policy I tried to stick with stuff like "checkuser rights", but it could probably use some touching up.  -- Tamzin  [cetacean needed] (she/they) 02:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You may be right that there is no standard, and context probably matters. I would normally say extended page movers are in the  group, as this is the parameter used with both the HTTP request Special:ListUsers/extendedmover and $wgGroupPermissions. Edit filter managers are in the   group which contains the   permission. Anyway, I just wanted to point out that, similarly, checkusers are not just people with access to , but people in the checkuser group which contains the   permission (and thus have access to CheckUser) along with some other permissions. Thanks for the copyedit - long overdue and ultimately quite impressive. -- zzuuzz (talk) 06:44, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Just noting for the record, since it came up when changing SPI case status/core but hadn't come up when editing this page, that I'm treating "request for CheckUser" as meaning "request for [somebody to use the] CheckUser [tool]", and thus capitalizing it like so. After all, if it meant "request for [something from a] checkuser", it would be a request for checkuser if I asked a CU if they want to get coffee sometime. -- Tamzin  [cetacean needed] (she/they) 04:48, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Just want to say that I like this paradigm and will be using it in my future writing. Mz7 (talk) 06:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I use CheckUser to refer to all uses, but I also don't think it matters. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:35, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Technical detail
At an SPI, and I were talking about false positives and the other technical information that CheckUsers can look at. My understanding (guided by this page) was that it was only IP addresses and edit lists that were visible. However, DeFacto pointed out that this page said 'other technical data stored by the server about a user account or IP address' - and then found on MediaWiki at mw:Extension:CheckUser that user agent information was also available, which wasn't mentioned at all on this page.

Being WP:BOLD and assuming it was just missing information, I added the information that was on MediaWiki to this page, to quote: "such as the last ten user agents (browser, operating system, system language, and versions) for each user for edits made in the IP or range.". However (who is also participating in the above investigation) removed it saying "There's a deliberate choice made on this page to not give too much technical detail per WP:BEANS. If you think that this should be mentioned, you should raise it on talk." Hence this post.

I think it's important that this page is factually correct about the information that CheckUsers have available to them, since this directly relates to user privacy. I understand the BEANS argument, but it's still important to include. Likely it's better placed somewhere else in the page rather than the lead, where I put it, and that would be fine. But I think the info should be here somewhere.

Thoughts? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:41, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Mike, hope you're doing well - I agree that given the privacy concerns, users should be made aware of this. Thankfully, we don't need to worry about that! The WMF has put a link to our privacy policy at the bottom of every page on Wikipedia. This policy explicitly states the data captured (including the aforementioned user agent), so repeating it here would not meaningfully contribute to our user's privacy awareness ~TNT (she/her • talk) 18:53, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Unless I'm missing something, that just says that the information is recorded, not that it is made visible to CheckUsers. It's also not obvious to users who are being CheckUser'd and end up on this page that this information can be accessed as part of the process. So while the link to the privacy policy is good, it's not sufficient to describe the CheckUser process. What we could do is to specifically say that this technical information is summarised in the privacy policy, but the policy also includes things like 'payment account number' - which I really hope checkusers don't have access to! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:02, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The summary at the top has a section informing users that "certain administrators of the Wikimedia Sites, who are chosen by the community, use tools that grant them limited access to nonpublic information about recent contributions so they may protect the Wikimedia Sites and enforce policies." - would support linking to the this part of the privacy policy if necessary. I am very mindful that we may well shoot ourselves in the foot a tad if we really spell it out. I prefer the EULA approach - hope no one reads the darn thing and take the rights to your soul! /s ~TNT (she/her • talk) 19:09, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * oh and don't worry, we can only see the last four digits of your debit card ~TNT (she/her • talk) 19:10, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm happy for the information to be buried in section N, if you prefer, I still think it should be mentioned *somewhere* on this page though. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:17, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yup, I'm not impressed at the privacy policy's ability to provide meaningful relevant information about this. However I prefer to send people interested in technical information to the more technical pages, rather than go into the detail on this policy page. I'll note that the information you added is actually a bit misleading, for example, if you use more than ten agents I can probably tell you what the other ones were. There is also a bit of a quirk about "system language", which I really don't want to go into (mainly because it will bore everyone). This is why less detail here is better. However, if you want to add a less-specific something like 'browser information', I think that's well enough known and general enough to mention. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:12, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The info was directly taken from mw:Extension:CheckUser - if that's wrong, please fix it! It doesn't seem to just be 'browser information' if information about the OS is included. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:17, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'll get around to elaborating on the nuances on the mediawiki site one day, but don't hold your breath. We still shouldn't be going into this detail in the local policy. I notice that at both m:Help:CheckUser and m:Help:Special Investigate (which falls under this policy), they use the term user agent for this information. Interested in a link to it? -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:37, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I could live with adding something like "including recent user agent information" to this page. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:48, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That probably works for me. I'm not an arbiter for the page though, so open to other opinions... -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:53, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

(Just to ping, who I mistakenly left out of the above timeline. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:57, 7 October 2021 (UTC))
 * I'm probably more in 's camp, the less said in the local policy the better. When someone like you has a mistaken notion about what a CU sees on a check, educating them with an appropriate link is good, but, otherwise, I think it unnecessary and sometimes even harmful. For some users too much information causes confusion and misinterpretation rather than a deeper understanding.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:01, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think I feel similarly about this—to me, this sort of detail of what CheckUser shows should be relegated to something like the MediaWiki's extension documentation (which it currently is). I think just the general notion of saying on project-specific policy pages that CheckUser is a tool which uses technical information to connect accounts (or something like that) is all that's needed. Perryprog (talk) 20:17, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Question for functionaries
On tonight's Empty Category list, Category:Wikipedia functionary statistics showed up. Typically, I tag empty categories the next day but it is unusual to see Wikipedia project-related categories on this list, it's almost entirely categories for either main space articles or for other categories so I thought I'd bring it up in case you had an ongoing use for this category.

Yesterday, I noticed in the Deletion log, that quite a lot of templates and template-related pages that contained functionary stats from the past few years were deleted. I'm not sure if this was a decision supported by functionaries themselves or just the result of a discussion among the few number of editors who participate in TFD discussions. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 01:10, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I cross-posted this message on the Functionaries and Oversight talk pages. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 01:17, 16 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Neither this category, nor any templates or pages related to functionary statistics have been discussed on the functionaries list. No XfD discussions related to functionary stats have been flagged to functionaries either, so any consensus for deletion was formed only by those who showed up at the given discussion. Please could you give some links to those discussions so we can look at the rationales given, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 01:47, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm concerned, the only really useful page on functionary stats would be Arbitration Committee/Audit/Statistics. It doesn't need its own category, I don't think. It's the only page I think we've ever seen that actually provides a rolling statistical assessment of individual functionaries, and it didn't start until 2009. I don't think we ever saw stats before then. Risker (talk) 03:29, 16 November 2021 (UTC) As an aside, there are monthly stats from April 2009 to present in the history. Risker (talk) 03:36, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think we are talking about fst, created by in 2018 and deleted by  as a result of this discussion: Templates_for_discussion/Log/2021_November_8. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 06:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There were 98 pages related to Template:Fst that were deleted, it looks like functionaries records from 2012-2019. The easiest way I can think of to show you what they were are by looking at Explicit's deletion log for 11-15-2021 and doing a page search from "Template:Fst". It's unusual for a template to have so many component pages so when it showed up in the Deletion log, it was noticeable. But since it had arisen out of a TFD discussion, it didn't raise any red flags at the time when I saw it. I'll postpone the deletion tagging the empty category. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 20:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There's a relevant talk page discussion announcement about it's creation at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Audit/Statistics. It used to be shown on WP:AUDIT/STATS itself, but it was removed for lack of updates. stwalkerster (talk) 22:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Can checkusers see browser or device profile for IP edits?
Does the CheckUser tool return user agent data for anonymous edits? Will it provide identifying information such as browser or operating system? I have concerns regarding misbehaviour and possible harassment from a particular checkuser; thus, I will not reveal my identity for obvious reasons. 2607:F140:6000:17:C4CA:B6B:AEE8:15D3 (talk) 00:44, 2 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:02, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Can CheckUser be used to confirm that a Wikipedian is deceased?
There is an apparent case of an obituary notice matching the name of a Wikipedian who ceased editing shortly before publication of that notice. I am wondering if it is possible to confirm that the Wikipedian in question lived in the city where the notice was published. BD2412 T 03:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * See here. I provided that link because there is a persistent battle (currently at ANI, again) regarding a completely unrelated case. Regarding the question above, revealing an undisclosed location looks like a privacy breach even if well intentioned. Johnuniq (talk) 04:41, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Correct - we could obviously see if any IPs look like they're from the right place (assuming there is data that hasn't aged off yet), but couldn't tell any non-functs. Plus there's just too much of a chance that we get it wrong and give away data on a not-deceased user. GeneralNotability (talk) 17:01, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Multiple devices can connect to a public IP address and will have the same IP address.
There are private and public IP address. Multiple devices can have the same IP address because it's a public IP address. For example, at school everyone has the same IP address (router then gives individual private IP adresses to devices). So, let's say I'm editing at school. You guys can only see the public IP address. And let's just say some troll is also editing on the IP address at school. How will you guys know that it's a different person? You can't, you literally can't know. Then maybe you'll think it's a sockpuppet or something. That's a problem. - Alexysun (talk) 03:06, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Fun fact: CheckUsers are pretty good at identifying shared IP addresses such as schools and coffee shops. Other fun fact: editing Wikipedia isn't all that popular a hobby amongst 13 year olds and while it is certainly possible for there to be a good editor and an LTA at the same school, usually if there is an LTA targeting well known Wikipedians or targeting the same topics as a good account that is based out of the same school, it is the same person. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:09, 13 October 2022 (UTC)