Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkusership

= Initial discourse =

BAG requests process
Not sure where this was discussed previously (I've only come across it looking at WP:RFA today), but I just want to say that I love the new Requests for BAG membership process. This is exactly the kind of direction we need to be heading in as a project - openness and accountability. I am firmly of the opinion, by the way, that we need to have the same process for selecting checkusers and oversighters; the community, not those in power, should choose who is given access to these powerful tools. (Especially since some checkuser actions have been heavily criticised in the past, such as Jayjg's behaviour on CharlotteWebb's RfA.) Every position with any kind of power or authority, whether technical or non-technical (except rollbackers), needs to be selected through a free, open and transparent process in which community approval is the final judge. WaltonOne 20:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Completely agree, especially regarding checkusers. I proposed it once before (Requests for checkusership), but several arbitrators did not like the idea that the community could be involved and scrapped it. Sigh.  Majorly  (talk) 21:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What did you expect Majorly? Heaven forbid the community decides something.  In a wiki.   Keeper   |   76   |  Disclaimer  21:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm interesting the page was tagged as policy, but now it's proposed. Anyone interested in attempting to resurrect this, and allowing some sort of accountability (which is currently non-existent)?  Majorly  (talk) 21:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure I'll bite--Kumioko (talk) 21:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * BAG nominations were brought here because of the lack of discussion in the old method (there was also the matter that the old method allowed for BAG to be self selecting: BAG nominations were decided by existing BAG members). There's some resistance to the RFA-style BAG though; see WT:BOT for some discussion. —Locke Cole • t • c 13:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Who cares what the Arbitrary Committee says? They're not a legitimate authority anyway.  If we all chose to just ignore them and their so-called "dictates," a lot of what's wrong with Wikipedia could be fixed in an instant.  Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 18:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Checking m:Checkuser policy, the Access to checkuser section says the following:

On a wiki without an approved Arbitration Committee, or where the community prefers independent elections [my emphasis], two options are possible:

''The community must approve CheckUsers per consensus. The user requesting CheckUser status must request it within his local community and advertise this request properly (village pump, mailing list when available, ...). The editor must be familiar with the privacy policy. After gaining consensus (at least 70%-80%) in his local community, and with at least 25-30 editors' approval, the user should list himself under Steward requests/Permissions with a link to the page with the community's decision.''

Thus, if there is a community consensus to have independent elections, we can do so. However, I suggest that, due to the highly sensitive nature of a checkuser's role, there should be a two-stage process.


 * Anyone interested in checkuser powers should first apply to the ArbCom, as at present, and be vetted. This is to ensure that they aren't doing anything dodgy, and that they meet Foundation requirements for checkusers.
 * They will then be submitted to an RfA-style community vote, with a nomination statement by an ArbCom member affirming that the candidate has been vetted. Consensus requirements should be similar to those for RfB (i.e. 85-90%).
 * All checkusers will also be subject to binding community recall. If 5 administrators request it, they will have to step down and stand for community reconfirmation. WaltonOne 22:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I sugest switching the order to go to a community vote first and then to the arbcom. If we do it the other way around and then shoot one down we basically wasted the arbcoms time and they are somewhat busy.--Kumioko (talk) 22:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Kumioko, I've pretty much agreed with literally everything you've said over the last few days. It is a real shame that you are not an admin.  A real shame.   Keeper   |   76   |  Disclaimer  22:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I also agree with above, switching it round. Arbcom should be the last step in the process, and they can give the "all clear" and request the rights from a steward.  Majorly  (talk) 22:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I actually think that if this ever gets off the ground, it should be ArbCom first and RfCheck second. That way anyone considering going for checkuser can know in advance if they are wasting their own time and that of others, and people avoid the embarrassment of a successful RfCheck that doesn't result in +checkuser. Avruch  T 19:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Walton's proposal is excellent, and made even better with Kumioko's change. This will ensure that Checkusers have community trust, which, I believe, some of the current Checkusers do not have. This can fix that. Acalamari 22:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I support adding Oversight and Checkuser to the request page. 1) this works on other wikis of similar size (Commons, for example) and 2) ArbCom's authority is illegitimate to begin with. I also suggest all checkusers not approved by the community stand for Request for Checkuser rights. If they fail the rights should be removed. Monobi (talk) 03:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oversight and request user should be added here, but not BAG IMO. Malinaccier Public (talk) 12:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Additionally, I think that havning a consolidated location where requests for positions are submitted, voted on and approved it will be much easier to manage and for the community to participate in. Just my 2 extra cents there.--Kumioko (talk) 13:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't mind having all flags at least having the option of being granted by the community through an RfX process (in addition to the Arbcom for investigative purposes). RBAG I'm of two minds on, both supporting greater transparency, but wondering if this is the right place for it (MIL-HIST could make the same arguement to list their coord. elections here).  But yea, Crat, Admin, CU, and Osight are all things I could see trusting the community to decide on. Especially since the "trust" part of the CU and Osight jobs are overseen by the independent Ombudsing commission.  MBisanz  talk 16:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (To MBisanz) I know I'm going slightly off-topic here, but I don't think the parallel (between RBAG and MILHIST elections) is a good one; MILHIST, though a very large WikiProject, is still simply a WikiProject and isn't part of the formal workings of Wikipedia, and its co-ordinator has no "power" as such. It's rather like the distinction between public service and private organisations in the real world. The BAG, on the other hand, is a body with an official function and official powers within the Wikipedia infrastructure (namely, the power to approve bots), and accordingly it is entirely right that its members should be chosen by community vote. WaltonOne 16:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Point taken, so what about WP:MEDCOM nominations that are done on a page in the Mediation space? Their about as frequent as BAG noms and, well I'd argue Medcom is more an "official" body than BAG.  MBisanz  talk 17:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Although MedCom certainly is an official body, it doesn't have any formal power within the Wikipedia infrastructure; mediation is only binding on parties who agree to it, and there's no formal enforcement mechanism. So I don't think MedCom nominations need as much community scrutiny as BAG members. WaltonOne 07:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Although community input is welcomed and encouraged on MedCom nominations, the members of the Mediation Committee are the ones that decide whether or not to let someone become a formal mediator. Since we have the Mediation Committee mailing list to point out new nominations, it doesn't need the same public exposure that other positions do. --Deskana (talk) 11:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea to me Walton. -- Naerii  18:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

"The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy" This is great comedy. Already have a working process, but we've got create bureaucracy for it. Hilarious! --Hammersoft (talk) 19:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * We don't have a working process. We have checkusers who are appointed by the ArbCom without reference to community opinion - resulting in the fact that checkusers can act against the will of the community. As with Jayjg on CharlotteWebb's RfA. I don't know why so many people seem to think that we should sacrifice accountability and community rule in favour of "avoiding bureaucracy". Bureaucracy is the least of our problems. WaltonOne 19:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that the Arbitrary Committee is itself not a legitimate authority, since it was created not by the will of the community but rather by the dictate of one man who's nothing special, and its membership still continues to be subject to his approval. It's, quite frankly, ridiculous and shameful, and I'm surprised people have put up with this blatant institutional hypocrisy for so long.  I for one will have no part of it, and will ignore its decisions in perpetuity.  Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 19:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's just be WP:BOLD and add a Requests for checkusership section to the page. Anyone who passes a request will then have to be submitted to the ArbCom for standard vetting; if they don't want to grant checkuser powers, we can't do anything about it, but they probably won't ignore a community vote. I think the success of the WP:RFR and WP:RFBAG processes lies in the fact that people actually went ahead and started the process. It's easier to build consensus by actually getting people to participate in the process than by trying to hammer out 100% agreement on the talk page first. WaltonOne 08:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to be insulting, but this stuff is just bloody hysterical! You gotta be in the right viewpoint to see it that way, I admit, but once in that viewpoint - oh my, it's so funny it hurts! --Hammersoft (talk) 20:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You're certainly entitled to that opinion, but it might be helpful if you were to explain your precise objection to the proposal, and/or attempt to rebut the points I and others have raised in favour of it. As I said, the problem is that checkusers are presently not accountable to the community, and can act with impunity against the community's wishes. The proposal is designed to rebut that problem; thus it is not merely "bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy". WaltonOne 13:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And I should add to the hysterical bureaucracy by coming up with a motion to dismiss this request? Even funnier :) ArbCom is elected; thus will of the community. Checkusers are appointed by arbcom for a very simple task. This devolves into how many editors does it take to screw in a light bulb. Checkuser is as simple, and we do not need a massive bureaucracy to control it. How many forms should I be required to submit in order to change the light bulb? An environmental impact statement because of the mercury in the bulb? A petition from neighbors who can see the light that the installation is ok for them? Clearance from the local council that the new light bulb in question will not have undue light pollution? Statement of vendor certifications as to the manufacturing locations of the light bulb's components to the effect that slave labor was not used? This is all basically what you're asking checkuser appointments to become. It's a ridiculously simple thing, and you want to layer ungodly amounts of bureaucracy on to it. It's hysterical! --Hammersoft (talk) 16:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The Arbitrary Committee is most emphatically not elected, not in any meaningful sense--after all, one man who's nothing special has the final decision on EVERY appointment. Even more fundamentally, it's illegitimate because it wasn't even created by the community on its own initiative but rather by the dictate of that same man who's nothing special.  Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 17:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (To Hammersoft) Checkuser may be a simple tool, but it's a very powerful one; it allows access to, in a very real sense, private information. Many Wikipedians prefer to be anonymous, and therefore wish their IP address to be kept private; checkusers can find out that information. Therefore, we do need mechanisms to control its use. And yes, ArbCom is elected, but only every year; on the Internet, a lot can change in a year. It's better, IMO, to have direct accountability of checkusers to the community. A checkuser appointment is not analogous to the changing of a lightbulb. WaltonOne 18:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So you say, but I disagree. They have very limited power to do a very small thing, with a bunch of oversight on it should it be abused. Is there some specific complaint that is a general problem with checkusers that implementing a massive bureaucracy to 'control' it will solve? I highly, highly doubt it. This is a solution looking for a problem. You want community 'control', which will never happen anyways. But, we're supposed to layer on a bunch of bureaucracy to solve...nothing. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Interestingly enough, on other wikis CU elections are conducted just like for admins (e.g. on pl-wiki there is just a common voting, but the candidate has to gather 85% of votes to be approved). Pundit | utter  15:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it works well everywhere else. There's no reason it can't here.  Majorly  (talk) 15:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The only thing I would be worried about is people opposing every checkuser request. We already see it with bureaucrats and checkuser is much more controversial. Mr.  Z- man  18:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * But I'd rather have that than have checkusers who are not trusted by the community. Checkuser is controversial for a good reason; because it is a powerful tool which allows invasion of privacy. We need to respect the fact that it is important to the community. WaltonOne 18:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So how does electing checkusers solve any problems? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It allows for checkusers who the community trusts, not arbcom.  Majorly  (talk) 21:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "it is a powerful tool which allows invasion of privacy" And I can almost guarantee that there will be people who oppose every request based on that. If the bar is set high and there are too many people who do that, the process will basically be worthless. Mr.  Z- man  21:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So if the community doesn't want anyone to have CU, then no one will have it. Where's the problem?  Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 02:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the problem that some people are pointing to is that a relatively small group of contesters (~15%) may paralyze the CU votings. I don't think it is a real issue, as working communities are surprisingly resilient to such attempts, but of course the threat is out there. It all comes down to the question, whether for each 5-6 good faith voters (who vote as they believe is in best interest of Wikipedia) there will be a rebellious one, who will always vote against a CU candidate. Pundit | utter  02:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * A dual system in which either the community OR the arbcom can appoint CUs would solve a lot of these objections. Obviously if the Arbcom needs more CUs to help with cases, it can appoint them, or if the community feels it needs more CUs to handle RFCU, it can *elect* them.  MBisanz  talk 08:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * For a tool that's as controversial and has as much potential for abuse than CU, I don't see the problem with 15, or even 10 or perhaps even 5 percent being sufficient to stop someone from having it. Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 14:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Okey, lemme know when and I'll work up the RfB-nom version for RFCUF like I did for RBAG-nom.  MBisanz  talk 08:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Before we add anything, we need to work out the requirements in order to pass. As well as the candidate being 18 or older, they should have a certain percentage to pass (I'd suggest something higher than 80% as has been suggested - unlike bureaucratship, this is something that does require universal trust). Will there be requests for oversight rights as well? Will it be a strict vote like arbcom, or will it be a discussion? Who will close them, bureaucrats or arbcom? How long will they last? We need to think these things through before we add anything to the page.  Majorly  (talk) 09:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 80% is good enoug for stewards, should be good enough here, crats close determining a consensus and notify arbcom of the successful candidates, straight vote since anything else is hard to interpret, but there should be a discussion section, 14 days doesn't sound like an outlandish period, given the gravity of the situation, oversight follows same rules.  MBisanz  talk 09:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 80% should be fine, it complies with the cross-Foundation policy. Closure by bureaucrats should be OK (although of course they can't actually grant the checkuser rights, only pass it on to ArbCom; however, I think it's best that the bureaucrats do it, since closing discussions is what they're selected for.) I agree that 14 days would be an appropriate period. WaltonOne 11:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Requests for checkusership
I've prepared Requests for adminship/checkusership for transclusion on to the page. All we need now is a basic nomination template and some standard questions, like we get at RfA or RfB. Any suggestions? 11:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Given that it's a courtesy to inform users when there is a thread on the Administrator's Noticeboard about them, I have a feeling that the other Arbitrators would have quite liked to have been informed about this discussion. If I didn't watch this page because I was a bureaucrat, would anyone have ever told the other Arbitrators? --Deskana (talk) 11:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I doubt it, but I'm sure you will if you haven't already :)  Majorly  (talk) 11:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes I have, and I think it would be courteous of the community to hold off on starting this new process for at least a while, so that other Arbitrators can comment on the situation. There's no rush, after all. --Deskana (talk) 11:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have a feeling that most arbitrators won't like the idea unfortunately.  Majorly  (talk) 11:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (To Deskana) Bear in mind that, even if we successfully get this process up and running over the next couple of days and we have a successful Request for checkusership, it places no obligation on the ArbCom. The proposed process expressly mandates approval by the ArbCom, so you're perfectly entitled to ignore the community vote and refuse to grant CheckUser powers to the successful applicant. So I don't see why you would object to it. As to the perceived "rush", I have learnt from experience that having a long discussion to try and "build consensus" never leads to any actual reform. The proponents of WP:RFR just went ahead and did it, and it's now a working, functional process. If we just discuss a proposal to death, millions of objections are always raised (usually based on a misunderstanding of the proposal) and we get nowhere. So I wanted to go ahead and start the process before the whole world joined the discussion, and just see whether it worked or not; if it works, it will gain consensus. WaltonOne 11:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am starting to see a trend here unfortunately. It seems on wikipedia that once you have the power (or at least the perception of it) knowone wants to get rid of it or change the process for granting it.  In the last week I have seen 3 different suggestions, all of which would have enhanced the overall community by changing the process by which various tools are granted, allowing others to have certain tools based on established need and trust and to clean up those that really don't need it any more and all were shut down. Unfortunately, although I agree with the concept of this I fear that it too shall not pass because those who are in power or have the tools don't want to change the balance of power. Just a perception from what I have seen but I hope I am wrong.--Kumioko (talk) 11:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't got anything against this proposal. Even if I had and the rest of the Arbitration Committee agreed with me, it seems like we're not able to veto this process anyway, since the Checkuser Policy says that if the community prefers elections, it can have them. I do find it somewhat ironic that people complain so much about bureaucracy, only to go and set up a new process to fix something that already works. It's likely that it would evolve into something very similar to RFA, and given that so many people hate RFA with a passion, I find it strange that this proposal has had as much support as it has. That said, I have no objections to the process itself. The only problem I have is the hypothetical situation where the Arbitration Committee rejects all the community's candidates and the community rejects all the Committee's candidates. That leaves us with no way of electing new CheckUsers. As we've discovered with all the attempts at RFA reform, once a process is set in place, it's very difficult to agree on abolishing it, or making a new one. Do we want that hassle? Just something to think about, anyway. --Deskana (talk) 11:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That hypothetical situation should not happen. ArbCom, being elected, ought not to be that out-of-touch with the community's wishes. I trust that they would not reject the community's candidates unless there was a pressing and confidential reason to do so (e.g. the user turned out to be involved in sockpuppetry, or they didn't meet the Foundation's requirements for checkusers). In the end, I do have faith in most of the current ArbCom, and I trust they wouldn't use their veto to reject qualified candidates simply because they disliked them. WaltonOne 11:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "I do find it somewhat ironic that people complain so much about bureaucracy, only to go and set up a new process to fix something that already works." It does not work. Behind the scenes choosing of checkusers/oversights is a really bad idea - it allows no accountability and no input from anyone other than arbcom. Allowing the community to discuss these things is a much better way to fix what I consider a broken process.  Majorly  (talk) 11:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In RFA, it is often the people that are rejected that feel the process is broken, and conversely, the people that pass it do not feel it is. I think the same is true here. You are inevitably biased to think the system doesn't work since you were rejected, just as I am inevitably biased to think the system does work since I wasn't. I agree with you that more community input in the selection of checkusers is a good thing, and is one of the things I like about this proposal. It does fix that problem with the selection process. However, I don't think classifying it as "broken" is a fair assessment of the situation. I'd say that of all the people that write a serious application for checkuser rights, we only turn down half... maybe even less than that. --Deskana (talk) 12:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Deskana it's not my rejection at all. It's other users. I won't say anymore than that, but I hope you know what I mean.  Majorly  (talk) 12:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Y'know, Walton, members of the Arbitration Committee are members of the community as well. A consensus on this subject that fails to include them in the discussion cannot rightly be called consensus at all.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 12:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course it can. If every single admin apart from those on arbcom agreed to it, you're saying there'd be no consensus? That's ridiculous.  Majorly  (talk) 12:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Read what I said: "in the discussion". Sam Korn (smoddy) 13:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (To Sam Korn) I certainly wasn't suggesting or implying that members of ArbCom wouldn't be welcome to participate. And, as I keep reiterating, they have a veto. Even if this process goes swimmingly and the first ever RfCheck is approved with 100% support, ArbCom is under no obligation to respect the community's wishes. All I was saying was that I'd like to get this process on the road straight away, rather than getting bogged down in reams of discussion, having a strawpoll, and getting nowhere. Apologies if I wasn't clear. WaltonOne 12:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I understand you. However, you can't just impose a system without any discussion.  This discussion was woefully inadequate for the absence of those who understand how the system currently works.  You are imposing a system on them (don't deny it -- you are!) and it is therefore a) important that they be involved and b) negligent that no notification has been posted.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 13:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:RfCheck up and running. Now all we need is a willing guinea pig. Any volunteers who want to submit their candidacy for CheckUser? WaltonOne 12:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd be happy to serve as a guinea pig. I don't actually want checkuser, adn I'd be horrified if the community thought I was suitable to have it, so it'll be a safe experiment.  No matter what happens, the answer will be no and everyone will be happy.  What do I need to do? (starts reading stuff).  Dan Beale-Cocks  12:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment When one is granted checkusership, will it be a standard protocol to send out "Thank you for my shiny new magnifying glass" thankyou notes? :) Pedro : Chat  12:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I hope not. Though I like the metaphor... admins get a mop, bureaucrats get a wrench, checkusers get a magnifying glass. Oversighters, of course, get a flamethrower. :-) WaltonOne 12:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ....Arbcom get a Bullwhip and Jimbo gets a thermonuclear device? ;) Pedro : Chat  12:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So what would Stewards get, then? UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 12:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * A champagne glass on a tray. At least, that's the image that "Steward" always conjures up in my mind. :-) WaltonOne 12:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I must admit I'm confused. Checkuser policy is a foundation issue; en.wp cannot change that as far as I'm aware. The policy specifically mandates that ArbCom is the only body with authority to appoint checkusers. So by what authority is this proposal created? And where is the non-WT:RFA community support in this proposal? seresin ( ¡? ) 13:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Dmcdevit just pointed that out to me. The policy then goes onto contradict itself and says "On a wiki without an approved Arbitration Committee, or where the community prefers independent elections, two options are possible" and then says that we can hold public votes. --Deskana (talk) 13:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The question then becomes, does the community prefer independent elections? Would a hybrid process as proposed (Election/RfAish process to nominate a candidate for Arbcom's review and approval) fall under the policy? UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 14:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Even though it looks like Majorly's RfCship was very, very short-lived, I for one support this idea. Vetted by the community AND vetted by ArbCom. Can't think of any current checkusers that couldn't have passed a community vetting; if there are any, perhaps they shouldn't do it. Also, support an 80% rule of thumb, rather than 90%, to prevent a small minority from sabotaging any good candidates. Anyone who can get 80% support AND ArbCom's OK is fine. --barneca (talk) 14:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Question: Something I'd want to know before supporting anyone, in case RfCheck gets off the ground. Is there a way for other Checkusers to know what any other particular Checkuser has done?  I mean, can Alison tell by looking at a log somewhere if Deskana (to use two silly examples, so people won't think I'm actually accusing anyone) has gone nuts and is checkusering people he shouldn't? --barneca (talk) 14:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Other checkusers can see the log, yes. Basically, the idea is, checkusers watch each other for misuse/abuse.  Majorly  (talk) 14:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * So the input of other checkusers would be of value in vetting existing checkusers, but that wouldn't apply to new applicants, would it? UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 14:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The way consensus works is to try stuff, and then see where the complaints come from and fix it. Making a page does not make a process. Doing stuff makes a process. Not only does doing stuff make a process, but by some amazing coincidence, it actually gets stuff done. How do you like that?

So I totally support doing stuff. If it breaks and falls on our heads, we have plenty of band-aids to go around. The current stuff being done falls within the wikipedia remit. I'd say have fun!

--Kim Bruning (talk) 14:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC) (though I think it's mean to involve the arbcom without telling them... that was a small oversight there.. could have been done more diplomatically. We should definitely hand out band-aids to the poor Arbcom. You should listen to Sam Korn some more.)


 * Yeah, what Kim said. There's so much inertia in everything these days, that new ideas are seldom tried, and when anyone does try an experiment, it gets slapped down for being an experiment, not on its own merits.  (RfR is, in my mind, the exception that proves the rule).  This RfCship may have been hasty, and the same with the RfBAGships, but I salute those who at least tried to do something.  I may not have ultimately supported Majorly in his RfCUship, but the fact that he and Walton were bold enough to give it a shot is appreciated. --barneca (talk) 14:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * What I've noticed lately is proposals being made on obscure talk pages and then going live while there hasn't been any sort of wide community input and, in some cases it appears to me, when discussion is headed away from consensus and even beginning to go stale. In all cases, the proposed idea is put into action anyway to, what, garner more attention? Maybe if someone put up a note somewhere for people to be informed of the ongoing discussion, more input would come and there wouldn't be a need to put something into action on a policy/procedure page prematurely. Correct me if I missed a post on a notice board.


 * I'm in complete agreement that it's hilarious that people bitch endlessly about bureaucracy and then create more of it needlessly. If you've got an issue with a checkuser and what they're doing with the tool, deal with that user. But RFA is a jacked process and it is no surprise that this proposal has gotten so much support on this cesspool, waste of a talk page. Arbs get CU and then they appoint like, what? One or two a year. GASP. Who's the problem CU?  Lara  ❤  Love  15:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This is madness
This is madness. Yes, the checkuser policy says that if the community prefers a public vote, then it can have one. But do you honestly think that Foundation would accept the definiton of "community" as "about 10 people talking on a single talk page for a few days", then agree that a person nominated by this totally newfound procedure should be given checkuser rights? I really don't. As such, I've put a stop to that checkuser nomination. I asked, as a fellow Wikipedian, for people to wait. It seems that fell on deaf ears. Now I'm acting as a bureaucrat and putting a forceful stop to this process until there is meaningful discussion on this process. Love me or hate it me for it, it needed doing. --Deskana (talk) 14:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Forgive me for being... confused... but why was there suddenly a new "Request for Checkuser" section on the RfA page? I've read through this discussion and understand there are some different views on this, but is/was it appropriate to transclude this without a certain level (much more than this) of community discussion? Also being put together so quickly? Echoing what I've seen posted above, if RfA is the-process-no-one-agrees-on-and-can't-fix, why are we so quick to tack on another identical process? I'm all for going to the community for consensus, certainly over ArbCom (where appropriate), but it seems like when something is established it is impossible to remove--probably Wikipedia's unofficial motto--and I personally am uncomfortable with the haste of including this checkuser process. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It really wasn't appropriate, and that's why I put a stop to it. Something like this needs a ton more discussion before even thinking about applying it. This is a Foundation level issue. Idle banter on a talk page for a few days is not enough. --Deskana (talk) 14:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This is a privacy issue and should not be taken lightly. We should have the best possible procedure. On related projects in other languages this may mean elections, because the Foundation doesn't really know what's going on there. This project is the most important one, and I am sure they do know who they want to trust with checkuser rights and who they don't want to trust. In contrast to adminship, checkuser rights are a "big deal", and Kmweber's argument about self-nominations as prima facie evidence of power hunger make a lot of sense here. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed, this would need rather large coverage as it involves all Wikipedians. undefinedUntil  14:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * But do you honestly think that Foundation would accept the definiton of "community" as "about 10 people talking on a single talk page for a few days",


 * We will never know, since no more than one person was able to comment before it was deleted . I believe deleting the request was even more hastily done. You seem to be confusing the people on this talk page with people who might of had an opportunity to determine the answer to your questions. Being the only editor to have voiced an opinion there, I reject the idea that its madness. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 14:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So now we're (unintentionally) in WP:BRD eh? --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh gods no. Just a difference in opinion and wording. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 14:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Well... if you're opposing on procedural/wikilawyering grounds, I'll whack your heads together, but if it's actually genuine concern that something is going to break? Hmmm... so in which manner do you think that a checkuser request would cause undue breakage, can you explain? --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC) Madness? '''THIS! IS! WIKIPEDIA!'''   sowwy, couldn't resist


 * This isn't likely to work as it stands. For one thing, it gets the WMF checkuser policy seriously wrong in a key place. WMF policy does allow a wiki community to opt for communal appointment of Checkusers... but only if a communal consensus has already been established to that effect.


 * One of the reasons this is left to ArbCom is that unlike Adminship, these are rights that should be given to as few a number of users as possible, compatible with project needs. Right now that's zero to one, maybe two, a year. An RFA-like process will result in a great deal of admin discussion and voting, for almost inevitable rejection on that basis alone.


 * A process like this might be useful if it would be for the purpose of informing ArbCom who the community trusts, if ArbCom were looking round thinking "we need more checkusers, who would do the role well". But actually it's almost never that way either. From what I can see it's much more commonly, that a specific benefit arises from giving the right to a specific person. "Looking for more checkusers" as this proposal seems to contemplate, seems like an "exceedingly rare to never" event.


 * A quick example: - the last 6 or so checkuser appointments were 1/ the December 2007 ArbCom appointees, who need it specifically as a tool to examine privacy and sock related cases and allegations (such as Archtransit) or to recheck each others' conclusions, and 2/ the user most active at WP:AE. The context for the latter decision was an increasing use of communal management of cases via AE since around October 2007 (including the newer "general sanctions" in the nationalism edit wars where socking is very common), where it was deemed useful to specifically appoint the user most involved in that process and heavily involved in ArbCom work, as a sensible choice of checkuser to ensure it was not bottlenecked.


 * A "request for checkusership" proposal was also suggested in January and did not get consensus then. See Majorly's comment on that page, which seemed a good summary at the time:


 * "Ok, this was probably a bad way to go about things. However, my concerns about behind the scenes appointments haven't gone away. I agree, mostly with Ryan's comments above in that ArbCom should post to a noticeboard that they intend to give extra rights to somebody (anyone not in arbcom). I'd suggest 5 days prior, and give the opportunity for users to contact the mailing list with any concerns they may have. ArbCom should consider all concerns, if any and give feedback to the community about it. The situation is, that suddenly there's a new checkuser/oversight among us, and no one has had a chance to give any concern they may have had about the said user, and that isn't good."


 * That aspect of it, I agreed with and came to a similar view: "This is a reasonably fair comment, I came to a similar conclusion above. Note the feedback may be limited to none (or private) if some matters are privacy related etc"


 * FT2 (Talk 14:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * What about if ArbCom were to open nominations for checkusership only when they felt the project needed more? Then a few candidates could be nominated/put themselves forward, the community could decide which candidates they trusted, and we would never have a greater number CheckUsers than ArbCom felt comfortable with. Sort of like corporate recruitment, the positions could be advertised, with the choice of selection resting with the community and (possibly) and ArbCom veto on approved candidates. Thoughts? Skomorokh  15:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Why is that preferable to the AC suggesting names and inviting comment? That would cause a lot less noise and fuss.  Has there not already been an indication that the Committee would be happy to do this?  Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Arbcom don't suggest names and invite comment. They just do it, and don't care what the community thinks.  Majorly  (talk) 15:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's nonsense. Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It is? Show me where ArbCom asked for community opinion when they appointed Essjay, Redux, Voice of All, Thatcher, Deskana, Lar, Alison etc.  Majorly  (talk) 20:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * They didn't, that was wrong, and I don't expect it to happen again. Sam Korn (smoddy) 08:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The only roles ArbCom would have under my suggestion is dictating the when and how many of checkusers, with a possible veto. The benefit of this is that the checkusers are promoted organically from the community, rather than imposed or proposed from above. Electing the speaker of the Senate vs. Presidential judicial appointees, to draw a weak analogy to US politics. Skomorokh  15:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What is the advantage of that? The most important consideration is who ends up being appointed, not when or how, or even how many.  The Committee is certainly more capable of judging suitability for this kind of sensitive role than the community is.  I fail to see how the advantages of this proposal (of which there are some) outweigh the disadvantages (of which there are many).  Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Au contraire, process is important; if Wikipedia aspires to being a free encyclopedia run by its members, it is very important whether the users or powers that be make important decisions. Why not let administrators, who obviously know more about what it takes to be a good administrator than the average interested user, decide who should be granted admin tools? The reason they should not is the same sentiment behind having the community, not ArbCom, choose CheckUsers. Regards, Skomorokh  16:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Process is indeed important. Is it really more important?  If you say yes, I shall despair.  Your analogy falls down with the understanding that adminship is not a big deal, whereas the checkuser permission and the oversight permission avowedly are.  And the community does decide -- through its delegated body.  You seem to see the Arbitration Committee members as not being part of the community, a frankly bizarre position.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 16:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't take this the wrong way, but it is probably not such a good idea to put words in others' mouths if you want to be taken seriously. I would agree that checkusership is a big deal, but you have yet to make an argument as to why the community-at-large (apologies for expressing this as "the community" earlier) would be unable to satisfactorily choose checkusers. The community-at-large seems to have rather stringent requirements for the comparatively NBD bureacratship. Ceteris paribus, horizontal decision-making is preferable to vertical for a project with Wikipedia's aspirations. There are certainly exceptions to this, but it remains to be argued that selecting CheckUsers is one of those exceptions. Regards, Skomorokh  16:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, but this is the wrong process. A change as major as this ought to be debated as least as widely as the creation of PROD, or the authorization of blocks for 3RR, both of which were highly controversial in their time.  An admin can't really do anything that will get the Foundation sued, and any admin action can be reversed by any other admin.  Changing how checkuser is granted potentially affects of the privacy of every editor, and once information is released by a bad checkuser it can never be retrieved and effects can never be reversed.  If you are serious about this proposal it needs to be given at least as much attention as PROD or 3RR blocking.  Heck, even WP:CHILD, which I wrote, was debated for 2-3 months before it settled down into its present form. Thatcher 16:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If I have misrepresented you, I apologise. I was not meaning to represent you at all, so you can be sure that it was unintentional. The "community-at-large" has historically failed to do an adequate vetting procedure on, for instance, adminship. Popularity is valued above ability. This is true both ways -- good candidates are refused; bad candidates are accepted. The criteria that decide a popular vote (and let no-one deny that that is what RFA is, even though it is a vote in a more subtle form) are radically different from those that should be used to choose users to have the CheckUser permission. It works (well enough) for administrators, firstly because that job is "no big deal" and secondly because the number of users is vast enough to make it the most effective option. I agree that popular decision making should happen wherever possible, but if the granting of CheckUser privileges is not one of the exceptions, I struggle to imagine what is. Sam Korn (smoddy) 16:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your well-thought out response, the arguments for and against are at least a little clearer now. I have yet to form an opinion on the matter, but lean towards conservatism unless it seems as if ArbCom are a law unto themselves or there is a similar crisis of confidence. I look forward to this proposal being given wider consideration and debate. Skomorokh  16:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The "community-at-large" may well have refused good candidates and accepted bad candidates. However I am unsure we are in a position to say that the community has failed to do an adequate job when it comes to adminship. It could well be the community has a done a better job at choosing admins than any other possible system. As far as I know there has never been another system to choose admins, so we have nothing to compare the community with. Suicidalhamster (talk) 19:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * By and large, the community (including ArbCom members!) has done an adequate job at RfA. There have been failures.  "By and large" and "adequate" aren't good enough.  I don't suggest reforming RfA -- I'm not sure it's worth it or indeed possible -- but it is a foolish assumption that the system is good enough for tools far more sensitive.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 20:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This is insane
This process is absurd on the face of it. ArbCom appoints checkusers. End of discussion. Barring approval by ArbCom, this is going nowhere. Those of you in support of this silly bureaucracy haven't even decided what the bureaucracy should be. This is a bunch of lemmings running around with protest signs who haven't even figured out what problem it is they are trying to solve.

I also note that ArbCom hasn't been involved in this discussion, with the lone exception of Deskana who calls this madness. No attempts at communicating this to ArbCom are apparent; no arbcom member's talk page contain anything regarding this discussion, the various arbcom pages have nothing about this and there's nothing at RFCU regarding this discussion.

Furthermore, RfA is entirely the WRONG place to be discussing this. RfA has nothing to do with it. Bureaucrats can't grant checkuser status. This is entirely the WRONG forum. Pressing ahead with this is insanity with the way this has been done is insane. You might as well start a discussion about WP:IFD to make bureaucrats all appointed. I call for an immediate halt --Hammersoft (talk) 14:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, so skipping the heated parts; and I don't mind that we need to call in someone with the correct right; and I agree that it would have been ...rather nice... to explain to the arbcom that maybe some people were going to do something; (but I do support experiments on general principle); with all that said: you're saying that there isn't a problem that needs solving? Could one of the proponents come forward and explain (or link)? --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, what's wrong with current Checkuser practice in the first place? Are there checkusers we don't trust? Do we need more? Is there any kind of abuse that could've been prevented by using an RFA-like process instead? --Conti|✉ 14:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Since none of the proponents of this bureaucracy have bothered to take the time to inform ArbCom of their attempt to usurp their power, I've done so via the talk pages of all ArbCom members but Deskana (who is already aware). --Hammersoft (talk) 14:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec) What other forum would you recommend? It's a process based on the active process for RfA, at the moment. As this discussion is already inching toward sub-page land, having a separate discussion may be of value. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 14:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Since ArbCom is the authority that grants checkuser rights now, how about Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee? RfA has nothing to do with this. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This would have been (and still is) a community decision. While I agree arbcom should have been notified, its up to the community. Since its suggestion was to be included here, I see this as the most relevant place to discuss. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 14:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This isn't the proper place to include it. You might as well transclude WP:IFD to WP:DRV. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well some feel it is. And last time I checked, Deskana agreed with the proposal. But, please tell me your example is facetious, as its way off base. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 14:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you explain your feelings further? Preferably using rational arguments? O:-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I should point out that this is not an attempt to "usurp the power of ArbCom", since they retain a veto. WaltonOne 15:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure it is. You want the community to have control over who has checkuser privs, not ArbCom. That's usurpation. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This is crazy
Just adding an interesting header to follow the style of the previous two :)  Majorly  (talk) 14:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I am both amused and saddened that no one had added the obvious response. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 14:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Or the other one...or probably the most appropriate one...:-) Keeper   |   76   |  Disclaimer  14:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Did effin too! --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC) Way ahead of y'all, as usual O:-)

This is Spinal Tap
What were people expecting to happen if and when anyone's request was "approved"? I can't see J. Random Steward granting anyone checkuser rights based on what's been going on at RfA. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 15:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Not Spinal Tap, more like National Lampoon's Animal House to be honest. Woody (talk) 15:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it's spinal tap. Lots of noise.  I would say the amp has been turned up to 11.   Keeper   |   76   |  Disclaimer  16:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And the band's drummer named "Logic" spontaneously combusted. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * :-)  Keeper   |   76   |  Disclaimer  18:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Votes for checkuser is not Foundation policy
The revision to m:CheckUser policy that changed On a wiki with a (Wikimedia-approved) Arbitration Committee (ArbCom), only editors approved by the Arbitrators may have CheckUser status. to On a wiki with no Arbitration Committee or where the community prefers independent elections, was made by a single German wikipedia editor to reflect their local policy that checkusers are elected, It is not clear to me that this represents Foundation policy, nor is it clear to me that a major policy change like this can be implemented by the enwiki community even if it wants to by the simple expedient of creating the page. I think you need to be looking at a discussion that is at least as lengthy and widely advertised as discussions on fictional episode and character notability or modifications to the image deletion policy.

It certainly is the case that Arbcom (unless it has lost its collective mind) will ignore this page, meaning that unless you can convince a steward that the community has renounced Arbcom's right to appoint checkusers, this whole exercise is pointless. Thatcher 14:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Or better yet, if the Arbitrary Committee is going to give us yet more evidence that it has no legitimacy by ignoring the community, then we can start ignoring it. Wikipedia can last without the Arbitrary Committee.  It can't last without the community.  Let's see who breaks first.  Mutiny is the order of the day.  Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 14:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Since ArbCom essentially holds the keys to the palace, you're on the outside looking in. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, they can lock us out, but then where would they be? I'd like to see the Arbitrary Committee members keep up on all the content, vandalism, etc. all by themselves.  We'll see just who needs who more.  Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 15:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Putting aside the spear-waving and key-dangling for a minute guys, please remember that, since the policies governing CheckUser are Foundation policies (the Privacy policy and the CheckUser policy) and that ultimately the arrangements are for the Foundation to approve or disapprove of. --bainer (talk) 15:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Not according to some proponents of this idea here. Without the community, the Foundation is nothing! Kind of like God without any believers. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * See also this related discussion on meta. --bainer (talk) 15:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Can we just try it once? Please?
Please can we just re-open Majorly's RfCheck and see if it gains consensus? Those who oppose the process can, of course, choose not to participate in it. And if it gains consensus, the ArbCom are 100% entitled to ignore the result, as I've said all along. It's up to them. I think the new process is worth a try. WaltonOne 15:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Walton, you do not understand the complexity of the situation. Please, slow down so that we can talk this out. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 15:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't you think we should find out if its even possible by Foundation policy before asking people to weigh in? Why waste everyone's time if we just find out later that it was all invalid before it began? Avruch  T 15:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If people are opposed to the process, and therefore don't involve themselves with the process, how can it be a consensus? Woody (talk) 15:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Slowing down just a tiny bit wouldn't hurt, if there's folks trying to catch up. Once they've caught up we can look at the situation, see where we stand, and then sally forth once more. (or not, depending on what we see) --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think it'd hurt to run the requests. Whether or not the permission is granted, is a different story.  Perhaps ArbCom could at least use the results in the future appointment of CUs or Oversights. John Reaves 18:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok. Can we do this with Oversight permission to? How about for people to close XfDs as 'keep'? How about for people who snowball RfAs? Maybe we should make real name registration with Wikimedia a requirement, kind of like Citizendium does. Cool! --Hammersoft (talk) 19:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah! Let's do it for people that act like dicks too, find who the biggest is!  Why would we want the the community involved in deciding who get various permission on the site?  It's not like the community has anything to do with a wiki anyway. John Reaves 19:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds cool to me! How about firing up a noticeboard to vote on whether someone should be blocked or not? Right now, the decision gets vested in the hands of a single administrator. That's not community based at all! We should have Requests for Blocking, with sub templates like / and have a 7 day vote on it for each user to be blocked! The community will be involved, and everyone will be happy! What are we waiting for? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Great. Now you've broken my sarcasm meter. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 19:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's what you get for buying imports! :) --Hammersoft (talk) 19:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Walton One, slow down! God-forbid the community make an actual decision! We are just a bunch of stupid grunts, you know. Monobi (talk) 21:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This Is Sparta
Forgive the butting in, but can everyone just calm down a little? and I agree with the guy who said check the foundation's policy  Sexy   Sea   Bassist   16:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll be happy to calm down just as soon as we throw this malformed child off the cliff, in true Spartan style ;) --Hammersoft (talk) 19:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What? This Is Blasphemy! This is madness!!!!  Sexy   Sea   Bassist   20:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Who usurped? Arbcom did!
I think some a judging this the wrong way but putting it on its head. It used to be that only Arbcom members and 'crats had checkuser because those were the only people who could demonstrate convincingly the community trust through an overwhelming voting majority.

For some reason, ArbCom usurped the right to decide who is trustworthy for the most sensitive tool. ArbCom was never given the community consent to do so. One can say: "Does not ArbCom have already the community trust?" Even if so, trust is not transitive. If I trust the president to dispense his duties, I don't give him a right to dissolve the parliament, serve a supreme judge, dissolve the country or go to war on a whim. Yes, I trust NYBrad (just an example). But it does not mean I trust him to decide who should be trusted with upholding the privacy policy. I trust him to make good decisions on cases and I trust him to have access to sensitive info. But transitive trust? It is simply a nonsense concept.

I have no personal problem with Thatcher's having a checkuser. I would support him. But the issue is different. ArbCom should not usurp the right to decide for community who the latter trusts without the explicit community consent. It is clear that there is not. --Irpen 18:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well said. Additionally, members of ArbCom do not appear to be voting on who gets to be a checkuser.  There does not appear to be a regulated process for how these rights are extended.  I say "appear," because, as with so much in the last stretch having to do with ArbCom, there is no transparency.  If there is a process by which Checkuser is extended, shouldn't the community know about it as well as agree to it?  This is an issue with vast real life effects on our contributors, and one false step can do more damage to Wikipedia than almost anything else.  Why would we have a more opaque process here than in deleting an article or promoting administrators?  It's vital that, if ArbCom is to be the organ of choice, and I agree with Irpen that it shouldn't be, then all of ArbCom agree to each extension and report to the community as a whole.  Otherwise, there is no legitimacy, and this is too important for any shadows over it.  Utgard Loki (talk) 18:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry guys, but I have no sympathy for these arguments. These are Wikimedia Foundation rules, and they are the ones who grant the checkuser rights.  Arbcom recommends to them, and Arbcom's recommendations are generally approved, but they aren't approved until the Foundation has carried out its due diligence.  If you want to complain, I suggest you take it up with the Foundation.  Risker (talk) 18:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not "complaining". I did not check all who ArbCom granted the rights and those I know of were Deskana (now and Arb anyway), Lar and Thatcher for who I would have voted. I have a problem with the usurping and deliberate lack of clarity. --Irpen 18:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, as was pinpointed earlier, CheckUsers' actions may have very serious consequences for the project. I believe there could be a procedure of common vote for CU, but it would have to be definitely stricter (fixed 85% threshold, minimum number of votes, restrictions on voting rights, etc.). With a huge project as en-wiki, ArbCom may not be such a bad solution after all. Pundit | utter  18:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not make it unanimous 100%? Why stick with some arbitrary level beyond with a person is trustable with a tool that can cause great damage to someone? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Mainly because there are always trolls at large, or just troublesome editors, or just people who do not like the candidate. Veto does not sound reasonable in CU voting, but consensus has to be really established at high level. Of course 85% is arbitrary, but it is imho still quite sensible. Pundit | utter  19:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Duck season! Please don't interpret that to mock you, as it's not. It's just this is all a matter of viewpoint, and still fails to address what the problem is with the checkuser process. You're saying the current lot of checkusers is not trustable. Yet, of the 28 checkusers, fully 24 of them are either on ArbCom, were on ArbCom, or are currently stewards. The four that are not are Alison, Hei ber, Thatcher and Voice of All. So we've got 24 that have been heavily vetted by other processes, and four appointed by the 20 ArbCom and former ArbCom members on the list. I fail to see a problem here. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Does anyone have an issue with the fact that I'm on that list-of-four, whatever about the current process issues? There have been comments from two editors in the past so if the problem is me, rather than the overall process, I'd really rather know that so it could be addressed - A l is o n  ❤ 19:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm struggling to see what the problem could be with you, Alison. From the amount you've obviously put into all of this, I'd love to hear from someone who's geniunely worried about you having CU access &mdash;αlεx•mullεr 22:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hei Ber is appointed by the Foundation as a member of the Ombudsman Committee. Our local Arbcom did not have the final say in that one.  Risker (talk) 19:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * VoA is one of the developers who was deeply involved in creating the checkuser function, so his presence is also expected, really, from a technical standpoint - A l is o n  ❤ 19:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You mean you actually trust him with the tool he helped developed? Good god! That's like trusting Oppenheimer with the decision on whether to drop the bomb! That way lies madness! Quick! Call up the bureaucracy! Full charge! --Hammersoft (talk) 19:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * History lesson for Irpen
 * Way, way back, only two users had CheckUser permissions. They were Tim Starling and David Gerard.  Tim built the tool so that he could avoid doing the same checks manually on the database.  Obviously he got the tool.  David was then a member of the Arbitration Committee and understood the technical stuff well enough to do the job instead of Tim.  For a long time, David was the only user with CheckUser permissions; he did a sterling and praiseworthy job!  After a while, it became apparent that more users with the permission were needed; they were slowly added, I believe before a privacy policy even existed.  The Arbitration Committee did not "usurp" any rights; it was handled informally between Tim and the Committee in the first instance (do you really expect a developer, with many, many demands on his time, to do a big community consultation/vote?), and then the Foundation formalised it, giving the role of managing the tool to the various Arbitration Committees.  I don't know where this idea of usurpation came from, but you can be entirely sure that it wasn't from the facts of what actually happened.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 20:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the history, it is well-established that editors' privacy should be protected wherever possible. Since checkuser allows violation of that privacy, it should only be extended to those people explicitly trusted by the community. There's too much going on behind the scenes. We need openness and accountability, not informality. WaltonOne 21:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Openness is exactly what we do not need from Checkuser. Accountability is already provided - by the people who should and do have access to the confidential information. (Quis custodiet? Ipsos custodes!) S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 21:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The thing is, the operation and day-to-day of checkuser is totally behind-the-scenes as, indeed, it must be. However, publicly elected people won't really guarantee any more privacy, really. How could it? Are there checkusers right now that do not have the trust of the community? Genuine question, that. Regarding accountability, there is the whole Checkuser Ombudsman function as well as the internal checks-and-balances. Checkusers - at least on enwiki - are already largely policing each other and from my insider's perspective, are doing that quite effectively - A l is o n  ❤ 21:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Checkusers are accountable. They are accountable to the Wikimedia Foundation, which is in turn responsible for users with respect to privacy, in keeping with the privacy policy at the bottom of every page. I urge everyone to read it carefully - you do not have a guarantee of privacy on this (or any other) site. Risker (talk) 22:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I am perfectly aware that there is no guarantee of privacy; but I'm sure we're all agreed that privacy should be provided where possible, and should not be lightly violated. As regards SheffieldSteel's remarks above, I didn't mean "openness" in the sense of checkuser functions being carried out in the open; I meant that the process for selecting checkusers must be open, not opaque. As to quis custodiet ipsos custodes?, that's exactly the maxim I was about to cite; and trusting the guards to guard themselves is not, generally, considered a good thing in any non-authoritarian community. It's a smooth road to dictatorship. As to the trust placed in current checkusers, I think that the incidents on CharlotteWebb's and Majorly's RfAs, and their aftermath, showed that there are some checkusers who use the tools in a controversial manner, and that the community, despite its protests, is unable to do anything about it. (Not to mention that Kelly Martin used to be a checkuser...) WaltonOne 22:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware that Kelly Martin used checkuser abusively/controversially. Did she? The only instance that comes to mind is the Poetlister issue and her subsequent apology - A l is o n  ❤ 22:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't really want to get into a detailed discussion of Kelly Martin (since I'll end up violating a policy or two), but I merely cited her as an example of the fact that self-evidently untrustworthy people have been given checkuser powers in the past. I don't deny that there are many good checkusers, yourself among them, and that incidents of abuse have been few and far between; but on principle, the community needs to make the decision. WaltonOne 22:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "self-evidently untrustworthy" comment aside, how does involving the community make any difference to this? The community has a record of electing a significant number of dubious admins, so how would this be any different? - A l is o n  ❤ 22:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, the community has made mistakes; but given that the proposal for RfCheck expressly states that successful candidates will be vetted by ArbCom before being given the tools, that kind of thing should be kept to a minimum. I'm not worried about sleeper sockpuppeteers and the like; I'm much more worried about editors who act in good faith, but act against the will of the community, because they think they know what is best for Wikipedia. (Indeed, that is the source of 90% of our problems in every area of policymaking and wikipolitics. It's not that Wikipedia is full of bad editors; it's that it's full of good editors who want to make things better, and who think they know just how to do that and will do it whether the majority likes it or not. But I digress.) WaltonOne 22:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course the veto wouldn't last. Can you imagine the flak that the Committee would receive if they attempted to use it?  I am sure you would not be among the users leading the lynch mob, but there undoubtedly would be such a mob.  As to whether the majority likes it, isn't that irrelevant?  Surely the relevant factor is the actions effect and efficacy?  Sam Korn (smoddy) 00:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know how long you've been around, Walton One, but if you think Kelly was "self evidently untrustworthy" then you never saw the vast amount of good work she did. That was not a bad appointment; it was a good appointment that, for various reasons, was a failure in the long term.  I can assure you that a community vote in late 2005, when she was appointed to the AC, would have elected her.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 00:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a bad idea
RfA discussions often involve the discussion of admin matters (deleted pages, for a random example). RfBs often discuss 'crat matters (eg. the infamous Danny question). By logical extension, RfCheck (or whatever we call it) discussions will involve checkuser discussion. Unfortunately, that stuff is private for a good reason. I'm all for community discussion, but this is a case where complete openness (heck, it's open to Google!) is not the way to go about it. Think of the children! ;) (Incidentally, do I see RfBAGs involving the discussion of bot matters...;) dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 00:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * How is accountability and the enactment of community will a bad idea? Monobi (talk) 00:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please re-read, I specifically said "I'm all for community discussion", which your comment clearly falls under. However, I've outlined an exception whereby "accountability" and "the will of the community" isn't really a good idea. We elect the arbs we trust...in this case, I think we should defer the work to them—we should trust them. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Arbitration committee, as in arbitrary. It is the part of the foundation that is not accountable to the community. While the foundation has been incredibly generous with giving authority to the community, it still holds some absolute authority outside of content decisions. undefinedUntil  00:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Wrong venue
As bureaucrats can't grant (as noted above), I think that this process, if wanted, should be discussed at http://meta.wikimedia.org. - jc37 04:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Not really. Stewards will do whatever the local community wants them to do; we don't need to ask their opinion as regards the process. The English Wikipedia is free to choose its own method of selecting checkusers. And I think this should be moved back to WT:RFA, since the discussion has now petered out due to lack of interest. Indeed, I'm going to be WP:BOLD and do it. WaltonOne 00:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagreed with creating a Request For Checkusership vote page because I feel that it is limited in thinking about one way instead of being a discussion about which of many ways that checkusers could be chosen. I think that having the discussion at RFA is going to stifle thinking about other creative ways that CU access could be given. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 00:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Walton, I strongly urge you to not move it back to RfA. Let it be. Have a little patience with process. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 00:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no idea when people got the impression that Requests for Adminship was a free-for-all where any kind of discussion was allowed. As several people have pointed out, a possible Requests for CheckUser has nothing to do with bureaucrats or admins. This talk page is far more appropriate for discussion about a possible new process. And, having a 300 kilobyte page is terrible for those with slower connections. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm not going to do it only to be reverted. I'll respect consensus. But can we at least publicise this discussion, to draw some outside participation? WaltonOne 08:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * For what? A dead proposal? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It isn't a dead proposal, it's a proposal that's been put on hold. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's dead. At the moment, however, it's dying, because it's been tucked away in this talk page that no one looks at. But I am not going to give up on this, despite your best efforts to kill it. WaltonOne 16:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't made any efforts to kill it. I've expressed my opinion. If you think that's attempting to kill it, I'm sorry, but expressing opinions on a subject in a consensus gathering mechanism is perfectly acceptable. I'm sorry you seem to find it otherwise. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Publication
If you want to untuck this away, I would recommend publishing (spamming) a neutral notice to T:CENT, WP:AN, Village pump, Wikien-L, Foundation-L, and whomever else might be interested.

Of special note [[m:CheckUser_policy#Access_to_CheckUser|Local CheckUser status is granted in a manner agreed upon between the local wiki and the Foundation. On some wikis, CheckUser status is granted by the Arbitration committee; on other wikis, CheckUsers are elected. Please check with the local CheckUser policy on each wiki for details.

Any changes in how CheckUser status is granted on a particular wiki require community and Foundation approval.]]

I have no opinion here. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 12:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Copied from WT:RFA: Requests for checkusership

 * Copied from WT:RFA, where it doesn't belong. --bainer (talk) 16:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It appears someone successfully stopped all discussion on this issue by moving the entire thread to another page that no one watches, so I'm starting it up again. What is the big deal with having the actual community make a decision about who should have access to these tools? Monobi (talk) 03:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Its a WMF issue and a change should happen there, not here. Although I agree with the logic in it being used, as this is a community. The community should decide who should have these rights, as its used on the community. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 03:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If anybody wants checkuser permissions so bad that they feel the need for this sort of process, I would strongly oppose them. Anyhow, per the above comment, its a foundation deal here, not a local issue. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it is a community issue Rjd0060. Each community decides how it wants to implement the Foundation's CU policy.  The Foundation policy allows community appointment of CUs or delegation of appointment to an Arbcom.  MBisanz  talk 04:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I suppose. I have a difficult time believing that we could / would just switch now. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec, to MBisanz) No, it's a foundation issue. CheckUsers can find the name of you, your wife, and your cat—we can't and shouldn't give that to anyone who can avoiding pissing people off for three months (or whatever the arbitrary and inevitable time limit for needed to apply for RfCheck will become). The foundation policy allowing community is OK for smaller communities, but in this one, it will screw up. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 04:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * While in theory it may be community issue, in fact it is a Foundation one. Only those who have provided credentials to the Foundation (and that satisfy the Foundation) may be granted checkuser status; this is non-optional, and overrides the wishes of any community.  Risker (talk) 04:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Right now the things required to "satisfy" the Foundation are:
 * "As of 11 April 2007, CheckUsers must be 18 years of age, of legal age in their place of residence, and willing to provide identification to the Wikimedia Foundation in order to qualify."
 * So, I doubt the Foundation would decline granting a CU appointment per community consensus so long as the CU candidate provided those things.
 * Now on the issue of granting CU, the WMF policy reads
 * "Local CheckUser status is granted in a manner agreed upon between the local wiki and the Foundation. On some wikis, CheckUser status is granted by the Arbitration committee; on other wikis, CheckUsers are elected. Please check with the local CheckUser policy on each wiki for details."
 * "Any changes in how CheckUser status is granted on a particular wiki require community and Foundation approval."
 * So its based on the community negotiating with the Foundation, with the mention that 2 methods are currently approved as the standard methods, Arbcom appointment and community election. So if en-wp's community were to select community elections as teh method, or to opt for both community elections and arbcom appointment, I don't see the grounds the foundation would have to reject.  Granted, I'm not sure I entirely support the idea of direct community elections, possibly some hybrid of the community nominating people for Arbcom approval.  MBisanz  talk 04:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I moved the discussion to WT:Requests for checkusership because, shockingly, the talk page for requests for adminship is not a venue for any type of random discussion. As several other people have noted, there are much larger Foundation-level issues involved in this discussion, making the issue large enough to warrant its own page, eh? And, checkuser is assigned by stewards, not bureaucrats. Simply because a new proposed process has "Requests for" in its title does not mean that it needs to be discussed on this particular talk page. If you feel this page is more watched, I suppose a notice pointing to the other page would be fine. Otherwise, discuss in a semi-appropriate forum, please. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Any changes in how CheckUser status is granted on a particular wiki require community and Foundation approval. In other words, while we might be able to agree on a proposed alternative system for selecting and approving checkusers, the Foundation could still veto that proposal. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 16:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

And now for something completely different
Gee, why don't we take all this energy and redirect it towards fixing Wikipedia's stance on identity, anonymity, pseudonymity, 3RR, voting, etc. Checkuser is a patch on a fundamentally flawed system. That it is necessary to use in routine cases is a symptom of a much larger problem. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Or better, we could all look for a redlink and write an article :O -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 06:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I was just about to say the same thing ;-). &#151;paranomia happy harry's high club 20:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

= Results = For the second time, it seems to be a fire fighting fire war here between those that think this is a community issue and those that think it should be up to WMF. This discussion is frankly achieving nothing, and I think it's fairly obvious that nothing can come of it. The community is not going to be allowed the ability to elect its own CUs any time soon, considering the amount of people on the other side of the fence, so I advise those of the former stance to accept that. I call a close to all discourse here. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 06:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't agree, and will not cease discussing this issue. If there is a community consensus to elect CUs, then that is what should be done; the Foundation would have to approve the change, but they would have no grounds for opposing it, since it meets the requirements set down in the CheckUser policy. At the moment, there hasn't even been an attempt to reach a consensus; opponents of the proposal, who are a clear minority, have tucked it away here in order to kill it. WaltonOne 08:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, perhaps. But this is not a forum that will gain any measure of success, not here. I never suggested an end to the campaign for community right to elect, and if it was implied, then I am sorry. All I meant that back and forth debate here isn't going to achieve anything. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 09:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Nobody's suggesting you stop discussing things. That said, the minority you speak of isn't. Your perspective is inherently skewed, just as is anyone's. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

= Time to mark this as policy =

This proposal is correct and in keeping with the demands of the community. The community has clearly stated that all positions of trust- admin, crat, arbcom, etc- must be selected by the community. By logical extension, a CU (who has the most invasive and trusting of all the positions) must undergo a communal approval during some portion of the CU promotion process. This policy proposal, which sets a similar standard for approval as the crat process, is perfectly in line with existing demands for consensus and absolutely appropriate for the CU promotion process. Thus, I feel it is time for this proposal to be marked as official policy and for us to hold ArbCom to it. Bstone (talk) 03:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Where has the community clearly stated this? A few users have stated this, not the community as a whole. In fact, I see quite a few saying this is a bad idea, myself included. Checkuser is the one tool that can be used to violate privacy of editors. It also requires specific technical abilities. Most importantly, it is governed by Foundation policy; the local policy only specifies the manner in which that Foundation policy is met locally. This is a Foundation issue.  Risker (talk) 03:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The Foundation has given local wikis with an ArbCom options on how to go about selecting CUs. From Meta's Steward requests/Permissions"This page enables stewards to handle permissions requests, including the giving and taking of administrator, bureaucrat, checkuser, and oversight rights, for all Wikimedia wikis which do not have a local permissions procedure." Fortunately, the English Wikipedia does have local permissions procedure. Thus, we are able to codify our own policies. Furthermore, WP:CONSENSUS states "Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making.". As this is official policy on this wiki, it is clear that all users who wish to be promoted to Check User status must undergo consensus taking. ArbCom cannot simply state that there is consensus to promote someone. Only the community can. Thus, not allowing the community to part of the CU promotion process is a violation of consensus. Bstone (talk) 03:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You forgot to bold the words editorial decision-making. Granting of checkuser is not editorial decision-making. Risker (talk) 03:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The word "editorial" is immaterial to the issue. Policy demands that the community decide, not ArbCom. Perhaps ArbCom can be part of the promotion mechanism, as a first or last step, but surely not the only step. ArbCom is involved in arbitration, not promotion. Bstone (talk) 03:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the requirement for the community approval of checkuser access as we need to take every precaution that would prevent people with unanswered ethics questions from gaining access to the info that affects the privacy issues. In fact, their mishandling of it, may not only endanger the users but if breaches the legally binding WMF privacy policy, may expose the WMF to lawsuits from the users whose info becomes compromised. There is still no laid out policy that clearly spells out what the checkusers can and can't do with the data they obtain.

When the person is brought up for the community approval, the ethical issues, if any, will be brought up and, if needed, resolved. In fact, the custom that existed until recently that CU was granted only to Arbs and 'crats indirectly ensured the community approval as these people were brought up for a vote to be granted these positions and the threshold for passing was the highest of all surveys.

The (possibly deliberate) opacity of who gets the checkuser access and the rules of handling such info is a ticking bomb. To this day there is no (that I am aware) document that Checkusers have to sign where their responsibilities as well as consequences of violating them are outlined. To this day, the process of giving the checkuser access remains murky. To this day, there is no even clarity on whether the checkuser is the policy issue, community issue, ArbCom issue or a foundation issue. It is made look like it is a little bit of all these and there is no way that I am alone in recognizing the grave dangers of this situation. Just like the (deliberate) ambiguity of the status of #admins, the deliberate lack of clarity in checkuser issues is unacceptable. --Irpen 03:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)