Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkusership

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: (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)

text: *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)
replies: text: 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)

text: *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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Can you explain your feelings further? Preferably using rational arguments? O:-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is insane 

message: Just adding an interesting header to follow the style of the previous two  Majorly (talk) 14:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am both amused and saddened that no one had added the obvious response. UltraExactZZ  Claims ~ Evidence  14:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Or the other one...or probably the most appropriate one...:-) Keeper  |  76  |  Disclaimer 14:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: This is crazy

message: 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. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 15:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not Spinal Tap, more like National Lampoon's Animal House to be honest. Woody (talk) 15:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: *And the band's drummer named "Logic" spontaneously combusted. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: * :-)  Keeper  |  76  |  Disclaimer 18:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: This is [[Spinal Tap]]

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: *Since ArbCom essentially holds the keys to the palace, you're on the outside looking in. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: 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)

text: *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)

text: See also this related discussion on meta. --bainer (talk) 15:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Votes for checkuser is not Foundation policy 

message: 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)
replies: text: Walton, you do not understand the complexity of the situation. Please, slow down so that we can talk this out. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: *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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: *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 Wikipedia:Requests for Blocking, with sub templates like /<user to be blocked> 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? <blink> <blink> --Hammersoft (talk) 20:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

text: *Divide by zero error Great. Now you've broken my sarcasm meter. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *That's what you get for buying imports! :) --Hammersoft (talk) 19:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

text: *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)
thread_title: Can we just try it once? Please?

message: 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)
replies: text: What? This Is Blasphemy! This is madness!!!!  Sexy Sea Bassist  20:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: This Is [[300 (film)|Sparta]]

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. (1 == 2)Until 00:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: This is a bad idea

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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♥♥♥ 00:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: *For what? A dead proposal? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: *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)
thread_title:  Wrong venue 

message: 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 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)
thread_title: Publication

message: 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)
replies: text: Or better, we could all look for a redlink and write an article :O -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just about to say the same thing ;-). —paranomiahappy harry's high club 20:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  And now for something completely different 

message: 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 DissidentTalk 06:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 DissidentTalk 09:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Results 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Time to mark this as policy