Wikipedia talk:Quick and dirty Checkuser policy/proposal

message: The m:CheckUser description states that "A log is kept of who has made which queries with the tool. This log is available to those with the checkuser permissions." 
To enhance transparency and reduce concerns about privacy, could we also have a log available to everyone that contains just the number of CheckUser queries performed by each user? Or perhaps just a timestamp and the user's name? With wider access to this function, there would be more oversight and abuses could be spotted and dealt with quickly. Carbonite | Talk 16:16, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that that would be a good idea, but could we not tie that to this proposal please? As I mentioned earlier, I'm trying to get this through as soon as possible. Something that requires new features to be coded wouldn't exactly help. --fvw<SMALL>*</SMALL> 16:19, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree with this proposal and would like to see it go through ASAP. I'm just trying to allievate the concerns of users who may fear that their privacy would be in danger. There's already a log of CheckUser uses, so developing a log that shows less data shouldn't be too difficult or time-consuming. It's just a different view of the same data. Still, a log should not be a prerequisite for granting CheckUser access to more admins. Carbonite | Talk 16:26, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, since this is an emergency proposal (as the "Quick and dirty" in the name suggests), we're going to have to make an official policy when everything is calmer. So, I'd say start thinking about it, but don't tie it to this lightning proposal. Titoxd(?!?) 17:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds reasonable to me. Let's get this rolling and iron out the detail later. Carbonite | Talk 19:43, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Sounds workable to me. Now code it ;-) - David Gerard 15:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  CheckUser use logs 

message: Right, are there any objections if we open this up to community endorsement/disendorsement tomorrow barring any new objections coming up (I wasn't kidding when I said I wanted to hurry this along)?
If you have any objections to this that can be solved by anything but "I don't want anybody else to get CheckUser", please post them now. --fvw<SMALL>*</SMALL> 19:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If an admin is voted to become a 'vandal hunter', how long will he be one ? Is this going to be a permanent role like being an admin, or a temporary one like a bureaucrat ? There is no need to decide on this now, but when will we take such decisions (Sorry if such things are 'obvious' to experienced users. This is first time I am being part of a discussion like this) ? Tintin 19:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Bureaucrat isn't a temporary position. Perhaps you're thinking of the ArbCom? Carbonite | Talk 19:44, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, Arbcom was what I meant. Tintin 19:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

text: It's a good question, I was thinking indefinite, i.e. until the community or arbcom decides against it. Is there any reason why this should be different to the other privs? --fvw<SMALL>*</SMALL> 19:47, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  IMHO, indefinite would be fine. Tintin 20:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I have no objection to granting bureaucrats access to Checkuser, nor would I object to the creation of some sort of specialised position meant explicitly for tracing down vandalism.  Wikipedia is growing by leaps and bounds, and unfortunately this also means we need to be able to scale our abilities to perform these sort of anti-vandalism tasks.  Hall Monitor 20:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Why tomorrow? There's still blocks being handed out to the VandalBot as of when I wrote this edit. I suggest doing it now. Titoxd(?!?) 23:43, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I suppor the proposal and have no objection to granting permissions as stated above. As for still blocking vandalbot, I'm still doing it, have been for hours. An IP block would have been great. Going back to blocking. ∞Who?¿? 10:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I've changed the word "Vote" to "Straw poll" on the page, 'cos it is - it's an attempt to ascertain consensus - David Gerard 09:01, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving things along 

message: I'm not sure if this has been suggested yet, but it might be a good idea to require anyone who is given this access to never openly connect an IP with a registered user (unless it's someone like Willy on Wheels). They might be able to discuss it through email with the user (such as if it is found out that the user had sockpuppets), or in private IRC chat, but not by posting in big letters on the user's talk page: "HEY ARE YOU WINSTON SMITH OF ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO WITH AN IP OF 127.0.0.1?!?" Anyways, I think I had a point somewhere in there... — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-12 20:57
: Sounds reasonable. Maybe an email with a copy sent to abuse@wikimedia.org or something like that. Titoxd(?!?) 23:40, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends. I may reveal the IP when they've been sockpuppeting the IP as a separate person to the logged-in name, because then their use of the IP is part of the abuse therefore not covered by the privacy policy. I have also revealed it in cases like a recent one (see WP:ANI) where a block caused collateral damage, and I'm revealing it to say this guy looks OK so far - David Gerard 13:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible addition

message: Ok, I don't think there have been any new objections, so let's go for it shall we? How does 5 days, at least 40 participants and at least 80% support needed sound? It might take a little campaigning to get that many people to chime in, but I think that 5 days is the least we can get away with. --fvw<SMALL>*</SMALL> 12:06, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the general emergency granting idea. "Foundation board member" is fine by me, as is having Jimbo do it. I'm not sure about the other two though; I hate to turn the ArbCom into a "higher level admin/bureaucrat" group. As for admins that seems like a very bad idea. This isn't just about giving people the access (which as I pointed out above, most admins already have something pretty close to), but more about giving them the permission to use it. I don't think that's something the devs should have say over. --fvw<SMALL>*</SMALL> 16:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be more sensible to say stewards can assign it, since only they or developers actually can give out this right. All current members of the ArbCom and at least of two of the Board members are not able to set user rights. Angela. 18:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think that even for emergency use we could have separate people to grant the permission and others (stewards, devs) to enable the access. But though I don't think it need necessarily be them, I have no objection to adding them to the list. --fvw<SMALL>*</SMALL> 18:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standards 

message: As the guy who uses it now on en: (mostly so Tim Starling can get on with development and sysadmin matters), a few notes:
* I've added a proviso that the CheckUser checker should look things up when the AC asks. I'm presuming this would include things like checking on antisocial users who've been kicked off by the AC to see if they've returned, which I do a lot of.
* Access by all bureaucrats is good IMO. They're highly trusted people. If people aren't sure about this one, we can reconfirm all current bureaucrats one by one.
* You have to pick people you can trust, and then trust them all the way. Various people are going to ask to have this logged seven ways to Sunday to protect against possible abuses. But adding red tape is just going to be a massive PITA and not actually affect whether the CheckUser checker can be trusted to act with confidence. Basically, we have to pick people we trust not to use the power for evil. Like admins and bureaucrats but more so.
* Remember that a small number of the developers (those who have access to the database) already have this power and use it. They control the horizontal, they control the vertical, they see all and know all — because they have to have complete control in order to administer a top-50 website. But they respect the privacy policy, because that's what you do as a sysadmin. The proposal is to extend access to just one power, so as to avoid a bottleneck of too few people for the job.
* It helps if the person understands various network foo. If not I am most happy to help and show how to interpret stuff. It's an art, not a science.
* Coders with a good grasp of MediaWiki data structures might want to look at the code for Special:CheckUser to see if there's ways to speed it up and/or make it less of a load on the database.
* I really need to write up a Help: page for CheckUser checkers.
* taw on pl: has CheckUser for pl:, I think — worth asking for ideas?
- David Gerard 13:18, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes from a current CheckUser checker

message: You can see how CheckUser works at :meta:Help:CheckUser. I'll add screen shots some time or other - David Gerard 13:01, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Help:CheckUser

message: I'm considering migrating the comments from the Straw Poll on the main page to this page and cross-referencing, but I wanted to drop this note here before touching that to provide the opportunity for opposition to this and/or self-movement of items that people have posted as commentary.  My thinking is to x-ref on vote-# in both directions. Courtland 23:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not making it unreadable, I'd say leave it for now - David Gerard 12:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments accumulating in Straw Poll 

message: Just noting that 55 votes have been cast now, and there's barely 80% support of the policy. Three hours left on the vote, and we got a result. Titoxd(?!?) 20:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  40 votes 

message: Please see Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Absolutely_Disgusted for the full rant. I am not at all happy with the way things have gone over this matter. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 17:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Absolute Disgust 

message: I'd like User:Carbonite to explain why the outcome of the straw poll is a moot point.  Does that mean that privileges have already been granted to people based on the outcome of this poll? Courtland 23:15, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If that is the case, then some Stewards are going to have some serious explaining to do. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 15:48, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moot point