Wikipedia talk:CheckUser

The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.

Shortcuts

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Wikipedia:User access levels was copied or moved into Wikipedia:CheckUser with this edit on 10 January 2017. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Should administrators be desysopped for undoing a checkuser block?

OP has been blocked. For those looking for the referenced thread, it's Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive353#Block of 2600:1017:B400:0:0:0:0:0/40 RoySmith (talk) 16:41, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Many years ago, the arbcom reminded users that checkusers have access to hidden information most of us don't. while it's accepted that undoing an arbcom decision lead to desysopping arbcom editors are usually held in an official light given they're nominated by a more rigorous process than the run of the mill RFA where all editor can simply support or oppose the request. That being said I would like to clarify

are checkusers a subdivision of arbcom?
given that a checkuser block can be restore like any other edit, would it be more prudent to AGF on the part person who reversed the block and simply restore the block? hundreds of accounts get indeffed and all too often the creator of these accounts end up in a vicious cycle of sock/block they can't escape.
how exactly would regular admin unblocking a checkuserblock undermine the site's integrity? Shim119 (talk) 13:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This a crazy RfC. Much of the English is imprecise and borders on incomprehensible. I don't see why we should we be wasting our time on such an ill-considered RfC.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23 Seems related to their Admin Review and ANI threads chasing after Daniel Case. I've left a comment at ANI. I'm just going to remove the RFC tag. This isn't even asking for a change to policy, just questioning it. -- ferret (talk) 14:23, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

CheckUser VRT Role Account

Hi,

I’m not sure what would need to happen to set this up — or if it would be technically prohibitive — but I was wondering if it would be possible to set up a CheckUser role account, similar to User:Oversight, for the purpose of sending emails through Wikipedia to the CheckUser VRT queue.

My reason for asking this is because the email linked to my WP account is an anonymous one, which I can reply to emails sent to, but can’t initiate emails from that specific address directly (or at least, I don’t think I can). Therefore, if I sent an email from my email client to the CheckUser email address, it wouldn’t be able to be verified to my account; whereas one sent through the Wikipedia interface would be.

Best, A smart kitten (talk) 11:52, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The "contacting a checkuser" section.

Currently, it advises users to look at the "active users" list, which shows which user who happen to have CU bits have done literally anything lately, while Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit/Statistics shows who has been recently active as a CU. Should we replace and/or just add a link to the stats? Thoughts? Beeblebrox (talk) 18:51, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense to me. I'd go with prominently adding the stats, on the basis that more choice of information is good. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:23, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say both. Show the stats while letting them see who is currently active. Better to know that someone who has been using it frequently is around right now than know one or the other. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]