123:
80:
21:
398:
467:
As a matter of policy and practice, CUs do not publicly disclose the IP address an account is operating from (barring extremely exugent circumstances or incidental disclosure by users drawing inference from the block log) so using that template the way you describe is unlikely to result in a CU being
503:
There are very few circumstances in which CUs will use their access to confirm that an IP and an account are the same, even for themselves. Mostly because it's not necessary. If it's obvious enough to investigate, it should be obvious enough for a block. Just file an SPI but without a CU request. Or
311:
I understand that other checkusers can authenticate themselves but I was talking about a more transparent automatic tool that will simply show that the technical evaluation was actually done, but available to everyone without giving details of how the tool or the automated technical evaluation works
363:
On-demand reporting of checks can in fact reveal non-public data, for example closely linked accounts. It can also provide undesirable notice to a bad person that we're on to them. A lot of blocked sockpuppets might have no checks registered against their account. And a non-positive check result is
348:
What I propose is an automated tool that confirms the execution of the checkuser without revealing any private data. Even though there is a group of checkusers verifying the process, this is not sufficient. For greater transparency, it should be publicly shown that the checkuser was indeed carried
338:
I believe it's technically OK to say that 'a checkuser' has checked something, that is, saying that a check was done without disclosing in any way which other party ran the check. The governing policy concerns 'non-public personal data'; if an account being checked is considered personal data then
275:
The checkuser process is not open to auditing. From a technical perspective, there is no page to confirm that the checkuser process was performed because it likely involves not only the internal technical aspect handled by the MediaWiki tool but also a human element in analyzing user behavior
276:
patterns. I believe there should be a task list available that can at least ensure the technical checkuser was conducted and found no connection. It is not clear to me that it was done just because the administrator said so. I think this step is necessary to prevent human errors.
339:
there's a whole load of people in trouble. There are numerous other potential problems with this proposal however, some of which would easily potentially violate privacy, others would potentially compromise effectiveness in combating disruption. --
253:
246:
226:
This is to notify you that on 17 January, h18:28, I sent a request for investigation to checkuser-en-wpATwikipedia.org, given that in a comment from
November 2023 hereabove I read that the latter is not actively monitored.
299:(which I happen to be serving on at the moment). You are certainly correct, however, that non-checkusers have no direct visibility into the process; this is an area where preserving user privacy trumps transparency.
489:. Now, would reporting the details to one (or multiple; in case of urgency...) CUs via email be likely to result in an investigation? And are there any steps after one or multiple such users have not responded?
326:
I get the desire to know this, but even divulging that a check has been done (other than a checkuser talking about a check they did themselves) is considered a violation of the privacy policies.
417:
35:
364:
very rarely a declaration of innocence. But basically checkusers are not going to say they've run a check when they haven't. They're just not. Why would they even? --
108:
444:
present. Might one invoke something like the {{checkuser needed}} template in such cases? Should one expect this to be followed up on? ... Or is
408:
390:
256:
in the Phase 2 of Admin recall involves
Checkuser confirmation. Feedback from active CU would be appreciated on how feasible this would be.
173:
166:
161:
156:
149:
144:
139:
31:
27:
295:
that's not entirely true. The CU process can (and is) audited by other checkusers, both internal to enwiki and across projects via the
30:
on
Knowledge (XXG). Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review
206:
185:
39:
494:
457:
96:
511:
475:
441:
412:
47:
490:
453:
354:
317:
281:
111:
for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
426:
330:
303:
191:
296:
505:
486:
469:
187:
122:
235:
350:
313:
292:
277:
261:
422:
327:
300:
189:
365:
340:
516:
498:
480:
461:
430:
368:
358:
343:
333:
321:
306:
285:
265:
239:
231:
386:
257:
397:
34:
before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to
20:
440:
I have recently seen articles where there were very clearly cases of
418:
Knowledge (XXG):Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 5 § CheckUser
415:. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
26:
The project page associated with this talk page is an official
192:
116:
74:
15:
448:
reporting suspected IP socks (as opposed to an official SPI)
403:
104:
100:
91:
86:
62:
55:
349:
out and not merely a decision based on other factors.
411:
to determine whether its use and function meets the
504:if there's active, ongoing disruption use AIV.
200:This page has archives. Sections older than
8:
78:
85:Text and/or other creative content from
210:when more than 5 sections are present.
103:on 10 January 2017. The former page's
271:Transparency in the Checkuser Process
7:
512:
476:
245:Potential Checkuser involvement in
92:Knowledge (XXG):User access levels
14:
204:may be automatically archived by
436:Using CU template on talk pages?
396:
121:
19:
421:until a consensus is reached.
32:policy editing recommendations
1:
517:23:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
499:22:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
481:22:27, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
462:22:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
240:12:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
537:
45:
452:the best modus operandi?
97:Knowledge (XXG):CheckUser
95:was copied or moved into
513:Penny for your thoughts?
477:Penny for your thoughts?
431:06:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
409:redirects for discussion
391:Redirects for discussion
369:14:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
359:12:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
344:00:17, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
334:23:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
322:23:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
307:23:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
286:23:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
266:17:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
252:In the 2024 RFA review,
254:one of the subproposals
207:Lowercase sigmabot III
36:keep cool when editing
413:redirect guidelines
407:has been listed at
109:provide attribution
297:Ombuds Commission
214:
213:
179:
178:
115:
114:
73:
72:
528:
514:
478:
468:able to assist.
406:
400:
219:17 January email
209:
193:
136:
135:
125:
117:
94:
82:
81:
75:
65:
58:
23:
16:
536:
535:
531:
530:
529:
527:
526:
525:
438:
402:
394:
273:
250:
221:
205:
194:
188:
130:
90:
79:
69:
68:
61:
54:
50:
12:
11:
5:
534:
532:
524:
523:
522:
521:
520:
519:
491:Biohistorian15
454:Biohistorian15
437:
434:
393:
383:
382:
381:
380:
379:
378:
377:
376:
375:
374:
373:
372:
371:
272:
269:
249:
243:
230:Best regards,
223:Dear CU team,
220:
217:
212:
211:
199:
196:
195:
190:
186:
184:
181:
180:
177:
176:
170:
169:
164:
159:
153:
152:
147:
142:
132:
131:
126:
120:
113:
112:
107:now serves to
83:
71:
70:
67:
66:
59:
51:
46:
43:
24:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
533:
518:
515:
509:
508:
502:
501:
500:
496:
492:
488:
484:
483:
482:
479:
473:
472:
466:
465:
464:
463:
459:
455:
451:
447:
443:
435:
433:
432:
428:
424:
420:
419:
414:
410:
405:
401:The redirect
399:
392:
388:
384:
370:
367:
362:
361:
360:
356:
352:
347:
346:
345:
342:
337:
336:
335:
332:
329:
325:
324:
323:
319:
315:
310:
309:
308:
305:
302:
298:
294:
290:
289:
288:
287:
283:
279:
270:
268:
267:
263:
259:
255:
248:
244:
242:
241:
237:
233:
228:
224:
218:
216:
208:
203:
198:
197:
183:
182:
175:
172:
171:
168:
165:
163:
160:
158:
155:
154:
151:
148:
146:
143:
141:
138:
137:
134:
133:
129:
124:
119:
118:
110:
106:
102:
98:
93:
88:
84:
77:
76:
64:
60:
57:
53:
52:
49:
44:
41:
37:
33:
29:
25:
22:
18:
17:
506:
485:Thank you, @
470:
449:
445:
439:
416:
395:
389:" listed at
312:internally.
274:
251:
247:admin recall
229:
225:
222:
215:
201:
127:
87:this version
507:HJ Mitchell
487:HJ Mitchell
471:HJ Mitchell
442:WP:LOUTSOCK
40:don't panic
446:privately
404:CheckUser
387:CheckUser
351:Wilfredor
314:Wilfredor
293:Wilfredor
278:Wilfredor
174:Archive 7
167:Archive 6
162:Archive 5
157:Archive 4
150:Archive 3
145:Archive 2
140:Archive 1
101:this edit
48:Shortcuts
423:Ahri Boy
328:RoySmith
301:RoySmith
202:180 days
128:Archives
56:WT:CHECK
105:history
450:always
366:zzuuzz
341:zzuuzz
331:(talk)
304:(talk)
63:WT:CHK
38:, and
28:policy
99:with
495:talk
458:talk
427:talk
355:talk
318:talk
282:talk
262:talk
258:Soni
236:talk
264:)
89:of
510:|
497:)
474:|
460:)
429:)
357:)
320:)
284:)
238:)
232:Æo
493:(
456:(
425:(
385:"
353:(
316:(
291:@
280:(
260:(
234:(
42:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
