Knowledge (XXG) talk:CheckUser/Archive 5

585:

also have access to the tool, though they don't use it on the English Knowledge (XXG). The Ombudsmen commission exists to investigate misuse or misinterpretation of the tool as well. As an outside set of eyes and speaking only anecdotally, I can tell you that I very rarely disagree with the team that's here as to the results of their checks. When I do, it's usually a situation where people of good faith can disagree because the evidence is vague. So I don't think there are any really widespread situations of confirmation bias here, but - as I mentioned - I'd love to see a controlled, blind study conducted. That would be a monster to set up, and not something that I have the time or the budget to undertake, but I would absolutely devote some limited resources towards helping a suitable outside party do that. (By way of explanation, my previous job was working with a survey/research design company that did this sort of thing. Obviously, we wouldn't use them for this - they have no technical expertise, and there are huge COI issues - but I mention that so that you know I'm speaking from a place where I actually have some experience designing and implementing that type of study).

639:. When all was said and done there were over 200 accounts and it's much quicker to just block them all. (And no, there is absolutely no reason why someone needs 200 accounts). As a SPI clerk, we come across such farms on a regular basis, and we don't tag those accounts unless we are feeling a lot of editcountitis. I can think of one known crosswiki socker whose name I am reluctant to mention because I know that it will trigger another rash of socks which will need to be found and locked, and which have hit another wiki that I hold adminship on, and which have started to be locked by stewards due to the serious abuse. That is why public checks are bad. -- 203:

them, Ombudsman Commission has jurisdiction." Given how incestuously AUSC is connected to Arbcom, having Arbcom oversee AUSC in misuse cases seems destined to be problematic. This all assumes, however, that AUSC is operating as a useful committee, taking on an active caseload regarding tool use and with teeth to enforce its own conclusions (which doesn't seem to be the case, for the most part); if those things aren't the case, I'm not entirely convinced it's not better to just use the Ombudsmen for all privacy-related-tool misuse cases, so as to have a body that's active and experienced overseeing these matters.

683:. 3 were related to the handling of an unblock request made on a user's talk page. Almost all of the other 38 were either directly or indirectly related to SPI cases; some were direct investigations into currently open cases, others were follow-ups of older cases (for example, to check for new sleeper accounts). There were also one or two checks that were clearly run by a second checkuser who was double-checking the results of the first checkuser (by request of the first). A more detailed study into this would be very time consuming, but this hopefully gives some indication. -- 1308:

mean we could find the existence of any other sleeper accounts the person might use to circumvent the ban, and if it happens to be a "bad hand" account of another user, we would be able to find the master. The only objection I can think to this offhand is an argument that this constitutes fishing, but if they have violated other policies so grievously that they have been asked to permanently leave the project, I would argue that they are in a position of not being trusted to have followed the sockpuppet policy anyway. —

734: 31: 697:

This is disappointing if this is true -- it appears not only is the practice of scanning accounts based on behavioral unvalidated in any formal manner, but the practice does not appear to be scrutinized in any informal manner. My understanding is that if I want to pursue this further I'd have to assemble my own data by reviewing public SPI activity, which is not something I currently have wikitime to do.

338:

the community wants. If the resounding opinion is that the community is happy with AUSC then I will strongly advocate that, should the remit of the Commission change, that we defer requests to AUSC as appropriate. Should the community want a more independent review body then I will strongly advocate for that. You seem to be of the opinion that AUSC is the better way of doing things, is that correct? --

1475: 1161: 1092: 787: 439: 313:

AUSC findings are, I believe, implemented by the Arbitration Committee, which is entrusted by the global policies with the management of advanced permissions on the English Knowledge (XXG). An Arbcom ruling cannot be appealed to the OC, and if they decide to remove a functionary, it is not within the OC's powers to reinstate them.

1345:

I wasn't necessarily thinking of users that are banned now, but rather in the future, whenever a ban is issued, that a checkuser is done as part of the banning procedure. Of course, you're right, if they hadn't used another account in the 90 days prior to the ban, the check would show nothing. But on

1307:

I'm not exactly active in the areas of administration that would require me to use CheckUser services that frequently, so I apologize in advance if this is a naive suggestion—but why don't we do a procedural checkuser of anyone who is issued a formal ban (i.e. by the community or by ArbCom)? It would

584:

Second, as to the issue of confirmation bias, remember that there are some of us who come from outside that group (for instance, my staff has access to the checkuser tool and a limited assignment for use of it) who routinely are asked to weigh in for second opinions or to audit results. The stewards

480:

to be a well thought out, detailed explanation of their actions consistent with maintaining the privacy policies of the project. While I have some reservations about the use of checkuser, these originate much more from the documented fail in blocking Int21h than the MF / George incident. I choose not

337:

Snowolf, to clarify, we obviously cannot expand our own remit like that. That would require approval from the WMF. This is one of the purposes of our trip to the office, to talk to the WMF about what they want from us, what we want from them, and what the community wants from us. This depends on what

351:

Not necessarily. I think the OC is the highest authority in the land when it comes to CU/OS abuse, and as such if we can handle it on this project without having to add to the OC workload and to have to bother you guys it's a plus, but I have no real strong opinions either way. Should the matter of

312:

2) No, as the issue rulings based on different policies. It is outside of the OC's remit to investigate violations of the CU and OS policies and hence they would not be able to accept appeals on that and it is unlikely that the AUSC would issue rulings based solely on the privacy policy. Also, the

136:

The Commission would like to invite the comment of the English Knowledge (XXG) community on what they feel the remit of the Ombudsman Commission should be. As one of the English Knowledge (XXG) Commission members, I will present your views during the meetings, so they can be discussed, considered,

1397:

is beneficial for Oversight candidates. Trusted users who frequent IRC are also encouraged to apply for either permission. All candidates must at least 18 years of age; have attained legal majority in their jurisdiction of residence; and be willing to identify to the Wikimedia Foundation prior to

696:

Thank you for the information. The aggregate response of Risker, Rschen, and Deskana are not forming a coherent picture of the relative quantity of privately vs publicly initiated checks and, unfortunately, it appears no one is tracking the rate at which user checks find evidence of sockpuppetry.

202:

I think in my perfect world it would go something like "complaints about CU/OS misuse go to AUSC (which then tells Arbcom its conclusions and Arbcom enforces them). In the event AUSC fails to reach a conclusion, or in cases where AUSC or Arbitrators are misbehaving with tools or the overseeing of

903:

Checkuser policy is open to interpretation, and deliberately so. Him having used sockpuppets in the past is certainly credible evidence of sockpuppetry. It is current practice to occasionally check blocked sockmasters to see if they have created any sleeper accounts to vandalise with. Checking a

124:

will be flying to San Francisco for three days to take part in a series of meetings at the Wikimedia Foundation offices regarding the Ombudsman Commission. One of the topics that will be discussed is what we (the Commission and Foundation) think the remit of the Commission is, and what the remit

1079:

Matters brought before the subcommittee may be time-sensitive and subcommittee members should be prepared and available to discuss cases promptly so they may be resolved in a timely manner. Sitting subcommittee members are expected to actively participate in AUSC proceedings and may be replaced

777:

316:

3) The OC has mandate to investigate all violations of the privacy policy on any wiki, and any complaint that comes to them, regardless of what AUSC does, should be investigate by them. This goes for enwiki or any other wiki. The OC cannot and should not pass the ball to AUSC, and both of these

1484:

Following the consultation phase, the committee will take into account the answers provided by the candidates to the questions and the comments offered by the community (both publicly and privately) along with all other relevant factors before making a final decision regarding appointments.

1170:

Following the consultation phase, the committee will take into account the answers provided by the candidates to the questions and the comments offered by the community (both publicly and privately) along with any other relevant factors before making a final decision regarding appointments.

656:

I've never seen the need to tag accounts with badges of shame. Any wiki-saavy editor reviewing the contributions of another editor will use the "User contributions" option, which clearly shows the block reason of currently blocked editors. Private checks are bad because it's contrary to the

154:

If the answer to 1. was no, would you be happy with the Commission investigating abuse of checkuser and oversight tools on other wikis, but noting that such complaints regarding checkuser and oversight on the English Knowledge (XXG) should be directed to the AUSC on the English Knowledge

1080:

should they become inactive. All subcommittee members are given both CheckUser and Oversight access but are expected to not make regular use of them unless needed. They are subject to the relevant local and global policies and guidelines concerning CheckUser and Oversight.

778:

495:

The follow up nitpicking posted in reply to J.delanoy's explanation was admittedly excessive, but J.delanoy comparing themself and/or the checkuser community to quantum physicists is insulting, arrogant, and shows a real of lack of understanding quantum physicists. To wit:

1468:

containing the nomination statements supplied by the candidates and their answers to a few standard questions. Community members may also pose additional questions and submit comments about the candidates on the individual nomination subpages or privately via email to

1154:

956:

It's pretty vague on meta, too - "There must be a valid reason to check a user". To you, someone socking 6 months ago is enough; I wouldn't have thought it was. I'm sure some could interpret just 'using an IP address and knowing what they're doing on the wiki", ie

975:

I actually pointed out that specific sentence to the legal team recently, as it's tautological and totally useless. Regarding the checks, I'm pretty sure you know that is a misrepresentation of the way things are done. If you do know this, then your argument is a

218:

The Ombudsman Commission could have appellate jurisdiction on the English Knowledge (XXG) for AUSC cases and have original jurisdiction for tool misuse by current members of arbcom and the AUSC. I am not sure arbcom investigating itself would be a best practice.

941:

I guess it comes down to interpretation of "no credible evidence to suspect sockpuppetry" then. Maybe the policy should be clearer on that point, or maybe it's just me. Possibly the 'fishing' section should specifically exclude people with a history of socking.

924:

This check definitely falls under the clause of preventing damage to Wikimedia projects, as unblocking someone who is actively using sockpuppets could be very damaging to this project. If my response does not satisfy you, then I recommend contacting the

634:

The two problems with public checks are a) they tell all the sockers "oh look, this is what we're checking, so you just need to avoid x and you can get away with anything!" and b) it would provide an awful lot of overhead. One case that comes to mind is

679:(unindent) SPI initiated checks are not a minority. This is a small sample size, so the inference one can make from it is limited, but let's look at the last 50 checks. 9 of the last 50 checks were related to account creation requests from the 1553: 1464: 1448: 1403: 1375: 125:

should be. Of course, at present the Commission's remit is strictly to investigate allegations of violations of the privacy policy, so any abuse of the checkuser tool not involving privacy policy violations is handled by local wiki processes (

580:

NE Ent, I'm not the party to which you aim your questions, but I'd like to weigh in here. First, to answer directly your first question: I'm unware of any rigorous studies on the accuracy of CU, though I'd very much like to change

150:

If the answer to 1. was yes, would you like that AUSC be the first point of investigation of abuse, with option to appeal the AUSC's ruling to the Ombudsman Commission? Or would you prefer the Commission takes over this role

992:

And also, it's actually a bit pointless commenting here too, as nobody here actually has the authority to change anything, or punish people for misusing the tool. The appropriate avenue for you to pursue is contacting the

491:

encourages users to request investigations on-wiki. A more careful review of applicable policy pages had me come to the realization I was wrong; secret CU operations are within policy. That doesn't mean it's a good idea.

1149: 1103: 904:

former sockmaster to see if he's still socking, when his unblock request depends pivotally on him not having used sockpuppets recently, is not fishing. Additionally, see the quote from the global checkuser policy below.

798: 308:

1) The OC is formally tasked only with investigating privacy policy complains, hence AUSC should be the first place to handle complains as they can look at compliance with the global and local checkuser and oversight

258:

ArbCom investigating itself is certainly not best practice. There is too much history, too much involvement. Which can, I suppose, lead - either inadvertently or otherwise - to settling scores or to favouritism.

567:

How many CUs were performed based on behavioral evidence in 2012 (or other reasonably large time period). Of those checks, how many found reasonable technical confirmation the two accounts were the same editor?

147:

Would you be happy with the Ombudsman Commission assuming the role of investigating abuse of the checkuser and oversight tools on the English Knowledge (XXG)? Why would you like/dislike this to happen?

140:

To help guide your answers, some questions for you to consider are given below, but you do not have to answer these either directly or indirectly if you feel your answer is adequate without doing so.

1452: 1379: 137:

and given appropriate weight. Please bear in the mind the time constraints here; I'm flying in one week, and need time to read any remarks you have, so please write as soon as possible!

588:

As for your second question, I'm in no position to answer it, and I rather doubt that full enough records were kept to answer it in a retrospective question. But I could be wrong. :)

911:

The tool is to be used to fight vandalism, to check for sockpuppet abuse, and to limit disruption of the project. It must be used only to prevent damage to any of Wikimedia projects.

885:

is defined as, "to check an account where there is no credible evidence to suspect sockpuppetry. Checks are inappropriate unless there is evidence suggesting abusive sock-puppetry."

500:

We don't believe quantum physics because the physicists have degrees or make convincing speeches, but because repeated and reproducible experimental results validate the findings.

1325:

If they haven't logged in for 90 days, it would be useless because they wouldn't have any stored ip adresses to compare other users against. At least, that's my understanding.--

1142: 1050: 751: 636: 130: 1517: 1431: 1346:

the other hand, site bans are (or should be) an exceptional enough occurrence that it shouldn't be too labor-intensive to run a procedural check as a preventative measure. —

1125: 827: 477: 1064:

privileges on the English Knowledge (XXG). The AUSC also monitors CheckUser and Oversight activity and use of the applicable tools. The current non-arbitrator members are

762:

privileges on the English Knowledge (XXG). The AUSC also monitors CheckUser and Oversight activity and use of the applicable tools. The current non-arbitrator members are

980:

and not worth responding to. If you do not know this, then you should definitely be reading up more on our practices and standards before launching discussions here. --

1385:

Successful candidates are likely to be regularly available and already familiar with local and global processes, policies, and guidelines especially those concerning

1382:. Experienced editors are invited to apply for either or both of the permissions, and current holders of either permission are also invited to apply for the other. 721:

Schroeder, A., Wagner, C. (2012). Governance of open content creation: A conceptualization and analysis of control and guiding mechanisms in the open content domain.

549:

correctly there are only 39 CUs out of a population of 136,201 ({{NUMBEROFACTIVEUSERS}}); that's 0.0286 % of the wikipedia community. If there was ever a recipe for

535:

If we decide on behavior evidence to do a check user and get the same IP's (and possibly http protocol strings from client browsers) that proves we were right.

1281: 102:

I have just accepted a contractual position with the Wikimedia Foundation, and posted a full disclosure with details and an invitation for community comments

369:

this sounds like a three day vacation to San Francisco on WMF's dime. what was discussed that couldn't have been discussed over Skype or similar method?,

277:

2.) I'd prefer to leave the AUSC in place, if policing your own can catch a few mistakes without too much fuss, then that option should be open I think.

1530: 190:

is good, and I think having a WMF appointed committee is preferred for ensuring WMF's privacy policy is maintained. AUSC should investigate first.

888:

As CU can only see back a few months, and there is no indication of any activity since 6 months ago, this seems to fit the definition of fishing.

418:

can spoof headers, including the useragent, which may make it appear that a good-faith editor with IPBE is actually a sock of a disruptive editor.

1083:

Please note that due to Wikimedia Foundation rules governing access to deleted material, only applications from administrators will be accepted.

404: 1529:

A motion has been proposed regarding activity levels for holders of both CU and OS tools. If you wish to comment, please join the discussion at

1488:

The consultation phase is scheduled to end 23:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC), and the appointments are scheduled to be announced by 24 August 2013.

623:

The quote from Risker indicates SPI initiated checks are a minority so that doesn't seem the SPI archives are a valid representative sample.

1174:

The consultation phase is scheduled to end 23:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC), and the appointments are scheduled to be announced by 28 April 2013.

1009:

I asked here, because I wanted to try to understand if it fitted the policy as 'fishing' - it seems to to me, but I wondered if others did.

89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 370: 961:

is a valid reason to check a user too? The current policy, and interpretations of it, means a CU can pretty much check anyone, any time?

564:

Has there ever been any rigorous studies on the accuracy of CU? (You know, controlled experiments, control groups, that sort of thing?)

1444: 1371: 1138: 126: 1010: 962: 943: 889: 869: 423: 462: 647: 614: 1023:

You're more than welcome to do so. My apologies, I should have clarified; our debate was pointless, but your enquiry was not. --

1502: 1354: 1335: 1316: 554: 538:

If we decide on behavior evidence to do a check user and don't get any technical evidence, that doesn't mean we were wrong.

855: 274:

1.) Yes, (support) 1b.)as said above, I agree that a checks and balances system (Separation of powers) is a good thing.

1220:

Welcome to Knowledge (XXG) (WP). That would be logical, I guess, but WP is not a strictly logical place by any means.

602:

It would take a lot of manpower to come up with this statistic, but you can get an overall sense by going through the

47: 17: 1102:. Once again, the application period will close at 23:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC). Further information is also available 1076:, whose terms were to expire on February 28 but were extended with their agreement until April 30 by the Committee. 1056:

The Audit Subcommittee ("AUSC") is comprised of six members and is tasked with investigations concerning the use of

774:, whose terms were to expire on February 28 but were extended with their agreement until April 30 by the Committee. 1114: 38: 488: 160: 1197:

Shouldn't users who have access to the CheckUser tool really be known as "CheckUserers" or "CheckUserUsers"? ;)

813: 593: 374: 1145:, and is now seeking comments from the community regarding the candidates who have volunteered for this role. 513:

to his relativity theory, later called in "his greatest blunder," but more recent physicists have revived it.

754:("AUSC"). The Committee is comprised of six members and is tasked with investigations concerning the use of 208: 427: 1265:

is currently holding a request for comment. Currently, the Commission only hears complaints regarding the

733: 1390: 1386: 1061: 1057: 759: 755: 408: 1506: 1240: 1206: 1110: 1014: 966: 947: 893: 863: 797:. The application period will close at 23:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC). Further information is also available 510: 280:

3.) n/a. But I'm not sure that "English" wiki should be sticking its nose in other wiki's functionings.

103: 1269:. We propose to change the scope of the Commission to also include hearing complaints about the global 317:

bodies act based on different policies and reasoning, and both of them can investigate the same case.

1538: 644: 611: 247: 187: 882: 532:

We know what we're doing because we've done it thousands of times and learned from other checkusers.

163:. If you prefer IRC, my current nick of choice is SuctionCups and you can find me in #wikipedia-en. 1498: 1350: 1331: 1312: 806: 589: 1262: 121: 520: 204: 383:

You'd have to ask the staff that, as some of the things that were discussed were confidental. --

1393:. CheckUser candidates are expected to be technically proficient, and previous experience with 1291: 1024: 998: 981: 930: 684: 550: 487:

that CU routinely conduct off wiki operations; my first thought is she was wrong on policy as

384: 339: 260: 170: 1394: 994: 926: 1418: 1235: 1222: 1201: 1183: 859: 849: 699: 659: 625: 570: 516: 481:

to raise my concerns on AC/N as I consider it secondary to the primary issues in that case.

447: 192: 1560: 1542: 1510: 1424: 1357: 1340: 1319: 1297: 1248: 1226: 1214: 1187: 1118: 1030: 1018: 1004: 987: 970: 951: 936: 897: 820: 703: 690: 680: 663: 651: 629: 618: 603: 597: 451: 431: 415: 390: 378: 362: 345: 329: 301: 267: 252: 212: 196: 176: 110: 1534: 1274: 1270: 916: 641: 608: 553:

this seems to be it. Given that years of fulltime scholarship have unable to resolve the

241: 1049:

This is a reminder that the application period for the three non-arbitrator seats on the

1493: 1347: 1327: 1309: 858:) was blocked for socking in September 2010. He used socks; the last was 6 months ago, 466: 463:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Blocking policy#Proposed prohibition on undoing an oversight block

294: 1266: 1554:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject on open proxies/IP indefblock review 2014/CU blocks

1407:

for further information. The application period is scheduled to close 22 July 2013.

750:

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint three non-arbitrator members to the

1294: 1069: 1065: 1027: 1001: 984: 933: 767: 763: 687: 484:

I was surprised to come to the realization from Risker's comment on WTT's talk page

387: 355: 352:

the remit in general be raised on meta, I can give you some more general thoughts.

342: 322: 173: 1557: 1411: 1179: 845: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

1439:

2013 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Invitation to comment on candidates

1073: 771: 107: 1525:

Motion proposed regarding activity levels for holders of both CU and OS tools

726: 977: 289: 1133:

Audit Subcommittee appointments (2013): Invitation to comment on candidates

557:, what makes ya'll think you can reliably tell if two users are the same? 522:

announcing tachyon neutrinos -- later scrutiny found the result erroneous.

407:, perhaps it might be a good idea to add the following information under 1053:

will close at 23:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC), less than 36 hours from now.

723:

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology

405:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Arbitration Committee#I demand you all step down

1141:

is seeking to appoint at least three non-arbitrator members to the

1280:

For more information please visit the RFC, which can be found at

541:

We don't act alone, we have other check users verify our results.

1366:

2013 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Call for applications

506:

Quantum physicists are wrong but welcome review and correction:

285:

Guerillero's scenario appears logical to me. TY for asking. —

872:). There's no indication of any activity from him since then. 25: 1098:

to start the application procedure for an appointment ending

793:

to start the application procedure for an appointment ending

461:

Checkusers, could I ask you to take a look at my proposal at

1457:

seeking comments from the community regarding the candidates

839:(Discussion arose on AN under "User:Evangp unblock request" 503:

Quantum physicists don't keep secrets, they publish results.

1401:

If you think you may be suitably qualified, please see the

746:

Audit Subcommittee vacancies: Call for applications (2013)

414:

Functionaries performing a CheckUser should be aware that

1086:

If you think you may be suitably qualified, please email

781:

If you think you may be suitably qualified, please email

116:

Community consultation: Remit of the Ombudsman Commission

1045:

Audit Subcommittee vacancies: last call for applications

637:

Knowledge (XXG):Sockpuppet investigations/D62943/Archive

876: 840: 657:

transparency necessary for self governing communities.

546: 485: 1231:

I was joking, but thanks. Being logical is boring! --

1282:

m:Requests for comment/Scope of Ombudsman Commission

159:

If you have any questions, feel free to ask here or

1257:

RFC regarding the scope of the Ombudsman Commission

1284:. Please direct all questions and comments there. 457:Proposed prohibition on undoing an oversight block 909: 528:The checkuser mystique appears to be based on: 1462:Interested parties are invited to review the 1148:Interested parties are invited to review the 412: 8: 476:I found J. delanoy's initial explanation on 98:Declaration of possible conflict of interest 478:the arbitration committee noticeboard talk 1552:Please review the indef IP CU blocks at 590:Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation 422:Any other suggestions are most welcome. 409:Knowledge (XXG):CheckUser#Hints and tips 714: 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 7: 1548:Please review these checkuser blocks 1459:who have volunteered for this role. 1449:seeking to appoint additional users 1376:seeking to appoint additional users 929:so they can verify this for you. -- 234:: Incident --brought to the--: --> 226:: Incident --brought to the--: --> 24: 1410:For the Arbitration Committee, — 1473: 1159: 1090: 875:DeltaQuad performed a checkuser 785: 732: 437: 29: 1491:For the Arbitration Committee, 1177:For the Arbitration Committee, 1109:For the Arbitration Committee, 555:Shakespeare authorship question 489:Handling suspected sock puppets 1287:For the Ombudsman Commission, 804:For the Arbitration Committee, 205:A fluffernutter is a sandwich! 166:For the Ombudsman Commission, 18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:CheckUser 1: 1561:08:40, 23 December 2013 (UTC) 1543:01:55, 30 November 2013 (UTC) 1533:on the motions page. Thanks. 1453:CheckUser and Oversight teams 1380:CheckUser and Oversight teams 363:10:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC) 346:10:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC) 330:10:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC) 302:18:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC) 268:07:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC) 253:19:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC) 235:AUSC --Appealed to the--: --> 213:15:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC) 197:15:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC) 177:15:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC) 111:21:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC) 1303:Why not check banned users? 1576: 1511:05:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC) 1249:02:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC) 1227:01:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC) 1215:01:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC) 1119:14:57, 31 March 2013 (UTC) 1031:17:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC) 1019:20:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC) 1005:17:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC) 988:16:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC) 971:16:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC) 952:16:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC) 937:16:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC) 898:16:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC) 881:In the procedural policy, 821:18:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC) 704:15:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC) 691:14:54, 17 March 2013 (UTC) 664:15:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC) 652:02:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC) 630:02:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC) 619:23:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC) 598:23:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC) 452:14:25, 16 March 2013 (UTC) 391:11:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC) 1518:Discuss this announcement 1474: 1188:04:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC) 1160: 1091: 786: 560:Some concrete questions: 432:20:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC) 379:07:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC) 1425:22:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC) 1398:receiving permissions. 1358:23:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC) 1341:22:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC) 1320:18:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC) 509:Einstein famously added 1298:21:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC) 120:On Monday 4 March, the 921: 420: 403:Per the discussion at 1445:Arbitration Committee 1372:Arbitration Committee 1139:Arbitration Committee 681:account creation tool 511:Cosmological constant 42:of past discussions. 1263:Ombudsman Commission 188:Separation of powers 122:Ombudsman Commission 1479:lists.wikimedia.org 1165:lists.wikimedia.org 1096:lists.wikimedia.org 791:lists.wikimedia.org 224:Arbcom/AUSC Members 1336:List of good deeds 1275:m:Oversight policy 1143:Audit Subcommittee 1051:Audit Subcommittee 995:Audit Subcommittee 927:Audit Subcommittee 917:m:CheckUser policy 752:Audit Subcommittee 472:Checkuser accuracy 227:OC --Notify--: --> 131:Audit Subcommittee 1465:appointments page 1404:appointments page 1225: 1151:appointments page 702: 662: 628: 573: 551:Confirmation bias 519:published a note 450: 300: 195: 95: 94: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 1567: 1480: 1478: 1477: 1476: 1422: 1416: 1356: 1339: 1338: 1318: 1247: 1243: 1238: 1221: 1213: 1209: 1204: 1166: 1164: 1163: 1162: 1097: 1095: 1094: 1093: 919: 816: 792: 790: 789: 788: 738: 737: 736: 719: 698: 658: 624: 569: 446: 445: 441: 440: 399:Suggested update 358: 325: 299: 297: 286: 265: 250: 244: 191: 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 1575: 1574: 1570: 1569: 1568: 1566: 1565: 1564: 1550: 1527: 1472: 1470: 1441: 1419: 1412: 1368: 1353: 1330: 1326: 1315: 1305: 1259: 1241: 1236: 1232: 1207: 1202: 1198: 1195: 1158: 1156: 1135: 1089: 1087: 1047: 920: 915: 837: 814: 784: 782: 748: 743: 742: 741: 731: 725:63(10):1947–59 720: 716: 545:If I'm reading 474: 459: 438: 436: 401: 356: 323: 295: 287: 261: 248: 242: 184: 118: 100: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 1573: 1571: 1549: 1546: 1526: 1523: 1522: 1521: 1440: 1437: 1436: 1435: 1367: 1364: 1363: 1362: 1361: 1360: 1304: 1301: 1267:privacy policy 1258: 1255: 1254: 1253: 1252: 1251: 1194: 1191: 1178: 1134: 1131: 1130: 1129: 1046: 1043: 1042: 1041: 1040: 1039: 1038: 1037: 1036: 1035: 1034: 1033: 990: 954: 922: 913: 906: 905: 842:, moved here) 836: 833: 832: 831: 805: 747: 744: 740: 739: 713: 712: 708: 707: 706: 677: 676: 675: 674: 673: 672: 671: 670: 669: 668: 667: 666: 586: 582: 575: 574: 565: 543: 542: 539: 536: 533: 526: 525: 524: 523: 514: 504: 501: 473: 470: 458: 455: 400: 397: 396: 395: 394: 393: 371:174.141.213.46 366: 365: 335: 334: 333: 332: 314: 310: 305: 304: 282: 281: 278: 275: 271: 270: 238: 237: 232:Other CU/OSers 229: 216: 215: 183: 180: 157: 156: 152: 148: 117: 114: 99: 96: 93: 92: 87: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 1572: 1563: 1562: 1559: 1556:. Thanks. -- 1555: 1547: 1545: 1544: 1540: 1536: 1532: 1524: 1520: 1519: 1515: 1514: 1513: 1512: 1508: 1504: 1500: 1496: 1495: 1489: 1486: 1482: 1467: 1466: 1460: 1458: 1455:, and is now 1454: 1450: 1446: 1438: 1434: 1433: 1429: 1428: 1427: 1426: 1423: 1421: 1417: 1415: 1408: 1406: 1405: 1399: 1396: 1392: 1388: 1383: 1381: 1377: 1373: 1365: 1359: 1355: 1352: 1349: 1344: 1343: 1342: 1337: 1333: 1329: 1324: 1323: 1322: 1321: 1317: 1314: 1311: 1302: 1300: 1299: 1296: 1293: 1288: 1285: 1283: 1278: 1276: 1272: 1268: 1264: 1256: 1250: 1246: 1245: 1244: 1239: 1230: 1229: 1228: 1224: 1219: 1218: 1217: 1216: 1212: 1211: 1210: 1205: 1192: 1190: 1189: 1185: 1181: 1175: 1172: 1168: 1153: 1152: 1146: 1144: 1140: 1132: 1128: 1127: 1123: 1122: 1121: 1120: 1116: 1112: 1107: 1105: 1101: 1084: 1081: 1077: 1075: 1071: 1067: 1063: 1059: 1054: 1052: 1044: 1032: 1029: 1026: 1022: 1021: 1020: 1016: 1012: 1008: 1007: 1006: 1003: 1000: 996: 991: 989: 986: 983: 979: 974: 973: 972: 968: 964: 960: 955: 953: 949: 945: 940: 939: 938: 935: 932: 928: 923: 918: 912: 908: 907: 902: 901: 900: 899: 895: 891: 886: 884: 879: 877: 873: 871: 868: 865: 861: 857: 854: 851: 847: 843: 841: 834: 830: 829: 825: 824: 823: 822: 819: 817: 810: 809: 802: 800: 796: 779: 775: 773: 769: 765: 761: 757: 753: 745: 735: 730: 729: 724: 718: 715: 711: 705: 701: 695: 694: 693: 692: 689: 686: 682: 665: 661: 655: 654: 653: 650: 649: 646: 643: 638: 633: 632: 631: 627: 622: 621: 620: 617: 616: 613: 610: 605: 601: 600: 599: 595: 591: 587: 583: 579: 578: 577: 576: 572: 566: 563: 562: 561: 558: 556: 552: 548: 540: 537: 534: 531: 530: 529: 521: 518: 515: 512: 508: 507: 505: 502: 499: 498: 497: 493: 490: 486: 482: 479: 471: 469: 468: 464: 456: 454: 453: 449: 444: 434: 433: 429: 425: 419: 417: 411: 410: 406: 398: 392: 389: 386: 382: 381: 380: 376: 372: 368: 367: 364: 361: 360: 359: 350: 349: 348: 347: 344: 341: 331: 328: 327: 326: 319: 318: 315: 311: 307: 306: 303: 298: 292: 291: 284: 283: 279: 276: 273: 272: 269: 266: 264: 257: 256: 255: 254: 251: 245: 233: 230: 225: 222: 221: 220: 214: 210: 206: 201: 200: 199: 198: 194: 189: 181: 179: 178: 175: 172: 167: 164: 162: 153: 149: 146: 145: 144: 141: 138: 134: 132: 128: 123: 115: 113: 112: 109: 105: 97: 91: 88: 86: 83: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 1551: 1528: 1516: 1492: 1490: 1487: 1483: 1463: 1461: 1456: 1442: 1432:Discuss this 1430: 1420: 1413: 1409: 1402: 1400: 1384: 1369: 1306: 1289: 1286: 1279: 1260: 1234: 1233: 1200: 1199: 1196: 1176: 1173: 1169: 1150: 1147: 1136: 1126:Discuss this 1124: 1108: 1100:30 June 2014 1099: 1085: 1082: 1078: 1055: 1048: 958: 910: 887: 880: 874: 866: 852: 844: 838: 828:Discuss this 826: 811: 807: 803: 795:30 June 2014 794: 780: 776: 749: 727: 722: 717: 709: 678: 640: 607: 606:archives. -- 559: 544: 527: 494: 483: 475: 460: 442: 435: 421: 413: 402: 354: 353: 336: 321: 320: 288: 263:Roger Davies 262: 239: 231: 223: 217: 185: 168: 165: 158: 142: 139: 135: 133:on enwiki). 119: 101: 78: 43: 37: 1471:arbcom-en-c 1157:arbcom-en-c 1088:arbcom-en-c 1011:88.104.27.2 963:88.104.27.2 944:88.104.27.2 890:88.104.27.2 860:Buttchunker 783:arbcom-en-c 424:64.40.54.87 143:Questions: 36:This is an 1535:Carcharoth 1531:the motion 1277:policies. 883:WP:FISHING 710:References 243:Guerillero 1494:Callanecc 1391:Oversight 1387:CheckUser 1348:Scott5114 1328:Gilderien 1310:Scott5114 1271:Checkuser 1111:T. Canens 1062:Oversight 1058:CheckUser 978:straw man 760:Oversight 756:CheckUser 547:ListUsers 467:Prioryman 309:policies. 151:entirely? 90:Archive 7 85:Archive 6 79:Archive 5 73:Archive 4 68:Archive 3 60:Archive 1 1503:contribs 870:contribs 856:contribs 835:Fishing? 182:Comments 161:email me 129:and the 1451:to the 1378:to the 1295:ɐuɐʞsǝp 1070:MBisanz 1066:Avraham 1028:ɐuɐʞsǝp 1002:ɐuɐʞsǝp 985:ɐuɐʞsǝp 959:me, now 934:ɐuɐʞsǝp 768:MBisanz 764:Avraham 688:ɐuɐʞsǝp 388:ɐuɐʞsǝp 357:Snowolf 343:ɐuɐʞsǝp 324:Snowolf 249:My Talk 174:ɐuɐʞsǝp 39:archive 1558:zzuuzz 1292:(ʞɿɐʇ) 1237:Frigid 1223:NE Ent 1203:Frigid 1180:Risker 1072:, and 1025:(ʞɿɐʇ) 999:(ʞɿɐʇ) 982:(ʞɿɐʇ) 931:(ʞɿɐʇ) 846:Evangp 770:, and 700:NE Ent 685:(ʞɿɐʇ) 660:NE Ent 626:NE Ent 604:WP:SPI 571:NE Ent 517:Nature 448:NE Ent 385:(ʞɿɐʇ) 340:(ʞɿɐʇ) 193:NE Ent 171:(ʞɿɐʇ) 155:(XXG)? 127:ArbCom 1242:Ninja 1208:Ninja 1074:Ponyo 772:Ponyo 581:that. 186:Yes. 108:Coren 106:. — 16:< 1539:talk 1507:logs 1499:talk 1443:The 1395:OTRS 1389:and 1370:The 1332:Chat 1273:and 1261:The 1193:Name 1184:talk 1137:The 1115:talk 1104:here 1060:and 1015:talk 997:. -- 967:talk 948:talk 894:talk 864:talk 850:talk 815:Talk 799:here 758:and 648:7754 645:chen 615:7754 612:chen 594:talk 443:Done 428:talk 375:talk 290:Ched 228:AUSC 209:talk 104:here 1447:is 1414:ΛΧΣ 1374:is 1106:. 801:. 728:DOI 416:Tor 1541:) 1509:) 1505:• 1501:• 1481:. 1290:-- 1186:) 1167:. 1117:) 1068:, 1017:) 969:) 950:) 914:— 896:) 878:. 808:NW 766:, 642:Rs 609:Rs 596:) 465:? 430:) 377:) 296:? 293:: 246:| 240:-- 236:OC 211:) 169:-- 64:← 1537:( 1497:( 1351:↗ 1334:| 1313:↗ 1182:( 1113:( 1013:( 965:( 946:( 892:( 867:· 862:( 853:· 848:( 818:) 812:( 592:( 426:( 373:( 207:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge (XXG)

talk:CheckUser/Archive 5 - Knowledge (XXG)

Index