French
Deutsch|
|
CheckUser
[edit source]Has this project considered getting a pair of them? Leaderboard (talk) 06:22, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
- Back in 2014 I think, but I really don't think it's worth it. Sockpuppetry isn't banned on this wiki. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 07:34, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
- @SHB2000: Using multiple accounts is not banned for sure, but using them inappropriately is. And it seems to be that CheckUser could help some of the admins in checking for sockpuppet abuse (which is normally not disclosed). Leaderboard (talk) 08:10, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
- But there's really no one here who'd put their hand up for it. And there's always meta to do it. (Although it would be useful to check a list of Brendan John Williams accounts) SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 08:15, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
- If there was a strong enough reason to have local checkuser, we could probably find a couple of admins willing to volunteer (ideally you would have at least 3 initial requests so that if one fails you still have 2 (the minimum to allow local checkusers)) but is there such a need? Also, its possible to have local checkusers and still allow stewards to help, precedent at wikibooks:Wikibooks:Global rights policy#Stewards --DannyS712 (talk) 08:22, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
- I'll leave the "is there such a need" part to the community; I made this suggestion through observation when doing RC patrolling. I think it's a bit odd that a wiki with 50 admins does not have a checkuser though. Leaderboard (talk) 09:23, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
- True. Especially when Wikibooks has about an eighth of the size of Wikivoyage. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 09:26, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
- I'll leave the "is there such a need" part to the community; I made this suggestion through observation when doing RC patrolling. I think it's a bit odd that a wiki with 50 admins does not have a checkuser though. Leaderboard (talk) 09:23, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
- I believe some admins would be willing. I've got a semi-work-related question for you all:
- Part of a CU's job is to keep private information private. I know you all know how to do that.
- The other part is knowing some technical information (like knowing whether 12.34.56.78 is closer to 12.34.56.79 or to 13.34.56.78).
- Would any of you feel more confident in putting your hand up for this if there was some basic informational training available, such as a couple of recommended videos to watch or a virtual meeting to see how someone else uses the tools? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:38, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
- I have experience in dealing with IP addresses for the purposes of detecting and blocking activities such as online piracy, and exploitation of compromised credentials, so I have the foundational tech knowledge. I don't particularly lack confidence that I could learn what else there would be to know. My reluctance to put my hand up would be because of worries about the time commitment for learning the tools and policies. I doubt it is quite as simple as watching a couple of videos or an online meeting. I prefer spending time on content and policies rather than chores. If I was persuaded that the time commitment was not too great, I would be more willing. Nurg (talk) 11:41, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
- I'm a bit inactive here at the moment, but yes, I've wondered about the lack of local functionaries -- this is one of the more significant projects not to have them, so far as I can tell. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 13:51, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
- If there was a strong enough reason to have local checkuser, we could probably find a couple of admins willing to volunteer (ideally you would have at least 3 initial requests so that if one fails you still have 2 (the minimum to allow local checkusers)) but is there such a need? Also, its possible to have local checkusers and still allow stewards to help, precedent at wikibooks:Wikibooks:Global rights policy#Stewards --DannyS712 (talk) 08:22, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
- But there's really no one here who'd put their hand up for it. And there's always meta to do it. (Although it would be useful to check a list of Brendan John Williams accounts) SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 08:15, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
- @SHB2000: Using multiple accounts is not banned for sure, but using them inappropriately is. And it seems to be that CheckUser could help some of the admins in checking for sockpuppet abuse (which is normally not disclosed). Leaderboard (talk) 08:10, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Stewards
[edit source]In the case that the two active CU nominations succeed, I propose adding the following paragraph, which permits stewards to continue using CU tools even if there are local checkusers. This is similar to enwikibooks policy, another wiki of similar size to us and receives about the same level of abuse.
Stewards may continue to use their checkuser tools even when local checkusers are appointed and available. Their use of the tool is not limited solely to situations where no local checkuser is active or present.
//shb (t | c | m) 01:32, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
- I would support this to keep the system in check. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 01:44, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
- Somewhat off-topic, but I suppose it's a good thing that this wiki is quite positive to global rights holders (maybe with permissions overall). Maybe it's because much of it was influenced from Wikibooks (which is about as lax, if not more, as we are), or just the general resentment to excessive bureaucracy on enwiki. From my own experience doing global sysop work, nothing is worse than seeing abuse so blatantly and not being able to do anything about it. //shb (t | c | m) 02:39, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
- The challenge of Wikipedia is the sheer size of the site makes it remarkably difficult to manage. As great as WP is, I bet a ton of LTAs lurk in the shadows because there is no sense of community that keeps an eye on them. It's very hard to get away with the same behavior here because everyone knows everyone. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 02:59, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
- I think very small wikis (fewer than 3 active sysops) are probs better havens for LTAs, but it can be a hit or miss (since they'll easily get picked up with SWViewer and some IRC bots) – I've had to delete spam pages from a decade ago sometimes, but also plenty of old vandalised orphaned talk pages from years ago. We're likely at the sweet spot where we have both a community that actively maintains an eye on everything that happens in the community whilst also having a community that picks up spam/vandalism at the same time. //shb (t | c | m) 03:05, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
- The challenge of Wikipedia is the sheer size of the site makes it remarkably difficult to manage. As great as WP is, I bet a ton of LTAs lurk in the shadows because there is no sense of community that keeps an eye on them. It's very hard to get away with the same behavior here because everyone knows everyone. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 02:59, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
- I also support this. We are happy to have help from whomever is patrolling and wants to do a service to the site and its users. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:23, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
- I also support it. Leaderboard (talk) 03:42, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
- Somewhat off-topic, but I suppose it's a good thing that this wiki is quite positive to global rights holders (maybe with permissions overall). Maybe it's because much of it was influenced from Wikibooks (which is about as lax, if not more, as we are), or just the general resentment to excessive bureaucracy on enwiki. From my own experience doing global sysop work, nothing is worse than seeing abuse so blatantly and not being able to do anything about it. //shb (t | c | m) 02:39, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
- If there are no further comments by Wednesday, shall we make this policy? //shb (t | c | m) 10:12, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
- Seems like a good idea to me. Mrkstvns (talk) 13:58, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
- Sure! --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 14:18, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Done. Wording might need to be edited a bit once the two CU nominations succeed, but this can be done next week. //shb (t | c | m) 11:46, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
- Sure! --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 14:18, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
- Seems like a good idea to me. Mrkstvns (talk) 13:58, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
TAs
[edit source]Those are teaching assistants to me. What is meant by that abbreviation? Is there such a thing as a temporary account, perhaps? Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, it does mean temporary accounts (I'll clarify this, but expect this abbreviation to be very widely used almost everywhere in the coming months). //shb (t | c | m) 21:04, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Everyone being a CheckUser on Wikivoyage
[edit source]What if, everyone (all users) on the Wikivoyage, was a CheckUser on this site, and all of them had CU access? What do you think of this? ~2026-91966-0 (talk) 18:18, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- I think it's not a serious question. Do you want to work to improve this travel guide? Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:32, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- How to create chaos 101, visualised. //shb (t | c | m) 23:06, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- Guys, you're feeding the trolls. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:52, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- tbh I'd rather x-wiki vandals waste their time here than playing cat and mouse with them on multiple wikis. //shb (t | c | m) 21:47, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- Guys, you're feeding the trolls. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:52, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
Enabling SuggestedInvestigations
[edit source]@SelfieCity, OhanaUnited: I've been wanting to start this discussion for a while, but I propose we enable SuggestedInvestigations. I've used it on loginwiki, and it does a great job of compiling a list of potential socks based on other signals/cues. I don't want to elaborate much further since SI isn't public (and I don't want LTAs to change their tactics if they know what the hints are), but this only needs checkusers' consensus on this site. //shb (t • c) 02:33, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
- I support this. OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:58, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
- If this gets no further comments by tomorrow, I'll file a phab task. Don't think this will get any more participation tbh. //shb (t • c) 08:40, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
- Just curious: how would this be a change, since we can already request a checkuser? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:23, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
- SI is fully internal (only visible to checkusers and stewards) – the software compiles a list of users that it might think are related, suspicious enough to warrant a checkuser investigation. A lot of these cues are really subtle and not the ones that you'd otherwise pick up by just tracking their editing patterns. //shb (t • c) 10:35, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek More information are explained at mw:Product Safety and Integrity/Suggested Investigations. OhanaUnitedTalk page 14:39, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks. SHB's explanation is sufficient for me. It's simple and uncontroversial for you guys to set up a list as you described. I support.
- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:59, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek More information are explained at mw:Product Safety and Integrity/Suggested Investigations. OhanaUnitedTalk page 14:39, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
- SI is fully internal (only visible to checkusers and stewards) – the software compiles a list of users that it might think are related, suspicious enough to warrant a checkuser investigation. A lot of these cues are really subtle and not the ones that you'd otherwise pick up by just tracking their editing patterns. //shb (t • c) 10:35, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
- Just curious: how would this be a change, since we can already request a checkuser? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:23, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
- If this gets no further comments by tomorrow, I'll file a phab task. Don't think this will get any more participation tbh. //shb (t • c) 08:40, 30 October 2026 (UTC)