Replacement filing cabinet This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page, other than for maintenance. If you wish to revisit this topic, please bring it up again in a new topic.
Forums: Index War Room Checkuser (admin discussion)
Forum logo

I received this email after requesting Checkuser rights for this wiki:


We have gotten your email, and are considering your query. Giving access to that tool is not a choice we make lightly, and it is debated each time among the team.

We usually require that there be more then one CheckUser user on a wiki (we prefer atleast 3), so that others can verify the actions done using that data.

Can you please discuss it among the other admins, and decide who you would like to have it, and get back to us with the names.

For those who don't know, Checkuser allows users with the tool to check what IPs are linked to what usernames and vice versa. It is used to combat vandalism and sockpuppetry. It definitely would not hurt to have that tool on this wiki at hand because we have had previous instances of major sockpuppetry and there's nothing which says this won't happen again.

So I nominate myself, User:Bovell, User:Chiafriend12 and User:Darkman 4 to be given this tool. We four users have plenty of experience as administrators and we will know when to use this tool appropriately. Checkuser is supposed to be used sparsely. Having 4 users with this tool would allow us to easily verify the actions done as it says in the email.

Note this tool would not change our status as administrators. We would not have any more authority or "power" because of this extra tool.

Discuss below. --Callofduty4 19:25, October 14, 2010 (UTC)


They say they prefer at least 3 but not limited to 3. If that is the case I would like to put my self on the list also as I am on the wiki at least 2/3 of the day, everyday. Personal WHISKEY35 signature Talk 19:38, October 14, 2010 (UTC)

It's not really a matter about how often you're on, just whether you're active or not. I chose us 4 because we're probably the most experience administrators to still be active. --Callofduty4 19:41, October 14, 2010 (UTC)
I agree with whiskey's argument. Is there some way we can vote on this? I feel just as active as the other administrators. Personal Poketape 8-bit Price Emblem flippedPoketape Talk8-bit Price Emblem MW2 03:52, October 15, 2010 (UTC)

On the condition that the other two bureaucrats agree to their nomination, I accept my own. Semtex HUD icon MW2 Bovell Talk | Contrib. 21:33, October 14, 2010 (UTC)

As to vouch for its benefits, Checkuser has been conducted on the wiki's behalf by Wikia staff on numerous occasions. These instances in which sock-puppetry accusations have been made caused us to be reliant on emails between an administrator and a Wikia staff member, which, as our community gets larger, cannot be our sole method of dealing with such cases. Semtex HUD icon MW2 Bovell Talk | Contrib. 21:38, October 14, 2010 (UTC)
I accept my nomination. Darkman 4 03:58, October 15, 2010 (UTC)
While I have not been active for the past few months, I expect that to change soon.
I'm putting this first ahead of other priorities, because I believe it to be an important issue.
So far, I've requested three checkusers from Wikia.
All three have confirmed my suspicions. This shows that not only am I efficient, but also accurate.
I believe that I could be a valuable asset with checkuser abilities as I'm very active on IRC, and I plan to be active on the wiki a lot more as well.
I live in the most remote area in the world, which would probably dissuade any stalking issues that may be brought up in the future.
I think that of the four other people here that have been nominated, I would be able to use it just as well if not better.
Thank you, 8ight0h8ight 07:30, October 15, 2010 (UTC)
This wasn't supposed to be a place to nominate yourself, it was for discussing the current nominations. We can't give this to every administrator. The four users I've nominated plus maybe one more is all we will probably ever need.

--Callofduty4 17:27, October 15, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion is a vague term. -- 8ight0h8ight 01:45, October 16, 2010 (UTC)
Also note that we've heard no word from Chiafriend12 about whether he's interested in this tool. He might not be considering he isn't very active. If that's the case then there will definitely be a space open. --Callofduty4 17:34, October 15, 2010 (UTC)

With Black Ops coming out soon, there's no doubt that there's gonna be a surge of registered users, not to mention unregistered users. There's bound to be a few registered users with sockpuppet accounts. Giving the Checkuser rights to the original four listed is a good idea, and I also feel Eight could use them, as he's used them with success before. --ukimies {talk | irc | administration} 08:31, October 15, 2010 (UTC)

I think that Bovell should definitely get it. I don't think that any other administrators have enough experience, are active enough, and well-behaved enough to receive any sort of glowing endorsement from me, but at the same time I wouldn't really be opposed to any administrator receiving it. Imrlybord7 17:42, October 15, 2010 (UTC)
EDIT:If Eight is going to be a lot more active from now on then he should definitely get them too. Imrlybord7 17:43, October 15, 2010 (UTC)
I don't see how behavior comes into this - this isn't some sort of reward. --Callofduty4 17:44, October 15, 2010 (UTC)
Then why shouldn't every administrator receive it? The way I see it this is an issue of trust. If behavior is irrelevant then every administrator should have it. Imrlybord7 17:46, October 15, 2010 (UTC)
There's the matter of necessity. Not every administrator needs it. The RuneScape wiki only has 6 users with it if I remember correctly. If we go by that token then every administrator should be a bureaucrat. --Callofduty4 17:53, October 15, 2010 (UTC)
What determines whether or not an administrator needs an extra tool? If they would use it for the betterment of the wiki even once and are unlikely to abuse it, isn't it good for them to have it? Like I said, for me it all comes back to giving them that little bit of extra trust based on past behavior. But if behavior is a total non-issue here, then yes, every admin should also be granted Cratship if you ask me. But I think a lot of admins will agree with me that behavior is indeed a factor in such decisions. Imrlybord7 18:06, October 15, 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Bord here. Also, you seem to have single-handedly decided that you, Bovell, Darkman and Chiafriend should get it. I think what Eight did was the right thing to do, otherwise it turns into exclusivity, a prize if you will. Doc.Richtofen (Talk) 18:13, October 15, 2010 (UTC)
Like other rights that users can be given that can cause damage if used maliciously, previous behavior and our trust in a candidate should come into play. Having Checkuser rights would let you see potentially sensitive information about whoever it is you're using it on, so I definitely think we should only offer it to the people we trust the most. Not necessarily just bureaucrats, but I would see why they would be a good first choice by virtually default. Personally, I don't really want the ability to see other people's IPs.
In the past, with the few cases of sockpuppetry I remember that were actually a matter, Joey was able to use Checkuser to confirm whether or not multiple accounts originated from the same IP for those who don't already know. US Army WWII MSGTSgt. ChiafriendRifleman 01:09, October 16, 2010 (UTC)
Joey is reluctant to do any checkusers anymore, it says on the VSTF IRC channel that the "VSTF don't do Checkuser requests". Also, if you don't want the rights, then by no means should we force them onto you. This means another space is open. --Callofduty4 01:12, October 16, 2010 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I can only do CheckUsers on people for VSTF-ish purposes (generally just spam or vandalism under multiple accounts.) I have no problem helping out with this as long as it's strictly a vandalism/spam thing. That said, I cannot help out for pretty much anything else, so having some users as local CheckUsers here would surely help. CheckUser rights are definitely very serious, and if I remember correctly you must submit a NDA with Wikimedia if you were to become one on a Wikimedia project; be warned with whom you choose and make sure you trust them with sensitive information. If you want, you can add a CheckUser flag to me and then I can do CheckUsers here for any reasonable reason, considering I have general access to the tool on every Wikia project already. But that's all up to you guys, it makes little difference for me except having to respond to a few more pings on IRC, and as long as you choose trustworthy candidates then I'm happy. Cheers all, Joey aa@fandom 02:31, October 16, 2010 (UTC)
Wait, what do you mean another space is open? We haven't confirmed nor had much debate on whether there should be spaces, and if so, how many. Doc.Richtofen (Talk) 18:03, October 16, 2010 (UTC)
Wikia want at least 3 users with CheckUser. Going over 4 is overkill and since Chiafriend doesn't want to have the rights then we can have another user. As I've stated the 4 users I've nominated have the most experience as administrators and therefore are the best suited to receive the tool. --Callofduty4 01:00, October 18, 2010 (UTC)

New discussionEdit

We have now 3 users who accept their nomination. User:Callofduty4, User:Bovell and User:Darkman 4. We three users have plenty of experience as administrators and are suited to use this tool when required.

All I want to know is if you agree with this choice of users. No nominations. If we ever need another user to have CheckUser then we can run a nomination progress. If all is well I can send an email off to Wikia within a week. Thanks. --Callofduty4 01:05, October 18, 2010 (UTC)

Bovell said he'd accept on the condition that Dark and I both also accepted. US Army WWII MSGTSgt. ChiafriendRifleman 01:14, October 18, 2010 (UTC)
He did, I'll wait for him to say something about that. --Callofduty4 01:20, October 18, 2010 (UTC)
I do not have any major qualms about this. Semtex HUD icon MW2 Bovell Talk | Contrib. 00:03, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
I assume that to mean you still accept your nomination. --Callofduty4 03:02, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

From a discussion on IRC I now add User:EightOhEight and User:Joeyaa to the list of recipients. 5 users with the right is all we'll ever need. We 5 have extensive experience as administrators and have requested Checkusers before with successful results. Final thoughts? --Callofduty4 03:02, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

Per the last comment on the above discussion, it is stated that that going over 4 users with checkuser flags is "overkill" now you want to add 5 users? Overkill by who's standards? Why don't you want other active admins to get the flag? "Extensive experience" is a poor excuse for just giving it to "favored" admins with "extensive experience". If the less experienced admins aren't given the chance to learn how to use the tools of the trade how are they expected to gain that experience? And on the note of "5 users is all we'll ever need", I'd have to disagree. People find other things to do, Priorities, interests, life, always change. The list of inactive admins/b'crats is testimony to that. You think you'll be here forever and the next day, "Poof" your gone off to do other things, leaving a void that then has to be filled. If staff is willing to give admins the check user flag to more than three admins then it should be given to the users that want them, and are on for the majority of the day. As always if there ever is abuse of said flags, well they can always be revoked with a press of a button.Trust to use the tools properly should not be an issue here. If trust was an issue then we wouldn't be admins, would we? I fail to see the reasoning to having the flag being exclusive to admins with "extensive experience" and not even considering other users as well. Personal WHISKEY35 signature Talk 05:09, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

I accept my nomination. Darkman 4 06:04, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Whiskey here. People have things in their lives to do, and we can't expect us to be here forever. "All the experience we'll ever need", I think not. And as per Whiskey, why only those with "extensive experience"? If only those people are going to do anything, what's the point of most administrators being here? Doc.Richtofen (Talk) 06:35, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

I've stated before that we don't need any more than 5. The Star Wars wiki (which is like 10 times our size) has one user with local checkuser rights. If all of us leave for whatever reason, then you guys discuss who else to give it to. It's really not that hard. You're acting like all of us are going to leave within a week. If any of us were going to leave any time soon then I wouldn't have nominated them. Checkuser shouldn't be regarded as a flag - it's an extra user right. It can really only be given to users with extensive experience because this user right relies on a lot of experience - this tool cannot be used without having an extremely large suspicion a user is using multiple accounts, and a lot of the time that suspicion may not turn out to be true. Any use of this tool should be discussed with other users anyway. "Extensive experience" has nothing to do with the possibility of a user abusing the tool. "Extensive experience" is to show how effectively a user will use this tool. This really isn't a big deal. You aren't missing out on much without it. If you knew that we'd probably be using this tool maybe once every two months, you realize that it's not a huge deal whatsoever.
Regarding Imrlybord's behaviour argument - every single time a checkuser is run it is logged in a private log only viewable by users with the checkuser right (and Wikia staff). There will be no getting away with abusing the tool, and any abuse of this tool warrants a severe punishment anyway. --Callofduty4 13:48, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
So people who don't have "extensive experience" won't be able to use them effectively? Also, the difference is the same as rollback to a normal user. Its an extra tool, and a "step up" from being a normal user. This principle applies here also. Also, if its not a big deal, why are you trying to keep the amount of people that recieve it down? On top of that, what does it matter how many checkusers the star wars wiki has? That would only make 100% valid reasoning if the instances that the right is used is exactly the same overall on both wikis. And even if they were, wouldn't that mean that we would only need one? Doc.Richtofen (Talk) 18:55, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
We could probably get away with one user with it but Wikia wants us to have at least 3. If they wanted all admins to have it they would have added the right to the user group. Extensive experience is pretty much required to use the tool effectively, and prior experience in incidents where checkuser has been used to find offenders is useful, something I believe the nominated users have. --Callofduty4 21:31, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

Any further comments? --Callofduty4 21:55, October 23, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - the users who have accepted there nominations for the checkuser tool will receive it. --22px-1888721.png Azuristalk 23:34, October 24, 2010 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.