Wikipedia talk:Quick and dirty Checkuser policy

Maybe this page should be merged on to the bottom of the RFA page like the request for bureaucratship is? That way it would be more visable as well, just a thought. Martin 22:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a very good idea to me, how do others feel? --fvw * 22:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. I'll move it now. R adiant _>|< 23:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

40 votes

Just noting that 55 votes have been cast now, and there's barely 80% support of the policy. Three hours left on the vote, and we got a result. Titoxd^(?!?) 20:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to see this passed. I should point out that generally, the minimum support for a policy proposal is 70%, so 80.4% clears that with a wide margin. I believe that some of the people who opposed it thought that this proposal was to give checkuser rights to all admins. That is not the case - the intent is to allow users to enter a Requests For Checkuser process, which is similar to a Request For Adminship or Request For Bureaucratship.
I propose that nominations be added to a new section on the WP:RFA page. I also propose that someone suitable be nominated by tomorrow, because that is ultimately the only way to see how it will work out. R adiant _>|< 22:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What nonsense

This isn't simply a matter we can vote on, it requires board involvement because we must change our privacy policy.
There wasn't enough time for this discussion in any case, I didn't get a chance to issue a counter proposal which would limit the information disclosed via a sockcheck-lite which could be given somewhat more freely, but only told disclosed information about blocked users (consistant with the privacy policy which requires vandalism).

The effort to foist it on the community based on some bogus percentage criteria simply isn't going to fly. --Gmaxwell 02:40, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]