Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Its contents should be preserved in their current form. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

What happened?

What happened? It seems like nobody has been checkuser-ing for a while. Look at how many requests there are. What is the problem? --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 00:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm the only one running checks here, it gets done when I do it. I'm a volunteer here too, and people would do well to remember that. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 02:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought there were about 5 more checkusers other than you? --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 03:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think George was implying any laziness on your part Essjay. I think he was simply saying it was backlogged and wondering why. Why are you the only one doing it? Paul Cyr 04:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 04:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are thirteen users with checkuser on this project:

The majority are current members of the Arbitration Committee, and are occupied with thier Arbitration duties.
The others are former Arbitrators, and have done thier turn running public requests; they have all come to the realization that attending to RfCU is a never-ending and thankless task, and that thier efforts can be better directed elsewhere.
The vast majority of people with the permission are quite active in using it, just not for public requests (that is, RfCU); they run checks at the behest of the Arbitration Committee, the Foundation, and in response to other situations that arise.

That leaves me to run requests, and I have been more than happy to do it. I am quite capable of keeping up with the queue, I handled over 75% of the requests in May, though I estimate I ran between 70-80 hours worth of checking last month, minimum; people tend to forget/not know that checking is not just clicking buttons and watchig IPs pop out, it's a very involved and time consuming investigation based on the results produced. I'm currently reassessing whether I want to spend hour upon hour running checks, as well as the time spent trying to streamline and standardize the system, when all I seem to get for it are complaints.

I could offer a long list of suggestions that would increase the liklihood that checkusers would pay attention to these requests, but I don't feel my warnings that this was coming were listened to, and I don't want to waste time. There was a time not too long ago when the only way to get a checkuser was to file an Arbitration case, and I fear that time is very quickly returning. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 04:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I now understand that checkusering takes hard work and understand that you want thank-yous. But, people actually do appreciate your checkusering, because you help ...... alot. So, everybody, what do we say to Essjay?

Thank You! *Imagine a whole group of little kids screaming "Thank You Essjay" *

--GeorgeMoney ^T·C 04:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about thank yous. Granted, having people say thanks does mean a lot, but I can deal with not having people jumping up and down screaming "We love you."

What I want, not for a few days, but from now on, is:

Some backup from regular editors and admins.
People to check back on requests they've made, provide extra information when requested, and see that the results are acted on.
A few people, preferably some experienced and trustworthy editors, to check in every so often and make sure things are getting in the right sections, that old requests with new sections are getting moved back to the top where I can find them, and that old stuff is getting attended to and archived off.
People to stop turning RfCU into ANI; RfCU is for requests, ANI is for discussing.

I don't think any of the above are unreasonable, nor are they really anything I should have to say.

Perhaps people feel like they're "not supposed to touch anything": Please do, you're welcome to. If you see a section that should be in the outstanding requests section, move it there. If you see that there are several dozen week-old checks in the complete and rejected sections, archive it off.

If you requested a check, expect you're going to get a result here, and make a note to check back. If you request it when I'm online, you'll probably have a result within a couple hours; there are cases where I have to wait to talk to another checkuser, to get additional information or something, but most checks are answered fairly quickly, giving consideration that it may take an hour or longer to check and investigate.

Admins especially, but to all experienced editors, watch what goes on here (one or two passes a day will do), and when you see someone biting my head off for doing my job, back me up. If they're ranting without any basis whatsoever (as quite a lot do) then warn them off; if they've got a legit question but are wrapping it up in personal attacks, then give them a few pointers on how to get things done without being hateful.

For the love of Jimbo, if you're arguing about the merits of a check, please, please, please do it somewhere else. Move it to ANI and discuss, or here on the talk page, but please don't turn requests into discussion threads. If you feel confident enough to do so, move such threads off the request page, preferably by cutting out everything past the initial request, unless what is being said sounds like it's something that really, absolutely, positively has to be included.

Finally, don't argue over the trivial. There are a number of rather trivial things that assist me greatly in doing this job and keep me doing it, and I'd greatly appreciate it if they were left alone. I really don't want to be one of those people who says "Give me my toys, or I won't come out and play," but it's much easier for me to just not run any checks, and thereby avoid the arguments, than it is to spend several hours running checks and several more arguing over something stupid that isn't hurting anyone.

So, there you have it. That's why checks aren't being run, and a pretty good outline for how to get them running again. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 06:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatives

What are some alternatives to use before requesting a checkuser to try to determine if an account is a sock? I'm asking for more technical means, as opposed to looking for similar contribution patterns, targets, etc. Tijuana Brass^E@ 20:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert by any means, but other than the basic analysis you can do on an IP (whois, reverse DNS, etc) I don't know of any way to dig into a registered user's identity except checkuser. You might want to look at Wikipedia:Privacy policy. If you look at WP:SOCK, I believe sockpuppetry is determined by behavior. Checkuser is an imperfect type of confirmation. Thatcher131 21:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK there aren't any, other than perhaps catching the sockpuppeteer changing a tilde signature from one of their accounts to another. What you said (contribution patterns, similarities in editing and edit summaries, new users who seem to have an amazing grasp of wiki policy) is what I use as basis for requesting a CheckUser. Syrthiss 21:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Followup question

What is supposed to be done next? There's a case where some new users suspected a sockpuppet being used to issue personal attacks and get around 3RR. They complained to an admin, the admin told them to back it up with a checkuser request, and it came back "likely". So what should the new users now do with that "likely"? What's the next step? Thanks, --Elonka 16:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser is for investigation, not enforcement. Thatcher131 16:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It can be reported back with the checkuser evidence to the admin you complained to before. It can also be reported to the Admin Noticeboard with the checkuser evidence & appropriate diffs of the violations. Since checkuser evidence is present, you are very likely to get a positive response. --Srikeit ^{(Talk | Email)} 16:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, except in this case it has been discussed ad nauseum on WP:ANI and there do not seem to be any admins willing to take action. At this point, I would compose a polite message for the regular noticeboard WP:AN, which gets less traffic and is a bit more serious discussion. Include some diffs of uncivil behavior and proof of the two accounts working together to avoid 3RR. Point out the section on WP:AN/I so no one thinks you're trying to gloss over the previous discussion. Ask for simple remedies (at this point I would ask to block Victrix and strongly caution DreamGuy). Do not bad mouth the admins who commented before. Be polite. (I suggest workiing it all out on a subpage in advance to get it just right).

You can report future cases of 3RR avoidance on the 3RR noticeboard. And I suppose you can start collecting diffs of reversions and incivility for an RFC or Arbcom appeal. In all things be nice yourself, to put yourself in the best possible position in the future. Thatcher131 16:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enforcement of policies

Please note my statement at Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy#presenting_evidence_to_support_an_accusation. As it is relevant both to the checkuser policy and the blocking policy I repost it here. My suggestion is to post comments where they are more appropriate.

I got blocked by Jayjg for being a sockpuppet of two users I had not even heard of. The admin did not present any evidence supporting the claim nor did she or he try to contact me in advance. She or he did not leave a message on my talk page as the blocking policy instructs to do. I looked up what the users I was accused of being identical with had edited, and there were not even similarities in the articles they focussed on with mine. I looked it up at the checkuser page. There was nothing about the two users I was accused of being a sock of. Concerning me there was a case concerning a fourth user. It was a user whose block I had protested as he was blocked for a "personal attack" that in my eyes was none. The admin who blocked me had disagreed about this with me. As this was the only event when I was in contact with her or him, I had the impression of getting censored. The case was labelled "inconclusive" by a user with a comment about the two of us editing from two different European countries: Best advice is: If it smells like a sock, it probably is. As a sidenote, it disturbs me that someone ignorant of the principle of the benefit of the doubt and with a history of blocks, even for vandalism, apparently nearly exclusively handles such a sensitive field as checkuser.
I requested to be unblocked, but the blocking admin did not answer, and others told me I should email him. I could not because I already get enough spam and do not want to provide an email address. She or he did not answer my unblock request, which was removed three times by admins claiming I needed to contact him first. Unblock requests are there for cases where a user feels a block was unfair, thus they are unlikely to trust the admin who blocked them and should not be asked to contact her or him. As Zocky agrees with me:
A request for unblock is not a request to get told to email the blocking admin. The above comment by Shell Kinney is entirely inappropriate. Zocky 10:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So I asked another admin, Theresa Knott, who provides a link on her user page to her webpage where an email address can be found. She was very kind and replied fast and asked Jayjg who had blocked me. All he replied was this, showing he actually had no evidence supporting his claim.
With this experience in mind, I suggest four changes to the policies:
1. Blocking admins should be instructed to post verifiable evidence for the accusation against the blocked user on her or his talk page.
2. Blocking admins should be instructed to watch the talk pages of users they recently blocked to ensure they see if any protest arises.
3. Unblock requests should not be removed unless an admin can present verifiable evidence for the accusation against the blocked user - of course if the originally blocking admin already presented this and the blocked user did not counter it convincingly the request can be removed stating just this.
4. The checkuser policies should be enforced:

Checkuser is a last resort for difficult cases.

Even if the user is committing abuse, it's best not to reveal personal information if possible.

If you're in any doubt, give no detail.

Socafan 16:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First point, mistakes happen, we are only human.
Second point, per the sockpuppet policy, the primary means of determining if someone is a sockpuppet is by their behavior. Checkuser is a technical means of investigating suspected cases, but it may generate false positives as well as false negatives. Thus, Essjay's comment is entirely correct and there are many user accounts that have been blocked with no technical proof at all. Thatcher131 17:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course mistakes can happen. Afterwards one should apologize and try to figure out how to prevent similar ones in the future. Stating that the same mistake has been made often does not in any way indicate that it should be done again or was ok in any particular case. Furthermore, I insist that Essjay's unnecessary revelation of two user's country of residence was not ok, nor was his refusal to give the benefit of the doubt. Socafan 18:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where did he refuse to give the benefit of the doubt? He said he couldn't tell via checkuser if you were or not and advised the person asking to use thier judgment. In what way is that advice bad? I have personally blocked lord knows how many socks and i have never once even asked for checkuser. If i did do so, and was advised "if it smells like a sock it probably is" then I'd take it that the decision is mine. So please, pretty please with a cherry on top, stop attacking Essjay. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "if it smells like a sock it probably is" means refusing to give the benefit of the doubt and is thus unacceptable. What I write in no way is an attack, it is a factual description of what happened. Socafan 21:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It may help you to understand that checkuser (the ability to look up some of the details about a user's posting history) is an imperfect means of detecting sock puppets. If you look at Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, the primary means of determining sock puppets is by analysis of behavior. There are many ways, which I will not discuss per the WP:BEANS policy, that a knowledgable computer user can avoid "conclusive" detection by checkuser methods. If only 100% checkuser-proved sock puppets were banned, wikipedia would be a very unpleasant place. Essjay's "If it smells..." comment is simply a reminder of the basic fact that sock puppets are determined primarily by behavior and can not always be proven or disproven by technical means. Your initial edits were very much in the manner of a sock puppet. You showed sophisticated knowledge of wikipedia formatting, extensive use of edit summaries (including embedded wikilinks in your fourth edit) and you lept to the defense of another user on the administrator's noticeboard on about your twentieth edit. You are either a very quick study or you have edited wikipedia before, either as a different user or as an unregistered user. Giving people the benefit of the doubt and assuming good faith is a commendable goal but it does not mean we should entirely suspend our analytical faculties. To make a very crude analogy, suppose a policeman, chasing a mugger, radios in that the mugger has twisted his ankle and is limping. Five minutes later, another policeman sees a limping man on the next block and arrests him on suspicion. The second man in in fact innocent and limps due to a previous injury. The incident in unfortunate, and while the police may owe the second man an apology, it is unreasonable to demand the police ignore the second man altogether because identity has not been proven with a DNA match.Thatcher131 00:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well of course I had edited wikipedia before, the English version is not the only one, and there is no need to register for the first edit. A simple question would have been sufficient to clarify this. As I had not in any way disrupted the project, the policy that checkuser is only for severe cases where other means have been exhausted was violated. But, please, we should not focus on my particular case here, I am suggesting an improvement of the general policy. Socafan 22:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sections moved from Essjay's talk page

I removed the section that had been moved here from another page. It was not directly related to the above suggestion and not intended to be placed here. Socafan 18:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what the consensus is regarding where the discussion should be placed, but in any case the old version, where a portion of the conversation was moved from Essjay's talk page and continued, can be found here Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 18:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I simply think that a 3-way conversation not involving Essjay that only partly involves Essajys actions should not take place on Essjay's talk page. (Particularly the part where you and I try to explain to Socafan why he is wrong). Socafan has now left a reasonably brief and relatively calm complaint and it seems best to let Essjay respond to that. Socafan's general complaints about process can go here or elsewhere. I'm sure if Essjay thinks I did wrong he'll tell me. Thatcher131 19:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably right, but in the interest of accurate talk pages, the removed stuff has been archived with links to the page histories. This is also likely to affect my nomination to become a mediator - if Essjay disapproves of the way I handled this, he should probably say so there. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 20:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can a checkuser be asked for without an open request?

The section header asks the question, but this is my reason. I have just stumbled over some clues that one of the most notorious troublemakers that Wikipedia has struggled with has returned under another name, & it would be beneficial if this banned editor were quickly rebanned. (No, he's not Lir, although that's as far as I'll commit to here.) The reason why I don't want to ask openly is that if I'm wrong, a public request might create bad-will for an innocent editor.

If nothing else, I would appreciate another long-time editor contacting me in email to confirm my suspicions -- or convince me I'm being paranoid. -- llywrch 17:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are about 14 people with Checkuser privilege, listed here. You can e-mail one of them privately. Thatcher131 17:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I am always getting lost trying to find something on Wikipedia -- unrelated to the encyclopedia portion, that is. -- llywrch 19:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find this questionable. If you have not enough evidence to provide it without shame you should not request a checkuser. Secrecy makes the project vulnerable to abuse. Socafan 00:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard its been done. If Essjay is actually still doing RFCU(or ever does them again), he doesn't fufill them "unless it is a very serious issue" If its extremely serious someone may do it. That's not to say they also won't just tell you to go here. Kevin_b_er 00:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Using the checkuser tool creates a log file that can be checked to make sure the tool is not being used improperly. The current checkusers are the (community-elected) members of the arbitration committee, plus a couple of trusted bureaucrats who were appointed by the Arbcom. I am aware of a a number of cases where requests have been performed without being posted here first. That is at the checkusers discretion and he/she may of course decline or ask that it be posted here instead. Any resulting action, like a block, would be announced at the administrators' notice board in the usual fashion and some sort of evidence or statement would be required at that point.Thatcher131 01:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As my own recent case showed, there was no evidence, neither here nor at the administrator's noticeboard nor anywhere else. Secrecy makes the system vulnerable. Socafan 01:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That request came back "inconclusive", meaning the allegation couldn't be ruled in or out based on technical evidence alone. Therefore, Jayjg blocked you primarily on your pattern of behavior. If the request and answer had been made privately, so Jayjg knew nothing of it, he still could have blocked you based on your behavior. If no request had been made at all, or if it had been denied for some reason, you still might have been blocked based on your apparent pattern of behavior. (You made eleven posts to WP:ANI defending Dabljuh, certainly calling attention to yourself.) Finally, Jayjg is a member of the arbitration committee himself, and could have decided to run a CU after seeing you behaving "like" a Dabljuh sockpuppet on AN/I regardless of the existence of a public request. Frankly, you called attention to yourself as a brand new account defending someone who was being a pest and deliberately provoking a negative reaction. Your behavior and an inconclusive CU report were more evidence than a lot of blocked socks get, and the fact that you were unblocked after less than 2 days is, as far as I'm concerned, evidence that the system generally works pretty well, all things considered. Which wikipedia did you write for where brand new accounts rushing to the defense of blocked users are not considered suspicious? Thatcher131 01:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be ignorant of the benefit of the doubt, too. People should not get punished for suspicions but for violations of policy for which there is evidence. Supporting someone who was blocked for a personal attack that was none in no way is wrong. I was not blocked for being a sockpuppet of that user but some other one completely unrelated that I had never heard of, and Jayjg failed to present even a single piece of evidence, making me get the impression he was trying to censor me because he did not like that user you call "a pest". I invite you to write without incivilities next time. Socafan 01:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Link Request

Can someone add this protocol link to my list ? 66.82.9.69 18:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MALFUNCTION

Can someone add the Check-user link to the Martial Law user page ? I have a on site malfunction that is messing up my sig. Was told that some program config. is fouling up my sig. Testing sig. I log in as "Martial Law", all I get is a mess. 66.82.9.69 18:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you're talking about. Try posting at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents where you might find someone more knowledgable about the software. Thatcher131 18:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I log on as "Martial Law", this mess appears: 66.82.9.69 18:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This malfunction has happened to other users as well. Only trying to head off trouble before it starts. Do appreciate the assisstance. 66.82.9.69 18:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't understand; it certainly has nothing to do with the checkuser pages. Try asking at the administrator's noticeboard. If there is a technical problem with the servers they may know about it. You should also try clearing your browser's cache. Thatcher131 18:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bonaparte=/= Brasoveanul

I request a CheckUser to demonstrate that no relation there is between the User:Bonaparte and User:Brasoveanul accounts. Please.

Result of the CheckUser: "The evidence is inconclusive" [1] Jayjg ^(talk) --Brasoveanul — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.254.231.79 (talk • contribs)

Jayjg has the same checkuser permissions as the folks who usually do the public requests. There's no reason to think that a public check would have a different result. You can post a request for unblocking on your talk page or post a request at the administrator's noticeboard. Thatcher131 12:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to fulfill this guy's request. Brasoveanul clearly misquoted Jayjg. Jayjg said the evidence was inconclusive, but you don't need CheckUser if the editing patterns are the same. I blocked the IP for block evasion. --Lord Deskana ^{I VALUE YOUR OPINIONS} 12:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Open arbitration proceeding?

I'm not sure what an "Open arbitration proceeding" is. Does it only includes accepted arbitration proceedings, or does it also include intiated, but not accespted arbitration proceedings? ^Blank ^Verse 17:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there is an open case (i.e., there is a Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Casename page), then the matter should go there. If the check is in relation to a closed Arbitration Case, then the clarification section of RfAR is the appropriate venue. If a case has been filed, but not yet accepted, then requesting it in the request itself (if you aren't the requester, add a ===Statement by ...=== section) is appropriate. The standing basis for this is that a) the Arbitration Committee has thirteen checkusers available, seven being current arbitrators, while RfCU is maintained by two checkusers, and b) that the Committee is in the best position to judge when a checkuser is necessary and has access to all the information involved in a situation. Essjay (Talk) 21:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser requests

Suggested policy:

Individual editors or administrators wishing a sockpuppet check should place a request on Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser rather than making a direct request to a user with CheckUser privileges through email, request on a user's talk page, IRC or other some other method. Editors with CheckUser privileges receiving a request should direct the editor to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. This requirement does not extend to the Arbitration Committee.

Individual editors shouldn't have special access to Check User because they are friends with someone who has the premission and can do them a favour and there should not be a perception that CheckUser can be used in this manner. Homey 15:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See [2]

I currently have Jayjg's talk page watched because of some interaction previously between me and him. I notice you brough up an Ontario, Canada "sockpuppet" although technically it is just someone that is not logged in. I think it is incorrect for you to appeal directly to your favorite admin -- its really not proper. You should bring first try to establish that it is who you think it is very a user check -- see Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser. --Ben Houston 08:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any indication that CheckUsers are being run under inappropriate circumstances? In other words, what is the problem that this policy change would fix? Before we create new policy and new restrictions, there ought to be some indication that harm is happening or likely to happen.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a perception that some users have greater access to CheckUser because of their relationship with editors who have the permission. There is certainly a perception by a number of editors that they don't have to come to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser since all they have to do is make a personal request without needing to provide the justification they would have to give here. Such perceptions damage wikipedia by promoting the impression of cronyism and double standards. Homey 15:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Checkusers are bound by the policy governing when checks are and are not appropriate regardless of whether the check is made publicly or privately. Thatcher131 15:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no requirement for admins with CheckUser permissions to complete requests in the order that those requests appear on WP:RFCU. In other words, CheckUsers can jump any request to the top of the queue anyway, and they can accept requests with only the thinnest justification. Note that I don't see a problem with them doing so—they've been given these privileges because they're trusted members of the community and have demonstrated good judgement. One should also remember that in some cases it is most appropriate to make Checkuser requests by email or another private medium to avoid hampering certain types of investigation.

If you're going to throw around accusations of 'cronyism' and 'double standards', you're going to have to provide concrete examples. Vague accusations and veiled insults are a lousy justification to write policy, and they damage Wikipedia by poisoning the atmosphere of collaboration, dontcha know? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no requirement for admins with CheckUser permissions to complete requests in the order that those requests appear on WP:RFCU.

That's not what I was suggesting, merely that unless there is a good reason or it is a request by Arbcom, requests should only be fulfilled if they have been made on WP:RCFU. The order in which they are fulfilled is not an issue. Homey 15:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to throw around accusations of 'cronyism' and 'double standards',

Actually, what I said was "Such perceptions damage wikipedia by promoting the impression of cronyism and double standards."

See the above comment by Ben Houston "I think it is incorrect for you to appeal directly to your favorite admin -- its really not proper"Homey 16:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Disclaimer: Homey just gave me a shout about this issue on my talk page here [3].)

I am not a Wikipedia policy wonk, but just like 3RRs have to go through the appropriate administrator incidents page, it would seem appropriate for check users to also go through proper channels -- it ensures that there are not two classes of rights, one for people who have friends with check user priviledges and one for the rest of us. To me it is just common sense -- but again, I am not a policy wonk. --Ben Houston 16:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Er, 3RR doesn't have to go through WP:AN/3RR, though. An admin who sees an uncontrolled edit war can block for 3RR without a posting to the page. Indeed, admins can – and do – block for edit wars that don't strictly violate the 3RR if the participant(s) are trying to game the rule or are behaving otherwise obnoxiously.

Listing the checkuser request here rather than on a specific CheckUser's page doesn't prevent a CheckUser from showing some sort of favoritism. Remember that CheckUsers are permitted and encouraged to use their own discretion in determining which requests are fulfilled and when. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, admins are discouraged from implementing a 3RR block on a user they are having a content dispute with - instead they list it on WP:AN/3RR.Are CheckUsers similarly not supposed to run checkuser on an editor they are in a conflict with?Homey 16:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The elephant in the room

I'm tired of pretending there's no elephant in the room. Homey, if you're upset because Jayjg checked you privately, just say so. The fact is that when Felonious Monk asked Jayjg about you and Sonofzion (on his talk page, which is semi-private at best, certainly not as private as as e-mail), Jayjg replied that he was suspicious too and had already run the check. Accusing an admin of using socks to evade a block is exactly the kind of accusation that probably should be made privately to avoid damaging the admin's reputation if the check turns up negative. Felonious blocked Sonofzion but did not otherwise announce that an admin was caught evading a 3RR block with a sockpuppet. No one (certainly not I) would have known if you had not filed a checkuser request on Sonofzion yourself.

On the issue of your proposal that checkusers not run checks requested by others except as posted at RFCU, that wouldn't have stopped this situation. The proposal also fails to assume good faith that checkusers will follow proper policy when deciding whether to answer privately-communicated requests.

On the issue of checkusers not running checks when they are in conflict with another editor, The Uninvited has confirmed Jayjg's findings. Do you think the answer would be different if Felonious had made a public request that was answered by Mackensen or Essjay?Thatcher131 16:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Homey uses a "back channel" to circumvent due process [4] and asks other admin to do his blocking for him (instead of wating for the end of the checkuser requests) this is a very puzzling policy change. Should we first ask Homey to avoid such back channels cordination to get others blocked (when he himself concerned that blocking a person will be understood as his continued personal vandeta) Zeq 19:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No further comment, as this page should really be about checkuser in general. Thatcher131 02:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]