Wikipedia talk:CheckUser

The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.

Shortcuts

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Wikipedia:User access levels was copied or moved into Wikipedia:CheckUser with this edit on 10 January 2017. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Using CU template on talk pages?

I have recently seen articles where there were very clearly cases of WP:LOUTSOCK present. Might one invoke something like the {{checkuser needed}} template in such cases? Should one expect this to be followed up on? ... Or is privately reporting suspected IP socks (as opposed to an official SPI) always the best modus operandi? Biohistorian15 (talk) 22:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of policy and practice, CUs do not publicly disclose the IP address an account is operating from (barring extremely exugent circumstances or incidental disclosure by users drawing inference from the block log) so using that template the way you describe is unlikely to result in a CU being able to assist. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:27, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @HJ Mitchell. Now, would reporting the details to one (or multiple; in case of urgency...) CUs via email be likely to result in an investigation? And are there any steps after one or multiple such users have not responded? Biohistorian15 (talk) 22:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are very few circumstances in which CUs will use their access to confirm that an IP and an account are the same, even for themselves. Mostly because it's not necessary. If it's obvious enough to investigate, it should be obvious enough for a block. Just file an SPI but without a CU request. Or if there's active, ongoing disruption use AIV. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Device fingerprint

Do CUs have access to device fingerprint data? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What we have is described at mw:Extension:CheckUser RoySmith (talk) 18:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2025

How to get permission to use CheckUser tool? XYZ 250706 (talk) 06:14, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The process is described at WP:CUOS#Appointments but please note that CU is only given to highly experienced and highly trusted users. RoySmith (talk) 15:41, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

checkuser-en-wp@wikimedia.org unattended?

Dear checkusers, VRT admins received a request of a user who reported to have written to checkuser-en-wp@wikimedia.org, which is on VRTS, around a month ago, and received no reply. Please advise what is the status of the VRT queue and please advise what to suggest to the user. Thank you. --Krd 15:22, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. There is a backlog in that queue. So I would suggest the VRT admins counsel patience. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:35, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to create an Election Administrator user group

There is a proposal to create an Election Administrator user group, located at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/SecurePoll permissions proposal. The Election Administrator user group would have the ability to create and edit local (English Wikipedia) SecurePolls. English Wikipedia setting up its own SecurePolls is a new feature (normally SecurePolls are set up by Wikimedia Trust & Safety on votewiki) that would be used in administrator elections.

If implemented, this will affect CheckUsers because they will receive the ability to view private data in the SecurePoll extension, and this will affect Bureaucrats because they will be involved in the process of adding and removing Election Administrators. Please take a look at the proposal, and if you have feedback, feel free to leave comments on the talk page. Thank you very much. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:32, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I assume this is related to T301180? RoySmith (talk) 20:17, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. And phab:T378287, in particular the bullet that says "through discussion and consensus on enwiki, figure out exactly which user groups should be created and which user permissions should go to which user groups". –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:33, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]