Wiktionary:Votes/2006-08/CheckUser run on all sysops

Discussion moved from Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2006/August#CheckUser run on all sysops.

As a result of the recent Wonderfool activities, I'd like to request a checkuser on all English Wiktionary sysops (myself included) to try and prevent Wonderfool's promised (as yet another sysop again) return next year. His parting comments in IRC indicate that he intends to return and do the same nonsense again next summer. I suspect he may already have another sysop account (a third!,) based on his comments. I think it would be good to have a steward do any such CheckUsering, before we start votes for "local CheckUsers" to help maintain a sense of propriety.

For subsequent WT:A nominations, does anyone object to making a CheckUser run a routine part of the process? I think doing so would correspond nicely to Jimbo's notion of identity verification that he spoke of at WikiMania.

--Connel MacKenzie 06:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• For:

1. For. In case anyone still thinks I am that account. — Vildricianus 09:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
2. For for the same reason moreso. DAVilla 08:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
3. —Stephen 12:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
4. --Dijan 05:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
5. For, if the result of checkuser is not made public. Kipmaster 14:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Jonathan Webley 10:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
7. For Geo.plrd 21:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
8. For, if we are going to trust the CU person enough to check the bad guys, I trust them enough to check the good guys too. - TheDaveRoss 02:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Against:

1. I'm a sysop on Wikipedia, and I actually had to change my user name to avoid the attentions of a real-world stalker. That experience has made me a bit paranoid about the use of any mechanism by which my privacy might be compromised. I note also that I have occasionally made edits on various projects (including this one) as an IP, and from my "old" account name after my name-change was done, to tie up loose ends, and I do not want my current username associated with either. I would therefore oppose a blanket rule requiring a Checkuser on sysops/sysop candidates - such a mechanism should only be needed where there is a close question of possible sockpuppetry raised by some evidence in the edit history of the sysop or candidate. bd2412 T 19:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comments:

1. Abstain for now - scs has a valid point below. But I'm ok with being checked :) \Mike 08:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Comment: I wonder how many puppetmasters, sophisticated enough to fool everyone and even make an otherwise-creditable play for admin status, would not be able to use multiple IP's and so delude the checkuser checks? —scs 13:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
   • That is the limitation of all CU checks. The "CheckUsers" have gotten pretty good at discerning the ranges used by the larger ISPs, and in what blocks they are used. This isn't an end-all, be-all 100% method of detecting sock puppets; it is a stop-gap to try to prevent further Wonderfoolisms. AFAIK, no such information would be made public, by the way. --Connel MacKenzie 16:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

BD makes a good point. Of course, the results of the CU reports are treated as if they are standard ones, that is, they remain covered by the CheckUser Policy and the Wikimedia privacy policy. They shall be done by a regular steward and they shall obviously not be made public. The steward should only report if there is substantial evidence of malicious sockpuppetry.

Scs makes a valid point as well. However, our procedures for becoming admin are fairly simple and the requirements low. That really makes it easy to establish a Wonderfoolesque situation without even having to resort to complicate schemes and intrigues. Either we raise that barrier, or we anticipate such intentions. Suppose Wonderfool had been more clever/evil and got four or five accounts sysopped. He would have been unable to keep them all on separate IPs, but without a system like this proposed one, we wouldn't have noticed anyway. — Vildricianus 09:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I am somewhat uncomfortable with this proposed policy. First, as enwikt's current "guest checkuser", it would end up falling on me to run these checkusers. (While I don't mind being your guest checkuser, I would prefer that my time be consumed by interesting activities, not boring security checks.) Second, I don't like the idea of doing suspicionless checkusers in general; while policy permits it, checkuser practice has frowned on it rather strongly. While I can understand, and even somewhat agree, with Wiktionary's desire to do so, I worry about the consequences for other projects if this becomes a standard practice. It's certainly something that has been called for on enwiki.

I'm actually here writing this note precisely because a candidate for admin here asked me to run a checkuser on him. I can confirm that what I find in the course of doing any checkusers I might do for this purpose will be limited to confirming or denying whether or not the candidate is likely a sockpuppet of Wonderfool or of any other grossly disruptive user. Any other information found will be held in confidence as mandated by the Wikimedia privacy policy. Any other person entrusted with checkuser rights on this or any other project would do the same. Kelly Martin 22:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Kelly Martin, please run a checkuser on me, and confirm or deny (here) what you find. I have a bunch of robot accounts but I'd like to know if you see anything else about my current IP address (again, reported here.) --Connel MacKenzie 22:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)