Forum:Reassign Checkusers

Forums: Yew Grove > Reassign Checkusers

This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 24 December 2010 by Gaz Lloyd.

A quick glance at the users who have the checkuser ability on our wiki shows that those who have it are not as active as they once were. Checkuser was given to a few members of our community so we could always have quick access to it when needed. With the decreased activity of those users with the right, we no longer have that quick access we sometimes need. I'm proposing that we move the right to other, more active admins/crats so we once again make use of it whenever needed. --Aburnett ^(Talk) 22:01, December 12, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Support - Yep. --Aburnett ^(Talk) 22:01, December 12, 2010 (UTC)

Support - It is really annoying needing to wait for hours when you need a checkuser done now. Complete support from me.

REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 22:03, December 12, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Very needed. Evil1888 ^{Talk A's L} 22:04, December 12, 2010 (UTC)

Conditional support: Be careful who you give checkuser to, as it's a very sensitive tool that should not be handed out to just anyone. But I do agree about the benefits of having checkusers on hand if necessary. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 22:05, December 12, 2010 (UTC)

I'm just looking for consensus on reassigning the tools. Deciding who will receive it will be a whole other discussion. --Aburnett ^(Talk) 22:08, December 12, 2010 (UTC)

i want it so i cn be better than teh other admins k??//

REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 22:11, December 12, 2010 (UTC)

nawt if i get one 1st. also we will need crowns and new hilites. --Aburnett ^(Talk) 22:12, December 12, 2010 (UTC)

k --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 22:12, December 12, 2010 (UTC)

Support - If they were given the CheckUser right to allow us quick access to it when we need it, it would only make sense for them to be active. User:TyA/sig 22:13, December 12, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - While I agree that the four of them are not the most active on the planet, I don't think they are inactive enough to warrant reassigning the four of them. User:Stelercus/Signature 22:57, December 12, 2010 (UTC)

When you need a checkuser, you need it immediately, not in a few hours.

REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 23:22, December 12, 2010 (UTC)

While I generally agree with that, is there any user with that kind of dependability? User:Stelercus/Signature 01:30, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

Not one, but that is why we have 4 check users not one.

Sentra246

01:53, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

I understand all that, though I'm not completely convinced that changing all four checkusers will yield a significantly better result. That said, I'm going to stay neutral. User:Stelercus/Signature 19:36, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

The point of this proposal isn't to reassign all four, but are Soldier and Caleb making good and effective use of the tool? Karlis is really the only one that is very active in it's use, and there when you need it (though even he isn't usually on).

REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 20:29, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

Support - People need it right now and none of the checkusers seem to be around at the time. I think a rfa type process should be used to determinate who gets accepted. Sentra246 23:29, December 12, 2010 (UTC)

Although I believe both Karlis and Caleb are defiantly active enough to have the tool.

Sentra246

01:55, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Currently I think it is a misused/abused tool on most of the occasions it is used. Well over half of the instances I have seen people ask for a checkuser to be run are for very minor things that do not warrant such an invasive action. I like that some of the current people are somewhat inactive, as checkuser should not be a hastily rushed action. We should consider adopting some standards of use of this tool before we consider any other action regarding it. Restrictions and limitations and guidelines over use of the tool will allow us to more accurately assess what else we need to do with it. After we have a structure of some sort, it will make more sense to decide if we need to reassign it.--Degenret01 00:30, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

So let's make guidelines, but not let the lack of them prevent us from having active(er) people with access to the tool. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ajraddatz (talk).

This should be paused until those are made. Active users will mean even more abuse until the guidelines are set.--Degenret01 00:51, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide an example where this tool was abused? I'm not totally sure what you are talking about. --Aburnett ^(Talk) 00:56, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - As the admin who does the majority of checkusers, I think it might be a decent idea to reassign one or two, but asking for an admin who can always be reached is asking a bit too much, to be honest. We have lives too, and I don't think my general response time to checkusers is horrible. I have emai enabled, and you all are more than welcome to email me with checkuser requests as my email is linked to my phone and I willl be notified immediately. I can also give my cell number to admins who live in the US/Canada who can text me if necessary. We don't need a lot of people with the tool, and it's a rare occurance that we need it at all. --Karlis (talk) (contribs)

01:46, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

Weak support - There is only one thing I don't like about this: Why does the proposal define the new checkuser abilitied users as crats/sysops. You already said we would have a discussion on who would recieve the tools, which would obviously include trust issues. I don't see why being a sysop is a must. This violates the spirit of RS:AEAE. (Yes, I know that aeae is initially about weighing the opinions of users, that's why I said spirit.) bad_fetus^talk 15:48, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

Because sysop rights are required to block any IPs or accounts that are discovered from the checkuser, as well as any ranges determined by it. To hand it out to non-sysops adds an extra step the the process which is completely unneeded. The whole point of this proposal is to make checkuser accessable when it is needed - a logical consequence of that is also to give it to people who would make most efficient use of it.

REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 19:10, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

Changed to support - Per what ajr said above. bad_fetus^talk 19:03, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Checkuser is a very sensitive and dangerous thing to hand out. It can basically (as far as I know) tell you a lot of information on any given user (inb4 lol im behind over 9000 proxies). Should this pass, and as it seems right now that it will, the reassignment needs to bring with it guidelines, limitations, and regulation just to be on the safe side. I also like that it's limited to sysops/crats after all this "Let's reopen janitors/other things" and "Hilites make me feel bad becuz I can't haz one", but the process of getting checkuser should have a system as well (like rfa's imo) Chaos Monk ^{Talk • Sign} 16:33, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

Why make it crats/sysops only if you want it to have a process? That process is obviously not going to pass without trust, thus, I see no reason for making it crats/sysops only. Also, cratship/sysopship isn't to show that you are a trusted user, it is to improve the wiki using their special tools. I honestly have no idea why anyone would limit it to sysops and crats only. bad_fetus^talk 18:33, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

"Because sysop rights are required to block any IPs or accounts that are discovered from the checkuser, as well as any ranges determined by it. To hand it out to non-sysops adds an extra step the the process which is completely unneeded. The whole point of this proposal is to make checkuser accessable when it is needed - a logical consequence of that is also to give it to people who would make most efficient use of it."

REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 19:11, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. Didn't see that. Oh well, I guess it makes sense. bad_fetus^talk 19:57, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

Yea, it's not an issue of trust, it's an issue of efficiency (or the lack thereof).

REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 20:29, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

Also, because checkuser is something that we do have a limit on, I think that we could just do a nomination/discussion on a forum, instead of using the RfA system. Users with the tool could be nominated for "re-election" if they still use it, and other than that we can nominate and discuss new people.

REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 20:32, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Don't really care if it's given to sysops/crats or regular users, seeing as we have RS:AR if a regular finds something through a checkuser. It may be more convenient to give it to sysops/crats, but follow RS:AEAE if you want, it makes little difference here. User:Real Not Pure/Signature 20:09, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

* Cook Me Plox rages - AEAE has little or nothing to do with this. ʞo oɔ 20:11, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

Someone brought it up earlier...I think it could've been Chess. Giving it specifically to sysops+ breaks the spirit of AEAE is what I believe was said, but like I said, I don't care who gets it and who doesn't. User:Real Not Pure/Signature 20:21, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I don't see the need for any editors to have the checkuser tool to be honest. All sysops have access to the protectsite feature in the event that a particularly malicious vandal disrupts the site. This occurence is very rare, and at worst it causes an extremely minor inconvenience to only the newest users for a short period of time (up to 12 hours). This time period is long enough to obtain the assistance of a helper or staff member. As mentioned earlier, the checkuser tool is extremely dangerous if it falls into the wrong hands. Unlike other tools (editing, sysop, and bureaucrat tools), the actions of a checkuser can never be undone (not even by a staff member). It is also unrealistic to suggest that a checkuser will always be online on a wiki of this size, which defeats the purpose of even creating checkusers.

Finally, it should be noted that the checkuser tool was initially assigned to some administrators without consensus and against longstanding global Wikia policy. This was done at a time when there was an exceptionally persistent sockpuppeteer attacking the wiki. However, the course of action that followed was not correctly decided considering the fact that we had successfully dealt with far worse vandals in the past. When it comes to countervandalism measures, a high number of sysops and access to protectsite and Wikia staff are more than sufficient. Dtm142 20:30, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

A checkuser request through Special:Contact takes at least 3 days. When you need an IP or username now, that doesn't cut it. Having checkuser, and being able to determine which IPs/ranges/users need to be blocked is much better than disabling editing, etc via protectsite. Also while the need is rare, it does exist, and there is no reason to put ourselves at an inconvenience solely because we don't need it 24/7. You're right, it is unreasonable to assume that four users would cover the 24 hours, so that is why we will need to strategically pick users that are on at high vandalism times. Also, no, the checkuser tool isn't dangerous. All it does is connect users to IPs. Perhaps if every autoconfirmed user had access to it it would be abused, but it is unreasonable to assume that an admin, and one trusted enough to use checkuser would use it for fun (or anything other than for countervandalism).

REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 20:35, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

Editing is only disabled for anonymous and new users. Those who already created accounts can edit freely, without any major inconvenience. Furthermore, Special:Contact is not the only way to reach staff when the need arises. There are also IRC channels and talk pages, all of which can be accessed much more quickly. And if the checkuser tool wasn't potentially dangerous, it would be included with the basic sysop package (all sysops are trusted editors). Furthermore, there are cases where trusted editors have been given administrator rights and have abused them. This has happened here and on other wikis (on Wikipedia, there was a major scandal involving a bureaucrat and board member). There have also been cases on other wikis where good faith administrators have had their accounts compromised by vandals. While adminship works in a way that any administrator action can easily be undone if either of these things happen, there is no way to reverse the revealing of a user's IP. Dtm142 21:09, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

Reaching staff by any other means than Special:Contact is difficult, and they usually only do checkuser stuff through there anyways. Your premise about checkuser is flawed, to be blunt. The reason that all sysops don't have it is because first, Wikia doesn't want to enable it by default because someone could make a wiki, be an admin because of it and abuse the tool as you could check any of Wikia' user's IPs. That being said, it should only be in the hands of people specifically trusted with it, hence the different group. But checkuser alone can't be used to cause any major damage to a wiki; as I said, it simply connects IP to user and vice versa. You don't need to point out the blatantly obvious to me and show that people have abused tools before. Why would you want to "undo" the action of finding someone's IP anyways? How is the fact that all actions are final a problem? All that shows is that the tool needs to be in the hands of the trusted. Can't think of any trusted users on this wiki, though.

REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 23:07, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

Oh, ya, also: Don't give me the BS around the fact that people have abused tools before and have had their accounts hacked, etc. Of course that is a possibility. By your logic, nobody should have admin rights because they are more likely in fact of being abused, since it is easier to become an admin than a checkuser. And nobody should be in the rollback group because it might be abused. And nobody should be able to edit because that might be abused. Wonderful logic you have there.

REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 23:18, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

In the past, checkuser requests have been made through the media that I mentioned. The response time has been adequate, far shorter than "at least 3 days". You also seem to misunderstand the uses of the tool. It can only be used on editors who have edited one wiki. If I created a wiki and was given checkuser permissions there, I would not be able to look up the IP address of any editor on this wiki (unless they also edited the new wiki). Otherwise, there would be no difference between the checkuser and global checkuser permissions.

The damage that could be caused to the wiki is the breach of an editor's privacy if this falls into the wrong hands, which is not at all unlikely. IP addresses are considered confidential personal information. This is why unregistered editors are warned that their IP address will be revealed when they edit a page. In fact, I was once asked to delete a page revision that contained a registered editor's IP address for this very reason. And the fact that you yourself, one of the main proponents of this proposal, cannot think of any users who can be trusted with this tool only supports my position (that it is not a good idea to grant checkuser rights to any editors here).

Finally, you do a disservice to yourself and everyone in this community who wants to have a constructive discussion with your condescending remarks. The last line of your preceding post does not help your case, and is ironic considering your misrepresentation of my arguments. I have noted the difference between sysop tools and checkuser tools (reversibility of actions). Contrary to your last paragraph, my logic does not require a false dichotomy (either granting checkuser permissions, or disabling all editing actions). Dtm142 00:21, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

I am not making "condescending remarks", I am arguing against what I believe to be an incorrect premise. The only remark that I have made which was sarcastic was the one that said that there aren't any trusted users on the wiki. I have not been condescending. The response time for checkuser requests has increased significantly over the last while, with Wikia spending time answering other requests. The last time I contacted Wikia to get a checkuser done, the response came 4 days after the request. Not good time at all. To restrict access to a tool based on the fact that it could be abused makes complete sense - we do so with sysop rights already. But to completely deny access to a tool based on the fact that it might be abused is the silliest thing that I've ever heard, especially coming from someone like you. You also don't understand how Wikia servers work - you can lookup the IP for any editor of any wiki assuming they have unified login on Wikia (which every account does). I do not misunderstand the uses of the tool - it is used to lookup the IP of a user, to find accounts that use an IP or to find edits by the above. In terms of the technical details, I know because I have set up the tool on a wiki off-Wikia before, and know how it works. Granted, Wikia might use it differently than I set it up. Either way, that is not am important part of this discussion.

You are also correct, for whatever reason an IP is considered personal information. That is why, as I stated many times above, checkuser isn't handed out like candy. However, there is no reason why a few trusted individuals on the wiki can't have access to it.

REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 00:37, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

"Wonderful logic you have there." Surely I can't be the only person here who finds that statement at least a little bit condescending...

I am not advocating denying access to a tool because it might be abused. I am advocating denying access to a tool because it is never needed for normal editing activities (sysop and basic editing privileges), is not needed for site maintenance (sysop and bureaucrat tools), is not needed for countervandalism work to the extent that would warrant local checkusers, and has tremendous potential for abuse (far greater than those permissions I mentioned earlier).

I don't think that you understand how Wikia servers work any more than I do. You stated that you set up checkuser on a completely separate wiki. I think we all know that several aspects of Wikia are different due to linked accounts. If what you are saying is correct, then all of the checkusers here (in effect) have checkuser tools on every Wikia wiki. This does not seem reasonable to me, though I could be wrong. I am only assuming what seems to be reasonable (that Wikia would not grant global checkuser access to a user who is not trusted by many wikis). Then again, Wikia has done unreasonable things (especially as of recently) so this could very well be a bad assumption. I agree that this is largely unimportant to the discussion at hand, so I will stop mentioning it.

Anyway, I think I have made my point clear. You and I just seem to be repeating the same arguments without introducing anything new to the discussion. It is easy to see why I don't agree with this userright being assigned, and I am sure that others will have their own thoughts about this proposal. I have nothing more to add. Dtm142 02:12, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Just because one doesn't constantly doesn't edit doesn't mean that they aren't around. I check the wiki and the Yew Grove constantly every day. Also, there isn't much to "make use" of...it's a tool that's rarely used, period. And finally, it's been quite awhile since anyone has even asked me to run a checkuser for any reason, so I haven't exactly had a chance to use it much. I find this all rather ridiculous.. Andrew ^talk 21:14, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

Clear guidelines as suggested by Degen would be great, though. Andrew ^talk 22:07, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

You haven't used checkuser mainly because you aren't active enough to be around when it is needed, and as such another user has been asked to do the checkuser. Yes, the tool is rarely used, but when it is needed it should be accessible as quickly as possible.

REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 23:07, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

Lolwut? I'm on for hours every day, most of the time with the Yew Grove pulled up and in the lobby on RS in case I need to be reached.... Don't you dare try to tell me I'm "not active enough." Andrew ^talk 23:18, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

I rarely see you on, and hardly ever on-wiki. Additionally, have you ever actually needed to use the tool yourself? This is part of it also, giving those who need it most access to it. And I don't mean me either, I don't think that I'm active enough to need it.

REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 23:21, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I honestly don't care how often you think you've seen me; you do not dictate who is and isn't "active enough". I'm telling you that I'm here daily, and if you want to call me a liar, go for it. Yes, if you checked the CheckUser logs, you would find that I have needed to use the tool myself in the past. Andrew ^talk 23:23, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

... I'm not attacking you. I am stating that I think that the tool would be best used in the hands of someone who is active in countervandalism and on the wiki. That is my opinion, and you are free to think whatever you want of it. However, right now your response seems more like some very defensive action because you don't want to lose your checkuser rights... though I think I know you better than to assume that.

REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 23:26, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

And I'm saying yet again that I am active. Of course I'm on the defensive right now; I'm having to spend too much time emphasizing that I'm not inactive... Andrew ^talk 23:29, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Soldier 1033 shows me that you edit once in a blue moon. Of course I have no indication of how many times you look at the wiki each day. However, I do know that you are not active in countervandalism (you haven't reverted an edit in a few months, and haven't blocked a vandal in a couple), and I am of the opinion that this tool, which is used solely in countervandalism, should be in the hands of admins active in that area. But this isn't about you. I am not proposing that your checkuser rights be removed - I am supporting the proposal that the users who have access to checkuser be re-evaluate. Whether or not you keep your checkuser rights is up to the community or Wikia, not me.

REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 23:33, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

I have been active lately, and I've not seen your edits on Recent Changes, I've not seen you in IRC more than once or twice, and I don't hang out in the wiki cc much but I don't remember you having a substantial presence there either. Additionally, most of your edits in the past few months have been to the Forum: namespace. You haven't been "completely inactive" but you haven't been "very active" either. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 23:36, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

Oh my goodness..activity is not purely edits. I'm done trying to defend myself when you won't listen. Andrew ^talk 00:38, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

Then don't! As I said before, this isn't a debate for whether or not you are active. Can we please get back to discussing the proposal? kthx

REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 00:41, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

Also, may I quote myself?

“

...that those who have it are not as active as they once were...

”

It cannot be debated that you are not as active as you once were. That is all that I asserted. --Aburnett ^(Talk) 01:12, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

~~Strong Oppose~~ Comment - We don't need to use the checkuser tool that often. It is fine how it is. User:Haloolah123/Sig 01:01, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

Is it fine as it is despite the problems pointed out by Aburnett and Ajr? --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 01:03, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Okay, let me rephrase. I can understand in countervandalism how it's important to know quickly, but I don't think we are going to improve much over waiting a few hours. User:Haloolah123/Sig 02:21, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Sorry Bernie and Raddatz, but I'm inclined to agree with Degen and Andrew on this one. Checkuser is used to determine if a user is sockpuppeting. That is not an urgent task, and the people who have it now are active enough. Unless they were completely inactive, I don't see a reason to reassign the tool. When checking for sockpuppeting, the end result is to determine whether or not an account should be given a block. The account will still be there within 24 hours. It's not like it will magically disappear or something. If the account vandalizes, then just block the account for vandalism. There is nothing wrong with the activity of our current checkusers. There is no reason that a checkuser is needed within a few minutes of any suspected offense. --Liquid^Talk 02:55, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

Oh, but sir, you are incorrect. The primary function of checkuser is to find the IP addresses of a number of vandal accounts, and then use these IP addresses to perform a range block to prevent further vandalism. It is in cases such as this where a checkuser is needed as soon as possible. --Aburnett ^(Talk) 02:59, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

What Aburnett said. If a vandalnub like the one who attacked yesterday creates a bunch of accounts through a proxy, we need to be able to block it. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 03:08, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

On that note... yes, I am aware of the potential for misuse. However, can anyone actually provide examples of abuse of the checkuser tool on this wiki? So far I haven't heard specifics. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 03:26, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

That's kind of hard to do when the checkuser log can only be viewed by other checkusers. --Liquid^Talk 03:28, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

True, but a couple of people have said a few things about past abuse, and I'd like to know whether what they're saying is substantiated. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 03:34, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, I haven't seen any abuse of the tool thus far. The other users with checkuser and I have always provided reasons whenever we run a check, so it's pretty obvious if someone is abusing the tool. C.Chiam^Talk 03:44, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, we don't need this tool to find sockpuppets. There is no policy against multiple accounts here. What we do need it for is when we need to find the common IPs of vandalism by multiple accounts... and as mentioned many times above, we need it now, not in a few hours.

REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 04:13, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Just a few more of my thoughts..I don't really see how reassigning checkuser rights will help "speed things up." If the people that you consider to be "more active" aren't on when you need a checkuser, you're no better off than you were before. The amount of anti vandalism work someone has done recently is also kind of irrelevant..the person checking the IP doesn't have to be the one blocking and reverting everything..the admins that do that can simply ask for an IP/account check and when they get an answer, they can block as necessary. Andrew ^talk 05:21, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

If a person is more active, it is more likely that they will be on when the checkuser is needed. --Aburnett ^(Talk) 02:10, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I agree with Dtm in this case, in that access to normal sysop tools and siteprotect is enough to deal with any vandalism. Yes its annoying when the site needs to be protected, but giving a bunch of people checkuser isn't going to make enough of a difference to justify the breach in privacy. http://i631.photobucket.com/albums/uu33/Psycho_Robot/Sigs%20and%20Avatars/kitty.pngPsycho Robot talk 07:09, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

Unless you can tell the future, you can't be sure that there will be abuse of the tool if it's given out. Opposing the proposal because checkuser might be abused is nonsensical when there is a clear need for it. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 08:15, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

My point is that there is in fact no clear need for it. Siteprotect will handle it just fine. I don't think protecting the site for a short while while waiting for wikia to help is a big deal. And while I understand we have differing opinions, I don't think that makes my opinion nonsense. Also, you are equating with concern over breach in privacy with concern of abuse. They are not the same thing. A breach in privacy does not need necessarily entail abuse, but it is still something I want to avoid. http://i631.photobucket.com/albums/uu33/Psycho_Robot/Sigs%20and%20Avatars/kitty.pngPsycho Robot talk

20:21, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

...Or, we could use checkuser, and remove only the vandal's ability to edit, instead of disrupting the wiki. We haven't yet had any autoconfirmed vandals. What happens when that day arrives? I don't think that your opinion is nonsense, and I see what you're saying. But ultimately, it is just an IP, and when checkuser is only being used on vandals, this isn't a problem.

REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 23:05, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - After reading all the above, I have to oppose this. Checking the list of users with access to checkuser, at least two can be reached within a reasonable timeframe which is enough to not require new users being given the checkuser right. 222 ^talk 07:18, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Atlandy 17:28, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

Question - So you guys seem to be saying that there's a potential for abuse with the tool. Does that mean we should remove it from the people who currently have it? I'm trying to understand your argument. ʞo oɔ 18:43, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

I'd support that. http://i631.photobucket.com/albums/uu33/Psycho_Robot/Sigs%20and%20Avatars/kitty.pngPsycho Robot talk

20:23, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

Strong support - What more needs to be said? ----クールネシ^トーク 20:30, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - This is the way I see it. People seem to be opposing because there's supposedly been some abuse, or they're afraid that there will be abuse in the future. Caleb says that based on the logs that's not true. What the opposition seems to be saying is that no one should be trusted with checkuser on the wiki. The support, meanwhile, seems to think that some people can be trusted, and that it would be better to have it faster. I think we can characterize the opposition in general as saying that no one should have checkuser, and the support in general saying that the current people that have checkuser are not active enough. It seems to me that nearly everyone agrees that the current checkuser system (the people having it, or anyone having it) is not optimal. I think this thread has segued into "should anyone have checkuser" rather than "should the people who have it, keep it". I think it's best that we shift away from "reassigning checkusers" to "removing/keeping checkusers". New thread/section, anyone? ʞo oɔ 21:59, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that, though I don't really think that a new thread is entirely necessary. No one who has opposed adding more check users has made the argument that it is the additional checkusers which are the problem. That said, they can be said to oppose anyone having checkuser without the need for additional bureaucracy. http://i631.photobucket.com/albums/uu33/Psycho_Robot/Sigs%20and%20Avatars/kitty.pngPsycho Robot talk

22:45, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

I would say the opposition itself is rather divided..there are those of us opposed to reassignment and removal altogether but also in support of new checkuser guidelines written by the community, and then there are those that oppose anyone having checkuser altogether. Andrew ^talk 23:13, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I don't understand why someone would be opposed to reassignment if they're in support of checkuser. What's wrong with making things faster? Anyway, I think I'll make a new section on here about removing checkuser altogether. ʞo oɔ 23:15, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

Because suggesting that the current checkusers are too inactive is frankly a load of crap. Andrew ^talk 03:12, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

They're certainly less active than many other people that could be trusted with this. ʞo oɔ 03:15, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

^

REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 04:31, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to use myself as an example again, but this is getting ridiculous. I'm no less active than I have ever been over the last 2 years. I'm online starting right after school until I go to bed and most of the day on weekends. The only difference is that I don't press the edit button as often anymore. I'm very easily reached (just as easily reached as the day I was given the checkuser right), and if you're only going to base activity off of editing frequencing, it's rather sad. Andrew ^talk 21:10, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

Get over yourself Andrew. Anyone can argue that they are active. We are basing our assumptions on what we can see. If you don't want us to view you as inactive, have more of a presence here. --Aburnett ^(Talk) 22:23, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

........ is all I have to say to that. If you haven't noticed my regular presence on the Yew Grove.......Andrew ^talk 01:10, December 16, 2010 (UTC)

It's about more than a few yew grove comments a month. --Aburnett ^(Talk) 03:08, December 16, 2010 (UTC)

Glad we can agree there. Good thing I do more than a few Yew Grove comments a month. Any other insults you'd like to hurl my way? Andrew ^talk 21:24, December 16, 2010 (UTC)

How is that an insult?

ʞo oɔ 21:32, December 16, 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to continue to argue this with someone who won't even consider that they are wrong. --Aburnett ^(Talk) 21:41, December 16, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - A lot of the opposes are saying this might be abused and we don't need users with it. With this reasoning why do we have any checkusers at all? if those are really your arguments why don't we get rid of all of them? or keep 12 as that is all we need. Sentra246 03:45, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

One could abuse it and nobody would know.

REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 04:31, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

This edit by Chris Stafford made the summaries viewable to those who can't see the log, but other than that and according to emil it is "horribly shitty." Now it's limited to 5000 results at any given time, that's a lot of potential for accidental oversight. I don't necessarily agree with having such a tool, especially when it's even referenced as horrible by one of the staff members. Other than that, I do not mind allowing certain sysops to use CheckUser, but in the end it is up to Wikia if they will receive the ability in the end (I know for certain that they wouldn't surrender it out to more than a handful of users). If users want to find out more about this tool, just read through the Trac or SVN of this extension. Ryan PM 06:22, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

I've already confirmed with staff that they will make the changes for us if we get consensus. --Aburnett ^(Talk) 22:23, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

Ryan man, a little help for those of us who have no clue what so ever on what any of that coding stuff means? As in, does this actually mean that now anyone can view who ran a checkuser on who? Is there a log somewhere that is not a page of complex code?--Degenret01 02:14, December 16, 2010 (UTC)

What Uberfuzzy did was allow people to supposedly see the reason why it was ran however I have yet to see this work. What could be done is to request sysops to obtain the checkuser-log right. The page for the log is Special:CheckUser/log, however you need the former right to access it. I don't think it would take that much effort to transfer local actions to Special:Log, but Wikia has to do this in a coming release, which I highly doubt they would do. Ryan PM 02:40, December 16, 2010 (UTC)

Closure

Closed - Ignoring the off-topic-ness of arguing over activity, the main opposition points have been countered sufficiently by supporters, summarised:

Oppose on basis that checkuser is not needed (because of staff and protectsite)
- Wikia staff respond to checkuser requests too slowly to allow effective antivandalism of a large wiki like this, and 3 days of no-autoconfirmed-edits-allowed would cause a huge amount of disruption to our sizeable number of unregistered editors
Oppose on basis that checkuser can be or will be abused so should not be used at all
- A check of the log by Caleb shows that there hasn't been any abuse, and opposing because of possible future abuse is nonsensical as any of the editing tools can be abused - as long as the users chosen are sufficiently trusted then there shouldn't be a problem with abuse

Thus, as the main opposition points have been sufficiently countered (in addition to majority support), the proposal passes. Please see Forum:Choosing new CheckUsers for who shall be chosen as the new checkusers.

NB: Concerns about guidelines and who can view the log should be taken to the ongoing discussion at Forum:CheckUser Policy. @Gaz#7521 17:46, December 24, 2010 (UTC)