Commons talk:Checkusers/Archive 1

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1

Page re-write

I have added some more information to the page. Comments welcome. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Missing info or stupid reader

I can't find the procedure for requesting CU action?? --Eusebius (talk) 12:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean Commons:Requests for checkuser? –Tryphon☂ 13:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks, I just couldn't see it. The preventive disjunction in the section title was definitely a good idea. --Eusebius (talk) 17:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry policy

Hi Checkusers,

I think we need a policy regarding sockpuppetry and I think it would be natural if CUs were involved in drafting it. I have opened at thread about it at Commons:Village pump#Commons:Sockpuppetry. --Slaunger (talk) 07:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resigning

Hi. Is there some kind of procedure for resigning as a checkuser? Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 15:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be sad but it is simply a request for removal on Meta. If you do decide to do so then thanks for your assistance. --Herby talk thyme 15:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing conflictual at all, I will just eventually resign from all my duties here. I just don't have enough time for Commons anymore, I'd like to be able to focus on my contribution when I'm here. Thanks for the info. --Eusebius (talk) 15:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As Herby I'm sorry. You could resign by posting (SUL signed) at m:SRP#Removal of access or emailing me or another steward using the Special:Emailuser feature. Regards, --Dferg (talk · meta) 15:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done --Eusebius (talk) 16:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
:( thanks for your service. --Dferg (talk · meta) 19:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hope to see around as regular Mardetanha talk 22:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Technically force a summary for any CU request

Hi,

It has been proposed to technically enforce a summary for any CU request. If a request is done without summary, you would then be asked to add one. The objective is to prevent distraction error of omission, and to improve the transparency.

You can give feedback on this proposal on meta:Wikimedia Forum#Set_.24wgCheckUserForceSummary_to_true_on_Wikimedia_wikis.

Echo notifications to Elcobbola, Gmaxwell, Jameslwoodward, Krd, Magog the Ogre, Martin H., Tiptoety, Trijnstel. --Dereckson (talk) 18:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please Review the Check on Tvb10data

Dear all Checkusers:

I am Tony YKS, a user of Wikipedia. I have just started editing Wikimedia Commons for 9 days only, due to a controversy about deleting the photo "Xi Jinping Banner in Mong Kok 20141026.jpg". I regret that I have to make a request to all of you, despite being a "newcomer" here. I am outraged that one of the checkusers Jameslwoodward accused Tvb10data as "sock puppet" of Wing1990hk and blocked Tvb10data permanently just because of the request of undeletion about the aforementioned file. I request every checkuser here to review the check on Tvb10data, and if the "sock puppetry" is proven false via your tools, please unblock user Tvb10data immediately, because what Jameslwoodward have done can cause severe threat to freedom of speech, and is enough to destroy the reputation of Wikimedia Foundation.

The file "Xi Jinping Banner in Mong Kok 20141026.jpg" was deleted despite that only 3 users supported deletion (including the one who made this request), while 7 users (including myself) opposed. It is unreasonable that the opposition of the majority was overridden, so Tvb10data requested for undeletion, stating that the removal of that photo is "river crabbing" (censoring) and "tyranny". Checkuser Jameslwoodward replied that it is not a vote, and "Fair Use" is not allowed on Commons. In my opinion, the issue of that photo reflects the conflict between copyright, "Fair Use" and "self-censorship". I agree that copyright has to be protected and "Fair Use" might violate copyright, but possible copyright violation is not a reason for "self-censorship". We need the photos to provide facts for Umbrella Movement, and the controversy can involve photos of other contents. This should be solved by reviewing the policy of Commons, rather than dictatorial acts such as overriding oppositions by the majority. Before Tvb10data or I could reply, though, more outrageous things followed. Jameslwoodward accused Tvb10data as a "sock puppet" of another user Wing1990hk, and issued a permanent User Block to Tvb10data immediately afterwards.

Blocking Tvb10data forever is extremely ridiculous, as Tvb10data is definitely NOT a "sock puppet" and there is no proof that this user has violated any other rules that can cause the issuance of User Block. User Contribution in Wikimedia Commons of Tvb10data cannot be used as verification, because both Tvb10data and I only started editing Commons when the controversy of deleting that photo occurred. In other words, we are both "newcomers" in Commons. As Tvb10data focuses on improving the Wikipedia like I do, we did not come here until the issue of that photo. The User Contributions of Tvb10data (both in Chinese and English) and Wing1990hk (again, both in Chinese and English) in Wikipedia can prove that Tvb10data is absolutely NOT the "sock puppet" of Wing1990hk. Furthermore, as pointed out by another user of Wikipedia, "Hong Kong is a city-state of highest population density in the world. Accusing puppet by the similarity of IP address should not apply on Hong Kong wiki users". Although Tvb10data requesting undeletion in Chinese or even Cantonese might be inappropriate in Commons, this is not a valid reason to issue a block as well. I do not reckon that Tvb10data should be suspected as "sock puppetry", merely from the argument of that single photo. I do not suppose that Tvb10data is suspicious enough to be accused as "sock puppet" of another user.

It is also illogical that the 2 accounts are operated by different users in Wikipedia, but the same user in Wikimedia Commons. In English Wikipedia, Tvb10data was accused for "meat puppetry" and blocked for 2 weeks. I did not know that incident until this morning. User LungZeno was accused as "sock puppet" of user Instantnood and blocked permanently just because of LungZeno's opinion about whether Hong Kong should be listed as a country or not. Tvb10data came to express opinion and demand unblock, but was charged as "meat puppet". It would not be reasonable to make these prosecutions, especially when they gave enough elaboration to support their opinion, instead of leaving only a few sentences which were rubbish. Furthermore, Wing1990hk did NOT involve in this mess. This can further verify that Tvb10data is NEVER controlled by Wing1990hk.

User Block of Tvb10data is severely jeopardizing freedom of speech, which can completely destroy the reputation of Wikimedia Foundation, if this incident is leaked. The action of blocking Tvb10data is tyrannizing other users, forcing them not to oppose deletion or make undeleting requests. Freedom of speech is a core value in Wikimedia Foundation, because it is a kind of human rights. Blocking the aforementioned user, however, is against this value. It also does absolutely nothing to achieve consensus. I regret to say that, by blocking Tvb10data permanently without forceful reasons, Jameslwoodward may put the reputation of Wikimedia Foundation in peril. However, the aforementioned checkuser ignored the evidences Tvb10data,

I request all Checkusers to review the check on Tvb10data as soon as possible. If the results prove that Tvb10data is not a "sock puppet", please unblock Tvb10data immediately. I have never expected the controversy of a single photo would result in an incident that threatens freedom of speech and damages the reputation of Wikimedia Foundation. I am deeply sorry that I have to bother all Checkusers, but this incident is very urgent that must be solved now.

Yours faithfully,
Tony YKS (talk)
1:15PM, 18/11/2014 (HKT)

I will take a second look. Эlcobbola talk 15:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've run a second check and spoken to Jim about the results; he and I believe that Tvb10data and Wing1990hk are not the same user. There were certain technical and behavioral similarities that led to the false identification; characterizations of "tyrannizing" are utterly inappropriate. I understand that Jim will lift the block and enter comments accordingly. Эlcobbola talk 20:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much, Elcobbola. I am sorry that I used excessively strong words like "tyrannizing", but to accuse Tvb10data merely because of the DR in a single photo could really give the impression of harming freedom of speech. I hope that the unblock can put an end to this incident. I promise to be careful about "Fair Use" and not to upload any files that involves "Fair Use" here in Commons. Copyright must be protected, that is for sure. Whether to review the policy or not, though, is up to the Administrators to decide. I apologize again for using excessively strong words and bothering all Checkusers. -- Tony YKS (talk), 12:30PM, 19/11/2014 (HKT)

Proposed change to de-adminship policy

Please see Commons talk:Administrators/De-adminship#Proposed change to the minimum activity requirement because it would affect Cheque-users too. Green Giant (talk) 20:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, when I request a CU, will type COM:CU into the URL bar, which brings me to this page. The first few times I was here, I was actually looking for a link to request one, since the current link - while at the top of the page - is not really very visible. I also used the "Request Checkusership" button below once by mistake. Therefore I suggest we put the link to Commons:Requests for checkuser in a nice, easily visible box at the beginning of the page, maybe right above the TOC:

Notice If you want to request checkuser help, please post at Commons:Requests for checkuser or alternatively make a private request to any checkuser by email. In an emergency, and if no Commons checkuser is immediately available, please contact a steward.

--Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 05:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request for checkusers to check

Since the Commons:Requests for checkuser is available only for administrators, so I decided to request checkuser assistance here (I appreciate if someone with proper access clearence would assist me to move this thread to the above mentioned page:)

  • For the purpose described here by Zhuyifei1999, please check and verify that User:ВоенТех (myself) used specific IP. Thanks. ВоенТех (talk) 20:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1) The "To request a check:" box on Commons:Requests for checkuser contains instructions on how to request a check, and that functionality is available to all users, not just admins; 2) Zhuyifei1999 did not say to request a CU, but rather that we look into IP addresses (via a CU) only for anti-vandalism purposes; and 3) relatedly, per COM:RFCU: "Running a check will only be done to combat disruption on Commons, or as required to assist CheckUser investigations on other Wikimedia wikis" (there is no disruption here) and, saving the most important for last, "Requests to run a check on yourself will be declined". Accordingly, this is not a request we will/would honor. Эlcobbola talk 21:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, first of all, from the point of Zhuyifei1999 (reasonable point by the way,) ВоенТех and 93.73.36.17 are two different users, so it shouldn't be considered a check on myself, rather a positive proof of identity. Besides, if they really are, then one could not say for sure that it's a request "to run a check on yourself." To judge otherwise one should check first. ВоенТех (talk) 09:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting requests

Hi, There are 2 important waiting requests. Anyone available? Regards, Yann (talk) 08:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Checkusers should be administrator

Considering the discussion at Commons talk:Administrators/Inactivity section/Feb-Mar 2019, I believe checkusers should be administrators in the hierarchy of access levels on Commons. So, I propose to make the following changes to the policy:

  1. Checkusers are highly-trusted users administrators with the technical ability to see private data for a user, such as their IP address.
  2. Such abuses may have to be dealt with blocks performed by checkusers themselves, thus checkusers are usually administrators.

Rationale:

  1. As User:Krd (a checkuser on Commons) said, checkusers should be able to see deleted contributions to make the best decision. User:Jameslwoodward (another checkuser on Commons) agrees with this opinion.
  2. If a user is not active enough to be an admin, it makes no sense to give them a very sensitive right only not to use. Holders of sensitive rights are expected to be engaged with the community and keep themselves updated with the most recent trends and developments in the dynamics of community. In other words, they should have their fingers on the pulse of community.
  3. For the sake of consistency in policies of Commons. Oversighters should be adminstrators according to the policy of COM:OV: "Oversighters are administrators with the technical ability...". It makes no sense to me to treat oversighters different from checkusers, while they are essentially of the same nature: sensitive rights only given to highly-trusted users parsimoniously.
  4. To follow the commonsense. I just checked the list of CUs on the English Wikipedia. There are 45 CUs all of which are admins: en:Special:ListUsers/checkuser. This seems to be the general practice among other WMF projects. It appears that all CUs on Commons have always been administrators (Commons:Checkusers/Archive). This is also the norm in another community with which I am familiar, the Persian Wikipedia.

4nn1l2 (talk) 07:14, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Support I would fully support this proposal. The original text dates back to times when things were understood rather than explicit - it needs ameding. I would also suggest that activity levels of CUs is considered for amending. Given the nature of the urgency or requests usually and the number of CUs available they have to be active. --Herby talk thyme 07:30, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Support as per above. --Yann (talk) 08:15, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After a week and no opposition, I implemented the proposed changes to the policy page: Special:Diff/339754892. 4nn1l2 (talk) 13:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Checkusers/Archive_1&oldid=522115664"