Wikinews talk:Arbitration Committee/CheckUsers

When this this happen. and this better be posted on WN:ALERT. Brian | (Talk) | ^{New Zealand Portal} 09:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Huh? --Chiacomo ^(talk) 13:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I dont really understand this, is the Arbitration Committee making decisions about who will be authoriced to ask for a 'checkuser'? international 10:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I put a "flag" on the discussion as I agree with User:Brian New Zealand. Redman 11:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Both Chiacomo and CSpurrier are charter members of Journowiki and could use checkuser to selectively allow or disallow sockpuppets on Wikinews. Neither voted for MrM's deadmin which may indicate a "posse" mentality. 65.95.149.134 12:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The reason I involved myself in this is not that I think any mentioned user are unsuitible for this. It is that I think Arbitration Committee is good for being the final and transparant end of disputes. Nothing else. In this specific case I suggest the bureaucrat be the formal way to ask for a CheckUsers after proper discussion. They forward the communitys decision and dont act on their own. international 13:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

This happened suddleny, with out any chat, I would have perfered you to set a policy/rules on its use before we got a local checkuser. Brian | (Talk) | ^{New Zealand Portal} 06:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Anon IP

Please note that traceroute shows the Anon IP that "voted" as beingf yet again, in Toronto, same ISP and same list of IPs suspected to be used my neutralizer. Jason Safoutin 13:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what vote your talking about, but if you're refering to the anon above, a surer way of telling if hes neutralizer then seeing if the ip came from the isp that serves a fair bit of Toronto and Montreal (Well I know its popular there, It could also be popular in the rest Ontario, and Quebec) is to look for the Journawiki link. Neutralizer is the only one (To my knowladge) who believes that conspiricy. Bawolff ☺☻ 22:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments

I certainly don't support hunting down sockpuppets that aren't disrupting the community or attempting to manipulate community processes., Chiacomo in June 2006, referenced by Edbrown05 07:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Why not Eloquence & another (maybe Karen)

Its normal for the arbcom to make such decissions, as you don't want the wider wikipolitics entering the debate. (You want to nominate a Turk/inclusionist/etc so I want to nominate an Arminien/deletionist/etc)

But I really think it'd be best if the ArbCom didn't use ArbCom members as checkusers. Judges aren't cops.

Eloquence is the obvious choice (and he might accept since it'll be less work than ArbCom). And I personally think Karen would be a good second choice. Maybe Mindspilliage if she was around more.

Just spread it around a bit guys. It'll keep life more civil. Nyarlathotep 11:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Eloquence was asked, but he refused.--Cspurrier 22:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to be abrupt, but as an academic I know a discussion closer when I see one. Are there no other qualified contributors on Wikinews who might be interested in this position other than the handful who already sit on ArbCom? Redman 23:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, checkuser requires a high level of trust and technical skills. I can think of 7 or 8 other users who I would trust with checkuser, of these users however two have refused, and two are not active enough to justify it and the others are arbcom members who have expressed no interest when it was discussed, or lack the technical skills--Cspurrier 23:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not opposed to additional CheckUsers -- though we don't need terribly many. Their primary function is to aid in Abritration Committee investigations. It is important to remember that the responsibility is a heavy one -- users with CheckUser privileges are bound by the Wikimedia Privacy policy and may be legally responsible for their use or misuse of the tool. Users with CheckUser privileges must also be technically capable of interpreting the results of a CheckUser investigation.

Results are seldom concrete, but rather, only approach a level of certainty nearing 100% -- one cannot say with 100% assurance that Chiacomo is a sockpuppet of Neutralizer, even if we share an IP address I may have only been visiting his apartment and used his computer. CheckUser is only a tool, used along with comparison of edit-style, and other indicators to determine with some level of certainty that two or more users are in fact the same person. --Chiacomo ^(talk) 23:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks Craig. I'm happy that you asked Eloquence first. I agree that its not easy to find two if he drops out. And we've got enough socks that local checkusers are needed.

Anywho we'll have another arbcom ellection eventually. So, if anyone cares about keeping them disjoint, it'll just change who is on arbcom. So all is well in the long run.

Also, Chiacomo, the primary function of checkusers is to identify accounts making troulbe as socks of other accounts making trouble; thus "consolodating" the communities understanding of the problem. Such trouble normally is well below the complexity observed in arbcom disputes. (Like identifying all accounts who spout conspiracy theories as socks of Neutarlizer) Nyarlathotep 09:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Dang waitress, you switched drinks with me and Nyar... ! -Edbrown05 09:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Sock Cops

What worries me, (okay maybe it doesn't worry me), but if the community makes this a voting thing for who is or isn't a 'checkuser', then it implies a responsibility to the user granted access to the tool to employ it by being a cop. I don't want "sock cops" running around here right now, but that's me. I kinda liked what vonbergm suggested on international's talk page as a way to monitor its use for now. -Edbrown05 07:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

You shouldn't have any trouble getting one of these three to you the information you want. You could also ask a Steward if you liked. Nyarlathotep 14:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

2007 Review?

I suggest we (the committee) review all members who have checkuser, as a result of the last election.

For example are we happy with all the current noms, and because Craig Spurrier is no longer a member of the committee do we want been a armcom member to remain a requirement (note I more than happy with Craig remaining a checkuser, I just feel we should talk about this, as we are considering oversight). Brian | (Talk) | ^{New Zealand Portal} 01:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Both are extremley sensitive positions. I've no problem with Craig remaining a checkuser, although (as he is a Steward) he is extremley well trusted by the WM community.  Thunderhead  ►  02:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

agreed, in fact I think he's the only one doing it :) Brian | (Talk) | ^{New Zealand Portal} 08:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)