I would like to float the idea here for a minor policy change on en.wp
I'd like to propose that we require the on-wiki logging of all CU requests that result in any user sanction. This would logically and explicitly include requiring the logging of all requests done as the result of off-wiki discussions such as IRC etc., if they result in user warnings or blocks.
The policy would strongly encourage the person running the CU to report it. The policy would require a person blocking to make a report, if the person who ran the CU did not, listing who ran the CU should there be any followup questions. I envision a new section in WP:RFCU where these reports would be placed, with the usual archive provisions. It would be encouraged but not required to document the reasons for the CU.
Rationale:
I have no objection to venues other than en:WP:RFCU being used to initiate someone running a CU (Others may object, I don't care). However, I have had a number of cases where figuring out what happened with an abusive user's case turned out to hinge on info which never got written down on-wiki, and in some cases has taken more than a couple of steps to contact the person who ran a CU and got results.
This is particularly bad when we're seeing appeals or issues related to much older abusers, when it can be very difficult to figure out who knows if a CU was run two or four months ago and what the results were.
Feedback?
George Herbert wrote:
Feedback?
My main suggestion would be to have used the unabbreviated version of "CU" the first time it was mentioned in your proposal. I'm a veteran editor and it still took me a couple of read-throughs and a visit to Wikipedia before I knew what the heck you were talking about. "WP:CU" redirects to "Wikipedia:Cleanup", for an added dose of confusion. :)
On 3/16/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
George Herbert wrote:
Feedback?
My main suggestion would be to have used the unabbreviated version of "CU" the first time it was mentioned in your proposal. I'm a veteran editor and it still took me a couple of read-throughs and a visit to Wikipedia before I knew what the heck you were talking about. "WP:CU" redirects to "Wikipedia:Cleanup", for an added dose of confusion. :)
I noticed that a little too late; I apologize for anyone's confusion.
I broke one of the cardinal rules of tech writing (explain the acronym once), which if my wife were on the list would get me in trouble at home. She has been trying to get me to avoid that goof for years.
The next "pre-draft" revision will expand the acronym on first use.
On 3/16/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Feedback?
First off, all CU requests are already logged, but only other people with CU creds can see them (for obvious privacy reasons). Meaning that you can't just checkuser whoever the hell you want.
As for an on-wiki log of checkusers that have resulted in sanctions, is [[Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case]] not sufficient? If I hear about anyone objecting to a checkuser, that's the first place I check. All of the RFCUs are archived there.
Or was there something else you were looking for?
--Oskar
On 3/17/07, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/16/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Feedback?
First off, all CU requests are already logged, but only other people with CU creds can see them (for obvious privacy reasons). Meaning that you can't just checkuser whoever the hell you want.
As for an on-wiki log of checkusers that have resulted in sanctions, is [[Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case]] not sufficient? If I hear about anyone objecting to a checkuser, that's the first place I check. All of the RFCUs are archived there.
Or was there something else you were looking for?
Many CheckUsers done are not recorded in en [[Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case]] - if it doesn't come in as a RFCU request, it is almost never logged there after it is done, and there is no requirement that a RFCU be made for someone to do a CU. Any request made out of band (IRC, Email, other chat, etc) is unlikely to be logged there right now.
That's what I propose to change. No restrictions or complications for those doing other CU request cases, but if someone choses to take action based on a CU done elsewhere, they are required to log it somewhere connected to WP:RFCU. Just make the RFCU page a one-stop-shop for finding the info.
We've had too many zombie checkusers, where it's noted in passing in a block log note or talk page comment and there's no other on-wiki note or evidence for anyone who comes along later to figure out what happened.
On 17/03/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
That's what I propose to change. No restrictions or complications for those doing other CU request cases, but if someone choses to take action based on a CU done elsewhere, they are required to log it somewhere connected to WP:RFCU. Just make the RFCU page a one-stop-shop for finding the info.
No. The logs are not available because people will get having had a checkuser done at all used against them.
We've had too many zombie checkusers, where it's noted in passing in a block log note or talk page comment and there's no other on-wiki note or evidence for anyone who comes along later to figure out what happened.
The block message should be sufficient - that's what the block message is there to log. There are *lots* of open proxies, 0wnz0r3d machines or zombies being abused by our most persistent vandals. However, lots of innocents get checked along the way (because you don't know until you look). What do we gain by making a public list of their names available?
- d.
On 3/17/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/03/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
That's what I propose to change. No restrictions or complications for those doing other CU request cases, but if someone choses to take action based on a CU done elsewhere, they are required to log it somewhere connected to WP:RFCU. Just make the RFCU page a one-stop-shop for finding the info.
No. The logs are not available because people will get having had a checkuser done at all used against them.
We've had too many zombie checkusers, where it's noted in passing in a block log note or talk page comment and there's no other on-wiki note or evidence for anyone who comes along later to figure out what happened.
The block message should be sufficient - that's what the block message is there to log. There are *lots* of open proxies, 0wnz0r3d machines or zombies being abused by our most persistent vandals. However, lots of innocents get checked along the way (because you don't know until you look). What do we gain by making a public list of their names available?
I only ask that the request be logged if you block someone, not just because it was done.
I really don't care about the quantity of CUs done, all I care about is blocks with a claim of a checkuser and no documentary info at all on wiki.
The block messages have by and large not been nearly sufficient, which is why I'm asking.
Again, summary of policy: If you take user restrictive action (block, ban, propose ban) on a CU done by a request or mechanism other than en WP:RFCU, you or the checkuser who ran it need to log that it was done and by whom. That's all. If you don't block the policy has no effect whatsoever. Don't log anything that didn't result in a block/ban/proposed ban.
On 17/03/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
I only ask that the request be logged if you block someone, not just because it was done. The block messages have by and large not been nearly sufficient, which is why I'm asking.
Ah, ok :-)
Again, summary of policy: If you take user restrictive action (block, ban, propose ban) on a CU done by a request or mechanism other than en WP:RFCU, you or the checkuser who ran it need to log that it was done and by whom. That's all. If you don't block the policy has no effect whatsoever. Don't log anything that didn't result in a block/ban/proposed ban.
Hm, could be useful. Need to put something into the checkuser code not to make it a PITA. It was only recently a "reason" field was added to the checkuser tool itself (cheers to VoiceOfAll) and it's a damn good thing but also easy not to fill it.
- d.