Wikipedia talk:CheckUser
 | The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic. |
 | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Wikipedia:User access levels was copied or moved into Wikipedia:CheckUser with this edit on 10 January 2017. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Proposal to create an Election Administrator user group
editThere is a proposal to create an Election Administrator user group, located at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/SecurePoll permissions proposal. The Election Administrator user group would have the ability to create and edit local (English Wikipedia) SecurePolls. English Wikipedia setting up its own SecurePolls is a new feature (normally SecurePolls are set up by Wikimedia Trust & Safety on votewiki) that would be used in administrator elections.
If implemented, this will affect CheckUsers because they will receive the ability to view private data in the SecurePoll extension, and this will affect Bureaucrats because they will be involved in the process of adding and removing Election Administrators. Please take a look at the proposal, and if you have feedback, feel free to leave comments on the talk page. Thank you very much. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:32, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
- I assume this is related to T301180? RoySmith (talk) 20:17, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
- Yes. And phab:T378287, in particular the bullet that says "through discussion and consensus on enwiki, figure out exactly which user groups should be created and which user permissions should go to which user groups". –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:33, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
- We've made some changes and I think the current version is ready for final sign off. Please feel free to give your opinion at Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections/SecurePoll permissions proposal#Survey / Motion to close –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:30, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- Yes. And phab:T378287, in particular the bullet that says "through discussion and consensus on enwiki, figure out exactly which user groups should be created and which user permissions should go to which user groups". –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:33, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
Extended confirmed and CU data limits
editPlease see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Extended confirmed definition. The discussion at the moment centers on whether requiring a minimum of 90 days for the WP:XC user right would interfere with CU work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:01, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Should paid editing as a CU be allowed?
editYou are invited to join the discussion at meta:Requests for comment/Should paid editing as a CU be allowed. Some1 (talk) 00:40, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
Have we written more into aelect scrutinizing into policy than is proper?
editUnder SecurePoll access, we have Each administrator election is scrutineered for duplicate votes, sockpuppetry, etc., by three local CheckUsers
. This doesn't seem like something that should be embedded in CU policy. The policy should lay out what CUs are allowed to do, but the details of how many scrutineers there are seems like something that's decided from time to time in the aelect RFC process. Also, the close by @Asilvering said "Should a steward choose to volunteer, this close should not prevent them from doing so"; this bit of policy seems to forbid that. RoySmith (talk) 11:21, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
- Seems fine. I don't think this needs much discussion, so I just went and boldly made the edit. Feel free to iterate. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:48, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
CheckUser - How it works?
editI don't think its reliable to identify related accounts just via IP. Because people could be using shared IP networks etc...
Does wiki use any browser/device fingerprinting technology? Cinaroot (talk) 22:54, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- The short answer is, yes, checkusers get User-Agent header strings and more recently, Client hints. More details are available at mw:Extension:CheckUser. And, yes, you are correct that just having the IP and UA/CH data isn't always enough. Shared IP addresses are certainly one confounding factor, but there are many others. Interpreting the raw data takes experience and wisdom. RoySmith (talk) 23:11, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- Do Wikipedia UI automatically show related accounts or do you have to interpret raw data? Or do you need two accounts to compare? Cinaroot (talk) 23:44, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think it's going to be useful (or prudent) for me to do a deep dive on this, but I will say that CUs do have access to the raw data, and also use a variety of tools to help with the analysis. I think that's about as far as it makes sense for me to go. RoySmith (talk) 00:58, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- I understand why. I was just curious because accounts that are seemingly innocent gets banned by checkuser - and i don't know if you are making correct decision. Cinaroot (talk) 22:36, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think it's going to be useful (or prudent) for me to do a deep dive on this, but I will say that CUs do have access to the raw data, and also use a variety of tools to help with the analysis. I think that's about as far as it makes sense for me to go. RoySmith (talk) 00:58, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- Do Wikipedia UI automatically show related accounts or do you have to interpret raw data? Or do you need two accounts to compare? Cinaroot (talk) 23:44, 11 December 2025 (UTC)