Wiktionary talk:Requests for checkuser

This looks like a fine start - thanks TheDave. --Connel MacKenzie 08:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

My worry here is that the requests are public. An innocent party who sees that he is checkusered (or requested to be checkusered) will be annoyed and may leave the project. I think that it should be pointed out that you can always make a private request via email. SemperBlotto 08:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not sure whether private requests are appropriate, it adds to the cabalistic mentality, and the opportunity for fishing trips and the like. I am personally in favor of the requirement for public scrutiny of the usage of this particular tool, and also in restraint in it's usage.  If there is a chance that someone will leave the project due to it's use, we will be less likely to turn to it for minor stuff.  This all being said after using it via IRC for the past month where there is no scrutiny at all, nevertheless, I think that public requests, arguments and results are the best method.  - TheDaveRoss 16:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I am also in favo(u)r of making it public (or just to sysops?). If I was being checkusered, I'd like to know. I think the innocent party being checkusered will be even more annoyed if he learns afterwards that he had been checkusered without being informed. However, I'm wondering if discussion should be allowed: of course, the one being checkusered will almost always be opposed to it...
 * I had a look at how they do on Wikipedia (here). Apparently, someone makes a request, and then a userchecker (or a clerk?) use one of the pretty logos to accept/deny/ask further information. I checked on the French Wikipedia, it's the same system (without the pretty icons). So, it looks reasonable to do the same, what do you think? Kipmaster 08:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * From what I understand, not having used it myself yet, is that the respective checkusers are the ones with access to the checkuser logs. So, Kip can check on me, I can check on Jhs, etc.  AFAIK, the Wikipedians do not specify that as the only method of requesting a checkuser.  Meta: certainly doesn't make that recommendation.  Perhaps our policy should be that all checkusers should disclose those logs to any sysop/b'crat that requests it?  But putting more restrictions on checkuser, than we currently have via meta: seems more than a little silly.  That would be...I dunno, like adding a month to the minimum vote time for a 'bot request.  --Connel MacKenzie 09:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Most checkuser requests on enwiki are made and executed privately; conversely most requests put on their RFCU page are declined. Checkusers may also use checkuser on a sua sponte basis, for any number of reasons, which may not relate to any specific allegation of misconduct.  There is an (unwritten) code of conduct that the checkusers have agreed upon regarding revealing information found during tangential or spontaneous use of checkuser.  In general, information thus discovered may not be disclosed; clear evidence of gross misconduct is required for disclosure.  Kelly Martin 12:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Wonderfool
The very many sockpuppets of Wonderfool seem to be a special case. The reason that he is banned is that, even though 99% of his edits are perfectly good (even useful to the project), he is untrustworthy and ALL of his edits have to be checked. His pattern of edit behaviour is easily identifiable (no details given here) so I would like to retain the authority of blocking his sockpuppets without asking for a checkuser to be run. Is that reasonable? SemperBlotto 08:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

"Declined" and "rejected"
What is the difference between the outcomes "declined" and "rejected"? Equinox ◑ 16:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Wonderfool
He's obviously up to something. There should be a regular yearly CU check for all administrators for sockpuppets showing behavior reminiscent of WF. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 17:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks more like some troll pretending to be him. He has been editing with another account for some time now and the edits are good so far. — Ungoliant (Falai) 20:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC)