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.

Shortcuts WT:CHECKWT:CHECK WT:CHKWT:CHK

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.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be auto-archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 5.

Dear checkusers, VRT admins received a request of a user who reported to have written to [email protected], which is on VRTS, around a month ago, and received no reply. Please advise what is the status of the VRT queue and please advise what to suggest to the user. Thank you. --Krd 15:22, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. There is a backlog in that queue. So I would suggest the VRT admins counsel patience. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:35, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There 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)[reply]

I assume this is related to T301180? RoySmith (talk) 20:17, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please 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)[reply]

 You 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)[reply]

Under 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)[reply]

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)[reply]