Author: mike.lifeguard+bugs
Description:
Checkusers are more likely to be dealing with usernames of the sort that should be hidden with hideuser, so they should have that right (whether instead of or in addition to oversighters I'm not sure -- can't harm for both groups to have the right). The right has been widely used by stewards primarily, with few issues arising. CUs should have the tools appropriate to the kind of disruption they are countering.
Version: unspecified
Severity: normal
herbythyme wrote:
Fully agree with Mike. Primary use for CU on wikis other than en wp is to deal with such vandalism. This would help.
FT2.wiki wrote:
Checkusers and oversighters routinely handle cases where such users exist. At present a checkuser case can't be concluded by the checkuser alone, if a rename is appropriate. Since checkuser is immensely more sensitive than rename, and checkusers are trusted users, I'd be fine with checkusers having access (as well as oversighters) to the rename function.
After all, the whole purpose of the function is abuse prevention.
FT2.wiki wrote:
gah! hideuser... rename... whichever. "A way to hide a problem username". Sorry!
Maybe people dealing with that stuff should have both groups independently. I see the use case, but bundling such an unrelated right in with checkuser seems downright weird. CheckUser is for seeing IP addresses, Oversight is for hiding stuff. Maybe people who need both groups should have both groups, or a new merged group should be created.
FT2.wiki wrote:
As the project matures, do we want to have a combined group for CU + OS type access? ("Privacy access"?) Given the main use of both is abuse prevention and they overlap so much? Probably a question to discuss on a mailing list.
herbythyme wrote:
To a number of the above ones - bear in mind that small wikis face quite different issues to (the) large one(s). Most of my time is spent on smaller ones (depending how you define Commons). I was OS there (dropped it) and would be ok with having it again for this purpose - however the community would need to be aware/support this.
lar wrote:
Renaming and/or hiding attack names isn't quite the same as the rest of the oversight functions... But I think maybe a merged group is worth considering.
Mixing the two may not be the best idea for smaller wikis, were there is little need for it and less people to oversee its usage.
This should have some sort of consensus if it is to be implemented.
FT2.wiki wrote:
Unsure about that. The question of overseeing usage is a valid one, but a number of smaller wikis get targeted by prolific vandals, where they hope to not be seen (but still get spidered); as a result checkuser-l daily has reports of such matters on smaller wikis too. Unsure whether there is indeed "little need". Could one of the stewards (Lar?) or some smaller-wiki checkusers, give their view on this?
lar wrote:
Suggest that since this is a discussion of requirements we probably should take it to a mailing list (perhaps checkuser-l) but I tend to agree with FT2, there is a need for this and CU is probably the right role to have this ability. I'll mention it on the Stewards list as well...
Annabel wrote:
(In reply to comment #2)
Checkusers and oversighters routinely handle cases where such users exist. At
present a checkuser case can't be concluded by the checkuser alone, if a rename
is appropriate.
In the past a rename of an offensive user name would have been appropriate, but this is not the case anymore. Now we have to deal with SUL. When renaming a SUL account locally, it is detached, but the SUL account still exists, which results in two accounts for the same vandal.
Hence, I agree to the proposition of giving CUs the hideuser right. This right is independent from all other oversight rights. In addition, as already mentioned, the needs of a wiki depend on the size. Many wikis who have CU's don't have oversighters, whereas the hideuser right is part of the job to finalize a significant deal of CU requests.
brian.mcneil wrote:
(In reply to comment #0)
Checkusers are more likely to be dealing with usernames of the sort that should
be hidden with hideuser, so they should have that right (whether instead of or
in addition to oversighters I'm not sure -- can't harm for both groups to have
the right). The right has been widely used by stewards primarily, with few
issues arising. CUs should have the tools appropriate to the kind of disruption
they are countering.
This really is a must for checkusers. en.wikinews has a number of CUs, but nobody with oversight. An offensive or privacy-revealing username will often not be unified and a speedier access to hiding it would be very, very useful.
I think you could put the case that CheckUser is related to the actions of an individual that is problematic; Oversight is related to content that is problematic. Lot of overlap, but the ability to hide an offensive or otherwise vexatious username is something I think should either be on the CU side, or available to both groups.
English Wikisource is in a similar position to English Wikinews, with Checkusers and no Oversighters, and there are times when usernames needed to be hidden. However it isnt frequent, and usually when it is required, a steward needs to globally lock and hide the account, so there isnt much value in the local Checkusers doing it. If it becomes so frequent that there are local-only inappropriate usernames, we can always have an election for Oversight to be granted. English Wikinews has an Arbitration Committee; cant they give Oversight to the current Checkusers?
Also, why are we having a discussion here? This should be discussed on meta first.
Even on the larger wikis, such as EnWiki, there has been an explosion in the occurrence of username vandalism (So-and-SO's real name is Such-and-such as a username). It is the CU's who catch these during the checks, and being able to shut down the privacy leak immediately is very helpful.
EN.WP.ST47 wrote:
Diederic, once there is a discussion on meta indicating community consensus with this proposal, it can proceed.