This editor is now a Checkuser. This RFCU has over 80% support with over 30 support votes. Mak(talk) 03:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
For those who are unaware, checkusers are users with the ability to access private IP information in order to assist with sock-puppet detection and vandalism prevention. See the Meta:CheckUser policy for more information on checkuser.
Commons has four users with checkuser status . All four are mostly inactive at the current time. Our current checkuser needs have been met through the kindness of a steward or two, but this is not a good long term solution.
I believe I would make a good checkuser: I have a substantial technical background which comes from years of working for or with Internet service providers, and a history of trusted access to private data within the Foundation. I also hold several trusted positions within our communities, including commons adminship. I have an almost gapless history of activity with some Wikimedia project or another since late 2004 and I am frequently available on IRC for urgent issues. I understand and support our privacy and checkuser policies as well as the seriousness of this position. --Gmaxwell 17:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment I have one concern which is I wish you would get your own cloak on IRC instead of using Kat's. Or at least explain why you don't, because it raises some eyebrows. I think CU's need to have their noses very clean of even the whiff of issue so... But I think you'd be a great CU and would heartily support if not for that nit. ++Lar: t/c 17:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm totally boggled to see this question, but it is easy enough to answer. Kat and I share a cloak for two reasons: The first is because we sometimes use the same computer and if we share a cloak the IP address we are using is not disclosed when we swap nicks, and secondly because it simplifies coordinating access to the dozens of IRC channels whos access lists we are on (including non-wikimedia channels, etc). We linked nicks during an attack on most of the Wikimedia channels a few years back, prior to that my IP was hidden via TOR. I can't say that I've ever seen evidence of "raises some eyebrows" outside of a single banned user from enwiki who has complained a few times, but I've never really understood his complaint. Sometimes there is a little confusion when I talk to someone new, but no more than was generated by the fact that I used to use an IRC nick which did not match my username. --Gmaxwell 18:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you're boggled... we run in different circles sometimes, I guess. I myself hear this complaint about the cloaks a fair bit (as well as another complaint about your using the authority one time when some felt perhaps you should not have). I personally don't have an issue with it myself, but I do think that if there is a way to avoid the appearance of an issue, within reason, it is a good thing to do. That said, I wanted to raise it. I did. You explained it. It is, to me, a nit, NOT a showstopper. Therefore, Support and thanks for offering to take on this task, which I understand to be somewhat tedious and time consuming, on behalf of Commons. ++Lar: t/c 19:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Support I think this would be very useful, and have no problems with Gmaxwell doing this on Commons' behalf. He's trustworthy and very technically able. --MichaelMaggs 17:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Support -- Of course; I am quite sure that Gmaxwell is technically capable of correctly interpretting Checkuser data and can be trusted with this information. -- Bryan (talk to me) 18:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Support – Gmaxwell is a fine candidate for checkuser. Kjetil r 20:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Support of course. Yonatantalk 20:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Trustworthy and active (although I should warn you, soon after gaining CU/B flags, many of our best users seem to become mysteriously inactive!) --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 04:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Support and fully. These rights should be with active trusted sysops and used --Herbytalk thyme 11:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Per my nom, None of our checkusers are active and as a result the only way we're currently able to get one performed without waiting weeks is to ask a steward to CU themselves on our project, which is not supposed to be done on projects with checkusers. --Gmaxwell 14:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Long-time great user, I'm not afraid he'll abuse the tools or user's privacy. --Iamunknown 04:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
How do you feel about the issues raised here? --South Philly 13:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I think we should have a solid pool of CUs available at all times. These CUs can easily perform checks to help with things like vandalism fighting. Dealing with abuse is the fundamental purpose of checkuser. It's certainly not limited to sock checking, and in fact we really just use it for sock checking for abusive socks.
However we need to be aware of the legal and privacy implications of checkuser, and I think it would be unwise to hand the right to more users than we need in order to get consistent coverage. Does this address your question? --Gmaxwell 15:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)