| abstract
| - (please move if this isn't the best place for this) There have been a couple of requests for Checkuser rights recently. I know that admins have traditionally had checkuser rights on this wiki, but we would like to move PvX a little closer to the rest of the wikis on Wikia. There are 23 people here with checkuser rights... most wikis have none, and those that do have checkusers generally have just two. So I think it's fair to say that PvX Wiki has enough people with the right to do the job. If that changes in the future, then we would consider adding someone else, and certainly we could remove the right from anyone inactive. But it's not something that every admin needs, and enough people have the right already for all your checkuser needs. Thanks all -- sannse (talk) 02:11, December 15, 2009 (UTC) That may be true, but what you need to know is that many of the users on that list are inactive. Currently, I'd say we have around 1-3 active users with checkuser. Although I understand your desire for us to be closer to other wikis on wikia, I am almost certain that we get more vandalism than over half those sites, a lot of which is from ex-users or users who are trying to sock. So, there is good reason for us to have checkuser privileges. KarateFile:Candy!.pngJesus 02:51, 15 December 2009 People do troll quite a lot here. Invincible RogueImage:Invincible rogue siggy.jpg 02:54, December 15, 2009 (UTC) I would recommend granting it to all our active admins (at the very least). We have a list of currently active (and inactive) admins here. Maybe some of the inactive admins could have their rights removed and the active admins added? Or something similar? KarateFile:Candy!.pngJesus 02:59, 15 December 2009 Or we could give it to people like Danny and I who make quality contributions to the site every day, and take it away from people who just use it for getting ip addresses for DDoSing (*cough* Big *cough*) — File:Phensofgt.png 03:10, December 15, 2009 (UTC) "People do troll quite a lot here." See? Invincible RogueImage:Invincible rogue siggy.jpg 03:12, December 15, 2009 (UTC) ^. And Big doesn't have checkuser. Only 2 of our 4 active admins have checkuser. And our only "active" bcrat is inactive most of the time. KarateFile:Candy!.pngJesus 03:13, 15 December 2009 I see Auron around every day (on IRC), he just doesn't edit because there's little for him to do. ~ PheNaxKian talk 12:16, December 15, 2009 (UTC) I don't think checkuser is needed for an every admin. I understand that it makes things easier but I would prefer to keep my privacy----X 12:32, December 15, 2009 (UTC) So that you can log off and proxymaster like Life :> ---Chaos- (talk) -- 12:43, December 15, 2009 (UTC) KJ has probably already explained to you that socking is a bannable offense on PvX due to biasedly voting on ones own builds, and, as he said, because we have many vandals. ---Chaos- (talk) -- 12:43, December 15, 2009 (UTC) Due to our vetting system socking is a way bigger problem on this wikia, then on most others. There for a lot of people with checkuser are needed over here, though I do agree 23 might be a little over the top. however, there has been no abuse of some kind, afaik so why the hell does it even matter this wikia has more checkusers then others? Thomas So Dutch 13:11, December 15, 2009 (UTC) Some addicts need to checkuser people when RC is silent. ---Chaos- (talk) -- 13:13, December 15, 2009 (UTC) KJ's option is probably the best one. Remove Checkuser from inactive admins and give it only to active ones. If we didn't have the Vetting system, it would be entirely unnecessary, but as it stands it is still required in some cases. Also, please don't give it to me or Thunda - doing so would accomplish nothing. ··· Danny Hates Snow 22:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC) I'm happy to remove it from inactive admins (given a list) and review whether there is a need for more than those that remain. I think some of the comments above reflect why we are generally cautious about too many people having this ability. For the sake of privacy, it should be used sparingly... so even with socking problems it doesn't need to be in the hands of every admin -- sannse (talk) 00:49, December 16, 2009 (UTC) If a user is really concerned about his or her privacy, he or she would likely be using a proxy or onion routing already. You'll notice that most veteran users of the site feel that it's a fair trade off considering that our administrative staff, while perhaps not a shining example of such, is not corrupt to the extent that they willingly share the IP addresses of other users. I have no problem conceding that it doesn't need to be in the hands of every admin, but given the pertinence of it to our policies, it would be difficult to determine which ones should be allowed to keep it. (Most veteran admins versus most active admins?) A possible solution would be to hold RfCU's, allowing the community to determine who they feel should be allowed to view their IP addresses. ··· Danny Hates Snow 05:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC) Here's the list:
* User:Frvwfr2
* User:Misery
* User:Pluto
* User:Rapta
* User:Rawrawr Dinosaur
* User:Scottie theNerd
* User:Shogunshen
* User:Skakid9090
* User:Tab.
* User:Tycn
* User:Unexist
* User:Zuranthium
* User:Edru viransu
* User:Dont
* User:Єяøהħ This would leave 9 people with checkuser (all 5 bureaucrats, KJ, Big, Frosty, & Phen). Wait for other active admins' consensus on this list, obviously. Toraen-Gifts PlzImage:ToraenSig3.png 03:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC) Wait, why are people like Skakid and Rawr on that list? ---Chaos- (talk) -- 07:27, December 16, 2009 (UTC) BMs used to get Checkuser, iirc. For sock identification. ··· Danny Hates Snow 07:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC) I just want to add in a message to note I am disappointed in Wikia. I believe we were told that the day to day running of the wiki would not be interfered with, yet here is a request for us to change the way we deal with checkuser permissions, while as far as I can see there is no understanding of why we even have the policy in place. Because we use a voting system to rate our builds it is important that we can confirm that accounts are unique users. If they are worried about abuse of the feature, removing it from inactive sysops and buildmasters will not prevent abuse as people who aren't here cannot abuse the tools anyway. This whole thing seems misguided and in bad faith. Image:Misery Cow.pngMisery Says Moo 08:31, December 16, 2009 (UTC) Misery, I understand why you'd feel like that, but if this is a way for all of our active admins to have the tools we need to get the job done then, for the time being, I'm ok with it. I discussed this in detail with wikia staff through email and although, I agree with you that this isn't ideal, they had no plans to give our active admins checkuser without removing it from others. I understand your argument, but to quote you, "removing it from inactive sysops and buildmasters will not prevent abuse as people who aren't here cannot abuse the tools anyway". Inactive admins and Bcrats aren't here, so I don't see why they even need the tool. And if one were to come back, they could easily declare themselves active and re-receive the tool. KarateFile:Candy!.pngJesus 19:54, 17 December 2009 I've had checkuser for like 8 months btw. lol -- Biggles Jollyfist 20:00, December 17, 2009 (UTC) Oh, sorry. My bad. Btw, here's how wikia wants to do this in the future. Chris (Uberfuzzy) will give checkuser rights to anyone who's on the active admin list, so if an admin/bcrat returns then he will re-grant them checkuser rights. If an admin goes inactive, he will remove their checkuser rights. I didn't know he was planning on removing the inactive bcrats' checkuser rights, so I'm going to talk to Auron and see if he wants that changed. KarateFile:Candy!.pngJesus 20:04, 17 December 2009 Sannse; our wiki is not like the other wikia wikis. We are not a compendium of general information, we are a build vetting resource. Please restore any lost checkuser flags and continue to place them on new sysops and buildmasters as they are appointed, as was agreed upon when we became a Wikia wiki. I trust you guys haven't forgotten your pledge to interfere as little as possible with the running of our wiki - the checkuser tool is an integral part of ensuring that votes are not tampered with, and arbitrarily limiting who gets the tool runs counter to this wiki's aims and goals. -Auron 22:39, December 17, 2009 (UTC) I certainly agree that both active and inactive bcrats should retain their checkuser, but I see little reason to allow inactive admins and buildmasters to retain such rights, particularly when several of those users were rather controversial to begin with. In fact, I can't say I see the need for buildmasters to have Checkuser at all, since their primary purpose is to patrol build quality, not watch for socks. ··· Danny Hates Snow 00:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC) Tbh, according to our policies the Bcrats are the ones who decide who gets what (as far as user rights are concerned) and in this case our bcrats weren't informed or consulted for this decision. And that's not how this works. If Auron wants all our admins, Bcrats, and BMs to have checkuser, then that's how it should be. That's the right he has as a bcrat (according to policy). KarateFile:Candy!.pngJesus 00:46, 18 December 2009 None of the policies specifically mention Checkuser, but I would personally motion for it to be included in the Administration policy and excluded from the Build Master policy. Given the contentious position that Build Master is, I believe it would be anything but wise to allow users who regularly conflict with other users to be provided with the ability to view those users' personal information. Build Masters should be patrolling builds, not users, and if the question of a sock is raised, an admin can easily handle such a situation without delving into the validity of a vote. ··· Danny Hates Snow 00:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC) "as was agreed upon when we became a Wikia wiki" ← I did not know about this (not having been an admin at the time of the wikia move) but in light of it I support giving everyone back their checkuser rights. I also don't understand why the inactive Bcrats had their rights taken away to begin with. We were only discussing removing it from inactive admins (and BMs), and my list above reflected that. It also seems that Auron wasn't even consulted prior to removing the rights, which was a very bad move on wikia's part. Toraen-Gifts PlzImage:ToraenSig3.png 04:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC) I do not understand where the confidence comes from that Wikia will restore the rights of any sysop returning to activity considering that this entire process is already going against what they have assured us of at the start. They have never liked us having checkuser because they don't understand why we need it. I see this as another attempt for them to remove it from us stepwise. BMs should retain checkuser. It was actually proposed that only BMs should have checkuser to allow them to remove sock votes but it was decided that it was a useful tool for admins to retain to fight vandalism etc. Bureaucrats are supposed to manage user rights on this wiki, in fact that is their only real function up and above what a sysop does, yet they were not consulted on this change and in fact many of them had their rights altered. Something seems pretty fucked up here. Image:Misery Cow.pngMisery Says Moo 09:17, December 18, 2009 (UTC) I'd also like to point out that no consensus has been reached and that this whole issue was discussed on a tucked away part of the wiki that few people would frequent. This was basically done on the basis of what one of newest admins said (which was to provide a list of inactive admins, not to say that their rights should definately be removed) and on the whim of Wikia staff. Image:Misery Cow.pngMisery Says Moo 09:19, December 18, 2009 (UTC) See what Misery said above, although I do appreciate what wikia is doing for us (remember guys they are essentially paying for this website now) but I don't think removing our Checkuser rights is a very good idea "because other wikias don't have many checkusers". If we were to have checkuser removed people could go around creating second/third accounts and our whole vetting system would be a shambles, as well as the amount of problems it would cause on the drama and vandalism side of things. --Frosty Image:Frostcharge.jpg 09:38, December 18, 2009 (UTC) What I find hilarious is that all but 1 bureaucrat lost Check User, but all BM's retained it. ^_^ Thomas So Dutch 10:31, December 18, 2009 (UTC) I think, sadly, one of the brcats need to probably map out exactly what we want (pretty much a list of names to be given checkuser/where checkuser is no longer necessary). Things seem to actually get done then. - Image:Porororroro lau.gifAthrunFeya - 11:34, December 18, 2009 (UTC) Uh, I did. I requested all of the checkuser flags be restored. -Auron 12:45, December 18, 2009 (UTC) Has anyone contacted GCard or DE? The two of them are the original bureaucrats, and it could very well be worth getting input from them. I'll leave a note on DE's talk page for now. ··· Danny Hates Snow 18:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC) I agree with Misery 100%. I want the admins and BMs to have the ability to identify sock puppets easily. See, Wikia, we basically have a democracy for each build. In a democracy, when one person votes multiple times, it skews both the results and the appearance of the popular consensus. The United States has very tight security on voting. If a man who had a heavily criminal record and showed no sign of reform ran for president, he probably would not win because people would not support him. If, however, people create extra votes for him, he can win the office and screw up the whole world. Wikis for Zelda or Final Fantasy don't have any kind of voting, so they don't need Checkuser. For a democracy like PvX, it is imperative that our admins have that. Invincible RogueImage:Invincible rogue siggy.jpg 23:44, December 18, 2009 (UTC) I love you and imma let u finnish, but those r some srsly terrible metaphors :> ---Chaos- (moo) -- 23:45, December 18, 2009 (UTC) First of all, PvX is by no means a democracy. Second of all, Auron and DE have submitted their opinions. It is probably best to let discussion die temporarily and wait for a reply from Wikia. ··· Danny Hates Snow 20:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC) I'll try to thoroughly and concisely explain why we need it, and if I'm missing out on something then someone please point it out. I'll just mash this wall of text here for future reference and visibility. These things mentioned are in no way speculation, and such events occur regularly.
* Vandalism
* We have a massive amount of vandals, and the nature of the wiki being as it is, active users too might feel like vandalizing something in the spirit of the lovely joke. I could point out many incidents of my own and others, even one from within the last day or two, where checkusering would easily have given away the person for circumventing a ban.
* People get banned (and proxy) on a regular basis here. Even the people we accept as admins, and especially our build masters deserve a ban every now and then.
* Vetting procedure and socks
* A build is put into a category (0-3.74=trash, 3.75-4.7.4=good, 4.75-5=great) once it has gotten 5 votes. People are in general very biased toward their own builds, and since having made many builds is a show of status (since vetting even one can be quite hard), and people are very stubborn about the qualities of the build, it comes to asking friends to vote favorably, or creating a sock account with which one votes higher. Thus we simply prohibit sock users. Again, I could probably point out a few cases which would've required checkusering.
* People can create sock accounts on a whim to troll a person or sock vote. (16:19:48) Dandy so Dandy: What everything does checkuser tell of the person? (16:20:00) Auron: the IP. (16:20:06) Dandy so Dandy: That's it? (16:20:09) Auron: ...yep. (16:20:12) Dandy so Dandy: ... (16:20:14) Dandy so Dandy: Hilarious (16:20:26) Auron: you can check all the IPs used by an account, all the accounts logged onto by an IP (16:20:34) Auron: and some bad whois feature that is wrong half the time I assume that this can be seen a legal issue due to what the IP tells of someone? If not, care to elaborate? ---Chaos- (moo) -- 14:38, December 18, 2009 (UTC)
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)