Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Community expectation of Checkuser

Opened 27 January 2009. Closes March 1, 2009, 00:00 UTC or at the discretion of the Audit Panel.

Checkuser is a software tool that can determine the IP address of a user, information that is normally hidden by the Wikimedia software. This information is normally used to investigate whether a user is a sockpuppet of another user or a blocked or banned user evading the block or ban. The rules covering use of the Checkuser tool are very broad and non-specific. Checkuser may be used to limit disruption of Wikipedia; it should not be used for political reasons or retaliation; there must be a "valid reason". The Arbitration Committee is planning to create an Audit Panel to review concerns and complaints that Checkuser has been used inappropriately. However, there have been no prior discussions of editors' expectations for the appropriate and inappropriate use of Checkuser tool. Is there an expectation of privacy that goes beyond the written policy? What exactly does "limit disruption" mean? Do editors accept that they may be checked at any time, or do they expect they will only be checked with a "valid reason" and if so, what constitutes a valid reason? This RFC is brought to solicit community views to serve as a frame of reference for the Audit Panel when it is seated by Arbcom (currently planned for 28 February 2009).

Purpose
  • To receive community feedback regarding expectations of privacy as it relates to Checkuser
  • To receive feedback on uses of Checkuser considered by the community to be appropriate or inappropriate


Policy

The tool is to be used to fight vandalism, to check for sockpuppet abuse, and to limit disruption of the project. It must be used only to prevent damage to any of Wikimedia projects. The tool should not be used for political control; to apply pressure on editors; or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to check a user.

# CheckUsers have a wide range of discretion to use their access provided it is for legitimate purposes – broadly, those which relate to preventing or reducing potential or actual disruption, and to investigation of legitimate concerns of bad faith editing.

  1. CheckUsers may accept requests publicly or otherwise, as they see fit.
  2. Requests should not be accepted on the basis of "fishing" - that is, requests by users without a good and specific cause. On their own cognisance they may however perform privately as part of their role, any checks within the bounds of CheckUser policy - that is to say, any check which is reasonably performed in order to address issues of disruption or damage to the project.


Some suggested questions to be answered
  • Does the community have expectations of privacy that go beyond the letter of the Checkuser policy? If so, what are they?
  • If Checkuser is only supposed to be used to "limit disruption", what does this mean in practical terms?
  • If Checkuser can only be used for a "valid reason", what constitutes an invalid reason?
  • If Checkuser is used without a valid reason but the results are not disclosed publicly, has any harm been done?
  • Are there situations in which a Checkuser should ask another Checkuser for help in determining whether there is a valid reason for a check?
  • Are there situations in which a Checkuser should not run a check personally but should ask another Checkuser to do it?


For further information