Wikidata:Requests for permissions/CheckUser/Ellywa

Ellywa edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closing as unsuccessful Mahir256 (talk) 23:49, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vote
RfP scheduled to end at 26 January 2019 00:28 (UTC)

Ellywa (talk • contribs • new items • new lexemes • SUL • Block log • User rights log • User rights • xtools)

I am a checkuser on NL Wikipedia. The checkuser rights are used for identifying sockpuppets, in case these are used for disruptive edits or trolling. As all users make wikidata edits at the time, it would be wise to have a checkuser on Wikidata. For the situation on NL wikipedia it would be usefull if somebody can check the same user on this project, as soon as we are checking them on NL Wikipedia. I am willing to answer all questions of course. Ellywa (talk) 00:28, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reaction to the comments below: Yes you are right, at least two checkusers are needed to check each others actions. So if there are volunteers, I am willing to cooperate, for instance with user:Edoderoo or user:Sjoerddebruin, who are both very active here. Experience on this project.... if you think this is required, I'm okay with it. I don't think it is required, because checkuser is a pure technical thing (although with a lot of privacy issues), and it is used to give information to sysops to block sockpuppeteers. However, it is up to the project. Having checkusers on Wikidata is usefull from the view of other projects, because almost every Wikimedian will make minor edits on Wikidata, even if they barely notice. And sometimes a sockpuppet banned on one project, will move to other projects - and will keep doing wikdata edits. I personally think the combination Checkuser/Admin is not wise. It gives too much power to a single person, although on small projects it might be inevitable. Ellywa (talk) 13:59, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Votes edit

Oppose Thanks for volunteering, but not enough local experience here (just barely over 1000 edits and not an admin). This is besides the issue of there not being another candidate, since a minimum of 2 CUs are required per global policy. --Rs chen 7754 01:21, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Replying to the comments above: administrator shows a familiarity with our policies, and not having the admin flag makes it harder to block IPs without violating a user's privacy (because you would have to ask an admin to perform the block). Most Wikimedia projects actually require the admin flag to be a CU (see the m:CU page for a list); nl.wikipedia is an outlier in this regard. --Rs chen 7754 15:21, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Rschen7754. Admire your Be Bold spirit, but too new to this project, sorry. Gamaliel (talk) 03:15, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no demonstrated need for checkuser; require more than one. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:18, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I learned from some Dutch admins and/or ArbCom-members that Ellywa is doing a good job as CU on nl-wiki. If she needs to be admin, just make her admin if that is a benefit to the project. Edoderoo (talk) 19:23, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but that's not how this project works. --Rs chen 7754 09:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not enough local experience. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 08:34, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

For a funny competence check, figure out which inactive second account I'm not using, bonus points for my first account destroyed (= randomized password) in 2006. –84.46.53.83 06:31, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.