Wikipedia talk:CheckUser
Add topic | The project page associated with this talk page documents an English Wikipedia policy. It describes a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow. Before making a substantial edit to the page, review the policy editing recommendations. |
 | Text or other creative content from this version of Wikipedia:User access levels was copied or moved into Wikipedia:CheckUser with this edit on 10 January 2017. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Extended confirmed and CU data limits
[edit]Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Extended confirmed definition. The discussion at the moment centers on whether requiring a minimum of 90 days for the WP:XC user right would interfere with CU work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:01, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Should paid editing as a CU be allowed?
[edit]
You are invited to join the discussion at meta:Requests for comment/Should paid editing as a CU be allowed. Some1 (talk) 00:40, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
Have we written more into aelect scrutinizing into policy than is proper?
[edit]Under SecurePoll access, we have Each administrator election is scrutineered for duplicate votes, sockpuppetry, etc., by three local CheckUsers
. This doesn't seem like something that should be embedded in CU policy. The policy should lay out what CUs are allowed to do, but the details of how many scrutineers there are seems like something that's decided from time to time in the aelect RFC process. Also, the close by @Asilvering said "Should a steward choose to volunteer, this close should not prevent them from doing so"; this bit of policy seems to forbid that. RoySmith (talk) 11:21, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
- Seems fine. I don't think this needs much discussion, so I just went and boldly made the edit. Feel free to iterate. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:48, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
Nehushtani
[edit]I don't know - how Nehushtani get caught. I don't see any investigations opened against them. But CheckUser's should do more of these - thanks Cinaroot 💬 07:45, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
70% vote?
[edit]@EggRoll97 regarding Special:Diff/1340525465 I think it would be useful to clarify that the 70% threshold is current ArbCom internal process, not actually community policy. RoySmith (talk) 18:19, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
