User talk:Doc James/Q&A

Archive

RfC on clarifying wording

Meta:CU Current wording is:

Statement of the issue

Current wording of the CheckUser policy is:

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 the Wikimedia projects.

I propose adjusting it to:

(1) The tool is to be used to fight vandalism, to check for sockpuppet abuse, to prevent contributions without disclosure as defined by the TOU, and to limit disruption of the project. It must be used only to prevent damage to any of the Wikimedia projects, harm to article subjects, or harm to editors.

(2) The tool is to be used to fight vandalism, to check for sockpuppet abuse, and to limit disruption of the project. This may include checking new accounts that behave like a previously blocked account, be it involved with promotional work or otherwise. It must be used only to prevent damage to any of the Wikimedia projects, harm to article subjects, or harm to editors.

Q&A
Q: Does this mean CUs can be run on a disclosed paid editor with this as the justification? A: If proper disclose has occurred then this clarification will not provide justification. If an account disclosed only part of their work, yet continues creating promotional content without disclosure than may apply. Q: What about disclosed paid editor on German Wikipedia, will this may apply to them? A: No as they are not undisclosed paid editors. Q What about those involved in WiR? A: As described here this should not generally affect WiR. WiR are, however, still required to disclose financial associations with respect to Wikipedia editing. Q: I am a CU, will I be forced to run these even if I disagree with the policy? A: No, as volunteers we are not forced to carry out work we are disinclined to carry out.