Jump to content

Commons:Checkusers/Requests/The Squirrel Conspiracy

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

The Squirrel Conspiracy

[edit]
Related requests:

Vote

The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

Scheduled to end: 18:20, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Dear community,

today I would like to nominate The Squirrel Conspiracy as checkuser for Commons.

Squirrel is an experienced admin in good standing, and active in CU related areas.

They have agreed in private to accept the nomination, and will add some details later.

Thank you, yours, --Krd 18:20, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As the other active CU, I join in strong  Support for this nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:57, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the nomination. I’m pleased to accept.
I’ve been an editor for just over 15 years (since September 2009), and I’ve been an admin from 2012-2015 and from 2020-present.
I do a grab-bag of admin tasks; mainly processing speedy and revision deletion requests, closing DRs, and monitoring the admin noticeboards to help with anti-spam and anti-vandalism efforts. I’ve filed a fair number of CU requests as a result of those efforts. Outside of admin tasks, I upload images from open access journals and do a lot of cropping borders.
Elcobbola has been inactive since October and Krd does a huge amount already (#1 by count of admin actions over the last 12 months, a huge amount of VRT work, and is the more active of the two remaining CUs), so I’ve volunteered to help share some of the CU workload. I’m familiar with how IP ranges work from taking a Security+ cert course last year, and I'm on the project pretty much daily.
I think that’s everything. Happy to answer any questions.
The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:27, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

[edit]

Comments

[edit]
RoyZuo: Sure! Before running a check, the checkuser needs to make sure the check passes three tests:
Test 1: Demonstrated disruption to the project – CheckUser is only used to combat disruption of the project where the bad actor is suspected of using multiple accounts or IPs to perpetrate that disruption. Most commonly this is spam or vandalism, but it could also be things like flooding a discussion to try to sway its outcome. The disruption is typically demonstrated in a requests for checkuser case with diffs to support the allegations.
Test 2: The check is necessary to stop the disruption – CheckUser is only used when its use is necessary to stop the disruption. Or to put it another way, if the behavioral evidence is strong enough that an admin is comfortable issuing a block without asking for a check, then they should just do so. The caveat to that is sleepers: if a filer creates a case and the behavioral evidence is strong enough to block the identified accounts without needing a check, but the filer presents a reasonable argument that - based on the actor's behavior - there are likely additional accounts that haven't been identified, the checkuser can still run a check to identify those other accounts.
Test 3: Running the check doesn't violate the privacy policy - Checkusers aren't allowed to reveal an account's IP, because that can reveal their location. If someone created a case accusing user:Example of logging out to double-vote in a discussion as IP 127.0.0.1, the checkuser would have to decline that case.
The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:36, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thx. Good answers.
Although there's 1 extra thing in my mind:
the reported accounts must have some similarity. that similarity needs to be backed up by url.
if the accounts are obviously two different people, or very unlikely a single person/entity, then a check might not be necessary. this is like a polar opposite to, as you mentioned, the scenario of accounts whose "behavioral evidence is strong enough", which also doesnt need a check to connect them.
In my opinion, "disruption to commons" and "similarity" are two necessary elements for a check. What do you think? RoyZuo (talk) 22:53, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
RoyZuo: In my mind, similarity was built into the first test. To make that explicit, where I said "where the bad actor is suspected of using multiple accounts or IPs", I could rephrase it as "where there is credible suspicion that the bad actor is using multiple accounts or IPs", and then where I said "The disruption is typically demonstrated" [with diffs], I could change it to "The suspicion is typically demonstrated" [with diffs]. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:03, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for being longwinded. I wrote the reply above purely based on common sense and logical deduction, but afterwards I realised it's already all summed up at the top of Commons:Requests for checkuser: "you must include a rationale that demonstrates (e.g., by including diffs) what the disruption to the project is, and why you believe the accounts are related."
Your answers are satisfactory. I hope you stick to such common sense. Thank you. RoyZuo (talk) 08:33, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Checkusers/Requests/The_Squirrel_Conspiracy&oldid=1008716334"