Talk:CheckUser policy

This page is for discussions related to the CheckUser policy page. Please remember to: Sign posts using the four tildes (~~~~) Remain civil and polite during discussions. Place new text under old text (start a new post). Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Archives Proposition 2005 (November 2005) Archive 1 (Prior to June 2005) Archive 2 (Prior to January 2006) Archive 3 (Prior to April 2008) Archive 4 Archive 5

Following the closure of the Requests for comment/Should paid editing as a CU be allowed with a significant lean towards disallowing paid editing, I want to propose the addition of the following section to the policy:

Paid editing

CheckUsers must not engage in paid editing while holding the CheckUser permission. For the purpose of this policy, "paid editing" is defined in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, encompassing any contributions made in exchange for compensation, services or goods whether directly or indirectly, including consulting or employment arrangements that involve editing, using CU tools or administrative actions on Wikimedia projects. This restriction applies only to paid editing conducted during a CheckUser's tenure.

Individuals who previously engaged in paid editing may still be eligible to serve as CheckUsers, provided they have fully ceased such activity prior to appointment. Past paid editing is not necessarily disqualifying if disclosed, reviewed by the local community or elected Arbitration Committee and clearly no longer ongoing. Certain exemptions to the above apply. Wikimedia Foundation staff or the staff of any of Wikimedia Foundation's affiliates and community members participating in the Wikimedians-in-Residence programs are exempt provided these affiliations are clearly disclosed and all editing done as a part of Wikimedian-in-Residence.

Additionally, the local community or elected Arbitration Committee can on a case-by-case basis come to a consensus to create exemptions for specific paid-editing activities for CheckUsers on their wiki (for example, the commons community could come to a consensus to allow a user to continue being a professional photographer and upload pictures to commons while being a CU). These discussions must be publicly documented in a way such that members of the rest of the global community can access them. All CheckUsers regardless of whether they are affiliated to Wikimedian-in-Residence programs or have been exempted by the community should refrain from using their tools in areas where they might have a conflict of interests.

I personally think the additional clauses added will help alleviate a large amount of concerns folks in the opposition and support had regarding the absolute framing of the question in the initial RFC, inviting @Chaotic Enby, @CaptainEek @WhatamIdoing, @Leaderboard, @GreenLipstickLesbian, @A09 to put their thoughts (folks who were active on the talk page during the RFC where we were discussing drafting the policy).

I'm personally also a bit unsure how the process of changing the global policy works on meta, the closer, @Codename Noreste suggested a second RFC, however, I'm personally not sure "a RFC to figure out how to say what another RFC said" is a good use of community time. Any thoughts on that would be welcomed. I'll also notify the Ombuds commission in case they have any thought on both the draft policy text changes and the process of making changes to the policy. Sohom (talk) 19:57, 27 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Funny, got this ping just as I was compiling a list of respeccted enWiki editors a literal reading of the close is going to require you pull TAIV rights from, without public discussion. Given that the close ended up being more expansive, specifying "advanced rights" and all. Actually, with the results of this RfC pending, why did you give TAIV access to Buidhe? Their paid editing was rather recent, after all. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 20:05, 27 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

@GreenLipstickLesbian My understanding of my past RFC statement was that the restriction only applied to the global TAIV userright holders, not the policy surrounding the equivalent local right (which is separate from the global one which then was only given out to GS/GR/stews and CheckUsers). I'm now more confused by the language of "advanced rights" in the close now given that you said that. Sohom (talk) 20:19, 27 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

When I mentioned advanced permissions, I was referring to administrators, bureaucrats, CheckUsers, and oversighters, for example. Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 20:22, 27 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yeah the advanced rights thing is... okay, let's just assume anybody trusted enough to be given CU by their local community is going to easily be granted an exemption to the paid editing thing by their own community, right? Otherwise... how would they be given CU in the first place? And local TAIV isn't, fundamentally, that different from global, in terms of the private data you can see from potential competitors. But to get back to my main point, the actual CUs will always have enough local social capital to be exempted from the rule, assuming we do add that clause. But local TAIVs and other advanced permission holders may not.

So the close now refers to admins/CUs/OS-es, apparently - awesome! BRB, off to file a few recall petitions for people who have engaged in Wikied (not a Wikimedian in Resident position, but by a strict reading, paid) and also are admins and have those permissions. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 20:27, 27 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

To your point about the wording, I'm open to changes, the way I saw it, the part I wanted to codify is that if a CU starting performs paid editing while being a CU they will need to make sure the community is okay with it. Not sure how to codify it better. Sohom (talk) 21:17, 27 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Sohom Datta "Advanced rights holders engaged (or who have engaged) in paid editing must notify the community which granted them the rights"? Needs wordsmithing, but that's roughly what you're going for, right? (With some nebulous definition of "advanced" and some nebulous definition of "community" - for privacy reasons, I'd imagine there would be support to allow the exact nature of certain paid editing to be privately disclosed to a representative community body. (Something I'm wary of for obvious reasons, but the average TAIV shouldn't have to out themselves to disclose a long-abandoned account they made to fix their employer's logo or something.) GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 22:05, 27 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Again, "advanced permissions" is pretty consistently used to refer to admin and "admin+" permissions, so your average TAIV here is a red herring. And yes, your average admin (at least on enwiki) is absolutely required to disclose previous paid editing, even on a long-abandoned account, when running for RfA.

Regarding for privacy reasons, I'd imagine there would be support to allow the exact nature of certain paid editing to be privately disclosed to a representative community body, this is already explicitly defined in the proposal (emphasis mine):

Past paid editing is not necessarily disqualifying if disclosed, reviewed by the local community or elected Arbitration Committee and clearly no longer ongoing.

Chaotic Enby (talk) 08:14, 28 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Is it consistenly used for admin-like permissions, though? Easiest counter example I can think of is that en:WP:AARV explicitly defines the term to include permissions like rollback, which is an even lower bar than TAIV. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 08:21, 28 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I didn't know about that. In this case, the proposed policy should absolutely specify the list of permissions that would fall under it. Chaotic Enby (talk) 09:03, 28 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

But to get back to my main point, the actual CUs will always have enough local social capital to be exempted from the rule, assuming we do add that clause. Not necessarily: people might trust someone's job as CheckUser, but be uncomfortable if they suddenly picked up a paid editing activity. The language of the proposal is about making exceptions for types of paid editing (such as WikiEd), and turning that into an individual exemption is probably not something for which social capital alone will get the community on board. Chaotic Enby (talk) 08:19, 28 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think that statement is true for most communities that have CUs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:16, 29 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Per Requests for comment/Policy, it contains Only stewards can close any RFC requiring steward action or changing global policy, which is the main motive on why I suggested a new RFC to propose your change, Sohom. Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 20:07, 27 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

If a steward closing the RfC negates the need for a second RfC, wouldn't it have been better to leave the closure to a steward? Sdrqaz (talk) 20:30, 27 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

The RfC in question could not, in my view, form the basis for a specific policy change. The community has not had the chance to opine on whether there should be exceptions, consequences, whether past paid editing should disqualify a CheckUser, etc. Changes to the CU policy also need to be approved by the board. I think it is a good idea to workshop a specific proposal and then put it back to the global community. – Ajraddatz (talk) 21:14, 27 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Ajraddatz, Changes to the CU policy also need to be approved by the board., is there a precedent/documentation for this somewhere? I'm happy to workshop the proposal above with the community and bring it to the community in a separate RFC, but I'm unsure how "approval from the board" would even start to work. Sohom (talk) 21:25, 27 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

You can see on the earliest drafts of the page (like this) that the policy was created by the community and approved by the board. I'm not sure if the board would still want to implicate themselves here, so I've asked for clarification through the WMF-steward channels and will let you know when I hear back. We (stewards) can coordinate the board approval process, if there does need to be one - I think either way the immediate next steps would be workshopping a proposal and seeking community support. If board approval is required, we can look to socialize the proposal with them after the workshopping phase to make sure there are no significant concerns, do a community vote, then move it up for their approval. – Ajraddatz (talk) 21:40, 27 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Ajraddatz here – the RfC in question had far too many nuances that there is simply no consensus for a clear defined policy. That's not even touching the surface of the other issues with this RfC being closed the way it was (were the concerned parties emailed about this change?). For now I think the close should be reversed for the timebeing, preferably by an uninvolved steward, and hopefully handle the outcomes of this RfC through proper channels. //shb (t • c) 23:35, 28 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

For what it's worth, I agree that the RFC should be probably re-closed. Per the discussion above, the current wording risks overreaching meta's mandate and answers questions that weren't asked in the first place. Sohom (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

MediaWiki currently requires no disclosure at all. Does the passing of this RfC invalidate it? Leaderboard (talk) 05:58, 28 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

• I appreciate the wording of this policy, which takes into account my advocacy for home rule and providing for edge cases. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 16:11, 28 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Because according to Requests_for_comment/Policy, only stewards can close an RfC of a global nature. @Codename Noreste isn't a steward, so the closure is invalid and should be reversed. If I wasn't involved in the proposal I would have done it already. Leaderboard (talk) 06:00, 28 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately, I did not realize that RFC in question was related to a global policy (or was in a global nature), so I want to apologize for this mistake, and thus I do not object to reversing. Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 01:49, 29 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

This is an important change. Is there even any invite to join the RFC was sent to all wikis that have CheckUser? If not, why not sending? I don't even know until this is mentioned here. Nvdtn19 (talk) 14:02, 29 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I sent out a invite to most wikis, it was fairly widely advertised to my memory. Sohom (talk) 16:04, 29 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I asked about edit-a-thons in my !vote at the RfC. @Sohom Datta replied that monetary prizes are not typically considered paid editing. I disagree. If "paid editing" were to be interpreted as any contributions made in exchange for compensation [...] that involve editing [...] Wikimedia projects, then edits made by a participant of an edit-a-thon that awards monetary prizes must invariably be considered paid edits. To say those are not typically considered paid editing is to make the distinction between "good" and "bad" paid edits, and I don't think doing so will lead to a meaningful conclusion.

WhatamIdoing also raised a very valid point: Providing neutral, factual information can be part of a promotional effort. To give a real example, the Embassy of the Republic of Poland in Hanoi held a contest that aims to promote Polish culture, which takes place on viwiki in the form of an edit-a-thon. As a result, we now have more articles on Poland-related topics than we otherwise would have, and while the quality of the articles leaves much to be desired, NPOV has never been the topic of any relevant discussions.

NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 18:15, 28 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

@NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh, From my POV atleast, there is no understanding that you will get a prize when you start editing for a contest. You are not guaranteed money in exchange for your edits, you might get it, you might not. If somebody buys you a coffee (or even a particularly expensive lunch) for being a Wikipedia/Commons/Wikisource editor you do not need to then disclose every single previous edit as a paid edit (obviously). If however, somebody says "hey if you keep on editing I will pay your rent for 5 months if you continue editing Wikipedia for those 5 months", that probably warrants disclosure. If there is a edit-a-thon that will consistently pay money for each article GAed by a person, then a) that's a bad idea/incentive structure b) I would say that arguably qualifies as paid editing since compensation is guaranteed, however, if they only award the prize to the top-10 contestants, that would probably not be paid editing since the guarantee of being paid does not exist.

To your other point, even if we consider that all edit-a-thons are paid editing, by the draft I proposed, individual communities would be able to say "that edit-a-thon is fine" for cases where they are certain that there are no significant concerns about NPOV. Sohom (talk) 18:44, 28 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Sohom Datta: I'd argue that the key point isn't that there is a guarantee to pay (think "you will be paid if and only if you make these edits and the dice does not land on its corners"), but rather that the user made edits in the expectation that they will be paid. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 19:08, 28 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I would agree with this. To take an extreme case, if the contest announces it will award prizes to 90% of candidates, would it still not constitute paid editing since it isn't guaranteed? Chaotic Enby (talk) 19:12, 28 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Fair, though I wonder how enwiki differentiates between prizes and paid editing? Cause I don't think this has come up in recent history on enwiki's paid editing policies? Sohom (talk) 19:16, 28 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

@NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh, @Chaotic Enby I did some digging, the language I chose to use (when I wrote this text) is based on the official Terms of Use FAQ on paid editing. TLDR, every single participant of every editathon (that is not part of a wiki where a alternative to disclosure is mandated) is probably currently in violation of the ToU for not disclosing their intention to recieve compensation. /facepalm Sohom (talk) 00:28, 29 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I wouldn't necessarily call it a facepalm, as editors participating in on-wiki editathons will most likely have disclosed it, and editathons organized by non-WMF groups can have similar effects to a "regular" paid editing campaign. The aforementioned Poland contest on vi.wiki is an example, and, more nefariously, private companies could organize similar contests to promote their brand's coverage. Chaotic Enby (talk) 01:00, 29 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Or they could organize events for high-minded educational purposes, and then discover that the sales teams all want to "educate" the world about their products. Event organizers can have pure intentions and still have an unintended harmful effect. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:23, 29 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Sohom Datta: Apologies for the delay in responding here, but I have heard back from my WMF contact re: coordinating approvals with the board, and they confirm that the path I laid out above would work (workshopping, passing by WMF legal and the relevant board liaisons, doing a community vote, sending for full approval by the board). Accordingly I have a few minor wording changes to recommend as part of the workshopping phase:

Anyone else with suggested edits please make them. Overall I think the text is good, and if people don't like my edits happy to go with the original text. Once this is done I will coordinate review by WMF legal and the board liaisons, and can either organize another RfC on this proposed text or we could include it in the annual review of U4C pages that will be going to a community vote in April or May. – Ajraddatz (talk) 20:47, 14 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

This looks very good, with the only thing I have to note being that the streamlining in the second paragraph very slightly weakens the provisions (going from "reviewed by the community/ArbCom" to "disclosed to the community/ArbCom"). Chaotic Enby (talk) 05:03, 15 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

What CE said, I would replace disclosed with reviewed in paragraph two. In para 3, all paid editing done as a part of Wikimedian-in-Residence. possibly could be all paid editing is conducted as part of that role. For para 4, I'm personally fine with broadening it to cover all COI cases as well. Sohom (talk) 17:13, 15 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Great suggestions, thanks. Addressed in the second revision. Will give another few days for further comments and then have it sent to WMF legal and the board liaisons, expecting some suggested changes from those. – Ajraddatz (talk) 01:40, 16 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

• Just noting that I have sent this to the WMF for review, asking for comments by March 31. Email copied below for transparency. – Ajraddatz (talk) 19:12, 28 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

Please find below an email to forward to WMF legal and the board liaison(s) on changes to the global CU policy following an RfC on paid editing by CheckUsers. We discussed a bit last month, but the plan here is to get board liaison / WMF legal comments on the current draft addition, then go back to the community with an edited proposal (based on comments received) for a vote, then back to the board to ratify the change if they want to.

Hoping to have comments back by the end of March. Proposed timelines below.

Thanks,

Ajraddatz

----

Through an RfC on Meta, the global community has decided to amend the CheckUser policy to prohibit paid editing by checkusers. The CheckUser policy was created by the community and ratified by the board in 2004, hence we are requesting board and legal review and ultimate approval. 

The RfC closure and subsequent discussion has confirmed that the RfC itself cannot be used to justify a specific change, and as such other members of the community have worked together to prepare a proposal that could be put to a specific vote. The proposal is found at the end of this section on talk:CheckUser policy (copied below for ease of review).

We are asking for WMF legal and board review and comments prior to sending the final text for community approval, to signal check that it is not problematic and that there are no legal or policy risks involved, and to give a chance for the board or its liaisons to opine before the final text is presented for approval. Proposed steps moving forward:
WMF legal and board liaison review - done by March 31.
Community edits and final text - done by April 15.
Community vote on proposal - done by May 1.
Community-approved draft to board for approval - by May 15, with board approval sought as soon as possible.

Proposed addition:
Paid editing
CheckUsers must not engage in paid editing while holding the CheckUser permission. For the purpose of this policy, "paid editing" is defined in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, encompassing any contributions made in exchange for compensation, services or goods whether directly or indirectly, including consulting or employment arrangements that involve editing, using CU tools or administrative actions on Wikimedia projects. This restriction applies only to paid editing conducted during a CheckUser's tenure.

Individuals who previously engaged in paid editing may still be eligible to serve as CheckUsers provided they have fully ceased such activity prior to appointment and the past activity has been fully reviewed by the local community or elected Arbitration Committee.

Wikimedia Foundation staff, the staff of any of Wikimedia Foundation's affiliates, and community members participating in the Wikimedians-in-Residence programs are exempt provided these affiliations are clearly disclosed and all paid editing done as a part of the exempted role.

The local community or elected Arbitration Committee may also create exemptions for specific paid-editing activities for CheckUsers on their wiki (for example, the Wikimedia Commons community could allow a user to continue being a professional photographer and upload pictures to commons while being a CU). These discussions must be publicly documented in a way such that members of the rest of the global community can access them. All CheckUsers should refrain from using their tools in areas where they might have a conflict of interests.


Thank you for reviewing and please let us know (either by email or on the CU policy talk page) of any comments, questions or concerns.

Ajraddatz

I would like for this change to be made.

"If detailed information is provided, make sure the person you are giving it to is a trusted person and will not reveal it himself/herself." (Original)

Change to

"If detailed information is provided, make sure the person you are giving it to is a trusted person and will not reveal it themselves."

With the only change being the pronoun at the end. Thanks. Organhaver (talk) 23:00, 6 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Done. – Ajraddatz (talk) 23:24, 6 December 2025 (UTC)Reply