Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Clerks/Noticeboard/Archive3

The new system at

The idea was to remove barriers to participation. I think it's a little early to start rebuilding them in anticipation of a problem. I suggest instead that the clerks be forward in bringing concerns to the attention of other clerks who may be making acting inppropriately, then discussing concerns here to gauge the opinion of the group, and then if necessary asking the checkusers to step in.

Thatcher131 14:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I think this is a great idea. With this there are still no big barriers, as any admin can add, and it also prevents some random user who does not read the manual and is obviously causing trouble to add themselves. GeorgeMoney (talk) 07:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No matter how we handle the clerking process, it's still going to attract status-seekers. A protected page would temporarily stifle the status-seekers, I suppose. There isn't a whole lot we can do about that. Maybe, before they are added to the approved list, aspiring clerks could do a little "trial period" where they do their duties while supervised by somebody else, so that they at least know what they are doing. PTO 12:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm one of the "new" clerks. I just wanted to comment on the admin adding. Personally it wouldn't occur to me to ask for an admin that is not in the checkuser system to add me. I mean that would look like (to me anyway) as if I was asking for a favor from him. I'd prefer the old system with a list than this one. I quite agree with the trial period though (let's call it "training period" maybe since clerks can be revoked at any time?), I think we all need a bit of help at first. Reading the procedure page is obviously a must-do, but nobody is perfect at first try. -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some things are common sense, others are tricky. The parameters on {{rfcu box}} are more important than you might think -- in particular, the box doesn't work without (1) a case name, and (2) the right case name (needs to match the subpage name, can't be a variable) (it's complicated; if you're curious, let me know and I can go more in-depth). We can also re-work the clerk guide as needed (especially those of you who are coming aboard, you'll spot the problems and fuzzy spots more than I will). And, of course, we can watch and help each other; case in point, Mike caught me moving some cases into the wrong section of the frontpage, just the other day. :p – Luna Santin (talk) 18:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly new at clerking here, and I would greatly appreciate a more experienced clerk look at the case mentioned above. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do about this one. Cheers, PTO 19:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My, that is sticky. Looks like it got out of hand pretty quick, heh. First: added {{rfcu box}} with params. Second: moved the bulk of their discussion/argument to talk (left their early posts in, I figure let people get a few punches in, but move the brawl to talk, although I may have trimmed a bit much; we'll see). Whenever moving comments, like that, be sure to make a note of it. Hope that helps. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 19:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! PTO 21:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll try to catch you on IRC tonight (CET), but just in case... I edited Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Glen SUx! and after pressing save page, I wondered if my edit was out of line, or even useful? I have an other question, which is regarding case letter A. Is it for all cases of attack? Or IP checking only? The header on the CU page makes me think it is only about IPs but it seems it is used much more broadly. Am I wrong? (I hate not being a native English speaker, grrrr). Regards, -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't checked your edit, but as a pre-response (I can't think of the word :-P): Code Letter A's are for resolving a username to an IP address. Don't hesitate to drop by IRC sometime, the channel's never empty: (link). Leave me a message (/msg Deon hi), and I'll invite-exempt you. Slater, —

sign here! 01:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

After looking at some of the recent cases that have a code letter of F, I noticed that F requires that the person have diffs regarding the block of the user. I find this to be unproductive, because a reason for blocking should be documented in the user's block log. I see how this would be needed for bans, but I think that the diffs for blocking requirement be removed. Comments? Cheers, PTO 01:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Usually a block requires a discussion, am I right? A vandal usually has a block request on

WP:AN. Any code F case usually has an associated discussion, from what I've observed.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 01:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I suppose the exact description reads, "Evasion of community-based bans or blocks," which doesn't explicitly include or exclude blocks made unilaterally. I've noticed the emphasis seems to be on bans, specifically -- that might be an issue to clear up, either including blocks or removing them from the description, along with deciding whether a block set without discussion (or significant discussion) would "count" for letter F. Unless the CUs would prefer to continue deciding that case-by-case? – Luna Santin (talk) 18:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what to reply to this user [1] that asks me to push a case to a CU, the deadline approaching soon, and ask me what he can do against a bogus (in his opinion) case against him? -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the checkuser case has no merit, then the guy should have nothing to hide. Now, the FMNF checkuser isn't exactly urgent; in fact, FMNF alerted Jimbo to a fairly bad

WP:BLP violation which was taken down by him quickly. However, FMNF's alleged sockmaster's arbcom ruling banned him from that article. Nobody's in a hurry. I think that he'll just have to wait. PTO 11:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen several cases in the Non-Compliant section, but I can't figure out why they are there. Maybe the moving clerk should provide some sort of rationale behind their move in the form of {{

Sounds good -- if it's an issue that can be resolved, we can be helpful in letting people know how. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I've drafted Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Procedures#Non-compliant requests. Suggest any interested parties have a look and see if this is reasonable. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser#Requests for IP check -- Some requests have been waiting for over two weeks. =\ – Luna Santin (talk) 01:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

anything we can do? Beside stalking the CU's talk page until the backlog is sorted of course? :p -- lucasbfr ^talk 07:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We could move IP checks to a subpage, and transclude that at the bottom of /Pending? Wouldn't be difficult. Could put it inside noinclude tags, so as to avoid disrupting the current layout. If the CUs only really have to check /Pending for open requests, and leave the rest for clerks to take care of, that might expedite matters. Not sure, but it seems worth exploring? – Luna Santin (talk) 18:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Set it up as detailed above. IP checks are now on a subpage, which allows us to transclude it both onto the RfCU frontpage and onto /Pending with ease. If anybody has feedback, feel free. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone deal with this case? It is radioactive for me, since I am involved on a (small :)) dispute with user:Uroddmitri. -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know CU keep their comments as short as possible, but it might be useful to explain all these templates a bit more. For example, I see exactly what  Confirmed and

fishing could be used on a lot of requests, and I don't see at all what  CheckUser is not a crystal ball is for. Maybe we could compile that at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Procedures#Indicator_templates? -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

I get confused by that, too. Maybe we shall invite the CUs to share their thoughts. I'm still kinda new here: what are the CU's that work around here?--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 23:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I had to guess, the difference between "possible" and "likely" is something like the difference between 50:50 and 25:75 odds -- I don't know what particular thresholds of likelihood the CUs might apply, but I gather that's the idea. I suppose {{

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Indicators, probably looking more at a non-clerk perspective there. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I use "unrelated" when the IPs are distinct, and I've made a determination it's not really possible, based on the technical evidence alone (not taking into account workarounds), for the two users to be the same. But if, say, the accounts share a dynamic IP range, or geograhical proximity, or somethign along these lines, I can usually only give a "likely" and not "confirmed". "Possible" might mean, for example it's such a huge dynamic ISP I'm not confident enough to say it is likely, but also that, in contrast to "unrelated," there is nothing that suggests they couldn't be the same, IP-wise, either. "Possible" makes more sense when compared to "inconclusive": sometimes the check does yield results that are more useful than nothing, but fail to confirm or deny. "Inconclusive" is when, for a number of reasons, I don't have enough evidence to determine whether certain accounts being the same is possible or not. I don't think I've ever used "crystallball," and "fishing" might be superfluous (but it's cute).

t 20:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks a lot! -- lucasbfr ^talk 22:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Besides what dmcdevit has said (who is a checkuser and I am not), the baseline on all the templates was to take them at face value. Possible means possible; the checkuser choose to use that word and words have meanings. Crystal ball and fishing are utilitarian ways to give a simple reason for why the checkuser declines to do the request. Declined is the "standard" way to refuse a request. Rejected I made for mackensen as a way of saying that something was baseless. Rejected is hard to use, because it is {{

Kevin_b_er 05:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Does anyone actually know what the crystal ball template is for? Because I have not seen it in any cases. mrholybrain's talk 10:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was a reply to "Why is this inconclusive?" I believe. Crystal ball was created as a joke, however. You can see this from

Kevin_b_er 03:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Also, since I haven't been able to figure out a way to add an includeonly'd noinclude'd category link into {{new rfcu case}}, I've gone ahead and used a parser function at {{checkuser requests to be listed}}. Apologies if anybody feels I'm being a bit too bold, here. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good job! And it seems to be working smoothly -- lucasbfr ^talk 08:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a new CU for an existing Case but am not sure if I have done it correctly. I haveput a message to User:Lucasbfr to look into it [2] but I am not sure if he is around or not.

So if anyone else can check if the request is OK I will be grateful.

Thanks.--Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 06:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK , I have got a response from User:Lucasbfr . Thanks again!--Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 08:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This RFCU is a bit getting out of hands, 2 editors engaged in a dispute are arguing with each other. I'd like first of all to have some other eyes there, and secondly to have someone commenting on my actions (I delisted the case, removed some comments and almost yelled

• It appears that the checkuser issue itself has been resolved, and I have no issues with this, or with the removal of comments from its page.
  Smee 15:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC).[reply
  ]

I've just seen it, maybe some other clerks missed it too: The evidence needed for cases coded F (Evasion of community-based bans or blocks) is now a link to the block log of the original account. It used to be a diff from the community page where the user was banned. -- lucasbfr ^talk 21:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that a month ago, a user delisted a case, in good faith or not (the user has been blocked 3 times already). After the sockpuppet story of this week end, I just wanted to remind you not to be shy, and double-check what the other users do with the cases that are listed here. -- lucasbfr ^talk 07:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow.

Real96 08:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

The delisting was probably done in good faith, the user was the original lister (blame stupid signatures that don't match the username). But since he removed it from non-compliant and didn't put it back in pending, the case was lost. -- lucasbfr ^talk 08:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a case against this user, who has already been banned, and a note at the top of the case saying that he requested deletion. I can't find any proof of this, as the comment that he had requested deletion was put there by an IP. What should I do? GrooveDog 21:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, actually I found the letter. But I still have the question: What to do? Delete the case or wait for the account deletion to happen? [5]GrooveDog 22:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't trust the IP. It might be a sock of Lee Nysted. Funpika 22:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this template may be broken, or I'm not understanding how to use it. When I post it on the user page, "~~" does nothing, and I have a huge long bold link with a million brackets. Could someone please take a look at this, or add usage notes? I'd try, but my template-fixing skills aren't the greatest. GrooveDog 22:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need to subst that one. :) Instead of using {{codeletter}}, try {{subst:codeletter}}, and that should fix your problem. That's my first impression, anyway. I'll check things out, in a moment, and see if I notice anything else that might be amiss. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It works fine for me. Funpika 10:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. I'll start trying that. :)

Top entry on WP:RFCU ("Juro") is somehow busted -- hit the edit button and see. Fix pleez? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleaned it up. It was an absolute mess of transclusions; my brain be dizzy. Sean William 00:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In related news, I've moved the checkuser request over to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/VinceB, and just fixed a header that wasn't transcluding. Can someone move it up out of "completed" to "outstanding"? — Mike Gogulski ^{↗C•@•T↗} 21:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For code letter F, it states that it is for "Evasion of community-based bans or blocks". Do they need to be community-blocked (Yes, I know it says that), or can there be a case about someone evading a 3RR block, with code letter F? GrooveDog 12:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have answered the question on your (Groove Dog) talk page.VK35 16:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps let's not be so nippy toward the requestors when their requests are less than perfect. Comments like, Please correct quickly or request may be delisted aren't really helpful; it doesn't hurt anything if they're corrected at a normal, non-hasty pace -- us checkuser operators are quite content to look at a request and ignore if it isn't up to spec for hours, nay, days at a time. And when it's something like Can't Stand Ya #8, it should be obvious that there's a history, that it's not a frivolous or bothersome request. There's no great honor in having the open requests section empty, if it's only empty because someone forgot to cross an eye or dot a tee.

Also: slow down a tad on the archiving. When I finish a request, and save the edit, I always go back and look at what I've just done, no matter how many times I've previewed it; give me at least a minute or two to make a final tweak before moving or archiving the request, especially in the case of IP checks (which don't have their own files; why not, he wonders?)

Thanks for all the great work you all do. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear...I haven't been clerking for weeks! Can I still jump in?--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 23:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While looking at the myriad of checkuser indicator templates that we have, I thought that it would be a good idea to combine the indicator templates into one template using a #switch parserfunction, in a way similar to Template:RFPP. Such a merger would not be difficult to do; I could probably cook it up in about 15 minutes without a problem.

For example, instead of using The somewhat random templates that we have now ({{

More examples:

Syntax	Result
{{CUI|d}}	Declined
{{CUI|c}}	Confirmed
{{CUI|i}}	Inconclusive

As Template:Rfcu is already occupied, I thought that Template:CUI could be used (CUI standing for CheckUser Indicator). I'm perfectly open to any other ideas. As some of these templates are used in other venues, deletion would probably not occur for most templates. How do the checkusers (and clerks, as their indicators would be combined as well) feel about such a merger? Sean William @ 02:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea! I like it.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 02:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a working example at User:Sean William/CUI. Sean William @ 02:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it should work. Just make sure that you make a key. BTW I don't know how you came up with "tn" or "cr" for the parameters. Could you please explain that?--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 02:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When crafting the params, I used either the first few letters of the template, or the initials of the words in the template. For example, in the "tn" case, "tn" gives the output {{

takenote}}. This is simply an example, so it has no key and the shortcuts are somewhat arbitrary. They're very easy to change, if you are so inclined. Sean William @ 02:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

And remember, "Cui" is good eating! By the way, take a look at what I've done to

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Indicators -- I got tired of having to remember all the names; and this new unified approach I would not necessarily make 'em easy to remember. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

So, how do you feel about it? Yes or no? Sean William @ 02:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both. I'd prefer it more explicit, even if we want to unify it -- {{cui|confirmed}} is preferable to {{cui|c}} but I guess there's nothing stopping this scheme from supporting synonyms (short form and long form, as it were). Oh, yeah, then we could also have "decline" and "declined" and stuff like that. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forked version at

User:Luna Santin/sandbox/X3 (would've felt odd mucking around in your sandbox, Sean, which may be silly, but eh). This one is insensitive to capitalization and has a good number of synonymous listings. Easy enough to modify or fork for more testing. I can't think of any more memorable name than cui, for the template. Being able to list such a healthy number of synonyms without redirecting a few dozen templates might be useful. Any other thoughts on the matter? – Luna Santin (talk) 07:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Seems yummy (at least nicer than having a dozen templates randomly put in the Template namespace :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 08:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other issue to resolve, do we want a default case? Probably something to the effect or "error, invalid alias" (etc) or {{

takenote}}. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Should be an error. Nice work! --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have set up the template at Template:CUI. It is fully operational. If you don't specify a parameter, it'll give you a big red error message. The parameters are pretty straightforward. For the most part, if you type in the original template name, you'll get the correct output. The key table is looking a little strange to me, though, and I'm not entirely sure why. That's a task I'll take another day, though. I'm mighty tired. Sean William @ 05:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The forced whitespace at the end of the template makes it unusable so far. For example, I don't like the way this looks at all: Rejected --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what might be causing the whitespace, but I'm looking into it. Sean William @ 16:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Wow, 16 colons :()It was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ACUI&diff=135349553&oldid=135347110 this \n before the noinclude. --ST47Talk 16:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

17! All better now. Danke sehr. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The particular case in this example is Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DavidCharlesII, but it's hardly the first I've seen. Is there a preferred behavior when a checkuser request is withdrawn by the person who submitted it? List at /Pending, anyway, and wait for a CU response? Move to declined, wait three days, and archive normally? Archive right off the bat? – Luna Santin (talk) 20:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say  Delisted and move it to non compliant? And then archive it after 3 days, as usual. -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that the image for the "likely" template had changed. Should we change the rest of the symbols using the following, from Commons?

It seems to me that these would make a few templates a bit more standard. GrooveDog 18:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. I'm a little fond of the current setup, but

WP:ILIKEIT is hardly a complete point. I'd be more comfortable with those if they weren't mostly grey in color (this could be fixed, of course, though unfortunately I don't have the know-how to edit .svg's at this time -- I could use the .png files generated by the server, if people are happy with that). I'm also not sure if this would give us a complete set of indicator templates, but let me dig around a bit. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Same, I like the red/blue/green coding. These are too similar in my opinion. But I can adapt myself. I'll just go cry in a corner for a few minutes :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I changed likely back to it's own image before, so never mind.