Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser/Archive 5

message: This checkuser system is managed by trusted check clerks and I really appreciate their all effort to make Wikipedia as healthy as possible. I filed a request on some suspicious and disruptive users to be checked but it past 2 weeks! During the period, I have had to file 3RR incident reports 3 times, vandal reports, and other RFCU files and to deal with the their(?) disruptive blind reverting. The below reports are just partial among the whole mess. 
*Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive63
:User:Yuan.C.Lee reported by User:Appletrees (Result: Yuan.C.Lee blocked 24 hours)
:User:219.66.41.150 reported by User:Appletrees (Result:24 hours)
:User:43.244.133.167 reported by User:Appletrees (Result:Sock IP blocked 1 week)
 
I feel exhausted for this endless waiting and ignored by this system. Many reports filed much later than my case were resolved. How much longer should I wait for this result coming out? I know one of my files is very long but I've seen longer report successfully going through. It is so natural the report's length in the light of the user's long history of disruption. I "invested" (yeah, making the file really took about 1 month) my time to make the report but I didn't expect the waiting takes this much. --Appletrees (talk) 12:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I've been waiting for 2 weeks. 

message: Seeing as it's been hidden away, is anyone going to explain to me why more evidence was required on my request, i.e. diffs, than any of the others that are still being filed? Does this not suggest the instruction box at the top of the page is inadequate? MickMacNee (talk) 21:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What case are you speaking of? -JodyB talk 21:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This one Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/IP_check/Archive#General_Manimo. If no comment is forthcoming I will be editing the header to reflect the advice I recieved on the correct procedure for posting a request. MickMacNee (talk) 11:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No objections so done. MickMacNee (talk) 23:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct procedure for filing and provision of 'evidence' 

message: How long does it take on average to post a request for checkuser on the main project page? STYROFOAM☭1994TALK 17:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've listed your request. Keilana|Parlez ici 17:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Queue 

message: My request  to investigate any possible relation between an active user and some attack accounts, one in particular, has so far been "declined". I don't know if this decision is considered definite here since (at time of writing) it still figures as an outstanding request. The reason provided was "no justification for violating his privacy". I don't think the policy is very clear here. Violation of privacy, by Checkuser? Or to publish the information? I am missing a clear answer here, and the answers of Checkuser so far tend to obnubilate this case. I don't operate Checkuser, though I figure it works like all tools, that output depends on input, so an answer like: "Since a checkuser of the various Schonken/fake Rokuses didn't show anything other than Schonken and the fake Rokuses (Roki?), there's nothing else for us to do here" is highly misleading. It only makes clear that Checkuser indeed declined to feed the requested main user (Paul Barlow) as input to the tool. 
Moreover, this evasive answers only strengthen my conviction something is terrible wrong here. This can't be the intention of Checkuser!
So please, what other justification than my diffs and indications would be required? Or what other kind of justification? Should such a justification be so much different from other checkuser requests, and why? Or do I notice undue loyalty or fear?
I don't feel my request is handled equal to other requests so far. There should be some uninvolved an neutral person around that evaluate all arguments and come up with a third opinion. Rokus01 (talk) 11:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You can ask an other checkuser (on his talk page) if he wishes to review the case, or present more evidence and resubmit the case.  cases are declined without prejudice. Note that checkusers are asked to use their discretion on the opportunity to invade a user's privacy by performing a check. I hope that helps! -- lucasbfr talk 09:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: After looking at the case, I clarified Jpgordon's comments there. -- lucasbfr talk 10:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third Opinion? 

message: The main checkuser page had recently become very large and bloated with completed cases awaiting archiving. I've moved several over to the archive pages but I am wondering how long we typically wait before moving them. The page says several days but that is a little vague. I don't want to mess up anything but I would suggest a faster archival cycle that would keep the page shorter and would perhaps allow if to load a little faster. I'm suggesting the following:
#All cases will be moved by clerks to completed or declined as soon as possible after the checkuser completes the case analysis.
#Cases will (or should) be moved to the archive within 24 hours after completion of the anaysis by a clerk.
#All instructions and policy pages would be updated to reflect the new archival plan.
I know 24 hours is fast, but persons most interested in a given case usually watchlist the case page itself. Everything is still preserved, just archived. Any thoughts? _-JodyB talk 20:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I had been thinking about it, it seems like a good idea. I think that having so many cases that are completed but unarchived just clutters things up. Keilana|Parlez ici 15:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions regarding archiving 

message: I was going to post a question on proper procedure on WP:Requests for checkuser/Clerks/Noticeboard, but then I noticed, discussion there is fairly dead!
How many clerks have we got here now?
The question I had, was: Am I supposed to list my request, myself, the way people do with AfD? It's not clear from the instructions and people seem to be doing it anyway. So, I'm adding it to the instructions. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 06:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for your trouble. It can be done either way. I've tried to clarify the instructions to prevent any confusion. -JodyB talk 15:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

text: You can list your request yourself. Brand new cases are usually added by a clerk when they notice them (there's a category), but it may take a while. Cases added to an already existing case must be added by the user, for we won't see them otherwise. -- lucasbfr talk 14:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear procedures. 

message: I was bored today, so I changed a bit the procedure box that appears at the top of the page when you fill out a request, in order to make it change if the case already exists. 
* Version with an existing case 
* Version with a new case. 
* Previous version
Tell me what you think! -- lucasbfr talk 12:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Much better, a tone-down that really was required ;) Spebi 06:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yay!! Way better - Alison ❤ 03:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updated the instruction box 

message: Why is Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Thomiswil being repeatedly bypassed? —SlamDiego←T 00:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Query 

message: <S>The clerks noticeboard isn't too active, so there's no point in posting there, I don't think.
A user improperly filed a case. See here. 
I tried to re-file it myself here:
Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Angela from the blue
However, I don't think that's how I'm supposed to do it. So, can a clerk fix this and can somebody work on the template system we have here? I'm confused as to why what Chris did didn't work, because according to the directions, that's what he's supposed to do. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 04:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Somebody 
fix this, please?
 clarify the instructions\templates 

message: (x-posted from Deskana's talk page since he is away for now) I've recently come across a user that I suspect to be a sockpuppet of banned user User:Hornetman16. User:CinnamonCrunchy supplied a link to Hornetman's photobucket account (under his Monnitewars alias) here. I was going to do a Request for Checkuser, but when I type his name in the box to create a new request, his old request comes up. I've never done this before, should I add it to the old report or create a new one? Thanks. Nikki311 20:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If the alleged master account has an old request, you should add the request to the same page. If there's a currently active section (ie: hasn't been archived), go ahead and add the new listing to that section; if the request is not currently active (ie: has been archived), then you can add a new section to the top of that page, and either tag the page with  or transclude it on the front page yourself. Relevant text at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Procedures#Repeat requests if that explains it any differently. :) Apologies for the delayed response. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about requests for checkuser 

message: How do I make another request for a user that already has a preexisting case User:Grawp
: (Puppeteer)
: (Puppet)
* Code letter: F, G
* Supporting evidence: block log, 1 MB 
I was sure there was one more recently blocked sock, but I can't remember what the user name was. At least two user accounts have been found, and a check may help with finding more or blocking the underlying IP. Vivio TestarossaTalk Who 06:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good day. I can't leave an extended response, as I'm signing off in a second, but I will direct you to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Procedures#Repeat requests, which may help you out. All the best, AGK § 07:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update a case? 

message: ... Codes? Really? I mean, I sort of accept that people who handle speedy deletions really can't afford to write "no assertion of notability" and are thus forced to save 26 characters with "a7," but really, checkuser requests aren't something people file constantly, are they? Surely you can afford to make a few extra keystrokes so as to have requests be clear in and of themselves instead of referring to a code, can't you? This can't actually be useful for anything other than getting to shout "ZOMG! WE HAVE A CODE B!" Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been wondering about this for quite some time, also.  I don't really see the point in having the codes, and they just further complicate the process; I don't really think it is necessary. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Codes? 

message: Is it possible to get a CU to check out the situation here without filing a formal request?  Thanks, Mackan79 (talk) 03:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The incidents noticeboard thread has now been archived, and the matter resolved. It was established that NCdave was not a sock puppet; this conclusion was reached without technical evidence. For the public record, the thread in question is now available here.Cheers, Anthøny 13:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  AN/I 

message: See WP:AN/SSP-RFCU merger proposal - opinions valued. FT2 (Talk | email) 22:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  SSP/RFCU merger proposal 

message: The non-compliant subpage (later section) has been used off-and-on since its inception, but I'm not sure that it's resulted in any real reduction in workload for clerks or checkusers, is potentially confusing, and hasn't had much use in recent months that I can remember. Was a good idea to try, but perhaps we should nix it? – Luna Santin (talk) 23:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in two minds over this, Luna. I've used non-compliant in the past, and, for its relatively low usage rate, I think it plays an important role: it's something of a "holding area", where requests that need input from the filing editor are placed temporarily. I think that's more useful than allowing a request that is obviously going to be rejected, due to lack of required information (or what not), to continue on its merry way, and then be rejected. Recommend keep. Anthøny 15:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I've used a time or two myself and think it's better than leaving a non-compliant request on the pending request page. I don't think there is any real need to eliminate it so I'd prefer it stay. -JodyB talk 17:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Fair enough. :) Good thing I asked, then. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do we still need a non-compliant section? 

message: For the public record, I've been bold and implemented Luna's earlier suggestion, that the Clerks' Noticeboard be depreciated, and all RFCU-related discussion directed here. This page now serves as the sole area for discussion on RfCU matters, including clerk co-ordination (for all that we do these days); the exception to that being, the current discussion on RFCU being merged with SSP. That discussion is on a separate page, and is linked above. Anthøny 15:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public note: Clerks' Noticeboard, merged 

message: Is it against policy to use Checkuser as a tool to look for vandals? For example User:Devilzhitman has treatened on his talkpage that he will just create a new account. Would doing that be considered a violation or an abuse of resources (since it isn't being used to check if 2 users are the same person)?--Sunny910910 (talk|Contributions|Guest) 00:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That would definitely fall under the "preventing disruption" clause of the privacy policy.  Whether we would actually find anything depends on how clever he is. Thatcher 11:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is just a general comment without regard to the specific user mentioned, but when dealing with a clearly abusive account (or group) where the sockmaster is unclear or irrelevant, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser#Requests for IP check sounds like your port of call. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Checkuser to look for vandals 

message: We're in a bit of a backlog. *waves flag* Any checkusers with a spare hour? Or, even better, any folks technically apt enough to make use of the checkuser tools? Vacancies open, apply here. :) Anthøny 00:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current backlog 

message: Im new here and the page said "Checkuser clerks assist with maintenance of the page but do not directly respond to checkuser requests. If you need help, post at Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser." so I'm posting here.
* 
* 
User:JFD might be using more than two accounts on the same article.
User:Meatwaggon has exactly the same POV as user:JFD. Moreover, user:JFD was inactive between 29 April 2008 to 8 May 2008 (save for one edit), which is roughly the same period during which user:Meatwaggon operated on Gunpowder (1 May 2008-8 May 2008).
He finally stepped in a conversation, and knew the whole discussion.
71.172.46.153 has attached a tag to the India section. JFD had attacked the same section earlier.
Thanks in advance. Vtria 08 (talk) 22:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Listed at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/JFD. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New request 

message: , code E: puppeting to hide 3RR violation on Toomas Hendrik Ilves
*  reverting 2008-05-12 13:20
*  reverting 2008-05-12 20:08
*  reverting 2008-05-12 20:20
*  reverting 2008-05-13 01:22
*  reverting 2008-05-13 02:56
User:RJ CG has block log as long as your arm, all for the same thing. 194.126.101.134 (talk) 12:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Listed at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/RJ CG. No comment on the request itself. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sockpuppetry by RJ CG 

message: Hi
Can someone please explain why my request  was declined, and no reason given?  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like a simple error.  It was moved to the declined section before any checkuser had commented on it.  I have moved it back and will take a look. Thatcher 23:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Great - thankyou very much. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Declined request but no reason given 

message: I found and added another party to a completed request, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jokeshow, but I wasn't sure if I was supposed to then move the case from "Completed requests" to "Outstanding requests", which I did.  If I did the wrong thing, can someone please correct it?  Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved case 

message: This is an odd situation, so I'm not sure who/where to ask. I've run across an IP address requesting the deletion of a userpage, which was later redirected to another userpage by a registered account. The owner of the original userpage also has an account on a different language wiki, where he was blocked after a checkuser found him abusing multiple IPs and accounts. Even stranger, the owner also requested deletion of the redirected-to account, which contained the same personally identifiable info. All en.wiki accounts, including the IP, appear to be making legit uncontroversial edits. So, is this even a problem? This guy is obviously using several accounts/IPs on wiki (constructively) but appears to try to sever all ties to the foreign language wiki (perhaps understandably so). I didn't link to any specific accounts or edits as I am uncertain whether his conduct is prohibited. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 07:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Bans do not carry across wikis; if someone is banned elsewhere but is a good user here we don't take action unless they misbehave here.  If you are sure the multiple accounts are all being used for good edits and are not overlapping or being misused, then you could just leave it alone and watch the situation.  If you wanted a check done privately to make sure there are no bad accounts, but without exposing the person if it turns out they are ok, then you could email a checkuser. Thatcher 10:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the advice. I'd rather avoid the paranoid route and let the productive accounts go about their business. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 23:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blocked sockpuppeteer from a different wiki 

message: I am not a sockpuppet of Bonaparte at all; apart from the fact he makes lots of factually incorrect edits about Moldova, I don't even know about him! I feel that the nomination of me to be a sockpuppet of him to be a racially motivated attack on the part of Xasha, and would appreciate if you quickly check and see that I am not Bonaparte and remove all reference to me on the Bonaparte page, as I feel that is a violation of my privacy. Rapido (talk) 09:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please someone to check me out; however I think Xasha should be checked out too as it's possible he might be inventing the whole "Bonaparte" thing himself. Xasha added me presumably because he doesn't like my edits... and that's it. He knows that my username sitting on that page will give me a bad reputation with sysops. As for removing my name from the checkuser thing, well it just sat there for days, and no-one is bothering to check it. So check me out against Bonaparte, or even against Xasha. Rapido (talk) 08:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding [[Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Bonaparte]] 

message: I think we should have another icon for fulfilled requests: (inserT picture of a duck) QUACK!. There are some cases that it really could be used. Samuel Sol (talk) 00:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Silly sugestion 

message: Per the discussion above consensus has found that there is no need for SSP and that its merge with RFCU would be beneficial to the community and hopefully reduce the case load of sock cases. The only thing I did not cover much in depth was who was going to perform this merge, and seeing as the current CU's are far too busy, it ultimately leaves it up to the clerks. Any ideas how to go about merging the pages without casing too much disruption? Tiptoety talk 19:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think FT2 did some great work with the technical part (). Now, I don't know how well is SSP working at the moment (in terms of number of bogus cases they got because people don't understand the rules). We need to keep the instructions as simple as possible. Once we have something understandable by a 12 year old, we should close RFCU (IMO) and only start cases on SSP. -- lucasbfr talk 20:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, a formal easy to use process needs to be discussed and produced before the merger takes place. This process needs to allow for easy use while keeping possible CU abuse from happening and as such will require a three step process. 1. Reporting user files a request. 2. A clerk reviews the request to determine its merit and examine the evidence provided, if there is a lack of evidence the case will be marked as declined and will be left up for 24 hours to allow the reporting user to clarify if necessary and then it will be archived. If the case is obvious it will be marked as such by a clerk and if the clerk is a admin, the account(s) will be blocked, tagged as such and archived within 24 hours. If the case requires discussion the clerk will allow the tag with "more information needed" or "no checkuser needed at this time" and will leave the request up for discussion to take place. If the request requires a CU, the clerk will add  to the page and transclude on a page which CU's will monitor, but ultimalty the decision to perform a CU is up to the checkuser. At this time some of the current clerks are discussing a way for a bot to automatically archive and transclude requests to make the process easier on everyone. Tiptoety talk 20:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking about a bot that could do the transclusion stuff for us. Keeping a separate RFCU page would allow a quick look at all the open cases, and to sort them by active/inactive status. RFCU Cases would be listed on both pages. A big question is whether CUs need to validate a clerk-declined case to double check there was no slip-up. -- lucasbfr talk 21:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like a great idea! And it should reduce the amount of work for everyone. As for CU's needed to check clerks work, it should not be necessary (ArbCom does not go though an check all the clerks actions there). That being said we need more stringent requirements for CU clerks. Tiptoety talk 21:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Looking at a merge, the category model seems to be the way to go -- all SSP cases are listed, and clerks/admins/whatever tag those in need of checkuser attention. The specifics will need to be worked out. For now, I've put together some mockups: User:Luna Santin/sandbox shows them off, with an alternative to  that will work in-line, and a revamp of the old  template which may be more suited to SSP. One comment, I think the current version of  is much too wordy, but will admit that "my" version may be too brief -- perhaps that can be addressed by linking phrases such as "awaiting review" to some explanatory process page, but in general I'd rather keep documentation off the case pages if possible. I was also debating whether I should distinguish between declines by clerks and declines by checkusers (currently it seems to assume declines are done by clerks, at that stage?). – Luna Santin (talk) 01:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I realize it's worth noting "my" version omits code letters. This is intentional, on the basis they're an added step in an already bureaucratic system, without much apparent benefit (we as clerks can still request evidence, especially if we're working as a filter layer). Thoughts on that? – Luna Santin (talk) 01:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the "formatting/process" part of it has already been addressed at WP:SSP2. ;) Tiptoety talk 02:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Thatcher, while I agree with some of your concerns raised I ultimately feel that this new process will help solve the issue of archiving by implementing a automatic archival along with providing more opportunities for clerks to become involved. One thing I hope we can do here is move forward, acknowledge that the community has decided to give this new process a try, and try to work with it and improve it, not go back to square one and debate it. As for your concern about the role of clerks, I agree that a CU clerk's decision by no means should be final (that said, it should not just be overridden by anyone who feels it may be incorrect) and there should always be a way to dispute the decision and allow any CU to override it (just like use of administrative rights), but having said that I must say that I disagree with allowing anyone and there mom to be allowed to be a CU clerk per very obvious reasons, and would ultimately support the same system ArbCom uses for their clerks. Seeing as this new process allows for much greater abuse of the position and requires clear judgement skills along with a strong understanding of the privacy policy along with the checkuser policy, not to mention a feeling of trust between the clerks and the CU's, I see a need for the clerks to be selected by the checkusers in order for a smooth, non-controversial process that does not require the CU's to look over and check all of the clerks work, ultimately assisting and lessing the load of the checkusers. Also, thatcher, by no means would declined requests be "hidden" from CU's eyes, and as stated above declined request would stay on the SSP2 page for 24 hours or more to allow further discussion/thoughts from parties involved and checkusers, and once the page is archived checkusers will still be able to view the cases and over-ride any clerks decision. Tiptoety talk 06:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

text: The main problem problem with RFCU is that we desperately need clerks. I'm not very active at the moment, and the same can be said for most clerks. Merging both SSP and RFCU into a simpler system would allow a bot to take care of the most tedious work (archiving), and bring the page more visibility, that should bring more clerks on board. -- lucasbfr talk 07:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The combined board would serve both purposes allowing for RFCU cases to move through the checkuser facilities then archived, while allowing the SSP cases to stay open as long as needed. There will be no rush to close cases, ultimately allowing checkusers to be able to view both SSP and RFCU cases in a simple easy to use format that gets rid of all the extra work of moving your request from SSP to RFCU. The idea is to make it simpler, allowing for easy archiving and more clerk involvement to lessen the work load of the checkusers and ensure the smooth operation of the page. I recommend that you take a look at the discussion linked in the heading for further explanation of how the page works and take a look at WP:SSP2. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 00:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the idea of combining these if it reduces confusion and places to check. I missed commenting on this merger when it was up, but would have commented in support if I had caught it (perhaps it should have went to the CU mailing list? perhaps it did and I missed it? :) ). My concern would be if this adds complexity, or substitutes clerk judgement for CU judgement. I'll also add that I'd prefer it if clerks continue helping users get requests properly formatted more than "rejecting" them for bad formatting. We have some of that elsewhere (mostly where there aren't clerks, it seems to me) and it's not good. Not everyone is an expert at every area, and when they bring things to that area for attention, standing on not filling out the pages right is badness (3RR springs to mind... the clerks here by and large are very helpful in my view. Please don't change that!) ++Lar: t/c 16:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Both worries that I share. Looking at Wikipedia:SSP2#How to open a case, the new instructions aren't exactly simple - I confess I am still unsure how I would file a case under the new system having looked through all the relevant pages. I definitely agree that clerk judgment should not take over from CU judgment. Aside from the most obviously non-compliant requests, users asking for a check have a legitimate expectation that a checkuser will decide whether or not a check is warranted. WjBscribe 18:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Having spoken to Tiptoety about the details in more depth, my concerns are somewhat assuaged. I remain a little uneasy but agree there are benefits to be had here and that it is worth giving this a try. I think I need to see this in action to get a real feel for how it will work. I recommend the instructions are simplified a bit if possible - though the advice is useful my experience is that people often tune out large blocks of text. WjBscribe 22:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I too agree that the instructions need a bit of work, and need to be far less wordy, the exact phrasing is still being ironed out. Tiptoety talk 23:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I wonder if it is possible to streamline the current system along the lines of FT2's proposal without losing the useful features of WP:RFCU. I find that page particularly useful for seeing which cases have been up longest and also for looking at recently closed cases to see other CUs' opinions and decisions. It would be unfortunate if this was lost. I would suggest, therefore, that the current proposal be slightly modified. Either in place of or alongside step II, the case should be transcluded into WP:RFCU as per now. This avoids the annoying "see this SSP case for evidence", puts the CU evidence into the WP:SSP automatically and keeps all the advantages of WP:RFCU. I generally don't like using categories, so avoiding their use being mandatory seems highly sensible to me. Obviously, per WJPscribe, only the most egregious cases should be rejected by clerks -- where there is a reasonable possibility that a check be run, it should be left to the checkusers to decide. Sam Korn (smoddy) 23:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing the mockup now at WP:SSP2, I fully support the proposal.  This seems a very sensible solution, certainly worthy of a trial run at the least.  Thatcher is right that the clerks are going to need to be on the ball here, though.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 23:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/SSP-RFCU merger proposal]] 

message: The discussion above starts with "per the discussion above", and there isn't one. Can someone point me at it?Kww (talk) 05:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Try clicking on the heading ;) Tiptoety talk 06:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Proof that senior moments sneak up on you.Kww (talk) 14:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Well, I'm completely lost 

message: Please see User:Tiptoety/Checkuser_clerks and User_talk:Tiptoety/Checkuser_clerks ++Lar: t/c 00:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  new clerk proposal and comments 

message: I reported an obvious malicious impersonation account to WP:UAA and it was indef blocked. Do I need to add it to IP Check requests in addition or would that be redundant? Skomorokh 21:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there is no reason to have the IP of a blocked user revealed simply because they are blocked. Tiptoety talk 02:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You misunderstand. The account, User:RepublicanJackoffDyke, was blocked as a malicious impersonation of User:RepublicanJacobite. It's first and only edits were to harass Senor Jacobite; it's pretty obvious that the meatspace individual behind the account created it as a means to pursue a previously existing dispute/vendetta. My question was whether an IP Check would have the identical technical outcome as blocking the account (and thus be redundant to that action), not whether the IP of a blocked user should be revealed due to their block as you misconstrue. Regards, Skomorokh 02:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: An IP check is certainly unnecessary -- an IP check would be useful only if there was sockpuppetry going on.  The already-instituted block is sufficient. Sam Korn (smoddy) 13:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, thanks for clarifying. Skomorokh 13:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Noob question re:IP Check 

message: I believe user:Gönülçelen is the sockpuppet of community banned User:Shuppiluliuma. Elmalili (talk) 21:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please file a request on the main page. Tiptoety talk 22:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  new sockpuppet of [[User:Shuppiluliuma]] 

message: Are these two users the same User:Mavis789 and User:92.21.163.125?
:You need to file a request on the mainpage. Tiptoety talk 00:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  IP Check - [[User:Mavis789]] 

message: Is there any chance anyone could do an archiving run on this page?  It's beginning to take quite a while to load...  I would do it myself but I'm not really sure what to do!  Thanks, Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sam, I have been trying to do it little by little but I agree it is time for a big one. I will have some more time tomorrow night and was already planning on doing so. Tiptoety talk 03:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks!  Sam Korn (smoddy) 09:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Slowly but surely, I will finish the rest tonight. Tiptoety talk 17:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Done. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks much. Now our on-going task will be keeping the archiving up to date. Tiptoety talk 22:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks, both of you :-) Sam Korn (smoddy) 22:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

text: By which I meant Friday, of course. >.> – Luna Santin (talk) 05:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: If anybody's noticed I haven't been archiving as frequently, last day or two: I should be back on top of things on Thursday at the latest. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: By which I meant Friday, of course. >.> – Luna Santin (talk) 05:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  August redux 

message: I would like to request a checkuser, but the details include personal information, is there anyone available for a RFCU via email? - Adolphus79 (talk) 00:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably the easiest way to find out is just to email someone!  I for one am happy to be emailed with such requests.  smoddy@gmail.com. Sam Korn (smoddy) 00:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New request... 

message: I have just posted a RCU. Is it standard procedure to notify the users in question of it? Is there a template for this? I apologize if this is a bit noobish, but this is one of my few lurks from newpage patrol, and I could not find anything on this topic on the main RCU page. Thanks! Paragon12321 (talk) 03:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, RFCU is a technical investigation, no input from the users is necessary. The Checkusers or a clerk might ask you more information if needed, but this is not like WP:SSP where users have to "defend" themselves. -- lucasbfr talk 11:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  RCU Notification Template? 

message: Just to make everyone aware of the discussion going on at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Checkuser_granting about a community process to grant the CU bit. -- lucasbfr talk 11:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Deja vu! I mean really, how many times are we doing revisit this topic? Tiptoety talk 03:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's that time of the year again 

message: Can some of the editors with the CheckUser bit please explain to use how you determine in which order to act on the requests filed here?  I'm trying to figure out why some requests are acted on very quickly while others linger for many days.  I can't see any apparent patterns so I am probably just missing something.  Thanks!  --ElKevbo (talk) 21:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends, really. Some of the cases are relatively straightforward, while some may take hours. When there's a backlog, it's nice to clear a bunch of them and free things up. That's pretty-much what I did this morning here as I've only been on-line for, like, 20 minutes at a time. Also, if a case relates to a sockpuppeteer that I'm well familiar with (maybe moreso than other checkusers), I'll likely clear that one, too. We're all volunteers here, after all, and there's no obligation for any of us to act. Also, sometimes there are cases which are obviously urgent, like high-speed vandalism which would obviously get top priority. Chances are, if you ask the other checkusers, you'll get a whole bunch of different answers :) - Alison ❤ 00:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I pretty much echo what Alison said. Sometimes it's nice to get easier (ie, shorter) requests out of the way so that you can focus on the bigger ones. I normally try my best to do requests in order, but things aren't always that simple. Sometimes you've only got 10 minutes to spare, and you want to put some time in on the page, even if it's not that much. --Deskana (talk) 00:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Precedence of requests? 

message: I noticed a few cases recently where, for various reasons, clerks have been asked to hold off on the standard three-day archival period. Given that I've been using a script to take care of the most labor-intensive portions of archiving, recently, it's possible I might miss those requests. With that in mind, my script will skip over any page which transcludes  until that template is removed. Currently the template is blank, but if we want it to display something, that's fine (the script won't care, either way). Obviously using the template is not required, and I'll try to be checking, anyway, but it's there if you want to use it. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds great! I think it would be best if we left it blank, seeing as I recall there being other uses for it. Tiptoety talk 04:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Noarchive template 

message: I cannot see the completed request for User:Lost in kyoto. Could someone point me to it please? DuncanHill (talk) 15:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So why refer editors to checkuser for evidence? DuncanHill (talk) 16:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps Template:SockpuppetCheckuser needs to be fine-tuned. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, someone just added the wrong template. I fixed it. Tiptoety talk 21:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lostinkyoto 

message: Can someone add an archive box for this page? Sciurinæ (talk) 21:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like somebody tried to add one, previously. Should be present, now. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk archives 

message: Not experienced enough around here to know what to do about this one, but User:ThatsGrand was accused of being another sock puppet of Ovlem after this case was moved to completed.  Significat additional discussion has gone on both on the case page and on ThatsGrand's user page.  Presumbly these have been missed as the case has been moved to completed but ThatsGrand is understandably getting fed up with it all.  Think someone who know's what they're doing needs to take a look at this and take it forward somehow. Dpmuk (talk) 11:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Tiptoety talk 01:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ovlem]] 

message: In my last archival run, I intentionally skipped over Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Einsteindonut as I'm currently involved in associated discussion, and wish to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest. With this edit the /Case entry should be up to date, but two (yes, two) transclusions of the case remain on the front page and are, by my count, ready for archival. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Tiptoety talk 03:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  One to archive 

message: Both keep adding a certain narrow quotation to Criticism of Wikipedia, even though the text of the quotation is already present with proper context on that page. They've been reverted multiple times by myself and other editors... I wouldn't say this a clear case of sock-puppetry, but a check-user would clarify if the two accounts really are different or just the same person avoiding 3RR.
VasileGaburici (talk) 17:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Listed at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Vql. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need help with User:Carbono2 and User:Vlq 

message: . . Jehochman Talk 04:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sweet!! Tiptoety talk 04:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There appears to be some controversy about how this icon differs from  ... well, you see... one is a ball and one is dust. duh. Hope that helps! ++Lar: t/c 04:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, Harry Potter fans would love to see an addition to the crystal ball. OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fishing, crystal balls, pixie dust, what next, “Checkuser is not THE ONE RING”?? Ash checkuser durbatulûk, ash checkuser gimbatul, ash checkuser thrakatulûk, agh burzum-ishi krimpatul.  -- Avi (talk) 15:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The contrast between the seriousness of IPs and various nicknames here is astounding. Caulde 15:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Hence my edit summary, dry humour is not my forte. :) Caulde 19:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Switch vermouths :) <== For Lar -- Avi (talk) 19:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Levity + Lar = Larvety? Oh, I forgot WP:NEO  -- Avi (talk) 18:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you STILL using those verdammt smileyface icons??? Oppose  ... oh wait that only works on Commons, Meta, and just about everywhere else, not here... ok, then, here you go:  Oppose any use of icons, symbols, emphasized text or anything else that might inject any larvety. Or larvae. (it takes a really really tiny needle to inject a larvae!) ++Lar: t/c 19:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  ROFLOL. Do you  ASCII too? 8-P -- Avi (talk) 19:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New checkuser icon 

message: Can someone go into my recent block log and create a new section at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DWhiskaZ with the accounts I just blocked?  Thanks. Thatcher 19:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and placed them on the case's talk page (if you want it on the case itself I can do that). Also, if you want me to tag them I can do that too. Tiptoety talk 19:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clerk request 

message: If this is helpful, by all means use it, if not, toss it:
 
-- Avi (talk) 21:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not particularly see a need for it, but I do not see any harm in having it hanging around. Tiptoety talk 21:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Icons are purty. (Do we need a mechanism to thump checkusers who leave up "in progress" tags for 11 days?) Thatcher 19:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: no... ++Lar: t/c 22:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Then we need a whole redesign of the page as icons are all over it. But I like them. ;-) 23:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another new checkuser icon? 

message: Please let me know if this removal is overly bold for a clerk.  The range is very small, it's a known range, it was only sporadically vandalizing a single talk page, and the vandalism stopped a week ago.  I can't imagine what a checkuser would need to do there.  —Wknight94 (talk) 13:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It does need archiving, that's all I know :-) -- how do you turn this on 13:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Even that seemed unnecessary.  It seemed to be case of misunderstanding RFCU.  (BTW, I informed the requestor so he can clear my confusion if I'm wrong).  —Wknight94 (talk) 13:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The removal was fine.  When the IP is already known, about the only thing a checkuser can do with it that an admin can't is look for collateral damage for a proposed range block.  So if no block is desired (for whatever reason), there is little reason to list IPs.  The "IP check" section was intended mainly as a way to request checks for IP blocks and sleeper sweeps of persistent registered vandals, without going to the trouble of creating a formal case.  And the archive system for IP checks is quite a bit less formal than for the subpage requests. Thatcher 13:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For information, the request was recommended to the requester for the purpose of checking collateral for a rangeblock. I've often thought the RFCU/IP section should be extended to include such requests. Mostly they are currently made on checkusers' talk pages. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps that should be expressly listed in that section, or a new section titled "collateral damage check" is appropriate on WP:RFCU? -- Avi (talk) 13:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That could be added to the instructions.  We don't need a new section.  And the request itself needs to be clear on the purpose (find sleepers, block underlying IP, range check, or whatever).  And in this particular case, declining seems reasonable even so as the range is not actively vandalizing. Thatcher 13:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, all you can find is collateral damage for a range hard-block, right?  That's not what was requested.  The only known vandalism was as IPs.  —Wknight94 (talk) 14:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Over-boldness for a clerk wannabe? 

message: FYI (CU opinion might be useful). -- lucasbfr talk 09:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll repeat what I said in IRC on the clerks channel, and over there, I think completely removing a case is a bit odd. I've opined already, and in fact implemented a partial blanking (which someone else may well revert), but remove a whole case, with 4 different report occurrences? I don't think we've ever done that and I don't think we should start. ++Lar: t/c 12:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Cases have been deleted before when there was sufficient reason. Thatcher 12:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Which ones? Last nite no one could think of any MfDs for cases that had succeeded. Feel free to contact me offline. But I stand corrected... Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 13:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A few cases have been deleted by the checkusers; there have not been MfDs before. Thatcher 13:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

text: I do not see the harm though in courtesy blanking the discussion part of the 4th request, since it is already documented thoroughly in the page history and the minds' of the participants. MBisanz talk 13:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia has substantial turnover.  A year from now the same situation may happen again, involving new checkusers and administrators.  Do we want them to know about past events, or not? Jehochman Talk 14:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If it was a positive CU, sure, but since it did not confirm anything, what benefit would it be to future users? MBisanz talk 14:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Lar, put in the results, please.  Use one account means use one account. SA has been rules lawyering instead of acknowledging concerns and acceptaning responsibility for their own actions. Jehochman Talk 14:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

text: What "past events" are we talking about?  A user accidentally editing while logged out?  I note that the transgression has not been logged at the applicable arbitration page.  It's one thing to deduce someone's IP from an article history, it's another thing to have a formal record of it.  And this case page has very little else of value.  An accusation involving Poupon that turned up unrelated, and two unrelated checks (Davkal and a request to check a joe job). Thatcher 14:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The current check shows logging out to edit.  We will never know if it is intenional or unintentional.  If this happens again, as Lar has said, the supply of good faith is running low.  We should not erase the record of what has happened here because it will be relevant next time the same thing happens, if there is a next time. Jehochman Talk 14:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The more that I get pushed to officially confirm someone's IP address (a violation of the :m:privacy policy unless justified under clause 5 or 6) the less likely I am to actually do it.  I advised (before lar refactored the page) that if you believe SA violated his sanctions, you could take an enforcement action on the duck test, and if he protested, we could discuss the actual findings.  I note there are no enforcement actions logged on the arbitration case, not even a warning to edit while logged in.  That weighs against disclosure.  I am also troubled by the actions of some users in this case.  Elonka contacted me privately last month about a suspicion involving SA and another editor; they were on different continents.  Another user contacted me recently about IP edits (I can not recall who) and I advised the user that I would not confirm the IPs without strong evidence that the editing (if confirmed) was a violation and not an accident.  That complaint was apparently dropped, but now it turns out Elonka someone else contacted one of new checkusers privately and got some kind of an answer--not one I would have given, and a borderline case.  This whole situation feels highly political to me and I don't like it.  The diffs offered in the current case do not (to me) constitute a violation of the arbitration remedies.  Perhaps you should list the diffs at WP:AE for determination by someone with less involvement in the situation.  Assuming they are SA, do they constitute a violation?  I don't think so, not enough to formally breach the privacy policy under clause 5 or 6. Thatcher 14:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Jehochman, you know I have a great deal of admiration for what you contribute, and a great deal of sympathy for your frustration. And yet... I find myself in strong agreement with Thatcher on this. We often give final chances... I'm not going anywhere. Thatcher's not going anywhere. Can't we let SA slide on this instead of insisting? Can't we let this drop, this one time, in the interests of harmony. Fault me for being a softie if you like but how is fighting about this particular instance going to help matters? I promise you I will support coming down hard on SA if in future he has the same level of (accidental or not) logged-out-ness when editing in these areas. Isn't that good enough? Can't we all just get along? ++Lar: t/c 15:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record Elonka indicated it was not her that contacted the new CU. I talked to the new CU myself and it was confirmed to me as well... the exact details may or may not matter. I think statements were made by her (which may not have been the most helpful in defusing matters) that made it appear that she did, and it was an inference I drew. That inference was, I believe, incorrect. Perhaps we might not repeat it going forward. ++Lar: t/c 15:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Got it. Thatcher 15:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ScienceApologist]]