Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Clerks/Noticeboard/Archive3

New clerking system - proposed change

The new system at WP:RFCU/C does have a note to discourage 'status seekers', but I think that this will still become a problem. Just an idea, but would anyone support the page functioning more like Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/verified users? (i.e, it is a protected page, and any sysop on the list can add new users) This seems like a logical halfway point between 'approval by a checkuser' and 'approval by self'. --Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 00:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Nikodemos

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]

Just wanted some feedback :)

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, — Deon555^talk_desk^{sign here!} 01:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Code letter F?

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:AIV or 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]

Request on my talk page

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]

Feedback?

Good evening (GMT time) all; I'd like to request the feedback of my fellow Wikipedians with regards to RFCU clerking. Feedback that would be especially useful is where I could target my activities more, in order to make the system more efficient with my available time, as well as any corrections I could make to general clerking. Naturally, however, general feedback would also be useful.

Any advice is received with great gratitude; feel free to post it here, via email or simply drop me a message at my talk page.

Kind regards,
anthonycfc ^[talk] 22:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]