Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

I've been waiting for 2 weeks.

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)

Correct procedure for filing and provision of 'evidence'

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)

What case are you speaking of? -JodyB _talk 21:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

No objections so done. MickMacNee (talk) 23:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Does this not suggest the instruction box at the top of the page is inadequate? I have the same experience. The instruction box should indicate clearly the type of evidence required for having a request accepted. For instance: the (now obnubilated and uncontrolled) requirement that evidence should not only point to a connection between a main account and the alleged sockpuppets, but also to bad behaviour of the main account. And of course the information that proper jugdement of bad behaviour can only be achieved through Arbcom.

In my opinion, a denial of the use checkuser because of undue responsability should be indicated (and accepted) as valid grounds to escalate the request to Arbcom. Rokus01 (talk) 11:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Queue

How long does it take on average to post a request for checkuser on the main project page? STYROFOAM☭1994^TALK 17:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I've listed your request. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 17:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion?

My request [1] 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)

In the meanwhile I got an answer from Jpgordon [2], saying more explicitly now that my evidence "did not show a strong likelihood" that Barlow was playing with sockpuppets. Moreover, he takes into consideration "Barlow's longevity here, and total absence of indications of bad behavior other than arguing forcefully". However, this was his evaluation and subsequent decision "not to go any further". I don't agree Paul Barlow show a total absence of indications of bad behaviour. His habit of distorting words, his personal attacks, his OR by rejecting scholarly publications on his own terms when the result don't suit him, his intolerance of multple views that violates WP:NPOV and his notion that I can see right through him and his negationist intentions that obviously supplies a motive and pretext for such extreme conduct, are all arguments against such a statement. Also, to deny investigation to possible bad behaviour "because he does not show bad behaviour" is circular reasoning.

All this impel me to request a second or third opinion to evaluate again "the likelihood" of Paul Barlow being able to to commit "such an incredible foul deed" as to supply sufficient grounds to admit a checkuser on his account, just like anybody else that would show some indications. To be sure: I am sure to have hung for a lot less. Rokus01 (talk) 09:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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. Declined 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)

After looking at the case, I clarified Jpgordon's comments there. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. However, I can see the case is moved to "completed" while in fact is has only been partially completed. I answered you comment on the case page, and think it applies to this thread as well:

Checkuser will only give the IP locations of the accounts asked for, is my understanding of the tool. IP's that result identical or indicate geographic proximity would indicate high a possibility of abuse. Unless Checkuser produces a list of all users that come geographically close to a certain IP number (though this would be "fishing"), I don't think such CU results would be helpful. It is not my intention to cast doubt on the integrity of checkusers. Transparency is the single issue of concern, for that is how integrity works in a democracy. The checkuser's "discretion on the opportunity to invade a user's privacy by performing a check" should not be cast on the requester (who will be just interested in the results, not in anything else related to privacy). Transparency of the checkuser integrity will be served by clear answers that can't be understood in several ways and won't raise further questions.

I'm sorry to say my questions only increased. Rokus01 (talk) 14:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I can give as much evidence as you want to show Paul Barlow has the same pattern of bad behaviour. Even though we don't share the same articles of interest he seeks me up for pestering, like right at this moment:[3] Rokus01 (talk) 15:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions regarding archiving

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:

1. All cases will be moved by clerks to completed or declined as soon as possible after the checkuser completes the case analysis.
2. Cases will (or should) be moved to the archive within 24 hours after completion of the anaysis by a clerk.
3. 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)

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)

Unclear procedures.

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)

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)

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)

Updated the instruction box

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)

Much better, a tone-down that really was required ;) Spebi 06:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yay!! Way better - Alison ^❤ 03:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Query

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

Somebody fix this, please? clarify the instructions\templates

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. [4]

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)

Nevermind, I figured out how to fix it. I think. See here. [5] It still doesn't like to the same page, but it's clear enough.

Can somebody work on the instructions or templates here to avoid confusion like this in the future? ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 04:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Question about requests for checkuser

(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)

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 {{checkuser requests to be listed}} 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)

Update a case?

How do I make another request for a user that already has a preexisting case User:Grawp

Grawp (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) (Puppeteer)

Kneesthey (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) (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 Testarossa^{Talk Who} 06:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

Codes?

... 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)

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)

AN/I

Resolved

 – See my note. Anthøny 13:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

SSP/RFCU merger proposal

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

Do we still need a non-compliant section?

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)

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)

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)

Fair enough. :) Good thing I asked, then. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Public note: Clerks' Noticeboard, merged

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)

Checkuser to look for vandals

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)

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)

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)