Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Clerks/Noticeboard/Archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Code letters and diffs 2 Templates 3 Cases to archive 4 Clerks need to be more proactive 5 History merge 6 Listings

[edit] Code letters and diffs

Clerks may feel free to add notes requesting missing code letters and missing links or diffs if the code letter requires them. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Remember to user {{moreinfo}}. I think we were waiting to see how this settled in to practice. Thatcher131 19:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. I made the inputbox have a place to add the letter. Daniel.Bryant 00:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Templates

To clerks: Two templates have recently be created to alert requesting users that they are missing info. The first is {{codeletter}}, which tells them that they need to add a codeletter. To use, add {{subst:codeletter|name of case}}, where name of case is the sockpuppeteer (ie. the extension on at the end of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/name of case). The second is {{codeletterdiff}}, where it tells the applicant that they need to add the codeletter and diffs, if extra evidence is requested by a checkuser. To use, add {{subst:codeletterdiff|name of case}}, with the "name of case" being the same format as above.

Notes on using these templates:-

• Don't sign - it's done for you in the template
• You must add your own header (eg. == Checkuser request == or something similar)
• Make sure you link to the case, but don't link to the individual sections if there is more than one request for that user in the past - just the page will do.

Any queries/extra info required, I'll answer here. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 01:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cases to archive

There are about 8 cases that are ready to archive. Perhaps our new clerks could lend a hand? Thatcher131 22:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It also helps to watchlist the main page, and then watchlist new cases when they are posted, to catch things like this. Thatcher131 22:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I saw that, and got edit-conflicted by someone (presumably you) when I was transferring it to a separate page. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 05:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clerks need to be more proactive

I'd like to ask the checkuser clerks to be a bit more proactive in their approach. There are currently 10 or more cases ready to archive (4 days since answered). Look at the instructions or ask if you have any questions.

Also, please remember to check the new case category in the header above. The new case template adds a tag to each new case that contains a category. Checking the category page is a good way to make sure all open cases have been listed properly on the main page. There was a case that was created but not transcluded properly for 3 days before I caught it this morning. (When you know the case us successfully listed on the main page you can delete the tag.)

Finally, we often have cases created with incorrect names that need to be fixed. Recently we had Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/User:A M. Khan which needed to be moved to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/A M. Khan (no User: in the name). And right now we have Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ruy Lopez 2, which needs to be merged into Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ruy Lopez and redirected. (Unlike RFA, we keep all requests regarding one puppetmaster on the same page). Please let me know if you have any questions. Thatcher131 00:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I've not been as active on these pages as I hoped to be. Just after I signed up as a clerk I ran into some real-life issues, so had to cut down on the wiki-ing. When I came back I got sucked into a whole load of other areas (especially CFD). Also the checkuser system has changed so much (for the better, and in no small part due to your efforts) that I felt a little lost. If you really need more help, I'll try to get back on board - just give me a little time to catch up. the wub "?!" 00:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem if you're busy. The work backs up though. WIth 8 active clerks if we each checked the page one day a week—fixing or clarifying open requests and archiving old reports—it would stay in good shape, as long as we didn't all pick the same day. (I'm not actually thinking of a daily calendar, just making a point.) No one should have to archive every old case in one sitting, either, if we all pitch in once a week or so. Thatcher131 01:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay someone beat me to A.M. Khan, but I took care of the Lopez thing. I will be archiving a couple of cases. Geo. 00:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed you left a message on Wisden's talk page. Looking at Wisden's contributions, it does not appear he/she has edited since September 14, 2006. Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 01:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll move Wisden to inactive. Thanks. Thatcher131 01:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Although I probably haven't been as active around RFCU recently, I still see most of the work being shared between a handful of clerks. Hopefully our new clerks can fix this problem. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 07:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Again... I was all enthusiastic about becoming a clerk, but now have dropped back a little (a lot).. I will do my best to try and get into it.. Per The wub above, I have some life issues goin on too, so unfortuanetly I've had to cut down on WP a little.. I've taken a quick look at it does look a little daunting :P but I'll try and get into it this week :) — Deon555^talk 22:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History merge

When archiving, I noticed that Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/sarvagnya was created, and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Sarvagnya already exists. Can an admin clerk please fix this by a history merge, then adjust the entry into the #S part of WP:RFCU/A for Sarvagnya appropriately (this need has been marked with a red note in the table). Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 01:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC) Done by Dmc, 04:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC). Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 04:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I did all the archiving - it took me over an hour to do the 20 cases out. Lets not let it get like that again! Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 01:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I was trying to do four or five a day but yesterday it took me an hour to open an arb case with 30 parties, so I didn't have time. I saw the note about merging the histories but I couldn't figure out how to do it so it wouldn't look like the page was blanked in between requests. I guess that's ok though since that;s the result, and at least they're on one page. There are multiple duplicated requests and redirects floating around so now that I'm an admin maybe I should clean up the rest in the same way. Hmm. Thatcher131

[edit] Listings

I'm wondering if anyone has set up a bot to handle automatically listing cases that aren't listed on RFCU by their initiators. We have one at RFM that automatically lists orphaned RFMs and orphaned Mediation Committee nominations, so I'm wondering if something similar has been set up here, and if not, if the clerks are still checking the "not listed on RFCU" category daily. Essjay (Talk) 02:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Nope. Good ol' cat check... Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 08:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll have EssjayBot II start doing it. :) Essjay (Talk) 01:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Quick notice: I moved the current requests to a subpage because the bot would blank all of RFCU if allowed to work directly there, and I removed the sections about listing cases, as the bot will do that automatically. There are two kinks to work out: First, having the bot put new listings on top, and second, having it leave the ---- in between cases. I'll get that taken care of shortly; please bear with me for a short time while I find the right spot in the code. Thanks! Essjay (Talk) 02:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I suppose I'm just too impatient to wait for you to finish, but does this mean the pending requests will be permently listed on the transcluded pending page? 'cause that means we'll have to open both pages to move the case when its answered. Thatcher131 02:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, all pending requests would be listed there; uniquely useful for those of us checking, as we needent even open the full RFCU page, just /Pending, and from my experience, useful in preventing edit conflicts while archiving, as I often edit-conflicted myself editing two sections of the same page. To be honest, I'm surprised the great botmasters have never come up with a bot to automate the archiving altogether...Anyhow, I fixed the ---- issue by just appending it to the template, and will fix the listing-on-top issue as soon as I get ahold of Tangotango, who knows the code much better than I do. Essjay (Talk) 02:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I tweaked the header to drop a little "P" on the top next to the shortcut that will open the edit window of the pending page. By control-clicking the P I can open the pending request page for editing in a new browser tab for ease of moving answered requests around. What do you think? Thatcher131 02:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)