Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Clerks/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Checkuser pages
Main • Pending • Archive
Unlisted • On hold • IP check
Clerk pages
Clerks • Noticeboard

Unsorted • Procedures
Shortcut
WP:RFCU/C/N


This page is for checkuser clerks to coordinate their activities and for checkusers to place requests for help or clarification with requests. Requests from checkusers will be noted on the case subpage with {{Clerk Request}}, which produces Clerk assistance required:, with a short summary. The request itself should be listed here. To avoid duplication of clerk effort, any clerk taking on a request should note that they are taking it when they begin it, and if they cannot complete it, note what has been done in the section on this page, so that other clerks will be able to complete it.

Contents

Piggy bank
Clerks' Noticeboard archives
1 2 3 4

[edit] Very important note about listing cases

With the Essjaybots taken out of service, new cases are no longer automatically added to /Pending. Please check Category:Checkuser requests to be listed frequently to make sure new requests are properly listed. Thatcher131 12:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you looking for someone to run such a bot again, or is arranging that in progress? I can probably get a bot-knowledgeable user to sign up for this if needed. Newyorkbrad 13:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Sure. The bot would have to be on all the time, or at least run every 5 minutes or so. Essjay was running the function on Essjaybot II which was also the project space archival bot. Misza13 has written replacements for the Essjaybots but I don't know if that's just the archival functions. Anyone could do it, really. It's just a matter of adding any subpage in that category to the top of Requests for checkuser/Pending. Thatcher131 15:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah - I don't think the user I had in mind can leave his machine on 24/7, so that may not be an option, though I'll still ask him. The back-up plan to find someone would be to list at Wikipedia:Bot requests which is monitored by users looking for some task to engage their bots for. Newyorkbrad 15:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it'd have to be 24/7 to be useful, personally -- although if having a bot most of the time discourages people from checking the category, that might be sticky, I think overall the bots can help. I check the cat pretty regularly, anyway, a few times a day at least. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
well, previously the bot ran either constantly or every 5 minutes and listed all cases (users were not told to list their own). If the bot will run a couple times a day, then we can modify the instructions to say "please list your own case" and the bot will catch the stragglers. Thatcher131 00:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Do you think I should add this function to my ClerkBot? It already reports & parses new cases to the IRC channel (and runs 24/7) so I can add this simple function too. GeorgeMoney (talk) 05:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
That'd be fine by me; would we need to run that past WP:BAG? (it hasn't edited, before, that I know of) – Luna Santin (talk) 00:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Yep it will have to go through the BRFA process and whatnot. GeorgeMoney (talk) 00:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I can't see any harm in GM's suggestion; support. Daniel Bryant 00:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Removal of requests

I would like to encourage the clerks to remove any requests that:

  • Do not cite a code letter
  • Cite more than one code letter
  • Do not cite any supporting diffs if the code letter requires diffs, or (for 3RR violations) that do not cite four supporting diffs within a 24 hour period.

It would be a welcome service for you to leave a note on the requester's talk page in these cases, and you may also mark these "clerk note" for a period of a few days first if you feel that the information is likely to be forthcoming as a result. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 00:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Requests so removed may be placed in the "declined" section, or if you prefer, you may construct a separate section for such "non-compliant" requests. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 00:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm devising a plan of attack for this. Please give me 15mins. Daniel Bryant 00:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
And possibly if we implement my feature mentioned above, I can have the bot automatically put a case in the non-compliant section if it is non-compliant... GeorgeMoney (talk) 00:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd suggest that until we get the system up and working, we don't automate too much yet. Daniel Bryant 00:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Hm. Perhaps an "on hold" section, where they'd still be transluded onto the RfCU main page, without being placed on /Pending? Either way, probably best if we carefully consider the circumstances in which this can or can't be done by anybody besides the checkusers (the clerks are no longer an exclusive group, which will have its pros and cons). One thought, perhaps the amount of clerk discretion could increase as/when backlogs appear? – Luna Santin (talk) 00:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree with clerks doing this, but per request, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Non-compliant is something I just whipped up. Preliminary thoughts (there'll be templates made for clerks to notify users, if this process actually goes ahead). Daniel Bryant 00:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
There is a difference between determining whether the procedures have been followed (requires little discretion) and determining whether the reasons given for a check are sufficient (requires checkuser discretion). It is not hard to follow the rules, and if the checkusers would prefer that blatantly nonconforming requests (such as the first version of the Kelly Martin check) are roundfiled rather than reformatted, then we can do that. Thatcher131 14:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do bear in mind that exceptional circumstances arise when a request is in order even though it does not fall within a standard code letter. See the request I submitted at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Trebor Rowntree as an example of a situation that called for, and received, quick checkuser attention but which I could not match with a code. I also don't know that "citing more than one code letter" should constitute a non-compliance issue if the request satisfied the criteria for all the codes. Newyorkbrad 14:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I've made some revisions to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Non-compliant and taken it live. It's at the bottom of the page; cases should be transcluded there like they are on /Pending. I've changed the window for fixing requests to 3 days from 7 and removed the user talk notification; if someone really has a good reason to invade someone else's privacy, they can watchlist the page. The reason for concompliance should be noted with {{moreinfo}}; when the request is fixed the note can be removed. If some clerks are uncomfortable doing this you can leave it to clerks with more experience; if after a trial period there is consensus that it is not working well or that inappropriate liberties are being taken, we can ask the checkusers for more guidance. Thatcher131 14:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
In response to Brad, /Trebor Rowntree was basically a code F, ban evasion. Discretion is needed, and borderline cases can be left for the checkusers to deal with. The fact that Essjay very deliberately tried to avoid the excercise of any discretion by clerks does not mean it must always be that way. Discussion here may help, and the checkusers will have to be patient as we work out the boundaries. Of course, if the rest of the clerks simply do not want to implement this, well, that can happen with a volunteer workforce. Thatcher131 14:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and I believe non-compliant requests should be deleted rather than archived as they will contain no useful information for subsequent checks, and most cases that can't be cleaned up to meet the minimum requirements are likely to be improper in one way on another. And a request to the checkusers: Please keep an eye on the non-compliant page and give us some feedback on how well we are doing (too aggressive/not aggressive enough). Thatcher131 15:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
On a side note, what's the policy on the requests that are withdrawn? Do we move them to declined? Or do we wait for a CU to close the case? -- lucasbfr talk 23:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, not sure. ;) I tend to leave them for a checkuser decision -- the more obviously clerks are seperated from decision-making and focused on upkeep/maintenance, the better (I think, anyway, feel free to disagree). As long as we're in this thread, I should mention somewhere that DB and I made {{rfcu problem}} the other day, regarding non-compliant requests. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok (still trying to find my marks here, to be honest ^^). You should perhaps {{rfcu problem}} to the procedure page before we all forget about it? -- lucasbfr talk 09:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
So, per Uninvited's request that started this thread, I've just delisted a case and archived it, using the (newly made) {{delisted}} template to do so. If anybody's got better ideas, now's the time. Agreed, though, once this gets settled, we should update the procedures. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I am not a big fan of this icon (the clock symbol is unclear to me). But I must admit commons doesn't have anything else. Maybe Image:Symbol abstain vote.svg with an other color? (purple is nice) -- lucasbfr talk 11:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IRC

If you would like to use the IRC channel and the bot, please ask Daniel.Bryant, GeorgeMoney, Luna Santin, or MichaelBillington for an invite exception. If you would like an auto-voice please ask Mackensen for being added to the access list. The manual to the bot is User:GeorgeMoney/IRC/Bot/Clerk. GeorgeMoney (talk) 00:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

[edit] 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)

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

[edit] 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)

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, — Deon555talkdesksign here! 01:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

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)
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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Additional assistance from clerks

Unless there are objections from other CUs, I would like to encourage the clerks to become more active in the maintenance for the page:

  1. Please feel free to assist users who are struggling with the process or have questions about mechanics or basic policy. While I appreciate that you are all supposed to be deferring any judgment calls to the CUs, there is no need for you to be circumspect if you are reasonably sure what we are going to say.
  2. Please be aggressive in moving out noncompliant requests to the new page for them. It's not too much to ask to have people fill out the form properly, and it isn't possible for the CUs to handle the cases quickly if there are missing links or diffs.
  3. Please help us drive home the message that community bans must have discussion and consensus for us to recognize them.
  4. You may remove IP addresses from the list of things to check where a request already specifies two or more user names. In general, we can't disclose an IP except for the purpose of targeting an IP block (or rarely, complaining to an ISP), and such disclosure is generally no longer necessary because of the change in the way the blocking software works. Please feel free to educate visitors to the page about the new blocking features and in particular the ability of any admin to block not only the user name but the most recently used IP address for that user.
  5. You may remove as noncompliant requests to check throwaway accounts (fewer than ten edits) if you wish unless they are in the IP Check section or there is some other specific rationale for checking them.
  6. If you are truly motivated to make the most of the job you can leave helpful messages on people's talk pages when we have acted on their requests, particularly if it seems likely that they will have questions or will want to fix their request and resubmit it.

Thanks

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

[edit] Rationale behind non-compliant moves

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 {{clerknote}}? PTO 17:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

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)
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)

[edit] IP checks backlogged

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)

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)
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)
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)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Bigdaddyc187

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)

Done. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_checkuser_Clerks_Noticeboard_3edb.html"