Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser/Archive 5

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? -JodyBtalk 21:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This one Requests_for_checkuser/IP_check/Archive. 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 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, 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. 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: 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: 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? _-JodyBtalk 20:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 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 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. &#9775; 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. -JodyBtalk 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. Tell me what you think! -- lucasbfr  talk 12:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Version with an existing case
 * Version with a new case.
 * Previous version
 * Much better, a tone-down that really was required ;) Spebi 06:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yay!! Way better - A l is o n  ❤ 03:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Query
Why is Requests for checkuser/Case/Thomiswil being repeatedly bypassed? —SlamDiego&#8592;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. 

I tried to re-file it myself here: 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. &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 04:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I figured out how to fix it. I think. See here. 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? &#9775; 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. Nikki 311  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 Requests for checkuser/Procedures 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
 * (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 Testa rossa  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 Requests for checkuser/Procedures, 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
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 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. -JodyBtalk 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 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, Requests for checkuser sounds like your port of call. – Luna Santin  (talk) 01:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Current backlog
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)

New request
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)
 * Listed at Requests for checkuser/Case/JFD. – Luna Santin  (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry by RJ CG
, 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)
 * Listed at Requests for checkuser/Case/RJ CG. No comment on the request itself. – Luna Santin  (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Declined request but no reason given
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)


 * 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)


 * Great - thankyou very much. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Moved case
I found and added another party to a completed request, 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, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 21:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser templates which are not being used.
Was looking through unused templates recently, and noticed that the following weren't used. Could these please be deleted?
 * 1) Template:Checkuser3 (other links)
 * 2) Template:Checkuser complete ‎(other links)
 * 3) Template:Checkuser confirmed ‎(other links)
 * 4) Template:Checkuser declined ‎(other links)
 * 5) Template:Checkuser inconclusive ‎(other links)
 * 6) Template:Checkuser moreinfo ‎(other links)

 miranda   19:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Good call here: these all hail from the time when requests for checkuser was much less congested, and we actually had time to notify the filers that their checks had been handled. :) Consider this ✅; I have deleted all the templates: none had any links (except one or two, which had a couple of mentions in dated archives) or transclusions.


 * Anthøny 20:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked sockpuppeteer from a different wiki
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Regarding Requests for checkuser/Case/Bonaparte
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)
 * 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)

Silly sugestion
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)

Administrators' noticeboard/SSP-RFCU merger proposal
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)
 * I think FT2 did some great work with the technical part (RFCU). 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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 RFCU that will work in-line, and a revamp of the old rfcu box template which may be more suited to SSP. One comment, I think the current version of RFCU 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)
 * 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)
 * I think the "formatting/process" part of it has already been addressed at WP:SSP2. ;) Tiptoety  talk 02:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I hate to point fingers or to in any way deprecate the work of the clerks, but last Tuesday-Wednesday I archived 44 cases that were well past 4 days. And last I checked there were 40 open SSP cases.  So purely from a janitorial perspective, I am concerned about what the SSP2 page will look like after a few weeks.  At some point, cases need to be removed from transclusion, archive-tagged and added to the index.  This is not routinely done in a timely fashion (there are good weeks and slow weeks).  The clerks are also good about picking up on unlisted cases but not as proactive about fixing cases like WP:RFCU/Case/Joe Smith 2 when RFCU/Case/Joe Smith already exists and should have been added to instead.
 * Second concern is related to discussion and argument. CU is a technical function; IPs either are or are not related, and argument is discouraged.  SSP relies also on style and such, and there is much more discussion and argument.  It's going to be a culture clash, not unliveable, but different, at least.
 * Third concern, I'm not yet comfortable with the idea of clerks making decisions on whether checks should be run. Usually your judgement is sound, especially after hanging around RFCU for a few months.  But we may know things the clerks don't.  I definitely would not want this to be exclusive; that is, if a clerk declines, the case should not be hidden in such a way as to prevent CUs from seeing it; and experienced editors and admins should be able to set the CU flag, too.
 * On the other hand I'm not one to stand in the way of progress, if there is strong support for this then try it. Nothing on a wiki is irreversible. Thatcher 03:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Maybe I'm missing something but I'm not seeing any great consensus in that archived discussion that a merge is desirable. Particularly troubling is the opposition from Thatcher and Daniel, who I would suggest are two of the editors with the greatest experience of the workings of this board. Daniel served as head clerk when the former system of appointed clerks operated and Thatcher has gone from being one of the most active clerks here to being one of the most active checkusers dealing with requests. That they have concerns about the move worries me. I have to say as someone who clerked these pages pretty much single handedly for about 3 months last year I am also uneasy with the idea of the combined workload. Thatcher rightly points out that the current team seems at present to be sometimes overwhelmed by the caseload of RFCU alone - adding SSP cases to the mix does not seem wise. Also, practically many SPP cases do not require checkuser attention, they are founded on behavioral evidence. Where the behavioural link is strong action may be taken without resort to checkuser, and where the technical evidence is inconclusive a lengthy investigation of behaviour may be needed. SSP cases often need to stay open much longer that RFCU ones to be investigated fully, whereas RFCU cases are quickly closed without discussion pending further accounts to check. I missed the original discussion of this but I have to say I am unconvinced that this move is wise - the boards seem to me to serve different purposes and I worry that their combined workload is more than can be managed in one place. WjBscribe 00:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * Both worries that I share. Looking at SSP2, 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Well, I'm completely lost
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)
 * Try clicking on the heading ;) Tiptoety  talk 06:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Proof that senior moments sneak up on you. Kww (talk) 14:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Noob question re:IP Check
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Cool, thanks for clarifying. Skomorokh  13:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

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

IP Check - User:Mavis789
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)

Archiving
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)
 * 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)
 * Thanks! Sam Korn (smoddy) 09:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Slowly but surely, I will finish the rest tonight. Tiptoety  talk 17:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so I have found out the hard way that this whole archiving business takes far longer than I originally anticipated and time I really do not have. I have archived close to 40 requests but there is double that still to go, and as such I could use some help. Any other clerks willing? Thanks, Tiptoety  talk 23:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. – Luna Santin  (talk) 07:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks much. Now our on-going task will be keeping the archiving up to date. Tiptoety  talk 22:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, both of you :-) Sam Korn (smoddy) 22:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

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

New request...
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)


 * Probably the easiest way to find out is just to email someone! I for one am happy to be emailed with such requests.  [mailto:smoddy@gmail.com smoddy@gmail.com]. Sam Korn (smoddy) 00:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

RCU Notification Template?
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)
 * 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)

OK. Just wanted confirmation. Thank you! Paragon12321 (talk) 17:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Precedence of requests?
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)
 * 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 :) - A l is o n  ❤ 00:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)

A right to be anonymous
We've got a big freakin' problem if cases like this are being considered legitimate: Requests for checkuser/Case/82.7.39.174 "it is obvious that it is an experienced user logging out to conceal their identity in internal policy discussions."

Wait a second... doing that isn't a violation of any policy or guideline. A sock puppet is more than one account being used in the same discussion/area. It is not the same as an experienced editor choosing to be anonymous.

I don't care if an experienced Wikipedian made the request or not, that is simply unacceptable. -- Ned Scott 06:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * As I pointed out, this is common practice that I've seen, such as Requests for checkuser/Case/AnonymousGoodFaith and User talk:Sceptre, until arbcom overturns the Privatemusings case, I'm not seeing why checkusers can't be trusted to see where abuse of logging out to edit occurs and act accordingly on good faith requests for checkuser from non-checkusers.  MBisanz  talk 07:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I need to apologies here. While I am really unconformable with these kinds of requests, I should not be commenting while riled up about it. I'm guessing there is some evidence of actual abuse here that just wasn't mentioned? -- Ned Scott 07:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Surely what we have here is an allegation that somebody is playing good hand, bad hand, using the IP as the bad hand. This is forbidden by our Sockpuppet Policy Mayalld (talk) 07:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It is an allegation where the only real evidence is an assumption of bad faith. If there is evidence of disruption or some attempt to mislead people, then by all means, make these requests, but I'm not seeing that kind of evidence. What I am seeing here is a very bad interpretation of policy. Disagreeing with someone in a discussion is not disruptive, misleading, or being a bad hand. Please, tell me I'm wrong and that I missed the evidence where this IP is being disruptive or misleading. -- Ned Scott 07:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Without going into details, I was provided with evidence which contained strong evidence of abuse, and enough to warrant a check, IMO. That's not a whole lot of use, I know, but I cannot speak further for reasons of privacy and I don't want to smear anyone's reputation. Having said that, I am twitchy on the PrivateMusings ruling (and I'm not the only checkuser who is) - A l is o n  ❤ 05:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response here, Alison. I guess I should have assumed there was additional evidence. Bad faith on my part, I guess. -- Ned Scott 06:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * My general opinion on these is that there are reasonable grounds for a check in these circumstances to determine if the account is being used properly. It is not unreasonable to suggest that there might be abuse going on here, and it does no harm whatsoever to check.  If the master account is seen, and there are no problems, the CU should decline to name the user.  If there are problems, the first step would be to contact the user privately before commenting publicly.
 * These cases are not the same as an ordinary sockpuppet investigation, but I feel they are valid uses of the CU tool to prevent abuse, provided the investigation is run with good sense, respect for anonymity where reasonable and tact
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 09:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Noarchive template
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 noarchive 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)
 * 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)

Lostinkyoto
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)
 * There isn't one. Certain socks are instantly identifiable to experienced checkuser operators; recognizing this one led me to eighteen more. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * So why refer editors to checkuser for evidence? DuncanHill (talk) 16:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Template:SockpuppetCheckuser needs to be fine-tuned. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Nah, someone just added the wrong template. I fixed it. Tiptoety  talk 21:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

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

Requests for checkuser/Case/Ovlem
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)
 * ✅ Tiptoety  talk 01:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

One to archive
In my last archival run, I intentionally skipped over 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)
 * ✅ Tiptoety  talk 03:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Need help with User:Carbono2 and User:Vlq
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)
 * Listed at Requests for checkuser/Case/Vql. – Luna Santin  (talk) 20:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

New checkuser icon
. Pixiedust. Jehochman Talk 04:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sweet!! Tiptoety  talk 04:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Well, Harry Potter fans would love to see an addition to the crystal ball. OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 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. [[Image:Face-devil-grin.svg|30px]] -- Avi (talk) 15:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The contrast between the seriousness of IPs and various nicknames here is astounding. Cau  lde  15:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Forgive the CUs and clerks a bit of levity (which, I note, is not directed at any particular user so much as it is directed at ourselves and at memes of infallibility, which desperately need puncturing), will you? It's rather a thankless job for the most part (I was promised a pony, IIRC...) ... I'm not complaining, it needs doing, and others work far harder at it than I, to be sure, but... Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 18:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hence my edit summary, dry humour is not my forte. :) Cau  lde  19:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Switch vermouths :) <== For Lar -- Avi (talk) 19:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Levity + Lar = Larvety? Oh, I forgot WP:NEO [[image:face-wink.svg|25px]] -- Avi (talk) 18:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 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: [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|15px]] 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)
 * ROFLOL. Do you Oppose ASCII too? 8-P -- Avi (talk) 19:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Clerk request
Can someone go into my recent block log and create a new section at Requests for checkuser/Case/DWhiskaZ with the accounts I just blocked? Thanks. Thatcher 19:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ 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)

Clerks needed, and RFCU/SSP merge implementation
- as in, request for more clerks!! (Un-)fortunately, we lost three of our best yesterday :) Is it time to maybe post an advert on WP:AN? - A l is o n  ❤ 18:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to assist in this regard. An AN notice would be a good idea. Are there any requirements that clerks must have? -- how do you turn this on  18:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll give it a try, is there an "open jobs" queue?  MBisanz  talk 19:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As many of you may know, RFCU is undergoing a rather large merger that will soon make requirements for clerkship (as it is for ArbCom clerks), and for that reason before anyone volunteers I ask that they read over the requirements because within a few weeks they will be required to meet them. Okay, now that we have that out of the way. First off I am super excited to see some of our finest clerks promoted to CheckUsers, and know they will benefit the project, second I am super excited to get to train new clerks and get some fresh meet who are probably a bit more eager than some of the older clerks to do the more "fun" tasks. Before new clerks get off and running I ask that they read over the procedures page and make sure to ask questions about things they are un-clear about as the goal of clerks is to ensure the smooth operation of the page, not create more work or confusion for others. Also I ask that they take a few minutes to read over the current requirements and add their name to the list of active clerks. And lastly I ask that they review the Sockpuppet <-- sockpuppet template. These templates are the main reason we have clerks, they are complicated and there are far too many versions (something that is currently being worked on).
 * Alison, as for the advert on AN, I do not really think it is needed. 3-6 active clerks is about all we need currently, though once we merge on over to WP:SSP2, we will need more. Tiptoety  talk 19:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I am interested in clerking. I'll take a look around unless there are too many already.  Let me know.  —Wknight94 (talk) 03:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I generally clerk my own RFCU requests. That may help a bit, because I make a lot of them. Jehochman Talk 03:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Wknight, you are welcome to come and help us out, just make sure you read over the links I provided above and make sure that you meet the requirements. Jehochman, when ever I see a case you created pop up I know there will be very little for use clerks to do ;) You know you are always welcome to come and do the clerk thing too. Tiptoety  talk 14:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll try helping out - as long as people point out when I make a faux pas, regardless of magnitude. Grazie.  —Wknight94 (talk) 17:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * As a note, I will be considerably less active until summer 2009; this may impact slightly on the workload faced by the rest of the clerk team, as I do handle the occasional case. (Granted, Tiptoety takes most of the work now; this point is made simply for reference.) Anthøny   ✉  15:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest merging to SSP2 (fast!) before asking for more clerks, or they'll have to learn 2 processes in a very short timespan. -- lucasbfr  talk 17:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm still around and you can poke me if something needs attention. Tiptoety, how will the transition period be? Should current clerks get to go first to ensure a smooth transition? OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That would be wise, indeed. The only factor standing in the way of the RFCU ↔ SSP merger is ; I have pinged his user_talk, requesting a status update. If there's no response from that end and/or he is unavailable to complete the merger, the Clerks (background: Tiptoety has been very active active with the merger, and may be able to assist here) may have to push on with the merger. Anthøny   ✉  18:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC) Done.  Anthøny   ✉  18:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Now we have everyone on board, this should be easy and fairly quick. It will require some fine tuning by the clerks, and by existing and new checkusers, but most of the work is done in principle already, and should be able to finalize and fine tune fairly easily. FT2 (Talk 18:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I had thought about volunteering to be a clerk trainee; but decided to hold off for now for multiple reasons - including giving me a chance to better learn the new processes prior to joining. However, I still decided to monitor this page as well as some talk pages of those who were volunteering now, so that I could learn from what I see posted.

While watching, something that I saw posted at User talk:How do you turn this on confused me. That post states that "requirement for RFCU clerks is that they be administrators". But I see no mention of this in the current requirements, nor in the proposed requirements for the new process. The current requirements seems to only require that "clerks should be users who are in relatively good standing within the community, and are experienced with Wikipedia", and the new proposed requirements even mentions "Clerks (whether or not administrators) ..."

Can someone help clarify this? Is adminship a requirement; and if so, can the requirements be updated to clarify this point? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The clerking guide will be updated really soon, you can find a draft at User:Tiptoety/Checkuser clerks. All we ask for a clerk is to be experienced in WP processes (SSP, most abuse policies), in good standing and to have a good mind. We don't expect anyone to be perfect though ;). Being an admin is nice (you can act on the cases you close), but it is not a requirement as of today. -- lucasbfr  talk 18:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow! This page is getting more action in a 24 hour period than it has in 6 months :) Anyways, to address a few questions: Ohana asked about the merger process, and here is the answer. All clerks that have been active for at least 1 month and meet the SSP2 requirements (including CU approval) they will be clerks, then anyone with less than a months of experience will be able to request to be a clerk trainee from any of the newly appointed clerks. This is done so that we can ensure the people we will be placing in charge of the smooth operation of the page know what they are doing, and can educate/teach some of the newer clerks. To answer Barek's question, no. Adminship is not a current requirement, and will not be one once the merger takes place, but I will note not having the tools limits your activities. Tiptoety  talk 19:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, do you mean clerks who have been active clerks for 1 month? If not, I need to request to become a "clerk trainee" from the "newly appointed clerks"?  Who are they?  Sounds like maybe I should hang back a bit to wait for this transition, eh? —Wknight94 (talk) 19:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * (e/c)Read over User:Tiptoety/Checkuser clerks, it may help to clear a few things up. As you will see there will be "Trainee clerks" And "Clerks". The purpose of having trainee's is to ensure that perspective clerks have the correct knowledge base before we start letting them endorse or decline cases (note that SSP2 will rely much more on clerks and their responsibilities will be much greater). And yes, I mean clerks that have been active "clerks" for at least one month (here at RFCU) and if they have not been, they will need to become a "trainee clerk" by requesting to do so from a "clerk" who will then take them on and ensure they are properly trained. Right now we do not have "clerks" and "trainee clerks" (though this would be a great time to start this thing up... /me looks at FT2 and some other senior clerks) so you can choose to serve as a clerk right now, or wait until the merger has taken place and go through the formal process. Your call really. Tiptoety  talk 20:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Tiptoety can correct me if I'm wrong, but I gather there is a slightly expanded role for clerks here; with the merger of SSP and RFCU, not all cases on the page will require (or benefit from) checkuser, and the clerks will help by flagging cases for CU attention. Therefore, it will be helpful for the clerks to have a bit of experience with RFCU as far as what kinds of cases normally attract action and which are normally declined.  My personal feeling is that this should not deter people from volunteering to help out so long as they can tolerate gentle guidance if they make errors (flagging the wrong cases or denying CU attention where it is needed). As always, checkusers will make the final determination on which cases to run checks on based on the privacy policy and our own discretion, so the worst that can happen is that a clerk turns down a CU request that should have been flagged, leading to a delay in resolving the case.  This can best be addressed by having all the clerks keeping an eye on the whole page and not just focusing on new, unpatrolled cases, and communicating with each other.  Probably the most important clerk role, far more important than flagging cases for CU attention, is helping ordinary users who are bewildered by the new process (or indeed were bewildered by the old process) to get a fair hearing for their concerns, whether SSP or CU or both. (And the second most important task, at least to me, is clearing off closed cases and maintaining the archives in readily usable form.)  Thatcher 20:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Correct! Tiptoety  talk 20:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I view the designations of "clerk" and "trainee" to be a (probably) necessary evil. Ideally, no one who wanted to help would be discouraged from doing so, as long as they were reasonably correct in their interpretations of policy and use sound judgement.  I gather the process is about to become complicated, so some time may be required for helpers to become familiar with it.  As before, there may be people interested in the SSP aspect of the process but not the CU aspect, or CU but not SSP.  The critical thing is to make sure that good faith users who are having problems with suspected sockpuppets get the help they need. Thatcher 21:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I suspect a large part of the clerks' job will be explaining that checkuser is neither magic pixie dust or a fishing pole. Basically convincing people that a matter can be resolved at SSP2 without having to call in a checkuser and knowing when to defer a simple SSP-like case to the checkusers.  MBisanz  talk 21:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The following may hold true from the sounds: new clerk = old clerk + familiarity with closing (old) SSP requests. Sound about right?  Clerks will be denying access to checkusers - which used to happen at SSP to some extent - in addition to cleaning up the checkuser area of SSP2 as they did in old RFCU.  —Wknight94 (talk) 21:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And I just want to revisit Barek's question and express my views on whether non-admins can be clerks. Not being an admin does have some disadvantage (honestly speaking). Often socks create or recreate materials that will be deleted by an admin. Without access to deleted information, non-admins will not be able to view and determine if the accounts suspected are indeed related or not. OhanaUnitedTalk page 23:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Lucabfr managed fine as a non-admin, as did every other non-admin on the historical list. -- how do you turn this on  23:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm happy with the apparent consensus regarding adminship (it's potentially handy, but the bulk of clerk work really doesn't need it). As something of a side note, I've been working on User:Luna Santin/RfcuParser for a while, now; it's not terribly polished, currently, but it can save a lot of time archiving cases if you have Perl installed. If any of our clerks are interested in trying it out, or possibly maybe in taking over development, drop me a line. – Luna Santin  (talk) 10:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd actually relish a new bit of volunteer work around here - do you still need new clerks, and am I suitable? Fritzpoll (talk) 16:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, you get the last spot! Read over my first comment (in this thread) please! Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 16:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Another new checkuser icon?
If this is helpful, by all means use it, if not, toss it: Inprogress

-- Avi (talk) 21:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)

Neat idea, Avi. Anthøny  ✉  21:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, this will probably be useful in the odd case. The CheckUsers may well find it useful to have around.
 * Yes, would've been good in the FrostieJack case.  MBisanz  talk 21:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I like it and used it twice already. It lets everyone know a case is being worked and by whom, rather than sitting there languishing. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 11:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I just always said "in progress" and signed if I thought there was reason that someone might also start working. Does the icon buy anything over just doing that? (other than niftyness factor, placating Avi's crazed need for using as many graphics in comments as possible, and general insularity/iconoclasm? ... not that there's anything wrong with that! (those reasons, I mean) ) ++Lar: t/c 19:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * no... ++Lar: t/c 22:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)

Image copyvio uploads and socks
As documented in the User talk:DoriSmith/PolTXimgs project page, there has been an ongoing problem with uploads of copyright-violating images by various accounts, most of which are linked in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of PoliticianTexas and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of PoliticianTexas. Editors Uncia and DoriSmith have done quite a lot of work tracking and tagging these.

 Related discussions: 
 * in Wikipedia space:
 * Suspected sock puppets/PoliticianTexas
 * Requests for checkuser/Case/PoliticianTexas


 * in user space:
 * User talk:DoriSmith/PolTXimgs
 * User talk:DoriSmith/PoliticianTexas
 * User talk:DoriSmith/Archive 2
 * User talk:Athaenara/Archive 00

There seems to be some uncertainty about the best way to bring newly registered accounts engaging in the same activity to the attention of those who are best equipped to deal with it, whether with additions to existing sockpuppet reports and checkuser requests, and which ones, or both. There are quite a few anon IPs in the sock categories: wouldn't blocks on some of those slow down or stop the registration of new socks as old ones are blocked? (If my questions sound pretty clueless, it's because I am.)  — Athaenara  ✉  01:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There's a number of venues you might consider -- cross-posting is acceptable, as well. You could submit new requests/reports at SSP and RFCU, and may also find Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents helpful for quick responses (if posting there, it may be helpful to link prior case pages and incidents, for background). In cases where checkuser sees a high volume of users, some people prefer to use the "IP check" section, but I'd say go with whatever you're comfortable with -- if it gets to be an issue, it's easy enough to move the text to some other spot, anyway. Generally, I think AN/I->SSP->RFCU is a decent hierarchy, depending on how obvious a sockpuppet is, and how relevant technical investigation and/or discussion are going to be. – Luna Santin  (talk) 11:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the clarification. I posted here because one of the two sock-trackers had expressed some lack of confidence in the checkuser processes as more socks continued to proliferate.  If more show up, your reply here will be a good reference point.  — Athaenara  ✉  08:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * seems to be the latest one (there are literally dozens). — Athaenara ✉  07:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * See also WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents (current)* and WP:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive470 (past) for even more history on this case.
 * And I should probably admit that I'm the sock-tracker mentioned above by Athaenara who has lost confidence in the CU process—this job of weekly whack-a-mole is exactly why. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 01:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * (Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive479)* — Athaenara ✉  17:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The previous "current" AN/I report is in incident archive 479, linked above, while Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents was posted today.


 * Current SSP report: Suspected sock puppets/PoliticianTexas (2nd). — Athaenara  ✉  13:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Suspected sock puppets/PoliticianTexas (3rd). — Athaenara ✉  15:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * On AN/I ("More copyvio by User:LamyQ" including "Community ban for PoliticianTexas?" and "Created another new account" subsections) ten or more editors in good standing have expressly supported a community ban of PolTex and all socks.  Any pixiedust assistance in understanding exactly what steps should be taken to accomplish this would be appreciated there.  Thanks!  — Athaenara  ✉  15:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Over-boldness for a clerk wannabe?
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)
 * It does need archiving, that's all I know :-) -- how do you turn this on  13:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * My two pence: the removal seems fine, yes, although I generally avoid taking any action that could be considered a clerk acting as a CheckUser. If I have concerns, I will often annotate the case page documenting them, but making it clear I am simply commenting and not leaving a Clerk note or anything similar. If the CUs are happy to allow the clerks to be a little more liberal in taking obvious decisions, I'll go with the flow—indeed, it seems SSP2 will involve the clerks adopting such a liberal role—but for RFCU, I do make a point to defer to the CUs where a decision is their purview, rather than the clerks'. It's really down to the clerk himself/herself, I suppose; some characters are a little more up-front than others. :) Anthøny   ✉  17:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There is apparently a more up-front role for the clerks in the new process. The instructions need to say somewhere that the clerks are helpers but do not have the final say.  Editors who disagree with a clerk's decision should ask that the case be relisted or left for checkuser consideration.  Of course, this only applies to decisions that involve checkuser.  When clerks act as admins to investigate and block SSP cases without CU they act as normal admins and have the normal appeal processes.  This is likely to get complicated.  It will take some time to work out.  For example, if a clerk declines checkuser attention to an SSP case and then blocks based on behavior, it could be seen as abusive, even when it is not.  We will have to be cautious in the early days of the new process. Thatcher 17:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As each of these are there own subpages, liberal use of CU/SS talk page discussions would be helpful, I would think. -- Avi (talk) 17:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * To Thatcher's concerns, what might be useful would be a specific CU-only block log tag, a tag only applied by clerks after a positive public RFCU. Then it would be more clear that anything other than that is just a normal admin behavioral block.  MBisanz  talk 17:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You mean ? ;) I'm personally not using it (I feel that only CU should use it) But I'm using to mark the users I block when patrolling cases. --  lucasbfr  talk 09:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, MBisanz, don't we already have that? Tiptoety  talk 16:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ScienceApologist
FYI (CU opinion might be useful). -- lucasbfr  talk 09:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Cases have been deleted before when there was sufficient reason. Thatcher 12:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * A few cases have been deleted by the checkusers; there have not been MfDs before. Thatcher 13:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Removing the case has the effect of giving the user multiple second chances. The tactic of logging out to be snarky or to do extra reverts needs to be documented. They are on notice to be more careful now. Let's not erase the record, or there will have been no progress whatsoever. Jehochman Talk 13:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Got it. Thatcher 15:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)