Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Clerks/Noticeboard/Archive5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Declined requests

Some of these show "Declined", but no reason is given; there must be a reason, and editors can learn from them, --Deeper Black 10:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Not really, sometimes CU's will give reasons for declining, but most of the time is there's no contribution evidence linking the two accounts together, request that's on the edge of getting delisted (but doesn't), or was tagged with "additional info needed" and none was given. The only time CU's have to give a reason for doing a CU related action is when preforming the actual check (for privacy reasons). Of course, I'm a clerk, but I think that's how it works (if a CU wants to clarify, that'd be appreciated). Kwsn(Ni!) 23:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
This might be a concern, but this seems like something you might take up with the individual checkuser(s) responding to your request; you may not necessarily like the answer, but I'd find it hard to imagine a polite request for more information falling on deaf ears. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
You might want to have a flick through the Privacy Policy, by which CheckUsers are required to abide. Per that, they give as brief answers as possible, which might explain many of the reason-less Declined requests. In addition, they simply don't have a lot of time :) Anthøny 14:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Iantresman

Clerk assistance required: At Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Iantresman, I was asked to take it to Check User. But I couldn't figure out the directions. For instance, it says to put a code letter in the appropriate spot, but the link doesn't tell the spot, and the edit page below gives no hint what goes where, except that everything should go up above. I asked the administrator who sent me here but he hasn't been back. Art LaPella 22:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Resolved. Art LaPella 03:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Another "Have I done this properly?"

Resolved. Issue handled by Lar (talk · contribs). Anthøny 14:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

{{Clerk Request}}

I created this case for checkuser. [1]. I've not used this tool before. Can you ensure that I've done it properly? Because I cannot see the links to it on the main page. Mugunth 15:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It appears so :) the request has been handled (see here) by Lar (talk · contribs). Anthøny 10:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

How do I re-open a case?

Resolved. Anthøny 14:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I wish to reopen Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Concerned cynic for a specific check of Concerned cynic's apparent block evasion using User:132.181.160.42. I don't understand the instructions for reopening a checkuser case. --Pleasantville 15:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll take care of it. Kwsn (Ni!) 21:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

New listing format? ({{/Case/xxx}})

Hi, I was wondering why we shifted to this new listing format (instead of {{Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/xxx}}? This looks nicer in the code, but it unfortunately breaks VoA's script (I think that's why there are some hiccups at the moment on case archiving). I had a look at the script, but it's gonna be hard to make it use the "short syntax" (and I don't want to break everything, since many people use it). -- lucasbfr talk 10:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer the full version. Don't get me wrong, I'm not usually one for going with a longer method. However, for those of us who like to leave linked edit summaries (e.g., me ;), the full version is way easier. Not only that, staying with writing out the full page in the transclusion code eliminates all this need for script-changing, and in addition it maintains the decent readability of the RFCU main page... All I'm saying is, why change something that works fine? Anthøny 18:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah, tricky. Suppose I'll use the verbose form, then; absolute paths can be a bit more reliable for transclusion, anyhow. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Should I remove the IP address

Resolved. Issue handled by Jpgordon (talk · contribs). Anthøny 14:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I have submitted the Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kitia, but I'm not sure whether I have done the right thing to include an IP address apparently used by Kitia. Should I remove the IP from the request? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The case has been handled, and the IP you are enquiring about blocked as an open proxy. Hope this resolves the situation ;) Regards, Anthøny 14:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Help

Resolved. Issue handled by Alison (talk · contribs). Anthøny 14:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser#Can this be listed? –thedemonhog talk • edits 06:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It was answered there. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Question

Um, do the request have to have multiple usernames to check the main name against? Or can you just check one username and see what matches come up? .:Alex:. 08:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Checkuser is not for fishing expeditions. See Template:Fishing. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    • That'd be fishing. A CU request must have at least two names/IPs and a valid reason to warrant it, such as vote stacking, edit warring collusion, etc. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Case re-listing request

Resolved.

Alison has asked me to post a request here asking that the case Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ray andrew be re-listed and placed active again. Thanks Proctor spock (talk) 12:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Have a nice day. :) --Michael Billington (talk) 12:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

L.Wadsworth

A case filed against L.Wadsworth (talk · contribs) confirmed that he had violated 3RR on List of cities in Australia by population using 220.240.147.146 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log • checkip), however, neither have received any block of any sort. I'm not particularly sure of the length of block should be issued, so I would prefer that someone else take action on this one. Spebi 10:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked the IP for a bit; if you don't get a pretty quick response, here, you may be better off posting to WP:AN/I in the future, just for your own reference. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 12:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Yah, I figured after a couple of hours that I should've posted there rather than here, but I'll remember that for next time. Thanks anyway :) Spebi 22:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

New parser, new bugs

With the new parser, some templates might not be working as intended ({{rfcua}} was broken). Be wary when playing around, and if you archived some cases recently it might be a good idea to double check that the archiving worked as intended. -- lucasbfr talk 10:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

RFCU/SSP coordination

Hello dear hardworking RFCU clerks! Just thought you might like to know that over here, there's a pertinent SSP report I've linked to that contains many, many other usernames and IPs that would be relevant to the RFCU. I'm guessing they should be added to the list, but I'm not the one who made the report nor do I know who would be responsible for added users to the RFCU, and perhaps the evidence for some of the users is stronger than for others. Anyway it looks like quite a sockfarm expedition, happy spelunking! ;) ~Eliz81(C) 23:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll take care of it, thanks Eliz. Keilana|Parlez ici 23:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Ha! So it's been you who's been filling up RFCU today!! I might have known :) - Alison ❤ 00:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Not sure how to proceed, seeking guidance

A user with a somewhat problematic history, User:GabrielVelasquez, has recently had a new account, User:Dr Henry Draper, appear to seemingly support his opinions regarding what may well be unreliable sources at the Gliese 581 page as reported at Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#New problematic user. Also, there has recently been activity from User:142.132.6.8 which seems to not only have similar opinions to Gabriel, but even use much of the same language and display some of the same errors in opinion regarding the obligations of admins, specifically myself. Is there any way to see if they all are, in fact, related? Yes, I am a party to a criticism being leveled by the party in question at Talk:Nontrinitarianism, and freely admit that. If that proves to be an impediment on the basis of this request, I have no objections to being told as much. John Carter (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If you believe you have legitimate reason to believe they are related then you may file a case. A checkuser will either take the case or decline it based on the nature of your evidence. Be sure and note the disruptions caused by the sock account. -JodyB talk 15:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
You could also file at WP:SSP, filing that and RFCU is warranted in this case I feel. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser requests with sensitive or confidential information

Is there a process in place for filing a checkuser request that contains sensitive or confidential information? I can see concerns operating in both directions: requests that contain personal data, and requests that might expose gaps or limitations in the Checkuser process. (While 'security through obscurity' is bad yadda yadda yadda..., sometimes one might prefer not to hand a sockpuppeteer all the keys to the kingdom.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is any such process. As you know, transparency is highly valued and actions taken based upon confidential information would certainly be challenged and frowned upon. You could email a checkuser with your information or better yet, a member of the arbitration committee and let them decide. But to answer you question, there is no such procedure that I am aware of. -JodyB talk 17:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, that's not quite right. RFCU is a convenience; checkuser operators often receive and fulfill confidential requests, with confidential information, for various reasons, including wishing to avoid embarrassing other users. I'd venture that more checkuser analyses are done without RFCU than with. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Are there any Checkusers who have specifically expressed an interest in receiving such requests? (If so, do we have a list of them on-wiki somewhere, or a mailing list to which such requests ought to be sent?) I'm apt to put together such a request in the next little while, and I'd prefer to be as minimally-annoying as possible. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Nope. The only formal ways to request a CU are via RFCU, or on the appropriate page during the course of an arbitration. If you want to be minimally annoying, just start by emailing a checkuser asking if they've got time to help you out, without a lot of details; for example, if you sent me one today, I'd say "Sorry, I'm going to be pretty busy for the next couple of days." I don't know any checkusers who have said they won't take private requests. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I suppose it might be worth a try to e-mail the request to checkuser-l@lists.wikimedia.org, a private mailing list only checkusers can subscribe to. It hasn't been setup solely for making these types of requests, although it might be a bit easier to contact checkusers centrally as opposed to sending them individual e-mail requests. Spebi 07:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
My point is there is no process for handling confidential information. That many checkuser requests are informal is not my point. As for me personally, I think the process of centrally posting the request serves the important purpose of transparency. It seems to me that an editor should always know if his privacy has been unveiled. Again, though, that is just my thinking. But there is no process for confidential requests and information. I would suggest posting the request in the usual manner. You do not have to tell everything just enough to justify the check. -JodyB talk 13:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for relisting 2008FromKawasaki

Checkuser looked at the case and I added some information regarding that during her break, so I want it to be re-checked. They're targeting me and even begun impersonating me (exactly copying my comment to others and using open proxies and similar account name such as Applletree (talk · contribs). Please relist it to the open case. Thanks --Appletrees (talk) 08:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is the IP check section duplicated?

Both as a section on the main page Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser#Requests_for_IP_check and as a sub-page of it Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/IP check? Both contain the same information. MickMacNee (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

In fact the sub page is transcluded into the main page to remind Checkusers they also need to do that one. :) -- lucasbfr talk 09:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

RFCU and SSP

Just a note, if a certain bunch of users have been confirmed to be sockpuppets by checkuser, the SSP case should be closed as well. I can see a bunch of open cases listed on SSP right now that have been confirmed by Checkuser that need to be closed. Cheers, Spebi 06:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Requests for checkuser

The instructions throughout the Requests for checkuser process are confusing, especially in the instances of repeat offenders. At some point, can someone review the instructions with an eye open to ease of use? Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 14:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC) (moved from my talk page. I've been meaning to sort this but got kinda busy - Alison ❤ 18:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC))

I too think it is quite confusing and have been working on other alternate methods in some of my subpage sandboxes. Perhaps a new set of instructions could be proposed and we could request input from others before making it live, to ensure that it is less confusing? Spebi 05:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd be happy to give a hand, but I fear the main problem are the instructions substed in the cases, and that'll be a pain to tweak. -- lucasbfr talk 13:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Time needed for case review and results?

I don't mean to sound impatient or ungrateful, as we are all just volunteers for this project after all, but how long does it normally take to process a case? I posted Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Eliko‎ twelve days ago, and after a full week of zero outside commentary, I posted Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Eliko‎, which has also been sitting unexamined for five days. If I need to adjust the request as it is non-compliant with the expected format, please let me know, and I will make the changes. If there is any other reason it remains idle, it would be good to know what I need to do. Thanks — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is extremely verbose and it looks like it is disputed. A case might take days if it is not simple, and CU have very limited time. -- lucasbfr talk 13:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Does my request need simplification? The verbosity is mostly the response of the alleged puppeteer, I think. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Beh-nam

I placed a request there three days ago. I was wondering if anyone was looking into it or if it had slipped through the cracks. Kingturtle (talk) 11:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Folding

We've had this noticeboard for a long time, definitely, but it hasn't been getting traffic in recent memory -- I count about 13 threads this year, most short or potentially overlooked. Should we consider folding this noticeboard into Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser? Given reforms to the clerking system to make it less private, the low traffic rate here which seems to risk ignored threads, and the extra pages which seem potentially confusing to users in need of help, I think we may be better off providing one clear forum for discussion, rather than two nebulous ones. Thoughts? – Luna Santin (talk) 00:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Agreed, I couldn't even remember why it was in my watchlist. MickMacNee (talk) 02:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Disagree. I only just discovered this Noticeboard a few days ago, and I *needed* it. Please keep it alive. Kingturtle (talk) 18:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
If you've only recently found it, doesn't that suggest it's too hard to find? – Luna Santin (talk) 08:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I recently added it to Template:Editabuselinks so it will be easier for editors to know about. Kingturtle (talk) 10:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I personally support Luna's proposal—as he states, we're very low traffic here, and somewhat redundant. There is very little co-ordination that goes on here (which is presumably the point of a noticeboard, if my experience at WP:AC/CN is anything to go by), and most threads are either, discussion of the checkuser process itself, or other enquiries suited to a talk page. Indeed, ever since the clerk role was "opened up" a year-or-so back, the need for co-ordination between the clerks has become next-to-zero. With regards to Kingturtle's concerns—the noticeboard isn't going anywhere; you'll simply be able to post your comments at a talk page, rather than on a noticeboard. In fact, the system after Luna's suggestion has been implemented will assist you even more, as there will be one, central discussion medium, meaning your comments will be addressed with more efficiency. Anthøny 21:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/NisarKand

I posted a request there on 13 March 2008. Is anyone looking into this? There has been no response so far. Kingturtle (talk) 03:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a clerk, but since the CheckUser result is "likely", and that the behavior matches as well, I'm going to go ahead and block if there are no objections... Khoikhoi 05:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Beh-nam

There is evidence being presented regarding new sock allegations for Beh-nam. Please assist. Thanks! Kingturtle (talk) 21:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

This one's Y Done - Alison ❤ 10:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Wakedream / Sciabby

Now merging. Microchip 08 09:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. Could one of the more experienced clerks check what I have done? Is it right? Microchip 08 10:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

request for checkuser of IP address to avoid collateral damage

Look at this page history: [2] An anonymous user with IP 192.136.15.130 is repeatedly vandalizing the article, removing specific content and adding irrelevant biblical citations. The guidelines for blocking suggests that IP adresses should not be blocked without a checkuser to see if legitimate users might be affected too. This doesn't fall within the request for checkuser guidelines I think, and the block guidelines says to "ask a user with checkuser access", and I don't know any such user. So, can somebody check? I believe a block is warranted.--AkselGerner (talk) 23:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The IP address is owned by a major corporation so it's likely to be a gateway with a bunch of users behind it. I've not run a checkuser, but note that if the anon editor is causing repeated vandalism, it's okay for an admin to block the IP for a while with "Anonymous-only" set. This will allow the "hidden" logged-in users to continue without a problem - Alison ❤ 01:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
That would be a great relief to the diligent clean-up crew... can it be done? BTW that's now four reverts in the last eight hours, that qualifies anyway doesn't it?--AkselGerner (talk) 20:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

User :David matthews [3]

The user appears to be sock-puppet of [User:90.196.3.244][4]. Their behaviour pattern is same.

He is vandalising Sikh related articles[5]

List of sourced material reversions by anonymus ip address in a few hours period. [User:90.196.3.244] [6][7] Ajjay (talk) 05:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

You might want to refer this to the Suspected Sockpuppets Noticeboard. Make sure to provide additional diffs and extend the report to include more users where applicable. Rudget. 14:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)