Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser

Regarding automatic archival, I think it is a bad idea. New requests are put at the top and judging from the archives they are archived this way also. If we use automatic archival, the bot will put old requests at the bottom of the archive page, throwing everything out of whack. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 00:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New request at the top is not the same as old req. at the bottom? --Eptalon (talk) 00:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it could work if you start it at a new archive. But from archive6 onwards old requests would start at the top and work toward newer ones, while archive5 and before would be the opposite. But I don't guess that's too big of a deal. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 00:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm....I just ran the archiving script from my bot and it doesn't archive it. It Probably treats the Current requests section as one thread so therefore will not archive it. Looks like we will have to do it manually. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 00:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think there should be a higher threshold of "proof" in requesting a checkuser. I didn't see any diffs that convinced me that one should be done for the one that was just done. Kansan (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I think that often times, the threshold for carrying out checks on Simple Wikipedia is too low. We should be asking for more evidence before carrying out our checks, in my opinion. Either way (talk) 23:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, thanks for bringing this up, Kansan. Lauryn (u • t • c) 23:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I assume this is what you're talking about as the recent one. There should have been evidence presented, through diffs, that justify why a check needed to be carried out which I don't see there. Either way (talk) 23:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another issue is that it was revealed that one of the two users checked had no other accounts associated with their IP address, which seems to imply that the other one did. That shouldn't be public knowledge IMO. My suggestion is that we should post some more information on the main project page for this saying exactly what is required for a checkuser (i.e. specific diffs), and what reasons are good reasons. It kind of already goes into that by saying that it shouldn't be used for political reasons, etc., but I'd recommend it be clearer. Kansan (talk) 23:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I only check if there's high evidence of socking. I look at their behavior first, and if I think it's a very good chance (duck based also), I check and confirm. That's just me though.--Bsadowski1^{(Talk|Changes)} 23:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there; I ran the check in question. I ran the checks on both users (both ways, mapping users to IPs, and IPs to users); note that I have little interest in what user maps to what IPs, and I will porbably have fogotten the IPs in about a day. The username cited was that of a known vandal; doing a CU (which I officially professed to, a thing which I do not need to do) allowed to clear one of the users of the accusation. As to the other user, it revealed information that requires acting upon; this requires further checks, which I will not do, unless they are shown to be necessary. --Eptalon (talk) 00:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Generally I don't see a big problem with Eptalon's decision here, but personally I'm more in Bsadowski's camp, checking out similar behaviour etc before performing the check. I also assess whether the Wikipedia is in imminent danger of serial vandalism. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please fix the "New request" button because it is broken. Clicking it will make so the page goes to editing mode and without preloaded things. Can someone please fix the button so it works please 😄 --90.224.197.91 (talk) 20:20, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to have always been this way. A preloaded template could be created, however I don't think that's necessary, as starting a checkuser request is not that complicated. --Ferien (talk) 22:27, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could a CU / clerk pop by and archive the cleared requests. It may be best for a CU to do it as they could better verify that the requests are completed before archiving. Pure Evil (talk) 21:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

am i able to report a stock puppet on en.wiki here?

Irtapil (talk) 06:52, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator observation) This is a place to report simplewiki incidents. We have nothing to do with enwiki incidents unless we have local permissions over there. MathXplore (talk) 07:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok thanks, that pretty much answers it. Irtapil (talk) 14:24, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"IP" is used without explanation. "IP" is neither Simple English nor in the lexicon of the average English speaker/reader. Kdammers (talk) 18:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is currently open at Wikipedia:Simple_talk#Automatic_archiving_for_WP:RFCU (Special:Diff/9810021). MathXplore (talk) 00:30, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]