The new rules at CheckUser demand a code letter. The code letters available *do not* include checking the identity of apparent socks being used to astroturf a POV. I have no problem with requiring credible evidence before asking for CheckUser but it does rather stymie the process of confirming sockpuppetry outside of closed votes.
Guy (JzG)
On 08/10/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
The new rules at CheckUser demand a code letter. The code letters available *do not* include checking the identity of apparent socks being used to astroturf a POV. I have no problem with requiring credible evidence before asking for CheckUser but it does rather stymie the process of confirming sockpuppetry outside of closed votes.
Wasn't discussed on checkuser-l, but I can fully understand Uninvited going ahead and setting it up that way. If you think as "requests for checkuser" as "requests for magic wiki pixie dust truth serum" you will get a better idea. (And the solution isn't more checkers.)
I've noted on [[WT:RFCU]] that it may or may not need its own code letter, as WP:ANI is a less than satisfactory place to send requests of that sort. Also cc'ing this to checkuser-l.
- d.
On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 20:20:17 +0100, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
The new rules at CheckUser demand a code letter. The code letters available *do not* include checking the identity of apparent socks being used to astroturf a POV. I have no problem with requiring credible evidence before asking for CheckUser but it does rather stymie the process of confirming sockpuppetry outside of closed votes.
Wasn't discussed on checkuser-l, but I can fully understand Uninvited going ahead and setting it up that way. If you think as "requests for checkuser" as "requests for magic wiki pixie dust truth serum" you will get a better idea. (And the solution isn't more checkers.)
I don't have any problem bringing along the correct type of shrubbery, but excluding astroturfing socks outside of !votes seems to be shooting ourselves in the foot; if anything, astroturfing a viewpoint in mainspace is *more* damaging to the project than it is in a !vote, especially since in a !vote such actions are usually pretty transparent.
Guy (JzG)
On 08/10/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
I don't have any problem bringing along the correct type of shrubbery, but excluding astroturfing socks outside of !votes seems to be shooting ourselves in the foot; if anything, astroturfing a viewpoint in mainspace is *more* damaging to the project than it is in a !vote, especially since in a !vote such actions are usually pretty transparent.
I think Uninvited is on this list ...
(<whisper>If you're a known not-batshit person, some checkers will listen to important requests</whisper>)
- d.
On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 23:19:22 +0100, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
(<whisper>If you're a known not-batshit person, some checkers will listen to important requests</whisper>)
I've only had one situation where what I thought was a reasonable request was turned down, and that was a user who was pleading innocence, and CheckUser would likely have cleared them. In the end the blocking admin and I agreed that an unblock was OK, but it would have been quicker and clearer with CheckUser. As to whether I am batshit or not, that rather depends on the phase of the moon...
The reason for the comment is that a good-faith editor has come to me for advice regarding apparent astroturfing by what look very much like socks of a non-banned editor. Remembering back to the Jason Gastrich case, we had several socks confirmed by CheckUser and blocked, and that formed an important part of the ArbCom case.
As stated before, I think it is wholly reasonable to require credible evidence of a case to be answered.
Guy (JzG)
On 08/10/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 23:19:22 +0100, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
(<whisper>If you're a known not-batshit person, some checkers will listen to important requests</whisper>)
I've only had one situation where what I thought was a reasonable request was turned down, and that was a user who was pleading innocence, and CheckUser would likely have cleared them. In the end the blocking admin and I agreed that an unblock was OK, but it would have been quicker and clearer with CheckUser. As to whether I am batshit or not, that rather depends on the phase of the moon... The reason for the comment is that a good-faith editor has come to me for advice regarding apparent astroturfing by what look very much like socks of a non-banned editor. Remembering back to the Jason Gastrich case, we had several socks confirmed by CheckUser and blocked, and that formed an important part of the ArbCom case. As stated before, I think it is wholly reasonable to require credible evidence of a case to be answered.
Oh, certainly. I won't add a new letter to the list myself as I'm not actually actively checking WP:RFCU (and have no intention of starting), but if someone who does could answer here (wikien-l) and/or on WT:RFCU, that would be good.
- d.