| Revision as of 15:23, 25 November 2013 editManul (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers8,647 edits →Checkuser field in SPI: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:04, 25 November 2013 edit undoReaper Eternal (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Checkusers, Administrators62,584 edits →Checkuser field in SPI: reNext edit → | ||
| Line 91: | Line 91: | ||
| Hi, I missed setting checkuser=yes in ]. Tumbleman had sleepers before, so I think checkuser would be helpful. Is there a reason why "checkuser=yes" is not the default? When there is ample evidence (as in the Philosophyfellow/Tumbleman case), why wouldn't checkuser be used? ] (]) 15:23, 25 November 2013 (UTC) | Hi, I missed setting checkuser=yes in ]. Tumbleman had sleepers before, so I think checkuser would be helpful. Is there a reason why "checkuser=yes" is not the default? When there is ample evidence (as in the Philosophyfellow/Tumbleman case), why wouldn't checkuser be used? ] (]) 15:23, 25 November 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :Checkuser is not enabled by default because many cases do not require it, or it cannot be used. If the last known sockpuppet has not edited for 90 days, checkuser data will have expired. Additionally, per the ], checkusers will not publicly connect an account with an IP address. If sockpuppetry is really blatantly obvious, checkusering the case is just an unnecessary waste of time. A checkuser investigation will not be run when the no <u>abusive</u> behavior has has occurred. (Indeed, the SPI itself should not be filed in that case.) | |||
| :In this case, I had alreday run a checkuser to look for other accounts, and I found none. This does not mean that none exist (he's proven himself to be good at hiding them), but merely that checkuser could not detect them. Thanks. ] (]) 20:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:04, 25 November 2013
 | Feel free to reverse my administrative actions; however, please let me know why you did it, especially if I made a mistake! |
|
Archive #1 (Oct 2010 to Nov 29, 2010) Archive #13 (Feb 1, 2012 to Mar 14, 2012) |
Testing...3...2...1....
Testing done! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Request to remove protection on article
Please remove the total page protection from Transdev York so its REDIRECT can be completed. Note: A broken redirect has been in place since January of 2013. Thanks for your help. GenQuest 21:37, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- Done. Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:32, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Apology gift of BACON
.jpg)
|
Have a Bacon Sundae! |
| Sorry about the mass-report on WP: AIV. Making sure users are properly warned is something I need to work on when reporting vandalism, even if it's blatantly obvious vandalism. Here's a bacon sundae to make up for my mistake. Admiral Caius (talk) 17:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC) |
- Thanks. Just please be careful in the future to not bite the newbies. A number of those edits were simple tests, which warrant a welcome and an encouragement to a sandbox, not an AIV report. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:32, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Another sock
Hello Reaper Eternal, just for the record, Wiki brah has apparently created another sock: Irish Pub Creeper (talk · contribs). Best, Toccata quarta (talk) 20:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Was soll daß heißt, "Wiki brah has apparently created another sock. . ."? Nein! Why must you hound this poor man like this? Ich heiße User:Techoquat nicht, oder? Irish Pub Creeper (talk) 20:58, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, if it is just for the record as you say, then it's all good brah. It's Friday! It's Friday in Miami, time to get the hot Jewish sluts out. Happy Thanksgiving! Irish Pub Creeper (talk) 20:59, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- So there is a connection between MaxBrowne and Technoquat? I actually think you are just trolling, which is something that you, after all, excel at. Toccata quarta (talk) 21:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
That is the point?
I want to deter that foul little fuckhead from coming back to wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.205.73.198 (talk • contribs)
- Since your purpose here is apparently only to drive off other contributors, I have blocked you from editing so that they can continue editing in peace. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:30, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 20 November 2013
- From the editor: The Signpost needs your help
- Featured content: Rockin' the featured pictures
- WikiProject report: Score! American football on Misplaced Pages
- Traffic report: Ill Winds
- Arbitration report: WMF opens the door for non-admin arbitrators
Chelsea Manning
Is extra protection needed? I see some people attempting to remove or add something that doesn't seem significant. --George Ho (talk) 00:22, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Checkuser field in SPI
Hi, I missed setting checkuser=yes in Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Tumbleman. Tumbleman had sleepers before, so I think checkuser would be helpful. Is there a reason why "checkuser=yes" is not the default? When there is ample evidence (as in the Philosophyfellow/Tumbleman case), why wouldn't checkuser be used? vzaak (talk) 15:23, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- Checkuser is not enabled by default because many cases do not require it, or it cannot be used. If the last known sockpuppet has not edited for 90 days, checkuser data will have expired. Additionally, per the WMF privacy policy, checkusers will not publicly connect an account with an IP address. If sockpuppetry is really blatantly obvious, checkusering the case is just an unnecessary waste of time. A checkuser investigation will not be run when the no abusive behavior has has occurred. (Indeed, the SPI itself should not be filed in that case.)
- In this case, I had alreday run a checkuser to look for other accounts, and I found none. This does not mean that none exist (he's proven himself to be good at hiding them), but merely that checkuser could not detect them. Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)