ClueBot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 1 discussion to Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Archives/Archive21. (BOT) |
→SPI for editor that lacks competence: new section |
||
Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
:I started to make a bot years ago to help with this issue, but never got around to actually doing it. But I did add some sort of system where the archives were archived. I'll do that when I'm home. -- [[User talk:DeltaQuad|<span style="color:white;background-color:#8A2DB8"><b>Amanda</b></span>]] <small>[[User:DeltaQuad|(aka DQ)]]</small> 22:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC) |
:I started to make a bot years ago to help with this issue, but never got around to actually doing it. But I did add some sort of system where the archives were archived. I'll do that when I'm home. -- [[User talk:DeltaQuad|<span style="color:white;background-color:#8A2DB8"><b>Amanda</b></span>]] <small>[[User:DeltaQuad|(aka DQ)]]</small> 22:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC) |
||
::Thank you both.<br /> — [[User:Berean Hunter|<span style="font-family:High Tower Text;color:#0000ff;font-weight:900;">Berean Hunter</span>]] [[User talk :Berean Hunter|<span style="font-family:High Tower Text;color:#0000ff;font-weight:900;">(talk)</span>]] 23:09, 25 March 2019 (UTC) |
::Thank you both.<br /> — [[User:Berean Hunter|<span style="font-family:High Tower Text;color:#0000ff;font-weight:900;">Berean Hunter</span>]] [[User talk :Berean Hunter|<span style="font-family:High Tower Text;color:#0000ff;font-weight:900;">(talk)</span>]] 23:09, 25 March 2019 (UTC) |
||
== SPI for editor that lacks competence == |
|||
This might be a silly question, but should I create an SPI if an editor is [[WP:INCOMPETENT|incompetent]] (both old and new accounts have the same editing pattern) and most likely is not aware of certain policies? I am sure it is the same person just looking that their nicknames are almost the same, their user pages have the exactly same information, and their editing habits (horrible grammar, which does not make any sense, not using edit summaries, among other things) are the same. – [[User:Sabbatino|Sabbatino]] ([[User talk:Sabbatino|talk]]) 10:16, 26 March 2019 (UTC) |
Revision as of 10:16, 26 March 2019
Erm...
What sort of evidence is required for an SPI to be instigated against accounts? Does the evidence have to be overwhelming, or could an editor request someone take a look at something that just looks suspicious? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- The required evidence to open a case is somewhere below "overwhelming" and somewhere above "both of these accounts reverted me". If unsure you can contact the functionaries via email, or ask for a clerk on IRC. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- The standard is generally that you present sufficient evidence (in the form of diffs) that two accounts are more likely than not operated by the same person. As Someguy implies, it can be a mushy standard, but, in my view, it should be more than mere suspicion.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:36, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks. My understanding of the IRC page is that it is frowned upon to use a discussion there as a basis for on-wiki activity. If I contact the functionaries, would not the same apply? And would I have to use my offline identity? Maybe I should just open a case and see if it gets dismissed.... PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- I wouldn't contact the functionary list. That would be something you might do if you had evidence that you did not want to share publicly. I can't speak for IRC as I don't use it. If you have evidence of the kind I described above, I would simply file a report at SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, that. I was never suggesting to hold the investigation via email or IRC. Just to ask someone in private, "should I open a case?" That said, you're not going to get pilloried for making a mistake. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- I think for now I'll monitor the situation and see if anything more demonstrable emerges. Thankyou for your replies. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 01:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, that. I was never suggesting to hold the investigation via email or IRC. Just to ask someone in private, "should I open a case?" That said, you're not going to get pilloried for making a mistake. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- I wouldn't contact the functionary list. That would be something you might do if you had evidence that you did not want to share publicly. I can't speak for IRC as I don't use it. If you have evidence of the kind I described above, I would simply file a report at SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks. My understanding of the IRC page is that it is frowned upon to use a discussion there as a basis for on-wiki activity. If I contact the functionaries, would not the same apply? And would I have to use my offline identity? Maybe I should just open a case and see if it gets dismissed.... PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Whois errors
I'm getting "Error 500, Internal server error" when trying to do whois lookups and it is unusable. Should an alternate be placed in the template? Example.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 12:16, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- According to the tool's page, it is maintained by Whym. If they don't see/respond to this, I'll contact them directly. —DoRD (talk) 13:08, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- I also left them a message on Commons, where they're an admin and where they've edited most recently. In the meantime, I guess we're stuck with something like Robtex. —DoRD (talk) 13:39, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- My guess would be an update to Labs infrastructure broke it. I'll see if I can find anything. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 15:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Amanda prefers Domain tools IIRC. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:09, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Appears to be fixed now. SQLQuery me! 21:43, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you very much.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 23:09, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Templates not showing in archive
I see a good number of "Template:checkuser" and other templates that aren't transcluding. The breaking point seems to be here. Is the archive simply too large to handle the transclusions?
— Berean Hunter (talk) 22:38, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Berean Hunter: That page is in Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded - so that is probably why: it's just too big of an SPI archive. --DannyS712 (talk) 22:43, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- I started to make a bot years ago to help with this issue, but never got around to actually doing it. But I did add some sort of system where the archives were archived. I'll do that when I'm home. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 22:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you both.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 23:09, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you both.
SPI for editor that lacks competence
This might be a silly question, but should I create an SPI if an editor is incompetent (both old and new accounts have the same editing pattern) and most likely is not aware of certain policies? I am sure it is the same person just looking that their nicknames are almost the same, their user pages have the exactly same information, and their editing habits (horrible grammar, which does not make any sense, not using edit summaries, among other things) are the same. – Sabbatino (talk) 10:16, 26 March 2019 (UTC)