Backlog at "awaiting clerk approval"
Can we get this backlog cleared? If the report never makes to the people with checkuser power, they never get cleared. Is there something that people are waiting on?—Kww(talk) 14:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- If it's any consolation, I sometimes look through those, as well. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Did someone changed "pending close" section? OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- The subpage simply not transcluded anymore, because it was taking up too much space. The link is still there though. NW (Talk) 02:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
How can I clear myself of charges?
I've been tagged a "possible scibaby sockpuppet" in circumstances than make think the system is being abused. This is like "The Trial" by Kafka. Someone throws an accusation and I don't know who it is, what is it based on and how can I be cleared of charges. So someone please answer my question before this overzealous BOT archieves it again 78.131.137.50 (talk) 22:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
New cases
The SPI bot is down. Please list cases below so that clerks can list them on the main SPI page. Clerks, please strike cases after you have transcluded them. — Jake Wartenberg 05:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
New checkuser case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bruninho.— Satori Son 17:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)New sockpuppet case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PoliticianTexas, prepared by LadyofShalott and augmented by Uncia. --Uncia (talk) 04:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Why can't section headers be used for SPI
I'm wondering why the SPI pages can't use section headers?
It makes it very hard to add your evidence/defense when you have to edit the whole page (especially if you are at the end). I am just wondering why ";" has to be used instead? --stmrlbs|talk 01:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- I know that it seems rather annoying, but the way the transclusion system is set up, ";" has to be used, or else the entire page breaks. If you dislike posting with that format, simply make your post elsewhere, and ping a clerk to correctly format it onto the page; we will be happy to help. NW (Talk) 02:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- That is what I heard, that it "breaks the page". But I tried transclusion first with a page that I created with section headers, and then I tried transclusions of a fairly complex talk page with many sections. No problem. Here are a couple of examples:
- So.. what is broken? --stmrlbs|talk 03:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- Um, those pages don't actually have any content. NW (Talk) 03:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Why can't any editor simply check for sock puppet without having to show evidence?
After the spate of high profile sock puppets, include an arbitor and an editor who commented with multiple socks in numerous AFDs:
Why can't any editor simply check for sock puppet without having to show evidence? Why not make sock puppet checks routine and no big deal? As long as an IP address is involved, there is really no privacy involved.
I think trust in wikipedia is damaged without a more robust checkuser. I know myself and hundreds of other editors, are constantly wondering if an editor is a sock. Ikip (talk) 01:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- As checkusers, clerks, or simply interested editors, it's our obligation to protect the privacy of editors. Asking for evidence prevents many baseless claims of sockpuppetry. It also saves us time digging for evidence ourselves. Steve Crossin The clock is ticking.... 02:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)