| Revision as of 03:30, 5 November 2023 editMz7 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators77,526 edits OneClickArchived "Should administrators be desysopped for undoing a checkuser block?" to Misplaced Pages talk:CheckUser/Archive 7← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:35, 5 November 2023 edit undoMz7 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators77,526 edits →CheckUser VRT Role Account: cmtNext edit → | ||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
| Best, ] (]) 11:52, 1 September 2023 (UTC) | Best, ] (]) 11:52, 1 September 2023 (UTC) | ||
| :This is certainly possible from a technical standpoint. The Arbitration Committee is the entity that owns the ] role account, and they could pretty easily spin up a similar one for the CheckUser VRT queue—if you would like to see this happen, the best approach might be to reach out to an arbitrator directly to ask if they could raise it with their colleagues. The only thing I would call out is that the CheckUser VRT queue is not very actively monitored, and not all checkusers have access to it. On the other hand, I do think having a role account for ] access could be useful for things like ] requests (probably the most common use of the queue), as it would definitively link the IPBE request with the requesting account. ] (]) 03:35, 5 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == The "contacting a checkuser" section. == | == The "contacting a checkuser" section. == | ||
Revision as of 03:35, 5 November 2023
 | The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Misplaced Pages. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic. | Shortcuts |
 | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Misplaced Pages:User access levels was copied or moved into Misplaced Pages:CheckUser with this edit on 10 January 2017. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
 Archives | |||||||
|
|||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
CheckUser VRT Role Account
Hi,
I’m not sure what would need to happen to set this up — or if it would be technically prohibitive — but I was wondering if it would be possible to set up a CheckUser role account, similar to User:Oversight, for the purpose of sending emails through Misplaced Pages to the CheckUser VRT queue.
My reason for asking this is because the email linked to my WP account is an anonymous one, which I can reply to emails sent to, but can’t initiate emails from that specific address directly (or at least, I don’t think I can). Therefore, if I sent an email from my email client to the CheckUser email address, it wouldn’t be able to be verified to my account; whereas one sent through the Misplaced Pages interface would be.
Best, A smart kitten (talk) 11:52, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
- This is certainly possible from a technical standpoint. The Arbitration Committee is the entity that owns the User:Oversight role account, and they could pretty easily spin up a similar one for the CheckUser VRT queue—if you would like to see this happen, the best approach might be to reach out to an arbitrator directly to ask if they could raise it with their colleagues. The only thing I would call out is that the CheckUser VRT queue is not very actively monitored, and not all checkusers have access to it. On the other hand, I do think having a role account for Special:EmailUser access could be useful for things like WP:IPBE requests (probably the most common use of the queue), as it would definitively link the IPBE request with the requesting account. Mz7 (talk) 03:35, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
The "contacting a checkuser" section.
Currently, it advises users to look at the "active users" list, which shows which user who happen to have CU bits have done literally anything lately, while Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Audit/Statistics shows who has been recently active as a CU. Should we replace and/or just add a link to the stats? Thoughts? Beeblebrox (talk) 18:51, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
- That makes sense to me. I'd go with prominently adding the stats, on the basis that more choice of information is good. -- zzuuzz 21:23, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
- I'd say both. Show the stats while letting them see who is currently active. Better to know that someone who has been using it frequently is around right now than know one or the other. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)