Misplaced Pages

:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/CheckUser criteria - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Luk (talk | contribs) at 16:26, 29 January 2009 (moved Misplaced Pages:Requests for sockpuppet investigation/SPI/Checkuser criteria and letters to Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Checkuser criteria and letters over redirect). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 16:26, 29 January 2009 by Luk (talk | contribs) (moved Misplaced Pages:Requests for sockpuppet investigation/SPI/Checkuser criteria and letters to Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Checkuser criteria and letters over redirect)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
When it might be appropriate to request Checkuser (including code letters)
Code
letter
Situation Supporting evidence required
A Evasion of bans or other remedies issued by the arbitration committee (closed cases only) Link to the closed case and evidence the user seems to be the banned party.
B Ongoing, serious pattern vandalism involving dozens of incidents Relevant diffs.
C Vote fraud for a closed vote where the possible sockpuppet votes affect the outcome Link to the closed vote.
D 3RR violation using socks Links to four or more diffs showing the 3RR violation.
E Evasion of community-based bans or blocks Link to the block log of the original account, and evidence the user seems to be the banned or blocked party.
F Request doesn't fit any of the criteria but you believe a check is warranted anyway Brief summary of the situation, links to further discussions, and supporting diffs.
 
When it is usually not appropriate to request CheckUser, although exceptions may exist
Situation Solution
Obvious, disruptive sock puppet Block. No checkuser is necessary.
Disruptive "throwaway" account used only for a few edits Block. No checkuser is necessary.
Checkuser on yourself to "prove your innocence" Such requests are not accepted. Please do not ask.
Question about a possible sock puppet related to an open arbitration case Request checkuser on the arbitration case pages.
Vote fraud on ongoing vote In most cases, wait until vote closes before listing. For exceptional high profile debates where possible disruption may need quick attention, note the concern at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents to draw it to administrator information.
Vote fraud where the possible sockpuppet votes do not affect the outcome of the vote List on Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, or request examination without CheckUser.
Suspected "good hand bad hand" use to avoid scrutiny Request sock investigation only initially, in most cases. Depends upon severity.
Suspected administrator sockpuppetry or multiple account abuse In general this should be reported to the Arbitration Committee and not posted on the wiki. Reason: - if an administrator were indeed abusing their access then this is an Arbitration Committee concern. The user's admin flag may need to be summarily withdrawn without notice in serious cases, if proven.
Other disruption of articles List on Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, or list here with a question whether checkuser should be requested.
Open proxy where you already know the IP address List on Misplaced Pages:WikiProject on open proxies.
You want access to the checkuser tool yourself This is not the page to request access. Please see Misplaced Pages:CheckUser for more.