User:FT2/CU 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

General help	General issues • Site directory • Image & media copyright • Userpage help • New user help • Community assistance
Report abuse	Vandalism • Spam • Edit warring • Improper usernames • Open proxies • Sock puppets • Copyright violations • Long term abuse • ISP reporting
Request assistance	Editor assistance • Page protection • Checkuser • Oversight • Arbitration • Mediation: Formal / Informal • Requests for comment • Wikiquette alerts
Noticeboards	Administrators' • Incidents • ArbCom enforcement • Conflict of interest • Biographies • Fiction • Fringe theories • Original research • Neutral point of view • Reliable sources • Ethnic and cultural conflicts

The suspected sockpuppets page is where Wikipedians discuss if a fellow Wikipedian has violated Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts or are working in a problematic manner to a common agenda (known as "meat-puppetry"). If you believe a user is in violation of this policy and is using multiple accounts or IPs abusively, to manipulate discussions, or hide problematic edits from their main contributions, then this is the page to seek advice and resolution.

If a case needs it, a small number of users have access to server log data via the "CheckUser" tool, which can help in some cases. However to protect privacy, cases on this page are usually evaluated on the basis of behavioral evidence rather than CheckUser, unless there is good reason to believe Checkuser will give important information that is otherwise unavailable. Note that users can only request CheckUser, and only within the strict limits of this page. The actual decision rests with Checkusers themselves.

To file a concern about misuse of multiple accounts, or users acting collectively in an abusive manner, please provide details and evidence below. If you feel checkuser is needed, please read the following checkuser guidelines before deciding if it is applicable.

The guidelines page lists more information on requesting help for suspected abuse of multiple accounts, when Checkuser may be requested, and advice for those accused.

1 Page guidelines
2 Current cases
- 2.1 User:Example

[edit] Page guidelines

[edit] General

Please read the guideline page for information first. This covers the basics about acceptable and unacceptable conduct, multiple accounts and multiple users (sock and meat puppetry), and information for administrators patrolling this page.

It also covers when you may reasonably ask for CheckUser involvement and when it is likely to be declined, and advice for users accused of alleged sock-puppetry.

[edit] Highly controversial cases

In a small minority of cases, it can be useful to get an initial opinion on the merits of the case or its suggested handling, prior to posting a request on the public wiki.

This is highly unusual and exceptional; examples include allegations of administrative sock-puppetry, cases needing exceptional tact or care, cases where a high level of "drama" would be expected, or where there is a high degree of sensitivity even to a finding of no puppetry.

In such cases, users are strongly encouraged to exercise good judgement and if necessary ask any checkuser or any experienced administrator for guidance in private first. In extreme cases, notably suspicions of administrative misconduct or potentially very high sensitivity cases, then the Arbitration Committee may also be contacted ("arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org").

[edit] Checkuser actions

CheckUser is a tool to provide technical information from the Wikimedia servers that can provide evidence related to sockpuppetry allegations. It is only applicable under certain strict conditions, broadly:

The case needs such evidence (may be declined if considered "obvious", or not actually useful or necessary for the case)
The evidence may help prevent or reduce disruption to the wiki.
The request is backed by specific evidence sufficient to prevent concerns of "fishing"

Cases not meeting these, or not satisfying checkusers that a check is necessary, will be declined.

If you feel Checkuser evidence would be useful and appropriate, please see /Guidelines#Checkuser requests for more information on requesting CheckUser involvement. If you do not follow the guidelines for this, then your case will probably not be seen by Checkusers.

In brief, you will need to tag the case with a letter indicating the case needs review, and explain briefly how these criteria are met (if not obvious).

If a clerk or administrator patrolling the page feels the grounds are inadequate they will mark it as premature or declined.