Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/SSP-RFCU merger proposal

Procedural enquiry
At the present we have two different systems in the sock puppetry identification process: SSP (behavioural evidence), and RFCU (technical evidence). This merger seems to eliminate the behavioural evidence, or at least doesn't place as much focus on it, which I think needs to be change: behavioural evidence will always be vital.

I would like to enquire as to whether or not the system at the RFCU template should be amended, such that, when the reviewing administrator or clerk processes the request, he or she should be directed to, when endorsing, also review the request for behavioural evidence, almost "in parallel" to its waiting in the RFCU queue. Blocks or findings may then be undertaken; that can only speed up the CU's task, in that s/he will find it easier to locate the relevant evidence that links the checkuser as being necessary, or unnecessary (well, for certain code letters, anyway).

Thoughts? Anthøny 09:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You're still expecting users to replicate information at RFCU - a merge would reduce bureaucracy.--PhilKnight (talk) 10:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)