Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Suggested final name

As it is bold in the first line of the lead text, I suggest Wikipedia:Sock puppetry investigation. - LA @ 19:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

That sounds fine to me. Tiptoety talk 20:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Just trying to help with the small stuff. - LA @ 20:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Another thought, what about the meat puppets? Wikipedia:Puppetry investigation instead?

No, meat puppetry falls under WP:SOCK, I mean meat puppet cases are currently handeled at SSP. Tiptoety talk 03:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

On sections

Currently I see these operational sections:

RFCU
  • Outstanding requests
  • Declined requests
  • Completed requests
  • Requests for IP check
  • Non-compliant requests
SSP
  • Open cases
SSP2
  • Requests pending clerk or checkuser approval
  • Open requests for checkusers
  • Open suspected sockpuppet requests

Looks like the current RFCU paradigm is being applied in favor of SSP's, which is fine if that's the way we want to go, but I was thinking we should discuss our model for SSP2, some.

First off: it's not necessarily clear, intuitively, where a new request should go; are all new requests considered checkuser requests? We can change instructions and headings, but I'm not sure if that goes far enough. I'm actually tentatively in favor of doing away with the section model, and just going with open cases as SSP currently does; anything else seems to create an inordinate amount of busy-work fiddling with transclusions every time a page changes state, presents confusing barriers to users submitting or following requests, and simply doesn't seem realistic given the potentially large merged case load SSP2 would be dealing with.

Clearly, however, we do need some organization beyond that. What else could we use? Categories. One example scheme:

The categories could be populated by some intuitive status template, possibly inspired by {{RFPP}} or {{rfcu box}}. While a full view of the situation would still be easy enough to get to, from the SSP2 front page, this scheme would allow checkusers and clerks to find and respond to relevant requests in a hurry, when needed. One edit will intuitively update a page's status across the board, without any need to spend further edits updating its transclusions. Users interested in a specific request will need to watch only that one subpage. The completed/declined categories, while not exactly the meat of this request, could potentially facilitate or replace our regularly backlogged archival methods.

This does bring up the question of what to do with IP checks. Should they be placed on subpages and treated like other requests, or do we still need a distinct IP check section/subpage? I'd be fine with the latter, I suppose.

So. Thoughts? – Luna Santin (talk) 07:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this (SSP2) is going to replace both SSP and RFCU and bring them both under one roof so to speak. - LA (T) 07:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes. The devil is in the details, as they say -- the specifics of the merger remain in flux, hence this thread. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay, here is the deal. I have spoken with FT2 in quite a bit of detail about how this whole process is going to work, and from what I understand there is really no other way than doing it this way...seeing as this page will be dealing with lots of private information and must ensure that it is set up to allow other means of dealing with sock cases than just CheckUser. I recommend emailing FT2 as I know he has a good reason why he has it this way. Tiptoety talk 23:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
What kind of private information? From what I understand this is just about merging the processes of SSP and RFCU into one entity, hence my very first question. This has to be discussed on wiki. - LA (T) 05:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Erm, all RFCU deals with private information (IP's, linking accounts to others, area of where to accounts are located). Take a look at the privacy policy. ;) Tiptoety talk 15:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
The thing is is that this page discusses the merging of the two processes currently in place, but no cases will be decided here until the new process is up and running. The process has to be discussed first, in the open, before a single case can be brought under the new process. Let's get this process finalized first. - LA (T) 18:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
It would be best if any objections were a tad more specific, and posted on-wiki, I think; private information itself is best kept private, indeed, but concerns about doing so need not be. One thing I may have neglected to mention, this proposed scheme does not assume all new requests are checkuser requests: they'd only be added into the categories by hand. The procedural differences are superficial; instead of shuffling pages around sections, we'd be shuffling them around categories. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay, but here is the deal. The CheckUsers want there to be a page where they can see all the requests (SSP cases and RFCU cases) to make sure that a clerk has not made a mistake denying a request for CheckUser attention. The only way I can see that working is by having all the requests on one page opposes to being in separate cats. Tiptoety talk 01:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
We'd still have all requests on one page, with this proposal, just as they are in the current SSP model. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Puppet master = Case name, One case for SSP and CU

In the updated process...

  1. The puppet master should always match the case name so there should be no reason for any template to have a seperate parameter for a case name. All current misnamed cases should be moved to the correct puppet master.
  2. There should only ever be one case. If the investigation needs a checkuser, put the case in a category for checkuser.

Account Z is accused of sock puppetry with Account 1, Account 2, and Account 3 as puppets.

Wikipedia:Sock puppet investigations/Account Z is created.

Account A is found to be the puppet master of Account Z.

Wikipedia:Sock puppet investigations/Account Z is moved to Wikipedia:Sock puppet investigations/Account A.
Account Z is now listed amongst the other puppets.
The Puppet templates on Account 1, Account 2, and Account 3 are updated to the correct puppet master.

Account A has other puppets and requires a check user.

Wikipedia:Sock puppet investigations/Account A is put into the Category:Requests for checkuser.

So, when adding the Puppet template:

{{Puppet|<Puppet master>|<status>}} (I will have to look into the current template.)

Status will be either suspected or confirmed. Since the case name will always match the ultimate puppet master, there will never need to be a seperate parameter for a case name.

At least, that is the way I think it should be done. - LA (T) 19:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Depending on which template(s) you're looking at, {{rfcu box}} exhibits unexpected behavior unless it gets the case name as a parameter; once a subpage is transcluded to the main page, all {{PAGENAME}} and similar variables will return the name of the main page, not the subpage. Similar issues aren't quite as easy as they look, at first glance. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
All current templates in use will be deleted and the new template suite will take their place for this new process. If necessary, the old templates will be subst: in special situations. This new process should make things a lot easier for some and hopefully saner. - LA (T) 18:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser/SSP

I'm more around now. Some brief background for those who missed out the background:

RFCU/SSP were agreed as to be merged a while back (I couldn't do it at the time due to hardware issues and Poetlister). The basic point is to avoid duplication, and use "the best of both". Mainly, a good easy archiving system, and good easy case pages and case management.

It'll work well, but best done step by step. The first step will be to get SSP into a suitable new design suitable for going forward. That's a simple redesign of the section's pages. Once that's done, and bedded in and we're all used to it and it works smoothly, then merging in RFCU is quite trivial and almost won't be noticed.

The main issue is to ensure when SSP is redesigned, it's the best structure we can find - it supports the things we want to focus on, is easy to follow in messy cases, the instructions are simple and easy, and case management almost "flows naturally and easily".

A few examples of helpful features seen in SSP, RFCU, or similar pages, include -- good archiving... easy case listing/updating... quick and simple templates and instructions... appropriate use of collapse boxes... all cases related to a given sock user on one page for ease of reference.

Most of this is figured out in principle, but in firming up the details, extra eyeballs by the entire CU and clerks team will help a lot. Also now we have a full team, let's recheck it as a consensus matter, each page used, before going "live".


To start it going, some quick questions for clerk/cu straw poll:

1. Name of merged section
What should the combined section be called? Possible options -- Suspected sock puppets (SSP), Sock puppet investigation (SPI)? Sock puppet inquiry (SPI)? Sock check (SC/SPC)? Any preference? Or something else? The aim would be to de-emphasize it as being a "punitive" place for sanctions, and more "somewhere you go if you have a sock/multiple account/misuse of accounts concern" to ask for help on, which might be valid or not.
  • SPI sounds like a good idea to me, and then we can also just redirect RFCU and SSP to it to avoid confusion. Tiptoety talk 21:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • SPI as not all will need CU checks. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • No opinion. Thatcher 23:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • SPI seems the most reasonable title, for what it's worth. Anthøny ✉ 17:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I like SPI, but only as "sockpupet investigations". I dislike "sockpuppet inquiry" as I would naturally write it "sockpuppet enquiry". I am aware Fowler disagrees! "Investigations" seems the most accurate name. Sam Korn (smoddy) 23:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Just to note WP:SPI is already taken by the "spider" wiki-project. Tiptoety talk 18:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
2. Archive page design
Does Wikipedia:SSP2/Closed look helpful as an archive format? Can it be improved? Are the instructions good? Can we discuss that page on its talk page, with a view to finalizing one easy page, so we have a good archive index for all cases.
  • Maybe if there was a way to get a bot, it might help. Any thoughts? Tiptoety talk 21:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Def want a bot. 22:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Reasonable design. Will multiple cases be listed multiple times, or only the most recent? Thatcher 23:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Multiple. Easiest to do, and also page search (CTRL-F) will work well to search the archive index for all cases about any given user. It also means we don't have to edit past matters in order to close a present case, it's a simple "append". The case index functions as a sort of "quick reference guide". But in any event, all cases of a given sock-user, will be listed on the same case page. FT2 (Talk | email) 00:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd like to see the services of a bot coder solicited, with a view to having an SPI archive bot arriving pretty soon. Until then, however, the current system (see: WP:Requests for checkuser/Case)—and indeed the example archive currently on WP:SSP2—seems fine to me. Anthøny ✉ 17:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Looks a reasonable procedure. I'd also like to see a mockup of the presentation of the main page. What would be the bot's function? Sam Korn (smoddy) 23:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Presumably to automate closes - that is, to check the case page and add "well known" closing templates, to delist, and to add to the index of cases. Basically, to check if these can be done and either do them, or tell the clerk there's something non-standard in the layout/markup and to close it manually. it makes sense - closing is fairly standard. FT2 (Talk | email) 15:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
  • As an addendum to my comment above: I think it would be wise if, for the SP2 archive pages, we use a standard date format, such as 2 January 2008 (as opposed to 2008-01-02, which is complicated for folks such as myself who always write the month as Jan or January; it's also in line with the enwiki norm). I've checked with some bot programmers, via #wikipedia-BAG, and from the point of view of an archiving bot, the date format is immaterial: the bot can handle any date format, so changing to the format "2 January 2008" as of the new archives being created would be no worry from that POV. Anthøny ✉ 22:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
3. Clerking
Clerks under the new system may have more scope, so we're likely to split CU clerks and CU clerk trainees. In brief, it might matter a bit more than it used to, that those learning the ropes don't cause problems. It should be fairly relaxed and easy to do if anyone wants, though. There are a few things we don't want clerks to try and do, until they have specific SSP/RFCU experience, for example, formally closing cases. One starter question:
Please take a look at the arbcom clerks pages (Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks) and advise if that looks like a good model to follow - a clerks page and clerks noticeboard (the latter mostly for internal cu team discussion, notes on things needing doing, etc).

Comments sought on each of these? FT2 (Talk | email) 21:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


There are 3 questions here as starters, some of which want opinions, selection between choices, or textual checking, rather than endorsement. FT2 (Talk | email) 22:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • The arbcom clerks have a separate noticeboard in part because they are officially sanctioned by arbcom and there are things non-clerks should not do. (Although I never got a straight answer when I asked specifically for guidance so pretty much made up the rules myself.) I would like to not have officially sanctioned clerks and helpers if possible. People who want to help out will hopefully be cluefull enough to know whether they need help, and clerks can and should review each other's work. (Such as, when a case is closed is it properly templated and listed on the archive page.) I think it would also be better to have a single talk page, for use by the clerks as well as by editors asking for help. I would not want people already bewildered about how to file a request to be further bewildered trying to get help. Thatcher 23:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Clerks are a necessary evil. A clerks' noticeboard would be useful; if it falls into disuse, I'm happy to simply redirect it to WT:SPI, as I did a while ago with WP:RFCU/Noticeboard and WT:RFCU. Anthøny ✉ 17:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • While I am not against the idea of approved clerks, I am not convinced it is necessary. If there was some kind of understanding where CUs or whoever can request that a problematic would-be clerk cease clerking, I don't think a formal process is necessary. I also have issues with some of the points of wording on the page Tiptoey points to (e.g. I don't think clerks should be denying requests for checkuser attention, particularly if we have sufficient checkusers). Sam Korn (smoddy) 23:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Just let whoever is interested to list themselves as trainee clerks to get a feeling of how things are done. It is not necessarily to announce publicly who gets appointed to be clerk. OhanaUnitedTalk page 13:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
4. Case page location (late addition)
Minor point of page naming. Should the case pages be (eg) WP:XXX/Casename, or should they be WP:XXX/Cases/Casename. Unsure the pro's and con's but as we have complete free choice perhaps others will have a preference. FT2 (Talk | email) 00:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • WP:SPI/Casename would be easier from an administrative point of view (it's less work with shorter case names, naturally), but WP:SPI/Case/Casename (or WP:SPI/Investigations/Casename?) would be easier from the point of view of having a hierachy that is easily understandable to a "newbie." I'm personally inclined to say WP:SPI/Investigations/Casename, or a variant thereof (/Case/Casename would work, I suppose), is the best bet. Anthøny ✉ 17:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I prefer having the extra subpage (.../Cases/...)so we can easily employ subpages -- should we so desire -- at a later juncture. Sam Korn (smoddy) 23:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't fully understand. What aspect of "employing subpages" would having the cases listed as ".../Cases/..." help with? Not fully explained. Or do you mean "it would allow other sub-pages that aren't case pages"? FT2 (Talk | email) 15:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Precisely that. Something like Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Instructions. Forgive me, it was twenty-past-midnight on a Saturday night ;-) Sam Korn (smoddy) 22:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

IP checks

No section for IP checks? We don;t need to update the Grawp page for every new account, we just need to know the recent names so we can look for proxies and sleepers. The purpose of the IP check page would be to 1/check the IPs of obvious vandals for sleepers and to block the underlying IP in the case of persistent vandals, 2/check for collateral damage on proposed rangeblocks. Thatcher 23:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

As discussed, underlying IP checks are often part of a case anyway (eg "Pioneercourthouse"). But some matters (eg new socks/IPs of known established prolific sock users, sleeper checks on established sock-users, collateral damage check requests, suicide notes etc) often don't need archiving on case pages. The page should allow for some kind of "quick cases" section for matters that don't need such things. FT2 (Talk | email) 00:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Indeed. Amalgamating the IP checks, and all other types of checks that don't fall into the heavily-used categories, into a single "miscellany requests" section would be easiest. In other words, a more informal "scratch pad" for pinging the CUs with possible new sock puppets on our most notorious puppeteers (Grawp springs to mind) would be a good system; on the down side, it would require ruthless patrolling by the clerks, to ensure that editors are not using it to circumvent the standard—and necessary—restrictions on evidence justifying a check. Anthøny ✉ 17:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I have never seen a need for an IP check section and now that I'm a CU I see even less of a need for it. We end up doing pretty much the same thing anyway. I think best is to combine the misc section into the main section and let me check (via checkboxes) what they need/we need to concentrate on. Another problem is that this is at the bottom of the page and CUs tend to concentrate on the top of the page. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Why can't they be treated as a regular CU request with the same form? It is the responsibility of the requester to make a valid argument for a check, and the responsibility of the CU to determine if the check is warranted. However, this way there is only one place to make requests, and one place to check if completed or refused, and one place to check the archives. Is this too naïve? -- Avi (talk) 02:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
  • It seems to make sense to me to keep things simple and this seems a way to do that. One place to check. ++Lar: t/c 02:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not entirely sure whether Lar means it would be simpler to have the "quick-check" section or not. My opinion is that it is probably unnecessary, not least because there is so little traffic. Grawp checks don't tend to go through RFCU in any case. Sam Korn (smoddy) 08:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Follow-up: consensus and a general common-sense evaluation of this matter both seem to conclude that there should be no "IP check" section in SSP2. Every report filed at the new system should therefore be directed via the standard route. (If others think me way off-target here, please do speak up.) AGK 19:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
  • That's what I meant. Less different classes of forms to fill out, etc, seems goodness. ++Lar: t/c
Indeed, AGK, no IP check section. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Missing icon

 CheckUser is not magic pixie dust Jehochman Talk 18:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done Tiptoety talk 19:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Banned editors

I added a bit about banned users briefly at the top. They are also dealt with at RFCU, so it seemed appropriate. -- how do you turn this on 19:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Clerks

We need to keep the clerks and the clerk subpage. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

That will be easy to do. We can just move the page. Tiptoety talk 23:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Length of the page

Even though after SSP and RfCU are combined together, the length of the combined page will still be longer than either of the current page. Will that be a problem? OhanaUnitedTalk page 13:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, hopefully this new page will make it so that cases are handled faster and as such will be archived faster. Also, once we get a bot to do the actual archiving part it should not be a issue IMO. Tiptoety talk 18:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Progress

It seems we've hit a stage of inertia with the RFCU–SSP merger.
What remains to be done here, by way of preparations?
AGK 16:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd say making sure the bot works and a bit of prior notice at the top of SSP in order to minimize public outcry :) -- lucasbfr talk 14:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Can we set a firm goal where the transition starts? So far, I haven't seen any goal-setting yet. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Ping...
What's our status?
AGK 18:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
There merger is now scheduled to take place 01/10/09. Any form of help to ensure I reach that goal would be much appreciated! Tiptoety talk 18:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
What needs to be done prior? -- Avi (talk) 16:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Basically I finish programming the bot, we test it, and announce it. —— nixeagle 17:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

←Hey Avi, something that needs to be done real bad is a overhaul of Wikipedia:SSP2/Guidance notes. You are more than welcome to help! :-) Tiptoety talk 17:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

As an update for those watching, the bot has been in development, and today I've added 3 of the 4 "cases" the bot will need to monitor for. The last remaining case is for SSP related cases, which I will do tomorrow. After that we just have to test and debug the thing and in the future add bot assisted archiving. —— nixeagle 21:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Title

I see that the current setup appears to use SSP2 as the title for the active page. Is this the plan? If it isn't (as I understood to be the case...), perhaps the preparation should take place at the new venue? [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 13:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. What was it again? SPI? Most templates can be moved and used as it (they use FULLPAGENAME) though :) -- lucasbfr ho ho ho 14:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
We can change the bot's "ssp_titlespace" config value to change what namespace it edits under. All we would have to do is move everything here to the new location, and I can even write a script that does that for us if you like. —— nixeagle 15:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
No, the page will not be named SSP2, we were hoping for Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations (WP:SPI) but the abbreviation appears to be taken by the spider wikiproject. Anyone have any ideas? Also, I was going to do all the renaming/moving of pages the day of the merger. Tiptoety talk 19:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Split the flow between SSP and CU?

I boldly split the filling procedure between SSP and CU cases, in order to be able to make the instructions clearer. That should allow the requesters to have a single set of instructions to follow (I admit I personally missed the show/hide button yesterday when I gave the system a try). Hopefully that should reduce clerk workload (the CU part automagically adds {{RFCU|CODE LETTER|none}} to the preloaded template. Here are the list of pages affected:

What do you think? -- lucasbfr ho ho ho 14:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I like it, I think it makes it far easier to navigate. Why I did not think of that earlier is beyond me. Good work Lucas! Tiptoety talk 19:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Template suite

I started a discussion here about overhauling the SSP/CU template system. Since the whole system is being overhauled, I would like to work with you to make sure that the templates I have in mind are inline with your needs.

As I see it, there only needs to be five templates.

  • Puppet
  • Puppet master
  • Puppet notice - sample
  • Puppet discussion or Puppet case
  • Puppet category - sample

I am good with parser functions and am also looking into making them even more user friendly than before. MBisanz and Steve Crossin have volunteered to help with the conversions from the old to the new templates. - LA @ 22:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I will make samples and put the links above for you to check and approve. - LA @ 20:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The Puppet template needs to have a option to link to a RFCU case or a SSP case. Ex: {{sockpuppetcheckuser|USERNAME|CASENAME}}, but other than that it looks fine to me. I would like to hear FT2's thoughts though. Tiptoety talk 00:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
That's probably best resolved with a single param. "(#if:case|Please refer to case)" or some such. If no formatting is applied to the param, it'd be easy to link multiple pages as needed. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Tiptoety, there will be only those 5 templates when I am done. All the current templates are to be deleted in favor of those 5. The template you mentioned will be one of those deleted. - LA (T) 19:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

New Puppet category template is written. - LA @ 19:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a note to say that I have simplified the template somewhat, it should be easier to use now. -- lucasbfr ho ho ho 09:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Requirements of individual templates

I'll be starting some "tester" templates soon, also being good with ParserFunctions myself; this section is as much for ordering my own thoughts as anything else.
  • Sock puppet:
    • Suspected, with no evidence;
    • Suspected, with on-going SSP2 case;
    • Confirmed, per SSP2 conclusions (does this include CU and behavioural? Should we use proven as current templates do, to distinguish between behavioural and technical evidence?);

[list to be completed]

Anthøny 20:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Samples moved to the project here to do with as you see fit. LA (T) @ 18:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Header length

Mmm... The current wording of the header at the top of WP:RFCU is approximately 5000 characters long. The current wording of our header is 9000 chars long if you count both collapsed sections (and you need to expand one of these in order to fill a case). Isn't it way too wordy? I think most of it should be on Wikipedia:SSP2/Guidance notes (I'd say everything but the first section and the case creation box(es)). -- lucasbfr ho ho ho 15:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. Tiptoety talk 19:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Okay I went ahead: SSP2 Guidance notes. Beware, I changed some wordings too in the process. -- lucasbfr ho ho ho 09:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Main name

I vote for WP:SSPI for the main name for this when it goes live, standing for Sockpuppet investigations — Rlevse • Talk • 23:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Endorse - Sounds good to me, we will also use WP:SSP2, WP:RFCU, WP:SSP, WP:SOPI, WP:SI. Tiptoety talk 23:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Good idea :) (SOPI is kinda cute too) -- lucasbfr ho ho ho 15:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I am out of the loop

1. When/where was the decision made to merge SSP and RfCU?
2. Does one have to be a CU clerk now to take part in SSP "investigations"?
3. How will it improve the current system? I mean, there are going to be a lot SSP cases popping up on one page, won't it clog it up? Or is it on a completely separate subpage?

If no. 2 is true then I'm gonna be pretty pissed as I'm very sure that I am the best darn SSP investigator on the entire planet. Regards, thanks in advance, and take care all. ScarianCall me Pat! 06:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

  • 1. is in the air for a while, I think it got first tossed on AN last April, then again in the summer (I can't find a link), it just took ages before we started to have something to work on. It remained low profile because most of the work was to have all Checkusers agree on what needed to be done, and find a way to incorporate RFCU into SSP.
  • 2. is of course false :). The only thing clerks can do is give an opinion on whether or not a CU is needed. Any admin is by definition a clerk and can work on cases and self approve their case for Checkuser review, clerks don't have to be admins however. It should be rewritten somewhere, it seems the definition got lost in the many moves and rewrites that happened here.
  • 3. The idea is to keep the same archiving and formatting for CU and SSP cases, because many things were lost in the current system. When a case was filled at the wrong venue, replies were often "please fill a RFCU" or "CU unnecessary, go to SSP". It'll be much easier to go back and forth between CUs and other "investigators".
In my opinion, RFCU changes a lot, but SSP remains pretty much the same (except the format). The paint is still wet, don't hesitate to give it a try to see what's broken, which usecases are harder to do and so on. Our hopes are to make things simpler for people who feel they need a checkuser, not to make them harder for "simple" sockpuppet cases. I hope this helps! -- lucasbfr talk 14:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Scarian, to answer a few of your questions: Like Lucas said there were a few relevant discussions last April where the community along with ArbCom approved such a merger and it has just taken myself a long time to finally get it up and going, and now with the help of people like Lucas we are about to reach our goal!

Second, Lucas is a bit wrong about the clerk thing. Any admin may serve as a clerk trainee, meaning they can do anything but accept cases for checkuser review (note that the "self endorsed" option has been removed). Does this mean you will not be able to handle SSP requests? NO! You still can, and I hope you still will. The only new thing the clerks get to do is the extra little checkuser related part. (See the Clerk page here).

Third, the page length. The nice thing about this set up is it is similar to WP:PERM, everything is on a subpage than transcluded here, so instead of linking the case directly to the mainpage it is placed on a subpage which is linked to the mainpage. This will make the mainpage run far smoother than it currently does at SSP. Also, each case will be viewable in a drop down box, meaning that the page will not be miles long.

Scarian, just think how nice it will be to have CheckUsers watching the SSP cases and running checks as they see necessary? Anyways, if you have anymore questions let me know. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 15:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I missed the Self Endorse removal part (I fear I kept it in the sucky guidelines I wrote). It might be nice to rename "clerk trainee" to "patroller", some people might take umbrage of being called trainees when they only wish to review SSP cases ;) -- lucasbfr talk 15:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Sounds very good, guys. Thanks for the replies! I'm in agreement with lucasbfr about the trainee thing, better wording possible? Like "apprentice"? Or "padawan"? :-P Naw, but seems good all in all, guys. Good work. ScarianCall me Pat! 15:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Ah, looks like a need to make a few things a bit more clear. Anyone (even non-admins) can work on (and close as needed) SSP cases without being a clerk trainee. Really the only reason a person would contact a current clerk asking to become officially a "clerk trainee" was if they were interested in being a full clerk later on down the road. I can still change the name though. Tiptoety talk 23:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Handling of SSP/RFCU redirects, old case pages, etc

I have worked up a template for a possible hatnote on RFCU and SSP:

What do others think? Xclamation point 06:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The template looks fine. In regards to the part about patrollers, the idea is that anyone can "patroll" or help out at cases such as many do currently at SSP. The only real thing that admins can do when patrolling opposed to regular editors is block. So no, the page is there for both editors who want to help out and admins. Also, admins are not by default clerks, they can only do the same thing as clerk trainees. Tiptoety talk 07:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Should we lock the main page (but leave out cascade protection because we still want the subcases to be able to be edited) so that people will place new cases under the new page? Also, instead of "in a few days", define a specific date so there won't be any guesswork. OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Which mainpage are you talking about locking, SSP, RFCU, or SPI (there are a lot right now) :P Tiptoety talk 18:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Definitely SSP, and probably also RFCU. Locking redirects the traffic to SPI. OhanaUnitedTalk page 14:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, we will do that once this page goes live. Tiptoety talk 15:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Bot reports

Please do not remove this section. The old SSP's bot report section will be redirected to here shortly (along with the bot's target) OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, though I want to make sure that Nixeagle knows about this seeing as he is creating the new bot. Tiptoety talk 18:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Might as well a good idea to communicate with Krellis, since he's the one that is running the current bot at SSP. OhanaUnitedTalk page 14:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Krellis doesn't need to know - any admin just update the appropriate entries at the bot's blacklist. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Okey Dokey. Tiptoety talk 21:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

SSP/RFCU merger questions

If you have seen the merger notice, and have any questions, please post them here.
  • Q: How will existing cases be handled? I thought at first they might be left at SSP/RFCU but then it occured to me we couldn't redirect in that case. Are the cases going to be moved here win the final stages of the merge? Nil Einne (talk) 10:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
A: Yes, they will be moved to the SPI format and a redirect will be placed on the other SSP or RFCU case. Tiptoety talk 06:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Q:
A:

Formatting in cases

We need to change the formatting in cases so that it's easier to edit a section. For example, when I was trying to do clerk work in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fujoshi sisters, I cannot go straight into the "Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments" section, but have to click on the edit button beside the report date and shows a pile of text that I already read prior to clicking the edit button before reaching the destination that I intended to edit.

Also, 3 more problems remain. First, where do we put the closed "Suspected sockpuppet investigations" cases? I understand that we should keep it on the page for an extra day or two to see if the close was reasonable, but keeping it alongside with other open cases without any indication other than the comments (such as the archive box, colour changes) is very confusing to everyone. Second, how will the "Awaiting clerk approval" section be utilized? Third, something broke and made the table of contents to display a few "X"s as sections. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

To answer your second question, any case that has some form of CheckUser related request will remain in the "Open CheckUser cases" section for at least 24 hours after the check has been completed and a clerk or CheckUser has added {{finished}} to the case. After that 24 hours passes a bot will automatically archive. For cases that do not have some form of CheckUser related request, someone will add {{finished}} and the bot will archive right away. In regards to the broken table of contents, I am not sure what is up with that. Maybe leave a message for User:X!, he was the last one to play with that. Tiptoety talk 06:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
The "X" come from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Casename2. -- lucasbfr talk 16:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
BTW, I have added a visual output to {{finished}} in order to be able to see if the template is there without having to check the source. -- lucasbfr talk 16:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
So what purpose will "Awaiting clerk approval" section serve? A holding pan? Cause right now I see virtually all cases land in "Suspected sockpuppet investigations" section without ever touching the awaiting section. Also, aside from {{finished}}, how about changing the colour of the collapse box from yellow to another colour (red or green or something else) so that people can glance and tell which one is closed and which is open without even clicking the "show" button? OhanaUnitedTalk page 21:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
The "Awaiting clerk" section is used for cases that are accompanied by a CheckUser request (using {{RFCU}}). Once a clerk or CheckUser endorses (or runs) a check the bot moves it to the "open cases" section. If a clerk or CheckUser declines a check then it is moved to declined. Tiptoety talk 22:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent idea

Well done on those who are working towards this. The current dual process IMHO adds unnecessary work and confusion. I recently opened a case where I feel a CU will probably be warranted given the history and likelihood of other sleeper socks (one of which I believe I just found), and it would have been rather useful to have this Nil Einne (talk) 13:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Glad to hear that! Cheers, Tiptoety talk 15:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
The merge is for the greater good at a tiny cost of one-time torturing learning curve. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
As long as cases are completed in 24 hours, I'm in! Can we skip the cliffhangers and traitors parts please, though? :P -- lucasbfr talk 07:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, there will be nuclear explosions, invoke of 25th amendment, moles in CTU FBI (god, why is CTU gone?), and revealing checkuser-only information for immunity. But now that you know the grand conspiracy, I have no choice but to inject hyoscine-pentothal on your body =) OhanaUnitedTalk page 20:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

When?

In a few days, both the suspected sockpuppets page and the requests for CheckUser page will be merged into Sockpuppet investigations (SPI).

Any idea as to a timetable when this will happen? Cirt (talk) 08:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

No clue, the bot is operation in all respects except for archiving which I cannot do until I get a specified format. —— nixeagle 13:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, there was a date set for the 10th of this month but obviously that has come and gone. All I am waiting on is the bot to be finished, there are a few other small things but those can be worked on once the page goes live. I am hoping today or tomorrow. Tiptoety talk 20:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Layout

Looks great guys. Good job. Synergy 00:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Tiptoety talk 00:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Not problem Tip. Each one of you worked hard to see this come to fruition. You at least deserve the proper gratitude. Synergy 00:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)No, no brownie points

SSP Archiving

Hi, I run the bot responsible for archiving completed SSP reports. How come I was not notified of this change? I find this entirely disappointing, firstly to have to find this change by myself with no notification or messages to 'stop' or 'change' the bot to suit the new page, and secondly to find that you have already assigned another editor to take care of a bot. I'll stop my bot now, but I find this to be bad communication and migration skills. I have no further words to say. — JamesR ≈talk≈ 01:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry you find this so disappointing, and I apologize for any lack of communication. To be honest I was not really aware of the archiving procedures at SSP and found that a completely new bot was needed and a editor who was active on IRC had just the bot. That said if you are still interested in helping out here, you are welcome to write up some proposals for other bot related tasks. Once again, I am sorry. Tiptoety talk 02:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
And apologies from me, it's not Tiptoety's doing. Not every bot at SSP was checked, and yours looks like it was missed. Sorry from everyone, probably. FT2 (Talk | email) 03:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Archiving

I vote we place a collapse box around all the archived content making it easily viewable by one click, but out of the way when it is not needed. Any comments? Tiptoety talk 20:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. That's one of the pet peeves with archives it that it's confusing which sections you want. That will help a lot. Xclamation point 20:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
As I suggested above, how about associate open cases with a certain colour of collapse, while those that are closed have another colur? OhanaUnitedTalk page 20:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I am not sure you understand my question. I am referring to the actual template used to archive the case. Such as {{rfcua}}. But that is a good suggestion, let me talk with Nixealge and see if he can make that doable. Tiptoety talk 20:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. If we can remove archived cases' section headers from the TOC, e.g. by {{TOClimit}}, so much the better. [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 20:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good to me also! It will also allow us to view the archives more easily. The Helpful One 20:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
To note, the TOClimit thing had already been done -- I was confused by broken test pages. [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 21:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

As far as the colors go: you guys can do template magic to do {{foo|color=blue}} or whatever, but you are going to have to tell me what the pattern is so i can put it in the bot... failure to do so will result in the bot overwriting your colors :). As far as archiving goes for now, as I'm not likely to be able to program the bot archiving today there is a list of all items needing archived at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/queue. This list contains:

  1. all SSP cases that have {{finished}} added.
  2. all RFCU's that have {{finished}} added.
  3. all RFCU's that get declined.

It is up to you guys to archive the SSP cases immediately (or as close as you can get, and the latter two 24 hours after the decline or finish tag was added. (the bot will do this probably saterday or monday). —— nixeagleemail me 20:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, when you archive them, remove the item from the list. When the bot does archiving, it will work off of this list as well. —— nixeagleemail me 20:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
OhanaUnited, I like the idea but for the sake of getting this thing going we are going to work on that later. The page should be live in about a hour. Tiptoety talk 21:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Sure, it's just a trivial matter. We can wait until the transition is over and everything is stable before moving forward with the coloured box idea. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Questions and comments about transition from SSP and RFCU

Having just followed a still-open RFCU case from WP:RFCU to this new area, I have some questions/comments about the transition process.

1. Something needs to be done to highlight the repeat nature of some of these cases. The sockpuppeteer that I watch has had 18 cases at WP:SSP and 15 cases at WP:RFCU. Only the most recent case (RFCU 15) was moved here, and the case numbering has started back at zero, implying that this was a brand new suspected sockpuppetry report. The list of sockpuppetry cases is on the user page, and the user5 template includes a link to the past RFCUs, but I think that clerks, checkusers, and other people who comment on cases are going to want some more visible clues to the past histories of repeat offenders such as this one.

2. Dates of moved reports are incorrect. When the case of interest to me was moved, it was tagged with the date and time when it was moved, not the date and time when it was first submitted. I changed the date and time in the report. I imagine that other reports need a similar correction. --Orlady (talk) 02:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

As for number 1, I noted on the page that the case had a relevant RFCU case at one time and even linked to the page history. I am not sure what more you would have me do.Tiptoety talk 02:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't know how big a problem this is because I don't have an insider's view of the checkuser process, nor do I know how repeat SPI cases are going to be formatted. I do know that under the old system, the person handling the checkuser request had a clear view, on one page, of all the previous checkuser requests, including all the user names previously found to be sockpuppets. Now only the most recent case is visible, and the name of the case makes it look like this is the very first filing for this puppetmaster. I don't know if or how this will affect the way the checking process is handled, but I can easily imagine that it will adversely affect the process -- at a minimum, by making the checkuser's job more complicated because it will be necessary to review multiple pages to check one case. I also don't know what SPI archives will look like or how the subsequent SPI cases will be formatted -- will each case be archived and numbered separately, like SSP cases? (There are as yet no instructions for assigning numbers when filing repeat cases.) --Orlady (talk) 05:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
As for number 2 you, you can fix mistakes like that and encourage you to do so. Tiptoety talk 02:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I did fix the case I had filed. (I also corrected the name of the filer. Apparently you had gotten confused because another user had commented in an unexpected area of the RFCU case.) I don't know the histories of those other cases, so it's not so easy for me to correct them, but I thought that clerks and checkusers might appreciate knowing that the dates are inaccurate. --Orlady (talk) 05:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

{{Checkuser}}

Currently, this template is not functioning properly. It should be providing a "reason" field. As you can see from looking at the template source, this relies upon the page name being Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Example. I can't work out all those curly braces -- could someone try to sort it out so it works with SPI pages instead? [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 11:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

This is now fixed. Obviously it completely breaks all the links at RFCU, but that shouldn't matter. Thanks to lucasbfr for help. [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 14:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Help

Old Arv software does not accommodate the "new" system yet. Can I have help migrating? Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Iantresman (4th nomination) ScienceApologist (talk) 14:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

What is Arv software? [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 14:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Twinkle. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I've started a thread at WT:TW#SPI. --Amalthea 14:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Notifications?

Do we still have a template to notify users about SPIs? I don't find anything in the instructions (first time I'm here since the merger). --Amalthea 20:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Some were created, but I am not sure what happened to them. You can either 1. create them yourself, or 2. wait until Monday when I will have some time to create them myself. (I am very busy this weekend and will not be online for much of it) Tiptoety talk 00:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
A few drafts can be found in the SPI templates. They were never completed. {{SPIusernotice}}, {{SPIpuppetsof}} and {{SPIconfirmedsock}}. Plus the ones from SSP and RFCU - look up what templates were historically used for those. FT2 (Talk | email) 16:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Ah, OK, thanks. I have already placed a (modified) old notice & tag. --Amalthea 17:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Help!

I'm sorry to ask this here but I can't really work out how to report this case, and I figured you guys could maybe help a bit. I'm currently engaged in a debate over a biographical article. There is a problematic IP editor who makes many pov-pushing edits, and takes an ownership attitude over the article, reverting any changes to his own preferred version. I (and several other editors) believe this editor to be the subject of the article. He will not admit this (and there's only so much we can do without breaking WP:OUTING), although he carefully avoids denying it, too. He has a registered account, too, that he seems to use interchangeably (although these two accounts don't tend to both get involved in things at the same time very often, and seem to acknowledge that they are one and the same - again carefully avoiding confirming or denying this). I assume he doesn't want to say "yes, I'm him", as then he's an obvious case of WP:COI, but doesn't want to say "no, I'm not him", as then it's quite possible someone could catch him in a lie.

Now the sockpuppetry part: he recently registered an account in the name of the subject of the article. He then used this account to say he'd like the whole entry to be deleted: thus neatly distancing the "real" subject's POV from that of the IP editor. This is obviously a pretty deceitful use of sockpuppets. All the evidence, though, is "soft": he resorts to ad hominem attacks very quickly (carefully avoiding WP:CIVIL issues), calls all edits he disagrees with "vandalism", attacks people's "credibility" all the time, generally uses a very condescending tone, and, notably, has an almost unique habit: he often refers to Wikipedia simply as "Wiki" (as a proper noun). All three of these users have done this a lot.

So my question is, is this an SSP investigation? To me, that seems a bit like getting a gangster on mail fraud. The real problem we have is that we are unable to edit a biographical page due to an ownership attitude and conflict of interest from the subject of the article himself.

I'm making this comment under an IP address because I don't want him to follow me here and turn this into an argument, as he does every time I try to get this resolved. However, I am User:Jumble Jumble. Thanks. 141.228.106.135 (talk) 08:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The details of the IP/s and account/s would help? FT2 (Talk | email) 11:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Sure. The IP is 83.67.217.135, and the accounts in question are "MysteryReporterX", "Stuart Campbell" and longer ago, "Rev. Stuart Campbell". Again, I'm hesitant to link to them lest he come here and raise hell. Thanks. 141.228.106.135 (talk) 11:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Guys - I wasn't trying to start an investigation with this post - I was just trying to find out whom I should ask, or where I should post, what kind of problem this is, how I should go about dealing with it etc. Any ideas? 141.228.106.135 (talk) 09:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Have you looked at WP:COI/N? That might help a lot. If a check is needed, they would also advise. But that noticeboard specifically exists to handle possible/likely "conflict of interest" issues. FT2 (Talk | email) 03:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I've been there, but without this IP admitting that he's the subject of the article then we can't really prove COI. He also followed me to the noticeboard and continued to make ad hominem attacks to everyone who responded. 86.138.124.112 (talk) 08:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

SplittingHairs

I just realised CheckUser was supposed to be written with a capital U (MediaWiki extensions names are in CamelCase). What do you think? :) -- lucasbfr talk 16:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that I have always been writing it that way. ;-) But I agree, that it is the way it needs to be written on all of the sybpages. Tiptoety talk 17:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
The usual convention is, the tool is written in camel case, but the usersd of the tool are not. Thus Sam Korn is a "checkuser" who has access to the "CheckUser" tool. Weird but there you go! FT2 (Talk | email) 03:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Some of us have wiki-lives long enough to remember the arguments over whether the holders of the right were "checkusers" or "checkuserers". [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 21:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Problems

There are a couple of problems/issues at the moment that need ironing out.

Firstly, the bot is insisting on putting every case I make a CU comment on back into the "awaiting clerk approval" pile. I'm sure this is unintended.

Secondly, I am slightly confused about what should go where on the page, and what tags I as CU should be placing. Should I, for instance, place {{finished}} when I add a result to a case or should I leave it? What should be placed in the "conclusions" section and who should do it. I think I'm probably not supposed to tag cases as "finished".

Thanks, especially to those who have done such great work in getting this running!

[[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 13:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess {{finished}} means nothing else can be done. If socks are blocked you can tag them. I'm not sure why the bot moves cases to the clerking queue after there were commented upon by a CU. I'd move them to the SOCK queue. -- lucasbfr talk 14:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the bot is doing something funky, that's for sure. I have spoken to Nixeagle and he will not be back until Monday, so until then the clerks will really need to keep a close eye on the page and may need to do stuff by hand. Also Sam can you email Eagle just so he knows what's up and what he needs to fix? Tiptoety talk 00:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Is the move to the SOCK queue part of the new procedure? It's not clear to me that all completed CU cases would necessarily need to be moved to the SOCK queue. For example, after the community has seen more than 300 Jvolkblum sockpuppets, it's not hard to identify new sockpuppets based on behavior. The main reasons for requesting checkuser on Jvolkblum socks are to confirm the connections between socks and to identify sleeper accounts so that the sleeper accounts can be tagged and blocked. --Orlady (talk) 21:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
The bot, and its moving/archiving of cases, is being fixed as we speak :) Give it a day or 2 and see how it looks then. FT2 (Talk | email) 20:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

First? addition of a CU and notification

I may have made the first? addition of a CU request to an open case [1]. Seems to have gone well. Just manually added the tag. Also should I notify the users of the CU request? I already notified when I filed I started the SSP of course Nil Einne (talk) 14:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually looking at the instructions it doesn't seem to tell you to notify the accused parties even when filing a new request, I did just skim so perhaps I missed it but I don't see it anywhere either in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guidance or the instructions when filing a request. Perhaps it only tells you once your done since I obviously didn't try going that far. Or is it supposed to be bot automated now (the comment 2 above suggests not) or what? Nil Einne (talk) 14:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
It's not automatic, and I'm thinking that suspected sockpuppet(eer)s must of course still be notified; there's also still the "comments by accused parties" section, e.g. at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vitorvicentevalente.
I'm not sure if the user pages are still supposed to be tagged, I never really liked that practise. But you're right, the instructions aren't saying anything, and per two threads above, there aren't any templates yet. I've used the old ones and modified them for that case. --Amalthea 14:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Under the old arrangement, there was no procedure for notifying users regarding CU requests (nor did WP:RFCU suggest that this be done). --Orlady (talk) 17:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Notification's at least noted now as being needed, but thats something any user/s can figure out - a template and a note to post it to parties. See a draft here that was being worked on - can that be developed? FT2 (Talk | email) 20:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Shucks! When I was advised that I shouldn't bother to continue opening new SSP cases when I discovered new batches of Jvolkblum socks, but should simply post them at RFCU, I was relieved to discover that I no longer needed to go to the trouble of notifying each sock that they were suspected. Often the CU process was completed in only slightly more time than it would have taken to add templates to all of the talk pages. --Orlady (talk) 01:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Maybe we could have a policy of not requiring notifications for repeat pattern vandals? I agree that notifying every Jvolkblum sock would be unnecessary and really a rather silly requirement. [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 01:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Or else have the bot drop notices to all people named as "parties"? FT2 (Talk | email) 01:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I would have to agree bot notification is best (which was why I wondered above if it had already been set up). I don't see much point requiring users to do it if we're just going to notify everyone. The only reason not to use bot nofication IMHO is if we're not going to notify everyone or we feel we should allow custom messages. But as it stands, even if there's no point notifying stuff like Jvolkblum's socks (to be honest I have no idea of who that is, thank god) it doesn't really do anything bad Nil Einne (talk) 12:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

We can do bot notification, its already having to parse who is requesting and what accounts. —— nixeagleemail me 13:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

{{Socksuspectnotice}} and {{Uw-socksuspect}}

I was about to edit the latter template, so it can be used for SPI, but I've stumbled across the {{Socksuspectnotice}} as well. Could someone redirect one to the other as they appear to be used for the same purpose and update it as necessary? Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 15:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I prefer socksuspectnotice. For me it is the better template. However, messing about with uw- templates is not for the faint hearted. So merging the two would mean accepting the (poorer IMHO) uw-version. I've amended BOTH to point to the new SPI pages. Mayalld (talk) 13:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Requesting check for further socks

Polpotsguppy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Fipplethitsback (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have been indef blocked as sockpuppets of the Runtshit vandal. How do I request a user check, in order to detect sleeper accounts and if appropriate request a proxy IP block? Under the previous procedure, it was possible to make a separate CU request; but now, this is integrated with the SSP report. Since the identified sockpuppet is already blocked, I can't submit such a report. Is there any way to make such a request under the current procedure? RolandR (talk) 19:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It's fine to go ahead and make a new SPI case just for the purpose of requesting a CU. As it is, I have run the enquiry already and have blocked an open proxy, having found no other accounts. [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 09:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

closing cases

Am I to understand that cases can only be closed by trainee clerks, clerks, and other official functionaries? Or have I misunderstood the rather baroque instructions for this page? --Akhilleus (talk) 03:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

We're sorting out the instructions and such, they'll get simpler in a bit as others add in their work :)
Briefly any user can flag a case is provisionally closed using {{SPIclose}}. The bot recognizes this. However only clerks and checkusers can tell the bot a case is ready for archiving. This ensures a clerk at least has a chance to look at a case before then (if they want), and check it looks good. Or they can just add "|archive" and the bot archives it. FT2 (Talk | email) 20:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Power to the clerks?

As I understand it, only "the clerks" (who?) get to decide whether or not an investigation subpage gets listed as requiring checkuser. Is this correct? Moreschi (talk) 15:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I think so. I tried doing a few cases before and got frustrated with all the collapsible boxes. --Deskana (talk) 15:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Any user can request checkuser, but the clerks (who are experienced at this) will take a look to confirm it looks appropriate when they do. They might (for example) catch cases where it's fishing and doesn't need a checkuser to say so. If it might need CU attention they flag it as such, which means checkusers can be more productive. But the checkuser alone decides ultimately what cases are checkuser and what arent, the clerks are more helping by filtering out any obvious rejects, according to well known critieria most admins will be aware of anyway. The sole issue is a clerk declines and the user figures its a valid CU case - in which case they can re-ask for a checkuser to review it. That's probably not in the notes yet though. But that would be the way it would go. FT2 (Talk | email) 20:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
So, essentially, I do not have the authority as a reviewing admin of an investigation to decide that it should be listed on the SPI page as "requiring checkuser": I need to have a CU clerk sign off on that. Right? Moreschi (talk) 20:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
As it stands, yes. Since this is likely to take minutes to happen in most cases and is transparent to you, it's not a practical issue to anyone. It can be tweaked later (we're still figuring the finer points out so some things might well change). It's valuable insofar as it stops implausible cases wasting CU time (which mattered to some checkusers), ensures CU time is well spent (anything obvious that a clerk can address, add, or clarify beforehand they will), and doesn't require anything extra of users. If it's unnecessary then change it later; it may well need tweaking over time. If their job is done well, clerks will save checkusers considerable time. FT2 (Talk | email) 20:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I think we need to change "clerks" to "admins", who know enough not to put anything too silly before the CUs. Otherwise this just isn't going to work. Why, for instance, has in not been made clear yet that a CU needs to look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Capasitor? Practical issues apart, this is putting massive authority in the hands of clerks when it was decided a couple of years ago to abolish the privileges and bureaucracy surrounding checkuser clerking and just make it a thoroughly menial job. Moreschi (talk) 21:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Was there a big problem with people submitting implausible CU cases anyway? This seems like a case of creating a layer of bureaucracy to solve a nonexistent problem. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think so, if the checkusers agree, I'll program the bot tomorrow to accept {{RFCU|..|endorse}} from any administrator. The problem with the current backlog is too many dups from when the bot was operating this weekend not fully tested. (we were going to have a testing period but we sorta ran out of time). all should be fixed soonish. —— nixeagleemail me 21:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Just discussed with eagle, that should be easy enough. I wasn't sure how easy "recognize if X is a sysop" would be for the bot. It's apparently fairly easy. So it'll be amended to allow admins to self-endorse their own RFCU requests, like clerks or checkusers, so clerks just need to check non-sysop requests. (The main issue being the number of users unfamiliar with RFCU who mostly aren't admins, like you say.) Eagle's going to code that bit but might need a day or 2.
The answer on Capasitor is simpler - the bot moves cases to the right section but the bot's only gone "live" today. So cases before today are in arbitrary sections. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
There were CU concerns, and also, cases that get passed to checkusers are better if clear and such, to make best use of CU time. Nothing huge, but noted. A number of changes are to make sure cases stay well organized and on target (sock stuff only), whether or not they need checkuser, so that they can be handled as quickly as possible. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Not adequate. There needs to be a function for admins to endorse non-admin requests. In the case of Capasitor and many others, some random clerk is going to have no fucking idea whether or not it's a valid request and the suggested narrative is plausible. I do. That should be good enough for to get CU attention. Moreschi (talk) 21:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
    • You mis understood, the change in which I will do tomorrow or wednesday will do exactly what you want. Any admin can endorse. —— nixeagleemail me 21:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Note that I would do it now, but I have to go to work in 10 minutes. —— nixeagleemail me 21:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
        • Ok, that's fine. Thanks, Eagle. But please make it simple. Not all of us admins are techno-genii like yourself...Moreschi (talk) 21:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
          • What you will do when you make a case is go down to where it says {{RFCU|blahblah|}} and change the last parameter of that template to {{RFCU|codeletter1|codeletter2|endorse}}. Doing so will cause the bot to put the case in the appropriate section and alert checkusers ideling on IRC. —— nixeagleemail me 21:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
            • That's pretty good, and very smart. Nice. Moreschi (talk) 21:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
              • Understand that it won't work for you today, but tomorrow or wednesday it will work for you. (sorry about that), this whole new process thing is still being tweaked... I just finished the bot today to the point that it does things correctly). —— nixeagleemail me 21:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
              • This seems an appropriate moment to agree and to say what a great job Nixeagle has done with this. Thank you! [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 21:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) That's how most of SPI is driven. Update the RFCU template to say the current status (|endorsed, |declined, |checked, |new...), and the bot handles the rest. One thing - technically if you're endorsing your own request rather than someone elses, use "|self" (short for self-endorse) so it's obvious. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

We can probably archive this section now, I've just now set the bot to allow any admin to endorse cases. Due to how the list is loaded (from toolserver's database) new admins may not be able to endorse immediately. —— nixeagleemail me 13:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Did I miss the discussion on this?

I admit to being a little distracted the last few weeks by holidays, deadlines, et al. - where was the discussion that went into developing this system? Because looking at it right now, I'm thinking that if I've ever got a checkuser request, I'm going to just e-mail someone about it - this system reads like my tax forms. If I read it right, you can't just say 'yeah, this is most probably a sock, let's have a checkuser on this to deal with sleepers right away,' you have to open a sock investigation case, provide evidence, have a clerk okay it, and then maybe get a CU. Is that the case, or am I missing the easy route? Tony Fox (arf!) 20:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

If you would have emailed before, then you can still email. if you would have posted to WP:RFCU before, giving a letter code and appropriate evidence, you can still post to SPI giving a letter code and the same evidence. Pick whichever you like :) FT2 (Talk | email) 20:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
That or indeed posting on an active CU's talk page. I'm not convinced a section akin to the IP check section of RFCU wouldn't be useful for the simplest cases... [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 21:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I asked, apparently there'd been discussion that all cases related to socking should be on a case page, even repeat sockers. Again, reviewable, but that was the answer when I asked what had been decided. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
The biggest benefit is for cases such as, for example, NisarKand, where the original accounts are long stale. Frequently you come across  IP blocked and no record of what the IP was (Alison, curse her! is the worst offender...) making comparison difficult. I suppose keeping all the cases together makes this easer. [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 21:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarifications. I think I get the idea a little better. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Bot delisting pages

At 18:02 today, the bot gratuitously delisted a whole batch of non-CU cases that it had been adding to the list of open cases since yesterday.

As a result, we have a whole load of unresolved cases hidden from view.

methinks we have a glitch here! Mayalld (talk) 22:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Any case with {{finished}} placed on it got archived. Tiptoety talk 23:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Isn't the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/queue supposed to be transcluded somewhere? The case I opened (EdJohnston already acted on it, but it doesn't have a {{finished}} yet) was added to it by the bot a minute after creation, and it's still there, so I'm thinking that it's the active queue? But it isn't transcluded anywhere.
Oh, and a recommendation for the bot: I'd find it very helpful if the name of the subpage were visible in the edit summary, it only says "Added case" or "Removed case", which means one has to point on each link or go into the source code if one is trying to keep track. :)
Cheers, Amalthea 00:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
/queue is redundant now, no longer used. FT2 (Talk | email) 01:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
And the bluelinks for "case" link to the case page. It could be clearer though. Noting this for the bot. FT2 (Talk | email) 01:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, thanks. :) --Amalthea 02:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
The delisting at 18:02 yesterday included a large number of cases that were NOT flagged as {{finished}}. The case that I am interested in (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AndreaMimi) was listed promptly when I created it, but delisted at 18:02 without having been tagged as finished. Mayalld (talk) 07:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
That one is also listed in the WP:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/queue. I'm thinking that someone who understands the process flow should transclude them at the appropriate place, and empty /queue. --Amalthea 15:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, due to a rather silly error of mine with regex we have a small mess here. The good news is I found and fixed my error, the bad news is we have a bunch of cases with {{SPIclose}} on them that are not sitting in pending close like they should be. So... what needs to happen is someone should try to check all transclusions of {{SPIclose}} and do a null edit to each one, this will trigger the bot to list the case in pending close like it should be.

As a secondary note, for the time being DO NOT USE {{SPIclose|archive}} I have not completed that feature yet, and using it at the moment causes weirdness with the bot. —— nixeagleemail me 14:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I can do that, that's only a few. --Amalthea 15:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm already doing it :-) [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 15:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Maybe that's why there were only so few left. Anyway, I only noticed the message when I was done. :) --Amalthea 15:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

OK (and forgive me for being thick here), that deals with an issue of closed requests not being dealt with correctly.

However, the primary issue is that cases that DON'T have {{SPIclose}} on them are, in the majority of cases, being briefly listed on the main page, before being removed again by the bot, and left to languish in the queue. As far as I can see this still isn't fixed. Mayalld (talk) 15:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Nixeagle has been fixing quite a few bugs and believes this is probably solved. If you see it happening again, please let us know and we'll try to work out what's going on. [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 16:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I just fixed another parser bug that was related to the bot thinking it was time to archive when it really was not. I don't know if this is related or not, but I thought I should report that here. Please let me know if the behavior continues, I've done so many fixes today that I'm not sure if what I fixed fixed this issue or not. —— nixeagleemail me 22:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations/Archive_1&oldid=1160902278"