Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Wikipedia talk:Requests for sockpuppet investigation/Archives/Archive1

That needs to be moved back to Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Archives/Archive1 (I think). D.M.N. (talk) 16:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Same with Wikipedia talk:Requests for sockpuppet investigation/Archives/Archive2. D.M.N. (talk) 16:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done (don't look at the logs or you'll see what happens when the Move and Delete tabs are too close) -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Archive

Instead of using {{SPIa}} and whatnot, we are now using {{SPIarchive notice}} for archiving. This is done for technical reasons as there were some transclusion issues. Anyone who sees a wording change needing to be made to the new archive template, please be bold and change it. Tiptoety ^talk 04:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've made a couple of changes!

1. The archive process robs the active page of its L4 ==== [[User:whoever]] ==== header, so I've amended the archive notice to add the header back in (and keep the TOC clean). I also added the {{user5}} line so that any subsequent cases still get the proper headers. I didn't add {{SPIold}} because that belongs with the archived cases in any case.
2. {{SPIold}} broke horribly on the archive pages, because it used {{SUBPAGENAME}}, i.e. the last part of the page name, which is always "Archive" I've changed it to use {{#titleparts:{{PAGENAME}}|1|2}}, which will always pick up the second element.

Mayalld (talk) 08:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Good work! Tiptoety ^talk 15:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Do we want the bot to leave the L4 header? I was under the impression that was added as part of the "new case" thing that happens when someone clicks the buttons to create a case. Right now the bot simply "blanks" the page and replaces whatever is left with the archive notice. Do we want the L4 headers to remain? —— nixeagle^{email me} 14:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

We want to leave the L4 header, and the User5 template. These are only added by the preload if the page doesn't exist. If adding to a page that already exists, the preload only adds th L5 header onwards. Mayalld (talk) 16:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, we can change the behavior, though I noticed that you guys came up with a clever solution, just letting the archive notice template contain the header. I think at this point, we should just continue in the same fashion. EG, no changes to the bot as I think the notice template is clearer, and fewer lines in the editbox. —— nixeagle^{email me} 18:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, come to think of it, letting the archive box supply the L4 works just fine. Let's leave it be! Mayalld (talk) 18:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Are we still supposed to notify the suspected sockpuppets?

After filing an SPI entry, are we still supposed to notify the suspected sockpuppets with the {{uw-socksuspect}} template like under WP:SSP procedure, or does some automated process now do this? I didn't see a mention of this in the SPI instructions, unless I missed it. Thanks. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

You should notify parties. We are currently working on getting the bot to do this. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 03:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, will do, thanks for the quick response. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

If the bot is to do this, I need some instructions as to when and where to notify the users. All users on a new case should be notified (those that are in the checkuser and checkip templates)? Lets work this out before I get the bot posting out of WP:SPI space. Also to do this, I will need to make a WP:BRFA on the bot. I have avoided doing so before now because the bot is very localized and only in this space. However for me to have it edit talk pages will require that I get broader consensus for its operations. —— nixeagle^{email me} 18:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

We also need to consider whether the user has already been notified. Those who use TW to report will already have templated all the suspects, so the bot will need to parse the user talk to determine whether a notification has been left already. Mayalld (talk) 13:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Right... so, lets take a few examples, and tell me who should be notified in each. (Assume the bot won't leave duplicate notices).

1. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Roosterdem
2. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fadulj
3. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/192.91.171.36
4. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jvolkblum

Each of the listed cases has slightly different conditions, tell me which users in the {{checkip}} and {{checkuser}} templates should have talk page notices for each case. Once we have that hammered down, I can do the rest. —— nixeagle^{email me} 15:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Is the redlink this page? §hep • ^Talk 00:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Bot reported cases

As things stand, these are neither use nor ornament, because they don't really fit in with the way we process stuff!

I have a few suggestions to make. Some are easy to implement, some are more tricky.

1. Set all bot reporting to SPI to "wait till edit" in the HBC blacklist. Reports of users with no edits are pointless. (easy)
2. Create ordinary case pages for all the HBC blacklist cases, and target the HBC bot at the case pages rather than at bots section, and let the clerkbot relist these pages as required. (fairly easy)
3. Get the HBC bot to create its reports in an SPI-like format (requires co-operation from bot owner, but I could actually provide him with a patch)

Thoughts?

Mayalld (talk) 09:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The question here is do we want the bot generated reports to be clogging up our SPI system? What I mean is the SPI reports have no clue as to what the master account would be which is what our case titles are. Eg, hagger socks go into hagger, etc. If this is possible, that is a start.

My second concern is... how much is this data being used? Just because the bot reports something does not mean that action is always taken. Have we used the data from the bot reports yet to actually do something with it? If this is not the case, I'd suggest leaving things as is, and allowing users to choose to "upgrade" a bot report into a full SPI case. (This is similar to how User:3RRBot works. (3RRbot is a bot I programmed to detect violations of WP:3RR). —— nixeagle^{email me} 18:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The bot cases do know what the master account is, and already adds that to the text of the report. It would be a pretty trivial change to the bot blacklist to have it direct every report to the correct SPI case page, rather than the main SPI page.

The point about clogging up is very pertinent, and it is the fact that these cases are clogging up the main SPI page, with nobody really looking at them that first drew my attention to the fact that improvements were needed. 90% of the cases that the bot reports don't actually edit, and without edits, we can't even consider a SPI case. Hence the first bit of my proposal, to only add reports when the account edits. Mayalld (talk) 08:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes start with that change, but don't actually make subpages with it yet. We don't want to clog up the "Open cases" either. First this feed needs to show itself useful before we start making individual cases out of it. There is a reason User:3RRBot does not create WP:AN3 reports, the accuracy of the bot is not high enough. The same conditions should apply to this. —— nixeagle^{email me} 15:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Too many templates in the main page?

I can't look into it right now, but we might have an issue where we hit the Template limits. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Templates_down. -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

At present, we are within limits;

NewPP limit report

Preprocessor node count: 17040/1000000

Post-expand include size: 1168101/2048000 bytes

Template argument size: 55777/2048000 bytes

Expensive parser function count: 61/500

The fact that recidivist cases don't now transclude loads of old stuff should help, but clearly we could check on whether we have any redundancy. Mayalld (talk) 16:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

We created a new archiving system that should have fixed that issue. Tiptoety ^talk 18:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

We were hitting transclude limits pretty bad early on. The page was transcluding over 2MB of data, which wikipedia won't permit. Our problem was we were transcluding the active cases *and* all prior cases that were archived as we had them in those show/hide boxes. My solution to this problem was simply to make the archives a subpage of each case. This lowers our transclude size significently, so as long as we don't have over 50 or 60 open cases at one time on the page we will be fine. If we have more issues I'll look into alternate ways to reduce our load further, but I don't think this will be needed. —— nixeagle^{email me} 18:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting! Also explains the shift in archive styles... this new method might be easier to work out, anyway. – Luna Santin (talk) 11:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk page redirects

A possibility we can do is redirect all case page talk pages to this page. This prevents any issues with folks posting to those case talk pages and nobody noticing. Hardly anyone ever posts to the case talk pages anyway, and more attention to issues on a case would be gained if they posted here rather then on a case page. Therefor a solution to this is to have the bot simply check new cases and if the case talk pages are a redlink, add a redirect to here. Thoughts? —— nixeagle^{email me} 18:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's needed, on RFCU we used to move extensive off topic discussions there, some users might still feel the need to do it. Dunno... -- lucasbfr ^talk 18:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

That is not needed. I generally check talk pages of cases I work on, and find that uses often leave links to other cases, AN/ANI threads there in reference to the user in question. Tiptoety ^talk 21:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a thought, though I think general practice from AfD and similar areas should work fine. Every so often a case can use a talk page, and where it can't people seem to take a hint from the vast number of subpages. If it's a problem, though, it's definitely worth trying to figure out how to direct people here. – Luna Santin (talk) 11:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, we won't do this for now. —— nixeagle^{email me} 15:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Completed CU requests

I notice a number of cases have been archived with the {{RFCU}} template still listing them as "endorsed", which has the result of listing their archive pages in Category:SPI cases awaiting a CheckUser. Could be that I'm missing a step, here, but is it worth having the bot update closed cases to a "checked" status, during archival? – Luna Santin (talk) 11:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the template to get it to behave better! Mayalld (talk) 11:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done I've changed {{RFCU}} so that where the third barrel of the page name is Archive, it won't categorise it. The current cases that are affected will stay affected until they are edited, or the job queue catches up with them, but no new archive cases will be categorised. Mayalld (talk) 13:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll just change the bot when I get to fixing the unicode issue later today. —— nixeagle^{email me} 15:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The bot should now add "checked" to the RFCU template. I have not tested that this is the case, but if I did everything right, it will work. If its not working, let me know here. —— nixeagle^{email me} 20:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Need Help

I need to do a sockpuppet request, but I cannot figure out how to actually fill out your request form. It's so convoluted that I get lost, and I don't want to do it wrong and have the whole thing removed because it wasn't performed correctly. Could someone provide some assistance. :D  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I took care of it alright, so hopefully there won't be any issues.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Need help with listing

Can someone check Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Pioneercourthouse? It's not showing up in the transclusion, so I may have done something wrong or missed one of the "admin-only" steps. Unfortunately I don't have the patience to parse the "don't do this, do this!" old/new instructions on this page, but I do feel looking into this case is pretty important. I hope this process can be made more user-friendly at some point. Unless you've made it difficult to discourage frivolous requests? Katr67 (talk) 22:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I won't say the instructions here are the best, but you made your request on the wrong process page. Requests for checkuser is no longer active. Go to WP:SPI and look for the two buttons halfway down the instruction page. You will probably want the second one which asks for checkuser attention. Just change CASENAME to the name of the master account and push the button and follow the directions. —— nixeagle^{email me} 23:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I get it now. It was not obvious to me that the things above the buttons are editable fields. I just clicked the button and saw the admin-only thing. I was looking at this in Chrome, BTW, but it looks the same in Firefox (can't get iE to work right now). Maybe I'm being especially thick lately, but I don't register boxes with text already in them as editable fields. I don't see clear instructions about how to link to investigations in the older style. I'll leave a note on the new case report. Thanks! Katr67 (talk) 01:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Emergency! I am trying to add my comments to defend myself against spurious and malicious accusations on the Pioneer Courthouse Square checkuser request. However, when I try to edit the request to add in my comments, they do not seem to appear. They seem to be present in the editing box but they are not present on the actual page. Please help me, so I can defend myself. I am at a loss, I have nothing to do with these so-called "vandals" and I do not wish to be banned. I wish to vigorously defend myself. Thanks!Poter99 (talk) 17:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

You have made comments here. Didn't check timestamps; looks resolved. §hep • ^Talk 00:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not resolved. Katr67 is waiting for a checkuser to finish the investigation. Of the known suspected sockpuppets, all but Poter99 has been blocked. Katr67 has asked for checkuser to see if there are any other sleeper accounts or IP's - and to see if Poter99 is another sock or merely someone with coincidental interest in the subject. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems I can never be specific enough. My indentation meant I was reply specifically to Poter99's comments. They appear to have made their plea on the correct page (as I said) and that they no longer needed help trying to leave a message in the correct venue. §hep • ^Talk 02:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I experienced the same thing when I posted there a couple of minutes ago. Initially my post did not appear. Then I went to the history, and it was there, and went back to the page, and then it was there. So it could be a server issue. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Cross-wiki sock-puppetry

Per this posting, what's the best way to handle cross-wiki sock-puppetry? This case involves an editor who is indefinitely blocked on en.wiki but continues to sock using anonymous IPs and the occasional (and swiftly blocked) registered username. They also have a registered username on at least one other wiki (commons). I realise that commons is the best place to deal with socking on commons, however I'm really asking if there's a "meta SPI" that deals with all WMF wikis.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 11:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd say to have a CU from Commons to contact a knowledgeable CU here? Technically, Stewards are able to perform Xwiki investigations, but I'm pretty sure they're not allowed to do so when there are local CUs. -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks - I'll do just that. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 11:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Bot down for 4 hours

Today the bot was down for 4 hours due to a toolserver restart. I started it up today, and I'm looking into a way to get the bot to automatically restart itself on toolserver boot to prevent this issue in the future. If you filed a request during the downtime, the simplest way to make the bot list it is to make a null edit to the case page. —— nixeagle^{email me} 19:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

We are going to make the switchover from the old method of listing cases to a new method using the template {{SPI}}. There may be a few issues over the next hour. After this it should be smooth sailing.

This is changed now, we had about 15 minutes of downtime to get everything switched over, but now that this is done, users that don't like the show hide templates can simply look at the subpages which display without the templates that are on the main page. —— nixeagle^{email me} 21:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editor/Sockpuppet

It has happened:

User PARARUBBAS (at least the first account i acknowledge) had the custom of the following: removing, just because, links, references, sections ("SEE ALSO", "NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH") and paragraphs, "gluing" all sentences (list of "contributions" here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Pararubbas); i provide an example here (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aly_Cissokho&diff=prev&oldid=226305530).

(Over)Duly warned (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pararubbas#Blocked), including in what seemed his mother tongue, Portuguese (i am also from that country and did so), he, after having made zero edit summaries and responded to zero talkpage "interventions", was finally blocked indefinitely (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pararubbas#Blocked).

Afterwards, the person logged in under the account PEP10 (list of "contributions" here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Pep10), continuing with the same disruptive patterns (example here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jo%C3%A3o_Pereira_(Portuguese_footballer)&diff=prev&oldid=257327999). After a while and some reports, this account was blocked indef as well (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pep10#December_2008), after a check user was performed by admin/user Satori Son (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Pep10)

It did not deter this individual still, as he opened a third account, PASD08 ("contributions" here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Pasd08), with same modus operandi (example here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pawe%C5%82_Kieszek&diff=prev&oldid=265304604). After extensive reports (see here for instance http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=265562039#Disruptive_editors) a sock puppetry pattern was finally acknowledged and the person received its due punishment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pasd08#Sock_of_Pararubbas).

You'd think the vandal had had enough by now, would you not? Well, here is the FOURTH account, KAKD08 (list of "contributions" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Kakd08), with the same patterns (example here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vitorino_Antunes&diff=prev&oldid=269312444). He has already been warned in this fresh new "vandalic adventure" (talkpage here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kakd08#February_2009).

Attentively, VASCO AMARAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 23:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Sad case. I urge action to prevent further disruption of Wiki. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it does have some ground on CU, mind filing a report for better transparency in CU process? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 13:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pararubbas. -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• Urgent update: "Person" returned today, after a day's rest, contributing like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jos%C3%A9_Carlos_Fernandes_Vidigal&diff=269806802&oldid=259804600)

VASCO AMARAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 02:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• • The vandal has chased an editor off of wiki diff. This is not good. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Closing cases and archiving

Just a thought, I used to archive case right away once it was completed but the previous RFCU archiving process (where cases stayed in the completed section for a few days) might be a better idea (it allows some feedback and corrections). The problem with that method is that a new case might be filled before the case is archived (which screws the bot and transclusions). What do you think? Should we keep the cases in "pending close" for a couple of days? -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

No need. The bot watches all case page edits; if a case ceases to be templated as "archived" the bot will (or should) automatically reinstate it in the right section again, without action being needed. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK, "pending close" just means someone requested a close and it is awaiting a clerk to add the {{SPIclose|archive}} template to it to finish the close. In theory the users doing this should be looking out for errors. —— nixeagle^{email me} 13:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

A subpage containing all requests minus collapsible boxes?

I'd love a subpage that contains identical content to this page minus all the collapsible boxes, and additionally another subpage that contains all requests requiring checkuser attention minus boxes. As silly as it sounds, right now the boxes really are putting me off working on this page. I understand that, in general, people like the boxes, but it'd be awesome if the bot could also maintain a non-box version for the awkward ones like myself :-) --Deskana (talk) 21:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for posting here, its on my todo list. I'll definately see about making a subpage without the boxes that contains *only* checkuser requests. —— nixeagle^{email me} 21:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

On behalf of the Lazy CheckUser Association, thank you for the hard work. --Deskana (talk) 22:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I share in the appreciation for those who are trying to improve this page, but also in Deskana's dislike of the collapse boxes. Only backward and primitive areas like WP:DRV still retain the collapse boxes around entire cases. Enlightened, forward-thinking noticeboards like WP:BLP/N and WP:COIN have got rid of them. Helpful hint: if you turn off Javascript in your browser, you will not see the evil collapse boxes. EdJohnston (talk) 22:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

We *can* have the bot maintain two versions, but before doing so I want to see if its possible to get someone to code some js or css that will prevent the show/hide boxes from showing for those that don't want them. If this is not possible or is not done by friday, I will have the bot maintain two versions of the process... and you guys can pick which one to look at. —— nixeagle^{email me} 00:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

If we opt for the dual display, I'd suggest leaving the boxed versions on the main page and offering a link to the unboxed version, since it seems that the majority of people like the boxes. --Deskana (talk) 00:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, thats about what I'm thinking... however I want to see if we can't avoid having to do two versions mainly because it will make the bot twice as slow in updating cases. —— nixeagle^{email me} 00:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. :-) --Deskana (talk) 00:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

If the bot listed cases with a template (say, {{SPICaseListing|FooPageName}} or something), we could have the template take care of formatting issues, rather than needing to modify bot code every time we want a formatting change. If the template then grabbed style information using a relative path, in some circumstances, I don't think it'd be too much trouble to get alternative display styles. Of course, that's a fair number of meta-templates. :p – Luna Santin (talk) 11:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Since when are you afraid to create meta templates? :P -- lucasbfr ^talk 20:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

If this is something that can work without the bot having to keep two versions, one with the show/hide boxes and one without, then please give it a shot. I can easily change which template the bot looks at. —— nixeagle^{email me} 14:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This is something that we could quite easily achieve with a conditional template, and it should make the bot's job easier, because it would only have to deal with single lines per case, rather than the 3 it does now.

I'll get my coding head on once I'm more awake, and get going. Mayalld (talk) 06:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, coding head duly applied, and a new template is born {{SPI}}, which could be used direct onto the various queues, replacing the two collapse templates, and the direct transclusion of the case.

The template is designed to exhibit different behaviour, depending on where it is viewed from.

If viewed from a page where the first part of the name is Sockpuppet investigations, it will display the current collapsed boxes behaviour.

If viewed from any other page, it will simply transclude the case.

I've rigged up a demo of it in action. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/test is a dummy SPI queue page, showing the collapsed behaviour. User:Mayalld/SPI does nothing more than transclude this test queue, but the page name causes the collapse boxes to be omitted.

Thus, all the lazy CheckUser needs to do is transclude the endorsed CU queue into his own user space, and he gets it formatted how he likes it.

I'm going to be tied up in meetings for much of the day, but feel free to suggest improvements, and I'll have a look a bit later on. Mayalld (talk) 08:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Can we get it so that only the main page has the collapse boxes and all the subpages don't? Eg, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations has the boxes as before, but Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Subpage - Open suspected sockpuppet investigations, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Subpage - Declined cases, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Subpage - Open CheckUser cases, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Subpage - Pending close and similar pages do not. I do like your solution though, I'll wait for Deskana and others to opine though. —— nixeagle^{email me} 20:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

What we can do also is provided the above is possible, provide links to the subpages from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. —— nixeagle^{email me} 20:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good solution to me. Tiptoety ^talk 21:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, unless anybody says no, I'll fix it so that collapsible boxes only happen on the main SPI pages. Mayalld (talk) 20:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Template done

{{SPI}} has been modified so that cases listed with it will collapse on the main SPI page, but not elsewhere, and I've added "view cases" links to each section. I also collapsed the whole bot reported section into a single collapse box, to stop it hogging the front page. All that is needed now is to get the bot to use {{SPI}} instead of the current transclusion wrapped by {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}. Over to Nixeagle to change the bot. Mayalld (talk) 14:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

This has been done. —— nixeagle^{email me} 20:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Searching

Whilst the closed cases page is useful as a reference to prior cases, we are going to get cases with some serious recidivists who end up with cases reported under several apparent masters. So, it seems useful to me to have an ability to search all cases for a particular user being mentioned. I've boldly created a search box for SPI (actually, I boldly nicked it from ANI, and amended it). If people don't like it, please scream. Mayalld (talk) 13:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Great idea! I dunno where we should put it, though. -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I've put it above the boxes to file a new case for now. I am totally open to better ideas of where to stick it (within reason!) Mayalld (talk) 17:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

We can also consider me programming some sort of toolserver search tool that searches the old RFCU and SSP pages in addition to our /close page. The bot has a search feature that I'm testing now, but you can only use it over IRC in #wikipedia-en-spi. (Its a public channel, anyone is welcome to join the channel). —— nixeagle^{email me} 13:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

A toolserver bot sounds like a good idea. That way all of the archives from RCU, SSP, and SPI can be searched at once. §hep • ^Talk 16:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

That is what I was thinking, I'll dream up something that works once I know the archive format for SSP. Does SSP have a nice index page like RFCU and WP:SPI/C? It makes for faster and better searches if there exists an index... if there is no index, I'll work on generating one for SSP before going live with a search function. —— nixeagle^{email me} 20:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Use of templates in cases.

I've been asked to reconsider my use of the {{inconclusive}} in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ansonrosew. The request isn't about the result in the case, but as to whether the use of the template with a narrative is potentially confusing, and open to misinterpretation with an inconclusive CU result.

Whilst I would accept fully that the template by itself could be confusing, I'm less than convinced that it is confusing in this context, although I find myself in a quandry, because the request isn't manifestly unreasonable, and comes from an experienced admin whose opinion I respect.

So, the question is; Should {{inconclusive}} be a CU only template, or should it be available to any clerk or admin to use as a conclusion as it is at present.

Mayalld (talk) 07:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

While IP block & completed are ok to me, I do have concerns about non-CU using templates like inconclusive and likely. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 13:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The current version of the indicators allows non-CU usage of these, and it made sense at the time the page was designed. I however think this is a bit disturbing too, since most people don't use it. I'd say we should move back  Likely  Possible  Inconclusive and  Unlikely to the CU-only templates. -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

If its causing confusion, do it. I never use templates, I just block and report my findings in the "conclusions" section of the case and request a {{SPIclose}}. —— nixeagle^{email me} 22:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree 100%, while I do not think you where trying to "impersonate" a Checkuser Mayalld, to users who are not familiar with who is a Checkuser and who is not using those types of templates can confuse them. I think simply voicing it, ie: "I think it is pretty likely that X is a sock of Y" opposed to using the templates is better. And like Lucas said I would be in support to moving them to CU-use only templates. Tiptoety ^talk 15:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'm fine with that! There is a consensus there that these templates should be CU only, and I'll go and fiddle with the instructions accordingly. Mayalld (talk) 15:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no I won't, that bit is protected. Mayalld (talk) 16:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done (Boy, can we use any more templates in this thread) :-) Tiptoety ^talk 20:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Unsure -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

collapsable boxes obstruct process, makes things secretive

The collapsable blue boxes should be eliminated. They prevent the casual user from looking and scanning the board. That only leave editors who devote most of their time with the sock issue instead of editing.

I've discussed this with a well respected user who agrees. I think it was Deskana. I discussed it with another well respected user who has no opinion but recommended discussion on this page.

My concern is more than hypothetical. I'm working on a featured article that was opposed by a strange editor who was recently blocked as a sock. I didn't know about this until long after it was filed and before it closed because of the silly collapsable boxes so this is not a theoretical issue.

Let's don't have these collapsable boxes. If there needs to be sub-pages for each section, that's ok. Chergles (talk) 19:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

If you click on the view cases link under each section you can see the cases listed without the boxes. We have them on the main page only so the main page is not so long and its easy to get an eyeball of what everything should be. An example for you: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/Subpage_-_Open_suspected_sockpuppet_investigations. The collapsible boxes do not show here. Same for the rest of the sections. If you want to make those links clearer or more obvious please be my guest. —— nixeagle^{email me} 22:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations#A_subpage_containing_all_requests_minus_collapsible_boxes? where we had the discussion with Deskana. —— nixeagle^{email me} 22:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, I'd like to state that I don't like the collapsible boxes either, as I find it annoying having to collapse and uncollapse (a concern that's been addressed for me, largely). Secondly, I'd like to state that saying that the collapsible boxes makes the process "secretive" is a bit ridiculous... --Deskana (talk) 00:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a nice little "view cases" tab at the left hand side of each heading, where once clicked brings you to something like Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Subpage - Open suspected sockpuppet investigations which allows for you to view the cases without the collapse boxes. Understand the main reason for having the collapse boxes is not to create some super secret environment, I mean you can just click "view" and look at what is inside each of those easily accessible collapse boxes, but instead was to reduce the size of the mainpage now that both SSP and RFCU cases are on the same page. Tiptoety ^talk 00:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

case not appearing in 'open cases'

I added this case yesterday, but I do not see it in the 'open cases' list - I gather Clerkbot should do the listing - maybe I submitted it wrong? The user in question has requested a Checkuser - can I add that ? It would resolve it, I think. Wizzy…☎ 06:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem might be that it's listed at an SSP subpage and not an SPI one? §hep^Talk 06:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Should I move it ? Can you help ? I am unfamiliar with this. Wizzy…☎ 08:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Mayalld sorted everything out. §hep^Talk 08:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I've done the relevant page moves, and tweaked the case to fit in with the format that we use on SPI. I haven't added a Checkuser request at present, but if you feel it needs one, feel free to prod me. Looking at the case, your only real grounds would be socking to evade 3RR, so you would need evidence that the multiple identities are engaging in 3RR. Mayalld (talk) 08:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate your help. I don't think (with my interactions) there has been 3RR - I have never pushed it that far. Wizzy…☎ 08:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Archiving

Cluebot had a bit of fun and started archiving Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Archives/Archive2 to Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Archives/Archive2/Archives/1. I tried to fix it, but I can't find where it creates the archives list. Any idea? -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

How to request checkuser

I recently opened a sockpuppet investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Drms106, but wasn't sure if checkuser was relevant. I've since noticed that the accounts in the investigation all appear to be single use accounts that were created just a few minutes before the problem editing (copyvio linking). Would this be a valid reason for checkuser? And, if so, how do I then add it to the invstigation? --JD554 (talk) 15:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

To tweak your case to request a CU, you need to add a section in the same format called Checkuser Requests and add {{RFCU| CODE LETTER | No2ndletter | New }}    <small>Requested by ~~~~ </small> below it. Here is a list of good and bad reasons to requesting, and you'll need to add a code letter that best fits to the RFCU template. As to your case, I would wait. Synergy 17:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips. Reading the good/bad reasons you linked to seems to show that I shouldn't request a checkuser: Disruptive "throwaway" account used only for a few edits. --JD554 (talk) 19:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Right, the reason being that accounts such as those can simply be blocked on sight making a CheckUser unnecessary. Tiptoety ^talk 20:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Backlog

I've tagged the main SPI page with a backlog as its clear there is a backlog - there are still one or two reports from the end of January that need to be resolved. Now, as a non-admin, I can't see anything which I could do to help with.... seeing as I don't have checkuser facilities or the admin tools as a matter of fact. I'd like to help out, but I don't know what exactly I could do to help out.... I could comment on some cases to try and speed things along... but it may just be stuck there for 2 further weeks with no further replies. IMO, SPI's should really be dealt with within 2 to 4 days, as they are in a way "urgent" to get the bottom the cases. Anyway, as I said, I'd like to help out... but I don't know where to help out as a non-admin... D.M.N. (talk) 16:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Any editor can come by and drop off comments. This is how you help the process along. All of the SPI cases that are not in need of a CU only have diffs and contributions to go on, so commenting and expressing opinions are the only thing you can do in staled cases (unless it becomes obvious there is socking, and you get an admin to block, so we can close out the case). Synergy 16:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Generally in the future once this gets going and more people get involved we should not have cases older then 2 weeks, for the time being though we just don't have enough participating admins. That will change over time, so don't fret too much, we have 27 open cases by the bot in #wikipedia-en-spi which is not too bad. We were up to 40 last week. —— nixeagle^{email me} 16:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Bot tweaks

User:Bwrs created two unregistered user's userpages, created a sock case for each, and notified them. I believe the tweaks needed are: check for a case created where no user exists (or x amount of users have no edits/no deleted contribs) and either notify the creator, request that the page be deleted or alert a clerk, etc; and the second being to check to see if it has been deleted, and have the bot remove it from any pages its transcluded to (spi pages). Synergy 03:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

1. Cases that have no socks listed, and or socks that have no edits/no deleted contribs

   Notify the creator, and leave a note on the case page in lieu of a clerk doing the same.

2. If a case is deleted by any administrator for any reason, make sure the case is delisted from the main page.

This is a brief summary of the changes needed. I'll be working on these in the near future after I get done with the first round of the Bad BLP finder. —— nixeagle^{email me} 21:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Bot

Toolserver is down, so that means the bot is too. I recommend just moving cases to the appropriate queue manually. Hopefully not too many cases get created between now and when they get toolserver back up. Tiptoety ^talk 03:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Bot is back up, I am investigating moving the bot to another host, something that does not randomly go down every 10 days or so. —— nixeagle^{email me} 14:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Are null edits required to get the bot to deal with cases that have been updated whilst it was down? Mayalld (talk) 14:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

For the moment yes. I did make myself a clerk on the bot for a short while to assist with that. It should be done by now. —— nixeagle^{email me} 15:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Missing case

I added this case, my first, but foolishly managed to give it a section header. I've removed that now, but it's still not showing up on the list of open cases. Have I missed the chance to have it indexed by the bot? Thanks. Gonzonoir (talk) 16:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Nope, it was indexed, but I responded to your case already and requested closing. The socks are blocked already. —— nixeagle^{email me} 18:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah! Lightning speed. Thanks very much. Gonzonoir (talk) 19:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

"Quick" Checks

At the moment, "quick" checks are something of a misnomer. Such checks take much longer to get CU-ed than regular cases.

There are several reasons for this. Partly, there has been a problem of cases that really ought to have been regular sockpuppet cases, partly because nobody seems sure what we should do with them, and partly because it isn't always clear why the check is being requested.

Perhaps we should consider processing them as cases, using a modified page skeleton, and a new {{RFQCU}} template, with a new set of code letters to pick up the valid reasons for a non-sock CheckUser.

Thoughts?

Mayalld (talk) 15:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The process for "quick checks" needs to be renamed to "special checks" and the 3 conditions (that I know of) need to be listed. Anything that does not meet those conditions needs to be made a case. The conditions are:

1. IP range checking... (admin making sure a hard block on a range won't also block a bunch of productive editors)
2. cases where socks are all blocked, and user wants the underlying IP blocked by checkuser for a longer time then autoblock does (think grawp)
3. vote checks

There may be more, but those are the ones that pop to my head. So I'd say call it special checks, and say in the section, that your check must meet one of the above conditions, if it does not, it needs to be a case. —— nixeagle^{email me} 13:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I've edited the header for quick requests to be more explicit, and to clarify that it isn't just a dumping ground for cases as an alternative to doing it properly, by making it clear that sock cases will be delisted.

I've also started on {{RFQCU}} which will allow people to specify why the want a CU with a new set of reason codes specifically for non-sock requests, starting at Z and working down. Mayalld (talk) 14:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Clicking on that, the template instructions are not clear... it mentions A-F. What is it for exactly? For listing one of the reasons I put in # signs above in quick check cases? ... btw, can we rename the section to something else? That will fix the perception of the usage of the section... name it "special" requests. —— nixeagle^{email me} 21:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't got round to doing the instructions page yet :-)

Any update? —— nixeagle^{email me} 23:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet (4 and counting)

Resolved

 – I have blocked Svz08 as a sock of Pararubbas. EdJohnston (talk) 23:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

After this checkuser investigation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pararubbas/Archive), this "user" still has not learned. He opened a fifth account, now named SVZ08 ("contributions" here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Svz08) and continues to glue sentences, remove links and refs (examples here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fary_Faye&diff=prev&oldid=272106667 and here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=H%C3%A9lio_Sousa&diff=prev&oldid=272781239).

Attentively, VASCO AMARAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 22:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Escaping user names

We've just had a sockpuppet case concerning T*w^E.r''*A;t*? (talk · contribs)

The presence of the double ' character in the user name causes links not to work.

Can the bot escape ' to &#39 when listing cases? Mayalld (talk) 07:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I will look into it, it won't be that hard. :) —— nixeagle^{email me} 17:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Shh, don't stuff beans into sockmaster's nose! OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Lol, as soon as I figure out this one issue, I'll likely fix the whole class of bugs relating to escaping chars to prevent future issues. —— nixeagle^{email me} 18:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Various bot improvements

Just so everyone knows, I'd like to get a little input into the next round of features I'm going to be doing over the next few weeks. What I'd like to do is automate as much clerk work as we can, and generally make this process smoother to use. The following features/changes are in the works... some are going to require consensus here and possibly elsewhere as they require the bot to edit outside of this space (doing any edits outside of this process requires me to go through a Bot request.

1. Bot checks the {{RFCU|CodeLetter1|Codeletter2|new}} template for missing code letters. If code letters are not supplied, the bot will make a note on both the case page in the Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments section, and leave a message on the poster's talk page so they get immediate input they need to fix something for the checkuser request to go through. The bot will ideally subst a message from its userspace or elsewhere. {{subst:you forgot your code letters|casename}} will be how it works... change the name to something more useful when its created.
2. Bot checks IPs to determine if they are static or dynamic. In some cases with some ranges, I think I might be able to program the bot to identify static IPs. The bot will leave a little note next to the {{checkip}} template that says static. This will contain an explaination of what a static IP is and suggestions on how long to apply blocks to these IPs. This will allow some admins to know when its ok to block an IP long term.
3. More features but I'm out of time to put full details: Stale checks, search tool, both on IRC/toolserver/wikipedia, removal of extra {{checkuser}} templates when the user listed in the checkuser template matches the user in case name (you can't be both a sock and a puppet master).

Please discuss and include more little features like this you guys want. I'm still open to adding features to this bot. —— nixeagle^{email me} 20:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

So far so good Nix. If I think of any, I'll be sure to post them. Synergy 20:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds great! Many thanks for your work on the bot. How would you guess if the IP is static? -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

This information is available for some IPs by doing a whois request. Its listed as "direct allocation" or similar. I am still working on obtaining permission to have the bot automatically query a service, I'm not thinking its going to be a problem as we are making fewer then probably 50 queries a day, if that. —— nixeagle^{email me} 22:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is an example: dnsstuff whois link for 74.3.2.107. Notice the NetType: Direct Allocation field. —— nixeagle^{email me} 23:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I did "removal of extra {{checkuser}} templates when the user listed in the checkuser template matches the user in case name (you can't be both a sock and a puppet master).". The current bot will do that automatically, there is a requset in about the first item. The second item is pending discussions I'm having with various whois services. —— nixeagle^{email me} 00:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

BRFA is at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SPCUClerkbot. —— nixeagle^{email me} 00:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

the bot is currently waiting for me to get some time to babysit it through the trials. I'll probably do this friday or monday.

Ok, we are ongoing during the trial. As far as I'm concerned feature 1 is implemented. —— nixeagle^{email me} 19:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Closing notification?

It could be nice to also notify the filler of a case when it is closed. -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

This can be done after we get the approval from WP:BRFA. What you ask for is not that difficult :) —— nixeagle^{email me} 21:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm working on this now and I'll enable it once the BRFA is past. Do we want the notice on {{SPIclose}} or on {{SPIclose|archive}}? —— nixeagle^{email me} 19:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Good question, both are valid but SPIclose allows them to give an input or ask something else before the case is archived so I'd go for that one. -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Code letter notification bug

It appears that the bot missed the initial edit so I placed a code letter reuqest, which was followed by the bot adding one. Then we got in a short edit war. :P [1]. Tiptoety ^talk 01:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is a bug after looking at the contribs of the bot. It looks like the bot never saw the case, let alone had a chance to check for codeletters. I presume that this case was listed at a time that the bot was currently down and a clerk or someone manually added the case. For future notice if the bot is down, the best thing to do is wait and then preform a null edit. In the future I will have the bot scan the database for edits it missed while it was down. —— nixeagle^{email me} 16:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Admin needed

at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Who Watches

CU is back confirming a likely link, but need an admin to perform the necessary block. Mayalld (talk) 17:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocked and tagged. —Travis^talk 17:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Mayalld in the future I would not worry about posting that a checkuser is done here. We admins can see the case listed at the top of the open cases section. I might even tweak the bot to say !admin in IRC if response times are too slow. (for most cases a response time of under 12 hours seems ok). —— nixeagle^{email me} 02:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Moving cases

We still get a few cases where the report is "backwards", that is to say filed under the name of the sock, rather than the master.

What I've been doing with these is;

• Reverse the sections in the report, and retitle.
• Move the page
• tag the resulting redirect as a G6
• manually delist the redirect (perhaps the bot could do this??)

I've done a few like this, but today hit the buffers, because a new admin knocked back the CSD requests, saying that they aren't G6, and that the redirects should stay. His removal of the CSD template also caused them to be relisted!!

Thoughts??

Mayalld (talk) 14:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Tell the administator that as long as there are no incoming links from outside of WP:SPI, there is no archive, and the reporter is told where the new page is deleting the redirects is appropriate. I do see the argument for keeping the redirects though, they don't hurt anything and they allow the reporter to know where the report is now at. If the reporter is told, then there is not really any issue.

As far as the bot, I can have the bot delist/list on delete or move perhaps. I'll add it to the list of "things to do" :) —— nixeagle^{email me} 16:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Also note that having the redirect won't hurt anyone filing another case under that name. The new case would just go ontop of the redirect AFAIK... we might want to test that. —— nixeagle^{email me} 16:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it breaks in a nasty way! I filed TestA, then moved it to TestB, before trying to file a new case on TestA. The case files, but in any case where the page already exists, it omits the L4 header, and appends the L5 to what already exists. That leaves the redirect as the first line, and effectively hides the new case. Mayalld (talk) 22:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so redirects are bad :), I'll have to program some things into our bot to work with this stuff as it seems like its more common then I would like to think. —— nixeagle^{email me} 22:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Template problem

I modified {{checkip}} so that we can continue to use it. When filing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sleepydre I got a message that the blacklist was blocking dns something or other. When I removed the link from the template I could finally add the new case. Thought I'd keep you guys posted, §hep^Talk 02:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of templates, what do you think about the "checkuser=" issue I brought above? Once we decide that, we can most probably remap the Checkedpuppeteer templates. -- Avi (talk) 02:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of that, what about the puppet master templates? Could we group all of those into a combined template similar to what is planned/has been done for the sock puppet templates? Doing so would give us 2 main templates for tagging, one for puppets and one for the master accounts that we just twiddle the template parameters to get what we want. Would make life easier. Can I see the template documentation for the sockpuppet template? I will need to read that as I continue to look into bot tagging especially for cases where a checkuser was not involved. (The bot has no trouble with cases where a checkuser was not involved) —— nixeagle^{email me} 03:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The template adjustment and mapping above is specific to puppetmaster templates. I have not adjusted the puppet templates themselves yet. Sorry. -- Avi (talk) 03:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, can you guys work on consolidating the puppet templates too? Fewer templates would make life much easier for admins :P —— nixeagle^{email me} 16:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I resemble that remark -- Avi (talk) 16:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

(<-)The sockpuppet templates are going to be a bit more of a problem, as {{Checkedsockpuppet}} and {{SockpuppetCheckuser}} use un-named parameters while {{Sockpuppet}} uses named parameters, and it may not be possible to map the unnamed ones to the named ones consistently. I will focus on getting {{Sockpuppet}} correct, as that exists on >10,000 pages, where {{SockpuppetCheckuser}} exists on <10,000 pages, and {{Checkedsockpuppet}} exists on <500 pages because of its newness. -- Avi (talk) 17:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, good, if I have to I'll have a bot change over the ones that are not compatable. That will take me less then 30 minutes to program. Just let me know what needs changing to what and I'll make it happen. —— nixeagle^{email me} 22:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Nixeagle, can your bot remap variables in existing templates? Like the following logic "If variable 2 in the old template = blocked, set "blocked=yes" in the new template?" -- Avi (talk) 04:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Not hard :) Just give me a list of templates and actions and I'll see that they get done on mondayish. —— nixeagle^{email me} 20:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Well... I take that back, after BAG approves it that is >.> —— nixeagle^{email me} 20:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Another bit of escaping for the bot....

Tiptoety pointed out to me last yesterday {{SPIarchive notice}} breaks when the username concerned contains an "=" sign.

This happens, because if you call the template as {{SPIarchive notice|qwe=rty}}, the template thinks it has been passes a single named variable called {{{qwe}}} with a value of "rty" instead of a single positional variable {{{1}}}.

If we explicitly name the variable passed, even though the template is expecting a positional variable, like {{SPIarchive notice|1=qwe=rty}}, the parser sees the variable name as {{{1}}}, and ignores the subsequent "=".

So, Nixeagle, can the bot be amended to add "1=" after "{{SPIarchive notice|" and before the username?

Mayalld (talk) 07:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

We should be using named variables, IMO. See above where the unnamed templates of the various sockpuppet templates are making it all but impossible to combine them unless we can have a bot perform some logic in order to remap. Nixeagle? -- Avi (talk) 17:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Please use named variables... and yes we can modify the bot once I know what the named variable is. —— nixeagle^{email me} 20:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Good. This way I can make one template, and just have you program different re-mapping schema. I'll try to get to it on Sunday. -- Avi (talk) 20:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Correction needed: notifying other users

There's nothing on this page about notifying accused users. I don't know what template to use. That seems like it should be mentioned here or in the guidance. THF (talk) 18:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

the bot may notify the users in the future, but I don't think it was standard practice to notify the users in the past. Regardless knowing which template to use will help for bot notifications. —— nixeagle^{email me} 22:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

To eliminate all the catcha and surprises, I think we really should notify the accused, since there's a potential for the accused to see their accounts blocked. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 14:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll hold out for further opinion and which template should be used, then I'll file a WP:BRFA —— nixeagle^{email me} 20:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I can testify that the instructions at the old WP:SSP said that the suspected sockpuppeteer and suspected socks all should be notified. that was not part of the instructions for RFCU, though. --Orlady (talk) 18:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

{{Checkedpuppeteer}}

I have updated the template. I've left in the "casename" tag so as not to break existing templates, but I have added an "spipage" tag that links to the the SPI pages for showing "Checkuser results". -- Avi (talk) 05:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone believe that we have so many sockpuppet templates, to the point that we feel overloaded with all the choices at times? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

If you are willing to create one with the proper case statements, and volunteer to replace the thousands of existing templates with a new version, go for it. Heck, if you volunteer to replace them all, I'm pretty sure I could work up a single template each for puppet and puppeteer . The issue is, and has been for a long time now, paring down the existing templates without breaking what is on the wiki already. I remember the trouble I had with the SharedIP issues; this one will likely be worse. -- Avi (talk) 17:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

There are 214 instances of {{Checkedpuppeteer}} at current, but over 2,000 instances of {{Sockpuppeteer}}. I'll adjust {{Sockpuppeteer}} to take a checked=yes and spipage=???, while trying not to kill the thousands already on wiki. If you (or some automated bot) will go and replace the 214 instances, we can dispense with {{Checkedpuppeteer}}. -- Avi (talk) 17:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll do that for ya. (AWB) §hep^Talk 17:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not as simple as I thought, since blocked and proven are a nested #switch, and I would really need to separate it to fit checked in without it looking silly, IF we want to maintain the possibility that a checked puppeteer is not blocked. Lemme see… -- Avi (talk) 17:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, Shep, I think I've done it. For some reason, the talk page transclusions are not updating for me, but sandbox testing looks like it works. Please do me a favor, confirm one or two, and then we can get to substituting the new ones. -- Avi (talk) 18:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Is it just modifying the template name, or do I need to add some params? §hep^Talk 18:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

This should be the proper mapping:

• {{CheckedPuppeteer}} --> {{Sockpuppeteer|checked=yes}}
• {{CheckedPuppeteer|blocked}} --> {{Sockpuppeteer|blocked|checked=yes}}
• {{CheckedPuppeteer|spipage=Example user}} --> {{Sockpuppeteer|checked=yes|spipage=Example user}}
• {{CheckedPuppeteer|blocked|spipage=Example user}} -- > {{Sockpuppeteer|blocked|checked=yes|spipage=Example user}}

-- Avi (talk) 18:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sandbox for the mapping results before they are wiped :) -- Avi (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Direct link in case. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

(Message from Nixeagle) please don't do anything until Monday, when he can finish his plans for the bot to do automatic tagging. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 18:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. Here's some examples [2], [3], [4], [5]. Look good? §hep^Talk 18:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Okay, I'll save the config for then. §hep^Talk 18:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Please tell NixEagle that when he gets his bot working, it should also add the {{sockpuppet category}} header to the cat pages :) -- Avi (talk) 19:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

We can do that. —— nixeagle^{email me} 14:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

So should I run AWB to consolidte the templates? :S ? §hep^Talk 03:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe? §hep^Talk 21:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Bot requirements

Ok, sorry for halting you guys, I wished to stop you guys long enough to discuss the possibility that we can have a bot automatically do the tagging. Looking at what you guys have, the bot will be able to automatically add {{tlx|Sockpuppeteer|checked=no|spipage=Example user}} reliably on every case. The bot will at case close look at all listed socks, and any that are blocked after the case was created will be tagged as socks of the main account. In addition for bot tagging, I'd appreciate if we had an additional parameter that caused the template to provide a direct link to the section in the archive where the discussion/evidence about that block happened. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nimbley6/Archive#Report_date_February_3_2009.2C_14:24_.28UTC.29 , eg, down to the section.

Our primary problem with bot tagging is the bot has no reliable way to tell which were blocked as a result of a checkuser. The bot can tell that the case had a checkuser involved, but it cannot pinpoint which socks the checkuser looked at, or which socks the evidence is enough to say "checked=yes" on. I'd appreciate ideas on how to make the bot correctly do the checked=yes portion.

So right now the bot tagging will look something like this:

1. On the addition, {{SPIclose}} the bot goes through all listed accounts and looks for blocked accounts.
2. On those accounts the bot adds the template: {{Sockpuppeteer|blocked|checked=no|spipage=Example user|section=section header}}
3. the bot continues its normal work.

There are several solutions for accurate "check=yes", one is to look at who did the block as some of our checkusers will block socks. If a checkuser did the block, the bot can move check to yes. Alternatively we can allow the bot to tag based on if it sees a {{tlx|RFCU|...|...|checked}} and have someone follow up and change the parameter to yes or no if a checkuser was involved or not involved in the case.

Anyway guys, thoughts on the matter? I had a few additional plans that included bot specific templates, but what you guys have going seem to be good enough for my purpose. Please suggest changes as needed, maybe you guys have a clever way to identify if a sock was blocked as the result of a CU or not. —— nixeagle^{email me} 14:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

We can have human beings to the tagging -- Avi (talk) 20:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes I know, however I am asking into the possibility that the bot can do them. —— nixeagle^{email me} 23:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

For seeing if a sock was blocked as a result of CU - how about we add some template or something to the block reason like {{CUBlockConfirmed}} which will then let the bot know? The Helpful One 23:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

BTW, avi, if you want go ahead and finish your template work and implement it, reading this over I just modified the plans I had to use your template and its really a more elegant solution anyway. We can talk about the bot doing it or not after, worst case is the bot just puts checked=no and if its the result of a checkuser someone can change it to yes.... though that does bring up the question of "why is it so important to note that it is the result of a checkuser". What I mean is the cases themselves should be able to stand up by themselves to reviewing admins. The admins should be able to look at the case and see that it is the result of a checkuser anyway and make their (un)block choices based on that. Just some food for thought.

There is also the helpful one's solution which I had not thought of. —— nixeagle^{email me} 23:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Regardless without question, I can enable automatic tagging for Open SPI cases where there is no checkuser involved. The issues only arise in those cases where a checkuser provided technical evidence. —— nixeagle^{email me} 17:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The only issue with my emendation to the template is that I did not capture the "checkuser=" tag which linked to the old RFCU page, which means for the subset of the 214 tags that linked to the olds RFCU page, they may lose that link. It's not a nig deal to add it, is it worth it? -- Avi (talk) 02:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Well? -- Avi (talk) 19:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Would there be a net loss in adding it? §hep^Talk 03:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I was just lazy :) I can do it, but I may wait until tomorrow. -- Avi (talk) 03:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done "Casename=" tag added. -- Avi (talk) 16:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppet tags

We have a real issue with folks adding suspected sock master/ suspected sock puppet tags to accounts when they file a case. I have received now two emails from two users in the last 3 days. They all stem from these tags. It is being done automatically by twinkle, ex: this diff. The problem is folks are tagging accounts with tags that are 1) don't point to the actual case and 2) are placed on their userpage which folks tend to not like. The simple solution to this is to have twinkle do nothing and have the bot do notifications to all accounts automatically on case creation. Notifications can be worded nicely, much nicer then an ugly template slapped on folks talk pages.

The tags are fine once it is concluded that a person *has* used socks, or an account is a sock, but before is just poking folks in the eye, especially when they are found not to be socks (as in the example). If similar agreement is reached to discontinue suspected sock tagging on case filing, I'll make a post to WT:TWINKLE asking the twinkle authors to disable the tagging function and enable on our bot the ability to leave notices on user talk pages. —— nixeagle^{email me} 20:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

A quick opinion on this: I think we should have new suspected tags made, that lets us link to an spi case, similar to what the checkedsock one has. We should also have a warning about applying tags to userpages, when the user isn't blocked. They should obviously wait until (for suspected) an account to be blocked, where as a case might not be over and a confirmed can be tagged. Synergy 21:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

So what is the current instruction for an editor filing a new case? Should we notify the suspected sockpuppet on its talk page or not? The instructions still don't say, and this talk page's discussions on it don't have a clear conclusion. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Not seeing a response, I went ahead and did the notification, using the {{uw-socksuspect}} template, which is what we were instructed to use under the old system. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

That is a start I guess. Can you link us to the instructions under the old system? —— nixeagle^{email me} 20:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The main problem is editing folks *user* pages to say "suspected sock" or "suspected sock puppeter" based only on an accusation. Notifying users that a case exists is not a bad idea, and is something I have been wanting to implement in the bot, just I have not gotten the chance to get that done, plus I had to wait on my last BRFA to complete. Maybe on monday I'll get auto notification for cases going. —— nixeagle^{email me} 20:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The old instructions are at WP:SSP#Reporting suspected sock puppets Step 5 "Notify the suspected users". You can see an example of the talk page notice that the template produces at User talk:Lyonhunter. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: CUs or Clerks "checking" before archiving

What's the point in that? Can someone explain to me why this was brought in? Do the CUs and clerks not trust the admins or what? Everyone knows I'm the best Sock-puppet investigator Flashes badge this town has ever seen so why do my cases need to be checked...? No, but, seriously... In the interests of streamlining, effiency, and speed; There are finite number of CUs and clerks who may all be unavailable for long periods of time leading to another backlog to be filtered through. If there's a simpler conclusion than the one I'm drawing to then I'll be glad to hear it, friends. Thanks in advance. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 12:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm neither a clerk nor a CU, but I assume that the "check" is to make sure that all necessary actions have been performed (for example, that all socks are blocked and tagged) and that no new requests have been added since the last action on the case. I mention new requests because I have a habit of reporting new socks from a prolific puppeteer, and I often identify new socks between the first round of checking and the time that the case is closed or archived. AFAICT, there's currently no mechanism to flag the addition of new information to a currently open case.

On the subject of finding new socks, I'm embarrassed to report that I accidentally opened a new request in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jvolkblum while the previous request was still open (there had been no activity in several days, I misremembered things and mistakenly thought that the case had been archived, and the current template did not generate an alert that it was still open). Since the previous request was already long and convoluted, it's probably "cleaner" to have a new request, but I fear I created a situation that is confusing for the bot, clerks, and CUs. :-( --Orlady (talk) 18:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Clerk Mayalld has merged the two cases and scolded me (appropriately) for opening a new case when there was an existing one open. I recall that under the old systems, if there was an existing case open for a sockpuppeteer and a user typed that sockpuppeteer's name into the "new case" box, the current open case popped up. (I encountered that feature once when another user had started a new case less than a minute before I typed the name into the box.) I have no idea what needs to be done to make that happen, but it would be helpful to implement that feature again. --Orlady (talk) 21:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Scarian: its used for a few reasons. One of which, Orlady pointed out above. It allows another clerk to review the actions taken to double check and make sure everything has been taken care of. Since archiving a case is the last step of the process, backlogs aren't really an issue since by then, socks are either blocked or cleared of accusations. So I wouldn't worry about "soon to be closed" sections. But we do need editors like you (knowledgable admins) in the "Open cases: not awaiting CheckUser" section, sniffing out the ducks. :) Synergy 21:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Some help

Would anyone be interested in updating Wikipedia:Sock puppetry? I tagged the most out-of-date section; since we don't use CU as a separate entity anymore. I believe the template section might need updated a bit too. Any takers? Thanks, §hep^Talk 21:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Is it a "sockpuppet" or a "sock puppet"? §hep^Talk 22:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Help

Why doesn't Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Michaelism X appear on the main page? --DFS454 (talk) 18:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

 Fixed - Sometimes the bot misses a edit or a case creation. There is a easy solution: simply make a null edit to the case page. The bot will then pick up on that null edit, realize it has not yet posted the case and correct its mistake. Tiptoety ^talk 18:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

This issue seems to come up often enough, isn't the dummy editing detailed somewhere? §hep^Talk 19:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Better we figure out what the problem is :). I'll take a look at that one when I get time, probably on monday. —— nixeagle^{email me} 20:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah... more examples would be good, especially if you can show both the "creation diff" and the "kick" diff. Eg the diff of the case creation and the diff of the null edit (so I can figure things out). —— nixeagle^{email me} 20:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Adminbacklog

I've put the auto code back in, after tweaking it a bit.

The relevant count is now;

(total unclosed cases) - (Approved CU cases) - (Cases pending close).

Looked at another way, it equals;

(ordinary open cases) + (Declined CU cases) + (CU cases waiting approval)

Which is a pretty fair measure of the backlog. The tagging turns on if we have more than 20 cases outstanding.

Mayalld (talk) 17:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Question on votestacking?

Why does votestacking problems require that the votestacking be successful in order to merit a checkuser? It would seem to me that the problem is in the intent of votestacking, not in the actual success. This seems to be the one of the worst possible forms of sockpuppet abuse out there, and should be dealt with sternly. Why do we let sockpuppeteers continue to repeatedly use multiple accounts to attempt to votestack? No experienced admin would allow such actions to influence their decision if they were sure that votestacking was occuring. Thus its a catch-22: If the votestacker is so good no-one recognizes it, then there is no checkuser because there is no one notices. If the votestacker is poor, and it does not influence the vote, then we aren't allowed to checkuser the accounts to tie them together and eliminate an obvious disruption. Seriously, I am sure there is a reasonable explanation for this silly tautology in the checkuser guidelines, but I can't figure it out. Please, someone, either set me straight, or lets get this fixed! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Usually admins can block the obvious accounts based on behavior. Have 3 new accounts "voting" that have only one edit. Any admin can block those accounts and call it a day. The main criteria is that checkusers normally won't run a checkuser if the discussion is still ongoing. If you have constant votestacking going on with admins blocking as I mentioned above on a specific category of articles then you can likely get a checkuser done based on the pattern of disruption. I'll bump on the historical reason for the "has to change the result" part, some checkuser please comment? —— nixeagle^{email me} 13:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Also keep in mind that AFDs are technically discussions not votes. EG it is really not disruptive to the process to have 10 new users come in and say !keep or !delete. Usually the closing admin simply ignores those opinions on the basis they are not there to discuss, but to "stack votes". —— nixeagle^{email me} 23:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's my whole point. No admin would ever count such votes, and yet the action of flooding a discussion with pointless votes is absolutely disruptive... Why not stop it with a tool that will allow us to?!? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Because there are times where it is not really done with disruptive intent. (sometimes its just a bunch of new users seeing the AFD tag on an article and coming there to comment on it. If an article proposed to be deleted has high visibility you will deal with "vote stacking" regardless... most of the time its not done with evil intent. —— nixeagle^{email me} 23:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Jayron, I have often wondered the same thing myself. Why, just because the vote stackers were not successful should they be left alone? Well, I think the idea is that any administrator can take action as he or she sees fit without CheckUser, making a CheckUser not needed. But, should the socking get so bad that the results of the AfD, RfA, whatever it may be is effected then the disruption has reached a level that justifies the use of a tool that violates peoples privacy. I think more than anything it comes down to justification for running a check on the part of the Cherkusers. Tiptoety ^talk 23:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Bot back up

Just a quick notice that the bot went down yesterday with toolserver and did not restart. I'll look into it later. However it is back up now. Things done in the last... 6 to 12 hours will need null edits. —— nixeagle^{email me} 13:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)