Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Archive 6

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

RFCU template: New parameter

As we've had some cases that have been in the stage of active review, I have added an inprogress status to the template. This will change the status of the template to show that it is being actively reviewed by Checkuser(s), and put the case into Category:SPI cases currently in progress. To use it, simply change the status line to inprogress. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 02:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Garbled report

My latest report came out of the box looking like this, and I had to manually patch it.—Kww(talk) 15:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

And, despite the clerkbot comment, I wasn't notified that I had forgotten to put in a code letter.—Kww(talk) 15:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Discovered the glitch, and hopefully have corrected it: an extra character in the report name.—Kww(talk) 17:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Garbled report

My latest report came out of the box looking like this, and I had to manually patch it.—Kww(talk) 15:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

And, despite the clerkbot comment, I wasn't notified that I had forgotten to put in a code letter.—Kww(talk) 15:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Discovered the glitch, and hopefully have corrected it: an extra character in the report name.—Kww(talk) 17:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

New case

Would like to check users Papa November and Verbal for disruptive editing and behaviour that suggests sock puppetry. Think a number of "socks" involved. Suspect might include users commenting here on the deleted article "Telepathy and war". Frei Hans (talk) 14:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

No checkuser would run that. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
How do you mean? They visit pages in tandem, work collaboratively to delete content and their behaviour echoes the behaviour of an administrator recently found in an arbitration case to be a sock puppeteer. The arbitration case administrator deleted an article that the users campaigned for the deletion of. I only found out about the arbitration case after the article had been deleted, but had suspected sock puppetry was involved in the article's deletion. See case for AMiB. Frei Hans (talk) 14:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
You can't just go around making baseless accusations that you can't back up with any evidence. Both Verbal and Papa November are established members of the community with a long history of good work. Just because they made similar comments on a deletion discussion, it does not indicate sockpuppetry. So, basically, unless you can provide some concrete evidence (and I doubt you will find any), no checkuser will be run on either account. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
They both show editorial bias. They are disruptive. They posted aggressive comments on my user page. They seem to appear at the same times and on similar pages. Their edits and comments echo one another. They are often together, and often together in following me from page to page. Verbal's user page history shows he has clashed with other editors, provoking edit wars. They seem to stop at nothing to bully articles into deletion. They act in my opinion aggressively and in bad faith and could not possibly operate or be accepted in any reasonable community or by reasonable editors without creating around themselves a cable of puppets. As I said, an article they connived to delete was deleted by another user found to be operating sock puppets. The least anyone could do is check if they or other users commenting in the contentious discussions they provoke, might be connected. As you say, they have been around for some time and should know better. Frei Hans (talk) 15:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Frei Hans, your best bet is to assemble the evidence into a cohesive whole and then create a case following the instructions on the main page. Justifying a checkuser on established editors and administrators is a high bar, so be prepared to have your evidence subject to detailed scrutiny. Another option is to e-mail functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org, particularly if you believe you have convincing evidence of administrator misconduct relating to sockpuppetry. Nathan T 15:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for this advice. Which main page? I entered information into a field as instructions stated and pushed the button below, but it said the bot that handled these things was down. The field with instructions was very brief, and I saw no directions for "assembling evidence". What I do know, is that Papa November seems very experienced at working to create controversial forum discussions and in posting on "dispute resolution" pages. He seems to know all of their names and all of their processes. He seems to spend more time doing these things then creating article content. This all makes me suspect he has been through these kinds of scenes with editors before, and is more interested in disrupting then creating content - using sock puppets to do so. Frei Hans (talk) 15:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
The bot isn't down, but apparently all the notices haven't been removed yet. I was referring to WP:SPI. These sections labeled instructions and useful reading should be helpful. Nathan T 15:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

← How curious, two editors (myself and Verbal) both happened to get involved in a very long and arduous deletion debate. We also both appear to be keeping an eye on User:Frei Hans after the behaviour described here started. Also, is it really surprising that I as an administrator would spend more time doing admin chores than creating article content? Hardly evidence of sockpuppetry! Papa November (talk) 15:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to note that in the end Frei Hans added 10 people to the list of suspected sockpuppets, including me, possibly because I had earlier strongly advised him to take part in the Rfc involving him. Dougweller (talk) 19:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

New case

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Simesa. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

That bot is back up and working, meaning you do not need to post new cases here. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 19:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

IDK...

if the bot is down, but just incase, Tkdchicka123 is on WP:SPI AndrewrpTally-ho! 19:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Need to ask a query

I dont deal with sock puppets often but id like to ask advice. Ive noticed two accounts editing the same page(s) frequently and only these pages. They are new users and this is clear. Also they have a COI with the articles they created or are trying to save from deletion. I dont think the editors are famillar with Sock pupetry policy. But I dont think bringing them here is appropriate yet. Is it prudent to bring them this policy to their attention? What would be the best way to do this without offending? Also if I should bring it here please let me know. Thanks for your time Ottawa4ever (talk) 14:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course. Gently mention it if this is the case. You aren't making it clear how they have a coi though, but you should mention COI and SOCK in a manner that is informative and of course, not bitey. Syn 17:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry. As to how you should do it, just carefully mention it by noting the articles edited, and the manner in which it was done. Try not to be argumentative but informative and pipelink the guideline/policy in specific words (such as I noticed you and editor x were editing pages in a similar way, and you may be familiar with the subjects but... etc etc). Hope that helps a bit more. Syn 17:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks a bunch. Ottawa4ever (talk) 18:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

New case (sort of)

I started a new section under the Arab Cowboy SPI, since I think there is new evidence. Hopefully I went about this the right way... — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 20:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Is the bot down again?

If so, please list Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bosco.bosco9. If not, please ignore me or serve me a trout dinner. Thanks, cab (talk) 08:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

New case: Ericmaas

I've followed the notification that the SPI Bots are down and that I needed to notify a clerk using this location that there has been a new case opened so it may be added to the SPI page. The new case is entitled "Ericmaas". Please notify me if there is anything else that I need to do. Thank you. Brian Reading (talk) 02:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The bot is back, and has been for a while. As such, there is no longer a need to notify us here. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 02:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
This keeps happening because the notice that the bot is down is still there when you use the button to make a new case; I'd have removed that a long time ago, except I don't know where to find it. I thought I'd asked another clerk to fix it, who said he would, but perhaps he couldn't find it either. Nathan T 04:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 Fixed - Tiptoety talk 04:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

How can I become untagged? How do I know who tagged me and why?

Please someone tell me how can I check who tagged me and how can I become untagged.78.131.137.50 (talk) 04:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

How can I become untagged? How do I know who tagged me and why?

Please someone tell me how can I check who tagged me and how can I become untagged.78.131.137.50 (talk) 04:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Normal timeframe?

What's the normal timeframe to have sock puppet cases (non checkuser) looked at and resolved? I'm just asking because there's a pretty sizable listing and one of the cases is like 2 weeks old... just wondering. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 05:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Botched report, could some kindly person fix?

I botched the report for Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HarveyCarter by omitting the suspected sock. I've added it in now, but the SPI report isn't getting listed. Could someone investigate and fix? Many thanks! (Ping me (here or on my talkpage) if I've left out anything).

Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 13:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

How can I clear myself of charges?

I've been tagged a "possible scibaby sockpuppet" in circumstances than make think the system is being abused. This is like "The Trial" by Kafka. Someone throws an accusation and I don't know who it is, what is it based on and how can I be cleared of charges. So someone please answer my question before this overzealous BOT archieves it again 78.131.137.50 (talk) 22:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Backlog at "awaiting clerk approval"

Can we get this backlog cleared? If the report never makes to the people with checkuser power, they never get cleared. Is there something that people are waiting on?—Kww(talk) 14:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

If it's any consolation, I sometimes look through those, as well. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Did someone changed "pending close" section? OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
The subpage simply not transcluded anymore, because it was taking up too much space. The link is still there though. NW (Talk) 02:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

New cases (old)

The SPI bot is down. Please list cases below so that clerks can list them on the main SPI page. Clerks, please strike cases after you have transcluded them. — Jake Wartenberg 05:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The bot is back up now. — Jake Wartenberg 21:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Why can't section headers be used for SPI

I'm wondering why the SPI pages can't use section headers?

It makes it very hard to add your evidence/defense when you have to edit the whole page (especially if you are at the end). I am just wondering why ";" has to be used instead? --stmrlbs|talk 01:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I know that it seems rather annoying, but the way the transclusion system is set up, ";" has to be used, or else the entire page breaks. If you dislike posting with that format, simply make your post elsewhere, and ping a clerk to correctly format it onto the page; we will be happy to help. NW (Talk) 02:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
That is what I heard, that it "breaks the page". But I tried transclusion first with a page that I created with section headers, and then I tried transclusions of a fairly complex talk page with many sections. No problem. Here are a couple of examples (If you open each example page for editing, you can see it is just a template call of the other pages):
  • [1]a transclusion of a simple page I created
  • [2] a transclusion of Jimbo Wales talk page (this page will say that I am on Wiki-break because the inner macro picks up the page name, and the transclusion is on my User subpage.)
So.. what is broken? --stmrlbs|talk 03:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Editing sections through multiple layers of transclusion used to be quite hairy -- the URL to edit a page contains a section number, where sections are numbered sequentially from top to bottom without any hierarchy... in the older days, that number would be derived from the page being viewed, rather than the page being edited (section 2 on the case subpage might be section 24 on the front page, and so on). A few months ago I notice this seems to have been improved, if not fixed completely. A quick little test on my part ran into no obvious trouble, just now. I've also had some trouble editing our longer SPIs, for just the same reasons... this probably could bear more discussion. – Luna Santin (talk) 12:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
So, what you are saying is that when the page is transcluded as a subsection of another page containing sections preceding the transcluded page, the section numbers would all change? What pages are the SPI transcluded into? (I'm still finding my way around Wikipedia).
Does this just happen for SPI pages? or is it a problem elsewhere?
Do you have to "edit" each SPI? why? Can you give me an example? The reason I'm asking so many questions is I will be glad to write up a bug report if I can get it to happen myself. I realize that you can't have errors with official SPI reports.. but it is hard to pin down a problem without a good example. Then either I can submit it or I can give it to you to submit. --stmrlbs|talk 17:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I hadn't realized how complicated that sounds! But yes, that's about it. As far as examples, here's one: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations transcludes Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Subpage - Open CheckUser cases, which calls {{SPI}} in such a way that the transcluded template page also transcludes Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Light current (the case subpage). Under the old system, clicking a section-edit link for a section that's been transcluded to hell and back could have some very unintuitive results. I know that this used to be a serious problem, but I'm under the impression that some more recent software updates have mitigated -- if not solved -- that problem... I don't recall off-hand whether those updates were made before or after the move from RFCU to SPI. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I looked for something like this in the bug reports (bugzilla). I couldn't find anything.. but I didn't look through all the bug reports (several hundred or none were returned, depending on what keywords I tried). What I would suggest is to give me a sockpuppet request that you think will cause it. Save a copy, then change the ";" section headers to regular section headers (==). Save that copy. Or you can give it to me, and I will do it (the wiked tool makes this pretty easy). Then.. try it working with the report with normal headers. If you have a problem, please note what happened. Then restore the working version (with the ";" headers), and give me a link to both saved copies of the report. Then.. I can set up a dummy transclusion in my own userspace and write up a bug report. There are 2 possibilities. The software has been fixed, and no one was notified - or the software hasn't been fixed, and maybe a bug report was never submitted. But, either way, the only way to find out is to try it. And if it is broken, submitting a bug report about how it affects this part of Wikipedia administration will perhaps get it fixed. --stmrlbs|talk 04:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Two tracking bugs might be useful, there: bugzilla:12652 and bugzilla:4899. As I think I mentioned before (while neglecting to include a diff), I ran a quick test of my own - since removed - and didn't notice any obvious problems when directly editing sections from the SPI front page. Some more testing might be wise, but my current impression is that this is supported by software. If we think we can do it this way, with those subsections, the question remains whether we should; I personally think it would be useful in case subpages of great length, but gets in the way in shorter ones. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the bug number. How does this get in the way in shorter pages? I thank you for taking the time to explain this to me. --stmrlbs|talk 21:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Just a matter of clutter. :) Where there's a lot of content, breaking it down into sections makes it easier to read and edit; where there's not, I find the opposite will sometimes be true. I don't have an especially strong opinion on it, here -- I'd be fine trying it out, to see how it goes -- but others might feel differently (this is your chance to chime in, others!). – Luna Santin (talk) 22:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


New cases

The SPI bot is down. Please list cases below so that clerks can list them on the main SPI page. Clerks, please strike cases after you have transcluded them. — Jake Wartenberg 01:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


Are we giving up on the combined sockpuppet template?

See User:Avraham/Sandbox/SPOM for the template, which would require re-mapping of the current sockpuppet templates as discussed ad nauseum in the archives of this page :) -- Avi (talk) 05:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought that was proceeding, if perhaps slowly. Maybe somebody just needs to throw the switch? – Luna Santin (talk) 22:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Um...

...this may be a stupid question, but could someone explain why the User:Rex Dominator case is listed under "Open cases: not awaiting CheckUser"? This is not my first time reporting a sock, and I believe I can objectively say that the evidence is quite compelling in this case.

User:Rex Dominator, somewhat new on Wikipedia, has yesterday (14 August 2009) been reporting me for all sorts of nonsense because of a tough debate he and I have been having on the Chetniks article. Strangely, a new account was created the same evening to agree with him on the reports and insult me. :) However, it seems to me now (I may be very wrong :) that because User:Rex Dominator's reports were a tad bit "silly" and were thus mostly ignored, my report is being ignored as well. I assure you, this is not some kind of "retaliation". It is a serious report backed by compelling evidence. Regards, --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Anyone out there? :P --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, sorry. Basically when you file an SPI, you're given two options. The default is to request a suspected sockpuppet case (evidence of sockpuppetry but a checkuser is not wanted or required). The second option is to request checkuser attention, which puts the case into a different category. I'll work on some cases when I have some spare time. If you want to request checkuser for the Rex Dominator case, add {{RFCU|code letter|No2ndLetter|New}} to the page (filling in the code letter–if the case has two letters, change "No2ndLetter" to the second letter). Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 15:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Clerking

Hello! I am interested in helping out at SPI as a clerk – how do I find someone to train me? Cheers, Dylan620 (contribs, logs)help us! 20:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but we're not currently looking to train more non-admin clerks. We'll let you know if a vacancy opens. Thanks for your interest! — Jake Wartenberg 20:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Alright. Cheers, Dylan620 (contribs, logs)help us! 20:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Sock investigation tools

I can't find an list of tools for investigating possible socks. http://toolserver.org/~sql/socktime.php seems to be down, and there's no indication of a replacement.   Will Beback  talk  04:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I have one.[3] But you have to ask User:Betacommand to get a key. OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll ask him. We should start a list of these if there isn't one already.   Will Beback  talk  00:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
In order to get access to UserCompare please send me the key that you want to use and Ill activate it fairly quickly. βcommand 23:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

How do I properly notify the parties?

How do I properly notify the parties for which I've submitted a sockpuppet report? Is there a template for this? And, if so, do I just post it on their talk page? --stmrlbs|talk 01:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

{{uw-socksuspect|Case name}}. And yes, you just post it on their talk. Tiptoety talk 03:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
thanks. --stmrlbs|talk 04:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Why can't any editor simply check for sock puppet without having to show evidence?

After the spate of high profile sock puppets, include an arbitor and an editor who commented with multiple socks in numerous AFDs:

Why can't any editor simply check for sock puppet without having to show evidence? Why not make sock puppet checks routine and no big deal? As long as an IP address is involved, there is really no privacy involved.

I think trust in wikipedia is damaged without a more robust checkuser. I know myself and hundreds of other editors, are constantly wondering if an editor is a sock. Ikip (talk) 01:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

As checkusers, clerks, or simply interested editors, it's our obligation to protect the privacy of editors. Asking for evidence prevents many baseless claims of sockpuppetry. It also saves us time digging for evidence ourselves. Steve Crossin The clock is ticking.... 02:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
m:Privacy policy. – Luna Santin (talk) 12:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Mr. Steve Crossin, you bring up three issues:
  1. privacy and m:Privacy policy. I can understand how privacy is an issue if one account is an anon IP account. But lets say I am account User:SOCK1 and User:SOCK2. Revealing both of these accounts are socks does not in anyway effect my privacay.
  2. baseless claims of sockpuppetry What is wrong with phishing in that if there are 4 times more sock puppet claims filed, but there are twice as many socks caught.
  3. saves us time digging for evidence ourselves IP checks are fairly quick. I am not talking about digging through edits, I am talking about IP checks. This could easily be solved by allowing more editors with check user authority.
If arbcoms have been caught using socks, that means the behavior is very widespread. What do you think? Ikip (talk) 15:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
There's a common misunderstanding of what "fishing" actually implies. If a checkuser suspects sockpuppetry on good grounds, a check can often be done. Fishing is basically a baseless check without evidence of sockpuppetry. Checking everybody is neither feasible nor appropriate on any level, so yes, it is extremely important that evidence of socking is provided.
Addressing your second point, IP checks can reveal users on the IP. If, for example, a school IP was checked and it revealed one or more respected editors, you would know where that editor(s) edit from. That is private information, and users must have the full trust of the arbitration committee/community to hold the private information of any user.
Recently, functionary elections ended, and there will likely be three more checkusers by the end of the week (just fyi). PeterSymonds (talk) 15:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
It may also help to read Deskana's view of "Fishing" in his email to ArbCom at Wikipedia:CheckUser#"Fishing". There, he brings up more creative ways of utilizing the WMF's privacy policy as well as the CheckUser policy to stop the disruption (as opposed to the "full frontal assault" approach by bringing everything out into the open). Don't know if that helps, but I think it's worth mentioning. MuZemike 18:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I am in no way suggesting that an IP address be revealed. I am sorry that this was not clear enough.
Thanks MuZemike, I really appreciate your ideas. Ikip (talk) 16:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
RE: Checking an account where the alleged sockmaster is unknown, but there is reasonable suspicion of sockpuppetry is not fishing. Wikipedia:CheckUser#"Fishing"
"reasonable suspicion" means a user must have some kind of evidence, correct? Evidence which, in most editors case, checkusers will require before they do a checkuser.
Can I email Deskana and ask him to check a user? But even if I do, he cannot give me an answer.
I respect Deskana's idea, but itdoesn't seem like a possiblity for those who do not have checkuser tools.
Ikip (talk) 16:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion:

Editor Q gives the checkuser page a suspected sock puppets name, and a list of suspected sock puppeters, and ask the checkuser page to confirm whether the suspected sock puppet was the same as the sock puppeters by IP address.

Once the IP address is confirmed, but not revealed, the editor could be investigated further by Editor Q.

This would vastly reduce everything but the most sophisticated sockpuppetering (use of proxy servers). Ikip (talk) 16:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

How can I clear myself of charges?

I've been tagged a "possible scibaby sockpuppet" in circumstances than make think the system is being abused. This is like "The Trial" by Kafka. Someone throws an accusation and I don't know who it is, what is it based on and how can I be cleared of charges. So someone please answer my question before this overzealous BOT archieves it again 78.131.137.50 (talk) 22:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

See Defending yourself against claims. It says right there on the case page. MuZemike 00:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't say how can I know who tagged me, who investigates my case, when would I become untagged etc 78.131.137.50 (talk) 01:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't see any sockpuppet investigation with your IP listed on it. The only thing I could find is this: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Large amount of Rangeblocks by Raul654. However, the IP you're currently on is not anywhere in those ranges that were blocked. The only thing that involves tagging is this suspicion by William M. Connolley here, but no action has been taken since then; it's been three weeks since that last edit. It is possible that you might not be an IP sock of Scibaby based on that AN discussion above; if no action was taken on you between then and now, then I would say forget about it and move on editing. MuZemike 20:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
OK,one last question. You're saying that the tag was attached to me by William M. Connolley.
Wasn't that a violation of Wikipedia rules???
He used an administrative tool in the article he's been personally involved in for a long time, to prevent further dispute. He and his friends repeatedly used the fact that I'm tagged to delete my paragraph from article's talkpage. I couldn't paste it back without violating 3RR.
I feel thatfor this kind of behaviour he should suffer some concequences
He never notified me that he was the one who tagged me and why he did it. It looks like a few people patrols a group of related articles to own them with any means78.131.137.50 (talk) 21:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Alert to admins that permanently banned User:SEGA has created another account

PCRPlates (talk · contribs) is a new sockpuppet account of the permanently banned User:SEGA. Not sure how to re-open a closed case file. Wether B (talk) 20:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Nishkid64 has already blocked and tagged the account; there is no need to reopen the case. Thanks for the alert though, NW (Talk) 21:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Section for checked cases

I'd like us to add a section for checked cases, and have the bot move cases with the checked RFCU param to "checked cases" subpage transcluded into that section. Few reasons:

  • Once cases are checked, there potential for trouble from "confirmed" cases increases
  • Cases with confirmed results that are still listed all require admin attention, but can get lost in the sea of non-CU cases
  • CU's often don't issue blocks based on their results; since checked cases sometimes languish even when they can be easily closed by any administrator, it would help to define these cases more specifically in our queues.

Thoughts? Nathan T 21:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't be a bad idea. We should probably only send "confirmed" or "likely" to that section, but I like the idea. I wouldn't think it would be too much trouble for nixeagle to code it in, although I think getting the source code released should be the first priority with any coding time. NW (Talk) 21:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Back in the day, the reason I had everything put into one queue was for the reason of keeping it simple. For administrators who are unfamiliar with the process, have one queue for "checked cases" may infer that they are only to be handled by Checkusers, and SPI clerks. But, when you have them all incorporated into one queue, administrators are more likely to take action on such cases. Another reason, was to try and get away from the whole "RFCU cases" vs. "SSP cases", remember that was the whole reason behind SPI. I feel that having a separate queue would move away from SPIs purpose. That said, should consensus support another queue I have no qualms. Tiptoety talk 23:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, another way we can organize the page could be: 

1. Open cases not awaiting CheckUser
1.1 CheckUser not requested
1.2 CheckUser already performed
2. Open cases: awaiting Checkuser processing
2.1 Awaiting Clerk approval
2.2 Awaiting CheckUser

This could solve the issue that Tiptoety brought up, I think, and address Nathan's point at the same time. NW (Talk) 23:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion NW, but that seems very confusing to me. In order for me to find what queue my case was in, I would have to search all over the place. Tiptoety talk 23:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, what about swapping the order then? 

1. Open cases: awaiting Checkuser processing
1.1 Awaiting Clerk approval
1.2 Awaiting CheckUser
2. Open cases not awaiting CheckUser
2.1 CheckUser not requested
2.2 CheckUser already performed

That seems like a much more natural progression to me anyway. If a checkuser isn't requested, skip to step 2; otherwise, just continue down the page. NW (Talk) 23:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The confusing part is having all those queues, not so much the order they are in. ;-) I can see some people going: "Is my case awaiting Checkuser processing, or awaiting a Checkuser, or awaiting a clerk? Hm, guess I gotta check all the queues." I don't really feel there is a current issue with how things are being done, so why fix what is not broken? Tiptoety talk 00:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I think the issue with why Nathan thinks that another queue would be useful would be because oftentimes, after checkusers are run, they end back up in the main queue and take days to close, when they could be closed almost immediately. Admittedly, this problem should hopefully lessen after Jake's RfA passes, but it would be still much easier to close them out if any administrator can just take a quick look and see that there are "easy" cases to close. And as for the difficulty of finding it, I would imagine that most people either watchlist their SPI cases and access it that way. And if they do not do it that way, Ctrl + F is always accessible. Four queues compared to three when there are the same number of cases takes about the same amount of time to go through, I would guess. NW (Talk) 00:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Splitting the archive page

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Closed is quite large now, over half a megabyte: would it be possible/reasonable to split it into separate archive pages by month and to turn the current page into a directory-by-month? Nyttend (talk) 15:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

That would make sense. In order to do that though, you would need to get a hold of the SPI bots operator Nixeagle (talk · contribs). Tiptoety talk 04:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

How can I clear myself of charges?

I've been tagged a "possible scibaby sockpuppet" in circumstances than make think the system is being abused. This is like "The Trial" by Kafka. Someone throws an accusation and I don't know who it is, what is it based on and how can I be cleared of charges. So someone please answer my question before this overzealous BOT archieves it again 78.131.137.50 (talk) 22:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

See Defending yourself against claims. It says right there on the case page. MuZemike 00:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't say how can I know who tagged me, who investigates my case, when would I become untagged etc 78.131.137.50 (talk) 01:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't see any sockpuppet investigation with your IP listed on it. The only thing I could find is this: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Large amount of Rangeblocks by Raul654. However, the IP you're currently on is not anywhere in those ranges that were blocked. The only thing that involves tagging is this suspicion by William M. Connolley here, but no action has been taken since then; it's been three weeks since that last edit. It is possible that you might not be an IP sock of Scibaby based on that AN discussion above; if no action was taken on you between then and now, then I would say forget about it and move on editing. MuZemike 20:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
OK,one last question. You're saying that the tag was attached to me by William M. Connolley.
Wasn't that a violation of Wikipedia rules???
He used an administrative tool in the article he's been personally involved in for a long time, to prevent further dispute. He and his friends repeatedly used the fact that I'm tagged to delete my paragraph from article's talkpage. I couldn't paste it back without violating 3RR.
I feel thatfor this kind of behaviour he should suffer some concequences
He never notified me that he was the one who tagged me and why he did it. It looks like a few people patrols a group of related articles to own them with any means78.131.137.50 (talk) 21:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Look, you're not going to get results here. If you have an issue with Connolley in the form of a complaint, then bring it up at WP:ANI, not here. There's nothing that can be done here. Now please stop digging up the same old two-month-old issue here again. MuZemike 23:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Improvements to the SPI header page (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/header)

Today, I took the liberty into trying to work in some improvements to the SPI header (where are instructions and SPI guidelines are at) and make it more presentable and informative to those users submitting SPIs. A working copy of my revisions can be found in my sandbox. If anyone has any suggestions or improvements to the page, then discuss below or feel free to edit the sandbox yourself. Thank you, MuZemike 23:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

At first glance, that looks like a major improvement to me. Very nice. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Definitely agree; great job! I made a few copy edits; I hope you don't mind. NW (Talk) 03:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
One detail I've noticed: since they're horizontally aligned in the proposed version, it seems to me that the "new case without checkuser" and "new case with checkuser" forms might be at risk of running into each other. Some divider between them might be helpful (whether it's a new table with two columns, or what, I don't have a strong preference). Just a thought. I'd say go ahead with it, either way, though. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
OK. There's one thing that could to be changed. We should probably edit the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Inputboxes page so that it's tabular like I have it in the sandbox; right now, I just have the code from that page copypasted since that page is full-protected. Then all we'd have to do is transclude that page where the inputbox information is at. Again, since it's full-protected, an admin would have to make that change. MuZemike 20:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 Done changes implemented per this edit [4]. MuZemike 20:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

There are no instructions regarding notification of users. DrKiernan (talk) 11:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Notifying the suspect

I have just opened a case on User:Phuntsok2000sback. There is nothing in the instructions about notifying the suspect - does the system do that automatically? If I should do it, is there a stndard template? JohnCD (talk) 15:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

{{Uw-socksuspect}} is a good one. Perhaps we should add a link to it in the instructions. — Jake Wartenberg 15:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Frankly, I think notifying them is a bad idea--indeed, I think having these pages public is largely a bad idea (but see no way around it, unfortunately), as they provide serial sockpuppeteers with information on how to avoid getting caught next time. → ROUX ₪ 15:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Added instructions to notify the suspected suspects under the "case guidelines" in the header, using {{subst:socksuspectnotice|PUPPETMASTER}}. MuZemike 16:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Modified those instructions to indicate that notification is not mandatory, and may not be a good idea in all cases. I think one of the main reasons that we get anywhere with socks is that most of them don't understand how they are getting detected, what their signatures are, and how the blocks are being processed. There's no reason to hand them a roadmap.—Kww(talk) 16:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. → ROUX ₪ 16:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I messed up the SPI front page

When I created Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xgmx I think I fouled up the headers somehow. I'm very sorry - I don't know how I did it because I followed the instructions and didn't add any extra headings in the report, but Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations got a new layer of headings. I hope it's reasonably easy to fix, but don't want to start experimenting myself for fear I'll break something else! --bonadea contributions talk 09:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. You had filled out the subject box, which the instructions say not to do.—Kww(talk) 12:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. --bonadea contributions talk 12:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Search box

Didn't we use to have a search box to locate previous case? I can't find it anymore. -- Luk talk 11:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Moved to the bottom of the page. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 11:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Much love :P -- Luk talk 11:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Flaky bot

Can anyone explain what the issue with the bot is? I just manually moved WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Youhavebeenthunderstruck into the right queue (after having tried a null edit to wake the bot). Is it crashing? Resource problems? What?—Kww(talk) 16:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

It's been flaky for a while. The problem is that the bot's owner User:Nixeagle is very busy IRL and has very little time to debug whatever is causing problems. Unless someone wants to devise another bot that can help out, we're kind stuck right now. MuZemike 20:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Guidelines for patrolling admins (WP:SPI/AI) revisions

I would like to again direct everyone's attention to my sandbox where I'm currently trying to revise the directions and guidelines for patrolling admins (which is basically "everyone else out there"). My goal here is to spell everything out so it's nice and clear for admins as to what to do. I've probably made some mistakes in there, so feel free to edit my sandbox and make any corrections and/or discuss if need be. Also, if anyone has additional recommendations for the formatting (I confess it might be a tad convoluted as far as what I have right now.) feel free to discuss or boldly edit. MuZemike 20:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Made some edits; what do you think? NW (Talk) 23:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Stale master account

How do we check for sockpuppets when the main (original) account has been blocked for so long that it is marked as  Stale? Specifically, I suspect Swzchic (talk · contribs) is just another recent sock of MRDU08 (talk · contribs), but at the last request I made at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/MRDU08, the main account was noted as stale. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Possible Sockpuppets.

I know this is the wrong place to put this, but I've no idea what the correct procedure is for this. I suspect these 3 accounts are sockpuppets, but I don't wish to launch the full procedures without getting opinions from people who have experience in dealing with these sorts of cases.

[[5]] [[6]] [[7]]

These three accounts were made on the 5th and 3rd of September 2009, and have made almost identical vandalism edits on Evolution. The timings on the edits made also appears suspicious.Jhbuk (talk) 21:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

they've been blocked as vandalism only accounts by another admin. But this confirms what I said about difficulty in using the elaborate system. DGG ( talk ) 07:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_September_9#Template:IPsock

{{IPsock}} is up for deletion, if any of you guys care to comment. NW (Talk) 04:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Simple procedure

Bleh, this page looks more bloated in bureacracy every time I look at it. Isn't there a simple way of stating that I suspect Sussexonian (talk · contribs) to be a sock of a banned Sussexman (talk · contribs) and I'd like somebody with proper tools to look into it? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the directions are getting a little overbearing. We've been working on it slowly over the last little while, although my personal opinion is that the progress has been mixed. If you have suggestions of better formatting, feel free to make them! Nathan T 19:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'll tell you right now, don't bother requesting CheckUser because all the accounts except Sussexonian are  Stale; they won't be able to go back that far with Sussexman or any of the other confirmed socks and make a check.
I would say it's clear, but I'll leave that discretion to an admin who does the blocking. Anyways, go to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations#Submitting an SPI case, type "Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sussexman" in the left box (you want to start a case without checkuser), click, follow the on-page instructions, save page, done.
Also, if you have any suggestions to make SPI a simpler process, shoot away. MuZemike 19:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
See my proposed edit of the header here. I think this change simplifies the page, which at the moment is very busy and confusing, and reduces some duplication and unnecessary language. Nathan T 20:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
a few of the remaining problems and bugs using the form now on the page
I checked report without checkuser, but the instructions said to enter the name as {{checkuser|USER NAME HERE}}
The directions for filing a report include what to do if you're contesting a report
The heading for the directions says if you are already familiar with the instructions "create the case by replacing "CASENAME" with the name of the oldest account, or previous case name in the box below" , but you have to do that in the first step regardless, or it won't proceed.
notifying the accused is given as optional. It should automatically notify the accused, or at least say to do it, or at very least say to do it in most cases.
there's a space for subject/headline but it doesn't say what to enter there.
minor edit seems checked by default, even though I do not have my preferences set that way This is not usually a minor edit.
if I do want checkuser it says "See below for letter codes, and valid reasons to request Checkuser." but there are no letter codes or reasons given on this page, below or anywhere else. .
if I were a user filing a SPI I would at this point give up and ask an admin for help directly. Better instructions here will help cut down the clutter at AN/I. DGG ( talk ) 07:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments DGG. I've made some changes based on your comments (removed the "If you are already familiar..." language and removed the info from the inputbox about comments from the accused). I'm not sure why minor edit is checked, and the header should actually be blank. When I create a casepage, I have to save twice in order to create one without a subject line - but if I include one, it breaks the formatting of the TOC. Hopefully other clerks more familiar with the mechanical end of things can comment on these two issues.
Regarding the {{checkuser}} template - its the standard template, because CU can be requested on an open case even when it was not originally. The template has the "checkuser" and "tag" links (and may eventually include the "spi block" link, but maybe not). If you think it would be an improvement, we could probably switch to a version of the {{user}} template. Next, we don't have a way to regularly notify accused accounts - particularly accounts added after the case is created. It's something nixeagle has tried to add to the bot, but it hasn't worked out. We don't always notify accounts because in many cases doing so would be counterproductive; for obvious socking cases, especially prolific sockers, providing them a link into SPI would give them a roadmap on how to avoid detection. Lastly, the "See below for letter codes..." comment refers to the next box down, which is collapsed. Was it not there when you looked? Nathan T 12:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
One response to DGG's comments: the accused should usually not be notified, and certainly not automatically. The only way we succeed against serial sockpuppeteers is that the vast majority of them are amateurs: they don't know what it is about their edits that allows us to detect them. Some of the good ones (Brexx, Soccermeko, Bambifan) know how we figure them out and make efforts to control their behaviour to escape detection. Soccermeko even appeared to have his SPI page watchlisted. The rest simply do the same thing over and over and over. If we notify them every time they are detected, and hand them a map of every bit of evidence used to detect them, all we do is turn them into better sockpuppeteers.
There's an appeal process built into this. A false sockpuppeting block can always be undone at the unblock request stage, and checkusers are pretty amenable to verifying the sockpuppeting accusation to process an unblock request.—Kww(talk) 13:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I partially agree with you, but... if I was being accused I would want to know about it, first thing. We're talking about revoking editing privileges here. Also, if they have their cases watchlisted, or follow them as some in fact do, they are notified because of recent activity regardless. So removing the notification really doesn't do much besides snubbing a possibly innocent editor of a defense. I do agree that out more prolific masters shouldn't be notified though. Lastly, we shouldn't be blocking per "A false sockpuppeting block can always be undone at the unblock request stage". We should be sure before we hit that button. /end rant Syn 19:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree that we should be sure before we hit the button. That's one of the reasons that I wish checkusers were one as a routine part of sock-puppeting blocks, just as a safety measure. The problem with the notification is that prolific sockpuppeteers all start out as first-time puppeteers, and there's no reason to teach them the system in advance. I monitor a lot of the blocks and sockpuppet reports, and if I notice things going astray and blocks being issued improperly, I comment on it, and they usually get undone. This is the most recent example. It's not quite clear from the discussion, but the block was undone. Unfortunately, the block was quickly reinstated because of renewed disruption, but I believe in following the rules as closely as reasonable.—Kww(talk) 02:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Interesting. Well, you do have a point. But any and all cases exist and can be read if a master wants to learn from his or her own future mistakes (and the mistakes of others). Then again, most masters do not change. They always leave that hint of themselves, or pattern (like a calling card, sort of). As it stands I believe it can be handled one of two ways. The first is the standard judgment call of the clerk, while the other is having the bot decide (after plenty of testing of course). As for now I'd settle for clerk judgment since Nix is probably in school.... :) Syn 00:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

If the following questions belong here or here...

...my apologies. If a user was indef for abusing multiple socks, does that mean any new account the user creates should also be blocked? If not, should a SSP template be left on the new account's user page? If the template is added, can the user remove it? (I know these are newbie questions...don't laugh) APK is a GLEEk 07:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

No, no, don't worry about not knowing. If a person was blocked for disruption (for instance), and that person tries to create a new account to try to evade that block, then that is indeed sock puppetry. Hence, in your case, yes, that account should be indefinitely blocked. The main way to report that is to simply file an SPI report using the directions at WP:SPI and just read down. At the bottom of the instructions there will be an automatic "request SPI form", in which you replace "SOCKMASTER" with whomever is the master sockpuppeteer of all of them, and then fill out the information required after clicking on the "Use this button" button. Provide your evidence of sock puppetry on the edit page that comes up, save the page, and hopefully the SPI clerks, administrators, or even CheckUsers will look at the case and use their abilities to determine whether or not sock puppetry is going on and make blocks if so. If you have any other questions, let me know. MuZemike 07:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks for the help. :-) APK is a GLEEk 08:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Wrong queue

Unless procedures have changed, Timeinabottle, Jacquesdurias, and Brexx are sitting in the wrong queue: they should be in "awaiting clerk approval", but they are in "not awaiting checkuser".—Kww(talk) 17:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll get them; thanks for the note. NW (Talk) 17:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Similar problem with Mrpontiac1. I filed an new suspect, but its in the "closed cases" queue. --Nsaum75 (talk) 17:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Relisted under "open SPI cases". MuZemike 14:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Slight change to {{SPIclose}} template

It took me a while to figure out what was going on parser-function-wise with the {{SPIclose}} template, but basically I've devised a way to additionally categorize the template (for details of my proposed changes, see my Sandbox):

I'd make the change right then and now, but I just want to see what users think of the benefits (and possibly cons) of having another SPI case category in there. My train of thought is that it's much easier to look in one category or have a bot load pages from a category and systematically process them as pages are added. Thoughts? MuZemike 17:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I like it. Its a time saver, but only while the bots down. I don't think it needs its own cat while its operational. Syn 22:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
It works, and it facilitates moving away from a bot-centric SPI process. Nathan T 15:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jackiestud

Above not appearing on main page. Due to bots being down? I have no idea, so posting here. Verbal chat 09:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

If someone could block this IP and restore the page they're vandalising, I'd appreciate it. Verbal chat 13:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Listed. MuZemike 14:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HipHopfan4life

Another not showing up in the list... could someone check it please? - Adolphus79 (talk) 14:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Listed. MuZemike 14:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Bots

I think the transition from bot to no bot, which has unfortunately happened with some regularity, unnecessarily adds confusion to the process of opening cases and managing case progress. My proposal is that we permanently eliminate the subpage queues in favour of sections on WP:SPI (we currently do this during extended bot downtime, and it works fine), retain the bot for archiving purposes using a {{SPItobearchived}} tag that the bot can remove when archiving has been completed, and use nixeaglebot/SPCUbot and SoxBot to help us track open cases and edits using the open SPI case category. The system becomes difficult to manage when the bot is down but the process is still designed around the bot; my proposal would structure the SPI process around the people who use it, and use bots to assist in a way that doesn't make us dependent on them.

This is in no way intended as criticism of nixeagle, who has done absolutely great work for SPI for a long time and deserves our continued gratitude and appreciation. Nathan T 21:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Another possibility would be for nixeagle to share the code for the bot with another user who could run it when he is unable to. I fear that eliminating case subpages will affect the usability of the cases and archives. — Jake Wartenberg 22:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
To be clear, I want to keep the case subpages but eliminate the queue subpages - basically the same process we've used when the bot is down for an extended period of time. Nathan T 22:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

---

Ok, we're back to the no-bots version of the page. Here's the process now:

  1. User creates new case following the instructions.
  2. Clerk finds the case in the open cases category, lists it on WP:SPI in either the Open cases section or the Awaiting approval section.
  3. Case is approved/checked/closed, add {{SPIclose}} and move case to "Pending close" section.
  4. Second reviewer adds {{SPIclose|archive}} and removes case from the pending list.
  5. A bot can scan the "pending archival" category (discussed below by MuZemike) and archive the cases - if its nixeaglebot, updating SPI/C.
  6. If a new report is filed on a case with a closed report that hasn't been archived, manually archive that report.

Make sense? Any errors there that I missed, or problems? Nathan T 16:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Backlog at "awaiting clerk approval"

I know you guys are working hard, but could you push a few through the queue? It's frustrating to watch the edits from Girlaabout pile up, because that makes it harder and harder for me to do the task of unwinding all the banned users edits after the report is processed. I'm just going to go ahead and jump the gun on WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Xtinadbest, because unwinding this one later is going to be impossible. WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Pokerdance is similar: so many edits to so many popular articles that it will take a couple hours to erase him.—Kww(talk) 15:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Working on it now. MuZemike 15:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Cleared for now. MuZemike 16:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Olumideakinsola

Please add to queue. Thanks. The link on the main page (WT:SPI#New cases) doesn't exist. Hairhorn (talk) 16:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Listed. MuZemike 16:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

More "Pee Wee Herman" idiocy

Those damned crater-faced, fuzz-nutted little bastards are back from over at ED, 4chan or wherever the hell they're from...and please spare me a lecture regarding my language because this isn't nearly as raw as it could be, believe me. User:HirmanPwEE, User:Whosafraidofpeeweeherman and User:Erminhay are trashing my talk page. I am asking that someone please initiate a rangeblock of the accounts if they are in fact three different users. If it's the same little jackass, please blok the range, at least for a little while. Please? Thank you. PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I had mentioned on IRC the possibility. It has been checked. (Correction: I had asked User:HirmanPwEE to be checked) --Bsadowski1 01:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Two announcements

  • The bot is back up. Using the procedure on the main SPI page will now automatically add a case to the appropriate queue. There is no longer a need to post here.
  • The list of archived SPI cases have (finally) been separated by month instead of one large list. The list of archived cases is currently listed on the main SPI page, just before the list of current cases at the bottom of the main SPI page. This will help in not breaking bots or browsers, both of which have been occurring rather frequently as of late.

MuZemike 02:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

New Case

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Niama13Abce2|This isnot a test 23:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Brexx

Can anyone think of anything we can do that would be more effective? Blocking the entire UAE seems to be out of the question. How would people feel about simply semi-protecting any article he touched for a week? It might take a few hundred protections, but reverting his edits is getting to be really old.—Kww(talk) 01:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Mass semi is worth a shot; it might be helpful to keep a list of such pages (something like the subpages at User:Luna Santin/Sockwatch, for example). – Luna Santin (talk) 18:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
User:Kww/Brexx would be a good start.—Kww(talk)
Excellent, thanks. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Bot Archive

Is the bot forgetting to add the archive link after it archives an entry? (See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Niama13 and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pararubbas for comparisons) OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. However, I'm wondering if the bot is at all for new cases, as obviously it will always be there for old cases. You might want to ping Nixeagle about that. MuZemike 02:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Disregard above reason; I found what the problem is. Just purge the cache, and it should pop up. MuZemike 02:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Suspected vs. Confirmed

What does it take to move a user from "Suspected sockpuppet" to "confirmed"? I have marked five of Camponhoyle's merry band as "suspected" - Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Camponhoyle - all have now been indef-blocked, shall I now change them to "confirmed" so that we just have the one Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Camponhoyle, or do they need to have been formally CU-ed or something for that? JohnCD (talk) 16:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed we normally reserve for confirmed-via-checkuser; for all else, suspected will suffice. They can be indef-blocked even if they are suspected though; that is no issue. Regards, NW (Talk) 16:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Further question - as new ones turn up, should they be added to the closed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Camponhoyle/Archive? JohnCD (talk) 16:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
No; a new case should be filed. If they were blocked outside of the SPI process, tag them normally and don't add them; if they have not been blocked yet, use the button on the main WP:Sockpuppet investigations page to create the case normally. NW (Talk) 16:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

"Harmless" socks

This is pretty unfamiliar ground to me, so before clogging up the system I thought I'd ask if you bother to report suspected socks that are acting in an obvious but harmless way. For example, I'm pretty sure a sock account has been set up to award a barnstar to the other account. I noticed its only edits are to the two respective user pages (and the barnstar didn't even go to other's talk page first). But is this the kind of matter to send to SPI? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd say probably not, but I guess it depends on if they are doing anything else with their sock. Probably tell the main user to quit using socks for things like that. J.delanoygabsadds 22:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Stacked reports

We need to come to a consensus on how to deal with stacked up reports. Brexx comes up with new socks often enough that it is a very common problem that a new sock pops up between the checkuser having been run and the report being closed. What I used to do in that event was go back through the top menu, and create a complete new report. That winds up with a report that looks like this. This is apparently difficult to archive, so Nathan requested I not do that any more, and instead, edit the old report to create the new if that happens.

That resulted in this, where the two results are intermingled. It's apparent that this confused everyone, because:

I'll argue pretty strongly that the best way to handle a case where a new sock pops up after a checkuser is run is to open a new report. It may make the archiving a bit more complex, but it keeps the case much clearer and better organized.—Kww(talk) 01:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Hm... in the older RFCU system, page structure was much more free-form, and adding a new request below the current CU response would work well. Would that work here, with the more structured SPI format, say, to add ";New request from FooUser" to the current report? Or something else that would be easily noticed at a glance. Since a lot of archiving is partially bot-handled, I can see why we'd want to keep it simple, but if we're missing follow-up requests, that's bad juju. – Luna Santin (talk) 16:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
possibly the free-form structure was more adaptable to circumstances, and better at least for non experts. I don't participate here, not because I cannot figure it out, but because it isn't worth figuring out complicated special purpose procedures when there is so much else to do. This inherently limits the system to a few regulars and discourages wider participation. DGG ( talk ) 23:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Which leads to another point: the natural thing for someone inexperienced with the system to do with a new sock is to file a new report. Even if people find it inconvenient to have multiple reports open simultaneously, it's inevitable if you want to have people that aren't expert sock hunters handle the system at all.—Kww(talk) 23:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
You're right, of course. I only asked you to do it a different way because you've been regularly filing cases for quite some time, and are about as familiar with the mechanics of SPI as anyone who isn't a clerk hanging out in #wikipedia-en-spi. Nathan T 00:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Should we try to make it easier than submitting an article for AFD, then? Just willy-nilly list some accounts, and try to let someone else sort them out? (I just missed an extra article that was co-nommed for AFD today because it was stuffed in the middle of the discussion where nobody would be able to detect it.) I mean, I don't know. Perhaps some people were happier when SSP and RFCU were separate. But then again, you had people complaining about that process as too much creep because of the separate processes. I don't know what to say, except that nobody is offering solutions but are reiterating problems. MuZemike 00:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm trying to be productive. I made a sincere effort to do what Nathan requested, and it seemed to have fallen apart. I honestly believe the best thing to do is to go back through the top menu if a checkuser has already been run. If it makes archiving a bit harder, that seems like a small price to pay for clarity. I brought it here to have a discussion with all the clerks so that you could either agree with me or convince me otherwise. I honestly don't understand DGG's point, though: the forms and menus seem fairly intuitive. Some small things (like a template with a word other than "checkuser" for the cases where a checkuser hasn't been requested) can be fixed, but the overall structure seems quite reasonable.—Kww(talk) 00:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Not transcluded

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Guitarherochristopher needs a CU, already endorsed by clerk. → ROUX ₪ 15:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done by User:J.delanoy OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

New proposed way to list socks

In an effort to try to make it easier to list socks in a nice list and still maintain the capability to record bot information on socks, I have devised two fairly simple one-time-use templates—one to list socks that are registered accounts and one for socks that are IP addresses. User:MuZemike/Sandbox3 and User:MuZemike/Sandbox2 are the respective test templates for these. Here's how it works: simply do the following for registered accounts, {{subst:User:MuZemike/Sandbox3|SOCK1|SOCK2|SOCK3|etc.}} (replacing SOCK1, SOCK2, SOCK3, and so on with the usernames of the suspected socks, up to 20 entries). For example, {{subst:User:MuZemike/Sandbox3|MuZemike|Nathan|PeterSymonds|NuclearWarfare}} would result in the following:

User:MuZemike/Sandbox3

The same thing would be done with the IP addresses. Now, if, for whatever reason, you forget to place any socks in that template, a big red error message comes up. For instance, {{subst:User:MuZemike/Sandbox3}} would result in the following:

User:MuZemike/Sandbox3

I will add that this template, if used, will have to be substed so that SPCUClerkbot can properly run its bot analysis as currently done. Any thoughts, here? MuZemike 21:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what the advantage would be; I personally find it much easier to write out a few {{checkuser}} templates, but if somebody found a single, substed template easier to work with, then by all means they might as well use it. If we're looking for features, it might be one way to try to address confusion between {{checkuser}} and {{checkip}}. For example, take the following:
* {{#expr: 127.0.0.1 - 1}}
* {{#expr: username - 1 }}
  • 126
  • Expression error: Unrecognized word "username".

Notice the expression error, in the event that a username is passed in instead of an IP address; using #iferror: we can then display either {{checkuser}} or {{checkip}}, as appropriate. 

* {{#iferror: {{#expr: 127.0.0.1 - 1}} | {{checkuser|127.0.0.1}} | {{checkip|127.0.0.1}} }}
* {{#iferror: {{#expr: username - 1}} | {{checkuser|username}} | {{checkip|username}} }}
Just a random idea. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Three Audit Subcommittee vacancies: Call for applications

The process to appoint the three non-arbitrator members of the Audit Subcommittee is underway, with the election itself starting on 30 October. If you think you may be suitably qualified, please see the election pages for the job specification and application arrangements. Applications close 22 October 2009.

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies talk 21:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed solution for section header problem in SPI

In response to the problem stated here: Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations/Archives/Archive6#Why_can.27t_section_headers_be_used_for_SPI , I created a new SPI blank form with section headers that I think will make it much easier for Wikipedia editors submitting SPIs, as they can edit just a section with their changes, instead of having to edit the entire page. I do not think this new form will interfere with the clerk procedures for handling. At this time, I have only made these changes (in my sandbox) to the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/Inputbox_blank_report_for_CU_request. I thought it would be better to make the changes to the lesser used form, then test it, and make whatever tweaks needed to be made, before changing the more frequently used No-CU form.
Here are the past discussions about this:

and here is the current version of the blank form that users use to make SPI requests, and my version:

Comments? stmrlbs|talk 23:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

no comments at all? I realize this will change the appearance a little for the clerks, but it will make the addition by various users to an SPI so much easier. It is really hard to add to an SPI at the present time, the more people involved - the harder. stmrlbs|talk 02:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I'll try to take a look at it sometime later on. There hasn't been too many clerks or CUs around SPI (beside myself and sporadically at best) the last several days. Hang in there! MuZemike 02:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
ok. Thanks for replying. If you have any questions about what I did, please let me know. stmrlbs|talk 03:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Does this mess up the TOC on WP:SPI? I'd really rather not see all those sections in the main TOC. Nathan T 15:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You could use {{TOClimit|4}} to limit the TOC on the main page. nableezy - 17:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I believe we've tried that before on this page for other reasons, and it didn't work out. Nathan T 18:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Just tested using it for transcluded pages (main, transcluded) and it seems to work fine. nableezy - 19:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I tested this when Luna Santin gave me the suggestion of using the TOC limit on the page with all the spi reports. This is what it looks like with the TOC limit [10] stmrlbs|talk 01:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I think having the report date showing in the header is a problem. Can you fix that? Nathan T 01:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I changed it in my "sandbox" version [11] However, you might want to check with Luna Santin, because I think that Luna wanted to see the report date. But, it can be done either way, as you can see. stmrlbs|talk 03:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with this change, but I don't see much of a motivation for it either. Is this all to prevent edit conflicts on SPI reports? Are those a real problem?—Kww(talk) 01:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The benefit will be for those editors who edit the SPI. Wikipedia is not exactly the most user friendly format for editing, but at least on most articles, you can limit the amount of raw text you are trying to add to/change/delete to one section. But on an SPI, you have to make your changes to an entire page of raw text. The more participants involved, the harder it is to add your part. It would make this much more user friendly for the participating editors. There really is no reason for it not to have sections - except that in the past, it caused problems because of the past software. However, these problems have been fixed, so I think it is time to add the ability to section the SPIs back in. stmrlbs|talk 03:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind trialing it without the report dates in the TOC. Nathan T 04:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

That would be fine with me. You would have to remove the commenting out of the RFCU [12] and move it, but please let me know when you do, so I can watch it. stmrlbs|talk 00:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Nathan, can you copy it over? or do I need to ask an administrator to do it? I was hoping to give it a try on Friday, when I have time to look at it. stmrlbs|talk 02:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations/Archive_6&oldid=1159114121"