Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Archive 8

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

IP only

Is WP:SPI the correct place to file a report for anonymous individuals using multiple IP addresses that have no known registered user name? If so, do I simply use the first known IP address for "SOCKMASTER" when opening a case? -- Scjessey (talk) 13:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Should I take this to WP:ANI instead? -- Scjessey (talk) 19:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I've had this matter addressed at WP:ANI. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Illustration

Checkuser is not for fishing.

Here's hoping you like it: a troll sockpuppet fishing and catching a very surprised worm puppet. Cheers, Durova412 01:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

commons:Category:Troll sockpuppets has long been a closet favorite of mine. :) Thanks. – Luna Santin (talk) 12:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Illustration

Checkuser is not for fishing.

Here's hoping you like it: a troll sockpuppet fishing and catching a very surprised worm puppet. Cheers, Durova412 01:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

commons:Category:Troll sockpuppets has long been a closet favorite of mine. :) Thanks. – Luna Santin (talk) 12:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Massive problem...

I think I just created an orphaned sock w/ check user report...

I tried using the template but there was absolutely no way to replace "SOCKMASTER" in the material auto populated as the warning wants. The term never appears in the provided text.

- J Greb (talk) 16:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I moved it without redirect to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Edward Seler. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 16:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry... I must be having a delayed Monday. I didn't twigg that the SOCKMASTER it wants changed is the one just above the button to auto create the editing page. (sigh) - J Greb (talk) 16:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Hey, take a look at the move log; you're certainly not the only one to make that mistake! ;-) PeterSymonds (talk) 16:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I've been wanting a "prefix" option for those boxes for ages, now. – Luna Santin (talk) 12:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I have edited the instructions; I didn't get it at first either, when I went to file a case. Hopefully now it is clearer what to do. --Diannaa TALK 03:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Do I list?

I started Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dwanyewest. Do I need to list that on the main page or do I wait for a clerk? Thank you. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

If you could list it yourself, it would be a great help. But if not, a clerk should be on it soon. Cheers, NW (Talk) 20:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Listed by MuZemike SpitfireTally-ho! 20:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Sock puppet?

I am a little worried that The Thing That Should Not Be (talk · contribs) is a sock puppet of Until It Sleeps (talk · contribs), as these two users seem just too similar to each other, and if you search for User:Until it sleeps you are redirected to The thing that should not be's user page. I would like a checkuser to look at this. Best wishes. Immunize (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I answered this same question at WP:HELPDESK; it isn't a sock, it's a WP:RENAME. All is well. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) That's because Until It Sleeps was renamed to The Thing That Should Not Be, don't worry, there is no sockpuppetry going on here. SpitfireTally-ho! 20:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I never thought it likely, but did want to make absolutely certain. Regards. Immunize (talk) 20:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Did I add a new one correctly?

I added 96.50.66.231 for SPI. This is my first one - did I do it correctly? Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 02:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Indication of accounts being cleared in SPIs

How about a change in procedure for sockpuppet investigations? A user is indicated to be under investigation with the sockpuppet investigation report and on its user Talk page, but not in the same locations when cleared of such charges. I had to request such information before it was placed in the report and on my user Talk page.--Drrll (talk) 06:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Normally, non-action implies a good thing (this is in general and not just your recent involvement). If you weren't warned or blocked as a sock and the SPI has been handled and closed, then you can likely assume that you're not a sock and that you are free to go along with your business. To me, it's like that saying, "No news is good news." –MuZemike 21:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree that a user should be notified on their talk page that they've been found innocent. It's not a huge effort to do that and seems to me to be professional and courteous thing to do, so IMO notifying them should be done as a matter of course. Reyk YO! 02:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Brexx

I know we can't force a checkuser to process a report, but Brexx is getting pretty stale. We need to either process the ducks and move on, or get a checkuser to run the report. I put my recommendation here.—Kww(talk) 16:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Email Notification for SPI evidence and algorthims

The section Evidence and SPI case guidelines contains the warning Private information, emails, logs, etc, may not be posted on the wiki; if they are important evidence, you must also seek advice by email first. However, what it doesn't explain what email / PM address to use and what the acknowledge mechanism / process is.

So my first request is could you please modify this instruction to explain what PM address to use in the first instance.

I was recently involved as a witness in an SPI which was categorised as a possible but closed because of inconclusive CU evidence. I wanted to table and discuss an alternative analysis that I have used in the past which shows conclusive evidence. I wasn't aware of the above at the time, but simple common sense says that such analysis or data should not be disclosed publicly, so I Wiki-emailed the checkuser-admin involved in the case, but this is a bit of a black hole in that you have no feedback on whether this is the appropriate target address or not.

In this case, I wanted:

  1. to discuss the detection algo and its underlying rationale / statistical basis but preferably with one of your tool developers, and / or analyst with a basic ground in statistical analysis of such data sets, rather than a user of the tool. As this approach would detect a class of puppet behaviours that are design to counter the tradition analytic approaches that I guess your current CU analytics adopt.
  2. Because I have used it on a specific case data, I am reluctant to discuss this openly as well, but the conclusions here are pretty irrefutable.

So my second request is if a PM to a checkuser-admin is not the correct approach, then who should I approach. -- TerryE (talk) 16:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know the details behind the case itself, but it looks like you did the right thing in emailing a CheckUser about the matter, especially if there was stuff that probably should not have been posted publicly on-wiki. –MuZemike 16:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

List order

Is there a reason that Knoblauch129 is out of chronological order?--Peter cohen (talk) 21:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I already handled it. –MuZemike 21:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Just a question

Hey, I have noticed that the list of SPIs awaiting clerk review and user reported cases is full. I have also noticed that the latest SPI I have submitted, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Groupthink has been handled before two older cases, WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Dalejenkins and WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/AlexLevyOne. Is it due to the older ones being updated quite often that they cannot be resolved at a fast speed? I'm just wondering about the situation as the ALO SPI has been open for a few days now. Many thanks. Regards, SuperSonic SPEED (formerly known as ChaosControl1994). 20:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

We don't always deal with cases in a chronological order. Other factors, such as how serious the alleged sockpuppetry is can have an affect on how quickly cases are dealt with. However, we do typically try and deal with older cases first. Regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 21:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
OK then, thanks :) SuperSonic SPEED (formerly known as ChaosControl1994). 21:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Renewed activity in archived case

What is the proper method to report renewed activity in an archived case? I am referring to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vote (X) for Change Jc3s5h (talk) 15:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

All sorted now. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vote (X) for Change. I've also listed the case on the main SPI page for you SpitfireTally-ho! 15:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
The editor is now using User:Meletian. The directions on the main SPI page do not seem to cover the situation of renewed activity after a case is no longer listed on the main page. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Push towards "SPI 2.0"

I've been doing some testing and mucking around today on SPI's testing area, and I think I have a good feel of how most of these intricate templates work. I have some suggestions to help improve and streamline SPI, some of which have been proposed a while back and had consensus but never acted upon. Most of these changes are designed to better utilize some better usage of the MediaWiki features and to be less-dependent on bots while maintaining sustainability.

  1. A replacement/deprecation for the {{RFCU}} and {{SPIclose}} templates: My draft templates are at Wikipedia:Pokémon investigations/SPICaseStatus/Core and Wikipedia:Pokémon investigations/SPICaseStatus. Instead, there would be one single template that determines the status of an SPI case, whether it be pending clerk approval, checkuser, close, open, etc. I've also coded the template so that it only works on the specific SPI case pages and not on archive pages. This would effectively deprecate the old "code letter" system as clerks and checkusers are clueful enough to be able to determine whether CU is needed without them.
  2. Simpler case format: This is about a rough idea about how a case would be organized. The big thing is that there would be no template substitution on the {{checkuser}} template for the sockmaster. This would allow the usage of the Special:MovePage function to move SPI cases and preserving edit history while at the same time keep the heading intact. This would also allow standard redirection of cases if need be. Additional features include simplified date headings (ideal for archive pages) and the elimination of the L6 headings that are currently being used in cases expect if they're submitted via Twinkle.
  3. Category-based SPI case listings: If you look here as to how I have the cases set up, they're automatically-generated using the <categorytree> MediaWiki extension (as also used at WP:INCUBATOR and WP:ABUSE) which effectively eliminates clerks or other users to "move" cases around as witnessed in the SPI page's history here. This would also speed up loading time on the SPI page as it saves having to transclude everything, and I think with the more widespread usage of browser tabs, we can more afford to do this.

That's what I've come up with so far. As far as simplifying the submission of cases is concerned, that is still a difficult task due to the limitations of the <inputbox> extension. Otherwise, submitting an SPI case ideally shouldn't be any more difficult than it is to nominate an article for AFD for instance. Any discussion of the above is welcome. –MuZemike 01:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

On the whole, I rather like it. Some quick comments:
  • Looking at the enumerations for SPICaseStatus, I see the following: CUrequest, decline, endorse, inprogress, relist, completed, close.
  • I might suggest either "request" or simply "checkuser" for a checkuser request, as the "CU" seems to stick out from the rest. This might be a silly thing to quibble over, though (especially since we can add more aliases).
  • On the subject of "completed" (which I think is currently "checked"?), is that useful for clerks and/or closing admins? My impression is more or less yes, but I figure that's more for your benefit than mine, so if you guys don't like it we might as well axe it. No time like the present to ask.
  • If you haven't already, {{RFPP}} and {{AIV}} might be handy reference for monkeying around with "status" templates.
  • Category tree is awesome.
  • Should we put "quick" requests on a subpage, like [[WP:SPI/Quick]] or such? I hardly ever looked at the front page, before, so it was a hassle to follow that one section on it. This might be less pressing with CategoryTree in use.
Unless somebody points out some glaring problem, though, I'd like to think we can switch to this soonish, yeah? – Luna Santin (talk) 09:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
No objections here, I even quite like it. Although it'd be good if someone could write an update for twinkle, or just remove the currect function to submit an SPI via twinkle until such a time as it is updated. SpitfireTally-ho! 08:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
While we're at it, I'm hoping to streamline the submission process a bit more; take a look over at Wikipedia:Pokémon investigations/SPI/header, the new inputbox and its associated pages. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Looking at Twinkle, the form involved is in User:AzaToth/twinklearv.js, in particular the function twinklearvCallbackChangeCategory (producing the form) and the "sock" section of twinklearv.callbacks (submitting the form). It might be reasonable to have Twinkle submit cases by substing a wiki template, or by copying and then modifying the raw source of a pseudo-template page -- saves us the headache of modifying that code every time we want to change formatting. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

CheckUser and Oversight Elections

The Arbitration Committee has determined that there is a need for additional oversighters and checkusers to improve workload distribution and ensure complete, timely response to requests. Beginning today, experienced editors are invited to apply for either or both of the Oversight or CheckUser permissions. Current holders of either permission are also invited to apply for the other. The last day to request an application is April 10, 2010. For more information, please see the election page.

For the Arbitration Committee - KnightLago (talk) 18:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

SPCUClerkbot?

I notice that SPCUClerkbot (talk · contribs) has been down since last December. Does anyone have an estimate when or if it's going to be up again, or is going to be replaced? I notice that Nixeagle (talk · contribs) hasn't been active since since last November even, due to health issues. Has anyone been in contact with him?
I'm asking since I'm getting bug reports that Twinkle isn't properly listing reports. If the bot isn't expected to return to work soon I guess I should make Twinkle to list the cases again.
Amalthea 11:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Not anytime soon, I think. Timotheus Canens (talk) 19:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Codedon

I think I've listed this in the right place, but I've never quite got my head around the new setup since RFCU became SPI. If I've listed it wrong, can someone do the necessary? Thanks! – iridescent 02:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the case has now been dealt with. For future reference, you had put it into the correct queue, but newer cases go at the top (just because we like to be confusing). Regards SpitfireTally-ho! 11:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Not awaiting Checkuser or awaiting Checkuser processing?

Hello, I reported Dongsauce as a sockpuppet. as he appears to have broken the 3RR rule on the Virginia article using a sock. Should I report this as not awaiting Checkuser or awaiting Checkuser processing? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

"Not awaiting checkuser" implies you have suspicions but aren't requesting checkuser investigation (sometimes a case is obvious, or checkuser wouldn't help much); "Awaiting checkuser processing", on the other hand, implies you are requesting checkuser investigation. Either way, you can submit a report if you're pretty sure somebody is up to no good. As far as whether or not to ask for checkuser help, my general advice would be that it can't hurt to ask. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
But when would be a good time to ask or not ask for CheckUser? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

"Conclusions" section

Why do some cases have a "Conclusions" section and others not? I would prefer if we did away with the conclusions section, as it seems somewhat redundant to the "CU/admin/clerk comments" section, and the distinction between the two sections is not clear. Comments on this change can go in the appopriate section.

Checkuser, admin and clerk comments

Seems redundant, and not serving the purpose as originally predicted. Would support a tighter template without these redundant sections. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Peter on this. I don't see why we can't just use the "Checkuser, admin and clerk comments" instead of the conclusions section. I'm pretty sure that it's just the twinkle submitted cases that contain the "conclusions" section. Also, the twinkle cases use:
;section
rather than
======<span style="font-size:150%"> section </span>======
Not sure what opinion is on that, but personally I think it'd be good to standardize the twinkle versions to the cases as they appear when manually submitted (i.e. using the inputbox), or vice versa, SpitfireTally-ho! 22:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Conclusions

Removal  Confirmed per no objections. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I threw out the Conclusions from Twinkle when I noticed this discussion. The two simply diverged, the preload page looked quite different when Twinkle was set up to work with the new and improved SPI system. Didn't do the cosmetic changes as of yet. Amalthea 13:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Page Creation For SPI

I propose page creation ability for ips. I have a suspected sockpuppet incident and I can't initiate a report!174.3.123.220 (talk) 15:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

If you list the suspected sockpuppets and the suspected sockpuppeteer here then I'll be happy to take a look at it and create an SPI page on your behalf if appropriate, to which you can then add the evidence section. SpitfireTally-ho! 15:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Cool, thanks. Put still doesn't solve the problem
But anyways:
Please file a report with Checkuser, TIA
Sockmaster Sock Evidence
user:JohnInDC user:219.207.18.236
  1. JohnInDC reverts edit
  2. I then revert back
  3. 219.207.18.236 reverts me
  4. I asked for explaination for 3. on user talk:219.207.18.236
  5. 219.207.18.236, with few edits, no history of user page deletion or talk page deletion, surprises with the comment "Why no listening to advice about making pointless changes against consensus?", which leads to suspicion that 219.207.18.236 is somehow involved in other edits because of 1. and 3.
Appendix: It is perfectly legal to use IPs to edit, but it is NOT legal to use IPs to circumvent wp:edit war.174.3.123.220 (talk) 15:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Yep, there was me thinking it'd be something nice and uncontroversial. I've reviewed this closely, and I personally don't think there is another evidence of a link between the named account and the IP to justify a checkuser, and I would (personally) decline it should it be submitted. There's not very many edits to go on here, and I'll try and get a second opinion on this from another clerk, which may take a while. It should be noted that connecting usernames to IPs is something that should be done with great care, it is easy to accidentally edit when logged out, and upon doing so users are understandably (and perfectly legitimately) unwilling to admit to having a connection to the IP. SpitfireTally-ho! 15:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
For what it's worth I am happy to simply deny any connection between the IP (that WHOIS identifies as being in Tokyo), the editor or editors behind that IP, and me. I'm also happy to take up this entire subject at a more appropriate place, be it someone's Talk page or SSI page devoted to me. The sooner the better. JohnInDC (talk) 15:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I think the archives would be more appropriate. I fail to see a sufficient connection between JohnInDC and the IP, no SPI page is warranted, let alone a check. I have also discussed this briefly with NuclearWarfare on IRC, and he doesn't seem to disagree with the conclusions here. SpitfireTally-ho! 16:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 2) I support Spitfire and would also decline a request for checkuser in this instance, as there are significant behavioral differences. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 16:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Upgrade1

I'm finding it as clear as mud how to reconcile the current instructions with the instructions that were in the above page from the older system. Specifically, having followed the instructions at the above page for reopening, which were to post a new request above a template on the page, I cannot see how to add that request into the current system. I did read the section on the current project page stating: "Note that these buttons may be used either for creating a new case or reopening an old one." but when I tried, it results in an entirely new page, with preloaded blank fields. A little help?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

All sorted, see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Crashingthewaves. Should you want to open a case on the user in future just use the input boxes on the main SPI page, and replace "SOCKMASTER" with "Crashingthewaves", don't worry about old RFCU cases existing. Hope this is all okay and makes sense. Kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 16:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Spitfire! I do think it might be a good idea to update the notices on old RFCU templates to list that it's defunct, and give an explanation of what to do instead.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
There are notices at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser and other related pages pointing users to SPI instead. If you have any suggestions on how to better do this, I would be open to making the changes. Tiptoety talk 21:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Need a bit of help (formality wise)

I could use some help from a clerk, or anyone very knowledgable of SPI operations.There are two SPI investigations that Ive come accross that i think should be merged (both deal with the same editing trends); Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JC1123581321/Archive with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The cheapo/Archive. I understand i need to get a clerk to do this? Sorry to bother any help would be most welcome Ottawa4ever (talk) 20:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done thanks for pointing it out. Kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 19:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Has CU broken completely down?

We have an open SPI case on scibaby that has lingered for 4 days (after being endorced)- and which is just growing larger and larger. Some of these have been blocked - but most have not. If there are any false positives amongst them - then it is problematic. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully this will change after the new checkuser/oversight elections, as the entire process seems to be hurting. Perhaps you could try asking individual checkusers if they could watchlist that case page? NW (Talk) 16:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
It is my perception (and maybe I'm wrong) that I've been the one doing most of the checkuser work here this week, and I've been avoiding it since I don't know much about serial sockpuppeteers, so that might be where the problem is. For what it's worth, checkuser requests going unanswered for four days used to be no strange thing, as there used to be a lot less checkusers. So at least there's that. But saying checkuser has "broken down" is a little bit dramatic, no? :) --Deskana (talk) 10:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I guess people have other things to do than Wikipedia. Busy with real life, etc. --Bsadowski1 10:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Was just about to post a similar comment on the need for more CU. I know the elections are ongoing, but I've definitely noticed longer than expected delays. The last two quick CU posts which I have been involved in have been a day or more before I ended up closing them out myself (in today's case by contacting J. Delanoy on email).  7  05:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
IMO I don't think more CheckUsers are going to help any (though ArbCom obviously disagrees with me on that). The thing is that most CUs are college students, and this is a busy time of the semester. It is very likely that you will see CheckUser activity pick up again within 3-4 weeks when school gets out. –MuZemike 05:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks a lot - now I feel really old.  7  05:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

(←) There's another one out there now here. If it hasn't been suggested already, it may make sense for all CU's to get access to the ACC site to allow them to clear up the backlog there.  7  01:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

A potential new tool for SPI analysis.

I have just raised an SPI request. I don't want to talk about the specifics here, but do want to raise a discussion about the general principles which might apply quite independently of this particular case. I've been tracking SPIs for some months and the vast majority of such investigations are instigated against users who in general pretty naive about the analytic techniques that can be used to detect sock and meat puppets. A percentage of Wikipedians are relatively sophisticated in their knowledge of computing and such techniques. I know that I could easily defeat SP detection if I was sad enough to create such accounts. My questions arose from this potential situation.

  1. How big is the issue of sophisticated sockpuppets that currently 'fly under the radar'?
  2. Are there any other analytic tools which might help detect such potential abuses
  3. Are there any other analytic tools which could help discriminate such cases once detected?

Now (1) are (2) are difficult Qs, but I have used a technique in the past in my then day job which I felt might be a (partial) answer to (3), and that is to construct a statistical analysis of post timing, and use this to test the question: are the posts for any two given users truly independent? I did this work a few months ago and have included a write-up at User:TerryE/Supplemental SPI analysis to explain this approach. I had a couple of suspect sockpuppets in this "sophisticated user" category, so I tried this test against these and also comparing the users to a number of "control accounts" -- that is other users with similar posting characteristics and for whom I had good supporting evidence that they weren't sock-puppets (e.g. they edited from different time-zones). The test seems to be effective in that it clearly rejected the controls but not the putative sock-puppets.

I would welcome comment and review. Have a look at the paper or refer it to colleagues who might be interested. I've included the main Perl script, so if you have Perl on your PC and the current MediaWiki::API then try it yourself on some test cases. Give feedback here or on the paper's talk page. I have also some thoughts about (2) but I am not sure if this is the correct place to raise them; if not then please point me to the appropriate page. -- TerryE (talk) 18:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that even though the tools might be mathematically and statistically meaningful, this does not mean that they are behaviorally correct. I've seen analyses of exactly this sort used to say someone's obviously a sockpuppet because their edits overlapped; and I've seen analyses saying someone's obviously a sockpuppet because their edits did NOT overlap. Further, the "similar posting characteristics" are highly subjective in the absence of obvious things such as "always spells checkuser with a Q" or "always puts !!! in edit summaries". I, for one, will reject requests where analyses like these are the primary driver. --jpgordon::==( o ) 18:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Such tools are an interesting input to the sockpuppet detection process, but can't be relied upon. As Jpgordon points out, the results can always be interpreted to match the intended result. We have a horrible problem with sockpuppeting, but there would be more benefit to loosening the rules about when checkuser can be run and tightening the rules about when alternate accounts are acceptable than trying for automated detection. We've had some sad tales of admins that got too wrapped up in sophisticated sock-puppet detection procedures and ultimately got desysopped as a result. I'd rather not go down that path.—Kww(talk) 20:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
If we are to rely on this, it would need much more extensive testing than a single case. Run it on our (lots) of serial sockpuppeteers and their confirmed socks along with control cases of unrelated users, throw in some unrelated socks for good measure. I'm open to using it as supportive (but not definitive) evidence if the false positive rate is acceptable. Tim Song (talk) 20:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
It's not a checkuser tool, at any rate -- it doesn't require any special information. --jpgordon::==( o ) 23:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Correct. It's not a checkuser tool in that in its current form, it limits itself to using publicly accessible timestamp data. All it really asks is the Q: are these two users posts time uncorrelated, and rejection of this hypothesis at low alpha implies that they actually are. It requires a reasonalby prolonged parallel posting to produce a statistically significant result, and there are genuine circumstances where non-sock puppet / meat puppet users could generate a validly correlated result. A good example is if the two posters tend to work at similar times and are in a close edit or talk dialogue exchange and have cross WatchList monitoring. This can cause anomalous measures at low time deltas. I've seen this in some of the test cases that I've run. The TSVs can be directly imported into Excel or Calc, which is how I generate my plots, though it wouldn't take a lot more code to generate these directly with the right Perl libraries.
So under normal circumstances, it is at best supporting evidence. Of course, it might just throw up truly bizarre inter-relationships which should be questioned further. Can I suggest that if any of you are interested then take a local copy and have a play. I've given it a free-use licence so help yourselves. It's just that I've had an ANI raised against me for doing this SPI, and the way things are going I think that I am going to be banned for initiating it, so my user pages might just get deleted soon. -- TerryE (talk) 00:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

CheckUser and Oversight Elections have started

The May 2010 CheckUser and Oversight Elections have started. Please see the election page for details.

For the Arbitration Committee - KnightLago (talk) 15:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scibaby

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scibaby is relevant, as it's possible there's now open proxy use. Report is very old, now. Hipocrite (talk) 00:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

April and May archived cases not showing

The subject says it all. How do we fix the archives? I was also going to mention that I used the form and the case didn't get added to the queue, but now I notice the message saying that the ClerkBot is down, so that's probably that. II | (t - c) 04:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

That's because that system was abandoned in early March. It was nice to have a full archive list, but without the bot it was difficult and tedious to maintain. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 05:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Request

{{editprotected}}

I would like Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/IRg0!ngt0cH4NG3D!S to be listed under User reported cases although I feel that it should be renamed under VTomi per the evidence in the SPI. Thanks, CHRONOSome 19:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 Done –MuZemike 20:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet prevention discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (development)

Please see:

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sudafedfiend8

This doesn't seem to be transcribing onto the main page. I've never done a sockpuppet thing before so I'm not sure if I've done something wrong or not! Quantpole (talk) 11:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry about it now - it's appeared. I guess the bot just takes a bit to come round. Quantpole (talk) 07:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

MascotGuy (Maybe?) Wikipedia_talk:Long-term_abuse/MascotGuy

These accounts were seen today late yesterday, only reporting becasue of the "Guy" in the user name.

This is a copy of the relevant line from the User creation log:

01:44, 24 May 2010 Sweet 'n' Sour Love Magic Guy (talk | contribs) created new account User:Easy Rider Guy (talk | contribs)
If this is not the correct venue please advise me!

--220.101.28.25 (talk) 22:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC) Note: Reposting from Wikipedia talk:Long-term abuse/MascotGuy, Thanks all! 220.101.28.25 (talk) 02:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Pretty consistent with the other recent socks including creating one account and creating more using that one account. Elockid (Talk) 02:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Is this Supicious?

I've noticed several totally 'red' accounts, which I presume means thay have made no edits anywhere, on wp:User creation log creating new accounts, eg:

03:36, 25 May 2010 Goofytrevor (talk · contribs) created new account Goofytrevor94 (talk · contribs)
03:58, 25 May 2010 Roger Rabbit's Car Tune Jam (talk · contribs) created new account Cadillac Black Jack Guy (talk · contribs)

Is this 'normal'? nb. I have only linked the user pages--220.101.28.25 (talk) 04:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The latter is nail-on, but I'm not sure what's going on with the Goofytrevor accounts. I'm more inclined to AGF and see. –MuZemike 05:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Ha! Seems I was 'beaten to the punch', by a few minutes (blocked @ 3:59!) Oh, well! (and now I see an easier way of linking to an account! Thanks MuZemike!) --220.101.28.25 (talk) 05:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Case rename?

Brickriver2 (talk · contribs) is a blatantly obvious sock of blocked sockpuppets FrameWave20 (talk · contribs) and Sfdrag (talk · contribs), but the original SPI case was filed (by me) with Benjiboi (talk · contribs) as the primary name. Since Benjiboi was shown to be uninvolved, should the case be renamed or should I just start a new case? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Trainnee Clerk

Hello, I was wondering if I could become a trainnee cleck for SPI. I am currently involved in WP:ABUSE, WP:ACC, WP:AFC (those are my primary areas). -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 21:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

--> to Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerks -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 22:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

For placement under User reported cases (or Awaiting CheckUser if a clerk sees fit)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ice99 needs to be placed under one of these categories per what the clerk thinks of this evidence. Thanks :). Best, Treylander 15:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Not sure of sufficient evidence to list

New logged–in user X creates an article that is nominated for speedy. Logged–in user B who made 2 edits in 2008 and nothing since declines the speedy. Is this enough evidence to report the situation? — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an admin or a clerk or a CU, I'm just an ordinary editor but as I saw this (per my below thread), I think I should say what I know. I'm sure that only admins can decline speedy deletions, I'm not too sure but if I were you, I'd report to verify. UnknownThing (talk) 20:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scibaby

I thought I should bring this up here. I noticed that on the 3rd of June, a second report was filed on Scibaby listing Weakopedia as a suspected sock. The next day, a CheckUser was carried out on the 1st of June report and it didn't detect Weakopedia as a sock. I apologise if this has already been brought up but I think an admin needs to have a say on that second report as it seems to be clear that Weakopedia is unrelated (although the report says he is a suspected sock of somebody). Cheers, UnknownThing (talk) 20:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't someone just run some kind of check to show that I am not a sock of anybody? I been waiting some days. Weakopedia (talk) 21:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Zinbarg

Could someone please process the new stuff in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zinbarg? thanks. --jpgordon::==( o ) 22:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Is this a sock puppet?

Panda.1001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I'm-Back-1001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Hi all. the user Panda.1001 was banned as a sock puppet on the 1st of June. Just before being banned, they uploaded a non-free image of a PS3 taken from cnet.com on fair-use grounds and added it to the PlayStation 3 article. It was quickly replaced with a free image and the file deleted. Today (8th June), another user by the name I'm-Back-1001 uploaded the same file (60GB Black PS3.gif) to wikimedia commons and replaced the free one with it. This time it was claimed that the licence was creative commons as found on a flickr page (by a user called A-2291-A who incidentally only has that one file uploaded, uploaded it today and does indeed claim creative commons). The file itself has been flagged as unambiguous copyright infringement of the cnet file (which is identical other than the copyright info which appears on the cnet version). The image itself is obviously of little consequence since it can be easily removed etc, but to me this suggests that I'm-Back-1001 is another sock puppet (especially since both names end in 1001, and "I'm back" seems to be a reference to the user being banned, although it could easily be an innocent reference to the Terminator movies or something). The problem is I have no idea how to go about reporting said suspicion (the page is rather confusing). Any advice would be great. AlphathonTM (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I've filed an SPI report - it looks pretty obvious to me.
WP:SPI is a little daunting at first, but if you encounter socks a lot it'll soon seem like home ;-)
Cheers, TFOWRidle vapourings 21:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Incidentally, question for anyone - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Panda.1001 doesn't seem to be in the list at WP:SPI. Am I missing some step? The past few I've done have behaved like this, but it was the same sock master in those cases and I assumed some WP:RBI-type explanation. This case is a new sock master, so now I'm convinced it's me what done broke something... TFOWRidle vapourings 21:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I moved it to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wiki-11233 and already tagged/bagged/closed. –MuZemike 21:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Next time, make sure you submit the SPI case under the sockmaster's name (in this case, Wiki-11233). –MuZemike 21:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Next time, I'll read the original report properly ;-) Apologies for that, my mistake. Thanks! TFOWRidle vapourings 21:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Azviz

The block I performed in this case is undergoing an interminable discussion at Wikipedia:ANI#New editor's experience as evidence of guilt. I think it's time for someone to either reverse my block or deny the unblock, as this has been dragging on for a while.—Kww(talk) 16:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Sunlight14

Please could someone have a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sunlight14, we're struggling to keep up with this apparent sock puppeter. --JD554 (talk) 15:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Archives

Can we update the archive box to link April and May 2010? --Joopercoopers (talk) 09:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

SPI cases aren't archived anymore, I presume mostly because the Clerk bot has been down for quite some time, so there aren't any more archives to link to.
Amalthea 09:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Not transcluded

To this page. Opened this up Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gabi Hernandez but doesn't seem to be flagged on the main page. Not sure if i did something wrong or some automated system is slow. If something needs fixing, let me know.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Never mind. I figured out how to manually add it.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Template:SPI case status

I have tested and completed a new SPI template (in the works for quite a while), which is intended to replace and combine the existing {{RFCU}} and {{SPIclose}} as well as formally deprecate the old "code letter" system (i.e. users will no longer need to input a "code letter" for a CheckUser request): Template:SPI case status.

I've quickly written some documentation about how it would be used. Comments/concerns are welcome as usual. –MuZemike 22:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks great, but could use a "checkuser has declined check" option for the rare circumstances where a clerk accepts but a checkuser declines. Other than that (which was also missing from the old one, actually) excellent work! --Deskana (talk) 23:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
That can be easily incorporated, I think. –MuZemike 23:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I will also note that, unless Tim Song is willing to adjust User:Tim Song/spihelper.js, and AzaToth is willing to adjust Twinkle settings (both of which would take some time), and we get a new SPI bot online, we wouldn't be rolling this out right away. –MuZemike 23:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Another question to throw out there, I'm planning to place this template on the top of an active SPI page, so folks can see once they click on an SPI case. Does anyone have any other suggestions as to where to place this, or is this fine? –MuZemike 16:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Top is fine with me. T. Canens (talk) 18:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Double-categorization

Right now, I have the new template set up so that all the categorization is done from this template alone. Currently {{SPIcat}} adds all cases to Category:Open SPI cases, which it disappears (i.e. category is suppressed) after the case is archived; this means cases are normally double-categorized, such as Category:Open SPI cases and Category:SPI requests for pre-CheckUser review for those in which CheckUser is requested. Do we want to keep this method of categorization, or should we ditch {{SPIcat}} and have an SPI placed in only one category at a time? –MuZemike 02:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

IMO, we should rename Category:Open SPI cases to something like Category:All open SPI cases and have a new category like Category:SPI cases awaiting administration for cases that are not awaiting a clerk or checkuser. This way we can easily see all cases at once, and also easily find all cases that should go into the "Not awaiting checkuser" section. T. Canens (talk) 18:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
It's useful to have all the open cases listed in one category, as it makes it easier to check whether or not all the cases are listed on the WP:SPI page. Not sure how useful that'll once the bot is running, mind. SpitfireTally-ho! 10:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Anything special going on?

Seems there's a small backlog for CheckUser requests. Maybe this is fairly normal since I don't generally scrutinize this area, but on the occasions which have drawn my interest, the turnaround seems to have been hours or maybe 2 days, at most. Is there a broken tool or a shortage of Checkuser admins or anything unusual occurring at the moment? BigK HeX (talk) 14:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It happens from time to time. The checkuser tool is only entrusted to a very limited number of users, so there are times when requests will sit for a while. However, the checkusers are pretty good about not letting things go for too long. TNXMan 14:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
There's been a shortage of checkusers for some time now, but the community decided that we didn't need more for whatever reason. As a result, this happens from time to time. It should be cleared out soon, as the checkusers on this project are some of the hardest working (thankless) people here. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 14:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
It took a full month for a "slam-dunk" SPI I submitted to go from filing to closing[1] - never mind the CU. Be patient and persistent is all I can say. It will be processed, one way or another... Doc9871 (talk) 14:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Hmm ... interesting. Thanks! BigK HeX (talk) 15:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems like the CU tool is given a very high status (and correspondingly few users), although I've never understood why that was necessary. Seems the tool can certainly be toned down to allow a version which reports only that "Editor accounts potentially match" or "Editor accounts do NOT appear to match" without any need to expose any "personal" information. The more thorough CheckUser could be employed when a user disputes when a "Editor accounts Match" notice is given by the stripped down tool. Ah well. BigK HeX (talk) 15:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Anything special going on?

Seems there's a small backlog for CheckUser requests. Maybe this is fairly normal since I don't generally scrutinize this area, but on the occasions which have drawn my interest, the turnaround seems to have been hours or maybe 2 days, at most. Is there a broken tool or a shortage of Checkuser admins or anything unusual occurring at the moment? BigK HeX (talk) 14:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It happens from time to time. The checkuser tool is only entrusted to a very limited number of users, so there are times when requests will sit for a while. However, the checkusers are pretty good about not letting things go for too long. TNXMan 14:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
There's been a shortage of checkusers for some time now, but the community decided that we didn't need more for whatever reason. As a result, this happens from time to time. It should be cleared out soon, as the checkusers on this project are some of the hardest working (thankless) people here. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 14:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
It took a full month for a "slam-dunk" SPI I submitted to go from filing to closing[2] - never mind the CU. Be patient and persistent is all I can say. It will be processed, one way or another... Doc9871 (talk) 14:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Hmm ... interesting. Thanks! BigK HeX (talk) 15:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems like the CU tool is given a very high status (and correspondingly few users), although I've never understood why that was necessary. Seems the tool can certainly be toned down to allow a version which reports only that "Editor accounts potentially match" or "Editor accounts do NOT appear to match" without any need to expose any "personal" information. The more thorough CheckUser could be employed when a user disputes when a "Editor accounts Match" notice is given by the stripped down tool. Ah well. BigK HeX (talk) 15:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Help with case

I have opened a new case here but it hasn't shown up on the main page. Have I done something wrong? Christopher Connor (talk) 00:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

It looks like NuclearWarfare User:Tim Song has listed the case for you. To list it on the main page just list {{SPI|Lcree}} (or whichever casename) in the appropriate column. TNXMan 01:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets nominated for deletion

Hello, this notification is to alert users that Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets has recently been nominated for deletion by another user. Your input is welcome, and the discussion can be found here. Thank you. — ξxplicit 05:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:RFCU

Should this not instead be a shortcut to WP:RFC/U? --FormerIP (talk) 13:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It's from the old Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. Changing it would break a lot of incoming links. T. Canens (talk) 14:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Plus, it says on WP:SPI: "WP:RFCU redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct (WP:RFC/U) [...]." Tiptoety talk 19:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
But shouldn't the far more likely case (that someone has typed in the initials of a project page they have heard of) be prioritised of the far less likely case (that someone has either just been thawed out of an ice-block or has clicked on a piped link on a dormant talk page)?
In other words, I think we have the redirect and the redirect notice the wrong way round, from the point of view of a user. --FormerIP (talk) 01:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Once again, the ideal runs smack dab into the face of the practical, and falls on its ass. Perhaps one should fix the redirect. Ignoring talk page archives, if one wanted to do this one should go through and update all incoming links to WP:RFCU to redirect to WP:SPI as that is where it is currently intended to go. But one should do that as soon as the redirect is changed. Changing the redirect without fixing the incoming links would be disruptive. I would say that if anyone is so inclined, they could do it. Such a move would be logical. But changing the shortcut redirect without changing the incoming links would be a bad idea. So in short, if anyone wants to take the time to do the tedious work of fixing the redirect, IMHO, they can have at it. But its a lot more work than just changing the shortcut page. --Jayron32 01:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
But any incoming links to WP:RFCU (unless they are mis-typed links to WP:RFC/U) are likely to have been created a number of years ago and will now be very rarely clicked. It is not an emergency, I would suggest, if these links are not instantaneously (or, even, ever) updated. The trickle of users finding the page by that route could be well enough served by a notice along the lines: WP:RFCU redirects here. If you are looking for the historical "Requests for checkuser" page, please see its successor WP:Sockpuppet investigations. --FormerIP (talk) 01:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Looking at the actual "what links here" data, I just went through about 2000 links (500 at a time, quick glance) and I can't find a single incoming link which is NOT a talk page archive of some sort. So yeah, let me recind what I said before. I think changing the redirect and the hatnotes would be a GOOD idea. This page has been under the current organization for long enough that many users aren't going to remember/be aware of the old name. I'd like to hear others chime in, but i support the change of redirect target to WP:RFC/U as the more likely search term. 6 months ago, when the change was still fresh, it may have not been a good idea. But today, the fix seems reasonable. --Jayron32 02:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
It's also linked from a bunch of user pages, normally as a part of the "useful links" collection. T. Canens (talk) 04:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

oops?

I think maybe this move didn't go as planned? --jpgordon::==( o ) 23:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Is everything OK?

A little surprised that a SPI I raised 6 days ago hasn't even been looked at by a clerk yet. Is everything OK over here? Orderinchaos 16:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Endorsed for checkuser. Sorry, we've had a bit of a backlog around here, partly as some people have been on or are on holiday, or just taking a break. Kindest regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 18:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Enthusiastic helpers

As an editor who to date has only created work at WP:SPI, and as an admin who hopes they might be more helpful in the future, I've just made this post to an editor's talkpage.

Since I'm not an SPI person my knowledge is very limited, and my post could well contain inaccuracies. I'm advertising it here for two reasons: (a) so that any bad advice I've given this editor can be fixed, and (b) you can, if necessary, teach me stuff ;-)

TFOWR 09:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

(a) Your advice was excellent. You did a nice job breaking down such a complex issue into a few short paragraphs. (b) If you ever need any advice, do feel free to ask. If you want, I can point you to a few help pages. NW (Talk) 14:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! (And apologies for missing your reply until now) I'll definitely take you up on that - possibly not immediately, but certainly when I've got some spare time. Actually, scratch that - never hurts to have some bedtime reading. Help pages welcomed, here or to the usual address. And thanks again. TFOWR 13:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Reopening a case

How would I go about re-opening Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wes2k8/Archive. An anon IP made similar edits to St. Joseph as the meatpuppet and sockpuppet in that case. — 118.208.43.187 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. is the anon IP. ----moreno oso (talk) 13:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Reopened here. For future reference, you can simply follow the instructions for opening a new case to re-open a old one - the templates will automatically point to the archive of old findings. Once you've added your evidence to this case, be sure to post it to the main SPI page. TNXMan 13:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the assist. These SPI cases always baffle me. Thank God, they have become simpler to file. I looked for the instructions on how to re-open a case but must have missed it. ----moreno oso (talk) 13:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Not a problem. There's a lot to sort through for these cases. If you get stuck at any point, let me know. TNXMan 13:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I just told another couple of admins, who battle socks, about my inability to remember some of the cases I've filed. Usually they come back to me but it can take a while. I had to build a section on my userpage to track them now. Fortunately, this one is really fresh and the anon IP made the exact same edit. ----moreno oso (talk) 13:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

SPCUClerkbot message

Is the template right under the "Submitting an SPI case" necessary anymore? I was going to remove it, but I don't know if doing, I would conflict with the bot and it would not update correctly anymore. wiooiw (talk) 12:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Removed, thanks for pointing it out. Kindest regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 13:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Update on Checkuser and Oversight appointment process

Following the call for applicants (19 July) and the initial call for comments on the candidates (16 August), this notice is a second call for comments from the community on the suitability of the candidates for the September 2010 appointments for checkuser and oversight permissions. The Arbitration Committee is continuing to review and collate the comments received so far. If you have not done so already, please send in your comments before 23:59 on 25 August 2010 (UTC).

Those actively being considered for Checkuser and Oversight permissions are listed here (same link as above). As the primary area of concern is confidence in the candidate's ability to operate within the Wikimedia privacy policy, comments of this nature are best directed to the Committee's mailing list (arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org).

For the Arbitration Committee, Carcharoth (talk) 21:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Cases requiring checkuser missing

We appear to have reached the transclusion limit on WP:SPI. The cases requiring checkuser are missing from the SPI page, and instead there is simply a link to the relevant subpage. We need to cut down on transclusions so that all the cases are actually displayed on the page. Suggestions? --Deskana (talk) 13:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The header could probably be put right on this page, and I believe a number of things are transcluded on to the header that could just be on the header itself. NW (Talk) 13:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. We maybe should have them merge all onto WP:SPI/Header or something like, and then transclude that one. Also could try NW's idea too. Deskana, you probally already know this, but until we fix this you can check at User:Δ/Sandbox. -- DQ (t) (e) 13:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I have some questions about submitting sockpuppet cases.

I have never submitted a sockpuppet complaint before, and I plan to submit my first one very soon. Therefore, I naturally have curiosities about going through with sockpuppet complaints. When going to the page where sockpuppets are submitted, there is a passage which states:


The particular person that I am wanting to report has, to my knowledge, over 40 accounts, all of which are anonymous IPs, and I would like to know why it only goes up to sock20 and ip20. Also, is that message saying that if there are over nine socks and IPs, then the checkuser and checkip template would be necessary before listing the other 11? Thanks in advance. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 03:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

It used to be sock9 and ip9...before someone changed it to 20, and the comment was only corrected in half...I just got someone to fix that. The reason it only goes up to 20 is because {{SPI report}} only goes up to 20, which is because, well, it is the exceptional case where someone creates 20+ socks that needs to be reported (instead of turning up in a check, which is still quite unusual, but sadly not as rare), and the larger the limit is, the harder it is to maintain that template. W/r/t the IPs you mention, you might want to report only recently used IPs, as old IPs (e.g., more than a few months old) generally have little value; if all are recent, after reporting 20 of the IPs, you can manually add the rest by editing the generated report. Timotheus Canens (talk) 04:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Where's the bot?

Resolved

Here I opened my first ever case, but the bot didn't seem to be noticed. I have to do the rest manually?Farhikht (talk) 14:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure the bot will eventually add it. wiooiw (talk) 15:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Looks like it crashed four hours ago. Evidence. I will be manually updating things (when I am around) about every hour till the bot is back. -- DQ (t) (e) 19:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
We are in the process of getting it back up as we speak. -- DQ (t) (e) 01:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is another. -- PBS (talk) 04:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Bot still doesn't seem to be running

Resolved

I created the Jimmy McDaniels case at 03:28, 30 August 2010. Came back about three hours later and the bot hadn't added it, so added it myself at 06:26. Yworo (talk) 06:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm.... the bot seems to be properly adding and subtracting from the subpages. But the changes aren't showing up on the main SPI page. How are the subpages supposed to be transcluded in the main page? Or is the bot supposed to be updating both? Or what? Too late for me to think about it... time for bed. Yworo (talk) 06:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
You might want to try purging your cache. Tiptoety talk 17:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

New templates?

It's been a while. Is there any reason for me to keep User:Avraham/Sandbox/SPOM or is it never going to be used? -- Avi (talk) 04:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know; is it worth converting to using them? NW (Talk) 12:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I think so; it is one template that should cover all options (blocked, checked, etc.) but it requires a bot to remap the existing templates, because of the use of non-named parameters in the old templates, there were incompatibilities. -- Avi (talk) 13:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Question

If you have a robot that finds SPI cases for you and adds them if they're bluelinked, why has an SPI for Marskell ended up in "Awaiting clerk approval" if it is redlinked? I'd remove it myself but I don't want to interfere with the robot. Kind regards, Superchrome (talk) 19:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Apparently the case is verboten and has been completely wiped from the history. I've removed the case from the bot's subpage to prevent a redlink from transcluding. TNXMan 20:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Ah, OK then. Thanks for clearing that up. I was starting to think that the bot was going to delete Wikipedia :P. Kind regards. Superchrome (talk) 20:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: Category for tracking articles banned users edit,

I have yet to save an edit I am about to make to {{connected contributor}}, which would add a parameter for banned users. If the second parameter is supplied with 'banned', it would add the article to a category such as Category:Pages edited by banned users. Or maybe something easier to remember, or simpler. This category would have use to sock hunters like myself, for well.. tracking which articles are edited by socks. High-profile and all that.— Dædαlus Contribs 06:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

What happened to WP:DENY? I really don't think it's a good idea to feature them prominently at the top of the talk page. Timotheus Canens (talk) 07:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Aside from whack-a-mole, how else would we tell other editors to watch out for them?— Dædαlus Contribs 07:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Great idea. We're having a big problem on Libertarianism with two identified socks (including of infamous User:Karmaisking) and a bunch of editors whose POV's are almost identical but they scream bloody murder if you mention the sock (or meat) problem infecting discourse in the whole article. A tag would help those of us dealing with it feel a tad bit less under attack. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Tool to check for overlapping edits

Not sure if this is the best place to ask, but I figured regulars here would be most likely to know, so here goes... is there a tool (script, whatever) to compare two editors for overlapping edits (or the absence thereof)? Something like Wikistalk, but, I suppose, more detail? I've seen folk discuss the lack of overlapping edits in relation to possible sock puppeting, and I'm hoping that they didn't manually compare two editors' contributions... TFOWR 09:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It can be useful to do a quick run with Wikistalk, and then check a few articles manually to find individual diffs. I think that is probably the best way to go about it. NW (Talk) 13:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I copy all edits to Excel, color code by user name and sort by date/time. Overlapping edits and switching between accounts can be pretty obvious this way. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Did I open up a new investigation correctly?

Another likely sock has appeared and I am not sure that I opened up the new case correctly: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/2ne14ever. Active Banana ( bananaphone 13:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you opened it fine. NW (Talk) 13:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Active Banana ( bananaphone 13:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
There was one thing - please be sure to include {{SPI case status}} at the top of the page. I added it in for you when I reviewed the case. Otherwise, looked great! TNXMan 13:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you

I have repeatedly been accused of being a sock of Oliver0071 - or the other way round. Is there any way you can check - so the abuse stops? The allegations are here: [3]--Itshayfevertime (talk) 14:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Editor was blocked as a sock by Sandstein. -- DQ (t) (e) 20:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Problem?

There must be a problem - the omnipresent backlog tag has disappeared from the main page. I demand the people responsible for this step forward so they can be properly punished. TNXMan 16:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

It would be Timotheus Canens is the reponsible one here. XD -- DQ (t) (e) 20:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Instructions tweaked a bit

I'm growing quite tired of constantly saying "no Declined. Checkuser does not connect users to specific IP addresses." on new CU requests, so I've gone and made some changes ([4] [5] [6]) to the various instruction pages. If something seems to be broken, it may be my fault; feel free to revert if needed. Hersfold (t/a/c) 15:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Hm...while that is true 90% of the time, it is not always the case. There are certian extreme exceptions to this rule, so I am not sure that stating we never connect IPs to accounts is completely correct. Specifically: "Where the user has been vandalising articles or persistently behaving in a disruptive way, data may be released to assist in the targeting of IP blocks, or to assist in the formulation of a complaint to relevant Internet Service Providers", and "Where it is reasonably necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the public." Tiptoety talk 19:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I think Hersfold is talking about my request. Really it was my mistake as it was my first request here and there is no problem to connect IPs with users in Ruwiki where I had edited before. But I still don't understand how to stop a blocked user from editing anonymously without defining his IP? --Quantum666 (talk) 11:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

How does SPI/checkuser work?

I've just had a thought - where are people like me likely to stand with regards to SPI investigations? My IP has already been (quite justified) blocked twice[7] due to vandalism, but I get caught in the crossfire due to sharing the IP as I access Wiki from work. If an SPI was run on one of the previous editors that prompted the block would my username also get flagged? Just wondering. a_man_alone (talk) 20:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

It could get flagged at your IP, but if your editing from work too, that would help unestablish you. Checkuser data is held on the server for three months. But also if your using a different Web browser or Operating System this will help a checkuser establish that this is not you. From what I see from what your telling me, in my opinion the most you could be tagged is possible, and that is only technical evidence. We also determine on behavoiral evidence. Your behavoiral evidence would square you off as not the vandal if he or she created more socks. -- DQ (t) (e) 21:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Update on Audit Subcommittee

The Audit Subcommittee is a subcommittee of the Arbitration Committee, tasked to review and act upon concerns and complaints about checkuser and oversight activities received from the community. Membership consists of three community representatives elected by the community, who serve one-year terms; and three arbitrators, who rotate through this assignment for approximately six months.

In advance of the scheduled election/appointment of community representatives to the Audit Subcommittee, a summary of activity has been posted on the subcommittee's report page.

The community is invited to discuss this report, as well as preferred methods and terms for the selection of community representatives to participate in the audit process. The result of the discussion will inform the Arbitration Committee on how best to proceed before progressing to another election cycle.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) Cross-posted by NW (Talk) 20:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Two RFC's at WT:SOCK

One on splitting WP:MEAT into a separate page, and the other on retiring the "meatpuppetry" term. Interesting how no one notified us. T. Canens (talk) 23:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry suspected

User:Elgor007 and User:Elgor008 are suspected sockpuppets. TYelliot (talk) 21:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

They have been blocked. Assuming your unsure how to open a sockpuppet case, if you read Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations#Submitting_an_SPI_case it tells you how. Regards wiooiw (talk) 21:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

TFD for Template:SockmasterProven

See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 September 29#Template:SockmasterProven. T. Canens (talk) 17:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Ring any bells...?

I came across an "interesting" editor yesterday, and thought that their editing rang a few bells. Today, Gogo Dodo (talk) blocked the editor and a couple of socks. We're wondering if this sounds familiar: an obsession with eye- and hair-colour, and zodiac-signs? (Example edit).

Anyway, blocked editors are:

Original conversation is here. TFOWR 19:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Efgsdrthdty. –MuZemike 19:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Aha! Thanks. Just found another: Ergrthsgdersfserg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). TFOWR 19:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Open case

There is an open case (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pplatis), which nobody has dealt with for two weeks. Every day more cases open, some get resolved, and this is left as the oldest one with no improvement at all. - Sthenel (talk) 10:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Emraanhashmi

I just made Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Emraanhashmi using Twinkle, but it gave some error, and may not have listed it or something. Can someone please investigate? Thanks,  Chzz  ►  09:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

It looks OK to me - I can see it listed at WP:SPI. {{minnow}} for Twinkle? ;-) TFOWR 10:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Twinkle remained happily oblivious of the new bot & subpage system. Fixed. T. Canens (talk) 00:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: one single section for individual SPI cases

The concept of having five separate editable sections (not counting the main sockmaster's header and the date header) for SPI cases:

  1. making SPI cases look too complicated and daunting for regular users to operate.
  2. causing people to report suspected sock puppets to WP:ANI as opposed to here because of the lack of structure over there.
  3. makes the tables of contents, especially noticeable on SPI cases' archive pages, virtually unreadable.
  4. does not get used over half the time, and it sometimes stands in the way of actual discourse.
  5. does not work with complicated SPI cases; e.g. accused editors will eventually edit in the "evidence" and "other users" sections, for instance.

I'd like to propose eliminating those five sections and just have the one "date" section that would have the list of suspected socks and then regular, wiki-style, threaded discussion below. I think this will make SPI more palatable and easier on all fronts (as opposed to just one side), and it's a more natural way of presenting a discussion (like done with ANI). –MuZemike 00:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I think 1st for sock list, 2nd for discussion, 3rd for Clerk, Admin, CU comments. That allows for admins, clerks and CUs to make some comments without being entangled in the rest, and it would be a clear sock list too. -- DQ (t) (e) 00:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree with DeltaQuad here. I look at a lot of historical cases, and I always know where to look for the resolution (which is generally the first thing I want.) If it's buried somewhere in a threaded conversation, analysis becomes somewhat more annoying. --jpgordon::==( o ) 04:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
What DeltaQuad says. T. Canens (talk) 07:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

How about this: let's remove the "Suspected sockpuppets" heading (it currently serves no purpose) and then combine the last three sections into an "Other comments" section or whatever we want to name it. –MuZemike 06:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

We need to have a separate section for clerk/admin/CU comments; removing the first heading and combining the 3rd and 4th section is fine, IMO. So we would have a section for evidence, a section for discussion, and a section for clerk/admin/CU. T. Canens (talk) 16:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Removing the Suspected heading is fine, but we need the section for admin/clerk/cu comments, as we have seen multiple cases where the discussion gets out of hand. I think that and evidence section is a little redundant as the "disucssion" is of the evidence. The evidence would be fine just sitting at the top of the discussion section. But if you guys think we need it, I would make it a subheading of the discussion. DQ.alt (t) (e) 17:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

what should i do

I have a registered account as Inspector123 but mostly edit unlogged through my IP which is shared in my country, the address numbers vary from 115 through to 203, I have never tried to pose as different usrs nor intended to decieve anyone with this, just lazy to log-in all the time, now a psychotic user Jaspel has created two pages of sock puppet accusation in his contributions section because I dare to stand up to him and defy his editing practice some of which is in good faith but the rest seems to be deliberately provocative atleast towards me, I dont know him nor care for what he does but will stand upto him wheres he crosses the line, before you block me kindly check the antics of this chap as well. I know somewhere I fit in the sock puppet category but I never realised it was the case until now.116.71.15.192 (talk) 21:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

  • This might help. Though I'm not holding my breath. jasepl (talk) 05:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

New process

I've created a Template:Checkuser needed, and if there is agreement, will create Category:Requests for checkuser. This process would function like CAT:UNB. Checkusers could watch the category and go to the locus where checkuser attention is needed.

Sometimes the necessary evidence is spread over multiple pages. In these cases WP:SPI is a useful tool for gathering info in one place. In other cases the info is already located in one place, and WP:SPI only creates needless bureacracy and delay.

I believe it would be most beneficial to have a choice of process depending on circumstances. Jehochman Talk 16:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Where do you see this being applied? TNXMan 17:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Typically this would be applied to a noticeboard discussions, such as one at WP:ANI, WP:COIN, or WP:BLPN. Once the facts are put on view to the community, it is often helpful to get a Checkuser's attention and have them resolve any concerns about socking. It is inconvenient to suspend discussion, reformat and post all the relevant details to WP:SPI, and then wait a long time for a result. Jehochman Talk 19:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
I would note that the SPI cases that normally take the longest are those which do not require CU; i.e. those which need uninvolved administrators to close. Moreover, if CU results fail to clearly indicate or non-indicate socking, then there is still a possibility of waiting. –MuZemike 19:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
I've filed many requests for checkuser in my days at Wikipedia. Trust me, the standard process usually takes much longer than I'd like when I'm trying to control some sort of sock-involved disruption. You've got the CU bit so you don't experience these delays. I don't even bother with the new WP:SPI process because it's too slow and bureaucratic. I either give up, or try to flag a friendly checkuser. That's not a good way to administer this site. Jehochman Talk 20:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps it was better with WP:SSP and WP:RFCU as separate noticeboards than to combine them into one. I think one of the problems when SPI first started in early 2009 was that it was intentionally made too complicated so that it could be completely bot-automated. That started to fall apart when our old bot stopped working, and the old bot operator was no longer available to fix it. Ideally, it should not be anymore difficult to start an SPI case than it is to start an AFD discussion.
That being said, we've been trying to get away from the level of over-complication that we started off with and is trying to work towards something that is more readily accessible. I do share your concern that people do go to WP:ANI, WP:AN, etc. because of the lack of structure there. For example, right now, we're working to eliminate many of the sections in an effort to strike balance between regular, wiki-style, threaded discussion and "special sections" like the one reserved for CUs and closing administrators. We have had some previous discussion about this here, and I have made a sandbox highlighting what I propose for that here. –MuZemike 20:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
From a purely anecdotal perspective, Jehochman, I think we're handling cases quickly. There is only one case currently awaiting "official" checkusering, and it has already received some checkuser input. I know this is kind of getting away from your original post, but you should give SPI a shot again. With four new checkusers (two of whom patrolled SPI before becoming checkusers) and several new clerks, things move along at a pretty good clip.</offtopic> TNXMan 20:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
If all the facts needed are already laid out some place, it is better to bring the Checkuser to the facts. If the facts are scattered we can collect them at SPI. The current process was horrifically complicated last time I looked, and I'm not going to look at it again until it gets cleaned up and reaches a proper final state. I'm glad there's no backlog; perhaps that's because everybody has been so turned off by the perceived complexity of the process. We used to have something that works, and we broke it, badly. Jehochman Talk 14:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, I'm not saying your proposal isn't without merit - I just wanted to point out that, from my perspective, cases move pretty quickly. I should point out though, my only experience here has been with the new system.
In any case, what do you think is the best way forward on implementing this? I have the SPI sandbox (where the bot updates case listings) on my watchlist and I'm alerted when a new case is filed. Personally, I find categories harder to monitor, but that may just be me. Also, one of the benefits of having the cases listed centrally is the archives. It's easier to track cases through one archive instead of moving from an ANI archive to a BLPN archive, etc. Do you think there is a way we could archive cases from disparate sources? TNXMan 15:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

New header design

Thoughts? Should we go for this? –MuZemike 03:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations/Archive_8&oldid=1159114174"