Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guide to filing cases

Question

I am back to open a case, actually to add a new accountname to a past case, i.e. to make a case extension i guess. This page includes statement "The section below "To open a case" explains how to create or open a case". However there is no section "To open a case". Should the statement link to somewhere else? I am just trying to figure out how to proceed. --doncram 15:23, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Same situation a year later. I think I've found the answer so I've corrected the text to point to the right place.--Wikimedes (talk) 03:28, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

(ec) Wikimedes prompted me to revisit this, and I was just figuring out a poor answer. But FYI

• It was in fact in the initial edit of this Guide to filing cases that the promise of "a section below" was offered, but the promise was never fulfilled.
• Happily User:Wikimedes just found out how to open one (follow instructions in the collapsed section, "How to open an investigation", on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations, which leads you to fill out a form), and revised this page.
• Another approach is: Follow instructions in documentation at Template:SPI report, about "subst"ing the {{SPI report}}. However in my one experience trying this, starting by this initial edit, I couldn't get it to work, perhaps due to some formatting error in my submission. I kept trying in 4 following edits, but the case filing didn't happen until another editor kindly fixed it, somehow.

So, thanks, Wikimedes! (and thanks AGK for developing this guide in the first place). --doncram 03:58, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Appeals process

Per the edit summary's linked-to feedback from a Clerk, I did this edit, but it was reverted as 'no consensus'. What is the appeals process, if not this? --Elvey^(t•c) 06:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

"Vote fraud in ongoing vote" & "Suspected "good hand bad hand" use to avoid scrutiny" -In these cases, do not request CheckUser

Why is it recommended to wait until after the vote closes before requesting checkuser? Wouldn't doing this before the vote closes minimize cleanup? Also, why only in "severe cases" should checks be requested for suspected good hand/bad hand use? Sro23 (talk) 20:38, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

@Sro23: I don't know. Maybe we should ping AGK who created this page. By the way, I think this page is not being watched by many users, so maybe you should leave a note about this discussion at Wikipedia talk:SPI, otherwise nobody will see this. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:38, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

@Vanjagenije and Sro23: Hi there. The guide says to wait until vote closure simply because that was always the wider convention (and we're talking back even to around 2006, when a checkuser requests process was first created). I recall the thinking was that if the vote fraud did not affect the outcome, technical evidence shouldn't be used – a behavioural investigation was in order instead. Obviously, if the vote is open then it is difficult to assess whether the outcome is affected.

We had less discretion back then to run checks – requests had to be raised under a specific "code letter". Those raised under the "other reason" code were less frequently granted. I suppose the guide simply still reflects the 'ongoing vote' test because it's never really been questioned. I do not think it is a helpful distinction, but you will need more consensus to change it.

Yes, the guide seems to also direct that you only file about good hand/bad hand suspicions if they are serious. I suppose this is because in minor cases, it is better simply to deal with the direct behaviour of the 'bad hand' (eg block it). The immediate outcome of preventing disruption is then the same. Sustained, serious GH/BH campaigns do need investigating, but the point is that it needs to be worthwhile.

Hope this helps, AGK [•] 11:30, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

What is meant by "re-open"?

The Guide to filing cases, both as originally written by AGK and as it currently stands, uses the word "re-open". I understand the word "re-open" to refer to opening something that had formerly been open but is currently closed.

To my utter surprise, Bbb23 recently claimed that, in the context of SPI, the word "re-open" does not have its usual meaning. Specifically, Bbb23 suggested that "re-opening" a case does not mean changing a case's status from closed to open; but instead means opening a new case about a different sock.

I am very grateful for all the effort Bbb23 puts into SPI, but if Bbb23 is serious about re-defining "re-open", then this needs to somehow be clearly communicated to SPI users; or a different word (but what?) should be chosen.

Suggestions/clarifications welcome. (And a happy new year, folks!) Zazpot (talk) 21:32, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't see an issue. At SPI, re-open means to create a new section about the named sockmaster. The socks are different, as you say, but the master is the same – so the case that was previously closed is re-opened. When a section that was archived is restored to "open" status, we refer to the closure as being reverted. And if the sockmaster is subsequently discovered to be, in all likelihood, someone other than the one named then the report is moved to the appropriate case. As Bbb23 has already said, I don't see anything here that requires clarification. AGK ■ 14:48, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

@AGK: you say, At SPI, "re-open" means to create a new section about the named sockmaster. (My emphasis.)

Bbb23 says, [At SPI, "re-open" means to] create a new report about new users. (My emphasis, again.)

As you can see, your account differs from Bbb23's account in two significant respects.

Re: reports (i.e. pages) vs sections, should the user follow your account, or Bbb23's account, or neither?

Re: new (i.e. as-yet-unreported) users vs named (i.e. previously-reported) users, should the user follow your account, or Bbb23's account, or neither?

Currently, the situation is unclear. Thank you in advance to you (or anyone else) who can make it clear. Zazpot (talk) 16:54, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I've come here to figure out what is meant by "re-opening". The instructions are poorly worded. Schwede66 05:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Schwede66: Hopefully that change of language has removed the issue? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Much better. Thanks! My follow up question is, what is the point of the following sentence / action? "Before submitting a case, verify that there isn’t one already in progress using this page's search box:" The reason why I ask is that the search box itself displays the message "search all archives". Searching archives is something different from finding a case that is already in progress. Schwede66 08:42, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

The open case list at WP:SPI won't show all of the accounts which have currently been reported (just the listed master accounts) so you have to use the search box to find that. It's also to check the archive to find if the account(s) being reported have already been investigated at some point. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

References