Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/header: Difference between revisions
signature inside box |
Arcticocean (talk | contribs) ←Created page with '{{subst:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/header}}' |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{#ifexpr:{{PAGESINCAT:SPI cases awaiting administration}}>20|{{adminbacklog}}|}} |
|||
{{Floatinglink|SPI/Administrators instructions|Administrator instructions}} |
{{Floatinglink|SPI/Administrators instructions|Administrator instructions}} |
||
<div style="border:#DCFFE0 solid 1px; padding: 0.5em; background-color:#F6FFF7" width="100%"> |
<div style="border:#DCFFE0 solid 1px; padding: 0.5em; background-color:#F6FFF7" width="100%"> |
||
{| class="messagebox" style="text-align:center;" |
{| class="messagebox" style="text-align:center;" |
||
Line 117: | Line 117: | ||
*[[Special:Contributions/Amalthea (bot)]]: Edits by the SPI Bot. |
*[[Special:Contributions/Amalthea (bot)]]: Edits by the SPI Bot. |
||
{{cob}} |
{{cob}} |
||
<includeonly> |
|||
[[Category:Wikipedia sock puppetry]] |
[[Category:Wikipedia sock puppetry]] |
||
[[Category:Non-talk pages with subpages that are automatically signed]] |
[[Category:Non-talk pages with subpages that are automatically signed]] |
||
[[Category:Wikipedia administration]] |
[[Category:Wikipedia administration]] |
||
</includeonly> |
Revision as of 22:31, 15 August 2013
![]() | This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared. |
![]() | If your evidence includes emails or any other information not on Wikipedia’s public pages, or is 'sensitive', if privacy is needed, or if you suspect sock puppetry by an administrator, you must e-mail the CheckUser team or the Arbitration Committee, and ask what to do. Private information, emails, logs, etc. must not be posted on Wikipedia. |
Sockpuppet investigations (SPI) is where Wikipedians investigate and resolve suspicions of sock puppetry (editor abuse of multiple Wikipedia accounts). If you believe there is good evidence from Wikipedia edits, that one or more individuals are using multiple accounts or IPs to violate our policy on sock-puppetry, to abuse or manipulate editor discussions or processes on Wikipedia, or to evade blocks or bans, then this is the right place to open (or re-open) an investigation. Administrators and others with experience in dealing with sock-puppetry will determine from the evidence whether to take administrator action.
An investigation can only be opened if your evidence clearly shows, from suspicious Wikipedia edits and/or log entries, that two or more accounts (or different IP editors) seem likely to have the same operator and to be breaching our sock-puppetry policy.
Wikipedia’s CheckUser team also watches these pages. CheckUsers are Wikipedia editors who are highly experienced and trusted at investigating sock-puppetry cases. Their access to the "Checkuser" tool may provide additional technical evidence for some cases. A request for CheckUser can be very helpful where abuse is very likely but the visible public evidence alone is insufficient to show the underlying situation clearly. Checkuser has very strict usage and privacy policies. The CheckUser tool will only be used if a Checkuser believes there is clear evidence of likely sock abuse and also good reason why Checkuser is needed to resolve the matter. Requests for CheckUser attention without both of these will be declined.
Important notes
- Almost nothing matters in posting to an SPI report except evidence showing that multiple accounts are (or aren’t) likely to have common ownership, and are being used in breach of policies.
- Before submitting a case, verify that there isn’t one already in progress using the search button at the bottom of this page.
- Without exception, you must supply clear simple evidence (diffs and any reasonable deductions and impressions as a result) showing that the accounts you list are likely to be operated by the same individual. Evidence helps the administrator to follow your thinking, and to check you haven’t overlooked anything. Administrators are not clairvoyants, so they may not immediately notice similarities between different accounts (eg editing approach, time, and behavior) that you may have seen. Additionally, if you want to request CheckUser, proper evidence and a reason why CheckUser is needed are absolutely mandatory.
- Try to assume good faith in relation to all but the most obvious socks.
- You can notify the suspected accounts by adding
{{subst:socksuspectnotice|PUPPETMASTER|sig=yes}}
to the bottom of their talk pages. (Notification is courteous but isn’t mandatory, and in some cases it may be sub-optimal. Use your best judgement.) - Keep it simple! Simple, concise factual evidence leads to a quickly resolved case.
- If accused, follow the same advice. Keep it calm, brief, evidence based, focused on evidence about the accounts, and let the evidence speak for itself.
Whether or not to request CheckUser in a case?
- CheckUser is a tool that can provide extra case evidence under tight controls and usage criteria for cases needing it. See introduction or local CheckUser policy for details including examples of when it may be useful to request Checkuser evidence.
- Most of the time, a determination can be made based on the accounts’ behaviour alone, and in such cases unless there are other reasons (eg likely undetected socks) CheckUser is not needed.
- Requests for a check can be added to a case by anyone (even IP users) at any time, upon good evidence and explanation why it is appropriate or needed (you must provide both!). A clerk will review and endorse it for Checkuser attention if it appears to meet usual criteria. As clerks understand current Checkuser norms, they can also self-endorse requests they add.
- Ultimate discretion to use or not use the tool in any matter, including requests not formally shown at SPI via email or other means, remains solely with individual CheckUsers.
Situation | How to proceed |
---|
In these cases, file a case and request a check | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Evasion of ArbCom or Wikimedia Foundation bans or remedies | Link to the closed case. Supply evidence to show the active user is the banned party. | ||||||
Ongoing, serious pattern of vandalism involving dozens of incidents | Supply diffs of the vandalism. | ||||||
Possible vote fraud | Link to the vote(s). | ||||||
3RR violation using sockpuppets | Link to four or more diffs showing the 3RR violation. | ||||||
Evasion of community-based bans or blocks | Link to block log of the original account. Supply evidence to show the user is the banned or blocked party. | ||||||
Likely undetected or "sleeper" socks, getting an IP block (of a repeat sock-user) | Link to or point to a possible reason, or if enough socks exist, the archive. | ||||||
'Messy' and complex cases where behavior alone cannot determine which accounts are socks. | Link to diffs that show the likelihood that each account listed could be a possible sockpuppet. | ||||||
You believe a check is warranted anyway | Give a brief summary of the situation, link to further discussions, and supply supporting diffs. |
In these cases, do not request CheckUser | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Obvious, disruptive sock puppet | Block. No checkuser is necessary. | ||||||
Disruptive "throwaway" account used only for a few edits | Block. No checkuser is necessary. | ||||||
Checkuser on yourself to "prove your innocence" | Such requests are not accepted. Please do not ask. | ||||||
Question about a possible sock puppet related to an open arbitration case | Request on the arbitration case pages that a checkuser be run. | ||||||
Suspected "good hand bad hand" use to avoid scrutiny | Initially file an investigation with no check requested, except in severe cases. | ||||||
Suspected administrator sockpuppetry or multiple account abuse | Report to the Arbitration Committee. They may have to desysop the administrator. | ||||||
Other disruption of articles | Report to AN/I, or file a case without CU and ask if checkuser should be requested. | ||||||
Open proxy where you already know the IP address | List on Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies. | ||||||
You want access to the checkuser tool yourself | Access is rarely granted, and not requested here. Please see Wikipedia:CheckUser. |
How to open a case (including CheckUser if required) and what happens when a case is opened
Click to view
|
---|
|
Quick CheckUser requests
If you need a CheckUser to review something, but it is not related to sockpuppetry, please see here for instructions.
The inner-workings of SPI
The day-to-day running and housekeeping of SPI is undertaken by the "SPI Clerks" team, editors with considerable experience of SPI who help ensure cases are managed properly and remain in good order, and who provide clerical and administrative support where needed. SPI clerks also check CheckUser requests appear reasonable before endorsing for Checkuser attention, review completed cases for loose ends before closure, and help with other tasks such as userpage-tagging of confirmed and blocked socks.
For administrators: If you would like to assist at SPI, then please feel welcome, and thank you for contributing. We maintain a set of procedural notes on common SPI patroller procedures and the Clerks’ page contains information on patrolling and how patrollers can help. If you need any further help, please ask one of the active SPI clerks, or join #wikipedia-en-spi connect on Freenode IRC.
To open a case:
To open an investigation (or case), replace SOCKMASTER in the white textbox below with the user name of the oldest account (the "sockmaster"), or the previous case name. Then click the button under the box.
For example, if the case name is about User:John Doe or a prior case was at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/John Doe, then you should input John Doe in the box below (before clicking the 'submit' button). You should not include the "User:" prefix, or any additional commentary.
You will then be taken to another page containing a form which you must complete in order to open the investigation. The process for opening an investigation is the same for re-opening an old case (that is to say, if a case under that name already exists) as for creating a new case.
If you also require a CheckUser to investigate, change |checkuser=no to |checkuser=yes in the edit box on the next page.
Further Information
|
---|
|