വിക്കിപീഡിയ

വിക്കിപീഡിയ:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/header

< വിക്കിപീഡിയ:Sockpuppet investigations
Skip to: Submitting an SPI case • Cases currently listed at SPI
ചുരുക്കെഴുത്തുകൾ

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, that two or more users (or different IP editors) seem likely to have the same operator and to be breaching our sock-puppetry policy.

Wikipedia's CheckUser team also watch 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}} ~~~~ 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.
സാഹചര്യം എന്താണ് ചെയ്യേണ്ടത്

How to open a case (including CheckUser if required) and what happens when a case is opened

  1. Open, or re-open, the case. The section below "To open a case" explains how to create or open a case. To add a CheckUser request, edit the case (if already created). At the top of the edit box find and change the line {{SPI case status}} to {{SPI case status|curequest}}. The request will be queued for review.
  2. If CheckUser is requested:
    • A clerk will review the case and the reason, and decide if it meets our criteria for CheckUser. The clerk will endorse it for CheckUser attention, or decline it. Anyone can ask the clerk to reconsider if they think this is mistaken, a good reason exists, or as the case develops.
    • If CheckUser is not requested or is  Declined: The case will be decided on the basis of whatever evidence already exists or is found without CheckUser. Evidence and analysis can be added by anyone (as usual), and the case will ultimately be decided by any CheckUser, Clerk or any uninvolved administrator. A request for CheckUser evidence can be added by anyone at any time if the criteria for its use are met.
    • If CheckUser is  Endorsed: A CheckUser will decide if they agree CheckUser should be used on the case (and will "decline" if not).
    • Note: cases can usually be progressed, and some actions taken, while waiting. Other users, clerks and administrators can add information to the case or take usual actions while it is waiting for Checkuser. Just be aware if you do, that the case may be missing information in some areas. Use commonsense. (For example an administrator might block some socks and raise some issues, while the case awaits a Checkuser to look at less obvious socks or 'sleepers')
  3. If CheckUser is agreed and used:
    • A CheckUser will examine the technical evidence related to the case. He or she will add their findings under the section "Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments", for example stating any accounts that are  Confirmed to be the same user;  Likely,  Possible, or  Unlikely to have the same operator; or probably  Unrelated. In some cases, the result is  Inconclusive. The findings may be added piece by piece, or all at once. Other editors can use the information to help resolve the case.
    • CheckUsers (if involved) may or may not complete the case; they may leave routine matters and follow-up for parties, other users, clerks, or patrolling administrators to conclude, so they can move to other cases.
    • Note: CheckUser is just one way to find evidence; it is not  magic pixie dust or a  crystal ball. Even if CheckUser shows "unrelated" or "inconclusive" it just means that the CheckUser tool did not reveal any connection or is inconclusive. In some cases it may be clear or likely on behavioral grounds or other evidence that there is a connection and an adverse finding could be justified by the evidence taken as a whole.
  4. Discussion and resolution. Any user can contribute to an SPI case, by providing evidence and analysis about use of multiple accounts on Wikipedia (as described above). Cases can be expanded or CheckUser requests added, if needed. All users are expected to focus only on evidence of sock policy breach and its analysis; disruptive conduct may lead to removal from the case pages. Experienced users (usually clerks, administrators, and Checkusers) will make final decisions and any formal findings, and whether an adminisstrative action is needed.
  5. Other decisions might also be made by anyone at any time, as usual. For example a user may want to email a Checkuser to discuss something sensitive, or the case may be relevant to other discussions or pages, other users might need to be told of the matter, or an experienced user may decide to raise or act upon some aspect of the case separately (for example SPI evidence of gross abuse may lead a user to separately propose a community ban).
  6. Closure. Finally whatever happened, when all necessary case actions are done and the case seems ready to close, any administrator can mark the case as ready for closing. A clerk will give the case a final check to ensure that there are no obvious loose ends and then close and archive it. The case will automatically be de-listed and appended to existing archived cases for the sock master (if any).

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 വെബ്‌ചാറ്റ് 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.

Investigation (case) to create or re-open:
If you are an anonymous (IP address) editor, please click "show" to the right and use the box below
Further Information


"https://ml.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=വിക്കിപീഡിയ:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/header&oldid=4023146" എന്ന താളിൽനിന്ന് ശേഖരിച്ചത്