Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

No, your eyes aren't playing tricks on you

The SPI status colors have indeed changed. Asartea made an edit request to change {{SPI case status}} to use consistently WCAG AA Normal or better color contrast (MOS:COLOR). Firefly found a way to keep moreinfo eye-catching while keeping it in the same color range as before, but there wasn't really any way to do that for administrator, so that's been changed from a noncompliant bright orange to a compliant bright green (rather than a compliant dull orange). For consistency's sake, I made a matching change to {{SPIstatusentry/color}}, the template that is called on the SPI list. I welcome any feedback. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 05:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Small request that we change the bright green to something else since the CU checked is also green (though dull), and they might get lumped together. Also, generic comment that the accessibility guideline really shouldn't be in MOS space since everything other than accessibility is only applicable in mainspace... though nothing we can do about that here :-) TonyBallioni (talk) 05:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni:

• So, this is what it used to be: Black text. Blue link. Visited blue link.
• Asartea's original proposal: Black text. Blue link. Visited blue link.
• Green background we went with instead: Black text. Blue link. Visited blue link.

I wanted to retain the general logic that CUrequest, moreinfo, admin, and clerk are the four most eye-catching categories, and it doesn't look like there's a way to do that with orange in an a11y-compliant fashion. Thing is, all the main parts of the color wheel are already taken for something: yellow for CU, blue(ish) for endorse, red/pink for open and declined, dull green for checked, purple/magenta for hold and more info, reddish for clerk. So the way I see it:

1. We could use Asartea's original proposal.
2. We could use a shade of red distinct from that of awaiting clerk. They're conceptually similar so it wouldn't be that different from having both moreinfo and hold being in the same neighborhood.
3. We could switch the dull green of checked to a dull orange. Which might actually be a good idea, in terms of the psychology of color: I feel like sometimes the checked queue gets negelected despite often containing fairly time-sensitive cases.

I think that covers all the options. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 07:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Tony, and personally I would actually prefer Asartea's original duller orange proposal rather than the current green, since the CU completed status is also green (and, more selfishly, I've been conditioned over the years to look for orange). I think orange as a color is inherently eye-catching in the context of the contrasting colors of yellow and green. Mz7 (talk) 08:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I would also prefer sticking with some (more accessible) shade of orange, simply because I'm very used to it. --Blablubbs (talk) 13:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I think orange works better. I think "awaiting admin" should be important and eye-catching, given that it usually means socks need to be blocked. Orange is quite eye-catching, and is what most people are used to. Though, if we want to change the color, red would also be good, though maybe a bit too urgent. Invalid^OS_talk 13:16, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni, Mz7, Blablubbs, and InvalidOS: Okay, I've switched to Asartea's original proposal, but seeing it alongisde the other colors on the table, I think it looks a bit too much like the open and declined colors, especially if my screen's on night mode. Thoughts? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 13:51, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

OK, I do see the issues on night mode, it's definitely harder to tell the difference. Maybe we could try white text on darker colors for the "awaiting x" statuses? It's still more eye-catching and urgent, but also remains accessible. Invalid^OS_talk 16:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@InvalidOS: I actually considered that, but the issue is the link coloring. Could highlight the links white within the orange background, but I think that would look very jarring, as you can see here. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 16:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think this will look good. Also I have bad news: originally I ignored {{SPI case status|clerk}} because its accessible against black, but I just realised when it gets used in the table it is of course used against links. -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 16:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Oh, that is really bad. Maybe the "Open" case color could be changed, but that might as well be less of a good idea. I'm just really not a big fan of that green though. Invalid^OS_talk 16:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@Asartea et al: Okay, what do y'all think of this? It's an AA pass. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 17:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm happy as long as it meets AA; I don't actually do any SPI work, so I'll leave the determination of which colors work to people who actually have to look at them on a regular basis. -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 17:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay. Well, I think that for admin, this for clerk, and we should be good? Will implement later if no one objects. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 17:51, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay, switched to that pair of colors now. About as close to the originals as possible while staying within AA Normal, so hopefully this works for people. (Currently there's nothing in the table with these statuses, but you can do what I did and mess around with inspect element. Hexes are #F9AC71 for ADMIN and #FF8E7A for CLERK.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 06:37, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Nice work! Mz7 (talk) 02:23, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Looks great! Invalid^OS_talk 12:33, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

{{long rant about accessibility, the need for it to be a policy etc here}} -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 16:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

The SPI caseload

First may I offer congratulations to all of you who have worked so hard to reduce the backlog.

I have an observation which may not be borne out by real life. When CU is requested a new investigation is almost always handled comparative quickly. When not requested it can feel to someone not intimately involved with the SPI process that it is treated as less urgent.

This may be because there are more non CU requests than there are CU requests, and I accept this may be a result of the human frailty of seeing patterns where none exist. The purpose of this post is to alert you very busy SPI folks of my perception.

I hasten to add that I am not complaining. I also subscribe to the view that there is never a need to rush on Wikipedia. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 22:41, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I think this may be partially due to CUs focusing on cases with CU requests. I certainly generally focus on cases marked as needing CU and then to the open cases. This may also be due to the CU cases being slightly further up the list (so are seen first).

On the other hand, at the moment only two CU complete cases are newer than the oldest non-cu case. Furthermore, I would say that a combination of non-cu requests also including IP-only SPI cases and when filing cases CU being marked as "only check this if you need it" when using the preload form probably means that there are generally more non-cu cases than cu cases. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:20, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I can quite understand your thought process here. I think very hard before requesting CU and try to err on the side of not doing so. I do take your point about non CU cases being physically lower on the list, as well as being likely to be greater in number than CU cases because of the wise preload discouragement of flagging for CU. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 23:29, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Another thing to consider is that non-CU cases typically fall into three categories: 1) IP/account or all-IP cases, 2) cases coming out of a long dormancy, and 3) cases filed by people inexperienced with SPI who don't know to request CU. (Yes, there's a smattering of "Too obvious to bother with a CU request" cases thrown in, but those are often picked off as they come in.) All three of those categories are relatively effort-intensive to clerk. If I clerk a CU request, all I need to do is see that a threshold of reasonable suspicion has been met and that a check would be policy-compliant, and then I can hand it off to a CU for technical analysis. Your post here inspired me to take a look at the oldest pending "open" case, which fell into Category 1. It was a well-made filing, and about as short as it could be expected to be, but still pretty long. It required a weighing of big-picture behavioral analysis, tells, past procedural history, and the nuances of the sockpuppetry policy, and I had to be extra-sure of my conclusion because there won't be a CU safety net to tell me I got the wrong guy. Clerking that took me quite a bit longer than it takes to say "Yep, both of these accounts created the same draft with similar edit summaries. {{endorse}}." So a lot of the discrepancy between CU and non-CU cases is just inherent in what they demand of the clerk team, I think. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 00:40, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I knew a great deal of work happened behind the scenes. I was not aware of quite how much. I've often been tempted to put myself forward for work in this area, but I think AFC is enough for me right now. At least I get a regular chance from AFC to set 'em up for SPI specialists to knock down. Not that I always get it right!

Thank you for treating my post as potential inspiration, as I hoped it would be received, rather than as a whine. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 09:17, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposed change to the sock list in Template:SPI report

Please see Template talk:SPI report § Proposed change to sock list. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 04:46, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Effect of username change on past SPI reports

While I was at WP:PERM, something clicked me. That if someone changes their username after a SPI case had been filed against them, the SPI link at {{rfplinks}} would *probably* show up as a red-link, making this Template useless. Can someone more knowledgeable confirm this? And if this is true, we should fix it so that a username change automatically creates a redirect from the new username SPI page to the old one where a case was actually filed. ---CX Zoom(^he/_him) (^{let's talk}|_contribs) 06:44, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

If my observations are untrue, that username change does create appropriate redirect, someone should note them at the documentation for SPI processes. Thank you. ---CX Zoom(^he/_him) (^{let's talk}|_contribs) 07:04, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

User pages are usually redirected to the new name as part of the rename process, although a renamer can choose whether to suppress the redirects creation. I think they mostly allow it in normal circumstances. Additionally someone can manually remove the redirect afterwards, however, but that'd create edit history which can be inspected to determine where the user-page used to redirect. – Ammarpad (talk) 13:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I was referring to the fact that if User:Example, who has some SPI history, renames to User:Foo. The automatic SPI link thus created by {{rfplinks}} will be WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Foo, effectively *superficially* hiding the prior case logged at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Example, unless a retarget is created from the WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Foo to WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Example or vice versa. Ofcourse, username change history will also be logged and admin can check SPI/RFAR history manually but that would require more effort from the admin than there needs to be ideally. Or occasionally may be overlooked by them too. ---CX Zoom(^he/_him) (^{let's talk}|_contribs) 13:38, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I think the question here is about the SPI page in particular. I am not aware of any automated process that moves SPI pages when users are renamed. This means that at the moment that SPI cases can in theory be left at the old username, and potentially forgotten about if the link was not included in any block log. I think I've found a way to determine if a user exists, and as I cannot find a pre-existing module to do this I will be creating one. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 13:43, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Not just the SPI page, but also the RFAR page to be specific. Also, I'm unaware if there are any other kind of pages to which links should ideally be preserved. ---CX Zoom(^he/_him) (^{let's talk}|_contribs) 14:17, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I've created two categories that are automatically filled with SPI cases when either:

• The userpage and user talkm page both do not exist (unless it's an IP address)
• The user talk page is a redirect to somewhere outside the user's userspace

Unfortunately it was not possible to detect if the user does or does not exist without access to the API, which is not possible using Lua or parser functions. As such, for the time being that gives a list of SPI cases that could be worth checking. I'll likely move this over to a bot, as from looking at this method it includes a fair number of false positives. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 10:21, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

To update, I've created User:Dreamy Jazz/spipagestofix which contains a list of spi pages where a non-IP address master has no associated global or local account. Most of these probably need merging. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 02:10, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Replied to RFAR at WT:AC. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 10:21, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

In practice, I don't think this is a big deal. If there were actually issues with sockpuppetry, then typically the user would have been blocked, or perhaps at minimum a message would have been left on their user talk page, so even if the reviewing administrator misses the SPI link, they would probably still discover the past conduct issues when they check the block log and the user's talk page. Mz7 (talk) 08:29, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Apologies

but I seem to have ballsed up this shiney new report somehow, and can't work out the code to fix it. The loading form froze at one point, so it was probably something to do with that; unfortunately, I didn't notice. D'oh! SN54129 20:57, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

 Clerk note: Thanks for pointing it out. I think this was all that was needed, unless I missed something. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 20:59, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanking you, clerk; that seems to have sorted it. SN54129 14:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Combining investigations

How do you combine investigations? User:Lieutenant of Melkor and User:Guardian of the Rings are the same account (renamed in 2014) but I don't think anyone has realized until now that we have sock investigations under both names which do not reference each other. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:38, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back, I was able to find Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Lieutenant_of_Melkor, but I couldn't find one for Guardian of the Rings as Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Guardian of the Rings doesn't exist (and searching subpages of SPI doesn't show a different case). Could you link to the separate case for Guardian of the Rings.

With regards to how you merge/combine cases, this is nearly always performed by a clerk or a CU who is comfortable merging cases. WP:SPIHELPER is used by those who merge cases. Raising it here if you are in neither group is the best option, as spihelper.js doesn't allow you to merge if you are neither a clerk or checkuser.

Thanks for raising this. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:43, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@Dreamy Jazz: Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Guardian of the Rings and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Lieutenant of Melkor both exist. I should have been more specific about what exactly was to be combined, that being said I can't find the sockpuppet investigation for the sockpuppets of Guardian of the Rings, they aren't in the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Lieutenant_of_Melkor archive. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:47, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying Horse Eye's Back. I've re-tagged the accounts so that all the accounts are in either Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Lieutenant of Melkor or Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Lieutenant of Melkor. I've also deleted the old category as it's now empty.

With regards to not finding a sockpuppet investigation, all but one of those accounts were self-admitted socks based on the diff presented on their userpages. The other account as confirmed by a CU. This means that both may not have been reported in the usual sense, as with all but one there was no need to investigate it as the connection was self-disclosed and with the last a checkuser may have just ran a check and then blocked without an investigation. Happy editing, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

This is all interesting, I've been clerking since 2015 and have done plenty of merges, but have never once used spihelper to do it. I didn't even know it could. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: That's because in User:Ivanvector/vector.js, you're using importScript('User:Timotheus Canens/spihelper.js');—which is totally fine and functional, if this is the version you prefer. However, GeneralNotability has been maintaining an updated version of the script that has a bunch of new features, including automated merging. It can be installed by replacing importScript('User:Timotheus Canens/spihelper.js'); with importScript( 'User:GeneralNotability/spihelper.js' );. Mz7 (talk) 01:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Changes, such as the introduction of the {{socklist}} template, is likely to break the older version of spihelper. This could be updated so that the older version still works, but perhaps it might be better to redirect the older script to GN's version which is being kept up to date. I wouldn't want to do this without the support of Timotheus Canens, but this might be something to consider so that just because you have a different version installed you don't get new features etc. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 02:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, I owe the three of you (and GeneralNotability) a beer. FWIW I haven't noticed that the "old" spihelper is broken, but I think I've only ever really used it for archiving. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Guidance request

I've reported a good number of socks over the years. I'm an admin but don't work in this area. I've identified an IP user as a sock without any doubt (edit same articles; restored 32k of text removed in 2019 as a result of a sockpuppet investigation). What do I have to do? Do I need to open an investigation or can I just go ahead, block the IP, and add the IP address to the list of previously identified socks? A sock would usually be blocked indefinitely, but I believe that's no longer possible for IP addresses. So do I go for the maximum length of time or are there options to permanently block an IP? Schwede66 08:41, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Answering by email. Cabayi (talk) 10:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Have dealt with it. It looks like a static IP address but that's not my area of expertise; please check that it is! Schwede66 19:02, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Template for sockpuppet votes/cmts

Hi everyone, I recently created a template that can be used to mark votes/comments cast by sockpuppets. The template is {{Sock vote}}. I didn't spent a lot of time to create this and it may require some modification. Please feel free to review and modify the template as appropriate and then use it! Thanks! ---CX Zoom(^he/_him) (^{let's talk}|_contribs) 16:59, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Nice work, but there are already {{csm}} and {{csp}} for this, as well as a series for other inappropriate comment situations (like {{single-purpose account}}). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Extremely old sockpuppets

So, I got a hunch that a number of accounts (Saurabh darade 1998, Shivadikarshreyash73, RudrakshaVaity, Navneet77, Kalpana234, Mdshayansiddiqui3, Aru Jaiswar, Mitul46, Ajayso.wp) are sockpuppets of User:Deep. 123456 based on their userpages/sandboxes but they are all inactive for several years. Is it still worth reporting them? Asking because several userpages were just tagged as U5 speedy deletion and thus showed up on the speedy deletion queue, and when checking I noticed a pattern. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:09, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus If you think there's value to getting them into the record, my suggestion would be to file an SPI, note that it's just for historical purposes, and then close the case yourself. That'll get it into the archives for future reference. But it's very unlikely anybody would spend any time investigating accounts which have been inactive for several years. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:39, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't, in this particular case. I remember the FOSS newbie vandalism thing from around that time, as I recall it turned out to be a misguided school project. Adding more accounts to the case (again, in this specific instance) won't do anything to help prevent abuse, and might document connections that don't actually exist if any of these users decide to take up Wikipedia in the future. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:25, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I've been repeatedly frustrated by this, even when I note that its for historical purposes the admin acts like its a waste of their time. From my perspective there is *always* value in identifying sleeper or abandoned sock accounts. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:28, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

The deletion (not archiving) of SPI reports is not something that has made sense to me, so it would be helpful to know what the wider expectations are. CMD (talk) 07:27, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Renaming a case page for earlier username

From what I've seen in edit histories, the case page Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dealer07 has an earlier username involved, and should be moved to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Eurofan2000. Both Eurofan2000 and Dealer07 behaved the same as Greek IPs pursuing edit-warring behavior, and both were intensely interested in Greek/Albanian/Macedonian nationalities, with the intent to diminish non-Greek connections. They were also trying to weaken the UK by dividing "British" descriptions into English, Scottish, etc. Below I've listed the named accounts that I have seen. A massive number of Greek IPs is also part of this case. Binksternet (talk) 01:12, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

• Apr–Jul 2021 – Eurofan2000. At the Eleni Foureira bio, this account added something about Foureira being inspired by Bebe Rexha,[1] the same as a later sock.[2] This username reduced the Albanian nationality of a singer.[3] The username was blocked by GiantSnowman because of multiple accounts, edit-warring first with a Greek IP, then with Eurofan2000, then with John07234.[4][5][6]
• Jun–Jul 2021 – John07234 was created to continue the edit-warring of Greek IPs and Eurofan2000. Two edits removed "Albanian" nationality from the Foureira bio.[7][8] John07234 signed his username to a talk page edit made by Greek IP.
• Jul–Sep 2021 – Dealer07. This account first appeared at the Foureira bio, saying "I already have an account and know how wikipedia works..." Dealer07 continued the warring over nationality, and restored a paragraph that Eurofan2000 had added about Bebe Rexha as an influence.[9]
• Nov 2021 – LefterisA continued the edit warring of Greek IP Special:Contributions/176.92.18.206.
• Jan 2022 – LefterisAp continued the edit warring of Greek IP Special:Contributions/5.55.202.226.
• Jan 2022 – LefterisApos continued the usual edit warring over nationality.
• Mar 2022 – Somebody07 continued the edit warring of Greek IP Special:Contributions/5.54.232.220.
• Mar 2022 – Someonejk continued the edit warring of Greek IP Special:Contributions/176.92.1.94.

SPI case list moved to project space

Since Amalthea (bot) (talk · contribs) has been down since August 2021, my bot Mz7 (bot) (talk · contribs) has been updating User:Mz7/SPI case list to serve the SPI case list that you see on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. I've now WP:BOLDly updated my bot such that it will now update the page Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Cases instead of my userspace. I've redirected my old userspace title to point to the new location. I chose this new name instead of the former Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cases/Overview, as if Amalthea's bot ever comes back up, I don't want to clash with their bot. The format "Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/___" also aligns with other information pages relating to the clerk team. I do not foresee any complications arising from this change, but please let me know if I have indeed messed anything up. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 00:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, you broke spi-tools. Any chance you could undo this until I can get a fix out? -- RoySmith (talk) 00:47, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Per [10] it looks like you managed to fix the issue. I'll reiterate what I said in that thread: I deeply apologize for the lack of foresight here. In the future, I will definitely give a heads up here before I make any major changes to the bot's behavior. Mz7 (talk) 02:39, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

New user tagging socks

A relatively new user who is not an admin or clerk has tagged the user and user talk pages of socks. Not sure if this is allowed (or what to do if not) so I figured I'd bring it to your attention here. Nardog (talk) 03:58, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

@JJMC89: You haven't reverted all of them, is that deliberate? Nardog (talk) 13:51, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I undid the rest as it doesn't seem productive and actually seems borderline like trolling. PRAXIDICAE💕 14:47, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Infinite torque at zero rpm

Recently I found a phrase "Infinite torque at zero rpm" on an article. Such thing does not really exist, except in Wikipedia. I did further investigation, and here is what I found:

• 2018-08-29 Inowen Infinite torque at zero rpm
• 2018-12-10 Ser Amantio di Nicolao Holden Special Vehicles
• 2018-12-25 Marine3800 Ford small block engine
• 2022-02-17 BrownHairedGirl Internal combustion engine
• 2022-03-16 BrownHairedGirl Pontiac Firebird
• 2022-03-16 BrownHairedGirl Renault Clio
• 2022-04-11 BrownHairedGirl Chevrolet big-block engine

I found that suspicious. ⸻Nikolas Ojala (talk) 09:43, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

@Nikolas Ojala's suspicious mind would have been better deployed by looking at the diffs before posting here.

Each of those edits was made using WP:REFLINKS, one of those secondary tasks is (annoyingly) to use redirects in place of section links. In these cases, Reflinks replaced Torque#Machine torque with the redirect Infinite torque at zero rpm.

In my case, I pay no attention to those part of Reflink's changes, and was unaware that they had been made. I have no view on whether they are appropriate. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:07, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Now that you are aware of this discussion, I want to ask: In four articles you replaced a link like this torque by a link like this torque. Why did you do that four times? Is that phrase "Infinite torque at zero rpm" somehow important to you? ⸻Nikolas Ojala (talk) 10:32, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

@Nikolas Ojala: BHG literally just answered that. Now, if you don't have any other evidence of sockpuppetry, I think we're done here. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 10:35, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes. I just realized what had to be done. Case closed anyway. ⸻Nikolas Ojala (talk) 11:55, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

@Nikolas Ojala: the civil and collaborative response at his stage would have been for you to apologise for wasting the time of other editors my making an allegation of sockpuppetry without first doing some simple basic checks such as reading the edit summaries to see that these edits all use WP:REFLINKS.

Instead, you responded by apparently not even reading the reply which I promptly posted, and asking a question which I had just answered.

Sometimes this place sucks. Thanks a bunch for this round of suckinesss. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:09, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Rejoice! You got your day as a Wikipedia martyr. This fine opportunity was unexpectedly offered to you by me. ⸻Nikolas Ojala (talk) 22:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

@Nikolas Ojala: Please apologize. Both for the initial reckless sockpuppetry allegation and for the completely uncalled-for snark when BHG rightly took polite exception to it. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 22:07, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

LTA pages at MfD again

Would an SPI clerk or better please review the new LTA subpage nominations at MfD? SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:46, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Not familiar with SPI

I have almost no experience with SPI, so please bear with me if this is a dumb question. I've recently reported a new suspected sock into an old existing case - will it autopopulate into the big table on the main SPI page, or since it's an old SPI will I need to make some sort of additional action to bring attention to it? Hog Farm _Talk 01:32, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Hog Farm: So long as it's opened correctly (I always suggest using Twinkle to make life easy, though your milage may vary) it will autopopulate into the table. I've just checked now and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hary1mo is both filed correctly and has been added to the table. Thanks for checking, --Jack Frost (talk) 01:36, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! They're being a bit of a pain in the butt so I wanted to make sure it didn't languish in malformed land. Hog Farm _Talk 01:45, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Just as an explanatory sidenote: The case list is not populated by Twinkle or the filers themselves, but by a bot over at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Cases and then transcluded over, so it can take a while until new cases and status changes show up in the table. If a case hasn't shown up after 40 minutes or so, something is probably borked – it happens on occasion, usually because the bot is down, or because people ignore the instructions we have and don't follow the case format; the bot and other tools really don't like it when {{SPI case status}} or other important elements are missing. If a case hasn't shown up for a while, please post here so we can either fix the filing or annoy the bot operator with a million pings. --Blablubbs (talk) 08:38, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Anyone else having problems with User:Timotheus Canens/spihelper.js?

It seems to be stopping Twinkle from showing up on new user talk pages that haven't been created yet. Doug Weller talk 16:31, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller use the General's version! User:GeneralNotability/spihelper.js. :) firefly ( t · c ) 16:57, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

@Firefly will do, thanks! Doug Weller talk 17:32, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Ha! I’ve already got it, so removed TC’s. Doug Weller talk 17:36, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I don’t know where “manage scripts” came from, but it’s brilliant. Doug Weller talk 17:38, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I goofed

Sorry SPI. I filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ArsenalAtletico2007 in the wrong place, having mistyped the user's name? Should I refile at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ArsenalAtletico2017 or is it better for someone to move it? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:34, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: I have un-goofed . --Blablubbs (talk) 13:37, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

SPI case

Hi @Jezebel's Ponyo, Blablubbs, Cabayi, and Bbb23:, Would you please check this SPI case Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nepalaya001? Fade258 (talk) 09:49, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

@Fade258: Your ping failed (you have to add the ping template in the same edit as you add your signature), but I saw this anyway. I'm not sure why you are seemingly trying to expedite the processing of a case you filed 20 minutes ago. If you want to speed things up, there are some tips for writing good filings here (this and this seem particularly relevant). --Blablubbs (talk) 10:04, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Blablubbs, I will look into this. If you think I made mistake on opening SPI case then please correct that case. Fade258 (talk) 10:07, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Moka Mo

I have added two IP suspected sockpuppets of indeffed user Moka Mo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Moka_Mo. I believe I somehow screwed up the latest case as filing date shows unknown. Regards,   Aloha27  talk  12:52, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

There seem to be huge number of reports

They all fall onto the shoulders of a very select few, and I'm not at all sure how you manage without burnout. One thing I notice often is that the non CU request queue seems to get less of your attention, perhaps because it's lower down the list. Or is my perception incorrect? Oughtn't Duck cases to be somehow simpler, fewer folk involved?

I'm not "pushing" for anything except equality. There's no deadline for anything because those with the rights can correct many issues at a few keystrokes. I'm honestly not complaining. I think there need to be more of you guys. But that's true of all specialist areas of WP. So what is the real answer? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:09, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@Timtrent funny you should ask. You're on my list of people who I'm hoping will volunteer for clerk training at WT:SPI/C#Active requests :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 19:15, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@RoySmith I think I deserved that hint! I have thought of it a number of times, and set the thought aside because I think my skills lie more in AFC. I suspect clerking requires a very tightly focussed attention to detail. I also might find folk were encouraging me towards adminship, something I have never aspired to, indeed I aspire to remain a run of the mill editor. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:19, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to try monitoring this list more closely. I have CU tools so should be able to help out with any report that has CU requested. Frankly, though, most of the work falls on the clerks. Current clerks and future clerks, thanks for all the thankless work you do! --Yamla (talk) 19:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, typically the backlog is at its highest in the Northern hemisphere summer months (late May-early September) then disappears around October after all the new CUs are appointed. Stays pretty low October through April, then gets high again in May.

SPI has traditionally been driven by CU activity (clerks do have an important role, but CUs go through the cases without CU requests as well and check as needed, and this often clears those.) If you think about the demographic that get appointed CU, this kinda makes sense. It tends to be people who have been administrators at least a year, if not longer, and who are still active in the day-to-day activity of the project to the level that they're known and respected by the active editing community.

That degree of activity typically doesn't last for more than a couple of years based on interests changing and real life happening. The Northern summer is usually a time of transitions in life, work, school, etc. Add in vacations, trips after 2 years of pandemic etc. it makes sense that "longer term" users like CUs would probably be less active now, and its my theory for why we see the pattern every year... also why I make a similar post to this every year. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:38, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

The button to open a report is broken for IP users

Hello,

I've just noticed that the button for submitting a report seems to have broken for IP editors. The button should only direct you to the talk page if you are opening a brand new investigation and need to create a new page, if you are adding a new section to an existing report then you can edit the page directly. I seem to remember that there used to be two boxes you could use which covered both possibilities? 192.76.8.78 (talk) 13:27, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Whoops, think that's on me. Half a mo'. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 13:28, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I think this should have fixed it, 192? Let me know if it didn't. Very sorry for the inconvenience my tweak to the header caused. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 13:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Tamzin That fixed it, Thanks! 192.76.8.78 (talk) 14:05, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

See, this is why they made me a full clerk. Gotta have someone on the team who's capable of cleaning up my messes. ;) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 14:32, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Requesting a clerk to clean up my mess (sorry!!)

Resolved

Due to a copy-paste error, I've just created a new case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ Honest Yusuf Cricket instead of adding it to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Honest Yusuf Cricket. I hope someone can clean up after me; very sorry for the trouble! --JBL (talk) 19:11, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Section moved and typoed page deleted. Since you're the only contributor, your signature ought to provide sufficient attribution. Thanks for posting. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 19:14, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! -- JBL (talk) 19:25, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, [11] shows 33 cases with leading spaces. I see at least one, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ Kautilya3, that should be merged with the correct case (both were declined as baseless, but someone having been twice wrongly accused is a good thing to know), and I'm guessing that's not the only one. For resulting soft redirects, or ones created as a result of past moves/merges (which is most of the 33), my inclination is to delete any without backlinks. Does anyone else have thoughts on the matter? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 20:21, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Not a clerk, but FWIW that seems eminently reasonable. I might also suggest titleblacklisting leading-space SPI pages, or might that have unintended consequences? firefly ( t · c ) 10:39, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Request eyes on 1000+ block-evading edits

I realize of course that there's a huge backlog, but Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ZemenfesKidus has been open for more than three weeks now, and though one of the IP ranges has been blocked by Drmies after 500 or more block-evading edits, the account listed (BeteAmora (talk · contribs)) has made more than 600 edits and is still going strong. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:11, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Tylerbrizyy

Not sure what to do with this. A new article Tylerbrizyy (musician) has been created, and it looks like a recreation of something deleted earlier after this AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tylerbrizyy (hence I've requested speedy on it). At the AfD it was mentioned that its creator Tylerbrizyy was blocked as a puppeteer, and David DXL was also mentioned. This new article has been created by the latter, now twice. I haven't filed a formal case as I don't know if this is enough of a reason to, but I reckon something's ducky here. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:23, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

A single-minded interest in creating a spammy article previously created/defended by a bunch of socks? Sounds like the quack heard around the world - either sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry (e.g. paying someone else to create the article) which can be treated in identical fashion.  Blocked without tags, closing. :) firefly ( t · c ) 13:32, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Duck me, that was quack! Sorry, quick. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

We aim to please :) firefly ( t · c ) 13:40, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Problem submitting SPI report

Hello, SPI folks,

I've probably created a dozen SPI reports since I started editing here regularly and today when I did this, the "submit" won't go through. It kept bringing me back to an editing screen with no explanation of what the problem could be. I've gone through this now three times in case I was inputting the information incorrectly but I get the same response each time. Any advice? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

It turns out that there was some interferences with "Bawl", an editing tool I installed some time ago. It kept insisting that I add a subject line and I didn't notice this was preventing the report from being submitted. So, I added a subject line that I just had to remove later. Just thought I'd keep this message here in case another editor runs into this problem with Bawl. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, fixed. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 09:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

@Liz now I know why I see edit summaries saying "Bawl"! Doug Weller talk 07:49, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ZemenfesKidus marked both CU completed and CU requested

Why? Doug Weller talk 11:13, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller I think "CU completed" applies to the 2 June case submission, and "CU requested" applies to the 3 June submission. firefly ( t · c ) 13:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

@Firefly that makes sense. I don't know why I missed that. Oops! Doug Weller talk 13:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller easily done! Not exactly intuitive when the table lists two statuses for the same case :) firefly ( t · c ) 13:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

And congratulations on you promotion to full clerk! Doug Weller talk 07:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller Thanks! (That's arb-, not SPI-clerk but I do a passing impression of an SPI clerk now and then too as a patrolling admin :P) firefly ( t · c ) 09:27, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Oops, my bad. Good luck, before I was an Arb I was recruited as a clerk. The request to become one was quite a surprise! But that was long ago now. :) Doug Weller talk 09:39, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Bot to change mobile diff links to desktop diffs

I've seen a few SPI fillings that link to mobile diffs, and would a bot task to change to desktop diffs be useful? 0xDeadbeef 05:34, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Namespace move requested

Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Gingie11 → Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gingie11
Instructions weren't clear whether an explicit request was needed, making one just to be safe. Thanks, 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 21:49, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done. In the future, no, no need to post here. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:15, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Backlog questions

I've recently started becoming slightly active here at SPI, and noticed some peculiarities regarding how the backlog works here. Firstly, the list of unarchived closed cases seems to be well over 100 cases long, and includes cases that haven't been modified in nearly a month. I assume that every once in a while, a clerk begrudgingly does the tedious work of archiving these cases and clears out the list periodically. Is archiving closed cases a sufficiently straightforward and clear-cut task that we might recruit the help of a bot to do it? Or is it something that requires subjective evaluation by a human or complex decision-making?

Secondly, I've noticed that the list of "open" cases contains a relatively large number of stale cases that have never had any edits made to them since they were originally created, with the list similarly stretching nearly a month back. Maybe they're just uninteresting cases. Maybe the requester gave very little info and therefore a lot of digging would be required by anyone that tries to handle the case. Or perhaps there just aren't enough people working at SPI to handle all the incoming cases. Anyway, I'm wondering what eventually happens to these stale cases? Is there a time limit after which they're just closed without comment? Or do all cases eventually get some kind of response from a clerk/admin/CU? —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 15:04, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Basically, "too many cases, not enough people working them".

Archiving requires human eyes. It's quality control where somebody looks over the case to make sure there's no loose ends. As a simple example, somebody might have said they were going to tag socks, but didn't. Once in a while when I was doing a lot of archiving, I would see something that just didn't seem right and ping the person who worked the case for clarification. Bogus cases get deleted under WP:G6 instead of archiving.

The bottom line is we need more people working SPI. There's a list of people (some of whom are exceptionally qualified) who have applied to get clerk training at WT:SPI/C. You could add yourself. And, looking at my fellow CUs, we really do need a better process for triaging applicants and getting the good ones trained up. In addition to the clerks, any admin is welcome to help out. See WP:SPI/C#Admin_patrollers for details, although I'll admit that the instructions aren't wonderful. I got my start that way.

As for the open cases, yes, sometimes by the time you get to them, there's no point in doing anything. If none of the accounts have edited in several months, I'll typically just close the case with no action per WP:BLOCKP. That might be a good place to jump in as a patrolling admin. Or, you might look for cases where the person working them said they were going to close it but it got left open and politely ping them to see if it's OK to close :-). -- RoySmith (talk) 15:42, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposed change to 3RR exemption

There's a discussion happening at Wikipedia talk:Edit warring#Reverting actions performed by banned users in violation of a ban, and sockpuppets or meatpuppets of banned or blocked users., and input from people experienced in anti-sockpuppetry work would be appreciated. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:54, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Potential sock

I have recently been having an exchange with Somebody040404 in relation to a minor content dispute at Languages of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. A new user called JustSomeone08 had now made exactly the same disputed edit with an edit summary which is almost verbatim what the other user added a few days earlier entirely separately on my talk page. There is also an obvious similarity of usernames. I see that the two users also edit the same other articles (1 2) on Congolese languages, often on the same days, sometimes only hours apart.

Although it is perhaps also unfair to raise this allegation, I also wonder whether the single-use account TSHepo050302 is another sock of the same user given the similar edit history and naming format but I apologise sincerely if this is not the case.

I am not familiar with the processes in this area. Could someone let me know what is necessary to take it forward?—Brigade Piron (talk) 20:42, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

@Brigade Piron go to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations, search for "How to open an investigation", click the "show" button, and follow the directions there. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

{{SPI}}

FYI Template:SPI (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion at TfD -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 05:02, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Misplaced SPI request

At Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Orca Vision Inc., an IP had misindentified the SPI page as protected and added an {{edit semi-protected}} SPI request. Requesting a CU/clerk to merge the talk page with the actual SPI page. Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 08:49, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

In my view the filing should just be deleted. It's pointless as everyone involved has already been blocked/locked. Spicy (talk) 10:44, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I suppose tagging would be at least a bit helpful? 0xDeadbeef 10:50, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

There is little value in tagging obvious troll accounts, and I suspect there's some WP:GHBH stuff going on with the filer. Spicy (talk) 10:57, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I've blanked it per the unusual circumstances Spicy outlined above. Thank you for bringing this here, CX Zoom. :) --Blablubbs (talk) 11:23, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you everyone! —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 14:19, 25 August 2022 (UTC)