Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Archive 11

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

→

Private evidence system for SPI

This idea came to me recently, and since apparently the proposed clerk mailing list isn't going anywhere, I'm posting this for discussion:

We are now insisting that SPI requests be accompanied by evidence in the form of diffs and an explanation on why the accounts are likely related. This approach usually works, but there are cases where it is not advisable to post the evidence in public (WP:BEANS, etc.).
The way this has been dealt with in practice right now is for the private evidence to be emailed or otherwise sent (e.g., IRC) to a clerk/CU or several off-wiki. Several problems with this approach include: emails can and do get lost in the cracks, record-keeping is extremely difficult if not impossible, only very few individuals ever look at the case (thus increasing the potential for confirmation bias), and the blocking admin may not be around when the blocked party requests an unblock.
So the proposal is to solve this problem by creating a system in which case filers can post private evidence. It will work - roughly - in this manner:
- The filer will enter their private evidence (with diffs, etc.) in the system.
- The system will generate a ticket number and a key.
- (maybe) The filer can use the key to modify the contents of the ticket - for example, to update it if new socks are added to the SPI.
- The filer will open an SPI case in the usual manner, posting the ticket number instead of the actual evidence.
- Only the SPI clerks and CUs will be able to read the tickets, but they cannot comment on them in the system - to hopefully avoid the scenario of a CU accidentally posting raw CU data (although since it's an entirely separate system and not just another mailing list, it might not even be a big issue).
- Tickets are kept by default for three months then purged, but may either be kept for longer or deleted early if a clerk/CU sets the respective flag.

Comments? T. Canens (talk) 12:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

How will you prevent abuse of such "sekrit testimony"? I have noted (as has ArbCom) that "the usual reasons" are used for way too many bad accusations - and the new system proposed seems like it would prevent others from noting just how weak the accusation is, as there would then be a presumption that sufficient reasons were provided privately. Rather I would suggest that SPI accusations made in that manner should not be publicly posted unless and until a "positive finding" was made by at least three CUs or clerks based on solid evidence (not just claims that the diffs fit a "pattern" or the like). In other words, require all such proceedings to require more than a "likelihood" but a "certainty" that the posts are by directly related accounts. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

If the private case was weak, we can and probably will make a public notation to that effect. The whole point is that right now usually only one person sees the evidence (either in email or IRC) and act on them, while with a system like this we can get a lot more eyes on it. T. Canens (talk) 03:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

People who want a CU check based on private evidence can already e-mail CUs directly, or send a post to the functionaries mailing list. There seems to be no need to create a parallel system of private evidence for SPI, particularly when private evidence has been a subject of much controversy over the years. Additionally, any system like Tim's above would have to be hosted off-wiki - giving rise to a lot of potential issues related to the access, retention and use of private information. Nathan^T 23:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, first private evidence are also helpful for some behavior-based blocks when CU is useless (all old accounts are stale, etc). Second, the system would allow for much better record keeping. As to the private information, whatever posters decided to post themselves is fair game. I retain all my emails (including lots of WP-related emails) indefinitely, and no one seems to mind. This is IMO pretty close to a mailing list. Because we don't allow clerks/CUs to post comments, no CU data should be posted in the system. If you are referring to the data collected by the server hosting the system, if we are going along with this it will most likely be the toolserver, and they have a pretty well-established policy for this. T. Canens (talk) 03:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Tim: overall I think it's a good idea, but I worry that it would fall into disuse. We'd have to make a real effort to keep it up to date, so it'd have to integrate pretty well with the current SPI tools. From a system design perspective, you could spend hours building that sort of thing... — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm speaking purely hypothetically since I'm not sure we need such a system, but couldn't we just use a private queue on OTRS for this? We could set it to only be viewable by WMF staff and checkusers. OTRS could be set to reply to any email sent to that queue telling the user their ticket number. They can then use this ticket number as described above. Checkusers are already identified so obtaining OTRS access is not an issue. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 11:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Not all the clerks (e.g. me) are OTRS, though... — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

If the evidence truly needs to be private then the clerks shouldn't be reviewing it anyway; it should only be sent to the checkusers to minimise the number of people that see it. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 12:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

And we already have an existing implementation for the Oversight queue. - Mailer Diablo 11:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Can I get a merge done

I'm just about to head out the door, so could someone merge these cases and their archives pls? :)