Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:02, 27 February 2014

This page is for requesting that we investigate whether two or more Misplaced Pages accounts are being abusively operated by the same person.

Before opening an investigation, you need good reason to suspect sockpuppetry.

1. Evidence is required. When you open the investigation, you must immediately provide evidence that the suspected sock puppets are connected. The evidence will need to include diffs of edits that suggest the accounts are connected. (This requirement is waived if the edits in question are deleted; in this case just provide the names of the pages that the accounts have been editing.)
2. You must provide this evidence in a clear way. Vaguely worded submissions will not be investigated. You need to actually show why your suspicion that the accounts are connected is reasonable.
3. Concision is key. Evidence should be presented in a concise format. Because of the length of the backlog, cases with clear and concise explanations and evidence are handled the most quickly.

Investigations are conducted by a clerk or an administrator, who will compare the accounts' behaviour and determine whether they are probably connected. Upon request, investigations can also be conducted by a checkuser, who can look at technical data behind the accounts in order to determine how likely it is they are connected. CheckUser results are often called technical evidence, in contrast to publicly available behavioural evidence.

Due to Misplaced Pages's CheckUser policy, checkusers will conduct a technical investigation only if clear, behavioural evidence of sockpuppetry is also submitted; if you ask for technical evidence to be looked at but do not provide behavioural evidence, the investigation may not be allowed to proceed. Additionally, checkusers will not publicly connect an account with an IP address per the privacy policy except in extremely rare circumstances.

How to open an investigation

To add to an existing investigation (or case), enter the case name in the box below. To create a new investigation, enter the username of the oldest-created registered account (the "sockmaster")—or, if only IP addresses are involved, the IP that made the first relevant edit. Then click "Submit". Note: Do not include "User:" or any other commentary.

For example, if a prior filing was at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/John Doe, or this is a first filing and the oldest registered account is User:John Doe, you should enter John Doe in the box below.

You will then be taken to another page containing a form you must complete to open the investigation. The process for opening a subsequent investigation on the same user is the same as for creating a new case. Again, do not include "User:" in any of the numbered fields.

If you also wish a checkuser to investigate, change |checkuser=no to |checkuser=yes in the edit box on the next page and explain why you are requesting it.

Cases currently listed at SPI

Quick CheckUser requests

Use this section to request checkuser information relating to a situation that does not involve sock puppetry. You could use this section to request, for example:

• Underlying IPs of an account, where the autoblock has expired or been ineffective.
• Collateral damage checks for the informed hardblocking of IPs or ranges.
• IP block exemption checks before granting IPBE (or to verify it is being used constructively).

For threats of harm (to self or others) you must email emergencywikimedia.org (see the threats of harm page) and not use this page. Requests to investigate and confirm sockpuppetry should be listed in the sockpuppet section above, and not here (such requests will be summarily removed).

To make a request here, copy the following template and paste it to the end of this section (quick link to edit) – replacing "header" with an informative title, and adding underneath the template any relevant information – then sign using "~~~~", preview, and click "save".

==== HEADER ====
{{SPIquick}}
* {{Checkuser|username}}

User:Lozleader

This case has been marked as closed.

• Lozleader (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

... for an IPBE request. Looks like he might be getting hit by some weird ISP routing on that *.1 that seems to be shared with a disruptive editor (which suggests some sort of transparent proxying, given the PTR record on it). Seems to be the second autoblock in the past month. Cheers =) --slakr 07:33, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I know that this has been frustrating for Lozleader, but since Tupolevjet has been blocked indefinitely, I would prefer to not grant IPBE at this point. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Archived cases

A record of old SPI cases in 2009 and early 2010, separated by month, had been created and maintained by a bot. This archival system was deprecated in February 2010.