Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Administrators instructions

To get involved in SPI patrolling, and how patrollers can help at SPI, see Helping at SPI. See also: – Clerk and CheckUser SPI procedures here, opening or re-opening an SPI case here.

This page explains the most common procedures for administrators patrolling the sockpuppet investigations (SPI) pages. SPI is where users can bring concerns that an individual may be misusing accounts or IP editing in violation of Wikipedia's sock puppetry policy, for example to breach sanctions, blocks, or agreements, to bias content and discussions, to attack other users, or to disrupt, deliberately mislead, or vandalize.

SPI is a delicate area; patrollers should keep in mind that there are legitimate uses of multiple accounts, and that improbable things can happen by chance. Unfairly blocking someone as a sockpuppet is a harm not easily undone.

Getting involved in patrolling, and how patrollers can help

Decisions and case control at SPI are routinely managed by any admin. While Checkusers add evidence, and Checkusers and Clerks may take action, any admin can make decisions on cases and their management (as with any dispute) within the norms of SPI. With more administrators patrolling, SPI cases will have more watchers, be updated faster, and have a greater chance of being reviewed independently. Admin patrollers are warmly welcomed!

The easiest cases for admins new to the area are the ones in the beige-colored "Open" category. The green "CU completed" cases tend to be a bit more challenging, but that category also tends to need the most help.

Examples of tasks any administrator (whether or not a clerk) can usefully perform at SPI:

• Administrator actions
  • Determine on the evidence whether sock puppetry appears likely to have taken place in a case, and leave a clear summary of your view and (proposed or actual) action, as with any dispute decision.
  • Take any appropriate administrative actions resulting from SPI cases - these may include blocks but could (rarely) also include any other appropriate action, up to and including discussion or notification on other pages in Wikipedia, Arbitration Committee communication, requests for desysopping or other sanctions, or "exhaustion of patience" ban proposal. The case does not need to be complete for actions to be obvious or appropriate.
  • Check if cases are complete and mark them for close if they are (if CheckUser may still be helpful, an admin should leave a CU request instead of closing). Only clerks may archive cases, however.
• Case input
  • Provide useful analysis or further information on cases where applicable;
  • Provide "extra eyeballs" to make case suggestions, request CheckUser if required (unless a clerk, admins cannot endorse cases for CU attention), to highlight important points or overlooked process issues, to express disagreement if any with other users' conclusions, and to add useful missing information about parties (other likely socks or past accounts, other relevant history about the user or case, etc);
  • Draw Clerk or Checkuser attention to incipient problems.
• Participant conduct/disruption
  • Help ensure that case pages are not disrupted, off topic, "muddying the water" with over-vague or unsubstantiated claims, violating privacy or other policies (NPA, AGF, CIVIL, OUTING, etc), and that they do not turn into a mess of attacks;
  • Help ensure that case pages remain as SPI intends - users setting out useful evidence related to account and IP abuse concerns, easy to follow, and productive discussion;
  • Help ensure case statements comprise good concise evidence (users may lack experience and be over-vague, off topic, or don't understand what's needed);
  • Address disruptive conduct or clearly inappropriate posts, or (rarely) "drama" pages that are getting out of hand. The full range of admin tools and actions is available as usual to address conduct issues or page disruption, if needed. Also, in some cases clearly excessive and off-topic text could be summarized and/or moved to the talk page (linked).

Useful SPI scripts and tools

• "Strike out usernames that have been blocked" from Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets (formerly User:NuclearWarfare/Mark-blocked script.js), which indicates if an account has been blocked already, either for a set period of time or indefinitely.
• Editor Interaction Analyzer, which shows the common pages that two or more editors have both edited, sorted by minimum time between edits by the users.
• Interaction Timeline, primarily designed to combat harassment but potentially useful in other situations, too
• Intertwined Contributions
• Intersect Contribs, faster than the Editor Interaction Analyzer but without as much detailed information
• Special:CentralAuth, quick and easy way to determine edit count and cross-wiki footprint (much faster than XTools or the Global Contributions tool)
• User:GeneralNotability/spihelper, a script which is primarily for clerks, checkusers and patrolling administrators (but can be used by other users). It gives a menu of options which help those users deal with sockpuppet cases and case pages.

Opening or re-opening a case

To open an SPI case, please follow the instructions by opening the section "How to open an investigation" at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations, making sure you have read and understood the SPI case guidelines at the top of that page. For a quick CheckUser request, please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations#Quick CheckUser requests, making sure you have read and understood when and when not to request CheckUser. CheckUser attention on other pages can be requested with {{Checkuser needed}}. Please use this judiciously, as it causes the Bat-Signal to go off.

Taking administrative action on open cases

Any uninvolved administrator at any time may block any account that has violated the sock puppetry policy based on behavioral and/or technical evidence. Behavioral evidence consists of editing behaviors and patterns from suspected sock puppets as well as having similar usernames or IP addresses. Technical evidence consists of evidence provided by CheckUsers, in which the details are not shown to the public per the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. Administrators are the primary people who hand out blocks in most SPI cases. Non-admin clerks may request that an administrator block an account or IP address. These cases will usually be labeled as "administrator attention requested". If the request seems reasonable, act on it.

Non-CheckUser cases

If the patrolling administrator (or any user) feels CheckUser is appropriate and necessary they may request it; see below.

Admins often apply what is colloquially called the duck test to determine if sockpuppetry is occurring.

In usual SPI cases, where CheckUser is not requested, admins should look carefully and neutrally at the evidence and determine whether the behavioral and other evidence shown makes it very likely that sock puppetry is occurring. In many cases, sock puppetry can be determined just by behavioral evidence and without the need for technical evidence. Many admins normally apply what is colloquially called the duck test – if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.

When blocking accounts, follow the procedures under the Blocking and tagging section and make a note of the blocks under the "Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments" section of the SPI case page. If evidence has not shown that sock puppetry has occurred, likewise make a note of that in the same section. Notes can be prefaced using the {{Admin-note}} template. For example:

{{Admin-note}} Foo has been indefinitely blocked, 192.168.0.1 blocked for three weeks. ~~~~

In cases where there has been minimal disruption or which could have occurred as a result of a good-faith misunderstanding of policy, consider a warning.

CheckUser cases

Cases endorsed for CheckUser attention are identical in every way to non-CheckUser cases, except that a CheckUser will first add the results of their technical investigation to the case, and may have already taken some actions on the spot when abuse is found, before patrolling admins review the case.

CheckUsers will have posted their results under the "Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments" section. The possible templates they could use include but are not limited to in order of most likely the same editor to unlikely the same editor:

•  Confirmed
•  Likely
•  Possible
•  Unlikely
•  Unrelated
•  Inconclusive – in other words can't depend on the results

Once Checkuser results have been added, any admin may re-assess and decide the issue.

Patrolling admins should check that any CheckUser-confirmed accounts have been blocked and tagged. Those accounts that have been  confirmed by CheckUser are normally blocked, but they should be double-checked to make sure that they are. If they have not been blocked, follow the blocking procedures found in the Blocking and tagging section. For any accounts or IP addresses that have not been blocked, follow the same instructions for a non-CheckUser case, keeping in mind any evidence or advice posted by CheckUsers.

Requesting CheckUser

If CheckUser has not been requested, you can request CheckUser assistance by changing {{SPI case status}} on the top of the page to {{SPI case status|curequest}}.

This does not guarantee that a CheckUser will run a check, but it will alert the SPI clerks and CheckUsers that a request may be needed. Normally, an SPI clerk or CheckUser will either  endorse the case for CheckUser attention or  decline the case. Ultimately the decision is down to the responding CheckUser.

Any user can add this request to a case at any time, if appropriate. The most common reasons are:

• The behavioral evidence is not clear, and you cannot figure out all the socks
• There may be other hidden socks, or an unknown previous history of socking, and help is needed to find the sock-master or "sleepers"
• The underlying IP needs blocking, or more thorough investigation is required (eg in the case of an ongoing problem, confirming suspected block or ban evasion, suspected hidden problems, or serious repeated vandalism)

(Full list)

If the case is declined, then the patrolling administrator must make that determination as to whether sock puppetry is going on and subsequently block all violating accounts. If the case is endorsed, then a CheckUser will add technical evidence and notes to the case first; this may take a while.

Closing

If the case is complete, all accounts have been looked at and any issues dealt with, and the case has run its course with no further action needing to be taken, the clerks can be asked to review and archive the case. To request that the case be archived, change the parameter of the {{SPI case status}} template on the top of the page to close along with adding a note in the "Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admins" section, confirming the final resolution and that all accounts have been addressed. For example,

======<span style="font-size:150%"> Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments </span>======
{{Admin-note}} All accounts blocked and tagged. ~~~~

----

The tagging will alert the SPI clerks and CheckUsers, who will do a final review before archiving the case.

Blocking and tagging

Follow these instructions to block sockmasters and sockpuppets.

Sockmaster (if not already blocked)

If the sockmaster has not already been blocked and tagged, then do the following:

I.	Make a determination as to the length of the block – an administrator may determine the length of the block of the sockmaster, after considering the following circumstances: If not blocked – make a determination as to the length of the block. The length of the block may be temporary, or it may be indefinite, depending on how much socking and/or disruption has been done. If already on a temporary block when the sock puppetry has occurred – the sockmaster's block may be reset and/or be extended. If already indefinitely blocked – no action is needed.
II.	Block the sockmaster – Click on the "block user" link under the sockmaster's account on the SPI page. The length of the block should have been determined per Part I. If the information does not fill in, select "Abusing multiple accounts" or "Block evasion" and under additional reasons link the case page.
III.	Tag the sockmaster's user page – Unless otherwise directed, the sockmaster needs to be tagged, if it has not already been done. Tag the sockmaster's user page: If confirmed by CheckUser, on the sockmaster's user page, replace all content with {{sockpuppeteer|blocked|checked=yes|spipage=CASENAME}} If not confirmed by CheckUser, on the sockmaster's user page, replace all content with {{sockpuppeteer|blocked|spipage=CASENAME}} if the user has been indefinitely blocked. Do not make any change if the user has only been blocked for a limited amount of time.

Sock puppets (registered accounts)

If a registered account has been shown to be engaging in sock puppetry and is not the sockmaster, then perform the following tasks:

I.

Indefinitely block the account – click "block user" by the corresponding sock puppet's account on the SPI page and then block the user.

II.

Appropriately tag the sock puppet's user page – Unless otherwise directed to, the sock puppet needs to be tagged, if it has not already been done. If confirmed by CheckUser – Replace all content on the sock puppet's user page with {{sock|SOCKMASTER|confirmed}}. If it's a WP:DUCK or case where CU was not involved or was not confirmed – Replace all content on the sock puppet's user page with {{sock|SOCKMASTER|blocked}}.

Sock puppets (IP addresses)

If an IP address has been shown to be engaging in sock puppetry, then perform the following tasks:

I.	Determine whether a block is needed – sometimes, a block won't be necessary on an IP. In the following situations, a block should not be necessary: The sockmaster is known to be IP-hopping across dynamic IP addresses. We refer to the blocking of such IPs as playing "Whack-A-Mole". The IP address is part of an entire range of IP addresses that have already been blocked; we usually refer to this as a rangeblock.
II.	Block the IP if needed – Click "block user" by the corresponding IP account on the SPI case page. Account creation blocked should be set. The length of the block is up to admin discretion, but it should not be indefinite nor so long as to prevent other persons from using the IP in the future. Open proxies – if an IP is a suspected or discovered open proxy, they must be processed in accordance with the open proxies policy. Alternatively, patrolling admins may ask any CheckUser to confirm that the IP is an open proxy, or they may report it to Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies. Sensitive IP addresses – double-check to make sure that the IP being blocked is not on the list of sensitive IP addresses. If it is, immediately contact the Wikimedia Foundation Communications Committee.
III.	Tag only the sock puppet's user talk page – Unlike with registered accounts, we usually don't tag the user page since another person in the future may edit under that IP. On the bottom of the IP address's talk page, add {{subst:SockBlock|period=duration|sig=yes}}, replacing "duration" with the length of the block. For open proxies – On the bottom of the open proxy's talk page, add {{Blocked proxy|host=proxy.example.com (optional)}}.