User:FT2/CU 2/Guidelines

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page covers guidelines for suspected cases of sock-puppetry or other abuse of multiple accounts.

You should be familiar with the contents of this page before requesting help with a suspected sock-puppetry incident.

Contents

[edit] General advice

[edit] Suspected sock pages

The suspected sock puppets page is where Wikipedians discuss if a fellow Wikipedian has violated Wikipedia's policy on sock puppets. Cases on this page are evaluated primarily on the basis of behavioral evidence, and the editors and administrators who look at the reports typically do not have the ability to determine what IP addresses Wikipedia editors are using. If you believe your case requires CheckUser involvement, please see Requesting CheckUser below.

Behavior on this page is expected to stay on target, and focus only on evidence for and against puppetry. All other discussion may be removed or redacted by any clerk or patrolling administrator. If you engage in long arguments on this page, you may even be briefly blocked whoever's fault it is. If there is a problem, ask a clerk for help by tagging with {{SSPHelp|your request}}. The tag will be removed once responded.

[edit] Evidence and privacy

Evidence of puppetry should be supported by diffs.

If you feel the evidence should be presented in private for any reason, for instance it would suggest novel ways to disrupt or might cause problems for a user or breach privacy, then use {{SSPHelp|your concerns and request}} to say that you would like to ask advice about presenting some evidence in private. An administrator will offer help and advise what's best to do. You can also ask for help if the evidence presented inadvertantly breaches privacy and you would like an administrator to help deal with it.

Evidence from the Checkuser system can sometimes be requested to help identify whether accounts are likely to be controlled by the same user, based on server logs. There are strict critieria for this and most cases do not need it. See below for more if you feel it is appropriate.

[edit] Sock-puppetry and meat-puppetry

Main article: Wikipedia:Sock puppetry

Sockpuppetry means a user who operates multiple accounts and/or IPs in an abusive manner. The basic test for SSP is roughly, "if these accounts and IPs were operated by the same user, would there be potential misconduct". If not, then there is usually no basis for an SSP report. Examples of potential misconduct include "stacking" debates, harassment, evasion of bans, blocks or other sanctions, deliberately editing both logged in and logged out in a dispute, and problematic segregation of editing.

For example, a new account that is clearly operated by an experienced user, is not necessarily abusive on its own. However a new account that dives into a controversial area that only experienced users are likely to come across (an AFD or dispute case), might be a legitimate alternate account, or an abusive use, and SSP might then be appropriate to resolve communal concerns.

Sometimes users who appear to work with a common agenda are not sockpuppets (one user, multiple accounts), but multiple users editing with the sole purpose of backing each other up, often called "meatpuppets." Meatpuppets are not regular Wikipedians who happen to agree with each other; they are accounts set up by separate individuals for the sole purpose of supporting one another. For the purposes of upholding policy, Wikipedia does not distinguish between meatpuppets and sockpuppets. Please see Wikipedia:Sock puppetry.

[edit] If accused

Usually no action is needed, the burden is on the person presenting a case to show enough evidence to convince a clerk or patrolling administrator.

If you see something in the evidence which you wish to rebut, or have evidence of your own related to puppetry in the dispute, or believe the request is not made in good faith (eg it is intended to harass or is an abuse of process), then that is useful to say, but do so calmly and factually with evidence. Administrators on these pages expect to check the facts for themselves. If you act aggressively then you may simply be blocked from editing these pages yourself.

[edit] Requesting Checkuser

CheckUser is a tool used to obtain technical evidence related to a sock-puppetry allegation. It will not be used without good cause, which you must clearly demonstrate. If your request is agreed by a clerk or administrator, then they will tag the request for CheckUser attention.

Checkuser is restricted by both privacy policy and Checkuser policy, as well as English Wikipedia's own individual Checkuser policy that supplements these. Checkuser will not be used unless there is good cause. If you feel that Checkuser is needed and appropriate, please identify the scenario from the list below when presenting your request.

[edit] Usually acceptable requests

Please identify the reason for the check. If the case can be handled without Checkuser, then the request will normally be declined.

Code Situation Supporting evidence required
A Request to identify and block underlying IP addresses responsible for blatant vandalism and attack accounts Evidence that multiple sockpuppets are likely to stem from the same IP or IP range.
B Evasion of bans or other remedies issued by the arbitration committee (closed cases only) Link to the closed case.
C Ongoing, serious pattern vandalism involving dozens of incidents Relevant diffs.
D Vote fraud for a closed vote where the possible sockpuppet votes affect the outcome Link to the closed vote.
E 3RR violation using socks Links to four or more diffs showing the 3RR violation.
F Evasion of community-based bans or blocks Link to the block log of the original account.
G Request doesn't fit any of the criteria but you believe a check is warranted anyway Brief summary of the situation, links to further discussions, and supporting diffs.

[edit] Usually unacceptable requests

Situation Solution
Obvious, disruptive sock puppet Block. No checkuser is necessary.
Disruptive "throwaway" account used only for a few edits Block. No checkuser is necessary.
Checkuser on yourself to "prove your innocence" Such requests are not accepted. Please do not ask.
Question about a possible sock puppet related to an open arbitration case Request checkuser on the arbitration case pages.
Vote fraud on ongoing vote In most cases, wait until vote closes before listing, or post a note at List on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for administrator information.
Vote fraud where the possible sockpuppet votes do not affect the outcome of the vote List on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, or request examination without CheckUser.
Suspected "good hand bad hand" use to avoid scrutiny Request SSP only initially, in most cases. Depends upon severity.
Suspected administrator sockpuppetry or multiple account abuse In general this should be reported to the Arbitration Committee and not posted on the wiki. Reason: - if an administrator were indeed abusing their access then this is an Arbitration Committee concern. The user's admin flag may need to be summarily withdrawn without notice in serious cases.
Other disruption of articles List on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, or Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets.
Open proxy where you already know the IP address List on Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies.
You want access to the checkuser tool yourself This is not the page to request access. Please see Wikipedia:CheckUser for more.

[edit] Process notes

[edit] How to report a suspected sockpuppetry case or repeat case

  1. Check if a previous case exists already for the user/s. All cases start Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Case/NAME(S).
    • If it does, then add your case as a new section to that page.
    • If not then start a new page. (If an existing case does exist then your request may be moved to that page.)
  2. Add to the page the template {{subst:SSPCase|name|number}}' where NAME is the name of the user/s and NUMBER is "1st" "2nd" "3rd" etc. Save the page.
  3. Open the page you just edited. Fill in the names of the parties, the rationale for the case, your evidence, links to related cases (if any), and sign using ~~~~. If you plan to ask for checkuser evidence, then add the {{RFCU}} tag as described below.
  4. Finally, add the page to the end of the Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets page, and keep an eye on it for questions, comments and developments.

[edit] How to request checkuser involvement

If you believe after reading this page, that Checkuser is appropriate to resolve an allegation, then you may tag the case for review by a clerk or patrolling administrator.

I. User request Add a section below Evidence for this:
; Checkuser request
{{RFCU|Letter}}
followed by your reason, and signed with ~~~~.

This will add your request to Category:SSP requests for pre-CheckUser review.
    Administrators and clerks only may directly request CheckUser attention by adding "{{...|Self endorse}}" to the tag.
II. Clerk or admin check A clerk or patrolling administrator will review your case and will update it to either {{RFCU|Letter|Endorse}}, or {{RFCU|Letter|Decline}}, with their reason.

Endorsing will add the request to Category:SSP cases awaiting CheckUser.
III. CheckUser Finally, if a Checkuser agrees and comments on the case, then the tag will be updated one more time to {{RFCU|Letter|Checked}}, with their comment on the case.

[edit] Guide for clerks and patrolling administrators

Detailed information:

These cover detailed instructions about how to determine sockpuppets, archiving, etc. This has recently been updated and therefore administrators should read over the minor changes that have happened.

General:
  • If there is a repeat case, open a new section on the SSP page titled with the date of request.
  • SSP pages should focus on claims of puppetry only, and evidence for and against them. Statements should be terse and to the point. They should focus on evidence and rebuttals only, and all other aspects of the discussion should be discouraged, and (following request and warning) may be redacted.
  • Keep contentious threaded discussion in one section so the key parts of the page (including main evidence and summary of alleged/actual puppets) will be easy for others to follow.
  • In reviewing a case, consider whether the user/s are advancing views that are on target. If a summary of any part would be useful, do so.
  • If you have examined the case in depth or have knowledge of it, and have any useful notes to leave for other patrollers or checkusers, that is usually extremely helpful. It gives other admins and Checkusers a quick summary and guide to the "bones" of the case, and can save a lot of work understanding the case.
RFCU:
  • If you feel evidence from Checkuser would be appropriate and relevant, consider adding the {{RFCU}} tag and rationale yourself. If you are a SSP clerk or an admin, tag it "|self endorse".
  • If RFCU is requested by a party, consider whether it is really needed and merited. Decline if not necessary, giving a reason. Either way, endorse or decline and give a brief reason for your decision.
Closure:
  • When a case is concluded, close it using (describe tags here). Make sure the case is easy to follow.
  • Add a brief note to the top summing up what happened. Example:
  1. Allegation of puppetry as <user2>, <user3>. CU declined (obvious). Other socks blocked, main account warned. Threaded discussion on POV pushing was redacted (irrelevant to SSP issues). Example Admin 19:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. Further socks suspected on related article X. CU confirmed and found 3 sleepers. Main account and socks indef blocked. Different Admin 12:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
This will help if there are multiple or repeat cases in future.
  • Archive the case and notify the parties (description how).