Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:24, 8 May 2014

• WT:SPI
• WP:CU/N

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 s/Archive1 s/Archive2 s/Archive3 s/Archive4 s/Archive5 s/Archive6 s/Archive7 s/Archive8 s/Archive9 s/Archive10 s/Archive11 s/Archive12 s/Archive13 s/Archive14 s/Archive15 s/Archive16 s/Archive17 s/Archive18 s/Archive19 s/Archive20 s/Archive21 s/Archive22 s/Archive23 s/Archive24 25

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Pirelli Brasil?

Hello, I've found this, but I don't know any edits to prove that it happened. Any suggestions? --NaBUru38 (talk) 00:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Seems fake. I looked at some of the files they show in en-wiki (where they claim to have done this), pt-wiki (which all the shown pages were in), and Commons. No sign of any corporate conspiracy. Given that, I'm not sure of the intent of the video... 206.117.89.5 (talk) 04:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Possible SPI header refactor

I think the SPI header has a few issues, from where I stand, and I'd like to improve it a little. So this post is to get a bit of feedback on possible changes.

Issues with current page

1. Two key points are bulleted; a third bullet is crucial to state: some evidence must not be posted on public wiki pages. Even good-faith users often don't know.
2. Not clear enough that in most cases behavioral evidence is enough, hence technical is extra. Makes it sound like 2 investigations.
3. Disproportionate space taken for CheckUser info. CU is 1/2 of header - it's both too much, and also still omits key points.
4. Omitted crucial point that sock decisions do NOT mean we magically "know" they are the same, or allege fraud took place - a very common and much-resented complaint we could completely avoid! It means for Misplaced Pages purposes we treat them as if under common direction
5. Poor/very limited information on basic SPI stuff, mostly left as "look it up" rather than summarized in brief.

We have "open a new case" in a collapse box. Using collapse boxes works well here. I'd like to add 2 more, one about privacy, one about CU, and thenmove most of the CU info to the collapse box, which cuts down the main text and anyone interested in CU can read more below.

Current header

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 to have good reason to suspect sock puppetry. 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 articles that both have been editing.) 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. Investigations are conducted by an administrator, who will compare the accounts' behaviour and determine whether they are probably connected; this is a behavioural evidence investigation. Upon request, investigations can also be conducted by a CheckUser, who can look at the physical location of the accounts (and other technical data) in order to determine how likely it is they are connected; this is a technical evidence investigation. Due to Misplaced Pages's CheckUser policy, CheckUsers will only conduct a technical investigation if clear, behavioural evidence of sock puppetry is also submitted; if you ask for technical evidence to be looked at but do not provide behavioural evidence, the investigation will 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 Rest of content here...

Draft rewrite to consider

This page is for requesting that we investigate whether two or more Misplaced Pages accounts or IPs are being abusively operated by the same person. Before opening an investigation, you need to have good reason to suspect sock puppetry. Evidence is required. When you open the investigation, you must immediately provide evidence that the suspected sock puppets are probably 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 articles that both have been editing.) You must provide this evidence in a clear way. Vaguely worded beliefs and submissions will not be investigated. You need to actually show why your suspicion that the accounts are connected is reasonable. You should not post personal, private, very sensitive, or off-site material about other editors here, including most off-site communications, social media, and webpages. Some material is permitted if you obtain permission. Please see below if you have useful evidence that isn't from Misplaced Pages's public pages, or was on Misplaced Pages but is now deleted, or is very sensitive. Investigations are conducted by an administrator, who will compare the evidence you and others provide, about the accounts' behaviour and editing, to determine whether they are probably connected; we call this behavioural evidence. This is often enough to decide the majority of cases. A decision that socking has occurred does not necessarily mean the editors are "proved" to be the same person (we can't always be sure the exact setup or how many people are typing). It means that for Misplaced Pages purposes we feel there is quite good evidence that their closely co-ordinated or extremely similar behavior suggest that we apply our policy to treat such accounts and their edits as the work of either the same person, or editing in common by connected or 'recruited' people. In both cases, the result is that sanctions and Misplaced Pages activities of any one individual operating the accounts, will also affect anyone else who may operate the accounts, and the additional accounts will usually be blocked. In complex or uncertain cases, anyone can ask for additional SPI work to be conducted by a CheckUser, who will look at the physical locations of the accounts (and other technical data) in order to determine how likely it is they are connected; we call this technical evidence. Technical evidence is sometimes helpful when the full extent of abuse is unclear, or where there is good reason to suspect there may be undetected abusive accounts or activity, or when a user may be evading a block. But you need to provide clear, behavioural evidence of possible sock puppetry and also a convincing explanation why a decision based on behavioral evidence might not be enough to resolve the issue, otherwise it won't be looked at. Please see below for more information about asking for technical evidence, and what will (or won't) happen when you ask. Further info: Privacy issues Material that is not already publicly viewable on Misplaced Pages should not be posted at SPI. Ask to submit it by email instead, if it's necessary. Misplaced Pages has strict policies about harassment, including public "outing" and "doxing" of editors, even if just to "prove" they are abusing Misplaced Pages (and even if they posted the material themselves). Generally your SPI evidence should include only pages, diffs, and public log entries, on Misplaced Pages and its sister sites and public Wikimedia mailing lists only. In particular it must not include: Personal information about an editor beyond that on public Misplaced Pages pages (such as names and nicknames, identifiers, contact or social media details, real-world information, work information, location data) Communications taking place off Misplaced Pages's public pages, unless all the parties to the conversation agree you can do so Evidence from third party websites or external organizations Personal information that was once on Misplaced Pages but is now deleted and not publicly viewable (you can link to the diff though). We are happy to consider such material if it's necessary, and if it clearly shows that serious abuse of Misplaced Pages editing is probably taking place, but only by email or similar. There are a small number of highly experienced users trusted to make decisions about abuse and violations based on such information. Our policies exist mainly to forbid public disclosure and reduce the risk that private material gets used for harassment, retaliation, and "trolling". So you can ask to submit the evidence - but you must not post it on Misplaced Pages's webpages. If non-public material may be helpful in a case, or may help to demonstrate someone is abusing Misplaced Pages, then please don't post at SPI to start with. Instead ask for advice from any CheckUser or email the functionaries team. If they are convinced it's necessary, you will probably be asked to submit the evidence by email to an appropriate user or team instead. Further info: CheckUser and technical evidence Technical evidence is only ever sought in addition to normal behavioral (visible) evidence. It has a very strict privacy policy of its own, so in practice CheckUsers are extremely close mouthed about their detailed examination, do not use the tool unless convinced by the facts of the case that it's appropriate, and disclose publicly as little as they feel able of any private information seen in their examination, in order to prevent abuse and safeguard private information. Normally they will state the accounts shown to be closely enough connected (or operated in concert) to be considered abusive, and any other unknown accounts detected, and little more. In addition, all uses of CheckUser examination tools are logged and are subject to review to confirm there was a good reason to use them. In particular we do not allow CheckUser to be used for mere vague suspicions without real grounds ("fishing"), and CheckUsers will try hard not to disclose or link IPs to users publicly (even abusive users) if it seems the matter can be resolved without doing so. However in serious, continuing, and extreme abuse cases, limited private information such as IP addresses may be permissibly disclosed to editors on our public pages, in order to improve detection and prevention of further abuse. Because editors' privacy is so important to us, technical evidence will only be examined if you provide clear, behavioural evidence of possible sock puppetry and also a convincing explanation why a decision based on behavioral evidence might not be enough to resolve the issue. If you ask for technical evidence to be looked at but do not provide clear behavioural evidence why you think there is a problem, we won't be able to help - you must include reasons and evidence substantiating your concerns. How to open an investigation Rest of content here...

Feedback welcome. FT2  22:11, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for thinking of this FT2, but your proposal is making things more complex rather than simpler. The only direction I'm willing to move at this point is "simpler". Risker (talk) 02:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

A collapse box labeled "privacy issues" is not going to confuse people. If you believe WP:OUTING matters then you might consider where else a user will learn of this upon visiting SPI, if they visit to report socking based on - unknown to them and apparently quite reasonably - material from a forum or facebook page they follow, or email they saw.

If non-admins can navigate the arcane click-throughs and forms to report a sock and the technical skills to collate diffs and behavioral evidence of socking, I'm sure a collapse box explanation that says "don't post these things on the wiki, report them by email" is valid and pretty darn simple. "Simple" is indeed helpful but so is balance with actual crucial needed-by-visitors information. I'd like to hear from people who aren't admins and CheckUsers first, before judging if we can do better, if that's okay. FT2  12:10, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

To your last sentence: no, I don't think we should. Admins and checkusers are precisely the people that have observed, day in and day out, what works in this process and what does not. AGK 12:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

• Absolutely not. We rewrote the header because it was so full of bloat and poorly-written prose that users of this process were completely ignoring what it said. This proposal completely overturns this effort and puts us back to the days when SPI and SSP were full of complex instructions comprehensible to nobody. TL;DR still counts for something, in our book. AGK 12:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Backlog

I submitted a request at 01:17, 1 May 2014‎ and the request was endorsed at 14:02, 5 May 2014‎. And now awaiting a Checkuser. This does not seems to be working properly. Any thought?―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:44, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Either more admins willing to block in more circumstances without CU confirmation but mainly more active CheckUsers. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Callanecc, what is the process of being approved as a checkuser? Are there still checkuser clerks? Liz 22:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

We appear to be down a couple of CUs due to RL commitments at the moment. Although Callanecc has been doing the majority of the clerk heavy lifting and Atama has been helping out a lot on the admin side as of late, SPI would certainly benefit from having a few more active clerks and admins. Breakdown:

• 47 cases requiring archiving (handled by clerks or willing admins)
• 4 cases requesting CU (to be reviewed and endorsed/declined by clerks)
• 5 checked cases (requiring follow-up and closure by clerks)
• 26 open cases not requesting CU (can be handled by any willing admin)
• 2 cases requiring further info from OP

Therefore out of 94 cases, only 10 require immediate CU attention. Information regarding Checkuser elections can be found here and information regarding clerking can be found here.--Jezebel'sPonyo 23:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Morning277 pattern?

Article New Relic: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=New_Relic&dir=prev&action=history August 10 2013 to September 10 2013. One suspected Morning277 sockpuppet involved. Account A adds lots of text. Changes lightly with the edit „make more neutral” after it was tagged. Account B removes advertisement tag two days later. Account C (banned: suspected Morning277) „cleans up” to make this version survive? Looks like Wiki-PR coordinated editing to me and matches their silicon valley client preference, too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.104.94.195 (talk) 22:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)