Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations: Difference between revisions

If any CU is up to it, I’ve come across a large (has there ever been any other size?) UPE studio spam ring. Start with a check on FilmyTV, then run a “get edits” on the IPs showing multiple users. I’m heading out in a moment or I would continue pulling the threads and watching the socks unravel.– Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sometimes accounts are suspicious solely because they are doing something only experienced editors would do on their first edits, or their usernames suggest LTA, but no master is known. The existing format of SPI is not conducive to requesting investigations of these accounts as the format presumes there’s a suspected sockmaster. I think we should have a different process for investigating these sorts of cases. Jasper Deng (talk) 00:05, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don’t think there should be a formalized procedure. In other words, it should not be done at SPI. In practice, most editors contact a CU, either on their Talk page or privately, depending on the kinds of suspicions one has. I’ve also seen editors use {{Checkuser needed}}.–Bbb23 (talk) 00:53, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I’ll offer a different opinion. I’d rather see an SPI opened, where it will be looked at by the next available sockwalla. It’s not a big deal if you file it under the new account name and it ends up being merged once the correct sockmaster is identified. When somebody asks me on my talk page to investigate a sock, I’ll almost always request that they file an SPI unless it’s from somebody I know well and whose opinion I respect. But that’s just me; I know other CUs welcome direct requests. RoySmith (talk) 01:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have closed – and will continue to close – one-user SPIs.–Bbb23 (talk) 13:57, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with Bbb23. I don’t think it’s a good idea to make requests for discretionary checks at SPI because not all CUs are open to running these sorts of checks and if the check doesn’t turn anything up, the SPI page is useless. Also, some people have good instincts for spotting socks, but a lot of people don’t, and I think having a formal process for this would lead to a lot of baseless requests. Spicy (talk) 13:46, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

“doing something only experienced editors would do”… it’s possible to gain plenty of experience as an IP and then create an account. Unless there’s more to the suspicion, i.e. a sockmaster, there’s nothing to act on. Cabayi (talk) 14:11, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And there are plenty of reasons to create a new Wikipedia account that are well within policy. “Acting like an experienced editor” is simply not grounds for opening an SPI case. I think cases without master might occasionally be valid, but I think we should strongly discourage them unless we want even more people to resort to SPI for things they should use AIV, ANI or other venues. MarioGom (talk) 17:18, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let’s put it in another way: if I see two accounts in a case, I can usually make a good call about whether there’s WP:ILLEGIT use or not. If there is a single account, it is one of the following: a) disruption is enough to issue a block without any sockpuppetry investigation or b) it might be possible but very hard to make a call on whether there’s WP:ILLEGIT use or not. MarioGom (talk) 17:22, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree that SPI isn’t well suited for these sorts of CheckUser…