User:Jehochman/Drafting

To investigate a suspected sock puppet report:


 * 1) Check the reputation and history of the editor filing the complaint.  It is not uncommon for disruptive sock puppeteers to file frivolous or retaliatory reports.  Also be wary of editors with a lengthy history of conflict filing reports against each other.
 * 2) Check the links cited in the report, and all the accounts contribution histories.  Look for possible block or ban evasion, edits to the same articles, vote stacking, good hand bad hand activity, or evasion of scrutiny.
 * 3) Check each accounts earliest edits.  Do they show evidence that the editor is familiar with Wikipedia?  Such evidence is not conclusive because editors often come to the English Wikipedia from foreign language wikis, but such facts may provide a basis for further questions.
 * 4) Look for evidence that may tend to disprove sock puppetry, such as differing areas of interest or simultaneous editing, also known as interleaving.  A sockpuppeteer may be able to intentionally generate a small number of interleaved edits, but they will not consistently be able to do large amounts of editing at the same time.
 * 5) Cases of meat puppetry, or collusion by editors to subvert consensus, are often harder to provide.  Off wiki evidence of collusion may help to establish such a case.  For instance, if the main account has made a blog post requesting a particular type of edits to a particular article, and a bunch of new editors appear making such edits, meat puppetry can be deduced.
 * 6) When one of the suspected socks is an IP, check the geolocation and see if it matches the known location of any other editors who may have made disclosures.
 * 7) Checking the edit history of an account may also reveal instances where the account has signed a comment made by another account.  This can happen when an editor has accidentally logged our, or when they post from the "wrong" account.  Running multiple accounts at once can be confusing and slip ups are not uncommon.
 * 8) If more than one account has edited within the last few months, and there would be an abusive situation if the accounts were controlled by the same editor, request help from a checkuser.  On the English Wikipedia fishing is discouraged, therefore you should present concise evidence of possible abuse in order to justify your Checkuser request.
 * 9) If socking is very obvious, for instance if there is an admission or if the accounts have very similar names, blocks can be placed without requesting Checkuser.  However, if there is any possibility of additional undiscovered socks, Checkuser should be used to empty the entire "sock drawer".  Stopping all the accounts at once may provide a greater deterrent effect.  Make sure to tag sockpuppet account userpages with, where example is the name of the puppetmaster.  You may also use  or , depending on which produces the most relevant message.  The master account's user page can be tagged with.
 * 10) If Checkuser confirms socking, the checkuser clerks will tag and block the accounts.
 * 11)  When placing sock blocks, be sure to add a link from the block log to the location of the evidence.  Such links may be valuable to administrators investigating future cases.

Checking a case of suspected sock puppetry takes careful work. Do not block accounts until all the facts have been investigated, including any explanations the accused may offer. It is more important to be correct and complete than to be speedy.