Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/header

Protected edit request on 24 August 2014
The shortcuts list of the main page is incomplete, listing only WP:SPI and WP:RfCU. However, there exists WP:SI, and that is not in the list. That should be added to the list.

Gparyani (talk) 20:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done We don't necessarily have to list every single shortcut at the top of a noticeboard. But adding this particular shortcut seemed reasonable, so I have done so. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 02:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 17 May 2016
Hello- I have a suggestion for improving the text of the instructions for opening an SPI, but I don't have rights to edit here. Here is a link to my suggestion on the SPI talkpage (archive). Thanks in advance, and please ping me with any questions. Eric talk 16:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Eric talk 16:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Please show consensus for this change. In particular, I'm concerned that changing "page" to "new investigation/case" makes it more difficult to understand for users entirely unfamiliar with SPI and the terminology. ~ RobTalk 16:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I've done it before I saw your comment. That change was proposed on the talk page more than a month ago and nobody made any objection (See: Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations/Archives/Archive17). Isn't that a consensus?  Vanjagenije  (talk)  16:16, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Eh, yes and no. I've reverted just the portion I objected to above. With my objection of the "new investigation/case" language, it's one editor for, one against, which is hardly consensus. ~ RobTalk 16:17, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * And no worries that you didn't see my comment, of course. ~ RobTalk 16:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I made some additional copy edits and one substantive change (administrator to clerk). I have no strong opinion about the disputed language, so I left it in its last state.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:30, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * My reason for disagreeing with the investigations/case language is because it adds unnecessary complexity to a "how to" section, which is usually intentionally simple. It uses terminology that those who would be looking at a "how to" section likely wouldn't know. Would they be confused by it? Usually not, but I don't see what's gained vs. the potential negative of confusion. If the clerks/CUs decide they prefer the other version, feel free to change it to that. ~ RobTalk 16:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks to you both for helping with this., I also was hoping to simplify the wording. I suggested the "investigation/case" wording because I saw the "next" in "next page" as vague. If I understand correctly, "next page" refers to the above-mentioned, newly created case page, and not a second page, yes?
 * Also, I've now noticed another bit that wants rewording: Suggest changing
 * The process for opening an investigation is the same for re-opening an old case (that is to say, if a case under that name already exists) as for creating a new case.
 * to
 * The process for opening an investigation is the same for re-opening an old case (a case that already exists under the same name). Eric talk 16:42, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I definitely agree that needs rewording. I didn't use quite the same wording as you did, but check my most recent edit to make sure it addresses your concerns. I think it does. As for "next page", it refers to the edit screen after you enter the username, not the investigation page once its submitted. ~ RobTalk 17:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Rob! Strange little tussle in the edit summaries after your edit, eh? Eric talk 19:52, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not injecting myself into that dispute, but on the point of the substance of the changes that made, I believe the CU policy should be linked in the header. On the other hand, I think that "clear" should be removed. If behavioral evidence is WP:DUCK levels of clear, no CU is necessary unless a sleeper check is likely to uncover additional socks, so I think "clear behavioral evidence" is a tad misleading. What do you think of making that small change, ? ~ RobTalk 20:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the delay in getting back to you. I understand your point, but I'm a bit torn. OTOH, I agree that if the evidence is ducky, often (not always) a check will not be made as it's unnecessary. OTOH, for a check to be made, it's generally preferable for the behavioral evidence to at least be solid. Where the line is drawn varies based on context. Perhaps we could replace the word "clear" with a less emphatic word but not eliminate a qualifier completely?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * How about "substantial"? That seems to sum it up nicely. ~ RobTalk 14:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If you intended for 'substantial' to mean 'of substance', it's ambiguous. A CU is (should be) performed if sockpuppetry plausibly follows from - but is not established by - behavioural evidence.  Why don't we simply spell this out?  I don't see what the bind is.  Izkala (talk) 00:42, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 22 September 2016
Add WP:SSP to the shortcuts, since it is mentioned by the following banner:



NasssaNserand his edits 10:38, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * ❌ WP:SSP already redirects to the SPI page, and it would be more appropriate to update the graphic since SSP is an outdated shortcut to an archived process. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:14, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

grammar problem...
it should be a SPI, not an SPI. --Brynda1231 [Talk Page] [Contribs] 19:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Depends on how you look at it. It's fine the way it is.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Letter "s" is pronounced like /ˈɛs/, so it's definitely "an SPI".  Vanjagenije  (talk)  00:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 5 January 2018
Change:

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.)

to

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 pages that the accounts have been editing.)

Change articles to pages because not all sock edits are strictly within the mainspace.

Change that both have have been editing to that the accounts have been editing because both implies there are only two sockpuppets, when there could be more. Gamebuster (Talk)║Contributions) 20:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 22:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 6 May 2019
Link "the CheckUser team" to CheckUser instead of functionaries. Check WT:SPI for context. qedk (t 桜 c) 13:42, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 03:59, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 28 March 2020
Please replace last three lines

with

Per WP:CAT. —⁠andrybak (talk) 12:15, 28 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: strictly speaking, this is not a template and is transcluded to only one page, Sockpuppet investigations. It appears that the creators intended that both the SPI and the SPI/SPI/header pages be categorized to those three categories.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 13:46, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , the special header subpage for the page Sockpuppet investigation should not be placed in Category:Wikipedia administration, which is a top-level category—it's directly under the root Category:Contents. Further more, Category:Wikipedia sock puppetry is already a subcat of Category:Wikipedia administration through Category:Wikipedia user conduct, so we might want to remove the line with altogether. —⁠andrybak (talk) 16:15, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * As for Category:Sockpuppet templates, anything that is transcluded should be regarded as a template. Seeing this special subpage in Category:Wikipedia sock puppetry and Category:Non-talk pages with subpages that are automatically signed won't help readers much. —⁠andrybak (talk) 16:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Been this way for awhile, not to say it shouldn't be changed; however, seems to me you need to garner a consensus for this before using the template.  P.I. Ellsworth    ed.  put'r there 19:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , the tags  around categorization wikitext have been there until 2013: Special:Diff/568716746., could you please clarify if removal of  around categorization has been intentional? The transclusion tags at the top of the page have been restored in Special:Diff/601005006 by and then adjusted further around pp-template and Floatinglink in Special:Diff/934170094 by . —⁠andrybak (talk) 09:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * so since August of 2013, no editor has thought to revert the edit that removed the includeonly tags around the categories until now? That is a seven-year implied consensus. I will be glad to comply when other editors chime in with their consent.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 17:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * A fun data point: since 31 August 2013, just 16 days after the disappearance of includeonly tags, template diffuse has been placed at the top of Category:Wikipedia administration. Quote from the template: Pages in this category should be moved to subcategories where applicable. And the two categorized pages in question are already categorized in such a subcategory, namely Category:Wikipedia sock puppetry.
 * So, technically, there has been an (almost) seven-year implied consensus to remove these two pages from Category:Wikipedia administration . —⁠andrybak (talk) 21:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * So, technically, there has been an (almost) seven-year implied consensus to remove these two pages from Category:Wikipedia administration . —⁠andrybak (talk) 21:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I've looked at Category:Wikipedia sock puppetry, which seems to include all subpages of Sockpuppet investigations, so to a) incorporate the removal of Category:Wikipedia administration and b) keep categorization of /SPI/header as is, here's a new proposal:

—⁠andrybak (talk) 21:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've just realized that the page Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/header has, so it shouldn't be placed in Category:Non-talk pages with subpages that are automatically signed. —⁠andrybak (talk) 22:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I've adjusted the categories to make them more specific to the two pages. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:27, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * For reference, Category:Wikipedia sock puppetry has been speedily renamed to at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppetry. – Fayenatic  L ondon 12:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 11 April 2021
The page has Linter error because it uses the obsolete html tag . Please replace all instances of  with  to get the same display without error. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 14:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅, and thank you for your help!  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 16:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 9 September 2023
Per MOS:HYPHEN "Avoid using a hyphen after a standard -ly adverb". Hyphenation Expert (talk) 14:53, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ SWinxy (talk) 15:51, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 12 September 2023
Change to If you need to submit off-wiki evidence, you must email the checkuser team to open an investigation.

The policy establishing this page, WP:HSOCK, doesn't make any distinction between admins and non-admins; it merely says If you believe someone is using sockpuppets or meat puppets, you should create a report at Sockpuppet investigations. This edit would align the instructions on this page with policy. BilledMammal (talk) 03:27, 12 September 2023 (UTC)


 * .  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'er there 20:50, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Looking at the page, I think you may have made a mistake with your change; it now instructs editors to email the checkuser team to open an investigation for all editors, regardless of the presence of off-wiki evidence.
 * Perhaps If you suspect sockpuppetry by an editor and you need to submit off-wiki evidence you must email the checkuser team to open an investigation. Private information, emails, logs, and other sensitive evidence must not be posted on Wikipedia. All evidence related to a sockpuppet investigation must otherwise be posted on the designated page. would be better? BilledMammal (talk) 03:18, 14 September 2023 (UTC)


 * to look more closely at this. May have been correct in the first place. We'll see what other editors think.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'er there 07:06, 14 September 2023 (UTC)


 * In the case where an editor suspects an administrator of using sockpuppets, I would ask the editor to email the Arbitration Committee instead of "the checkuser team". The checkuser team does have an VRT queue at, but it is not monitored very actively, and any investigation of administrator misconduct as serious as sockpuppetry will almost always involve the Arbitration Committee anyway (they are the only ones that can desysop someone for cause). I therefore offer the following suggestion: Mz7 (talk) 21:28, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Seeing no objection, I've gone ahead and implemented my suggestion above per WP:BOLD. I will email the functionaries mailing list to make sure ArbCom is aware of and okay with this change. In summary: (1) sockpuppetry by administrator should be reported directly to ArbCom, and (2) changed "email the checkuser team" to "contact the checkuser team privately"—private communication can include privately messaging a checkuser on IRC, for example. Mz7 (talk) 08:45, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, missed this originally. I don't think this is worse than the current version, but I don't like the lack of transparency; if the evidence for admin sockpuppetry doesn't involve private evidence there is no reason the full process can't take place in front of the whole community, as it would for a non-admin accused of sockpuppetry. BilledMammal (talk) 09:40, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Apologies as well for the severe delay in responding. Just wanted to let you know this is now being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Archive 24. Mz7 (talk) 00:12, 7 November 2023 (UTC)