Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:07, 9 October 2008

Suggested final name

As it is bold in the first line of the lead text, I suggest Wikipedia:Sock puppetry investigation. - LA @ 19:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds fine to me. Tiptoety ^talk 20:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just trying to help with the small stuff. - LA @ 20:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another thought, what about the meat puppets? Wikipedia:Puppetry investigation instead?

No, meat puppetry falls under WP:SOCK, I mean meat puppet cases are currently handeled at SSP. Tiptoety ^talk 03:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template suite

I started a discussion here about overhauling the SSP/CU template system. Since the whole system is being overhauled, I would like to work with you to make sure that the templates I have in mind are inline with your needs.

As I see it, there only needs to be five templates.

Puppet
Puppet master
Puppet notice - sample
Puppet discussion or Puppet case
Puppet category - sample

I am good with parser functions and am also looking into making them even more user friendly than before. MBisanz and Steve Crossin have volunteered to help with the conversions from the old to the new templates. - LA @ 22:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will make samples and put the links above for you to check and approve. - LA @ 20:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Puppet template needs to have a option to link to a RFCU case or a SSP case. Ex: {{sockpuppetcheckuser|USERNAME|CASENAME}}, but other than that it looks fine to me. I would like to hear FT2's thoughts though. Tiptoety ^talk 00:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably best resolved with a single param. "(#if:case|Please refer to case)" or some such. If no formatting is applied to the param, it'd be easy to link multiple pages as needed. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tiptoety, there will be only those 5 templates when I am done. All the current templates are to be deleted in favor of those 5. The template you mentioned will be one of those deleted. - LA (T) 19:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Puppet category template is written. - LA @ 19:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per Tiptoety's request, I made a new Puppet notice template. It's in Section IV here, the template is {{SSP2notification}}. Steve Crossin ^Contact/₂₄ 15:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requirements of individual templates

I'll be starting some "tester" templates soon, also being good with ParserFunctions myself; this section is as much for ordering my own thoughts as anything else.

Sock puppet:
- Suspected, with no evidence;
- Suspected, with on-going SSP2 case;
- Confirmed, per SSP2 conclusions (does this include CU and behavioural? Should we use proven as current templates do, to distinguish between behavioural and technical evidence?);

[list to be completed]

Anthøny 20:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Samples moved to the project here to do with as you see fit. LA (T) @ 18:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On sections

Currently I see these operational sections:

RFCU

Outstanding requests
Declined requests
Completed requests
Requests for IP check
Non-compliant requests

SSP

Open cases

SSP2

Requests pending clerk or checkuser approval
Open requests for checkusers
Open suspected sockpuppet requests

Looks like the current RFCU paradigm is being applied in favor of SSP's, which is fine if that's the way we want to go, but I was thinking we should discuss our model for SSP2, some.

First off: it's not necessarily clear, intuitively, where a new request should go; are all new requests considered checkuser requests? We can change instructions and headings, but I'm not sure if that goes far enough. I'm actually tentatively in favor of doing away with the section model, and just going with open cases as SSP currently does; anything else seems to create an inordinate amount of busy-work fiddling with transclusions every time a page changes state, presents confusing barriers to users submitting or following requests, and simply doesn't seem realistic given the potentially large merged case load SSP2 would be dealing with.

Clearly, however, we do need some organization beyond that. What else could we use? Categories. One example scheme:

Category:Checkuser requests to be reviewed (small category, new requests awaiting clerk review)
Category:Checkuser requests to be run (small category, reviewed requests awaiting checkuser)
Category:Declined checkuser requests (comprehensive)
Category:Completed checkuser requests (comprehensive)

The categories could be populated by some intuitive status template, possibly inspired by {{RFPP}} or {{rfcu box}}. While a full view of the situation would still be easy enough to get to, from the SSP2 front page, this scheme would allow checkusers and clerks to find and respond to relevant requests in a hurry, when needed. One edit will intuitively update a page's status across the board, without any need to spend further edits updating its transclusions. Users interested in a specific request will need to watch only that one subpage. The completed/declined categories, while not exactly the meat of this request, could potentially facilitate or replace our regularly backlogged archival methods.

This does bring up the question of what to do with IP checks. Should they be placed on subpages and treated like other requests, or do we still need a distinct IP check section/subpage? I'd be fine with the latter, I suppose.

So. Thoughts? – Luna Santin (talk) 07:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this (SSP2) is going to replace both SSP and RFCU and bring them both under one roof so to speak. - LA (T) 07:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The devil is in the details, as they say -- the specifics of the merger remain in flux, hence this thread. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here is the deal. I have spoken with FT2 in quite a bit of detail about how this whole process is going to work, and from what I understand there is really no other way than doing it this way...seeing as this page will be dealing with lots of private information and must ensure that it is set up to allow other means of dealing with sock cases than just CheckUser. I recommend emailing FT2 as I know he has a good reason why he has it this way. Tiptoety ^talk 23:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of private information? From what I understand this is just about merging the processes of SSP and RFCU into one entity, hence my very first question. This has to be discussed on wiki. - LA (T) 05:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, all RFCU deals with private information (IP's, linking accounts to others, area of where to accounts are located). Take a look at the privacy policy. ;) Tiptoety ^talk 15:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is is that this page discusses the merging of the two processes currently in place, but no cases will be decided here until the new process is up and running. The process has to be discussed first, in the open, before a single case can be brought under the new process. Let's get this process finalized first. - LA (T) 18:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be best if any objections were a tad more specific, and posted on-wiki, I think; private information itself is best kept private, indeed, but concerns about doing so need not be. One thing I may have neglected to mention, this proposed scheme does not assume all new requests are checkuser requests: they'd only be added into the categories by hand. The procedural differences are superficial; instead of shuffling pages around sections, we'd be shuffling them around categories. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but here is the deal. The CheckUsers want there to be a page where they can see all the requests (SSP cases and RFCU cases) to make sure that a clerk has not made a mistake denying a request for CheckUser attention. The only way I can see that working is by having all the requests on one page opposes to being in separate cats. Tiptoety ^talk 01:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We'd still have all requests on one page, with this proposal, just as they are in the current SSP model. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Puppet master = Case name, One case for SSP and CU

In the updated process...

The puppet master should always match the case name so there should be no reason for any template to have a seperate parameter for a case name. All current misnamed cases should be moved to the correct puppet master.
There should only ever be one case. If the investigation needs a checkuser, put the case in a category for checkuser.

Account Z is accused of sock puppetry with Account 1, Account 2, and Account 3 as puppets.

Wikipedia:Sock puppet investigations/Account Z is created.

Account A is found to be the puppet master of Account Z.

Wikipedia:Sock puppet investigations/Account Z is moved to Wikipedia:Sock puppet investigations/Account A.

Account Z is now listed amongst the other puppets.

The Puppet templates on Account 1, Account 2, and Account 3 are updated to the correct puppet master.

Account A has other puppets and requires a check user.

Wikipedia:Sock puppet investigations/Account A is put into the Category:Requests for checkuser.

So, when adding the Puppet template:

{{Puppet|<Puppet master>|<status>}} (I will have to look into the current template.)

Status will be either suspected or confirmed. Since the case name will always match the ultimate puppet master, there will never need to be a seperate parameter for a case name.

At least, that is the way I think it should be done. - LA (T) 19:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on which template(s) you're looking at, {{rfcu box}} exhibits unexpected behavior unless it gets the case name as a parameter; once a subpage is transcluded to the main page, all {{PAGENAME}} and similar variables will return the name of the main page, not the subpage. Similar issues aren't quite as easy as they look, at first glance. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All current templates in use will be deleted and the new template suite will take their place for this new process. If necessary, the old templates will be subst: in special situations. This new process should make things a lot easier for some and hopefully saner. - LA (T) 18:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser/SSP

I'm more around now. Some brief background for those who missed out the background:

RFCU/SSP were agreed as to be merged a while back (I couldn't do it at the time due to hardware issues and Poetlister). The basic point is to avoid duplication, and use "the best of both". Mainly, a good easy archiving system, and good easy case pages and case management.

It'll work well, but best done step by step. The first step will be to get SSP into a suitable new design suitable for going forward. That's a simple redesign of the section's pages. Once that's done, and bedded in and we're all used to it and it works smoothly, then merging in RFCU is quite trivial and almost won't be noticed.

The main issue is to ensure when SSP is redesigned, it's the best structure we can find - it supports the things we want to focus on, is easy to follow in messy cases, the instructions are simple and easy, and case management almost "flows naturally and easily".

A few examples of helpful features seen in SSP, RFCU, or similar pages, include -- good archiving... easy case listing/updating... quick and simple templates and instructions... appropriate use of collapse boxes... all cases related to a given sock user on one page for ease of reference.

Most of this is figured out in principle, but in firming up the details, extra eyeballs by the entire CU and clerks team will help a lot. Also now we have a full team, let's recheck it as a consensus matter, each page used, before going "live".

To start it going, some quick questions for clerk/cu straw poll:

1. Name of merged section: What should the combined section be called? Possible options -- Suspected sock puppets (SSP), Sock puppet investigation (SPI)? Sock puppet inquiry (SPI)? Sock check (SC/SPC)? Any preference? Or something else? The aim would be to de-emphasize it as being a "punitive" place for sanctions, and more "somewhere you go if you have a sock/multiple account/misuse of accounts concern" to ask for help on, which might be valid or not.

SPI sounds like a good idea to me, and then we can also just redirect RFCU and SSP to it to avoid confusion. Tiptoety ^talk 21:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SPI as not all will need CU checks. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion. Thatcher 23:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. Archive page design: Does Wikipedia:SSP2/Closed look helpful as an archive format? Can it be improved? Are the instructions good? Can we discuss that page on its talk page, with a view to finalizing one easy page, so we have a good archive index for all cases.

Maybe if there was a way to get a bot, it might help. Any thoughts? Tiptoety ^talk 21:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Def want a bot. 22:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Reasonable design. Will multiple cases be listed multiple times, or only the most recent? Thatcher 23:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3. Clerking: Clerks under the new system may have more scope, so we're likely to split CU clerks and CU clerk trainees. In brief, it might matter a bit more than it used to, that those learning the ropes don't cause problems. It should be fairly relaxed and easy to do if anyone wants, though. There are a few things we don't want clerks to try and do, until they have specific SSP/RFCU experience, for example, formally closing cases. One starter question:

Please take a look at the arbcom clerks pages (Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks) and advise if that looks like a good model to follow - a clerks page and clerks noticeboard (the latter mostly for internal cu team discussion, notes on things needing doing, etc).

Comments sought on each of these? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, sounds good. There is a proposal (that seems to have been pretty much approved) here: User:Tiptoety/Checkuser clerks. Tiptoety ^talk 21:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse too. — Rlevse • Talk •

There are 3 questions here as starters, some of which want opinions, selection between choices, or textual checking, rather than endorsement. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The arbcom clerks have a separate noticeboard in part because they are officially sanctioned by arbcom and there are things non-clerks should not do. (Although I never got a straight answer when I asked specifically for guidance so pretty much made up the rules myself.) I would like to not have officially sanctioned clerks and helpers if possible. People who want to help out will hopefully be cluefull enough to know whether they need help, and clerks can and should review each other's work. (Such as, when a case is closed is it properly templated and listed on the archive page.) I think it would also be better to have a single talk page, for use by the clerks as well as by editors asking for help. I would not want people already bewildered about how to file a request to be further bewildered trying to get help. Thatcher 23:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 137: / Line 137: @@
 *SPI sounds like a good idea to me, and then we can also just redirect RFCU and SSP to it to avoid confusion. [[User:Tiptoety|<span style="color:#4E562C;font-weight:bold">Tiptoety</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Tiptoety|<span style="color:#FFDB58">talk</span>]]</sup> 21:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 *SPI as not all will need CU checks. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — [[User:Rlevse|<span style="color:#060;">'''''R''levse'''</span>]] • [[User_talk:Rlevse|<span style="color:#990;">Talk</span>]] • </span> 22:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
+*No opinion. [[User talk:Thatcher|Thatcher]] 23:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 ; 2. Archive page design
 : Does [[Wikipedia:SSP2/Closed]] look helpful as an archive format? Can it be improved? Are the instructions good? Can we discuss that page on its talk page, with a view to finalizing one easy page, so we have a good archive index for all cases.
 *Maybe if there was a way to get a bot, it might help. Any thoughts? [[User:Tiptoety|<span style="color:#4E562C;font-weight:bold">Tiptoety</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Tiptoety|<span style="color:#FFDB58">talk</span>]]</sup> 21:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 *Def want a bot. 22:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
+*Reasonable design.  Will multiple cases be listed multiple times, or only the most recent?  [[User talk:Thatcher|Thatcher]] 23:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 ; 3. Clerking
 : Clerks under the new system may have more scope, so we're likely to split CU clerks and CU clerk trainees. In brief, it might matter a bit more than it used to, that those learning the ropes don't cause problems. It should be fairly relaxed and easy to do if anyone wants, though. There are a few things we don't want clerks to try and do, until they have specific SSP/RFCU experience, for example, formally closing cases. One starter question:
@@ Line 150: / Line 152: @@
 *Endorse too. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — [[User:Rlevse|<span style="color:#060;">'''''R''levse'''</span>]] • [[User_talk:Rlevse|<span style="color:#990;">Talk</span>]] • </span>
 :: There are 3 questions here as starters, some of which want opinions, selection between choices, or textual checking, rather than endorsement. [[user:FT2|FT2]]&nbsp;<sup><span style="font-style:italic">([[User_talk:FT2|Talk]]&nbsp;|&nbsp;[[Special:Emailuser/FT2|email]])</span></sup> 22:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
+*The arbcom clerks have a separate noticeboard in part because they are officially sanctioned by arbcom and there are things non-clerks should not do.  (Although I never got a straight answer when I asked specifically for guidance so pretty much made up the rules myself.)  I would like to not have officially sanctioned clerks and helpers if possible.  People who want to help out will hopefully be cluefull enough to know whether they need help, and clerks can and should review each other's work.  (Such as, when a case is closed is it properly templated and listed on the archive page.)  I think it would also be better to have a single talk page, for use by the clerks as well as by editors asking for help.  I would not want people already bewildered about how to file a request to be further bewildered trying to get help. [[User talk:Thatcher|Thatcher]] 23:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)