Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerk and checkuser procedures

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Bot notes

Templates the bot needs to know about

  • RFCU now has format {{RFCU|1st letter|2nd letter|status}} which has changed to allow two letters -- status is uncased and can be:
  • "Endorse/endorsed/self" (all equivalent)
  • "Checked"
  • "Decline/declined", or
  • Anything else (typically "New", or absent/null/unknown) -- are all equivalent
The RFCU status doesn't matter if the case also has an "SPIclose" tag.
  • (Now deprected) SPIclose (canonical naming) has format {{SPIclose|optional parameter}} -- the optional parameter is uncased and the only recognized value is "archive".

Bot logic

After every edit, check the status of the "RFCU" tag (if any) and "SPIclose" tag (if any) on the current case, and if necessary move the case to comply with the following rules. Basically the correct place for the case will always be as follows:


Correct location if current SPI case does not have an "{{SPIclose}}" tag

1) Current case has no "RFCU" tag, or has "RFCU..|checked"

-> case goes into "open cases" and stays there until something changes

2) Current case has "RFCU" and anything (including null/absent) apart from: endorse(d), self (endorse), decline or checked status

-> case goes into "awaiting approval" and stays there till something changes

3) Case has "RFCU..|endorse", "RFCU..|endorsed" or "RFCU..|self" (endorse) status -- all three count as the same for the bot

-> case goes into "awaiting checkuser" and stays there till something changes

4) Case has "RFCU..|decline" status

-> case goes into "declined checkuser" and stays there till something changes


Correct location if current SPI case has an "{{SPIclose}}" tag

5) If the tag is plain "SPIclose" (or with any parameter except "archive")

-> case goes into "pending close" and stays there till something changes

6) If the tag is "SPIclose|archive"

-> Archive immediately


Bot alerts

Only clerks and checkusers may set "RFCU" status to the parameters "[endorse/endorsed/self, checked, declined]", or "SPIclose" with parameter "archive". If possible, a note is posted to the clerks noticeboard for either/both of these, or if there is more than one of either (depending on ease):

-> * Bot notice: SPI case [[LINK|Casename]] had RFCU status [DIFF updated] to "[value]" by non-clerk [[User:X|X]], at [TIME]. ~~~~
-> * Bot notice: SPI case [[LINK|Casename]] was [DIFF directed] to be archived by non-clerk [[User:X|X]], at [TIME]. ~~~~
-> * Bot notice: SPI case [[LINK|Casename]] has more than one RFCU or SPIclose templates after [DIFF this] edit by user [[User:X|X]], at [TIME]. ~~~~


FT2 (Talk | email) 20:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving templates

For now, put {{SPIa}} and {{SPIb}} at the start and end of an archived section, with SPIa under the section header (so TOC works). They may not be used, or the narrative may not be used, but at least as you're in a rush, this way they can be created (even if as null templates) if needed in future, without change. FT2 (Talk | email) 18:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Autopurge

The bot could easily be made to purge the page on a regular basis. This would mean purging within X seconds of any edit, but not more than once every X seconds, and not purging unless there has been actual editing that requires it. Basic bot logic for a "within 2 minutes of an edit" interval: 

On startup: 
   Set NEXT_PURGE_TIME = Current_Time()

On noticing any edit to an SPI case or process page (projectspace only): 
   If NEXT_PURGE_TIME == 0 Then Set NEXT_PURGE_TIME := Current_Time() + 120

When it's noticed that (NEXT_PURGE_TIME != 0 And Current_Time() >= NEXT_PURGE_TIME):
   Access the SPI "purge" URL to force a purge action on WP:SPI (ignore the HTML accessed!)
   Set NEXT_PURGE_TIME := 0

Net effect is, completely ignored unless edits happen. Then a timer is set to purge X seconds later. FT2 (Talk | email) 01:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merging SPI cases

The instructions for when SPI cases need merged is "Note on the case or contact an administrator to merge the cases with admin tools." First of all, neither this page nor Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Administrators instructions (nor anywhere else I can find) has instructions for how the admin should go about merging them. Second, the only "admin tool" I can think of that could be relevant to this is history merging, which wouldn't be a good idea here. History merges are only good when the pages were always related, not just when they suddenly become related, because otherwise, the merged history ends up as a tangled mess (after all, when we merge two articles together, we don't usually histmerge them, see WP:PV). Shouldn't the proper procedure be to copy the content from the wrong-master case to the right-master case, then blank the wrong-master case and stick {{SPIarchive notice|name of the real master}} on it? Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out that history merge is the correct way to go per another admin more experienced at this sort of thing than I. I've updated the procedures.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:06, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Picking up this thread, could somebody ELI5 the process for merging cases. WP:SPI/PROC#No case is currently active for the account that we wish to file the case as, but a prior case has been filed refers you to WP:HISTMERGE, but that talks about fixing previous broken copy-paste merges, not how to do one from scratch. Wikipedia:Merging gets closer, but is more about the process of tagging and discussing, not the actual mechanics of performing. I've been an admin for many years, but have always stayed away from all but the most trivial histmerges because the instructions are so complicated and warn of dire consequences if you do it wrong :-( -- RoySmith (talk) 14:08, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Technically indistinguishable?

What is the difference between "Technically indistinguishable" and "Confirmed"? -- RoySmith (talk) 14:45, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand, "Technically indistinguishable" means that the technical data is identical, while "Confirmed" means that there is both technical data and behavioral data indicating sockpuppetry. "Technically indistinguishable" may be two independent persons using the same computer, which is not illegit. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:06, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Checking for post-close additions?

It came up in my training that when archiving a case, you need to check if there was any new evidence added after the case was closed. This isn't listed under "Process overview for clerks", so if nobody objects, I'll add that to item "V" in the table. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:08, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted sock notice template?

Hi, I was reading the associated page a read and it looks like a certain template {{blocked sock}} has been deleted but still appears under the Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerk and checkuser procedures § For tagging. Someone more knowledgeable about the issue might want to look into it. Cheers! ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk|contribs) 22:36, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/Clerk_and_checkuser_procedures"