Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations

This page is for requesting that we investigate whether two or more Wikipedia accounts are being abusively operated by the same person.

Before opening an investigation, you need good reason to suspect sockpuppetry.

1. 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.)
2. You must provide this evidence in a clear way. Vaguely worded submissions will not be investigated. You need to actually show why your suspicion that the accounts are connected is reasonable.
3. Concision is key. Evidence should be presented in a concise format. Because of the length of the backlog, cases with clear and concise explanations and evidence are handled the most quickly.

Investigations are conducted by a clerk or an administrator, who will compare the accounts' behaviour and determine whether they are probably connected. Upon request, investigations can also be conducted by a checkuser, who can look at technical data behind the accounts in order to determine how likely it is they are connected. CheckUser results are often called technical evidence, in contrast to publicly available behavioural evidence.

Due to Wikipedia's CheckUser policy, checkusers will conduct a technical investigation only if clear, behavioural evidence of sockpuppetry is also submitted; if you ask for technical evidence to be looked at but do not provide behavioural evidence, the investigation may not be allowed to proceed. Additionally, checkusers will not publicly connect an account with an IP address per the privacy policy except in extremely rare circumstances.

How to open an investigation:

To add to an existing investigation (or case), enter the case name in the box below. To create a new investigation, enter the username of the oldest-created registered account (the "sockmaster")—or, if only IP addresses are involved, the IP that made the first relevant edit. Then click "Submit". Note: Do not include "User:" or any other commentary. For example, if a prior filing was at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/John Doe, or this is a first filing and the oldest registered account is User:John Doe, you should enter John Doe in the box below. You will then be taken to another page containing a form you must complete to open the investigation. The process for opening a subsequent investigation on the same user is the same as for creating a new case. Again, do not include "User:" in any of the numbered fields. If you also wish a checkuser to investigate, change |checkuser=no to |checkuser=yes in the edit box on the next page and explain why you are requesting it. Note: You can also open an investigation using Twinkle. After installing Twinkle, an "ARV" option will appear in the "TW" tab on any user, user talk, or user contributions page. Clicking on this option and selecting either "Sockpuppeteer" or "Sockpuppet" will allow you to fill in a few simple fields to file a report. The report will be automatically formatted for you. If you are not autoconfirmed, and the case page is protected or does not exist, please click "show" to the right and use the box below.

Open cases: awaiting Checkuser processing

Cases in this section have an open request for CheckUser that is being processed. Any user may update or act on this case, and any patroller or clerk may decide the case. However it will not be closed if the Clerks believe any further action is needed.

• Endorsement or decline of CheckUser may only be made by a Clerk.
• If your case is not showing up here, or this section seems out of date, please click the .

Completed cases

Pending close

Cases here have been closed by users and are awaiting a Clerk to review for formal close and archiving.

Quick CheckUser requests

Use this section to request checkuser information relating to a situation that does not involve sock puppetry. You could use this section to request, for example:

• Underlying IPs of an account, where the autoblock has expired or been ineffective.
• Collateral damage checks for the informed hardblocking of IPs or ranges.
• IP block exemption checks before granting IPBE (or to verify it is being used constructively).

For threats of harm (to self or others) you must email emergencywikimedia.org (see the threats of harm page) and not use this page. Requests to investigate and confirm sockpuppetry should be listed in the sockpuppet section above, and not here (such requests will be summarily removed).

To make a request here, copy the following template and paste it to the end of this section (quick link to edit) – replacing "header" with an informative title, and adding underneath the template any relevant information – then sign using "~~~~", preview, and click "save".

==== HEADER ====
{{SPIquick}}
* {{Checkuser|username}}

Bigjimsanders

This case has been marked as closed.

User Bigjimsanders was originally indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry, it seems that he's resumed editing under the accounts User:88.110.44.230, Bob Loves Grib and User:81.170.47.239. Edit patterns for all accounts are the same, and a range block may also be necessary. 71.164.148.165 (talk) 15:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you re-sign this with your account name? Nathan ^T 14:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have an account; I usually edit anonymously - is this a problem? 71.123.203.42 (talk) 16:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Not really. Nathan ^T 20:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• It looks like we have a farm, I'm going to self-open a full request for the record. -- Avi (talk) 07:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

odd edits to same page by similar user name

• Thetruth1865 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) see [1] [2]
• Communicator2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) see [3]
• 1editor2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) see [4]

I have a concern that these accounts may be sock puppets to Kay Ivey. --Carmouche (talk) 05:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Archived cases

The following are old SPI cases, separated by month:

2009
January	February	March	April
May	June	July	August
September	October	November	December

2010
January	February	March
April	May	June
July	August	September
October	November	December

(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)