Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:SSP)
Jump to: navigation, search

Editnotice edit request[edit]

I don't know how to do it and I don't think I can do it myself anyway, but can someone add the {{selfendorse}} template to the list of clerk actions in the SPI editnotice? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:53, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Mike VTalk 14:13, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Technical help needed[edit]

I need someone to edit {{SPIarchive notice}} template. It transludes the {{Checkuser}} template ({{Checkuser|1={{{1}}}|master=yes}}). But, we use {{Checkuser}} template for accounts, while for the anonymous IPs, we use {{Checkip}} template. Can we edit {{SPIarchive notice}} so that it transcludes {{Checkuser}} for accounts and {{Checkuser}} for IPs? Currently, it transcludes {{Checkuser}} in all cases. That creates problems. See this example: different template is used for the master and for the sockpuppets although they are all IPs. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

  • My thinking is that the functionality of {{Checkip}} and {{Checkuser}} should be merged into a single template that returns some links for IPs and others for accounts, thus enabling {{SPIarchive notice}} to use the single resulting template.  · Salvidrim! ·  20:16, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • When checkip is used and I click on SPI block, there is no default time period for the block, whereas when checkuser is used, the default is indefinite. I don't want the checkip default to change to indefinite as I might inadvertently block an IP indefinitely.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I started looking at them and think a merge (or at least making them more similar) is reasonable. Here are some thoughts:
  1. The deleted-edits link only appears for named users, not IPs, but IP edits are generally useful for admins who are not CU to build cases or correlate new abuse.
  2. The cross-wiki-contributions link only appears to IPs, not named users, but this is another tool I find useful for tracking several different patterns of abuse (especially en.wp<->commons).
  3. {{Checkuser}} has a "SUL" link to the local Special:CentralAuth and "CA" to the CentralAuth on meta. I tried a few examples of accounts that have various types of special bits or blocks, and it seems like the local one is never more than a subset of the information on meta. Is the unified-login migration complete, or do we still need a separate local lookup?
  4. The block times are different ({{ec}}:) I agree with this difference, but don't want to lose track of it.
By the by...holy crap, do we have a lot of similar lists of links! DMacks (talk) 20:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Module:IPAddress has functions to determine whether a string is an IP or not. DMacks (talk) 21:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
    • @DMacks: Can we merge the two templates into one, but keep the default blocking time different (plus, of course, "WHOIS" link for the IPs)? Vanjagenije (talk) 21:37, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
      • Certainly! Any item could be made to appear on one, the other, or both modes. As a start, {{checkuser}} could hand off to {{checkIP}} if the parameter is actually an IP (wrapper around that alternative). But for the longer term idea of actual unification, I'm just trying to make sure we know what all the differences are (and whether they really should be different:). DMacks (talk) 22:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
        • {{checkip}}'s internals have unconverted copypaste from {{checkuser}}...using "Example" rather than "" as some defaults:) And some parts also allow specifying the target as named |User= while others only use positional. What a mess! Will do some overhauling, but real life might be pretty busy until mid next week. DMacks (talk) 06:12, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
I've noticed something else. When the "tag" link is clicked in either {{checkuser}} or {{checkip}}, it just opens user's user page for editing. Can we change it so that when it's clicked, the user page opens for editing and all the content is replaces with {{sock}} tag without parameters, so that we just add parameters? That would really be "tagging". Vanjagenije (talk) 08:41, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Possibly. Real life has settled down for the next week or two. First I'll work on merging/unifying, then we can think about other changes. I'm in the process of clearing out all cases where these templates are called with no params, presumably expecting some default for demonstration purposes. Well that's pretty confusing if one template has quite different behaviors depending on the nature of the parameter... DMacks (talk) 05:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

@Vanjagenije and DMacks: I just want to make sure that the templates aren't made to be overly complex, as some cases (Orangemoody/Archive comes to mind) end up with dozens of instances of Template:Checkuser, and we don't want to run afoul the transclusion limit. I'm not sure if this is even a factor, to be honest, but it's something to keep in mind. Thanks ​—DoRD (talk)​ 10:07, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Roger. That SPI case doesn't appear to be pushing Wikipedia:Template limits:
NewPP limit report
Parsed by mw1305
Cached time: 20160707061817
Cache expiry: 2592000
Dynamic content: false
CPU time usage: 2.940 seconds
Real time usage: 4.315 seconds
Preprocessor visited node count: 51563/1000000
Preprocessor generated node count: 0/1500000
Post‐expand include size: 1452392/2097152 bytes
Template argument size: 85402/2097152 bytes
Highest expansion depth: 9/40
Expensive parser function count: 5/500
Lua time usage: 0.205/10.000 seconds
Lua memory usage: 7.23 MB/50 MB
Number of Wikibase entities loaded: 0

Transclusion expansion time report (%,ms,calls,template)
100.00% 1314.665      1 - -total
 58.40%  767.814    459 - Template:Checkuser
 23.25%  305.602      2 - Template:CollapsedShell
  8.98%  118.051      2 - Template:Reflist
  7.32%   96.297     23 - Template:Cite_web
  6.33%   83.220   4608 - Template:Middot
  4.99%   65.578      2 - Template:Infobox_company
  4.82%   63.393      2 - Template:Ambox
  4.03%   52.943     21 - Template:User2
  3.83%   50.357      2 - Template:Infobox
(ca. 459 socks!) but definitely the more I can actually unify in a main template instead of wrapping subtemplates, the better. One of the reasons I want to clarify what's special about each mode is to try to keep all the mode-specific links adjacent to each other so we'd only need a single #if comparison. DMacks (talk) 19:31, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Alternate implementation[edit]

I'll mention {{IPvandal}} and {{vandal}} as examples that are implemented as wrappers around the generic {{User-multi}}, where that generic one is a togglable set of links chosen by the wrapper. Let's see here:

{{checkIP|}} (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log))
{{IPvandal|}} (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · edit filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
{{checkuser|Example}} Example (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log))
{{vandal|Example}} Example (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • edit filter log • block user • block log)

There are a few links in the "check..." that are not in the "...vandal": the "+" of the "talk" (for starting a new section on the talkpage), "tag", cross-wiki/centralauth stuff, and CU things that aren't available in User-multi. Probably easy enough to implement them, as a future project. Note that User-multi only supports its predefined set of items, no way to pass in arbitrary special ones from wrappers. DMacks (talk) 05:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

...but the underlying module is in lua, so it doesn't have as many parser-function expenses for its internal logic (vs #if and friends). Essentially we'd be avoiding some template work at the expense of a lua call. I think that's not a net loss? But minimizing any logic is still better:) DMacks (talk) 19:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

No Clerks?[edit]

Is there anyone actively clerking SPI at the moment? The backlog of checked cases awaiting review is significant.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:35, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I'll e-mail you.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
I've been away for a few weeks due to a significant move and crappy internet service, but I'll see if I can help with the backlog tonight or tomorrow. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
It's getting desperate enough I may be willing to chip in for a faster internet service for you! Does you provider accept Bitcoin?--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:28, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
I am very busy and will be busy in the next few weeks too. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Vanja, you are a Wikipedia treasure. Do what you need to off-wiki, but please do come back soon!--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:08, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I've taken some time (on my employer's dime, no less!) to clerk the oldest cases that were in the "checked" status. Tomorrow is shaping up to be a very slow day at work so I expect to be able to pitch in some more. Sorry if I regularly haven't been pulling my fair share of the weight and Vanja, you've more than earned a break from this shit. :)  · Salvidrim! ·  21:30, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Cheers for that Salv.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:40, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Silly idea, but a bit more clerks and checkusers would help in my opinion... The Banner talk 22:42, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
There is no Checkuser backlog; having more Checkusers would not make any difference to the current state of SPI. Clerk training takes time and has an extremely high attrition rate. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Clerks are too busy to clerk, so they're even more "too busy" to train new clerks properly, making this a seemingly endless cycle of playing catch-up.  · Salvidrim! ·  23:19, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
@Bbb23: Do you know when there will be another clerk training? Music1201 talk 06:01, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
None is scheduled, and I doubt a training similar to the scale of the previous one will be conducted. Whether we will hold group trainings on a smaller scale or take on individuals on our own or both, I don't know.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:54, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Some of the "checked" cases don't necessarily require a clerk action but just admin action to take it to a "close" status so if a few more admins step in then the clerk workload can be reduced too, unless I'm doing something that I shouldn't be doing. —SpacemanSpiff 12:33, 18 July 2016 (UTC)