Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerks

Clerks' Noticeboard

Trainee/clerking interest and discussion

Active requests

DannyS712

DannyS712 (talk · message · contribs · global contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · user creation · block user · block log · count · total · logs · summary · email | lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · spi · socks | rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp | current rights · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) | rights · renames · blocks · protects · deletions · rollback · admin · logs | UHx · AfD · UtHx · UtE)

Not an admin (on enwiki), but familiar with sock puppetry, ltas, SPI, etc. and would like to help ease the workload for checkusers by helping out as a clerk. --DannyS712 (talk) 06:30, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Jack Frost

Jack Frost (talk · message · contribs · global contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · user creation · block user · block log · count · total · logs · summary · email | lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · spi · socks | rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp | current rights · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) | rights · renames · blocks · protects · deletions · rollback · admin · logs | UHx · AfD · UtHx · UtE)

Hi folks, I'm Jack. I kick around a number of gnomey areas of the project (primarily articles for creation, new pages, requested moves, third opinion, and account creation); and this behind-the-scenes type work is the way that I feel best able to contribute to the project. I'm not an administrator (and I wasn't particularly interested in becoming one, although it has been suggested to me and I am open to the idea), nor am I interested in collecting hats; I just enjoy the particular challenge which comes with gathering information, evaluating it in line with policies, guidelines, and standards, making a decision, and communicating that to others in a useful way. Through my time with the project I've become increasingly familiar with the work that goes on here at SPI (most of my contributions here can be seen at my spihelper logpage), reasonably comfortable with understanding IPs and IP ranges, and comfortable in recognising patterns of undisclosed paid editing. I'm particularly interested in the role of the clerks, and I'd be keen to assist with the workload here should someone wish to give me the opportunity of a traineeship. Thanks, --Jack Frost (talk) 10:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Mikehawk10

Mikehawk10 (talk · message · contribs · global contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · user creation · block user · block log · count · total · logs · summary · email | lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · spi · socks | rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp | current rights · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) | rights · renames · blocks · protects · deletions · rollback · admin · logs | UHx · AfD · UtHx · UtE)

Hi! I've gotten more heavily involved in Wikipedia over the past six months, and I'm noticing that there's been a growing backlog of cases in WP:SPI. I'm involved currently in anti-vandalism work using Huggle and I am a frequent non-admin closer of discussions listed at WP:RFCLOSE. I'd like to help contribute more to the project and to help ensure the project's integrity, and I'm more than willing to help out as a clerk if this would help with some of the staffing issues. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:35, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Just as an update, I've become a bit more involved since June: I've become a New Page Reviewer and I've gotten involved with articles for creation. Throughout this time, I've encountered suspected sockpuppets and made related reports through SPI. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:07, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

---

Country music category vandal from Tennessee

I don't understand Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Country music category vandal from Tennessee. There's an LTA that goes back 10 years, yet today's filing by Walter Görlitz is the first edit in the SPI page history and there's no archive. Explain, please. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:19, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry. yes, Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Country music category vandal from Tennessee is the concern. Currently blocked at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/68.187.22.119, and possibly others, so this block evasion. Walter Görlitz (talk)

Yes, but I'm trying to understand the history. How did we get to the point of having an LTA with no SPI history? -- RoySmith (talk) 22:36, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Because there's no account with that name. Prior SPI cases were probably filed under IP titles. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:42, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Sanity check please

Opinions eagerly sought on a draft proposal - User:Cabayi/Global Admin View - pretty please. Cabayi (talk) 10:56, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I left a comment at User talk:Cabayi/Global Admin View -- RoySmith (talk) 12:48, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Tamzin appointed trainee clerk

I am pleased to announce that Tamzin has been appointed as a trainee clerk. Blablubbs and I will be supervising their training, with GeneralNotability assisting as well. Welcome to the team, Tamzin! We're looking forward to working with you. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 05:22, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations! I look forward to working with you all. :) --Blablubbs (talk) 06:28, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Welcome on board. Cabayi (talk) 07:29, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm excited to get to work! :D Thank you, Kevin, for putting me forward, and thank you to the rest of the SPI team for trusting me with this. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 15:59, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@Tamzin there's currently 137 items in the queue. Could you get those taken care of by COB today? Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:21, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Sure. I'll just mark them all as {{endorse}} or {{CURequest}} and {{selfendorse}}, maybe tag all of the accused preëmptively as well. I know Blablubbs loves pre-block tags. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 17:32, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

• Welcome (better late than never) :) TonyBallioni (talk) 00:48, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Is Template:SPI empty report in use?

@Timotheus Canens: Does anything use {{SPI empty report}} or {{SPI report/empty}}? As far as I can tell, nothing does, but before I MfD it, checking here to confirm. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:31, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I have never seen that template before, and I don't believe any version of spihelper uses it. GeneralNotability (talk) 17:34, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 September 5 -- RoySmith (talk) 19:26, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Related question: is {{User SPI Clerk}} in use? I removed it from {{Userspace linking templates}} to see if it would still have any backlinks afterward, and it has only two: its own /doc page and this bizarre sandbox where someone for whatever reason subst'd {{Userspace linking templates}}. All good to TfD, or is there a use case I'm missing? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 01:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I genuinely can't tell if that's supposed to be used like {{checkuser}} for suspected socks or {{usercheck-full}} for clerk applications. Either way, never heard of that one either. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

ping Ebe123 who created it (a long time ago). -- RoySmith (talk) 01:43, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Wow, it's got a wikidata entry and a few translations into other languages. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:46, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The history is weirdly long for a 0-transclusion template. But I can't imagine why anyone would have been subst'ing it... and if there was a consensus at some point to deprecate it and replace with something else, there'd be a backlink from the relevant discussion. Very strange. Must be something I'm missing. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 01:46, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Quite a while ago; I don't really care what happens to my old stuff. I don't remember it well, and time changes our needs and use for old stuff. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 02:14, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

FIled to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 September 22. Few more tidying-up questions:

1. Is Category:SPI cases awaiting a CheckUser (endorsed) used anywhere?
2. Is there any reason to keep {{CUDone}}, an old RfCU-related template meant to be subst'd?
3. I've been going around tweaking some capitalizations of "checkuser"/"Checkuser"/"CheckUser", per recent discussion at WT:CHECK. The following maintenance cats all seem due for a rename:
   1. Category:SPI cases awaiting a CheckUser (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
   2. Category:SPI cases awaiting a CheckUser (endorsed) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (if it's not just deleted)
   3. Category:SPI cases being checked by a CheckUser (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
   4. Category:SPI cases checked by a CheckUser (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
   5. Category:SPI cases for pre-CheckUser review (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (also ambiguous name in general; maybe "awaiting clerk endorsement" instead?)

(SPI cases declined for CheckUser, meanwhile, has the correct capitalization.)

So, questions are about these: Is there any reason to keep them at their current titles? And if not, should I send them to CfD, or just speedily move them under WP:C2A and update the relevant templates?

Sorry for all the questions. :D -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 17:27, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Don't be sorry Tamzin. Call it out while you still see it as odd. You'll see stuff as "just the way SPI is done" soon enough. Cabayi (talk) 20:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

1. I don't think so as it's empty and there are endorsed cases at the moment.
2. I don't think there is a reason to keep it around. We don't leave talk page notices to let filing users know a CU was run, so I don't see much use for this anymore.
3. Bots usually rely on the categories to determine what cases are open and also what state they are in. I know this is the case for the SPI table on WP:SPI. As such, unless they are using the pageid of the category, I think moving the category to a new name may cause bots to break. As such I recommend caution about moving categories without adequate notice to bot operators. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 12:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Long-term IP-only SPIs

Hi folks, DuncanHill voiced a concern on my talk page following my deletion of the IP-only SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/82.22.42.5 (basically, that reporting IPs belonging to that sockmaster at AIV and linking to the relevant SPI was useful). My concern is that between us not tagging IPs and the general non-memorability of IP addresses, keeping a case named for an IP isn't going to help most folks except for a couple who happen to know the case name. Perhaps we could take a page from WP:LTA and nickname cases where an anonymous editor is repeatedly block-evading; I believe we have precedent in SPI cases named for BKFIP and...Tennessee country music vandal? something like that. That was just a spitballed idea from a minute's thought; if other folks have ideas or suggestions (or even think things are fine as-is), I'd really appreciate feedback. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm kind of with Duncan on this. Even if they don't have memorable names, we've got some association that these IPs constitute a cluster, or at least somebody thought they did, which could be used by some sort of automated analysis tool. It seems dumb to discard that information. It doesn't actually save anything to delete it; it's still taking up the same amount of database space, and it's actually fewer clicks to archive it than to delete it. So what's the benefit of deleting it? On the other hand... -- RoySmith (talk) 21:49, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @GeneralNotability: for raising this here. This particular case is very long-running. The edits are very obvious when you are familiar with them, but of course not all admins at AIV will have that familiarity. Having some kind of repository for the history of it is useful. I don't really mind where such a record is kept, just so long as it is kept. DuncanHill (talk) 22:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

All right, two people objecting is enough for me - I've restored the page. Still would like to discuss whether there's a better way to approach these. GeneralNotability (talk) 22:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I generally only delete or recommend deletion for IP only SPIs if the conclusion found was that it was likely caused by their IP address being dynamic and not through any deliberate block evasion or to evade scrutiny. Once it is likely that evasion has occurred I think deletion of the SPI may be less helpful as block logs or other pages are more likely to have referenced it for evidence when blocking, warning or doing some other action.

What else to call these IP only SPI cases is difficult. Some IP LTAs do have nicknames, but giving a nickname to most or all IP only SPIs will require a more structured system as it could easily get to a point where a proposed name is already in use for a different sockmaster with similar behavior. We shouldn't reassign the name to another IP only SPI, especially if this system provides a link to the SPI under the nickname, as this would break links and/or would lead older comments referencing the nickname.

I'm not sure of a system that would work, but it could be a template which maps nicknames to SPI case page names or vice versa. Alternatively it could be just redirects to the case page from the nickname (for example "IP on my network" could be a redirect to 192.168.1.1). Ideally the case page name should be the same as the IP/account listed in the {{SPIarchive notice}} template, but this nickname could also be included alongside it. This could be reversed too. However, because account names can be nearly anything (subject to limited technical restrictions) giving a nickname which then is a physical redirect to a case may become a problem if a sockmaster's oldest account is the nickname for the IP only SPI. As such, if the system of nicknaming IP SPI case pages becomes widespread, then to avoid this there can't be a redirect in a first level subpage. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 08:31, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

We ought to leave enough of a trail to be useful. The reports generally come from users with no sight of deleted revisions or CU evidence. (Try making sense of the CU block & Sock tags left by an IP on User talk:Kapamilyaasianseries03 for example) Deleting reports (other than the purely misguided, malicious or vindictive) is not conducive to open scrutiny or to allowing users to follow the trail of evidence.

It's also worth bearing in mind the WMF's stated intention to mask IPs in future. Either we find a way of linking old SPIs to new masked IPs (breaking the mask) or effectively give IP socks a clean slate to start over. Or go for the Portuguese solution & block all IPs from editing (require an account), which would save the WMF a load of work on their masking project. Cabayi (talk) 10:59, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@Cabayi, RoySmith, and Dreamy Jazz:} not trying to be snarky here, but who cares if an IP vandalizing is the same person? The issue with sockpuppetry is that it is a named account trying to deceive the community: either through claiming they are not blocked when they are, doing good hand-bad hand work, abusively seeking positions of community trust, editing logged out to avoid associating and account with their name in one of the areas listed by the sock policy, or something of the like. In cases of named LTAs with accounts, it is useful because we can point to a reason not to have to assume good faith. For IPs? Just block them and not worry about who they are. In my opinion, trying to tie IPs together isn't an effective use of time, and I'm plan to continue to G6 IP-only SPIs when I come across as outside of our scope. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:56, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

• I delete IP SPIs as a matter of course under G6. They're pretty useless and are also, by definition, not sockpuppetry since it is just an IP vandalizing by being an IP: dynamic and it changes as people move locations. Far outside of the scope of SPI. If someone wants to create a page on an IP-only LTA for documenting stuff, they can do so at WP:LTA. But don't waste our time at SPI with it. Those pages just add to the backlog and make it less managable. I strongly support GeneralNotability's initial deletion. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:44, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

  Fair. My reasoning for keeping them was to keep the evidence left in the archive for future reference, but I do see your point. Consider me neutral on this. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:35, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

• @GeneralNotability: @TonyBallioni: @RoySmith: I have identified a probable account sockmaster for this case - should I re-open the IP case or make a new one? DuncanHill (talk) 01:00, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

  Open an SPI under the name of the account you have identified. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:24, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

  OK, done at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Harry the house. DuncanHill (talk) 01:35, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Reworking CU instructions at Guide to filing cases

At L235's request, I've made fairly significant changes to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/Guide_to_filing_cases#Whether_or_not_to_request_CheckUser_in_a_case since the list of "when/when not to request checkuser" doesn't really agree with current practice (when's the last time you heard a request for CU get declined because it involved a current arbitration case? Why is CU necessary for obvious 3RR violations?). I've removed the old table and listed out what I think are the two most common cases that the average editor should be requesting CU: sleepers and complex cases ("I'm pretty sure these people are related but there's just enough wiggle room that I want CU to verify"). I've also trimmed down the no-CU section to the most common declines. I'll work on the wording some more, and might add a bit talking about factors that clerks and CUs weigh (might be a bit subjective, though...still thinking about that), but wanted to bring this to everyone's attention. Comments, improvements, etc. are all welcome, and if anyone objects to this, go ahead and revert and we can talk this over some more. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

@GeneralNotability: good work, I am still confounded with CU accepts vs. declines. I do have an improvement suggestion, modify "Suspicion of sleeper accounts" to "Suspicion of additional accounts", a often the suspicion is for additional active accounts and not just sleepers. I would also add that if the presented evidence points out to a large number of active accounts (e.g. a report with 12 new very similar accounts, in which CU was not needed to confirm), then CU would be appropriate as additional accounts are likely. If the only causee for CU was a history sleeper accounts or complex cases, we would never have the initial CU in non-complex cases.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 05:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I'll sometimes request (i.e. self-endorse) CU for tactical reasons. If there's a long chain of confirmed socks going back to the original master and the most recent one will go stale soon, it seems useful to get CU to extend the timeline another 90 days. But maybe that doesn't need to be called out in the public-facing instructions. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:33, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Exactly, I'm aware of "request CU to keep the trail fresh" but that's more a clerk/CU decision than a normal filer decision. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

@GeneralNotability and RoySmith: for what it's worth, the CU log is forever. All we have to do is click the log entry on the account to see the context of the check (example) and you can figure out the ISP/range, and usually the exact IP (though not always.) Recently confirmed socks give us UA data, but most of us are halfway decent at being able to rule out someone based on the log. Can't really confirm based on it, but ruling out is half the battle. Anyway, thought that might be relevant. Still use your discretion if you think it is useful, but wanted to paint a fuller picture. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:57, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, that's appreciated. I think there's still value to a clerk to be able to see an unbroken chain of confirmations. When I'm comparing behavior, I'll give more weight to a comparison against a confirmed sock than against a suspected one. Sometimes in cases with extensive archives, I'll pull out a subset of the old socks (i.e. just the confirmed ones) to study in more detail. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:16, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• LGTM. I added this noting that just because CU isn't requested doesn't mean we won't run it. While not common, intentionally not requesting CU is a favourite tactic of people trying to railroad their wiki-enemies when that game is being played. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:47, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• Great work and thanks to everyone involved. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 05:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Spicy appointed trainee clerk

Hi all, I am pleased to announce that Spicy has been appointed as a trainee clerk. Spicy will be trained in a cohort with Tamzin, with Blablubbs and I supervising his training, and GeneralNotability assisting as well. Welcome to the clerk team, Spicy! We're delighted to have you and excited to work with you. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:36, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Does this mean I no longer have to be on cafeteria duty? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 23:57, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

For europeans - the Washington Post doesn't play nice with GDPR. Cabayi (talk) 09:37, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like y'all just need more freedom. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 15:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

@Cabayi: What are Europeans meant to do with a page that says "The Wayback Machine has not archived that URL. This page is not available on the web because page does not exist"? DuncanHill (talk) 15:29, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Apparently it doesn't play well with archive.org either. I have a WaPo subscription. Executive summary: The US Supreme Court runs on seniority and everybody hazes the new guy. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:26, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Welcome :) TonyBallioni (talk) 00:48, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Glad to have you on board. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:16, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the clerk team Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 08:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks all, looking forward to helping out here :) Spicy (talk) 22:52, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• A belated, but no less heartfelt, "Welcome to the crew", Cabayi (talk) 09:37, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Local blocks for glocked accounts?

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dereck Camacho lists a bunch of glocked accounts and requests that they be blocked and tagged locally. Is there any value to doing this? Is there any strong reason not to do this? -- RoySmith (talk) 01:22, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I guess if they successfully appeal a global lock and the account is unlocked then having a local block in place would be good? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Callanecc but for a different reason. Global locks are poorly signalled. In the case of Dereck Camacho you need to scan his CA & look to the block on the Spanish wiki to get a handle on why the lock was applied (sock of Lucifer2000). A block on enwiki for his socks would do no harm & potentially make future socks easier to report. A |crosswiki=yes flag on its {{SPIarchive notice}} wouldn't hurt either. Lucifer2000 is the master. Cabayi (talk) 09:54, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Toward improved transparency

I invite everybody on Team SPI to read User talk:Mike Peel#Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Llywelyn2000/Archive. There are some legitimate points raised there. I would urge people not to read this in the context of any particular case, but rather to distill out the legitimate suggestions about how we could improve our processes. I realize we're all on the front lines of enforcement, and sometimes that gets ugly and repetitive and frustrating. It's good to take a step back and understand how things look to people who are not in the trenches with us.

The point which hit home with me is the issue of editing the SPI archives. I get why we don't want people to do that, but we don't communicate it well. What we do is chide people when they violate a rule that they're probably not even aware exists, and often their original question or complaint gets lost in the shadow of the "don't do that again" message. This doesn't jive well with WP:ADMINACCT.

I suggest we not clutter up Mike Peel's talk page any more, but rather pick this up here (if for no other reason than greater transparency). -- RoySmith (talk) 20:11, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Edit filter. Nice big warning for people who are not +CU or on a special list (the clerks list) that says "no, really, don't edit the archive". Seems straightforward enough to me. We do have a couple of filters that watch SPI archives, but those are mostly targeted at LTAs (I have 809 set to ping me on IRC whenever it hits, for example). GeneralNotability (talk) 20:15, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I feel old and tired now - thanks all. IRC seems to be dead (mostly on telegram now?) - no idea how you still get pings there. Still not sure what SPI refers to. THanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:20, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@Mike Peel SPI is an acronym for SockPuppet Investigations, the name for this whole process. firefly ( t · c ) 20:34, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Testing the filter at 1170 (log-only mode, of course). GeneralNotability (talk) 20:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

"Non-clerk/CU editing SPI archives" - huh? Mike Peel (talk) 20:52, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

log-10 only of course. Wouldn't want to see you go exponential. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:54, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

My filter-fu is pretty weak. Is there a way to present the user with a useful message such as "Editing the archives is reserved for members of the SPI team, please address any questions to ..." -- RoySmith (talk) 21:10, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

RoySmith, there definitely is...but I happen to know that you're hitting a different filter ;) Your testing alt hit 809, "possible SPI disruption," which covers a wide range of disruptive SPI behaviors performed by socks and LTAs, and I assume part of the problem is that the testing alt has a very low edit count and is editing the archives. 'zin is short for Tamzin did the same and got blocked for her troubles. 1170 currently doesn't have a message. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:43, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@GeneralNotability and RoySmith: Sure, this sort of thing can happen when you have fewer than 300k edits to the Wikimedia projects. Let me know when you're going to be serious again. Mike Peel (talk) 22:41, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Mike Peel, with due respect, what on earth are you talking about? The only person I see not being serious here is you: log-10 only of course. Wouldn't want to see you go exponential. Everything else has been testing a filter specifically to help address the confusion you encountered having about editing SPI archives. (And by my count, you have more edits than either Roy or I do, so I have no idea what the 300k edits crack was about). GeneralNotability (talk) 22:47, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm just calling an [aside] here on this conversation to prevent further escalation. --qedk (t 愛 c) 08:10, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I took a look through the discussion, and personally, I feel like the confusion here is a consequence of the unusually complicated nature of the SPI case in question. Most SPI cases are relatively straightforward and easy-to-understand, even to outsiders: they usually consist of succinct evidence that someone is abusively using multiple accounts and a brief statement from an administrator blocking based on the evidence. However, this particular case was unusually drawn-out; it looks very similar to an WP:ANI discussion, so someone unfamiliar with SPI might've expected an ANI-like closure (i.e. with a closing statement clearly displayed within an {{archive top}} template) before the discussion is archived. In other words, I feel that the opacity of this particular case is a one-off thing and not reflective of how SPI usually operates. Mz7 (talk) 07:49, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

It's worth clarifying the most significant difference between SPI and forums like WP:AfD. It's more fundamental than the use or lack of template-formattted closing statements. In AfD, the people in the discussion are expressing their opinions. The job of the closer is to summarize the group's opinions and figure out if any one opinion gained consensus. The AfD closer should not be expressing an opinion of their own. That's why AfD (AN, DRV, XfD, RFC, etc) closes usually include phrases like most people felt ..., or a minority view was .... At AN, it's often more explicit: The community has imposed ....

SPI is fundamentally different. There's no discussion per-se (although sometimes it degenerates into that). All of the stuff prior to the close is people providing evidence. Sometimes that even includes a checkuser reporting on the result of their investigation. The job of the closer is to look at all the evidence and make a decision, which they then own. This distinction can be seen in the first-person wording typically used: "I am blocking and tagging ...", or "I am closing this with no action taken".

This distinction is noted in the instructions for the two processes. WP:AFD says: Articles for deletion ... proceeds based on community consensus. Contrast with WP:SPI: Investigations are conducted by a clerk or an administrator, who will ... determine whether they are probably connected. If we were looking for a (US-centric) judicial parallel, it's the difference between a judge presiding over a jury trial vs a judge acting as a tribunal.

I think part of the confusion is our odd use of the word "clerk" at SPI. In general, clerks don't make decisions; they help move processes along, with the actual decision-making authority resting elsewhere. At AfD, the role of the closer is basically clerical, and I've often used exactly that phrase when explaining an AfD close I did to somebody who asked about it. The role of an Arbcom clerk also fits this pattern; the arbitrators make the decisions, the clerks just manage the virtual paperwork to support the arbitrators. The introduction to WP:SPI/C makes it sound like SPI clerks are much the same (assist the CheckUsers and community by managing the day-to-day running and housekeeping tasks but in reality they are deciding cases. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:22, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Except we're not the only ones who can decide cases. The only things clerks can do that normal admins can't are inherently clerical, off the top of my head: complex case-management activities like merges, endorsing CU, archiving cases, and telling people that they are no longer welcome at SPI. "Decide cases" isn't on that list, and any admin can act on a case at their own discretion. GeneralNotability (talk) 15:28, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Except that non-admin clerks do decide cases, and then get an admin to implement their decision. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:38, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

True. Just making the point that the decision process isn't restricted to clerks, though I guess it's restricted to (admin || clerk). It's weird, I agree. GeneralNotability (talk) 16:28, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

(Non-admin clerk comment) There's a general principle on this project that people should not close discussions that they lack the technical ability to enforce. However, certain specialized venues have long made exceptions. TfD lets non-admins close as delete. RM lets non-admins/non-pagemovers make closes that will require G6s, suppressredirects, etc. CP clerks (who, unlike other clerk teams, are non-admins by definition) can request deletion with (as I understand it) a similar level of deference as non-admin SPI clerks. Non-admin ArbCom clerks can request blocks to enforce arbspace pagebans. I think the unifying thing we see across most of these venues is situations where adminship does not necessarily correlate with knowledge of a specialized policy area. The thing that I suppose makes SPI (and ArbCom) clerks unique is there being situations where a non-admin clerk's authority exceeds that of a non-clerk admin... but ultimately an endorse is more a convenience matter for the CU team than an administrative action. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 18:35, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@GeneralNotability I've taken a first whack at an essay: User:RoySmith/essays/Please don't edit the archives. Folks should feel free to make improvements. Once your filter work is done, I think this should get moved into WP space somewhere, and your filter message should read something like, "Editing the SPI archives is restricted to whatever. See (link to the essay) for more details." I think that'll both head off people editing where they shouldn't, and provide a more user-friendly experience. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:40, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@RoySmith: I'd consider changing the title. Without context, I'd expect a page called "Please don't edit the archives" to be about why archived cases shouldn't be edited after the fact, not about the archiving process itself. I might suggest "Please leave archiving to the clerks", or something to that effect. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:32, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm, I need to think on that. The impetus for writing this was that people do indeed edit the archives after the fact. So, I think the title is right, but maybe the text needs to be updated to match the title? -- RoySmith (talk) 02:45, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@Sir Sputnik I've made some changes to make this all about why we want people not to edit, and got rid of most of the stuff about the archiving process. Good suggestion, thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:05, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Mexican media image vandal

Some might want to take a look at this.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Do you use LTA pages?

Prompted by the above thread, quick poll: who actually makes use of LTA pages while working SPI cases? -- RoySmith (talk) 13:50, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• Not so much "while working SPI cases", but I do sometimes make some use of some of them. I might either read them or link to them. The two things are a bit apples and oranges, IMO. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:04, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I have only used LTA pages in SPI once or twice, and mostly for looking to see what IPs are usually used by a sockmaster if an IP is reported (which is often listed in the infobox like thing on the right (not sure of the right name)). Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:22, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

{{Infobox vandal}}.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:34, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Bullseye grant proposal

Good afternoon all, I have submitted a Rapid Grant proposal for bullseye, a tool I have been working on to consolidate detailed information about IP addresses into a single view. It is primarily targeted at checkusers and stewards, but is usable by all editors. At the suggestion of one of the grant coordinators, I am informing potentially interested communities about this proposal. I welcome any and all feedback on the proposal. Best, GeneralNotability (talk) 17:06, 15 October 2021 (UTC)