This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
There will now be an extra "SPI-Archive" button/tab/dropdown item/whatever alongside the standard "SPI" one when viewing a case marked as closed. Clicking it will cause the case to be archived. That's two fewer clicks! Yay! T. Canens ( talk) 00:38, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
I was filling a SPI case for User:Mujhideen101 but erroneously filed it at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mujahideen101. I have moved the contents of the report to the correct case page and marked the other for deletion but is this what should have been done? or I need to file the case again? Sorry for this mess up. -- SMS Talk 10:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Ya, on second thought, no. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 08:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC) | ||
---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
Before I went ahead and cleared half the users off the inactive list, I'd thought I would try and get a consensus here. I'm proposing that to show where our need in SPI is, and to get new trainees into the system, that we say a clerk, trainee, or potential trainee (obviously just the first part for potentials) need to have 50 edits over the past three months AND 10 different cases (like individual cases) edited over the past three months. That would put the following people up for removal right now:
Of course clerks could come back and let us know they want to be active again and we can readd them, and obviously
common sense applies. Feel free to tell me i'm out of my mind, or setting the bar too low, or that the whole idea is nuts. ;) And all who I'm proposing this "against", please note this has nothing to do with my feelings towards or about you, but the strain of the backlog on our active personnel. |
The CheckUser team over the past few days have been discussing which clerks are ready to become full clerks. On behalf of the CheckUser team, the consensus among currently active CheckUsers is that Reaper Eternal and Berean Hunter are to be promoted to full clerks. I have changed the list accordingly. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 04:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
All clerks are reminded that anyone requesting checkuser must provide at least two diffs; one for the sockmaster, and one per sockpuppet. It is not acceptable for users to not do so, and any such requests should be declined. You may use the template {{DiffsNeeded|cu=no}} to quickly do so, as it explains exactly what evidence is required for a check (checkusers may simply use {{DiffsNeeded}} with no cu argument). If any clerk is confused or otherwise does not understand this request, please contact me or leave a message here so I can make the reasons clear.
Note that I have requested this before, and I tire of posting these messages every few months, so please actually stick to it this time.
-- (ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 14:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
A beta version of the wizard, modeled on the wizard currently used at WP:DRN, is located at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/report. For now, to use it, you must first add the following line to your skin's js file:
importScript('User:Timotheus Canens/SPIW.js');
Once it's been more thoroughly tested, it can be rolled out to the whole site as a new gadget just like the DRN wizard. T. Canens ( talk) 16:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello team,
Realizing that SPI archives are getting rather large in some cases, I've modified the templates at the top of the page so that anything that is a subpage of the archive (ie. .../Archive/1, note /Archive/1 has to exist for the template to work), will be displayed. If you don't get exactly what i'm saying, take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole and it's two sub-archive pages which i've implemented. I do recommend that we stick to a uniform list of /Archive for current cases, /Archive/1 for the first batch that's too big to stay, /Archive/2...you get the idea. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 15:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello everyone,
So you know, I have requested the opinions of my CU colleagues offwiki for the next round of appointments. Currently being considered for promotion are:
I have not put Basalisk for consideration at this time, though I have mentioned it to my colleagues in case they wish to override. Please give us several days to establish a full consensus as discussions don't happen live, and sometimes discussions get long and drawn out due to difference of opinions.
I have also added a "Honorary clerks" section to the list for those who have been with us before, so we can recognize their contributions, and allow them to return as needed. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 07:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
There are some shenanigans going over at ANI over an SPI. ( Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Uninvolved_admin_needed_at_SPI.2C_PROUT.) I've looked at this case a ton, and may have confused myself. There is a ton of extraneous argument, but I'm sure something is going on but not entirely what. I would guess most of the accounts are involved but technical evidence may indicate otherwise. Then again, the technical evidence is suggestive of the fact that somebody is trying to evade checkuser. I really need a fresh set of eyes to look at this, and probably handle any blocks as I'm becoming increasingly involved in the issue over at ANI.
I previously closed it on the basis it had strayed so far, but upon going through contribs I re-opened because of the strangeness going on. It's not terribly productive right now, but it does need to be processed and there is a ton of evidence, although a lot of it is obfuscated. Assistance from any clerks/CUs would be immensely helpful. NativeForeigner Talk 17:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Comments from clerks would be appreciated at Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Archives/Archive12#Reporting socks already blocked as socks. Two users (who are not clerks) have weighed in, with opposing opinions, but I'd like to hear from the clerks who'd have to deal with the "paperwork" involved. (That is, I'd like to know whether making the type of report noted in the discussion is just going to be an annoyance for the clerks, or whether it would be welcomed from an SPI record-keeping perspective.) — Psychonaut ( talk) 14:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
A user created Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Imaginationaaaa shortly after I created Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Imaginationff. They both concern the same user. Could a clerk please merge the two reports? — Psychonaut ( talk) 14:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Kindly look into the page Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Benedictdilton. I had never tried to create a sock puppet in my small period in wiki pedia. Whatever matter happened was because of the lack of knowledge that same ISP cant be used by 2 users. I assure all administrators and clerks that such kind of matters will not repeat. Kindly take necessary action and if your decision is on my favour kindly remove the tag from my talk page. Seeing that tag generates a feeling in me that I am a cheat. Benedictdilton ( talk) 00:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
If there aren't objections, at this time I'd be willing to take Anthony Bradbury as a trainee. NativeForeigner Talk 10:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
This case got borked during archive some time back. Restoring and rearchiving didn't work, so I manually archived it. Not sure why, but I think I did it right, if someone wants to look. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 16:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I've moved Wikipedia:Dealing with sock puppets (aka WP:SOCKHELP) into meta space. Should be useful for users new to SPI. Still needs input. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
My report WP:Sockpuppet investigations/=HT=Chief isn't listed properly in WP:Sockpuppet investigations. It's the entry with the red background and timestamp 2013-08-10 17:53. — rybec 18:20, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
1=
as I have done
here.For those of you who did receive the email about training tomorrow, it has been postponed, and a later date will be in your inbox once I can find a good time for everyone. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 06:38, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
When a CU gives a confirmed result I generally use the checked sock if I'm going on just the CU evidence or confirmed sock if I've had a look at behaviour as well, I assume that's ok? My question is when CU pops a (highly) likely result, should I use the confirmed tag if I've had a look as well or the suspected sock tag? Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 01:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
To reflect the consensus view in a discussion among the checkusers, I confirm trainee King of Hearts as a full clerk. Thank you for your service. NativeForeigner Talk 16:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
To reflect the consensus view in a discussion among the checkusers, I confirm trainees Bbb23, Mark Arsten, and Someguy1221 as SPI Clerks. Thank you to all the clerks for their diligence and hard work: this process would fall apart without you. AGK [•] 13:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Liz - The way I've seen it, the position has three requirements:
The issue with a lot of the people that have unsuccessfully submitted themselves for consideration over the years is not generally point two (which is where having the mop is helpful), but point three. Indeed, was able to process a lot of SPI cases, even though I had to wait for other users to issue blocks. It certainly would have been easier had I had the mop, but I didn't need it to make an impact. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Special:MergeHistory - is this something that we can use? -- Rs chen 7754 06:42, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Just a FYI - while I may comment on SPI cases where I have taken action as a steward (including globally locking accounts), I am no longer serving as a clerk on those, similar to how some CUs don't clerk cases they ran checks on. (I only use steward tools on cases where there are significant cross-wiki issues, not for the simple enwiki-only cases that compose 95% of SPI). -- Rs chen 7754 03:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should consensus on new clerks be discussed and reached in a public forum by checkusers? Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 14:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
TheRedPenOfDooom ( talk · contribs) currently has their own SPI page and at least one sock tagged. Both of them are actually socks of TekkenJinKazama though - note the focus on Theo van Gogh. If someone has the time, would it be possible to move the TheRedPenOfDooom reports to Jin's page? Thanks! Ravensfire ( talk)
So, i've been meaning to post this for weeks now. My overall goal with the following proposals is to make SPI more user friendly, error-prone, and backlog heavy. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 03:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Problem: Cases that are often easily decided, sit in the “open” status for weeks on end.
Solution: We have all cases evaluated by a clerk of whether a CU is relevant. After this evaluation, they are either endorsed, or put into a “CU not needed” category (see next proposal for more info). Most filled cases actually appear in the opposite of where they should be (CU request vs. open). It’s also hard for users new to SPI to determine if a CheckUser is needed, as they don’t know what CUs check. --
DQ
(ʞlɐʇ) 03:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Problem: The wording of the status header, and color seem to indicate which cases are going to be handled, and which are going to be left. Example: The CU decline. Most people don’t want to go against the word of a CU. The word decline is a powerful word if we want the rest of the case to be processed.
Solution: Use the new system outlined at
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:DeltaQuad/Workshop&oldid=618477009 at the bottom of the page. The new headers would provide a more accurate description of how cases would be handled, and not looks so dismal if a case is declined. Also I’ve separated the difference between CU more info and administrative more info. --
DQ
(ʞlɐʇ) 03:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Problem: We don’t have enough clerks, nor the time to create a whole load of learning materials, whether they are admin clerks or not. We aren’t going to get many new admin clerks by not accepting non-admins here.
Solution: We have them review cases that have been dealt with, have them explore why the actions were taken, and what policies are relevant to that decision, and explain their own thinking process. We are then able to show them or answer any questions around why something was handled in a certain way. SPI is never black and white, and to try and put it into a material like such, I think would inhibit us more than help us. Then it's also a lot easier to facilitate a group, and move each invidiual along as they learn from an observation stage, to trainee, to full clerk. We could also consider a group of us doing it. --
DQ
(ʞlɐʇ) 03:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi all, I've created a new version on the group editnotice for WP:SPI pages (and subpages) at User:Callanecc/sandbox3. The main changes are that:
Regarding the WP:SPI page notice:
Before I do it, could I get a nod/comments/etc from some people @ DoRD, DeltaQuad, Ponyo, and Bbb23: plus everyone else. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 05:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I no longer seem to have the 1-click archive button; what happened to it? -- Rs chen 7754 03:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Should we be ramping up our recruiting efforts? Perhaps post an ad on WP:AN or something. The backlog is not getting any shorter these days. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi all, I've made a small change to the SPI helper script with Tim's okay which changed the "Confirmed sock" option to "CU confirmed sock" and uses a different tag which mentions that a CU has confirmed it. Shouldn't be a difference to how we do anything, just look a little different. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 12:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Back in September 2014, we embarked on a new type of training, a group type training. It's had it's plus and minuses, and I hope we can scope and change it to be better for future teams. The functionaries team has been recently discussing our new trainees. As a result of that discussion, there are some changes to the clerk list. The final recommended changes passed 13-0. They are as follows:
On behalf of the English Wikipedia CUs, -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
I am accused of being a sock puppet of Wikifixer ( talk · contribs) (doubly incorrectly) rather than of Wixifixer ( talk · contribs) (incorrectly)....
Would somebody correct the request's formal name "Wixifixer"before giving it the attention it deserves, please?
is a 21:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi all, I've made some changes to the {{ sockpuppet}} template after some discussion on the talk page and some associated changes to the SPIhelper script so the tagging options will look a little different. Have a look at Template:Sockpuppet#Usage for when to use the three of them ("Proven" is really the only difference, for when the account is a sock beyond reasonable doubt - those occasions when it's so obvious putting "suspected" there feels weird). Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 01:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Why is this page titled "Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerks" and not "Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Clerks"? Isn't the "SPI" part unnecessary? Or is it needed for some technical reasons? Vanjagenije (talk) 11:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Clerks (and our CU overlords), please see this discussion, which awaits your input: Template talk:SPI case status#New "awaiting info" status. Thanks! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Recently, through anti-vandal work, I have come across a handful of "IP hopping" or "multi IP vandalism" cases. I've also come across a few users, who seem to improperly clerking on RFPERM and SPI pages. However, these encounters have got me thinking about my role on Wikipedia and a recent barnstar I received from an admin, thanking me for keeping noticeboards organized, that is, in situations that I was either involved in or incidents, such as those on WP:DRN. I would like you to note is that my goal in mentioning the barnstar is not to boast about an acknowledgement, but rather use that as 'food for thought' towards offering myself for another role on Wikipedia. Without further ado, I'd like to offer myself as an SPI clerk trainee. Before making any decisions, I kindly ask that you note the following:
For CheckUsers: If there are any block log concerns, please see this. -- JustBerry ( talk) 21:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Comment: @ Bbb23: @ Vanjagenije: The report has been made here now, as requested, with the off-page discussion. -- JustBerry ( talk) 21:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Comment: JustBerry asked me to comment on the blocks, because I was the blocking administrator for the first of the sockpuppetry blocks, as well as the disruptive editing block that Bbb23 mentions above. I honestly don't recall the exact circumstances that led me to believe that JustBerry was operating multiple accounts—I think it was some comments on IRC, but I didn't start keeping IRC logs until several months after the incident. I spoke to a checkuser, who confirmed that JustBerry was indeed operating multiple accounts. I don't believe I was involved in the reblock two days later, though my memory of the incident is poor.
JustBerry has mentioned involving a checkuser or functionary in these discussions to try to clear up the block log situation, though I'm not sure that will be particularly helpful. Any checkuser data from the incident would long since be stale by now, so I suppose the only thing of use would really be the BASC discussions (which I've just noticed JustBerry has added to his explanatory page).
As for the disruptive editing block in June 2014, JustBerry made a series of 44 edits to my talk page over about 40 minutes. I blocked for 31 hours, as the disruption seemed to be ongoing. JustBerry mentioned not being able to track down an unblock request—from what I see, there was not an onwiki unblock request. JustBerry removed the block notice with the edit summary "I only ask that the block be removed from my talk page. I will silently obey it for 31 hours." and then posted a {{retired}} template soon after. I admit I'm a little surprised to see JustBerry attributing these edits to a script. They did not seem to me to be automated: the text within many of the templates was fairly personalized, the edits occurred at a fairly human pace, and it seemed unlikely that a script could be malfunctioning for forty minutes without the operator noticing. Furthermore, edits like this don't strike me as edits made by a script. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:59, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
However, making a final decision regarding clerking based off "past history," in my opinion, would be insufficient.What would this decision be based on, if not your past history? This includes your editing, your involvement in SPI-related areas, and your block log. I agree that people should keep in mind that some time has passed since these incidents, but I don't think it's inappropriate for people to inquire, particularly as some were sockpuppetry-related. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
On the list of SPI clerks, there are users who are classified as "trainees", but who has not made a single SPI edit in months. Should they be removed from the list? Also, I think the January 2015 training page should be closed/deleted. Candidates had more than 4 months to answer those question, but three out of four did not answer. They are obviously not interested in this anymore, so I think they should also be removed from the list of clerks. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:59, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Following a discussion among the checkusers, Salvidrim! and Vanjagenije are confirmed as full SPI Clerks. I give my, and I'm sure the other checkusers' thanks to all of the clerks for their devotion and hard work; the SPI process would not function without you! Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 11:27, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
The master for this recent SPI is Jonas Poole. In addition to CU confirmation there is also the typical "spitz" vs "spits" and whale overlap. Could a kind clerk merge the report to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jonas Poole? -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@ DoRD: Don't you think you should at least ask somebody to make you a clerk? Making yourself a clerk seams little odd. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Could I get a clerk to please merge Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FrozenFan2 to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bigshowandkane64? Elockid( BOO!) 17:38, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Could I get a clerk to please rename Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jabberwock2015 to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FiveSidedFistagon. Elockid Happy holidays! 23:43, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Today, I found a case looking like this. It was not tagged with {{ SPI case status}}, and so was not listed at the main WP:SPI page. I found it because it was on my watchlist. But, now I wonder how many pages are there that are orphans because they do not have {{ SPI case status}} and are not on anybody's watchlist. Do we have any way to search for such pages? Vanjagenije (talk) 10:46, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Is there some easy way to re-tag socks of AtlanticDeep ( Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of AtlanticDeep and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of AtlanticDeep) as socks of Random-5000? Those two cases were merged and Random-5000 is the master. Vanjagenije (talk) 01:19, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Should we remove Basalisk from the list of clerks? He is listed as a trainee of Reaper Eternal, but made no edits to the SPI for more than a year. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
I'll copy Finding #5 from the Kevin Gorman Arbitration Case to this talk page, as it directly addresses our work:
Sockpuppet Investigation Clerks are an integral part of the functioning of SPI, and their contributions are invaluable. The Arbitration Committee takes this opportunity to thank them for their dedicated work. However, they do not have authority to overturn a checkuser block, or to permit someone else to do so.
☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:41, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
@ Salvidrim!, Mike V, Callanecc, and Bbb23: Should we run a new group training? There are many requests above and seams that a process is heavily backlogged again. I am willing to help as much as I can. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Should this be merged to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Orangemoody? Also there're Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Habiibil.-- GZWDer ( talk) 06:55, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Everyone. After failing to obtain enough comments on the functionaries list for promotion of this round of users, I have decided to poll the SPI Team instead to get comments about promotions. Full SPI Clerks please help us form a consensus on this. So without further ado: -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Samwalton9 ( talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
@ Samwalton9: Do you want to clerk?-- Bbb23 ( talk) 19:46, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
L235 ( talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
Excluding the group training, I have substantively worked on the following (80) SPIs[.] . . . I endorsed CheckUser 21 times (and CU was subsequently declined 0 times, although one CU noted that CU wasn't strictly necessary in that case). I declined CheckUser six times; of those times, CheckUser was subsequently run (or endorsed) twice.Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
QEDK ( talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
They've clearly started editing SPI now that it's been made apparent continued activity at SPI is a critical metric.Tbh, I have work and co-curricular on top of high school and that's the reason I consistently take breaks. Moreover, if I work at SPI, it's because I want to, not because I want a (apparently) higher status. -- QEDK ( T ☕ C) 16:23, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Ivanvector ( talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
I agree that the group training should be finished now and trainees should work freely on SPI cases". That was 23 days ago. Now you say that you have not been working at SPI because we told you not to. But, I actually told you to work freely. Not just me, others also agreed. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:47, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
I merged two sets of SPI cases where it had been requested and marked {{
SPI case status|admin}}
by a non-admin clerk. I did not realize that this function should only be performed by admin clerks. I hadn't reviewed the
SPI merging procedures since clerk training so I only noticed that detail when I went back to check out them out but I had already done the merges. My apologies and if another admin clerk/CU could review the cases, I think that would be the seeming remedy for my misstep.
Thanks, Mkdw talk 23:31, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Following up on a thread up the page, is there any interest among the team in discussing the highs and lows of the past trainings, especially the most recent, with the goal of hammering out a good process for future group trainings? There's not a desperate need for more clerks at the moment, so now would be a good time to talk about it absent pressure to expedite training. Although it would be nice to have more redundancy here :) Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 15:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
I undid
my closure here because it is incomplete. There are three accounts that are confirmed but behavior needs evaluation. I got tangled here because I can't look into deleted articles for commonalities. I'll be asking for the tools back to solve this but in the meantime please do not consider the "now looking" portion of my edit summary to mean that I still am. If another admin clerk wants to work it then by all means please do.
—
Berean Hunter
(talk) 16:54, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
I just advised a user to mark a case as "clerk assistance required" (case requires merging but no other action), tonly to realize that status doesn't exist. Is there any opposition to making one? I suppose it could be useful for CUs are well in some cases. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I am requesting that another admin clerk double check my case merge of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MyronTimpson to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HarveyCarter, as well as the merge from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MyronTimpson/Archive to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HarveyCarter/Archive. In the initial move, the primary page succeeded but the archive page failed so I did this manually but got a database failure:
...so I ended up having to copypaste the info in the archive to get it restored. At least I think everything is at least recorded correctly.
—
Berean Hunter
(talk) 15:19, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello all! In the coming months the Anti-Harassment Tools team plans to build a feature that we hope will allow users to better investigate user conduct disputes, called the Interaction Timeline. In short, the feature will display all edits by two users on pages where they have both contributed in a chronological timeline. We think the Timeline will help you evaluate conduct disputes in a more time efficient manner, resulting in more informed, confident decisions on how to respond.
But — we need your help! I’ve created two designs to illustrate our concept and we have quite a few open questions which we need your input to answer. Please read about the feature and see the wireframes at Wikipedia:Community health initiative on English Wikipedia/Interaction Timeline and join us at the talk page!
Thank you, — CSinders (WMF) ( talk) 19:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
There will now be an extra "SPI-Archive" button/tab/dropdown item/whatever alongside the standard "SPI" one when viewing a case marked as closed. Clicking it will cause the case to be archived. That's two fewer clicks! Yay! T. Canens ( talk) 00:38, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
I was filling a SPI case for User:Mujhideen101 but erroneously filed it at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mujahideen101. I have moved the contents of the report to the correct case page and marked the other for deletion but is this what should have been done? or I need to file the case again? Sorry for this mess up. -- SMS Talk 10:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Ya, on second thought, no. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 08:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC) | ||
---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
Before I went ahead and cleared half the users off the inactive list, I'd thought I would try and get a consensus here. I'm proposing that to show where our need in SPI is, and to get new trainees into the system, that we say a clerk, trainee, or potential trainee (obviously just the first part for potentials) need to have 50 edits over the past three months AND 10 different cases (like individual cases) edited over the past three months. That would put the following people up for removal right now:
Of course clerks could come back and let us know they want to be active again and we can readd them, and obviously
common sense applies. Feel free to tell me i'm out of my mind, or setting the bar too low, or that the whole idea is nuts. ;) And all who I'm proposing this "against", please note this has nothing to do with my feelings towards or about you, but the strain of the backlog on our active personnel. |
The CheckUser team over the past few days have been discussing which clerks are ready to become full clerks. On behalf of the CheckUser team, the consensus among currently active CheckUsers is that Reaper Eternal and Berean Hunter are to be promoted to full clerks. I have changed the list accordingly. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 04:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
All clerks are reminded that anyone requesting checkuser must provide at least two diffs; one for the sockmaster, and one per sockpuppet. It is not acceptable for users to not do so, and any such requests should be declined. You may use the template {{DiffsNeeded|cu=no}} to quickly do so, as it explains exactly what evidence is required for a check (checkusers may simply use {{DiffsNeeded}} with no cu argument). If any clerk is confused or otherwise does not understand this request, please contact me or leave a message here so I can make the reasons clear.
Note that I have requested this before, and I tire of posting these messages every few months, so please actually stick to it this time.
-- (ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 14:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
A beta version of the wizard, modeled on the wizard currently used at WP:DRN, is located at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/report. For now, to use it, you must first add the following line to your skin's js file:
importScript('User:Timotheus Canens/SPIW.js');
Once it's been more thoroughly tested, it can be rolled out to the whole site as a new gadget just like the DRN wizard. T. Canens ( talk) 16:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello team,
Realizing that SPI archives are getting rather large in some cases, I've modified the templates at the top of the page so that anything that is a subpage of the archive (ie. .../Archive/1, note /Archive/1 has to exist for the template to work), will be displayed. If you don't get exactly what i'm saying, take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole and it's two sub-archive pages which i've implemented. I do recommend that we stick to a uniform list of /Archive for current cases, /Archive/1 for the first batch that's too big to stay, /Archive/2...you get the idea. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 15:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello everyone,
So you know, I have requested the opinions of my CU colleagues offwiki for the next round of appointments. Currently being considered for promotion are:
I have not put Basalisk for consideration at this time, though I have mentioned it to my colleagues in case they wish to override. Please give us several days to establish a full consensus as discussions don't happen live, and sometimes discussions get long and drawn out due to difference of opinions.
I have also added a "Honorary clerks" section to the list for those who have been with us before, so we can recognize their contributions, and allow them to return as needed. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 07:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
There are some shenanigans going over at ANI over an SPI. ( Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Uninvolved_admin_needed_at_SPI.2C_PROUT.) I've looked at this case a ton, and may have confused myself. There is a ton of extraneous argument, but I'm sure something is going on but not entirely what. I would guess most of the accounts are involved but technical evidence may indicate otherwise. Then again, the technical evidence is suggestive of the fact that somebody is trying to evade checkuser. I really need a fresh set of eyes to look at this, and probably handle any blocks as I'm becoming increasingly involved in the issue over at ANI.
I previously closed it on the basis it had strayed so far, but upon going through contribs I re-opened because of the strangeness going on. It's not terribly productive right now, but it does need to be processed and there is a ton of evidence, although a lot of it is obfuscated. Assistance from any clerks/CUs would be immensely helpful. NativeForeigner Talk 17:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Comments from clerks would be appreciated at Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Archives/Archive12#Reporting socks already blocked as socks. Two users (who are not clerks) have weighed in, with opposing opinions, but I'd like to hear from the clerks who'd have to deal with the "paperwork" involved. (That is, I'd like to know whether making the type of report noted in the discussion is just going to be an annoyance for the clerks, or whether it would be welcomed from an SPI record-keeping perspective.) — Psychonaut ( talk) 14:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
A user created Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Imaginationaaaa shortly after I created Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Imaginationff. They both concern the same user. Could a clerk please merge the two reports? — Psychonaut ( talk) 14:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Kindly look into the page Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Benedictdilton. I had never tried to create a sock puppet in my small period in wiki pedia. Whatever matter happened was because of the lack of knowledge that same ISP cant be used by 2 users. I assure all administrators and clerks that such kind of matters will not repeat. Kindly take necessary action and if your decision is on my favour kindly remove the tag from my talk page. Seeing that tag generates a feeling in me that I am a cheat. Benedictdilton ( talk) 00:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
If there aren't objections, at this time I'd be willing to take Anthony Bradbury as a trainee. NativeForeigner Talk 10:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
This case got borked during archive some time back. Restoring and rearchiving didn't work, so I manually archived it. Not sure why, but I think I did it right, if someone wants to look. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 16:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I've moved Wikipedia:Dealing with sock puppets (aka WP:SOCKHELP) into meta space. Should be useful for users new to SPI. Still needs input. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
My report WP:Sockpuppet investigations/=HT=Chief isn't listed properly in WP:Sockpuppet investigations. It's the entry with the red background and timestamp 2013-08-10 17:53. — rybec 18:20, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
1=
as I have done
here.For those of you who did receive the email about training tomorrow, it has been postponed, and a later date will be in your inbox once I can find a good time for everyone. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 06:38, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
When a CU gives a confirmed result I generally use the checked sock if I'm going on just the CU evidence or confirmed sock if I've had a look at behaviour as well, I assume that's ok? My question is when CU pops a (highly) likely result, should I use the confirmed tag if I've had a look as well or the suspected sock tag? Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 01:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
To reflect the consensus view in a discussion among the checkusers, I confirm trainee King of Hearts as a full clerk. Thank you for your service. NativeForeigner Talk 16:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
To reflect the consensus view in a discussion among the checkusers, I confirm trainees Bbb23, Mark Arsten, and Someguy1221 as SPI Clerks. Thank you to all the clerks for their diligence and hard work: this process would fall apart without you. AGK [•] 13:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Liz - The way I've seen it, the position has three requirements:
The issue with a lot of the people that have unsuccessfully submitted themselves for consideration over the years is not generally point two (which is where having the mop is helpful), but point three. Indeed, was able to process a lot of SPI cases, even though I had to wait for other users to issue blocks. It certainly would have been easier had I had the mop, but I didn't need it to make an impact. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Special:MergeHistory - is this something that we can use? -- Rs chen 7754 06:42, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Just a FYI - while I may comment on SPI cases where I have taken action as a steward (including globally locking accounts), I am no longer serving as a clerk on those, similar to how some CUs don't clerk cases they ran checks on. (I only use steward tools on cases where there are significant cross-wiki issues, not for the simple enwiki-only cases that compose 95% of SPI). -- Rs chen 7754 03:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should consensus on new clerks be discussed and reached in a public forum by checkusers? Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 14:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
TheRedPenOfDooom ( talk · contribs) currently has their own SPI page and at least one sock tagged. Both of them are actually socks of TekkenJinKazama though - note the focus on Theo van Gogh. If someone has the time, would it be possible to move the TheRedPenOfDooom reports to Jin's page? Thanks! Ravensfire ( talk)
So, i've been meaning to post this for weeks now. My overall goal with the following proposals is to make SPI more user friendly, error-prone, and backlog heavy. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 03:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Problem: Cases that are often easily decided, sit in the “open” status for weeks on end.
Solution: We have all cases evaluated by a clerk of whether a CU is relevant. After this evaluation, they are either endorsed, or put into a “CU not needed” category (see next proposal for more info). Most filled cases actually appear in the opposite of where they should be (CU request vs. open). It’s also hard for users new to SPI to determine if a CheckUser is needed, as they don’t know what CUs check. --
DQ
(ʞlɐʇ) 03:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Problem: The wording of the status header, and color seem to indicate which cases are going to be handled, and which are going to be left. Example: The CU decline. Most people don’t want to go against the word of a CU. The word decline is a powerful word if we want the rest of the case to be processed.
Solution: Use the new system outlined at
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:DeltaQuad/Workshop&oldid=618477009 at the bottom of the page. The new headers would provide a more accurate description of how cases would be handled, and not looks so dismal if a case is declined. Also I’ve separated the difference between CU more info and administrative more info. --
DQ
(ʞlɐʇ) 03:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Problem: We don’t have enough clerks, nor the time to create a whole load of learning materials, whether they are admin clerks or not. We aren’t going to get many new admin clerks by not accepting non-admins here.
Solution: We have them review cases that have been dealt with, have them explore why the actions were taken, and what policies are relevant to that decision, and explain their own thinking process. We are then able to show them or answer any questions around why something was handled in a certain way. SPI is never black and white, and to try and put it into a material like such, I think would inhibit us more than help us. Then it's also a lot easier to facilitate a group, and move each invidiual along as they learn from an observation stage, to trainee, to full clerk. We could also consider a group of us doing it. --
DQ
(ʞlɐʇ) 03:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi all, I've created a new version on the group editnotice for WP:SPI pages (and subpages) at User:Callanecc/sandbox3. The main changes are that:
Regarding the WP:SPI page notice:
Before I do it, could I get a nod/comments/etc from some people @ DoRD, DeltaQuad, Ponyo, and Bbb23: plus everyone else. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 05:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I no longer seem to have the 1-click archive button; what happened to it? -- Rs chen 7754 03:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Should we be ramping up our recruiting efforts? Perhaps post an ad on WP:AN or something. The backlog is not getting any shorter these days. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi all, I've made a small change to the SPI helper script with Tim's okay which changed the "Confirmed sock" option to "CU confirmed sock" and uses a different tag which mentions that a CU has confirmed it. Shouldn't be a difference to how we do anything, just look a little different. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 12:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Back in September 2014, we embarked on a new type of training, a group type training. It's had it's plus and minuses, and I hope we can scope and change it to be better for future teams. The functionaries team has been recently discussing our new trainees. As a result of that discussion, there are some changes to the clerk list. The final recommended changes passed 13-0. They are as follows:
On behalf of the English Wikipedia CUs, -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
I am accused of being a sock puppet of Wikifixer ( talk · contribs) (doubly incorrectly) rather than of Wixifixer ( talk · contribs) (incorrectly)....
Would somebody correct the request's formal name "Wixifixer"before giving it the attention it deserves, please?
is a 21:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi all, I've made some changes to the {{ sockpuppet}} template after some discussion on the talk page and some associated changes to the SPIhelper script so the tagging options will look a little different. Have a look at Template:Sockpuppet#Usage for when to use the three of them ("Proven" is really the only difference, for when the account is a sock beyond reasonable doubt - those occasions when it's so obvious putting "suspected" there feels weird). Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 01:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Why is this page titled "Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerks" and not "Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Clerks"? Isn't the "SPI" part unnecessary? Or is it needed for some technical reasons? Vanjagenije (talk) 11:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Clerks (and our CU overlords), please see this discussion, which awaits your input: Template talk:SPI case status#New "awaiting info" status. Thanks! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Recently, through anti-vandal work, I have come across a handful of "IP hopping" or "multi IP vandalism" cases. I've also come across a few users, who seem to improperly clerking on RFPERM and SPI pages. However, these encounters have got me thinking about my role on Wikipedia and a recent barnstar I received from an admin, thanking me for keeping noticeboards organized, that is, in situations that I was either involved in or incidents, such as those on WP:DRN. I would like you to note is that my goal in mentioning the barnstar is not to boast about an acknowledgement, but rather use that as 'food for thought' towards offering myself for another role on Wikipedia. Without further ado, I'd like to offer myself as an SPI clerk trainee. Before making any decisions, I kindly ask that you note the following:
For CheckUsers: If there are any block log concerns, please see this. -- JustBerry ( talk) 21:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Comment: @ Bbb23: @ Vanjagenije: The report has been made here now, as requested, with the off-page discussion. -- JustBerry ( talk) 21:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Comment: JustBerry asked me to comment on the blocks, because I was the blocking administrator for the first of the sockpuppetry blocks, as well as the disruptive editing block that Bbb23 mentions above. I honestly don't recall the exact circumstances that led me to believe that JustBerry was operating multiple accounts—I think it was some comments on IRC, but I didn't start keeping IRC logs until several months after the incident. I spoke to a checkuser, who confirmed that JustBerry was indeed operating multiple accounts. I don't believe I was involved in the reblock two days later, though my memory of the incident is poor.
JustBerry has mentioned involving a checkuser or functionary in these discussions to try to clear up the block log situation, though I'm not sure that will be particularly helpful. Any checkuser data from the incident would long since be stale by now, so I suppose the only thing of use would really be the BASC discussions (which I've just noticed JustBerry has added to his explanatory page).
As for the disruptive editing block in June 2014, JustBerry made a series of 44 edits to my talk page over about 40 minutes. I blocked for 31 hours, as the disruption seemed to be ongoing. JustBerry mentioned not being able to track down an unblock request—from what I see, there was not an onwiki unblock request. JustBerry removed the block notice with the edit summary "I only ask that the block be removed from my talk page. I will silently obey it for 31 hours." and then posted a {{retired}} template soon after. I admit I'm a little surprised to see JustBerry attributing these edits to a script. They did not seem to me to be automated: the text within many of the templates was fairly personalized, the edits occurred at a fairly human pace, and it seemed unlikely that a script could be malfunctioning for forty minutes without the operator noticing. Furthermore, edits like this don't strike me as edits made by a script. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:59, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
However, making a final decision regarding clerking based off "past history," in my opinion, would be insufficient.What would this decision be based on, if not your past history? This includes your editing, your involvement in SPI-related areas, and your block log. I agree that people should keep in mind that some time has passed since these incidents, but I don't think it's inappropriate for people to inquire, particularly as some were sockpuppetry-related. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
On the list of SPI clerks, there are users who are classified as "trainees", but who has not made a single SPI edit in months. Should they be removed from the list? Also, I think the January 2015 training page should be closed/deleted. Candidates had more than 4 months to answer those question, but three out of four did not answer. They are obviously not interested in this anymore, so I think they should also be removed from the list of clerks. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:59, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Following a discussion among the checkusers, Salvidrim! and Vanjagenije are confirmed as full SPI Clerks. I give my, and I'm sure the other checkusers' thanks to all of the clerks for their devotion and hard work; the SPI process would not function without you! Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 11:27, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
The master for this recent SPI is Jonas Poole. In addition to CU confirmation there is also the typical "spitz" vs "spits" and whale overlap. Could a kind clerk merge the report to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jonas Poole? -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@ DoRD: Don't you think you should at least ask somebody to make you a clerk? Making yourself a clerk seams little odd. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Could I get a clerk to please merge Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FrozenFan2 to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bigshowandkane64? Elockid( BOO!) 17:38, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Could I get a clerk to please rename Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jabberwock2015 to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FiveSidedFistagon. Elockid Happy holidays! 23:43, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Today, I found a case looking like this. It was not tagged with {{ SPI case status}}, and so was not listed at the main WP:SPI page. I found it because it was on my watchlist. But, now I wonder how many pages are there that are orphans because they do not have {{ SPI case status}} and are not on anybody's watchlist. Do we have any way to search for such pages? Vanjagenije (talk) 10:46, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Is there some easy way to re-tag socks of AtlanticDeep ( Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of AtlanticDeep and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of AtlanticDeep) as socks of Random-5000? Those two cases were merged and Random-5000 is the master. Vanjagenije (talk) 01:19, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Should we remove Basalisk from the list of clerks? He is listed as a trainee of Reaper Eternal, but made no edits to the SPI for more than a year. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
I'll copy Finding #5 from the Kevin Gorman Arbitration Case to this talk page, as it directly addresses our work:
Sockpuppet Investigation Clerks are an integral part of the functioning of SPI, and their contributions are invaluable. The Arbitration Committee takes this opportunity to thank them for their dedicated work. However, they do not have authority to overturn a checkuser block, or to permit someone else to do so.
☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:41, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
@ Salvidrim!, Mike V, Callanecc, and Bbb23: Should we run a new group training? There are many requests above and seams that a process is heavily backlogged again. I am willing to help as much as I can. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Should this be merged to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Orangemoody? Also there're Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Habiibil.-- GZWDer ( talk) 06:55, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Everyone. After failing to obtain enough comments on the functionaries list for promotion of this round of users, I have decided to poll the SPI Team instead to get comments about promotions. Full SPI Clerks please help us form a consensus on this. So without further ado: -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Samwalton9 ( talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
@ Samwalton9: Do you want to clerk?-- Bbb23 ( talk) 19:46, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
L235 ( talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
Excluding the group training, I have substantively worked on the following (80) SPIs[.] . . . I endorsed CheckUser 21 times (and CU was subsequently declined 0 times, although one CU noted that CU wasn't strictly necessary in that case). I declined CheckUser six times; of those times, CheckUser was subsequently run (or endorsed) twice.Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
QEDK ( talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
They've clearly started editing SPI now that it's been made apparent continued activity at SPI is a critical metric.Tbh, I have work and co-curricular on top of high school and that's the reason I consistently take breaks. Moreover, if I work at SPI, it's because I want to, not because I want a (apparently) higher status. -- QEDK ( T ☕ C) 16:23, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Ivanvector ( talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
I agree that the group training should be finished now and trainees should work freely on SPI cases". That was 23 days ago. Now you say that you have not been working at SPI because we told you not to. But, I actually told you to work freely. Not just me, others also agreed. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:47, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
I merged two sets of SPI cases where it had been requested and marked {{
SPI case status|admin}}
by a non-admin clerk. I did not realize that this function should only be performed by admin clerks. I hadn't reviewed the
SPI merging procedures since clerk training so I only noticed that detail when I went back to check out them out but I had already done the merges. My apologies and if another admin clerk/CU could review the cases, I think that would be the seeming remedy for my misstep.
Thanks, Mkdw talk 23:31, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Following up on a thread up the page, is there any interest among the team in discussing the highs and lows of the past trainings, especially the most recent, with the goal of hammering out a good process for future group trainings? There's not a desperate need for more clerks at the moment, so now would be a good time to talk about it absent pressure to expedite training. Although it would be nice to have more redundancy here :) Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 15:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
I undid
my closure here because it is incomplete. There are three accounts that are confirmed but behavior needs evaluation. I got tangled here because I can't look into deleted articles for commonalities. I'll be asking for the tools back to solve this but in the meantime please do not consider the "now looking" portion of my edit summary to mean that I still am. If another admin clerk wants to work it then by all means please do.
—
Berean Hunter
(talk) 16:54, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
I just advised a user to mark a case as "clerk assistance required" (case requires merging but no other action), tonly to realize that status doesn't exist. Is there any opposition to making one? I suppose it could be useful for CUs are well in some cases. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I am requesting that another admin clerk double check my case merge of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MyronTimpson to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HarveyCarter, as well as the merge from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MyronTimpson/Archive to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HarveyCarter/Archive. In the initial move, the primary page succeeded but the archive page failed so I did this manually but got a database failure:
...so I ended up having to copypaste the info in the archive to get it restored. At least I think everything is at least recorded correctly.
—
Berean Hunter
(talk) 15:19, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello all! In the coming months the Anti-Harassment Tools team plans to build a feature that we hope will allow users to better investigate user conduct disputes, called the Interaction Timeline. In short, the feature will display all edits by two users on pages where they have both contributed in a chronological timeline. We think the Timeline will help you evaluate conduct disputes in a more time efficient manner, resulting in more informed, confident decisions on how to respond.
But — we need your help! I’ve created two designs to illustrate our concept and we have quite a few open questions which we need your input to answer. Please read about the feature and see the wireframes at Wikipedia:Community health initiative on English Wikipedia/Interaction Timeline and join us at the talk page!
Thank you, — CSinders (WMF) ( talk) 19:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)