User:Yunshui/SPI for beginners

Seen this fellow around? This page explains how to report him.

Wikipedia's rules generally prohibit editors from using more than one account, an activity known on the site as sockpuppetry. In cases where you have identified an account that you believe to belong to an existing user, you will need to instigate a sockpuppet investigation (SPI) to determine whether sockpuppetry is taking place, and to have any illegal accounts blocked by administrators. However, the process of starting an investigation can be a little intimidating, so this essay is intended to help you understand how to get one underway.

Before you begin

Sockpuppet investigations are fairly serious business - you are making an accusation of impropriety towards a fellow editor, and that can be construed as a personal attack if it's not substantiated. Frivilous or unsupported accusations of sockpuppetry can result in sanctions being applied against the filer. You don't need cast-iron proof to start an investigation, but there must be enough evidence that someone unfamiliar with the situation might think sockpuppetry was taking place. There are also legitimate reasons for using a second account; make sure that these do not apply.

Starting a new SPI

To open a new case, go to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. You will see a collapsed box after the introduction labelled How to open an investigation:; click the "show" link on the right. Enter the name of the master account in the box and click on the "Submit" link. The master account is the account you believe to be the oldest. If an investigation already exists for this account, don't worry; the software will automatically create a new entry in the appropriate place.

Filling in the form

Here's what the resulting page will look like.

{{subst:SPI report
|checkuser=no
<!-- Please do not enter anything in the subject/headline box!

If you want to request checkuser, simply change the line above this comment to checkuser=yes

For the list of suspected sockpuppets, you may use up to sock20 and ip20. If there are more than 20 socks or IPs, list them after creating the report by duplicating the {{checkuser}} and {{checkip}} templates. 
-->
|sock1=
|sock2=
|sock3=
|ip1=
|ip2=
|ip3=
|evidence= 
<!-- Enter your evidence above. You do not need to sign it - it will be signed for you. -->
<!-- PLEASE SUPPORT YOUR EVIDENCE WITH DIFFS; IT IS NOT UP TO ADMINS, CLERKS OR CHECKUSERS TO ESTABLISH YOUR ARGUMENT FOR YOU. -->
|admincomment=
<!-- Any comment here will go directly into the "Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments" section. 
DO NOT write anything here unless you are one of those three and know what you are doing. Just leave it blank otherwise. 
You MUST sign your comment with ~~~~. This feature is intended for pro forma reports (reports made for the record only, no action is required).
WARNING: Writing anything here will cause the case to be marked as CLOSED for the clerks to review and archive. -->
<!--|status= -->
<!--Uncomment the above line and put in an appropriate value for the parameter to set the status of the case manually. This overrides all other parameters. Intended for clerk use only. -->
}}

It looks a bit intimidating, but don't worry. Here's what you need to change, and what to change it to.

• |checkuser=no If you are requesting that a checkuser review the case (see below), change the "no" to a "yes".
• |sock1= After the = sign, enter the name of the first account you belive to be a sockpuppet, e.g. |sock1=Yunshui. Add |sock2=, |sock3= etc. in the same way, if there are several accounts. You don't need to include the "User:" prefix, and you can ignore the additional fields if you don't need them. If you need to, feel free to add |sock4=, |sock5= etc. on new lines.
• |ip1= Exactly the same as |sock1=, but for IP addresses. Again, ignore these if you don't need them (and if you do, feel free to add more lines (|ip4= etc.) as required).
• |evidence= After the = sign, write a short paragraph or two explaining why you believe these accounts to be sockpuppets. You will need to provide diffs (see below); don't simply say something like "see editing history". Remember, there must be enough evidence that an independent observer would think it worth investigating. Like the hidden notes say, you don't need to sign your name here.

That's it - those fields are all you need to fill in. Save the page in the usual way, and add it to your watchlist if you want to.

Requesting checkuser

Checkusers are trusted editors who can investigate the technical data (including the IP addresses) of registered Wikipedia accounts. This can only be done under fairly limited circumstances.

You should request a checkuser if:

• You strongly believe there are other accounts involved which you have not identified
• All of the accounts to be checked have been active recently (in the last three months)
• The evidence for sockpuppetry is fairly strong, but not conclusive

You should not request checkuser if:

• The sockpuppetry is extremely obvious (it fails the duck test) and you believe you have identified all of the sockpuppets involved
• The sockpuppetry is not at all obvious (if the behavioural evidence is very slight or circumstantial)
• The only sockpuppets are IP addresses
• The accounts involved have been inactive for at least three months

A sockpuppet investigations clerk will make the final decision on whether a checkuser investigation should take place.

Supplying diffs

Diffs are the most vital part of your evidence. To create a diff, go to the page history of the relevant article or talkpage, and locate the change which you want to use as evidence. Click on the "prev" link. Copy the URL of the resulting page, and add it to the SPI evidence in the format [url] (e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Yunshui&diff=674361972&oldid=674349240]). This creates a direct link to that change, meaning that it's easier for investigators to see what you're talking about.

What happens next?

After you file a case, it will be listed at WP:SPI as an open case. A clerk will review any request for checkuser, and will then categorise the case accordingly. If a checkuser has been requested and approved by a clerk, they will run an investigation and add the results to the bottom of the page.

Other users may choose to comment on the case, including the parties named. You can, if you wish, respond to their comments in the Comments by other users section, but try to avoid overlong debates or discussions here.

Once the checkuser has been done (if requested/approved) an administrator will review the case, taking into account the evidence you provided and the technical data. They will then decide whether or not to block any or all of the accounts involved. Once this decision has been taken and any necessary blocks applied, a clerk will mark the case as closed. After this, it will be archived for future reference. You don't need to be concerned with any of this; it won't affect you.

The chart below shows a simplified outline of the SPI process.

A simplified flowchart showing the SPI process