Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search

Administrator instructions

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

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

  1. Evidence is required. When you open the investigation, you must immediately provide evidence that the suspected sock puppets are connected. The evidence will need to include diffs of edits that suggest the accounts are connected. (This requirement is waived if the edits in question are deleted; in this case just provide the names of the pages that the accounts have been editing.)
  2. You must provide this evidence in a clear way. Vaguely worded submissions will not be investigated. You need to actually show why your suspicion that the accounts are connected is reasonable.

Investigations are conducted by a clerk or an administrator, who will compare the accounts' behaviour and determine whether they are probably connected; this is a behavioural evidence investigation. Upon request, investigations can also be conducted by a CheckUser, who can look at the physical location of the accounts (and other technical data) in order to determine how likely it is they are connected; this is a technical evidence investigation.

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

Cases currently listed at SPI


Quick CheckUser requests

Arisedrew sockfarm

  • Erinpails (talk+ · tag · contribs·logs·filter log·block log·CA) · deleted contribs     · block user     · checkuser (log) · investigate
  • Smerdiese (talk+ · tag · contribs·logs·filter log·block log·CA) · deleted contribs     · block user     · checkuser (log) · investigate
  • Arisedrew returns (talk+ · tag · contribs·logs·filter log·block log·CA) · deleted contribs     · block user     · checkuser (log) · investigate
  • BananaYesterday (talk+ · tag · contribs·logs·filter log·block log·CA) · deleted contribs     · block user     · checkuser (log) · investigate

Erinpails' second edit was to repeat this edit by User:Smerdiese, who was blocked by User:Drmies as a sock of 'User:Arisedrew returns' (aka 'User:Arisedrew' aka 'User:Arisedrew Rises Again').

The IP addresses at The deletion request for the image involved, started by another memebr of the sockfarm, 'User:BananaYesterday', may be related. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:11, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing, this section is for requests that [do] not involve sock puppetry as noted above, however, one account you list is unblocked (and such will need an evaluation of whether a block is needed for sockpuppetry). If you could instead file this as a sockpuppet case with the oldest account you can find and request a CU if you so want, that would be great. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 20:08, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Dreamy Jazz, let me say real quick that I had a quick look, and I suggested to Andy that an SPI is warranted; what I really want is for someone to look at the IPs used and the range, and all the other accounts active on it. It's a bit beyond my grasp, also in terms of the characteristics of Arisedrew. Drmies (talk) 20:18, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Dreamy Jazz and Drmies: Apologies; now at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Arisedrew.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:03, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Closing this quick request section - now at full SPI case linked above. Mz7 (talk) 23:08, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Navboxes