Wikipedia

User:Cabayi/Clerking

< User:Cabayi

February 18, 2019 edit

Okay, let's begin!

First, you need to install the SPI scripts, which you can find by editing any SPI case page and opening the 'indicators and other notes' green box. Specifically, you need Timotheus Canens' SPI helper. The mark blocked script is good too, but I think there's a gadget or beta feature now that does the same thing.

Next, If you haven't already done so, please read Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerk and checkuser procedures. After that, please answer the following questions:

  1. What kinds of behavior are considered disruptive from a policy standpoint?
  2. What can a clerk do in a case?
  3. What can't a clerk do in a case?
  4. When evaluating a new case, what would be your checklist of things to look at?
  5. When evaluating a reopened case, what would be be your checklist of things to look at?
  6. What is the role of a patrolling admin at SPI?
  7. What time zone are you in? (I'm in UTC -6/-5)

If you have questions, don't hesitate to ask me, ping one of the other clerks, or ping another CU. We're well aware how daunting it can be to learn this stuff, and there are no dumb questions. I'll put your name on the clerk trainee' list on Friday. :-) Katietalk 19:24, 18 February 2019 (UTC)


Scripts installed, gadget turned on...

Preferences → Gadgets → Appearance →   Strike out usernames that have been blocked

...ready to go.

  1. What kinds of behavior are considered disruptive from a policy standpoint?
  2. What can a clerk do in a case?
    • archive cases,
    • remove or refactor (within reason) any material by any user that is not strictly relevant to SPI,
    • repair faulty reports,
    • move reports to the correct master (leaving a redirect) if they're filed under the wrong username,
    • endorse or decline requests for CheckUser, and, once out of training,
    • ask users to cease patrolling or posting to SPI pages (other than to open a case or present evidence) if there are problems.
      • What if you disagree with a CU's decision in a case?
        • Ask for an explanation so I can get it right next time round. I may query their call one more time if I think they've misunderstood me but, at the end of the day, the CU is accountable for their use of the tools, I'm not.
  3. What can't a clerk do in a case?
    • merge reports, including moving a case to a username which has previously had a case filed against it. (presuming you mean a non-admin clerk)
    • archive reports they closed
  4. When evaluating a new case, what would be your checklist of things to look at?
    • I'd firstly want to gather a quick overview to get a feel for the case. The first points are the ones which show up under navpops - are the users longstanding accounts with large numbers of edits? are they blocked? are they locked? Then I'd want to check the body of the report to see whether the report cited any WP:ILLEGIT activity. At this point I'd take a first sanity check - two longstanding accounts !voting the same way at AFD would not likely be worth spending any more time on, an author with a vexatious history on their talk page or in the article's history and a new WP:SPA would merit a deeper look. If the report involved the re-creation of an article (persistent autobiographer for example) then I'd ask an admin to compare the current & deleted versions. Investigate the reported evidence, check for corroborating or exonerating evidence, bearing in mind that some of it may be on commons or wikidata. Does the evidence show WP:ILLEGIT activity, for example, are the edits overlapping or does one account edit then the other with no overlap? Reassess & check whether there's enough evidence in editing patterns, peculiarities, shared typos and the like for a behavioural close, or to justify a CU according to the CheckUser criteria. Write up conclusion & recommendation (if the CU hasn't taken it to closure), ranging from a warning for careless use of legitimate alternate accounts, through short block for master and indef for sock, to the ultimate of indef all round or a ban for CU checked repeat offenders. Tag for admin action or closure.
  5. When evaluating a reopened case, what would be be your checklist of things to look at?
    • Much the same as the previous explanation. I'd additionally check the outcome of the previous case and compare the evidence in the current report to that of the original report to check for a continuation of the same patterns. If both reports were mistaken then look into advising the user about their editing behaviour to avoid repetition or perhaps the reporting editor is WP:WIKIHOUNDING and needs to be warned off or referred for admin intervention.
  6. What is the role of a patrolling admin at SPI?
    • Reviewing the clerk's recommendations & rationale and, if they agree, implementing them, or otherwise questioning them.
      • What can and can't an admin who is not a clerk do at SPI?
        • Implement the clerk's recommendations - i.e. block users; or are you after another answer?
        • Compare versions of articles with deleted versions & report back.
  7. What time zone are you in? (I'm in UTC -6/-5)
    • UTC 0/+1 near London. Is -6/-5 the zone which includes Chicago?
      • Yes, it is. I live 40 miles (64 km) north of Tulsa.
Where the text said block I assumed that includes lock. I threw in mention of navpops as it's the only way I'm aware of to quickly spot locked users. Cabayi (talk) 18:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Global locks will show on the user's contribs page in a pink box like a blocked user will, but popups is a good way to see it. I lean on popups way, way too much myself. ;-) Global locks and local blocks sometimes confuse people. You'll occasionally have to get steward assistance, so are you clear on the difference, and understand why we sometimes locally block even though there's a global lock (and likewise with global/local blocks)?
    • MediaWiki talk:Gadget-markblocked.js#Globally locked and blocked users - hopefully Enterprisey will come up with another way.
    • I'm clear on the difference. I've not seen any reasoning (or requests) around mirroring global & local blocks. I presume (lock mirrored as block) it's so there's some local input needed before the user can edit again on this wiki and (block mirrored as lock) the user's vandalism has occurred on more than one wiki and it's obvious they'll be WP:NOTHERE on other wikis too if given the chance.
  • And are you familiar with IPv4 and IPv6 network addressing? It's not required knowledge by any means but it will be very helpful to you. Katietalk 02:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
    • I'm good with IPv4, and have a grasp of IPv6 but little experience. I've not had any experience of CIDR notation but (correct me if I'm wrong) it seems to be a replacement for subnet masks, 255.255.255.0 -> /24, 255.255.0.0 -> /16.
      • Pretty much. The CU tool limits us to an IPv4 /16 and a IPv6 /32. We're also limited to 5,000 results.

February 23 edit

Sorry I've been AWOL – family stuff. :-/

  • Family comes first. Hope all is well.

Some more questions:

  • I referenced sleepers above, but what is a sleeper? When do you endorse for a CU to "look for sleepers"?
  • Sleepers are accounts created, and perhaps taken as far as acquiring autoconfirmed (especially since WP:ACPERM), but not used for the puppetmaster's principal objectives at that point, just kept ready for future use. When used, they look a bit more credible than brand new WP:SPAs.
    • We're getting better at catching them in the user creation logs thanks to the automated things like Huggle, but we've had sleepers that are more than ten years old. I'm finding more sleepers used for UPE purposes than for abuse these days, which is kind of alarming.
  • When you endorse for CU, do you need to say why?
  • Since CU's need to log their use of the tools, a reason needs to be provided. I don't suppose it matters whether it's in the initial report or I add it at endorse or self-endorse, so long as it's clear to the CU what the justification is.
    • Yes. When you get to that point, you can lay out your case like you already know how to do, then use {{selfendorse}}.
  • How do you decide whether to block based on behavior or endorse for CU? Disregard the 90-day limitations of the CU tool for our purposes here.
  • Is it necessarily an "or"? I can easily imagine cases where the socks reported are clear cut behavioural blocks, and the possibility of sleepers would also indicate the need for a CU.
    • Well, I don't want to run CU on an account that's already blocked. A, what's the point, and B, I don't have a reason to do it within the privacy policies unless I suspect abuse.
  • I'd request CU if:
  • the master isn't clear, or it's clear the master is an account which hasn't been reported;
  • the case has a history of sleepers, or the report includes a sleeper; or
  • the evidence of foul play exists but there's a plausible expectation that two unrelated users just coincidentally piled in on the issue at the same time.
  • (afterthought) If you were looking to block a number of IPs a CU could help to more accurately define the scope of the range to be blocked.
    • I'd go with a regular admin there. You can see the range contribs yourself by enabling the CIDR gadget, which you will find under Preferences/Gadgets/Advanced. If you need a walkthrough on its use, I can do that. :-)
  • I'd request a block on behaviour alone if the evidence supported it, and I had little expectation that CU would add to the case, any expectation of sleepers, or (more marginally) a CU had recently been performed. This one was behaviourally obvious with a low expectation of sleepers (vanity rather than deception seems to have been his driving motive) so I wouldn't have requested CU.
    • DUCK blocks are going to take up a lot of your time. Thankfully, most sockmasters are not sophisticated and they're relatively easy to spot.

I've added you to the list of clerks. Please create a template based on User:GeneralizationsAreBad/ClerkAtWork with your username. It doesn't have to be identical but it should be clear you're a trainee, that you need to process the entire case without interference unless requested, and it should have a link to your user page or talk page. You'll use this template in the Clerk/CU/patrolling admin section of every case you take on until you're promoted or you run screaming for the hills. You don't have to reveal your gender if you don't want to; they/them is perfectly acceptable.

Once you've created the template, pick three cases in the 'Open' section you'd be comfortable working on and let me know what they are. I'll then assign you one of them as your first case. You can include the Lucy case as one of your three, or you can leave it alone. If you include it, though, be aware I might not assign it to you if you choose something I think would be better as a first case.

  • Whichever case you think I'd learn most from. If you want a list of 3, let's say the most recent 3 which haven't been claimed yet.
  • Nope, you pick. This is also an exercise in following directions. ;-)
On the basis that Suvision is a bit too COI (it's my report), Lucyintheskywithdada feels like I'd be going over the same ground (though I'll go through it as I outlined if you wish) and I've already cautioned Meherdeepak7090 3 days ago I'll choose:
-- Cabayi (talk) 20:56, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Take your time with all the above. I know it's a lot. Have you used IRC in the past? There's an SPI channel if you're interested, and several CUs frequent IRC, though not as many clerks. Katietalk 02:04, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

  • I've not used IRC. I'll set it up. Any software recommendations? Cabayi (talk) 10:44, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Thunderbird includes an IRC client. I'll start there since I've already got it installed. Cabayi (talk) 11:13, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
  • You'll need a cloak; instructions here. Don't go into -en without a cloak, 'cause some LTAs occasionally lurk there. Katietalk 18:32, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I requested the cloak yesterday & was sent to a page saying it could take a couple of days to set up as they're processed in batches. The instructions also say no notification is given. So, do I just try to use it at some point? Cabayi (talk) 20:56, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Yep, that's exactly what you do. I can push Fox to do it sooner if you really really want it, but there's no rush. They'll get to it this week. As far as clients, I'm on a Mac and I use Textual; I see a lot of KiwiIRC, which is a web-based client. I'll occasionally use Mutter if I have a desperate need to get on IRC while on iPhone/iPad, but that rarely happens. The app is good, though. Katietalk 19:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

February 19, 2019 edit

I only see a couple of good training cases atm, so take a look at these and tell me how you'd proceed. If they've been checked/declined/otherwise actioned, tell me if you agree or disagree and why.



– Katietalk 02:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Lucyintheskywithdada edit

Brahma Kumaris seems to bit of a battleground. There's an intriguing change this diff attributed to (Username or IP removed), which isn't something I've ever come across - is it indicative of an oversighted change?

Talk:Brahma Kumaris includes Bksimonb's COI declaration. In some places he's been content to request edits (6 Feb 19), yet he's also made edits on the same day. A lawyer friend keeps talking of the "clean hands doctrine" which looks like a perfect fit here.

Neither editor is following an entirely neutral line and it pushes me toward thinking this is a content dispute that's blown out of perspective.

That having been said, given that The Cosmic Dung Beetle is a WP:SPA who came and went in a 70 minute window sockpuppetry is a real possibility. There again, Bksimonb's history looks like an SPA too and he may have WP:OWNership issues.

The article has been under probation for 12 years. If I had the attention of a passing arbcom member I might give them a gentle nudge ;-).

  • Hey, WP:ARCA is thataway, buddy. ;-)

As I switch to examining the previous reports I find that my points about SPA & OWN echo those concerns expressed by the socks... *gulp*. Many of those reports were filed by Bksimonb. While there was a steady stream of socks from 2009-10, one in 2011, one in 2013, and a number of IPs in 2015.

  • Yeah, it can be a bit of an eye-opener sometimes. Often they have good points but just can't play within our rules.

Digging into the particulars of the report:

  • "His first action is to apply a COI and Advert tag to an article that has been virtually untouched for a few years" - both articles featured in the report have been frequently edited. This particular of the report is erroneous.
  • "Also edits the same section of the Rāja yoga article that previous incarnations have edited. As this account Special:Diff/878584700" - appears a perfectly reasonable edit. I don't believe editing the same section of an article is indicative of anything at all.
  • The final three points of the report,
  • Changes "Education" to "Indoctrination" [1]
  • Adds the word "their" before any mention of God [2]
  • Example of similar bias (line insert 242) "and that all souls originally existed with their God in a "Soul World", a world of infinite light, peace and silence they call Paramdham. Here, they claim souls" [3]
seem more actionable, but need to be supported by examples of where previous socks have done the same. Without that we're in danger of assuming any editor who has issues with the article (or disagrees with Bksimonb) is a puppet.

I think my action would be :

  • to ask Bksimonb for more evidence on those final three points to tie The Cosmic Dung Beetle to previous socks,
  • to ask the relevant projects to undertake some cleanup on the two articles mentioned, so that our friendly passing arbcom member has some reason to review the probation. Cabayi (talk) 14:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Lucy hasn't showed up at SPI in more than three years as an IP and five years as a registered user. Usually, but not always, a sockmaster who's been gone that long has given up. Blocking under this master would need some pretty extraordinary behavioral evidence. That said, the first article edit being a maintenance tag indicates this is probably not a new user. Agree with your plan to ask for more info. The cleanup request can't be a clerk action, just as an editor. And like I said, ARCA is over there, though I'd wait until this guy is blocked or not. Katietalk 01:22, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

123Aristotle edit

It appears I have previous history with this case through a case which, by way of several mergers, ended up in this case... Liangshansan -> Sanshengsans -> Mokezhilao -> 123Aristotle. The case is closed now, but I'll take a look. Cabayi (talk) 15:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

29 January 2019 edit

WQL's evidence, hinting at the block of 5258 on zh: [4], of Chinavip, and of Mascot598 together with 123Aristotle's history of socks & sleepers would support the request for CU.

20 February 2019 edit

Less clear cut. Two new accounts and an IP look suspicious. The IP geolocates to Paris while the subject matter of the draft would suggest a Chinese link. The two overlapping accounts might merit a CU - on the evidence given a lot would depend on the credibility of the reporter, Timmyshin, and your knowledge of his ability to discern sockpuppetry. Given the proximity to the CU on the previous report it's a judgement call - I think I might request CU. Even so, I'd feel glad that Berean Hunter took it on himself to do another CU unprompted. Cabayi (talk) 15:41, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

22 February 2019 edit

Another report - Openyoureye was already blocked on zh before the report here with entries which navpops show as linking to SOCK & MEAT. I'm unsure of the cost/benefit of doing another CU so soon after the last one. I'd request an indef block. Also I wonder if it's possible to get the blocking admins on zhwiki to request global locks for socks in this cluster as they come across them since they seem to be ahead of enwiki? Cabayi (talk) 19:52, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

  • 123Aristotle is persistent and we often find sleepers during the checks. That's likely why BH took it. This UPE ring really drives us nuts. They typically geolocate to China (that's not a privacy violation – I can tell you the general area of an LTA as long as I don't link to specific IPs/ranges) so it's rough getting a global lock, as we don't want to restrict editing from any IP in China that may be accessible. And if you weren't aware, CU duties for the Chinese Wikipedia are handled by the stewards and the WMF. Good conclusions here. Good job. :-) Katietalk 01:29, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

February 26 edit

Your first case: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Joqool1237. An example of how to use the training template is here. If you have any difficulty, let me know. :-) Katietalk 19:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I read this one as a duck. The master appears 3 days after the death of the article's subject & the socks thereafter, all of them WP:SPA. The IP edit got a {{uw-login}} & I'd leave the IP at that. Indef the socks (including the fresh one who appeared while I was looking) & 3 days for the master? Not that the circumstances give any hint that the master will stick around after the eulogies are done. Cabayi (talk) 21:37, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
KrakatoaKatie - Done. Cabayi (talk) 21:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Some would indef all three, but this is a good, non-bitey choice. Be very clear when you give instructions to the patrolling admins. Tell them that you left a warning for the IP but not to block it. Otherwise you'll either get asked about it, which will delay the account blocks, or they'll block the IP for three days as well. You also have the option of asking for the article to be semi-protected, though this history is a little sporadic for me to think that would do much good. Nice work. :-)
Thanks. I get the feeling that this is grieving kith & kin rather than the start of an LTA. This manifestation of the grief will probably pass before there are enough BLP violations to justify semi-prot - at least, I hope so. Cabayi (talk) 22:03, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Also, I went ahead and blocked/tagged/closed this one so you could see the syntax we use. Ordinarily while you're in training, if there's action on one of your cases that should bring it to its conclusion, it will fall to you to close it. The double check will come when one of the other clerks archives it.
Thanks. Cabayi (talk) 22:03, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
The tag on User:Joqool1237 is just to show me the syntax? Its indef message doesn't agree with the 3 day block. Cabayi (talk) 22:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Huh. That's an interesting bug in the blocking script. I'll have to let Tim know about that. Thanks for the catch. At any rate, I meant the language used to close the case. Katietalk 22:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Yup, got it. Cabayi (talk) 23:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Also put a {{coiedit}} editnotice on the article to push the point home. Cabayi (talk) 22:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Take Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ali1872 next. No hurry, doesn't have to be done tonight, though I'll be around for a while. Katietalk 21:51, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Quickly saw that the two accounts reported were the same, mostly through their shared esteem for Aga Syed Hussain's matriculation, Special:Permalink/872116732, Special:Diff/881830056, but just between the two accounts they don't overlap. One stops, then the other starts. There's no transgression unless they're tied to the master.
Then checked Special:WhatLinksHere/Agha Ashraf Ali which links to the master and a previous sock. Also, the image used in Draft:Agha Ashraf Ali, File:Agha Ashraf Ali.jpeg was uploaded by the master. That's beyond coincidence & I'm now satisfied by the behavioural evidence.
Clear case of block evasion, indefs all round. Cabayi (talk) 23:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
KrakatoaKatie - Done. Cabayi (talk) 23:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
What about the draft? Anything to be done there? Why not ask for CU? Katietalk 20:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
The draft would be eligible for G5.
I didn't ask for CU because there seemed to me to be enough behavioural evidence for these socks and there was no indication of sleepers being part of this master's MO. Cabayi (talk) 20:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Good. Also, CU is stale, which is what I was going for. Go ahead and tag the draft for G5, and note that you've done so in your comments with a link to the draft. Otherwise our sockmaster gets what he wants and we aren't gonna give it to him. :-D Katietalk 21:01, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
CU is stale for the master. But if we've established these two socks behaviourally, CU would be able to tie sleepers to the socks??? Cabayi (talk) 21:20, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

February 27 edit

Two cases today:

What's your checklist for archiving a closed case? Katietalk 21:01, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Puppypaw7 edit

The evidence leaves me cold. It seems to revolve around editing Tushar Pandey & Draft:Tushar Pandey 3 weeks apart with no overlap, and starting edit summaries with "Just..." which is just a common tic. TheRock171's contributions look like someone gaming WP:ACPERM like a pro. Puppypaw7's look more like a Barkha Sharma fan. Despite my respect for GSS having seen the sig all over for years, I don't feel {{MoreInfo}} would be productive. I'm inclined to {{Decline}}. Cabayi (talk) 21:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Declined & closed. Cabayi (talk) 08:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. TheRock171 gamed autoconfirm to make an article on an Indian entertainer, which is a red flag for UPE. Right now, there's not enough for me to either block or run a check. Katietalk 17:50, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Xdeluna edit

Timmyshin's evidence looks compelling which he has had experience of catching. Given taht there's been a recent (non-stale) case and the archive shows CU has uncovered sleepers in the past. I'd request CU for corroboration of strong behavioural evidence & a sleeper check. Cabayi (talk) 22:05, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

CU, blocked, tagged, G5s, closed. Cabayi (talk) 08:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yeah, we're always hopeful that CU is someday going to help us with Xdeluna again. I'll keep whacking at them. Good job. :-) Katietalk 17:50, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Checklist edit

  • Ensure the case is really closed & take a peek at the history to ensure it was closed by who it claims to have een closed by.
  • Ensure all the accused socks are accounted for, either blocked or cleared, not just overlooked.
  • Any outstanding follow up actions such as user tagging & G5s.
  • Archive.
Cabayi (talk) 22:32, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Tell me about some times when we would not tag. Katietalk 17:50, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Other than the obvious case of not tagging IPs, that's something I've never understood. I've found it frustrating to be able to tie a user to a blocked sock but, through the lack of tagging or SPI case, been unable to tie it to a master. Cabayi (talk) 18:08, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

March 1 edit

Good work all around. Please pick three cases you'd like to handle and list them here. You can include cases in the checked/green category; most of those need behavioral analysis. Katietalk 17:50, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Argh – you can also take cases in yellow, to endorse or not for CU. Katietalk 17:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Yellow (there's only one still live)
Green
Light pink
I'm out this evening. I'll have a few hours to work on what's assigned in the morning. Cabayi (talk) 18:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Okay to all three. I'll check back in the morning. Have a good night. :-) Katietalk 18:55, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Claimed all three. Will be on the case in the morning. Cabayi (talk) 19:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Erikjimflo250902 edit

A peek at Special:CentralAuth/Erikjimflo250902, Special:CentralAuth/ErikJ.F.250902, Special:CentralAuth/ErikJ.F.2509, & Special:CentralAuth/Elchavojimenez shows they were all blocked for "Abuso de múltiples cuentas" & it's no great leap, given the usernames & the Spanish probe to see they're linked. [5] ties Creator2790 to ErikJ.F.250902.

Three of the accounts have edited La Voz... México, sequentially, with no overlap, & a large gap between them. No reversions, no complaints, no blocks. Two of the accounts haven't edited this wiki at all.

They're clearly the same person, (absolutely no need to CU) but haven't broken the rules on this wiki. If I'd encountered this myself I think I'd have stuck {{uw-agf-sock}} on each of the accounts. Advice please? Cabayi (talk) 00:26, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


The options I see are:

  1. They've done nothing contrary to the rules on this wiki, leave them be.
  2. Hand out a cautionary message to ErikJ.F.250902 and {{uw-agf-sock}} to the others, which gives Erik the metaphorical rope to go hang himself.
  3. Hand out a {{uw-sockwarn}} to ErikJ.F.250902 and block the others (which might ignore the possibility of WP:LEGIT but is in accord with what happened on eswiki).
  4. Block the lot. But you do get cases like Wikicology (talk · contribs) who was blocked here but has become a sysop on yo:. Should we be denying ErikJ.F.250902 that opportunity to improve? Cabayi (talk) 09:51, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Reading WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE I'm veering toward the 3rd option - warn ErikJ.F.250902, block the others. Trying to make sense of the username, does 250902 hint that we're dealing with a 17 yr old. Cabayi (talk) 16:13, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Moved to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ErikJ.F.250902, cautioned the master, requested indefs for the 4 socks, and left scope for the responding admin to block the master too if they feel it's warranted. Cabayi (talk) 22:42, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Manda 1993 edit

The CU results had already been analysed to pieces. There was nothing to do but hand out G5s & close.

Looking at Template:Checkuser, the CA link goes to m:Special:CentralAuth/Manda 1993 despite enwiki having pretty much the same page Special:CentralAuth/Manda 1993. I was thinking of changing the template to stay onwiki so that the my installed js will let me see blocked users, but it lacks the "Previous global account changes" section to see who set the global lock. Do we care who set the global lock? -- Cabayi (talk) 09:21, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Terryfirut edit

The evidence wasn't compelling, asked for moreinfo which indicated possible block evasion. CU requested & came up as no match. Perhaps I should have given more weight to the length of time the two accounts were both editing "harmlessly" (for want of a better word). Cabayi (talk) 09:21, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

  • I think the behavior's different between these two, and not at all related to Terryfirut. Terryfirut was changing infobox images, while Trin5ty was changing numbers at random and Es204L seems to be editing in good faith. We've got two or three sockmasters editing around weather and hurricanes/cyclones, and it's difficult to keep them straight. It was worth a look here, I suppose. Katietalk 14:53, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

March 5 edit

Nice work. You're doing a great job. You can begin archiving closed cases. Be sure to check closely for errors or unfinished work.

I'm also going to turn you loose a little. You can now begin choosing cases to work without prior permission. You don't have to run through your reasoning here while working the case. (We're probably going to delete this page anyway, after a reasonable period of time, per BEANS.) Two requests: first, list anything you choose here so I can review the SPI after you're done, and second, be sure you ask questions of me or the CU/clerk who's worked the case before if you're confused or puzzled about anything.

Sorry I've been away. I've got a cold or maybe the flu, and I just feel terrible. It will probably be tomorrow morning before I check back here. Unless I barf up a lung or something, which is entirely possible at this rate. :-/ Katietalk 14:53, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I was starting to worry about you. Hope you're feeling better soon & keep your full quota of lungs.
Puppypaw7 got a CU from Berean Hunter which turned up trumps. BH has kindly explained what I missed. There's nothing eligible for G5. There is an OTRS ticket on one of the socks upload, File:Barkha Sharma- The Brunette Diaries.jpg. With your OTRS hat on, is it relevant, would you care? Should I raise it on c:Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard ? Other than that I think it's ready for a another close. Cabayi (talk) 16:21, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Since Katie is under the weather, I'll jump in with some information. Note the author name on that file compared to one of the confirmed socks. That file was previously uploaded at c:File:BarkhaSharma-profile-pic.jpg, c:File:Barkha_S.jpg, and c:File:BarkhaSharma.jpg. The upload logs show two accounts that didn't turn up in BH's check. Based on the private information in the OTRS ticket, this is undeclared paid editing. I left a note on the ticket for any agent that may handle it. Given the paid editing and history of some of the involved articles, it wouldn't surprise me if there is an older blocked master. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:27, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Archived :

Questioned :

-- Cabayi (talk) 17:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

March 6 edit

Enough for today. Cabayi (talk) 21:00, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

March 7 edit

and fyi - Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard#Edit filter helper for User:Cabayi. -- Cabayi (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

March 9 edit

March 10 edit

Came to an opinion on Wolf Cola & Kishfan.

Archived :-

The only one I couldn't archive was Sharafuhere because it was mine.

And after dithering over whether Farooqahmadbhat should be archived under Jaan Nissar Lone saw that Jaan Nissar Lone was tagged as a sock of Farooqahmadbhat. Archived. Cabayi (talk) 18:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

March 11 edit

Done for today. Cabayi (talk) 16:23, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

March 12 edit

Done for today. Cabayi (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

March 13 edit

Done for the day. Cabayi (talk) 18:55, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

March 14 edit

  • Kishfan has kicked off again, selfendorsed, came back as part of Wolf Cola's crew (surprise, surprise), request block for IP, tagged the named socks (block logs point to Kishfan but WC is the master).
  • Regstuff closed after getting advice from DQ & RE.
  • Dr. Christina Rahm Cook requested 3 days for the master, indef for the socks.
  • Iuscaogdan everybody's blocked, closed.
  • 123Aristotle indef sock on 9Mar case, archived the closed cases, recovered the 9Mar case which got archived as well.

--Cabayi (talk) 18:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

March 15 edit

March 16 edit

  • Retagged Linked03 and Uniflo as proven thanks to GAB's advice.
  • Queried Kishfan with Bbb23 by email - I'm stuck. May need to drop the case as I don't think a fourth opinion would have any credibility. Cabayi (talk) 19:43, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

March 17 edit

March 18 edit

March 19 edit

March 20 edit

March 21 edit

March 22 edit

March 23 edit

March 24 edit

March 25 edit

March 26 edit

March 27 edit

March 28 edit

March 30 edit

March 31 edit

April 1 edit

  • Gonzafer001, admitted, indef for sock, 1mo or more for master.
  • Nsmutte endorsed.... multiple cases, blocks, merger, closed
  • Spoonkymonkey declined CU, moreinfo. Three Lobes (talk · contribs) got blocked as an LTA so no moreinfo will be forthcoming. Closed.
  • MTwomey123 filed, self-endorsed. Socks confirmed to each other, tagged, article 30/500 protected, closed.
  • Qmbv self-endorsed, confirmed +1, indefs requested. Cabayi (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

April 2 edit

April 3 edit

April 4 edit

April 5 edit

April 12 edit

April 15 edit

April 16 edit

April 17 edit

April 18 edit

Park away; I don't mind at all ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
& closed Irobertson34 again. Cabayi (talk) 20:37, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

April 19 edit

April 20 edit

April 21 edit

KrakatoaKatie, I don't want to be the needy trainee but it's over 6 weeks since you said anything at all? Cabayi (talk) 19:53, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

You are not a needy trainee. Quite the opposite. I'm in the 'no news is good news' camp, and I've been checking behind you, though I've been doing it at SPI and not here. You're doing great, and I'm going to turn you loose from listing your cases here. You'll still put the template on the cases you work until we (the functionaries) promote you. We'll have that discussion in another couple of months. If you have questions, ping me or another clerk or CU, because I don't use the watchlist. I don't anticipate you'll have any problems from here on out, though.
Sorry I've been so quiet, but I had the flu, I've had headaches, and there is a lot of arbcom behind the scenes stuff going on that I unfortunately have to handle. There are only a couple of experienced CUs on the committee and the bulk of the things requiring extensive CU checks and auditing falls to Rob and me. I should be more active on-wiki next week. (I hope.) Katietalk 16:54, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
KrakatoaKatie, So long as you're feeling better, and I'm not screwing up, all is well with the world. :-) Thanks for the release. Cabayi (talk) 17:53, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

April 22 edit

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Cabayi/Clerking&oldid=893641894"