Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet Request for IP and User

Suspected sockpuppets (in my mind, but not sure)

I recently was searching for this article: Mugham. I observed an entirely (Iranian?) POV-pushing by the User: Zheek. On his talk page the IP 96.255.251.165 was convincing in pushing so called "Iranian sources". Their interests seem to be within the same domain (active since August 2012). The same case is viewable on User: Qatarihistorian (active since 29 July 2012), since his edits are highly suggested being of the same Iranian interests, using the Arabic term "Qatari" as an alibi for pushing entirely Iranian (more precisely Mesopotamian and Central Asian) related sock-organized POV. The IP 96.255.251.165 aroused more suspicion by being involved in a recent Sockpuppet Investigation. Interestingly when the sockpuppets were exposed, suddenly User: Zheek began to undid an edit done by one of those socks on the article: Ergenekon. The IP 96.255.251.165 did the same on the article: Kaveh the blacksmith. More interesting is that the User: Zheek did his edit at 11:05, on 2 September 2012, so before (at 19:33, on 2 September 2012) the IP 96.255.251.165 even informed User: Zheek to be attentive on the articles done by the exposed sock-edits. Supposing I am wrong, then how User: Zheek became attentive on Ergenekon (11:05, on 2 September 2012), when the IP 96.255.251.165 removed the referencing to "Ergenekon" from the "==See also==" segment of the article Kaveh the blacksmith at 21:11, on 1 September 2012. At the same time this is the most fishy point regarding my Sockpuppet Request for these Users. We don't need such POV-Pushing users at Wikipedia. - Intelinside13core (talk) 10:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Aditionally, here I have found another possible sock of the IP 96.255.251.165:

Khodabandeh14 became active again since 15:42, 12 August 2012, so it fits exactly to the period where all users became active within a few weeks. Comparing both contribution list it is not difficult to suggest that Khodabandeh14 is an older sock of the IP. Furthermore it is highly possible that Kurdo777 ist the leading creator of the socks:

Here we have a recent sock case: [1]

  • Khodabandeh14 and Kurdo777 are talking with their own IP (96.255.251.165). Seriously, this is sock at its best.

Another sock case: [1]

  • Zheek, together with his IP (96.255.251.165) is reverting.

Here another cases: [1], [2]

  • Qatarihistorian and his IP 96.255.251.165 are writing on the masters talk page.

And again here: [1]

  • Zheek and his IP 96.255.251.165 are advertising for their own sock aims.

- Intelinside13core (talk) 09:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

First, filer is continuing a dispute that surfaced at ANI and elsewhere, and is himself a sock of Tirgil34 (talk · contribs) (SPI).
With that background I'm not particularly inclined to work through the above chaos. At a glance, I'd say that
show a strong correlation and are likely the same person. I have not attempted to determine whether there was abuse of multiple accounts, or whether any of the other named accounts above might be related. I'd say Zheek is probably not a new user though. Amalthea 09:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Evidence clarification...diffs are required for CU

Please see this case. I asked for evidence pursuant to a checkuser request and this is the admin's response although I had directly cited our CU specific instructions. Could I get clarification on this please?

I'm inclined to start skipping every case where I don't see some effort on the filer's part. Alternatively, I can just close as no action taken based on insufficient evidence. I don't see why this burden is being passed onto the clerks and checkusers.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I have commented there. The specifics of Scibaby socks were discussed in the Climate change arbitration case back in 2010. Risker (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Obviously this is all about trying to accommodate i) WP:BEANS, ii) standard SPI procedure which demands evidence, and iii) assumption of clerk and CheckUser familiarity with a given sockmaster. The reality is that the actions of clerks and CheckUsers are not an extension of the thought process of the case filer, and if there is no evidence and explanation presented, then there is no case. WilliamH (talk) 17:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I concur with William, but disagree that we should be ignoring cases without sufficient evidence. This has been an issue that both CheckUsers and clerks have been attempting to address for well over a year now. As such, I do not think that changing instructions is going to do anything about it; there are just too many users who only file an SPI case once a year and are unfamiliar with our reporting requirements. Instead, both clerks and CheckUsers should try and be understanding of the reporting parties concerns, and instead of chastising them for not living up to our evidence standards, work with them. I am not asking clerks to spend hours digging through contributions looking for evidence, but instead leave a note on the filing parties talk page or in the clerk heading of the SPI case. Explain to them why it is important that we are so careful about these cases as we would rather let 10 "guilty" users be left unblocked then block one "innocent" one. As for just simply closing a case because it lacks evidence, that is completely counterproductive to our goal here. If the issue is that the case load is too great for our current clerk staff, then work in getting more clerks. Last I checked, there was a long list of people waiting to be accepted on the clerks' noticeboard. Tiptoety talk 18:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not necessarily saying we should dismiss cases with little given evidence outright. At the end of the day, people file a case in good faith, and we must make the assumption that they believe multiple accounts are being used. This is even more relevant where people file cases around a prolific sockpuppeteer, because it is believed that their modus operandi is well-known.
Probably the obvious thing to do in cases with little explanation yet potentially good reason behind them is for a clerk or CheckUser to informally "claim" a case, so to speak, and they can be e-mailed relevant material or explanation. Note that I would only recommend this for prolific and long-term abusers (the Scibaby case being the clear example, where it is requested in the LTA page that his methods should not be discussed on-wiki), because people in court have a right to hear the evidence against them, but we are naturally reluctant to grant them that right if it helps them continue the abuse for which they are originally sanctioned. WilliamH (talk) 20:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Scibaby closely follows his SPI cases in order to try to avoid being detected in the future. His long-term abuse page specifically states: "admins should absolutely avoid publicly discussing specific techniques and methods for detecting him." Agree with WilliamH above, either i) the clerk should be familiar enough with Scibaby so that no evidence is required apart from reviewing the sock's edits, or ii) the clerk should ask for evidence through a private communication (e.g. email). LK (talk) 08:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Cases on the mainpage

I've been having this idea over the past few weeks, that we should just nuke the transclusion of all cases to the mainpage is unnecessary. We now (for the past good while) have had a color coded chart that allows us to view the active cases easily. So instead of taking 30-45 seconds to load in a browser, we could kill the excessive transclusion and just use the table and wouldn't have the issues of backlogs killing the transclusion limit. Thoughts? -- DQ on the road (ʞlɐʇ) 19:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I've been using the case summary chart and not the transcluded cases the entire time that I've been working cases. Suits me fine.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Fine with me, I only use the overview myself (which can probably be improved too, I only imitated what betacommand was doing -- but that's an issue for another day). Amalthea 19:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I just used my "console" (which utilizes the {{PASGESINCAT:}} magic word) to find active cases. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I've been using the overview page since forever, and only look at the main page to see quick CU requests or when someone complains that the cases aren't transcluding. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Ok, so i've nuked the transcluding of cases, and have made several cleanup edits to try and remove the bulkiness of the mainpage. I do encourage review of what I have changed. I tried to eliminate any excessive redundancy. I think we could some how change the section headers there to make it look "half decent". I'd encourage anyone with the design feeling to go and give it a shot as long as you don't turn the page hot pink or sunlight yellow. :P -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 07:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
For those who are interested, the mainpage loads in 7 seconds now for me :D -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 08:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Sorry I'm late to the party: I only noticed this thread when I loaded the SPI main page and noticed the transclusion format had been replaced. For the record, I support this change because, like Berean, I only used the table anyway. DeltaQuad, thanks for implementing this. AGK [•] 23:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully I didn't break it

I hope I didn't break the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/StillStanding-247 investigation by adding new section/investigation after the CU had already checked. Right now it has two {{SPI case status}} templates on it: one is marked "checked" and the other is not marked. I'm not entirely sure how the system is supposed to work, so I'm sorry if I screwed something up, and hope someone will fix it for me. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jcullinan

Ooops, how do I fix so that it's flagged so CU is requested? Or, please do for me someone. --jpgordon::==( o ) 02:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done T. Canens (talk) 02:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Need moar clerks?

... or are we just hitting many clerks on break by happenstance and things are bound to get better soon? — Coren (talk) 00:38, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that we don't have enough full clerks to train more people... T. Canens (talk) 02:26, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Don't clerks just archive closed cases? I'll help out if needed. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
No, it's a bit more involved than that. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Well I am probably not in good standing But the rest is straightforward enough, I certainly know how evidence should be produced so as to endorse for CU attention. Never mind, maybe another time. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:36, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

All checkusers should consider adding the following line to their monobook.js:

importScript('User:Tim Song/spihelper.js');

This adds some tools that are useful for clerks. For instance, archiving cases is trivially easy if you have these tools; you look at the case, and if it's marked as closed and you think no further action is needed, you click the "spi-archive" tab. That makes it much easier for us to help out with the clerking when we can. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 15:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Nifty. Thanks for the tip --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:13, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Question?

Hey, I have two IP addresses that were vandalizing the same pages in the same way. They are currently blocked but will be let out soon. Should I Report them? Thanks ♠♥♣Shaun9876♠♥♣ Talk 22:57, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Only if the vandalism continues, then report to AIV. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Query

I saw that User:Anywhere But Home was blocked as being part of Brexx banned user. User:Anywherebutthehair has a similar name as User:Anywhere But Home and there's an MfD with four similar user accounts, one being User:Anywherebutthehair. Are User:Anywhere But Home and User:Anywherebutthehair one and the same? Please move this to whereever such requests should go. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

No relationship. I'm looking at this, and will probably block the user involved.—Kww(talk) 16:43, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

When to tag a suspected sock on user's talk page?

When is it considered proper to use the {{sockpuppet}} template, without a second parameter, to indicate that "An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sock puppet of (sock master)"?

In a still-current discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, I expressed an opinion that a user should be tagged in this way only if the accuser has submitted evidence at WP:SPI to back up his allegation (or, in a sensitive case, made a note at the alleged sock master's SPI page saying that the evidence has been submitted off-wiki).

Some others have suggested that an "expressed a concern" tag via {{sockpuppet}} shouldn't be used at all before an SPI is complete, but should be limited to cases where an account has already been blocked as a probable sock — though the documentation for the template says (if I'm understanding it right) that the no-parameter form is used when the account has not (yet) been blocked, and it seems to me that the "blocked as probable (albeit unproven) sock" scenario is what the "blocked" parameter to the template is for.

What, in fact, are the correct circumstances (if any) for using the "sockpuppet" template to indicate a suspected (but not yet proven) sock?

I also expressed an opinion, in the same discussion, that a user who has been tagged as a suspected sock should not have their edits reverted on sight (per WP:BAN) until after an SPI process has concluded that the user is, in fact, certainly or probably a sockpuppet. That is, premature reverting of edits of an alleged sock is not appropriate. Am I right? Or am I being too naïvely lenient here in my thinking? — Richwales 04:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

You ascribe too much power and importance to SPI. SPI is a method for users to report suspicions to administrators and for editors and administrators to request help from checkusers. Editors are able to act against sockpuppets when they have made a good faith determination that the editor is a sockpuppet, and admins are able to block unilaterally when they have determined the editor is a sockpuppet. It's like all other processes: if an editor is seen to either be acting in bad faith or having too high of an error rate, action needs to be taken at that time. If I don't need a checkuser's help, I very rarely go through SPI. I'll got through SPI when I am highly suspicious but can't convince myself one way or the other.
I will agree that when an editor acts against a sockpuppet, he has an obligation to report it to someone that can follow through with a block. That doesn't require a formal SPI case.—Kww(talk) 16:17, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification on what SPI is and is not. I do see a potential pitfall here, if a possibly overzealous sock-hunter tags someone as a suspected sock, immediately starts reverting said user's edits per the banning policy, and then gets into arguments with other editors who may challenge the idea of going into "revert on sight" mode before anyone has had a chance to review the accusation. I'm still inclined to think there needs to be some central clearinghouse (possibly SPI, possibly somewhere else) where sockpuppetry suspicions / allegations are acknowledged, investigated where necessary, and either confirmed or dismissed. Otherwise, I fear we're at risk here for chaotic vigilantism. Or am I blowing the matter out of proportion here? — Richwales 17:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
There's a possibility for vigilantism with nearly everything. We do have some users that scream "SOCK!" at the slightest provocation, and they need to be dealt with. However, if we tilt the playing field in the opposite direction, life quickly becomes unmanageable. It's not uncommon for sockpuppeteers to create hundreds of socks, and if I had to go through a community discussion on each and every one I'd never be able to stay ahead of them.—Kww(talk) 18:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
My take: it boils down to this:
  1. Every account that we have enough evidence to confirm that it is a sock is, or should be, blocked.
  2. Ergo, an account that is not currently blocked is either
    a) a sock that will be blocked if the evidence is shown to an admin (either via SPI or elsewhere), in which case there's nothing to be gained from tagging it early - and in fact plenty to lose since a sock that knows that it's been detected may well decide to do one final round of disruption before it gets blocked (which is also why we don't require notifications for SPI cases); or
    b) an account for which we don't have enough evidence to conclude that it is a sock, in which case, per AGF, BITE, and everything, we shouldn't tag.
You don't need a centralized venue - I agree with Kww that it would be way too much bureaucratic paperwork; but you do need an admin to look at the evidence and sign off on it (by blocking the account) before you deface someone's user page with a sock tag. T. Canens (talk) 18:43, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
I tagged and reverted before I became an admin, with reporting being just a method to get the block performed. The irritation of having to get someone else to perform the blocks was the main reason I persevered at RFA (believe me, going through 4 RFAs isn't something you'd wish on anyone). There's no reason for an editor to wait for the block before reverting, and reverting without tagging is a real problem.—Kww(talk) 19:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
FWIW, I'm tending to agree more with T.Canens right now, as opposed to Kww. I can accept that highly prolific masters can overwhelm an overly bureaucratic system, but I'm still uncomfortable with dispensing too readily with the niceties of an orderly and (hopefully) fair process. I would still prefer to see a sock allegation signed off by an admin (and if the allegation was made by an admin, the sign-off should be done by a second admin) — and regardless of whether the SPI mechanism is brought into play, a suitable block should definitely be in place on a suspected sock before people start treating the account as banned and reverting its contributions on sight.
It might also help things if we could improve the current usage of the {{sockpuppet}} template — possibly by having a bot look for parameterless (= "an editor has expressed a concern") tags on accounts which have in fact been indef-blocked, and adding the blocked parameter to these. Then create a new category (maybe "possible sockpuppets") for those users who have been tagged but not blocked, and a suitable group could review this category list on a regular basis to make sure the allegations are either deemed worthy of a block / ban / revert-on-sight, or else removed if no evidence is forthcoming. Possibly even have the aforementioned bot remove the template (or flag it with a new unconfirmed parameter) if the tag doesn't get substantiated within a reasonable time period. — Richwales 22:26, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
I'd be crippled in my day-to-day tasks by even requiring a second admin to sign off. That would be a major change in how we operate against socks.—Kww(talk) 22:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't think you need a second admin to sign off. Admins dealing with socks regularly are generally sensible enough to ask for a second opinion if there is any doubt. This is often done privately rather than on wiki so that we can have a detailed discussion about behavioral evidence without risking BEANS, but they do happen. T. Canens (talk) 23:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Right, you guys are total tits. You are mistaken the sock template with the suspect sock one. learn the difference. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
And a perfect example turns up, [2] Guess who this is. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
I'll agree that one admin is enough if it's someone who is experienced in dealing with socks. I still think a sock suspicion raised by a random admin (like me), or by a non-admin, should still be vetted by a sock-experienced admin before resulting in the user being blocked / banned / subject to reverting on sight. @DS, I was referring to the addition of templates such as this edit of yours. I'll assume the people here are aware that (1) the {{sock}} template and the {{sockpuppet}} template are the same; and (2) there are several variations on what text is produced by this template, depending on the inclusion (or not) of a parameter or parameters following the sockmaster's account name. Sorry if I might have confused anyone. — Richwales 01:12, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Rich, I know I come across as a knob,but at the same time I know Jozoisis is a Highstakes00 sock. Lack of talk page usage, when talk page is used english is purposely broken up. Anti semitic, look at his article creations. Think, look at the past socks I have tagged as suspect. How many were wrong? Darkness Shines (talk) 01:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
The important question is the accuracy rate. If Darkness Shines accurately tags socks, then he should be able to do so before the SPI. If he's got a poor accuracy rate, he should refrain. I hsven't followed his tagging: in general, how many of his tags accurately reflect socking?—Kww(talk) 03:26, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Shit man, see for yourself[3] I would say, roughly 99% accurate. Darkness Shines (talk) 03:30, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Although I'm concerned about following a reasonable procedure that editors in general can understand and respect, I don't want to deprive the project of DS's skills if in fact he's developed a knack for identifying likely socks. Can anyone think of a good way here whereby we can make good use of the efforts of DS and other, similarly gifted sockhunters, while at the same time allowing users to know whether a given sock tag is trustworthy and reliable? — Richwales 05:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
I think it's reasonable to require a non-admin to report a sock, not just tag it. People that handle the reports should be able to detect an inaccurate tagger and put a stop to it. My only objection is to a requirement for a report to close before a tag and revert. That can take days.—Kww(talk) 06:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
@DS The fact that nobody has contested most of your sock tags doesn't give you a 99% accuracy. Most of the editors you tag are newbies, they don't know much about Wikipedia's policies and how to contest socking allegation. And in most of these cases no CU is done. I at least can remember one case when an editor coming from 86.x was wrongly blocked as Nangparbat by Black Kite after you tagged/reported it as such. Just because there exists some king of belief/paranoia that *every* editor from 86.x range, editing in Af-Indo-Pak topic area is Nangparbat. Now you yourself know that CU has recently checked Highstakes a number of times and had there any sock of him, CU must have got him, yet you tagged Jozoisis who is here for an year. There was a reason you were restricted from SPI. And just for the record most of these tagged editors were either in content disputes with you, or did an edit that you opposed. --SMS Talk 08:04, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Look again. Regarding HS00, I am not about tot tell you why his SPI's are conducted off wiki, beans and all that. Suffice to say he is very good at evading detection. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

When you don't want to spill the beans you should also avoid tagging the suspect, as simple as that. That is what everyone is trying to make you understand, that tagging like this serves no purpose. And by doing this you spill half of them. --SMS Talk 09:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm just going to summarize my main point and hold back for a bit. There are numerous reasons that people should or should not tag pages. They have to do with the degree of doubt, how much further research is required, whether the tag prior to the block is going provide advance warning, etc. What they do not include is whether the tagger is an admin or not. An admi doesn't get a "detect socks" or "tag socks" bit, and, if it's not controlled by a bit, it's legitimate for an editor without administrator permissions to do. Inaccurate sock detection is a problem, whether performed by an admin or not. If there's a problem with providing advance notice to a particular sockmaster, then it's preferable to block before tagging, but that's not a reason to try to write a policy or guideline to say that only admins should tag socks.—Kww(talk) 16:33, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I jave taken the time to get the diffs of all accounts I have tagged since 2 August 2012 [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] All were correct. I have also tagged very obvious IP socks, all of which have been correct. In fact I think I have only made two errors. This one[21], who was a sockpuppet, though not Nangparbat. And this one[22] who was in fact a sock of MohammedBinAbdullah. SMS claims I tagged an IP who was not Nangparbat. Please provide the diff for this IP. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:48, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
I didn't have enough time to go through all of your contributions but What about this one, tagging same user against whom when you filed an SPI you were put under these restrictions, or these: [23], [24], [25], [26], [27] or these IPs: [28], [29], [30], [31], [32]? And about that IP I can't tell here, same beans thing. --SMS Talk 10:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
@SMS, 86.168.42.54 (talk · contribs) is NP but the others you listed I would classify as not him or insufficient evidence at this time. I'll try and weigh in my thoughts later when I have some more time. Elockid (Talk) 14:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Beans my ass, it is an IP sock. Letting us know the IP is not spilling the beans. FYI IP socks[33](This is the one you claim is not NP btw) And it obviously is, perhaps EL can check. [34] Obvious based on this[35] Of course he got the whole paranoia thing from the attack page you created. [36] Obviously Highstakes00 as he had already stalked me there[37] [38] So obviously NP[39] it shocks me you think it is not. Bear in mind he has hit that article a lot. Obviously NP[40] Look at the proof.[41] So obviously HS00[42] all one needs do is look[43] Highstakes hits that article a fair bit as you know. I think that's all of them. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:57, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
@Kww, the basis of my concern here is that a single non-admin should not (and, AFAIK, does not) have the right to effectively declare a site ban on a user by issuing a definitive verdict that said user is a sock. A non-admin may certainly raise a suspicion or allegation that an account is being used as a sock, but the actual decision that the account is a sock, should be indef-blocked, and should have its edits reverted on sight per WP:BAN, needs (IMO) to be made at a higher level — at the very least by an uninvolved administrator — and if possible by an admin who has gained some experience with SPI (though I'd settle for just having it be an uninvolved admin, since administrators are supposed to act carefully and responsibly). I'm not trying to gum up the SPI process by demanding a new level of unreasonable bureaucracy; I'm just trying to help ensure that the process is something which the community can have confidence in. — Richwales 18:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Rich, that is already how it works. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
I have no problem with a reasonably astute non-admin (or an admin who isn't particularly experienced in sock hunting) tagging a user as a possible sock ("express[ing] concern that this account may be a sock puppet", as the default language of the template says) — as long as this action is promptly brought to the attention of one or more admins who will be in a position to evaluate the report. I also don't really have a problem with a sock-aware admin tagging and immediately blocking what they see as an obvious sockpuppet — as long as the admin is not "involved" and is not misusing the tools.
I do have a bit of a problem with someone who isn't an SPI-experienced admin tagging a user as a possible sock and then immediately reverting their work, justifying their action by saying they're reverting a sock, without anyone else having had a chance to review the situation and confirm that socking really is involved. And I have a major problem with someone doing the above and then getting into an edit war when someone else challenges what they're doing. (See the recent history of Human rights violations in Balochistan for an example of what I'm talking about here.)
The reason I strongly suggested, initially, that any tagging of a possible sockpuppet should be accompanied by a related filing or notice at WP:SPI was because I was, and still am, concerned about people who might consider such a tag on another user's talk page to be sufficient (and then not bother to follow up). If requiring some followup at SPI is felt to be too much of a burden and would gum up the works, a more convenient solution might be (as I suggested earlier) to create a new "possible sockpuppets" category, which the template would invoke automatically, and use this as a way for the SPI people to take notice of new tags and make sure they are accompanied by proper evidence (or else remove a tag if it never gets substantiated). This would presumably require a bot to check newly tagged "possible socks" and update the tag with the appropriate parameter once the user has been blocked.
I could possibly see reverting the work of a "pretty likely" sock while the process is still underway — as long as there really and verifiably is a process underway — but if others object to such premature reversion-on-sight, the proper course of action should be to allow the SPI to proceed (expediting it if appropriate), and not to wage an edit war over whether the user is a sock or not. Again, I'm really not trying to tie the SPI process in knots here, but I feel very strongly that seriously treating someone as a banned sock, reverting their edits on sight, and sanctioning other editors who revert the reverts without good reason has got to wait until an admin has looked at the situation, agrees that sockpuppetry is happening, and has indeffed the offender. — Richwales 04:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
I support requiring non-admins to notify an admin, but there is not, and should not be, any requirement to wait for admin action before reversion. The longer an edit sticks, the greater the chance that it gets incorporated into the article and becomes impossible to remove. Reversion needs to be immediate, and waiting for an admin can interfere with that. The edits can always be restored if the reversion was inappropriate.—Kww(talk) 06:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
What if the suspected sock start reverting back his edits, are we allowed to revert again? And would anyone doing this be exempted from 3RR (per 3RR exemption # 3)? Actually I have seen two editors (one Darkness Shines himself) getting blocked for edit warring with suspected socks after tagging them, as the blocking admins probably didn't see their userpage or considered the tag. And if proper channel (i.e. SPI) for declaring someone a sock is not followed I am afraid this will continue to happen besides many newbies will be driven away. --SMS Talk 16:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Reverting a tagged sockpuppet account (not a confirmed sockpuppet, a tagged sockpuppet) is specifically exempt from 3RR. See WP:3RR#3RR exemptions. If an admin blocks for 3RR in that case, the admin should be admonished and the block lifted on appeal.—Kww(talk) 17:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Two related, but different issues here. If someone is tagged as a sock (even as a suspected sock), anyone acting in good faith should indeed be allowed to rely on the tag and revert the user's edits per the 3RR exemption at WP:3RRNO. However, this still presupposes that socking allegations are either being made by people whose expertise can be trusted, or else that such allegations are being promptly reviewed by experienced SPI people. IMO, a socking allegation tag should be either followed up by an indef-block, or else removed from the user's page, within a reasonably short time. And if there is a good-faith disagreement over whether someone is a sockpuppet of a banned / indef-blocked user or not, the issue needs to be checked out ASAP. — Richwales 01:58, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
The issue of a tag being set by people whose expertise cannot be trusted is best handled by an RFC/U on the particular person, not by trying to set a global policy that defines trustworthiness.—Kww(talk) 04:32, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Hurricane Sandy

A heads up to all clerks that CU cases are likely to build up for the next while as we have quite a few functionaries are either not available at all, or have limited availablity due to the impact of Hurricane Sandy and may be without power for a good part of this week. Hopefully we will be able to work around this and still provide relatively good response times. Clerks, if you could try and make cu requests more of a priority than normal this week, I think that would be of benefit to our CUs, as some of them will have limited time to check in with the project. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 04:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Twinkle SPI reports down?

Anyone else unable to use Twinkle to create SPI reports this morning? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I had a problem using Twinkle SPI just now, and I thought it was because the socks in my report had apostrophes in the usernames. I reported it manually. Now I can't find it on the list. It's been quite a while since I filed an SPI report, so I could be doing something odd. Tckma (talk) 20:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
If it still is not working for you, I suggest posting to WT:TW with some more detailed information (see WP:JSERROR).

@Tckma: I can see the one you created here. It was created fine, but got deleted because of WP:DENY and the particular sockpuppeteer at issue. T. Canens (talk) 00:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Sigh.

Just opened an SPI. It said: "User name only - do not include "User:"". So I tpyed the user name only. Now the report is at AndresHerutJaim. (Note: I already manually wrote a SPI request at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AndresHerutJaim, which should be deleted). Can somone clean up, because I only seem to make it worse. -DePiep (talk) 12:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I have copy-pasted the page to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AndresHerutJaim and deleted the mainspace page. No idea what went wrong with your creation, and no opinion on the actual SPI, which I haven't read. Hope this helps! Fram (talk) 13:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. What went wrong: opening the SPI I entered "AndresHerutJaim" in the box ("user name only" as advised), not "Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AndresHerutJaim". -DePiep (talk) 13:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Note that the instructions say: replace SOCKMASTER with user name only - do not include "User:" They do not say to replace "Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/". Tiptoety talk 08:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Maybe if there's a "web form" where people can only fill in information and cannot remove anything else, that may solve the problem? OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
That is not a bad idea. We would just have to find someone who would know how to implement it. Tiptoety talk 18:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
It would probably have to be Javascript-based, like the one used for WP:DRN. T. Canens (talk) 03:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Anon harasser

Is there any possibility to find out if this address (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/190.84.51.146) and this other one (here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/190.84.80.134) both hail from the same computer? From the same region (Bogotá, Colombia) they surely do as the IP details show.

A Colombian person has been on my case, with several insults of racial/homophobic/whatever nature, for this: pointing out that Quique Flores is the most common name for said article in the English wikipedia (which is this one i believe). That person also created the accounts User:Xxxx693 and User:Lombriz de Aguapuerca, both blocked in the meantime.

I would like to see if it's possible (once the relation is established) to block the second anon address, given it's fairly used by the "user". It would give him one possibility less to come to my page and call me a "crybaby faggot" amongst other things!

Attentively, thank you very much for whatever you can provide --AL (talk) 02:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

You should consider filing a case under the Xxxx693 name as that is the oldest account that you have listed and do not request checkuser in this case. You should also avoid the name-calling as that doesn't help your case any.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the quick reply. If you mean the "crybaby" stuff, that was not me calling anybody anything, i was paraphrasing the attacks directed towards me. If you mean the thing above, i apologize and it has already been replaced. --AL (talk) 03:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

A new wizard for filing SPI cases

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. Feedback would be greatly appreciated. T. Canens (talk) 16:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Just tried it. Nice. You might put a note on the instructions that the request will be automatically signed (no tildes necessary.) --jpgordon::==( o ) 17:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Regular disruption needs regular checkuser-investigations

Editors like User:Mattisse have disrupted Wikipedia for years by regularly socking. In such cases, regular check users should be done, say every 2-3 months. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Checkusers of Mattisse? Checkuser only works if the person has logged in/edited/touched Wikipedia in a certain timeframe. Ironholds (talk) 00:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
I think KW meant checking one of Mattisse's recent socks, not necessarily the "Mattisse" account itself. Legoktm (talk) 02:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Which is grand and all, except that as far as I know the data expires every 30 days. So, it would still be a waste of time. Ironholds (talk) 01:09, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
It's ninety days, measured almost to the second. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
I always thought it was three months rather than ninety days. That explains why sometimes I could get data just past the threshold and sometimes I couldn't get it just within the threshold; I assumed that data was wiped in batches every few days, but your explanation makes much more sense. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 01:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Ahh, my bad. I think I may be remembering the good ol' days when it was run off the recentchanges table. Ironholds (talk) 03:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

That restriction

On my filing SPI's against regular contributors. I want it lifted. Given how well I spot socks I think it needs to be gone. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi DS, I'm willing to lift the whole boat, all I ask in return is that you do keep in mind that we need evidence when you are filing, that we don't need a case every time an IP edits (like Nangparbat) when they are going to switch IPs left and right, and that mass filings of no apparent connection will not be looked at. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 01:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I do not bother to report Nang these days, just any IP socks go to AIV & socks I let Elockid know. Quicker than SPI And if you look at recemt previous filings I provide pretty solid evidence. So I figure we have an agreement. Thank you. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
If it's only established contributors, then how does it prevent you from filing against the serial puppeteers? Anyway, when did this happen? Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm willing to lift DS's restriction — actually, to be honest, I was the one who suggested he should ask for its removal. He's very good at spotting socks and I believe the project would profit from his being able to report them here. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Yep, I would support lifiting Darkness Shines' restrictions. Tiptoety talk 05:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Help please?

G'day, my first crack at a SPI report and I buggered it up somehow. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigationsRogueSchoolar. Can I get a hand? Thanks a lot! Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I think Future Perfect has sorted it. Thanks anyway. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Since the suspected sock has been blocked, and since the SPI was created in the wrong location, I went ahead and deleted it. Feel free to file another report if it becomes necessary. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Filing a new case

Is this page/project still active? I can click on the button to file a new case but the window that comes up doesn't allow me to edit anything and I get DO NOT CREATE THIS PAGE warnings all over. I must say I'm totally confused by the setup :/ Akerbeltz (talk) 23:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Everything seems fine to me. Without a more detailed description of what you're actually doing, we may not be able to assist you. One guess I can make is that you forgot to change the SOCKMASTER in the box to the name of the sockmaster you're filing the case for? --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 23:29, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Ah good guess, that helped, many thanks. I don't do this often enough so it perplexes me every time I do end up doing so :) Akerbeltz (talk) 10:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Judgment

Perhaps someone can fix the spelling to "judgment" from "judgement" on the project page.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure of your location, but "judgment" is generally the spelling in the U.S. so it should be okay per WP:ENGVAR. 72Dino (talk) 03:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
The US. See Merriam-Webster.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
I recall one user who wrote, in a sourcing dispute involving British tabloids, "Never trust the judgment of anyone who spells it judgement". — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 12:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Both spellings are correct in the US. My paper copy of Webster's New World says "Also judgement". Additionally this is bolstered by Epeefleche's link which has "Variants of JUDGMENT: judg·ment or judge·ment".
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Variants are never the more common spellings, and sometimes the less common spellings (though they can be a close second).--Epeefleche (talk) 15:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Ah, there you go...that is a good argument....unless, maybe a Canadian wrote it.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
This, of course, also shows that America's cared less and less about judgment over time. No surprise there. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 23:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

What a marvelous thing to waste time discussing! I'll get back to doing something productive. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 16:09, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Hahaha ... some of us only have the time, apparently, to open this page and write that it is a waste of time.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
I've got plenty of time to waste. I just prefer to waste it in more productive ways. ;-) --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 20:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Many of us who have put in our time here understand that what to one person is a waste of time, such as our activities at the Project, to others is a reasonable pursuit. Though we may in general be at a loss to explain why that is. As to being "productive" ... why, if that were the goal, we would all be doing something real-world at the moment, wouldn't we?  ;) --Epeefleche (talk) 20:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Hey, I've got a post two threads up that still has no replies. :P A productive post, too. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 23:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

For those with time on their hands who are interested in linguistic issues, see Judgement (law)#Spelling. In British legal circles, questioning a judge's judgment might be different from questioning his or her judgement. --Boson (talk) 18:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

@Boson -- good one.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I messed up something

I added a new case to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nrcprm2026, but the template isn't rendering properly. Not sure if this will even get noticed as a new case.--Bkwillwm (talk) 20:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Enric Naval fixed it. Thanks.--Bkwillwm (talk) 21:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Automating sock templates and archiving/releasing IPs

Isn't it always the way that you come across something and it spirals into something much bigger? There's a database report that is about 20% sockpuppet categories that contain a user(s) but the cat hasn't been created yet. I suggested a simple bot to create them with {{sockpuppet category}} and User:BattyBot has a BRFA submitted. Your comments would be most welcome. One thing that has come up is the issue of whether lots more sock categories are a good thing - I tend to think that a sock is a sock, regardless of whether someone has made a category for them and that this is just a bit of housekeeping. The question has also been raised of whether in general IPs should be "released" from the "taint" of socking after say 12 months - a bot could do this. I imagine this has come up before, but I guess comments should be submitted [[over at BRFA. Le Deluge (talk) 14:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Deletion notice

Please note that {{CheckUser block}} has been nominated for deletion. I'm coming here because I expect most of its users will pay attention to this page. Nyttend (talk) 22:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The discussion has been properly nuked by Coren. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 23:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Headline when filing report

Instead of all the warnings to not fill in a subject/headline when filing a report, couldn't we just tack on a nosummary=1 to the report links? Seems like it would make things a lot simpler. Or is there some downside to that? — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 06:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, I just went ahead and did it, and threw in some other cool stuff while I was at it (partially in light of the thread immediately below this one). — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 16:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Notify or not?

  • Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations says: You can notify the suspected accounts by adding {subst:socksuspectnotice|PUPPETMASTER} to the bottom of their talk pages. (Notification is courteous but isn't mandatory, and in some cases it may be sub-optimal. Use your best judgement.)
  • Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/Guidance says: Notify all the users you are accusing using the template {subst:uw-socksuspect|Case name}.

Is the 2nd a dead page? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The second page just offers guidance, not absolute rules. The two pages are not contradictory. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 16:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
They are evidently wikt:contradictory. What a mess. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Changed it to "Consider notifying"—Kww(talk) 14:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Suspected socks impacting RfC

I want to thank all the editors that work on the SPIs ... you are doing really important work. There is a SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pproctor which perhaps could use some attention. The suspected socks are causing problems at an RfC. I understand that the SPI process must be slow & deliberate, so I am not suggesting that anything be done in haste, but the RfC is starting to go off the rails. So, if an SPI admin has some spare time, a quick look would be appreciated. Thanks again! --Noleander (talk) 17:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Bumping this request. --Noleander (talk) 18:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Looks like this has been dealt with now. Cheers! SpitfireTally-ho! 14:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Great news. Thanks to the clerks & admins that worked on that. --Noleander (talk) 14:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

CheckUser request

Hello! Since I cannot edit the section "Quick CheckUser requests" (due to its semi-protection), I would like a CheckUser request to solve my problem of not being able to access my old account User:DoctorWho42.--DrWho42 (talk) 05:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Could you please explain how you lost access to the old account? Did you not add your email to the user preferences section? -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 06:34, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Also, CheckUser cannot grant access to accounts, it can only be used to check if two accounts are used by the same IP address. If you forgot your password and didn't set an email, there's nothing you can do. (X! · talk)  · @330  ·  06:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I believe he's requesting verification of his claim, so he can either get a sysadmin to reset his password, or a bureaucrat to usurp his old account and give it back to him. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 23:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I have set up an email for my user preferences in the past ([email protected]). For whatever reason, the emails sent to reset my password have not been received and I've made sure to check my Spam/Trash folders.--DrWho42 (talk) 07:28, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Ok, have you ever sent an email to someone using that account such as an Arb, Functionary, or 'Crat, or really even an admin who could verify your story? I'm just trying to exhaust all options first. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 07:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the only admin I've contacted with that email is no longer an admin: User:Joe Beaudoin Jr. while everyone else are users (User:AnnaleeNewitz, User:Blue cadet84, User:CharlieAnders, User:CZeke, User:DixieDellamorto, User:Hodgman, User:Sinewaves23).--DrWho42 (talk) 23:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps you could email one of the Arbs listed at WP:ARBCOM#Individual arbitrators? Or one of the functionaries here could just give you their email address onwiki. Many users with advanced rights have dedicated emails for their Wikipedia activities, so I'm sure one of the CU's with this page watchlisted would be willing to pubicly state their email. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 00:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't see what benefit this would do... -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 00:11, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
It would prove that the same person is in control of the new account as is in control of the email address, would it not? — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 02:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry to be a disappointment to you, but after verifying with another checkuser, this is not within the sanctioned use of CheckUser. (As in if we ran the checks, we would be submitted to an audit and might even lose our flags) So at this time I have to decline your request. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 00:11, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Wait, I have a great idea: Facebook. The Facebook link on his userpage was added from the old account, so as long as he can send out a message from that account to a crat's Facebook account, then they can verify it and perform the usurpation. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
    Or even easier, tweet that you made a new Wikipedia account called DrWho42. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
    I would be better off with the Facebook option since the Twitter is more for wiki updates (pertaining to the Battlestar Wiki and general BSG news) than personal use. I can make a post announcing my new account too for verification.--DrWho42 (talk) 16:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Never mind. I figured out what went wrong.--DrWho42 (talk) 04:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Attribution

Note: Moved from Template talk:Sockpuppet#Attribution ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I have, in the past, been accused of being a sockpuppet for reasons that I believe conflict with WP:IAR. I am concerned that some of my edits are not attributed to me as required by cc-by-sa 3.0 / GFDL. I would like to ensure for posterity that, notwithstanding any disagreements concerning the propriety of WP:BAN in light of WP:IAR, my edits are entirely attributed to me. Is it appropriate for me to disclose accounts which may be considered sockpuppets by those who disagree with me concerning WP:IAR in order to establish attribution to me? Josh Joaquin (talk) 08:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

As long as none of your previous accounts are banned/blocked, you are allowed to have a fresh start by abandoning your previous account(s), i.e. by no longer using them, and editing using only your current account. Whether you wish to disclose your previous accounts is up to you. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:22, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Not editing in the same areas that one did before is also a stipulation of WP:Clean start. Flyer22 (talk) 04:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Where to report potential violations

Via a chain of edits from an unrelated user, I happened upon a user with the following characteristics, and want to know what (if anything) to do about it:

  • The user's only edits have been to their own User page
  • The user page has also been edited by a handful of similar IP addresses, which appear to be the same person.
  • The content of the user page is a medium-length disorganized hodge-podge of likely auto-biography, clips of text from other sites (possibly copyvio), tests, and gibberish that does not seem as though it could ever result in an acceptable contribution to WP.
  • The first edit the user made was test/vandalism to an existing article in June 2012. Neither the user nor any of the IP addresses have edited anything other than the user page since. The last edits were in early February 2013.

While this stuff isn't currently "bothering" anyone, the user is clearly currently a WP:SPA and WP:NOTHERE and the content of their userpage is, at best, possibly copyvio. I don't want to be accused of stalking, but I also see the potential for this user to be a problem in the future, with little chance of them contributing anything useful.

Should they be reported somewhere as "someone to keep an eye on"? If so, where? Or, are there lots of these lurking out there that turn out to just go dormant, and we need to wait until they actually damage mainspace? The various Noticeboard hatnotes do not address where to bring such issues, nor even where to ask this question, AFAICT (WP:ABUSE is for IPs only, and points you to WP:LONG for users, but that board is described to be only for long-term chronic actual abuse, not potential or short-term, and seems to be organized more as a log of long-term cases, not for new reports). Erring on the side of caution by not providing usernames yet. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 18:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC) (Edited) —[AlanM1(talk)]— 18:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you're talking about one registered account and a number of IP addresses. Not having seen the page, I will guess that that there haven't been any violations of WP:SOCK because they're probably not actually trying to deceive anyone. If you think that there are copyvios on the page, though, you might want to read this for an overview of how to handle them. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Question

I had posted an SPI request regarding Didymus Judas Thomas. I am wondering if there is perhaps a formatting error that is preventing it from showing in the open-SPI table? Or else, has the table reached its maximum limit due to a backlog? I have rarely interacted with this process in the past and am a bit confused. dci | TALK 02:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Reporting socks already blocked as socks

If an account already has an SPI case archive, is it appropriate to file a new report for further socks which have already been CU-confirmed and blocked? On the one hand this helps make the archive a centralized and comprehensive record of all sock accounts, which is useful for referring to should a new SPI report be filed for the user in the future. On the other hand, the socks are already confirmed and blocked, so creating a new report for them creates more work for the clerks. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, there's no point in reporting socks that have been blocked by a CU, especially if they've been tagged as such. On the other hand, if making a new report, and the unreported sock is newer than the ones in the archive, adding them to the report might be useful. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
There's no harm. Worst case, the case is archived immediately by a clerk (which takes a few clicks and about five seconds). The utility of having socks filed away in case we need to know them later, such as for future checks, is worth that. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 22:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
IMO, there's really no harm. Unless the archive starts to become stale, I wouldn't file a new report. If the case starts to appear stale and there's still continued sockpuppetry, I would say then it would be good idea to file a new report so that CUs have more recent data to work with. Elockid (Talk) 15:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I've previously told people to go ahead and report them if they were blocked by an admin (adding a note "for the record only, feel free to close" in the report), so we have a trail for future checks. Particularly for stale archives and obvious ducks, which give CUs a fresh IP trail. Once in a while I will just add a note in the archive instead, for simplicity's sake. Same reason, providing a trail to make matching in the future easier for the Checkuser. Of course, this is the CU's call, and I'm happy to handle them however they request. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I echo Dennis' comment above in that I can see the benefit to keeping a centralised record of socks for the CUs to use, but ultimately we're here to help them and so it's their call about what they want. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 19:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Resolving accusation

Hello all. I've been tacitly accused of being a sock puppeteer but the editor in question has refused to publish any evidence nor file a request. Is there a way that someone could run a checkuser on me and confirm/deny the accusations? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:59, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately that is generally not accepted as a reason for a check on enwiki. In my opinion, the accusing editor should be blocked for making that accusation though. --Rschen7754 19:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Well obviously I can't do that, but I need to have the issue resolved, I am very unhappy to have a tacit accusation of sockpuppetry hanging around while the editor does nothing about it either way (i.e. lodges an SPI or retracts the accusation). I'd prefer to see the whole thing finished and am happy for any editor with check user ability to go fishing for socks. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Enwiki checkuser policy fairly explicitly disallows doing so. Could you link me/us to the accusation of sockpuppetry? NativeForeigner Talk 20:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Here it is: linky. What I'm saying is that I'm more than happy for someone to run a checkuser against my own account and then publish the results in public so everyone can see what I've been up to. Is that ok? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

{{socksuspectnotice}}

AGK recently edited {{socksuspectnotice}}, using an expanded notification compared to the older version. His rationale was that the previous wording was unfriendly to new users. I don't necessarily disagree, but the current version is pretty wordy, and IMO goes too far in assuming good faith. Let's face it—there are essentially two types of sockmasters. For the new folks who actually don't know they're doing anything wrong, sure, the current version is appropriate. But for the other type, the malicious users intentionally gaming the system, it's kid gloves. For them, I much prefer the stern, concise wording that was stable for so long. On AGK's talk page, I suggested letting them both stand as separate templates, leaving it to editor discretion which one should be used. There are dozens of warning or notification templates with alternate wordings. AGK preferred having one template. Thoughts? --BDD (talk) 16:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

A good concept but with a fatal flaw IMO. If we do use two separate templates with discretion to choose which one to use, then people who are given the "bad" template might discover that a "good" template also exists, and would wonder why they are being treated "unfairly." The current version does not reveal any info that would help sockpuppeteers evade their block any more than the previous version will, it's just worded "nicer." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks to BDD for accurately summarising our positions. Does anybody else have an opinion on this template and the two versions of it? It would be nice to reach some sort of consensus on this matter, unless we want to appoint King of Hearts as SPI's dictator perpetuo and let him decide! AGK [•] 00:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

IP's cannot create SPI pages

IP's can only create pages in talk namespaces. This edit means IP's can no longer submit an SPI case with the link in the box saying it's for IP's. Is there any reason the link was changed from Wikipedia talk to Wikipedia? PrimeHunter (talk) 21:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh. Nope. My bad!  Fixed. And here I was thinking that this was the biggest mistake I made while changing the inputboxes. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 21:58, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I don't know why IPs should be restricted from doing this. The talk-page workaround isn't ideal, in my opinion, despite it being used with AfC for so long.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree. Of course, the only way to get around it would be to further divide the createpage right.... a createproject, perhaps? Or maybe just a general createnonmainspace. If you wanna propose it, I'll happily support. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 22:10, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm OK with IPs not being able to make mainspace articles.... but restricting them from making project pages makes some processes, like this one, less than optimal. Unfortunately, it isn't possible to restrict all mainspace pages without restricting all other non-talk spaces as well, so it would require developmental changes--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:12, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh wow, my feature is still in use somehow. At least the registered users are thinking of it. XD (I was adding that kind of feature after a request by an IP at this page a year or two ago) mabdul 22:23, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

sockpuppet activity

Hi,>I'm sorry I know this isn't the right palce but I tried to open a new request for investigation and it seemed only open to administrators (???) Anyway the case is quite simple : Enok is a sockpuppet of Brunodam. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brunodam/Archive The evidence is that he reverted Fourth Shore redirection, something only Brunodam would do. Regards--Kimdime (talk) 23:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

For a user that's been here since 2008, a single revert is pretty weak evidence. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
For someone who knows Brunodam it is a very obvious case, actually users mentioned it indirectly on his talk page. Anyway, would you be kind enough to let me know where I should adress the case. There is no point for me to provide evidence here if it is not the right place--Kimdime (talk) 09:17, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
I opened a new case on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brunodam--Kimdime (talk) 09:37, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Backlog

There are cases being endorsed and pushed through SPI when there are week-long+ cases open. I even saw a clerk self-endorse a case which was resolved in under 24 hours. What exactly is going on? MSJapan (talk) 05:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Some cases are easy to handle, while others require more investigation. Sometimes different clerks and Checkusers need to discuss a case, which all takes time to research and coordinate. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but there are open cases that are over two weeks old. Isn't that pushing things a bit? MSJapan (talk) 04:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, all those cases are the ones that are difficult to handle - specifically, where the report is tl;dr or where the evidence is poorly presented. If you want your case to be handled quickly, make it as concise and clear as possible. --Rschen7754 06:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thenightchicagodied

Please review Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thenightchicagodied as this user is back to socking. Thank you. Technical 13 (talk) 18:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Still growing sock collection

What do we do in the case of a long term troll with a number of archived investigations that all tie together who is still continuing to creat more socks? I think such cases should be handled on pages that are not closed and archived after every "single" incident, instead long term sockpuppeteers should have a consolidated page where new socks can be added as and when they are found. I believe I have found yet another sock belonging to Technoquat but I don't know what to do about it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I've done it correctly - I've put User:AlldiRessie and User:WantingToBeDresnok into Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Technoquat. Apologies if I haven't got the procedure correct. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
I have created the category page with {{sockpuppet category|Technoquat}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Verbiage on the SPI page (minor)

I have decided my enjoyment comes from fixing small issues with spelling, punctuation, grammar, and other minor edits. Alas, this page is locked and I think I'm still an edit or two shy of being able to make adjustments to this page as this page is locked. So, if someone sees fit and is able to make this fix for me then I'd be most appreciative.

Under the section, "To Open a Case:" the sentence, "Then click the button under the box." is incorrect. It may be true for smaller screens however. The button is beside the box on my screen. I fear that it would be untrue, in some cases, to state that the button is beside the box as smaller screens may place the confirmation button below said box. I think a suitable compromise may be simply, "Then click the button to open the investigation."

"So long and thanks for all the fish." (talk) 22:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Need help

This topic has outlived any usefulness it ever had. There's nothing more to do here.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:35, 15 June 2013 (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.

{{Admin help}} Can someone help me here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DanielTom. I've asked for help from User:Rschen7754 understanding some facts because I'm a regular content editor and am confused trying to understand the specifics at the SPI investigation, but I'm not getting any help from him at all. Thank you. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I've pointed the above editor to the SPI, and he was a bit belligerent at my talk page. The known facts have been indicated by the checkuser Deskana; the rest, we do not know. For the record, I am certainly a regular content editor, having contributed 6 FAs to this site. --Rschen7754 02:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
We are more than willing to answer questions and explain how things work, but we need to know what it is that you're confused about first. What, specifically, is your question? --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 13:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Since most CUs and SPI clerks have this page on their watchlists, the admin help template is unnecessary here. Anyway, I think that your questions have been answered, but if not, please say so here. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm done trying to get simple answers to clear, straightforward Qs from Rschen, the Admin who put "sockpuppery" tag on User:DanielTom. He was non-responsive. (I don't think there was any way in Hell he was going to answer even one Q, frankly. Read his user talk to see if you don't think he was intentionally trying to frustrate.) I still need help but do not want to overlap dialogues. Right now I've updated the sockpuppetry investigation page with request to Admin Toddst1 here. Thank you for asking what my Qs are, I'll have no problem to specify, but later not now. Thank you again. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
I have been trying to have the "sockpuppet" label removed from account User:Daniel Tomé here, if you could monitor that discussion for me it would help me and I would be appreciative. Thank you. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm unfamiliar with SPI case handling and so need help. I'm simply after removal of "sockpuppet" label on User:Daniel Tomé since I see no justification for it, and out of fairness to Daniel Tom, who has used his real name in username. If the SPI case is "closed" I do not know how to re-open it but it should be reopened for consideration. Dennis Brown recently archived the page, and that is counter to my effort seeking fairness to Daniel Tom, so am asking your help re process, or whatever else is needed to remove the unfair accusation of sockpuppetry. Please help, thank you. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
The reason Daniel Tomé is marked as a sockpuppet is because he used the account to edit after being renamed to DanielTom. Perhaps it was an accident, but the account is still considered a sockpuppet. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
It was clearly an accident, as he corrected the username within 2 minutes of that post, here. "Sockpuppet" carries in its definition attempt to conceal, hide, circumvent, and essentially "cheat" the system and guidelines. Clearly that is not what happened here. So "sockpuppet" does not fairly apply. To leave that label hanging, with that unfair accusation, when the user is using his real name in his username, is not reasonable or fair to him. On what basis (other than saying so), do you think "sockpuppet" still applies, when nothing at WP:SOCKPUPPET fits the facts? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Ihardlythinkso has a point that the user is being overt with naming his accounts. Could you please consider tagging them alternate accounts, or courtesy blank the pages, given that this is associated with the person's real name? Whatever shennanigans they did on Wikipedia should not turn up in a Google search on their real name and damage them in real life. Jehochman Talk 11:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
No. "Alternate accounts" implies that this was proper use of them, which it clearly is not. Being overt with account names is not grounds to leave the accounts unblocked or to untag them - let me just point you to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Technoquat. And finally, perhaps they should have considered the real name issue before they made a separate account simply to troll ANI. --Rschen7754 11:20, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
My thread here was about one account, Daniel's old account, User:Daniel Tomé. Please don't confuse things by discussing two separate accounts (i.e. "them"). No one has suggested the old account User:Daniel Tomé shouldn't be blocked or even INDEF-blocked (whatever standard process is used for old account names). But the WP:SOCKPUPPET tag is inappropriately applied, is unfair to Daniel and should be removed. (What possible justification to put on or retain label "sockpuppet"? Daniel made public request to rename it, and his single inadvertent use was corrected by him within 2 minutes, demonstrating there was absolutely no attempt ever to conceal, hide, or circumvent rules. If you are maintaining the SOCKPUPPET tag should stay, on what basis are you asserting that? What in WP:SOCKPUPPET do you say applies? I see nothing there in spirit or letter which describes anything that can be attibuted to Daniel's old account User:Daniel Tomé. The tag should be removed, especially this is a person's real-life name. That account engaged in no sockpuppetry. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
That is a sticky wicket, since technically, it is just as tied to the other accounts as User:DanielTom. Tagging, however, is not a required function and I don't see a lot to be gained by doing so. I went ahead and removed that one tag. While Daniel has made a wiki-career out of being an ass to a number of persons, I see little to be gained by maintaining the one tag, particularly since there are real life implications. I have also taken the liberty of removing talk page access and email access for that account, matching the block for the primary account, as it can not be used to request an unblock anyway. Obviously, if he socks again, someone will likely replace that tag and I won't stop them. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 12:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Being on the receiving end of DanielTom's bizarre and abusive methods, it is difficult to have any pity for him. I have blanked the two user pages, however, since the linkage is obvious and the overlap wasn't exactly abusive, so the tag is overkill. I personally see DanielTom and his admin-trolling ilk as a cancer on the project but I'm not going to allow that to control my actions or change how I do my job here. Obviously, if he does create any other accounts, the tags should be restored. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 12:09, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Correcting myself. Looking back at the Diogotome edits, it does seem pretty clear that abuse was the goal. I'm not opposed to a CU removing the tags and protecting the pages, but the "brother" excuse doesn't fly and there is sufficient abuse to justify the tags. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 12:14, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Whether there was abuse or not isn't the issue. It is unacceptable for Wikipedia to associate wrongdoing with a particular username in perpetuity in a way that implicates a real person's name. This could prevent the person from getting a job, apartment, relationship. We are not here to issue real life punishments like that. Please blank the pages for the user. Do keep the user blocked all around if they have been abusing Wikipedia. Jehochman Talk 12:32, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
And again, no, it's not our fault that they chose to use that username. If you edit under your real name you don't get to have your ANI threads, RFC/Us, or ArbCom cases expunged, for example. That just sets a bad precedent. --Rschen7754 12:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Actually you do, once the matter is disposed of. You might want to double check your cluemeter, which seems to be misconfigured for excessive density. Jehochman Talk 12:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
I've already removed the tag, per above, with the understanding that if they sock again, someone may end up reapplying it. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 12:40, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Dennis, THANK YOU for that! [44] (I don't understand however, with this same request in hand, and never changing it, I've been stiff-armed numerous times by both Rschen and Todd. I didn't change the request, and of course the facts didn't change, but I've had to repeat them way too many times. Why is it only you paid attention? I shouldn't have been stiff-armed, or even ridiculed by Todd, who told me I should be picking up a hint that I'm "off the mark" and that my single request here was "grossly misguided".) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
I can't speak for them, I've been out of town and just got back. Technically, they are correct that a tag is the normal course of action, even if I boldly chose to handle differently for humane reasons. If you feel like you are being dismissed or ignored, it might due to the way you treat admin in general, which I find abhorrent. I try to not let it affect my actions, however. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 13:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
The tag was removed by you, but I cannot see how it was ever "correct" when nothing done under account User:Daniel Tomé met or fit either spirit or letter of WP:SOCKPUPPET. So I can't believe any "bold action" or "humane reasons" needed conjuring in order to remove the sockpuppetry tag. So all I'm left seeing, is inconsistency between your action to remove, and the non-responses from Rschen & Toddst1. Regarding how I treat Admins, your soapbox insult is not appropriate here Dennis, but since you made it, I treat all editors with respect by default until and unless I have sufficient personal experience with them that calls me to change that arrangement. I was reasonably professional in all my requests to both Rschen754 and Toddst1, in spite of Rshchen wall of unhelpfullness and Toddst1's insults and crass remarks. (Examples of unprofessional Admin behavior and what do you do? Blame me for it! [So I suppose you would agree with Drmies then, when he said and implied I must have said something to deserve being called "a mother-fucking asshole" by an Admin acquaintance of yours in an Email. Acceptable behavior from an Admin. Sure.]) Regarding your further slur of me here that my behavior is "abhorrent" to you, well Dennis Brown, your behavior of non-stop pontificating and constant hypocritical self-stroking, to me, is sickening. (Listen, either get in a discussion room with me and a neutral moderator where we can have a private little debate regarding mutual shortcomings and grievances, or, just knock off with the insults and leave me alone, OK Mr. Admin of a "higher standard of behavior"?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:49, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Only on ArbCom cases, and the page and case itself still remain quite visible. Furthermore, I just had to chase down a crosswiki socker on the Chinese Wikipedia, a language and Wikipedia that I am completely unfamiliar with, and the tags are quite useful as they quickly identify why a user was blocked. No, I'm not going to revert the tags, but I think this is a very bad call and a bad precedent. --Rschen7754 12:42, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
There's only a small number of accounts with a person's real name. If somebody becomes a mass socker, they will have to start using lots of other names. A courtesy blanking is fine once or twice. If this user decides to abuse our courtesy by forming lots of accounts based on his real name in hopes that the blanking can be done each time so he can fool us over and over again, that would be a different story. We could then say, tough luck, you were warned. Clearly the user is on notice not to sock, and to be careful what they do under their real name. This courtesy might not be available next time. Jehochman Talk 12:45, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted back to the version of User:Daniel Tomé that DanielTom had created. It redirects to his new account, which was blocked. He created the redirect, self-identifying the new account, which is appropriate. Not linking these accounts in some way is not at all appropriate. If you don't want to use a sock tag on that page, we can go back to his way of doing associating the two accounts. Toddst1 (talk) 14:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so the sock tag has been removed, and the user page has been restored to the redirect that Daniel himself created. Is everyone satisfied now? ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Daniel asserts the history [45] shows that it wasn't he that created the page after the rename. He understands that the account shouldn't have been recreated after the rename, but at the time he noticed that admin MBisanz, who did the rename, left a redirect in his Talk page. So later he did the same to his main page. Daniel guesses Todd doesn't understand courtesy blanking, and the account "Daniel Tomé" should have been deleted. Daniel feels that with the redirect, it just goes back to square one, and his real name is again defamed with bad consequences. He feels the "Daniel Tomé" account has only one superfluous edit and should be deleted. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:18, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
See also [46]. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
First, accounts cannot be deleted, due to technical limitations and for the attribution of edits, so that's not going to happen. However, you referred to the user talk page, which has been blanked by Toddst1, but the user page was indeed redirected by DanielTom himself, so I don't know why this is such a sticking point. However, if Daniel really wants to get his real name out of the logs, a bureaucrat might be willing to do another rename of the original account. The mass of discussion here and at the SPI would seem to make that a moot point, I think. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:52, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Daniel believes there are no "technical limitations", and that the Daniel Tomé account, which has only one edit, can (and should) be deleted easily. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:17, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Daniel Tomé, the blocked, highly disruptive user can believe whatever he wants. Now we're seeing changing requests from a blocked, highly disruptive user communicating by proxy. If Daniel wants something done, let him contact the foundation. Frankly, IHTS, it's none of your business. Toddst1 (talk) 18:25, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
I believe in unicorns but unfortunately for Daniel my beliefs are no more true than his. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 18:27, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations/Archive_12&oldid=1159114307"