Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Archive 18

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

I don't know the right place

Is it not a policy violation to have two editing accounts and sign both with the same username or with the other name same time!? User:Secret Agent Julio (alt) and User:Secret Agent Julio -- 178.24.88.158 (talk) 23:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Nope - see WP:SOCK#LEGIT. ansh666 23:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Only the the point Doppelgänger accounts would be suitable, but than this point says: "Such accounts should not be used for editing."!? -- 178.24.88.158 (talk) 00:49, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
No, this would fall under the security exception. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Oh Green tickY thank your both for clarification, and sorry for misunderstanding. -- 178.24.88.158 (talk) 01:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Can't create an SPI due to title blacklist

Hendrix (sulap's) (talk · contribs) is one of half a dozen socks of Hendrix Adi Surya (talk · contribs), but I can't open an SPI with that master because the phrase "Hendrix Adi Surya" seems to be title blacklisted. Can the title blacklist be changed to avoid triggering on a "Wikipedia:" prefix, or would it be better to start an SPI under a different or placeholder username? --McGeddon (talk) 17:09, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

@McGeddon: Widr has already blocked Hendrix (sulap's). An admin or template editor can create the page for you. If you would still like to open a SPI, I could create the page for you. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:44, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
@JJMC89: If a blank placeholder SPI page for Hendrix Adi Surya (talk · contribs) wouldn't confuse anything and could sit there silently until someone needed to raise an SPI against the next sockpuppet, then yes, please - this seems worth it to avoid a situation where a future editor wants to raise an SPI but is unable to. --McGeddon (talk) 08:47, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 Done. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:29, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Tagging vs. DENY

For active prolific socks like T.C. who seem to make socks solely for the purpose of having them blocked and tagged, what is the benefit of tagging them? This guy seems to just be trying to increase the Category size and nothing else as some sort of trophy room. Today he apparently logged out to report his logged-in sock. How about this: future socks from him get their UP and UT pages blanked and protected for a year or so rather than tagged. A list can be kept offline for future re-tagging if needed once he gets bored that his plans have been thwarted? CrowCaw 15:36, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Tagging isn't necessary. If it encourages the sockmaster, delete the currently tagged userpages and don't tag any more (example). — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:25, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I would support that. Certainly at least the ones where there is no user contribution visible (all deleted) and there's nothing on the UP/UT besides warnings. There's no meaningful pattern-showing that can be gleaned from such pages. CrowCaw 18:25, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

DENY by not reopening SPI

If already blocked, or if an editor can contact an online admin for an obvious sock block, should we encourage not reopening the SPI, perhaps with an edit notice? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:43, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

  • In some cases, as the one I mention above, the sock themselves open the SPI. This furthers the notion that they just want to pad their Confirmed/Suspected categories, and get impatient that nobody's made the connection yet. This sort of "look at me" can likely only be countered by a heavy dose of DENY... But yes, in most cases where the sock is blocked for other reasons (VOA), there really is little point in opening a pro-forma SPI. CrowCaw 19:50, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
If there's a history of sleepers and it was a non-CU block, it may still be useful to open one. Also, some people will record already-blocked socks in the SPI (marking it as closed) for future use, if someone else wants to run a CU against those socks. ansh666 18:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
In your first example, it's only useful if the filer requests a CU. In your second example, that only works if it's an administrator who files it because only administrators and the SPI team can close an SPI. My biggest beef is with reopening SPIs with blocked socks of notorious sock masters who are obvious vandals and shouldn't even be tagged. Anna Frodesiak's idea of an editnotice is an interesting one. There are scripts we use at SPI, and we'd have to make sure the notice didn't interfere with them.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:33, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Well, yes, I was just saying that it shouldn't be a blanket "don't do this", there are still cases in which it is useful to do so. ansh666 19:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
An editnotice would not interfere with any scripts. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:27, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Question re SP as it pertains to page protection

At WP:RFP, I've noticed requests for page protection "Persistent sockpuppetry" or "sockpuppet avoiding ban" are repeated claims made when asking for protection. And the edits they're referring to are usually IPs. How would those editors know if a disruptive IP is a sock? Personally, being a fairly new admin, I only protect based on the article history and don't assume the IPs are socks. But is there a way to know by looking at the edits that it's a sock? — Maile (talk) 16:59, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@Maile66: Yes, there is, see here: WP:Signs of sockpuppetry. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Looking at the edit history, have any of the previous IPs been blocked for socking? Are their IP ranges similar? Also, if you constantly work at RFPP and AIV, your sock detector is quickly going to improve. Also, don't be shy in asking the reporting editor, "Who's the master?" That will save you a lot of time getting up to speed. --NeilN talk to me 17:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Another good way is to look at the IPs' whois data, which will tell you where and to whom the addresses are registered. Of course, a sockmaster isn't always going to be using the same network(s), but it's an easy way to tell if it's someone using dynamic IPs. ansh666 22:39, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
How do I look at the IP whois data? — Maile (talk) 23:02, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Look at the contributions of the IP. At the bottom of the page the first link link on the left is WHOIS. Click on it. There are also WHOIS sites all over the web where you can plug in the IP address if you prefer.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Got it. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 23:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Backlog

I need lodge a complaint regarding this SPI. I get that there's a lack of qualified personnel here, and that it can take a while to get a to particular investigation. It's a big part of the reason I've applied for clerkship. What I don't understand is the lack of follow through, that this SPI is longest open investigation despite having caught the attention of three clerks/CU's, that it takes a month to follow up on the additional evidence requested despite being provided promptly. Your assistance would be appreciated. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Pings don't always work at SPI. Have you tried contacting the Clerk who requested the additional evidence?--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

How much evidence is needed?

I haven't dealt with SPI in years, so I'm not sure what's expected these days. Someone was TBANned from MOS, then indeffed for not abiding by it, over obsessive campaigning against MOS:LQ, usually by shoe-horning "challenges" against logical quotation into other discussions. A few months after exhausting appeal options, a new account has shown up and is making nearly zero edits at all but adding MOS:ENGVAR-related templates to pages; is named after the template itself; has a user-page consisting of nothing but a stance-taking quote from MoS; and then made a bee-line to WT:MOS to ask a "I'm a noob who doesn't understand style matters" question, in which they immediately shoe-horned a "by the way, what's up with MOS:LQ?" thing out of the blue. I think this is almost certainly the same person, but I don't want to waste time or raise a stink if it's not enough to go on. Even if it's not a sock, it appears to be WP:NOTHERE to do anything but be an WP:SPA imposing ENGVAR templates on articles for which no discussion has concluded to formally declare an English dialect.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:18, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

As a new-ish clerk, for me it's helpful in a case like this if you can identify the characteristic behaviour of the suspected sockmaster (as you have here) and compare to the same behaviour in the suspected puppet, providing diffs for both of course. Do as much work as you need to to convince someone who's completely unfamiliar with the alleged master's history that the same person is operating both accounts. Sometimes it's not very easy to make a case, and it's even harder as a clerk to come across a case like that not knowing any of the history and try to follow the filer's logic, so do as much as you can. We'll look around ourselves if you give us something to go on, or ask for more if we need it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 00:36, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
@Ivanvector: EngvarB_consistency is the "new" editor who knows all about MoS and only does MoS stuff (contribs), then pretends to not know about MoS just to have an excuse to raise issues about MOS:BQ and the perennial "%" dispute [1]. The indeffed one is Darkfrog24: evidence log used at AE; AE 1, AE 2, AE 3, AE 4. The focus on ENGVAR 'enforcement", the tone, the phrasing, are all similar. But, possibly someone else's sock. I think EngvarB_consistency is an American posing as a British editor, as a ruse/smokescreen, because no actual British one would have challenged the permissibility of "per cent", the standard British spelling, nor LQ, which is much closer to the various conflicting British punctuation styles than it is to the comparatively consistent one favored by American publishers. It just doesn't add up, like winning the Lotto and then demanding that they check it three times be be sure before giving you the money. Even if this isn't a good SPI case, I'm wondering what to do about it as a NOTHERE one. While we might tolerate an editor called I-before-E-except-after-C who did nothing but correct typos in that vein (because correcting typos is constructive, even if trivial), going around declaring which ENGVAR is established at an article without discussion isn't constructive, but just fight-baiting (especially between speakers of different Commonwealth English dialects that are superficially difficult for North Americans to distinguish from British English).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:55, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: This is getting way beyond questions about SPI and into a full-blown analysis of two editors. Either initiate an SPI or take the new editor to ANI, but no more of this here.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Okey-dokey.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:35, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
I never use the expression myself, but anytime someone says okey-dokey, I smile.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Checkuser requests to be listed

Category:Checkuser requests to be listed has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. -- Tavix (talk) 15:56, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

My name on an spi as clerk or cu

Just to note what is probably obvious, I brought the case so am not acting in any official capacity. Doug Weller talk 05:43, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

My name on an spi as clerk or cu

Just to note what is probably obvious, I brought the case so am not acting in any official capacity. Doug Weller talk 05:43, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Worth checking out?

Hey, I have a bit of a question. I'm not sure if this is worth pursuing as an SPI or not. My inclination is that it's borderline at best since one of the two editors, Gdavid01 has said that she has a tie to Rubyperl, who she claims is a student. It's fairly obvious that David is the person in charge of the organization The Intercultural Alliance of Artists & Scholars, Inc. (IAAS) and my personal thought is that if this is a separate person, that she told this person to write these articles and write them in a very specific manner.

What makes me think that they might be the same person is this comment, which is written very similar to this. The first comment was written by Rubyperl, the supposed student, and the second was by Gdavid01. The articles that they created and edited are also written in a similar promotional style and both people have been editing on IAAS and 2Leaf Press related topics, all without any COI disclosure. In the case of Gdavid01, she edited off and on since 2012 without disclosing anything and she claimed that it was only recently that people were asking about IAAS's publishing arm and why none of the people or topics had articles.

This looks to be a case of sockpuppetry and COI evasion, although the way that their arguments are phrased, when Rubyperl posts, are so similar that part of me thinks that this is a case of her with a separate account. If it's not the same person then I'm fairly certain that Gdavid01 is telling her exactly what to write, meaning that it might as well be the same person. None of this feels exactly right and it feels a little sleazier than your normal attempt to promote something. I just can't help but keep feeling that Gdavid is trying to manipulate Wikipedia guidelines. I'll be honest - part of me thinks that this might be another account that she opened in an attempt to hide her COI and is lying about it being a separate person. The way that the articles are phrased are puffed up enough to where it's not entirely honest, with claims like "it won an award" without saying what it is.

What do you guys think? Is there any merit in pursuing this? If this is a student that Gdavid enlisted to write the article, then it's possible that they'd show up with the same IP regardless. I just can't shake the suspicion that this is just the same person with two accounts. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

  • I did open a thread at COI/N, which was spurred by this post. Basically, I know that there's some skeevy stuff surrounding all of this, the question is whether this is one person or two. Some of the stuff doesn't match up to the claims, where Gdavid claims that multiple students were asking about the page and interested in editing yet there's only one other person editing. It's awful convenient that she claims that the other editor is a student, as it's mildly well known that we give more leeway to students. She's coy about her COI as she's somewhat declared it at the editor assistance board after receiving some pressure but not disclosed her identity exactly. I don't figure that she has to exactly, but that she's still not fully transparent is concerning. Then there's the matter of exactly how she was speaking to students. I don't think she's a teacher per her article, so does this mean that these are student interns at IAAS? Are they students of Forbes? How was she in contact with these students? This really doesn't feel right and I can't help but worry that if there is a student involved, that this could be a possibly exploitative deal. She seems to know enough of the policies (given how she states them on the one board) to where she honestly should know better than to do the stuff she's done here, especially as she said that she couldn't edit because of a COI, but has done exactly that multiple times. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:01, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • This looks like a very clear case of either WP:Sockpuppetry or WP:Meatpuppetry, which makes no difference in such situations. {{Checkuser needed}}. I would still like to check whether they are the same person. If they are, then the sock should be indefinitely blocked. If they are two persons, then both should be temporarily blocked. Vanjagenije (talk) 08:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • That's a concerted promotional effort. I even speedy deleted one or more of the articles, which were then of course recreated. That said, the two accounts are Red X Unrelated.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:14, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for checking. Even if the accounts show up as unrelated, it's reassuring to know that it's not just me that felt that something was off here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 01:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Hey, here's something new. One of the articles in the 2Leaf Press spamisphere was created by Duckduckstop, who was found to be a sockpuppet of Slowking4. Is that worth checking out? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:56, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm familiar with Slowking4, and I don't think there's any relationship between the two accounts I checked and that master.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Diogenes Loquitur

Hey, should I bother opening up a SPI for Diogenes Loquitur? I'd blocked the account since it appeared to be a shared account since the editor constantly referred to themselves using the term "we", to the point where it looked clear that they were using it to represent a group of people. They were also clearly here to soapbox for their cause at the article Creating Problems with Condensing Boiler Technology - the end game?. The page was deleted via AfD and RoySmith blocked three accounts that looked like they were sockpuppets or were engaging in sockpuppetry.

It looks like RohenKapur is the oldest account since that was opened in 2015, and Shakespearescript and Kapurrb was opened later. I suppose that if you do think that an SPI is necessary it'd go under RohenKapur since they're the oldest. In any case, they all have the above article in common, as they all traveled there to argue in its defense and their arguments pretty much centered around the idea that Wikipedia should keep the article because public awareness soapboxing nonsense.

All of the accounts are blocked, but it might be worthwhile to do it to start a paper trail since I have a small suspicion that we might not have seen the last of this lot. People who write rambling rants like this tend to at least try to make one last hurrah. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:41, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Possible sock but not sure who puppeteer might be

User:Cephlopoid and User:79.69.40.229 are pretty clearly the same person based on the edits made to Benham's top, which I wouldn't normally put as sockpuppetry since it's just an IP creating an account. However, the contents of Cephlopoid's user page, the battleground mentality shown from their first edit as an IP, and the incivility and threat of "taking this further" on my talk make it look like this isn't their first foray into Wikipedia. I get the impression that Cephlopoid is a sock - which obviously could be wrong and I apologise if it is - but if they are a sock, I'm not sure who the sockpuppeteer might be. Could someone more experienced in the ways of puppetry take a look at it? Marianna251TALK 12:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Priority of closing cases?

Question for SPI team: There is currently a backlog of about 80 open SPI cases, the oldest being from July. Ignoring the CU requested cases, how do you decide which case to tackle next? For example, is it by age, do older SPI cases where the master is well known/prolific get priority over newly filed ones, is it by perceived disruption caused by the sock, do you look for cases where the sock is very active and causing a lot of damage first, then move on to the less active/ more benevolent socks? Do you try to close cases left open for a long time first, or am I completely off here, is there no "priority" given to cases at all, it's just whatever you feel like working on at the time/are personally interested in? It's clear that there are too many socks and not enough people on the SPI team or admins heavily involved in SPI, but at the same time, I look at some of these cases that have been left open for months that still appear to be going nowhere and think to myself, "well, how did that happen?" Sro23 (talk) 14:06, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

There is no set procedure. The backlog grows and falls. The factors that determine the ebb and flow are many, and I wouldn't draw too many specific inferences from any of it.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:18, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
If I'm looking at the list, I do tend to scan for cases I'm familiar with and address those first, but they usually pop up on my watchlist. I usually look at CU requests first, because if they're endorsed then they require action from other users before they can be closed, so I like to get those going. Then I will try to address the oldest open cases first, excepting that I tend to pass over cases where another clerk has already commented. I have no way of knowing just from glancing at the list how much history or active disruption a case has going on, so that doesn't factor into it. Like Bbb23 said, I wouldn't read too much into it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:28, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Priority of closing cases?

Question for SPI team: There is currently a backlog of about 80 open SPI cases, the oldest being from July. Ignoring the CU requested cases, how do you decide which case to tackle next? For example, is it by age, do older SPI cases where the master is well known/prolific get priority over newly filed ones, is it by perceived disruption caused by the sock, do you look for cases where the sock is very active and causing a lot of damage first, then move on to the less active/ more benevolent socks? Do you try to close cases left open for a long time first, or am I completely off here, is there no "priority" given to cases at all, it's just whatever you feel like working on at the time/are personally interested in? It's clear that there are too many socks and not enough people on the SPI team or admins heavily involved in SPI, but at the same time, I look at some of these cases that have been left open for months that still appear to be going nowhere and think to myself, "well, how did that happen?" Sro23 (talk) 14:06, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

There is no set procedure. The backlog grows and falls. The factors that determine the ebb and flow are many, and I wouldn't draw too many specific inferences from any of it.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:18, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
If I'm looking at the list, I do tend to scan for cases I'm familiar with and address those first, but they usually pop up on my watchlist. I usually look at CU requests first, because if they're endorsed then they require action from other users before they can be closed, so I like to get those going. Then I will try to address the oldest open cases first, excepting that I tend to pass over cases where another clerk has already commented. I have no way of knowing just from glancing at the list how much history or active disruption a case has going on, so that doesn't factor into it. Like Bbb23 said, I wouldn't read too much into it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:28, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Open SPI not listed as a current case

Any reason why Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hwy43 is not listed as a current case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations#Cases currently listed at SPI? Perhaps the accuser didn't follow the instructions properly? Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 05:03, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

There's a bit of a delay before the page updates, and it's been deleted since anyways. ansh666 06:26, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Different IP

If you have a user using two different IP, then what ? When you have two accounts (different IP) with the exact same style in editing and the exact scope of focus, to the point of dividing articles between the two accounts, then how do you fight this ?

Those accounts can be used to avoid the 3rr and to have a majority consensus in talk pages....etc. Yet, they appear to be different users even though there are many evidences that they are the same user (except for the IP).

At best, those two users are cooperating and they came to Wikipedia for the same reason.

Is there anyway to stop such a case?.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 10:34, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The IP doesn't matter. WP:DUCK is sufficient rationale for a block of a user who is acting badly. --Jayron32 14:18, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
@Attar-Aram syria: We use both behavioral and technical analysis. See: WP:signs of sockpuppetry. Technical evidence is not the only acceptable evidence, there much more signs of socking. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Arguably, technical evidence is usually the "icing on the cake", and ultimately neither proves anything, nor is exculpatory. It's a nice confirmation for what we already can tell from behavioral evidence, usually. --Jayron32 18:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Bbb23, you closed the investigation in a speed unbelievable ! How can I bring you a"properly" laid evidence if the case isnt about the same IP. Do you really believe that there was no evidence ! he made this edit and got reverted three times by me and another user and suddenly !, an IP with no previous edits showed up and started edit warring to restore the controversial edit then disappeard right after the page was protected and after staying away from that particular edit while the IP fought for it, the user re-asked for it following the protection of the page which made the IP useless.

How would you explain that IP who emerged just to restore the edit and fought for it then disappeared right after the page was protected. Do I have the right that another admin would review my case ?? you reviewed a former case of mine and instead of just taking the time to read the evidence, you were so rude, deleted any attempt of me to argue and bullied me like you are a principal in a school! What kind of a behavior is that ?. Now, im sure you will act the same and delete this edit and threaten me or maybe also block me and keep a single purpose account. roaming free.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:57, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is better than print media

Hijiri88 and Drmies, in print media there may be a front page story with a sensational accusation and then, many issues later, there is a small retraction on page 30. On Wikipedia, we have the ability to make corrections either directly at the place of mistake and/or adjacent to the mistake. It is ridiculous to make a small correction far away from the mistake, especially for serious mistakes.

A conviction of sock puppetry is a serious offense, in this community, and I take it as such. It is highly offensive to have statements like "Kauffner's sockpuppet Sthubbar" and the statement that I have been banned, without an immediate and clear correction directly at the site of the mistake.

I am just now also seeing that Notthebestusername seems to be in the exact same situation as me, living in China and using public proxies, and it is just his/her luck that s/he was no also banned.

Please restore the edits, or make other edits, directly at the location of the highly offensive statements.Sthubbar (talk) 00:08, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Note of clarification: The above is in reference to a small hubbub on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kauffner/Archive yesterday. Sthubbar made several alterations to the archived wording User:Bbb23's posts regarding CU results and some edits Sthubbar had made that were interpreted as evidence of sockpuppetry. User:Drmies added a note that ArbCom had reversed the block at the same time as I reverted Sthubbar's edits, which I inadvertently reverted along with Sthubbar's edits and then re-added. Drmies thanked me for my self-reversion, which implied he approves of the present text following my last edit. It is not clear what is meant by "or make other edits" -- Drmies's note is still there, and the only edit he made was to add that note, so Sthubbar's attempt to ping him indicates that he is aware that another edit already has been made. I don't have access to deleted edits, but it looks like a version of the above was posted here before the page was deleted. The request that the edits made in the middle of Bbb23's statement be restored appears to have been retracted. I don't think anything else needs to be done here -- I just thought that since this was in reference to a very specific string of edits, some of which are apparently no longer in the public log, to a specific SPI case, that some context would be necessary. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Hijiri interprets my little "thank you" correctly. Sthubbar, I am happy we got to unblock you, but please, this is getting out of hand. You changed another person's wording, and that is never OK. You then added a talk page to the SPI--Mike V deleted that while I was responding to it--and now we're here? Now, that SPI, I placed the appropriate comment there, and as far as I am concerned (and I think I speak for ArbCom here as well), that's it. I'm not sure about any comparison with print media, but I do know that the more Sthubbar harps on this point, the more attention they draw to the block. Mind you, the block was placed on technical grounds, and ArbCom did not rule on that evidence nor did it decide to grant the unblock appeal because the technical evidence was somehow faulty--in other words, the block was placed in good faith. Now, Streisand effect and all, shall we get back to work? Drmies (talk) 02:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Ok, finished.Sthubbar (talk) 02:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Mass deletion of sock tags and user pages

Based on this discussion, all user pages tagged by Checkusers and Clerks have been deleted wholesale based on a single "delete" vote at MfD. This totals nearly 200 user and user talk pages. Am I the only one who finds such mass deletion with almost no discussion over the top? At the very least a note should have been left here notifying the group responsible for the detection and tagging of the socks that the pages were up for deletion (in my opinion). This was noted by SmokeyJoe, but never followed-through on. I get the whole WP:DENY thing, but this type of mass deletion needs far more eyes an input from those familiar with the process than what occurred here. This just makes our job (and future CUs) more difficult and tedious. Thoughts?--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:22, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Very strange, as the case is in fact very much alive. I can understand defusing old IPs, but not this. The Banner talk 17:32, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
There is no way that that discussion could be seen as even approaching a consensus- let alone to base a project-wide 'policy' on it! Muffled Pocketed 17:45, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
The delete should be undone.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:50, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Those pages and tags are for use by admins and SPI clerks. I get the WP:DENY argument, but this page should have been notified of that discussion before any action was taken, and I'm sure I'm not the only clerk who would have commented a strong "hells no". I'm for reversing those deletions. Should we take this to WP:DRV or is a conversation here suitable? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
I was wondering the same. Before bringing it to DRV we should probably ask the deleting admin, CambridgeBayWeather, for his input. I would have done that straight off but I wanted to ensure I wasn't over-reacting in viewing the deletions as OTT.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Woah.... Shearonink (talk) 18:14, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  • To clarify, is that discussion being used to delete userpages of a single person, or deleting ALL userpages of ALL checkuser-tagged socks? Not that either is right, but it may help me wrap my head around the scope of this. I'd be opposed to either, regardless, but we probably need to know the scale of what we're dealing with... --Jayron32 19:03, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion deleted all the user pages (including talk) related to a single sockmaster. The list of deletions start here and run for four additional logs pages.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:10, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, there's nothing project-wide about it, apart from the use of precedent in the nomination. I've previously !voted to delete SGK, Tikeem and some others, there's some others I'd vote to delete, and I'm not the greatest fan of routine tagging anyway, but deletion has to be done carefully and in specific situations. I'd agree that such large-scale deletions should in the future be better advertised - here for example. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:13, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
SGK and Tikeem and childish vandals with neon "pay attention to me" behaviours. I can see deletion in such situations, with prior notification to those involved at SPI. However, any situation wherein there are behavioural nuances that require review to differentiate between socking groups requires much wider discussion and due diligence.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:20, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't have any problem deleting the pure troll pages such as SGK's, but the Malusia22 pages were helpful. Particularly now that some troll has started imitating one of their account naming schemes. Also, some of us don't follow MfD, and even if I did, I would've appreciated some sort of notification here and a request for input from clerks and CUs. No harm done - we can always undelete them - but I doubt that many SPI regulars will agree with this action. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 01:31, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. Your initial post didn't say a single user, and made it sound like all tagged userpages were being deleted. I'd like to give this a little while for CBW to respond here, but depending on what he says, I would support starting a DRV here. --Jayron32 19:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, there's no immediate urgency and it's important to have the deleting admin's input. I'll also leave a message on his talk page in case he has pings disabled.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:21, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Ah. Well I have no problem restoring them if that is what is wanted. It appears that there is 227 in total so not a lot. I have to go back out again in a few minutes so it would be 3 or 4 hours (5 at the most) before I could start. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:03, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

  • I don't think that User:CambridgeBayWeather should have been so quick to close as "delete". The nomination was very brief, lacking in rationale, and procedurally problematic. Usually, every page to be deleted is listed in the nomination, in a collapse box if lengthy, and this wasn't done. There was no proper review of the pages to be deleted. I think the close and the deletions should be reversed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:36, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
SmokeyJoe. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Malusia22 was open for 11 days which is plenty of time for people to oppose and not a quick close. Especially as I see your name at MfD quite often. unsigned 22:04, 10 November 2016‎ CambridgeBayWeather
You're right, "quick" doesn't seem to be the right word.
I was hesitant to object more strongly, as I am not much into SPI issues. In general, I think that MfD should not get involved in SPI or arbcom issues, unless input is received from checkusers, arbs, or their clerks. A procedural objection easily made at this point is that the nomination didn't list the pages to be deleted, and so there was probably no serious review of the nomination. I think this is enough reason to overturn. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:06, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Is the list of deleted pages the ones seen in this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&dir=prev&offset=20161109&limit=235&type=delete&user=CambridgeBayWeather&page=&tagfilter=&subtype=
If so, assuming there are no substantive objections, I suggest noting that this sort of mass deletion on minimal documentation is not ideal. Who was the nominator, and what brought them into the story? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:22, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
The nominator of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Malusia22 was User:Blakegripling ph. I've notified them of this discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 01:05, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, it could've been discussed more thoroughly; I should've known better myself though at the time I was rather busy with other things hence why I wasn't there to expound on the deletion discussion. The thing here is, the reason why I called for an MFD versus Malusia22 is his behaviour - at one point he threw profanities at me and WayKurat, made threats and left obscene messages on article and userspace pages, similar to what the likes of SGK did. Blake Gripling (talk) 01:33, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I think I restored all of them. Shows I restored 227. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 01:51, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

  • I don't think anyone acted in bad faith here, it was a good-faith request in a suboptimal location, that's all. CBW closed appropriately given the discussion available, we basically did a mini-DRV here after someone else observed the procedural misstep, and now everything's been put right. There is some merit in non-tagging and hiding existing tagging for certain attention-seeking socktrolls, although I'm not familiar with this case in particular. Those discussions probably should happen here or at least this page ought to be notified of the discussion. But this was pretty minor, we can probably put away the pitchforks for now. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 03:22, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
    • In my opinion, the takeaway is that editors mass-nominating sock user pages should post a quick notice here to ensure the appropriate editors see the nom. ~ Rob13Talk 05:29, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
      • Yes please. Anything like this really must be mentioned here. It seems pretty important that CUs and clerks are informed. In fact, we are a fairly small group, I'd think we should be contacted personally. Doug Weller talk 09:27, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
In that case it would need a notice at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion and possibly in Wikipedia:Twinkle. But your best bet would be get a bot to notify you. And Ivanvector I didn't really feel that anybody was getting the pitchforks out. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 17:09, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
It felt a bit that way to me, there were a lot of users jumping on this yesterday, but it probably doesn't matter. How would a bot work, look for new page creations starting with "Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/" and post a note here, probably? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:16, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

:*FWIW, I would have said Delete to all of those had I seen it. The socks aforementioned are clearly looking for recognition: naming and numbering socks, others posting who they are just to get blocked and tagged, one spams admin pages flat out demanding an LTA be created for them. I don't see the need to tag these kind of socks, that's really for socks who behave otherwise, and I trust our CUs don't need a tag to tell them that User:Suix is here! is a sock. For keeping track of them, we have the SPI archives, so the UP cat is really needless for this variety. CrowCaw 23:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Suix

Hi y'all! Could a kind SPI clerk please merge this case and the two mentioned in the checkuser comments from the November 18 case? Thanks! Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 23:04, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Obvious sockpuppetry with no known master

Forgive me if this is the wrong place, but is there any way to deal with accounts that are very clearly sockpuppets but who have no known sockmaster? What brings this up is an edit like this. The very first edit made by an account registered today, with an edit summary referencing an arbitration decision that bans IP editors and editors with less than 500 edits from making edits to that topic. That is, a brand new editor wikilinked in their edit summary an arbitration decision that they were violating with their edit. Now I cant imagine that this could possibly be taken as anything other than a sockpuppet of some account, banned or otherwise, but to my non-administrator eyes that account should be blocked on sight. So my question is, can that account be blocked and how would one report such accounts? nableezy - 19:18, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

  • @Nableezy: To block an account for sockpuppetry, we need some strong evidence of sockpuppetry. The fact that the user has cited ArbCom decision is very week evidence of sockpuppetry, if evidence at all. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:30, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Its that they are citing an arbcom decision that prohibits their edits while using it revert other edits. That person strictly made an account to revert an edit. nableezy - 20:56, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
It could just as easily be a genuinely new user expressing dissatisfaction at the ruling, or perhaps a regular IP editor whose dynamic IP has just cycled onto this one. If you just have one edit from one IP with nothing to compare it to, there's really nothing that can be done here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:18, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
I figured there was nothing to be done, but just to clarify. There was arbitration decision that bars all edits by any IP or named editor that isnt extended confirmed from editing in the topic area. This account was registered today and as its first edit references that decision to revert an IPs edits from a month ago. To me at least that screams out quacking sock, but who's sock I have no clue. nableezy - 21:24, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

SUL and CA in the template?

Out of curiosity, why do you guys have both SUL and CA linked in your {{checkuser}} template. They both link to the exact same page, so isn't it a bit redundant to include it twice? — Gestrid (talk) 06:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

They're not the same place. SUL links to Special:CentralAuth/Example on enwiki, but CA links to m:Special:CentralAuth/Example on meta-wiki. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:20, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Ok, that makes sense. I didn't notice I'd changed websites on one of them. — Gestrid (talk) 15:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Actually, SUL should probably link to SUL info like the links at the bottom of contributions pages. The local CentralAuth page is redundant to the one on meta as far as I'm concerned. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Template IPsockCheckuser listed at TfD

{{IPsockCheckuser}} has been listed at TfD. Please See Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_December_8#Template:IPsockCheckuser. Could use some input from the SPI team. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Input given, and result was "delete". ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Fresh Start doubts

Are editors who were banned previously allowed to start off afresh with a new account. If so, how do we know whether that person has obtained permission for a fresh start or has just created a new account to continue with his propaganda. I happened to find a person who has a 99% chance of being the re-incarnation of an indefinitely blocked editor. Jupitus Smart 03:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

No, blocked and banned editors may not just start over with a new account. The user is banned, not the account, so if they create a new account they are still banned, and when we connect their new account to their ban, it will be blocked too. In cases were a user otherwise in good standing wants to create a new Wikipedia identity for whatever reason (to avoid harassment, to dissociate themselves with past editing, etc.) they may choose to WP:CLEANSTART, and it is not necessary to obtain permission to do so. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:30, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

New WP:DENY template

{{User:GeneralizationsAreBad/DENY}} -> Please deny recognition by not tagging socks. Thank you.

I think it might be useful to place this on masters' userpages or SPI pages, just to gently remind people to deny recognition and not to tag future socks. Do you believe it's worthwhile?

Thanks,

GABgab 01:25, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Why not tag socks? That is done to help our fellow editors rather than to give recognition. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:05, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Depends on who the sockmaster is. There are some LTA trolls who want to see categories full of offensive usernames. There does need to be some tagging going on so we can keep track of what sockmasters are up to. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:13, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Tagging is also needed in the case of behaviorally blocked socks as then there's no SPI to link them to. For the many paid COI sock farms as well as other non LTA disruption socks tagging helps evaluate behavior in the future. —SpacemanSpiff 06:17, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Of course, this would only be used in the minority of cases in which it's obviously counterproductive to tag - SGK and his ilk. GABgab 16:25, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Boxes

Can someone tick the right boxes on the various accounts an IPs on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Great Meme War. Two users have already been blocked as NOTHERE and a suspected sock. Given the...sporadic contributions of others there, additional socking seems likely. TimothyJosephWood 01:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I ran a check or two last night, but everything at the time pointed to off-site recruitment and proxy use, and I feel the CU results would yield the same result. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 02:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
User:DeltaQuad I assume then that your haven't check the latest additions? TimothyJosephWood 04:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Whois?

It seams to me that the "WHOIS" link that is part of {{checkip}} template is not working for IPv6 addresses (example: [2]). Can we fix this? Vanjagenije (talk) 09:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Consult needed

Hey there clerks, I'm looking for someone more familiar with the Orangemoody case to have a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PlikoraT. As far as I know Orangemoody is still active, and PlikoraT is showing some of what I understand is the common behaviour. In addition, the last Orangemoody report happened right around the time that the PlikoraT sockfarm started editing. There is also a CU request there which is not showing up in the main list. Thanks for your help and apologies in advance for the wall of text, I was as brief as I could be. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:10, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Message about an old blocked account

Hi all - I recently got a personal message about a (very) old blocked account which was swept up as part of a sockpuppet investigation back in 2010(!) - [[3]]. According to my correspondent, she had created an account User:MissMay03, to correct some common misconceptions relating to some 1930s actresses, which had got included in Wikipedia articles. Unfortunately, she was involved in an off-WP argument with another researcher, who not only joined Wikipedia a month later to try to revert the material which MissMay03 had changed, but also created sockpuppets with the names User:MissyMay03 and User:MissyMay02 to try to cloud the picture. Though it seems difficult to verify (I don't know how to use any tools which might make it easier to do so) it is interesting that information in the Helen Kane article added by MissMay03 was later removed by MissyMay02, which suggests that they may not be the same person. My correspondent also suggests that the various sockpuppets of BoopBoopaDoop, along with others which may not have been found at the time, have tag-teamed a number of articles to push a specific view point, maikng some sections of them into a walled garden, especially as relates to the Kane v. Fleischer case. It's possibly too late to re-open the investigation, but any advice on how to proceed would be useful - especially if biased information was been added and has remained in the articles. Grutness...wha? 07:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

@Grutness: I'd be interested in viewing this email if you could pass it along to review the legitimacy of the claims being made, even if it turns out I can't be that helpful. I might be able to work some CU magic. That said, I normally don't pay attention to blocked users screaming others have socks...i've been baited into that trap too often with the person emailing me still socking themselves. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
It was a series of PMs on Facebook... I'll email them - probably the easiest way of sending them to you. Grutness...wha? 18:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

A request regarding a specific case

Clerks and Checkusers, whenever a new case from this sockmaster pops up, could you please either request or run a check? They nearly always create multiple accounts in a go and the underlying proxies should be blocked. Given the nature of the vandalism (e.g. attacks and extreme BLP violations) it's important all of the accounts are locked down in quick fashion. Thanks, --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Edit filter log as evidence

Typically you don't file an SPI for accounts that haven't edited. For example, username similarities in addition to a user's edits can be used to help strengthen your argument in an SPI, but username similarities alone are not enough to get someone blocked (unless it's something really obvious or inappropriate). The person would have to have edited first. Similarly it's my understanding that an account's global contributions across other wikimedia projects may be brought up to give more weight to your accusations on Enlgish wikipedia SPI's. However if the account hasn't made any edits at all on the English wikipedia, it would probably make more sense to have it globally locked rather than filing an SPI here.

There's a user I suspect is a sockpuppet who attempted to edit, but it all got caught in a filter. So technically it's a zero-edit account. Could I still file an SPI using just the account's abuse filter log as evidence? Sro23 (talk) 21:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Sure. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Quick question

I normally don't notify users when I open an SPI against them because I think it influences the behavior. However, I wonder, does it ping you automatically when you are mentioned as a suspected sock in a sockpuppet investigation? Sro23 (talk) 19:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Not necessarily, there was a discussion on this on one of the village pumps a couple days ago. The {{checkuser}} template generates a ping, but that would only ping the accused sockpuppets, not the sockmaster. So I guess the answer to your question ("does it ping you when you are mentioned as a suspected sock") is "yes", as long as you sign your edit. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I see. I wonder why it does that. To me, it would make more sense for it NOT to ping you, like at WP:AIV. Filers can always courtesy notify users with {{Socksuspectnotice}} if they so choose, and there were advantages to having the suspected not be notified. It used to be very damning evidence when a user participates in an SPI they were never notified about, but this no longer applies now that it automatically pings you. Sro23 (talk) 00:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I could definitely get behind a non-notifying template. GABgab 00:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I previously changed the template to not ping, but was asked by Bbb23 to revert it. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:05, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Some comments. First, the change to the template also made the effects of a script I use less visible. In other words, it made my work at SPI harder. Second, as I understand it, there is no notification when the SPI is created because it signs it for you and therefore the notification fails. Third, all this time I didn't realize the template pinged. It doesn't seem to matter. 90% of the time, when the puppet makes an appearance, they complain they weren't notified, so for whatever reasons, they're not receiving the ping. Finally, a lot of editors notify puppets of the SPI on their Talk pages, so they're notified directly in those circumstances.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Malformed SPI report by Twinkle

I just created Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vineetpl7 using Twinkle, but for some reason it came out malformed. It wasn't listed in the sockpuppets case page list, either. I can't see anything obviously wrong in the page code... help? --bonadea contributions talk 10:17, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Bonadea: Fixed - there was an extra bracket on one of the links which broke the whole thing. Could you go and add your signature to it please? The template added mine at the end, which I removed. ansh666 10:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much! I've signed it now. --bonadea contributions talk 11:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

How long does a block usually take?

It's been 9 days since I reported this sock [who has at least 5 other past socks]. He is still editing stuff and pretty much told me as long as I keep assisting to get him blocked, he will keep on making accounts. basically, it will never end. but I was just curious how long an SPI usually takes. He is an obvious sock. I do appreciate all the clerks who have blocked all these reports, don't get me wrong. --Jennica✿ / talk 22:04, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

(note from a passer-by who doesn't know much about SPI stuff) You can ride this carousel round and round and round, but I think this should get more efficient once a number of admins become acquainted with the sockmaster and watchlist the articles that are prone to socking. If the socking is obvious they can then just block on sight without the need of going through SPIs. But I it does take time until this stage is reached. – Uanfala (talk) 11:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
@Uanfala: - they have blocked this particular user at least 5 times. I would say that's acquainted. He hits up the same kinds of articles almost every time. --Jennica✿ / talk 18:47, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Investigation request

I request a sockpuppet investigation to establish whether User:Denniss is a sockpuppet of User:Codename Lisa because Denniss appears to always protect the edits of Codename Lisa as can be seen in this diff and also in this diff and many others as you can see in the users' contributions. Absinthia Stacy 13 (talk) 11:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest that you follow the process at WP:SPI. Before doing so, you might want to consider some questions that might be asked about how a Wikipedia editor arives on Wikipedia today able to fully participate in discussions like that, and in AfD discusssions, populate a very full user page yet with no previous history in Wikipedia. I am well aware that many IP editors take some time to decide to adopt a user-name, but you may face some tough questioning unless you care to reveal what name you have previously been editing under.  Velella  Velella Talk   11:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) No, you do not get to ask for a fishing expedition because someone reverted you a couple of times. Someguy1221 (talk) 11:38, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
It seams to me that Absinthia Stacy 13 is actually Heracletus. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:13, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
OK you found me, I am Heraclitus but I am a good user just playing games for fun and I promise I will not play any more games, but how did you find me? Absinthia Stacy 13 (talk) 12:17, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
We do not disclose such information because we don't want to help suckpuppeteers. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:20, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Queried speedy delete request

Anonymous user SPI request?

Can an anonymous user instigate a sockpuppet investigation?

If so, how?

If not, and if a registered user would be interested to pursue this, please see User talk:81.141.42.198#SPI. Thanks. 81.141.42.198 (talk) 12:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you can open an investigation on the talk page (Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations\<username>), ant tag it with the {{edit semi protected}} template. Then, someone will move it to the Wikipedia namespace. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:56, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Rename/merge or split?

I created Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aryan Ashik and then realised that the reported master was in fact blocked in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Faisal Imtiyaz Khan. However, in that SPI, Aryan Ashik and his other sock were in fact found to be unrelated to Faisal Imtiyaz Khan - so what should now be done with the new SPI I created? Should it still be merged to the Faisal I K one, or should the January report for Aryan Ashik be moved into the new SPI? Or is it better to leave the older SPI alone and just let the new one be reviewed? --bonadea contributions talk 11:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Pardon for Sock Puppet

I have reported 2 Sockpuppets so far, and managed to find a third just now. But unlike the other two users who were editing for money, the third user seems very keen on writing good articles and constructively editing pages. His previous sockpuppets were also engaged in doing the same thing, and I cannot find the SPI investigation page for his sockmaster. I am therefore on the edge over reporting him, as he is engaged in copy editing on a topic where there is a serious paucity of good writers. I would like to know if there is any amnesty scheme on offer for such writers, so that I may suggest this option to him. And if not where can I find more details about the reasons for the block. The user pages of the sock master and his sock puppets only state that he has blocked for abusively using multiple accounts. Jupitus Smart 14:59, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

  • @Jupitus Smart: Are you talking about one single case (one person) or several different cases (2 Sockpuppets so far, and [...] a third)? Is the master account already blocked or not? Is he doing WP:block evasion? I can't answer because there are too much missing information. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
@Vanjagenije: I have reported 2 unrelated cases so far, and if reported this would have been my third reported case, all of unrelated users. The third case which I am currently pondering over reporting
  • Is about a sockpuppet who is evading his block with a new account
  • This said person has had his sockmaster account and multiple sockpuppet accounts blocked, with him forming a new sockpuppet account everytime his existing sockpuppet account has been blocked.
  • The person probably has COI in editing, but he is still actively involved in promoting many start class articles to GA status in a topic where there are only a handful of editors.
  • While turning him in does not seem to deter him as of now as he is always back with a new account, I am afraid that the breaking point will arrive soon and a good editor will be lost.
  • I would like to know if there is an amnesty scheme I can suggest him, as he was probably blocked for using 2 accounts simultaneously for gaming the system. Jupitus Smart 18:07, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
@Jupitus Smart: There is not such thing as "good" block evasion. Blocked user is blocked, and shouldn't be editing. If the user is really good willing, they should make an unblock request describe their intentions. We don't tolerate any kind of block evasion. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:15, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
You could point them to the WP:Standard offer, for some (non-binding) guidelines on how indeffed users can return to good standing. However, this requires no socking for 6 months. TDL (talk) 18:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
I have told him about your answers @Vanjagenije: and @Danlaycock: at [4]. You may start the SPI if you please, but I would like to hear what he has to reply, so I won't be starting the SPI myself till his next edit. Jupitus Smart 18:42, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Started the SPI Investigation - [5]. Will probably get some answers now. Jupitus Smart 03:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I am curious Jupitus Smart, about your level of certainty regarding the aspersions you freely cast against this editor; otherwise said to be "constructive"? Is your desire to hear his reply before progressing further an expression of uncertainty? If so, your "matter of fact allegations" would seem to have been misplaced. You certainly did not assert yourself as an SPI sleuth in stating your level of experience, and I submit there are things you may have missed directly proportionate to the things I presume you have yet to learn. I am not writing these things to besmirch your character or vilify your good intentions in any way. I am instead hoping to impress upon you the importance of caution and the abundance of certainty one ought have before levying allegations this grave in nature. I hope I've not estranged myself in saying these things. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 04:40, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Let the results arrive, John Cline. I may not be an SPI sleuth, but I don't have to rely on theatrics to scare sockpuppets into submission. I am however open to suggestions, and would love to know about things that I missed out, so that I may improve in the future. I probably could have given more diff to point out similarities, but I was lazy to do so, as I felt that checkuser would anyway find out that it was him. I do have a fair idea of the editing patterns of Charles Turing (another of his sockpuppets), having observed him as I edit similar topics as well, and that was what made it easier for me to lock on to his new avatar. Jupitus Smart 04:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
My biggest apprehension has been proven right. All of the sockpuppet's edits have been reverted. While I understand that Block Evasion is not taken lightly, all of his edits were constructive edits. Anyway if you are reading this Inside the Valley, do consider an unblock request for one of your blocked accounts, so that you may continue with your editing. Jupitus Smart 11:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Case merge?

In a routine check for new sockpuppets from 10alatham (talk · contribs), I came across Sir gidabout (talk · contribs) and co, and I'm fairly certain that these two are the same. For instance, Sir gidabout operated an sock called MHLATHAM1969 (talk · contribs). (I can provide additional evidence if necessary.) I'd like to go ahead and re-tag the named accounts in this case as 10latham socks. Does any one here have any objections to me doing that? Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:12, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll take the silence here as a no. If anyone has any further objections, feel free to revert my changes, but please let me know. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
@Sir Sputnik: case merges should be done by a clerk with administrator rights. I don't have time at the moment but I'll take a look. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
@Ivanvector: There's no SPI case page for Sir gidabout, so this shouldn't require admin rights. That's why I was suggesting I do it myself. Let me know when you've had a look. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
@Sir Sputnik: ah I see, well then you're right that you don't need admin rights. We usually prefer a clerk to manage the re-tagging process, just because we're more familiar with everything that needs to be done. For example, if it's determined that Sir gidabout is a 10alatham sock, then the big list of IPs that are currently flagged as potentially used by Sir gidabout need to be edited to point to 10alatham instead. (A sockpuppet tag should only ever point to a sockmaster, not to another sockpuppet, otherwise it starts to form a chain of sockpuppets, and you might fashion that into some sort of fancy necklace but it makes things messy here). Also you edited out some of the "blocked" parameters from the existing tags. On the other hand I think you're right that the two groups are the same, and you've done everything mostly right and posted here so that someone else could take a look, so job well done I suppose.
I am going to drop some information into a new filing at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/10alatham just to maintain the record and show that the two groups were merged. When there's a big list of socks to update I rely on AWB and I don't have it installed where I am right now, so unless someone else takes over I will probably not get back to it until some time tomorrow morning (Atlantic Canada time). Cheers. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Take a peek?

Hey, can someone take a quick peek at the accounts in the page history for Elliott Marc Jones? There are a lot of new accounts that have jumped on to the page in order to defend the article against deletion, namely Santaslisthelper1991, Maxmoefoewiki, Guanjosegonzales Chris hastings au, and Samsonite24. It's possible that they read about this somewhere and came on to defend the page, but despite the sales it supposedly has (not hard to do on Steam, considering that the game can be purchased for under a dollar right now), there's just not much coverage out there at all and what is out there looks to be the typical marketing blog posts. It's just a little interesting that a game that has next to no publicity has fans jumping to save it all of a sudden. Plus all of the users have come to Wikipedia to remove the speedy deletion rationale, which is also a little suspicious. It's not enough to open an SPI on necessarily, but I did want someone to take a look at the page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

  • They all seem to be here solely for the game and one user even went so far as to add this to the page of IndieGameStand. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:26, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Sockpuppeteer's wording inappropriate -- what to do?

User:JoshuSasori was not blocked for sockpuppetry. Is there an alternate template, or some parameter that I'm not seeing that can change the wording, or something? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:35, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I reverted your edit. You've been told repeatedly not to get involved in administrator functions. You're lucky I'm not blocking you.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:52, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
What? Are you confusing me with someone else? When was I told that even once, let alone repeatedly?
If it says somewhere that modifying sockpuppeteer tags is an action that can only be performed by admins, I apologize for having overstepped by bounds in this instance, but I was unaware of that rule. Anyway, if it is an action that should only be performed by admins, would you mind doing it?
The account was blocked (later upgraded to a site ban) for off-wiki harassment of me; socking had nothing to do with it.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
By the way, I fully understand if the tag has standardized wording that can't be altered and should be interpreted as "regardless of why this account was originally blocked, it was determined that it had abused multiple accounts and would be blocked for that reason as well". But I would appreciate it if you could just explain that, rather than threatening to block me for asking the question. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:19, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
@Hijiri88: You're right; I'm confusing you with someone else (at least I can't find anything that supports what I said). My sincere apologies. I slap sock tags on accounts that were originally blocked for other reasons as long as they have been found to be socking subsequently. So do other administrators and CheckUsers. So, the userpage doesn't need to be fixed, and the template doesn't need to be changed or have yet another parameter we'd have to worry about. In the future, if something like this bothers you, talk to an administrator about the issue rather than change the userpage yourself. Best person to start with is the administrator who put the tag on the page, assuming they're available. I hope that helps.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:32, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
No problem. I'm not an admin much less a CU, but I know a lot of shit comes with your job, so I can totally understand how mistakes like the above happen.
In the future, if something like this bothers you, talk to an administrator about the issue rather than change the userpage yourself. Yeah, normally I would, but given how old this problem was (I'm probably the only one still thinking about it, and that only because "off-wiki harassment" came up in another context and reminded me) I figured that even if I was technically out of line in making the change no one would care. But I kinda screwed up because my change didn't fix the problem I wanted to fix, which is what my above question was about. (It was confirmed, not "suspected", but that's a cosmetic difference.)
Anyway, thanks for explaining that (I slap down to administrators and CheckUsers). As I said above, I'm not really that bothered by it. I was just curious if this was a filing error rather than a technical limitation that's not worth worrying about.
Thanks again for clearing that up.
Cheers!
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:42, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
The admin put the suspected template on the userpage before the CU-confirmation. That happened a few days later. Your change (adding "proven") doesn't work for the sockpuppeteer template. It's used in the sock template. I've changed the template so it now shows that the master was confirmed by a CU. I've also removed all the garbage on the userpage below the banned and sock templates. No reason for that to be there.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:06, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Requesting an SPI be renamed

This is going nowhere and should not have been restored just because it was "unaddressed". Two clerks are aware of the issues. The case is not going to be renamed to a "placeholder".--Bbb23 (talk) 14:52, 14 March 2017 (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.

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lrednuas Senoroc concerns a block-evading vandal whose earliest account name seems to have been a deliberate impersonation of wikignome User:Srednuas Lenoroc, which nobody realised at the time. There's been some pointless confusion over the last couple of days when User:Srednaus Lenoroc was SPI'd as an "obvious" sock based on the name, but turned out to have (apparently) been the earlier "Srednuas" creating a fresh account with a different choice of typo after forgetting their original password last year.

Can we rename Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lrednuas Senoroc to avoid similar confusion in future? Perhaps to "Hassan Rebell", the second sock listed, although if the sockmaster has a history of mangled impersonation, a generic placeholder username is probably the safest way to go. --McGeddon (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@McGeddon:, you are totally right but sockpuppet Hassan Rebell is not currently blocked. He was blocked per WP:NOTHERE and is obviously the same editor with Lrednuas Senoroc. Maybe we should firstly get blocked Hassan Rebell per WP:DUCK of Lrednuas Senoroc and then request to rename the SPI. 46.221.174.114 (talk) 20:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
My mistake, yes, Hassan Rebell wasn't confirmed as a sock. I assume it's possible to have a placeholder username if all of the historical usernames of a sockmaster have been problematic? --McGeddon (talk) 21:31, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't see any reason to move this case. Even if we moved it, there would still be confusion between the two (three) accounts, move can't help. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
I have to disagree. Moving the case may not solve the problem entirely, but it may reduce it somewhat by making the deceptive username less visible. I was the editor who opened the investigation into user:Srednaus Lenoroc, not realising that there was impersonation going on. I had no previous involvement in the case, and only made the connection because I had seen the case listed on the SPI mainpage, meaning that the case title was contributing factor in creating this whole mess. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:42, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
A move wouldn't eliminate all future confusion, but would reduce it, and it like seems common courtesy not to talk about a (potentially long term) vandal by using a name which is meant to sound like an uninvolved third party. We've got SPIs like Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Renamed Imposter Account 000001 which seem to exist on the basis of an impostor vandal being renamed for confusion/politeness reasons. --McGeddon (talk) 10:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Restoring this unaddressed thread. Are the responses above sufficient reasons to rename the SPI case? --McGeddon (talk) 12:21, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

This was addressed by Vanjagenije. Move can't help. If we move the case there will remain an administrative redirect from where it is now, eliminating any benefit of the move. I will add a note to the SPI page explaining the situation. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:00, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
@McGeddon:, i agree with you to rename the case but as i said before, Rebell's block was reduced last year. I explained my concerns many times [6][7][8]. Maybe its better to take this issue (re-blocking Rebell and then renaming the case) to AN.46.221.179.106 (talk) 13:41, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting that the SPI be renamed to Hassan Rebell (which may itself be another instance of impersonation), just that it be renamed to a placeholder. A redirect gives the benefit of discouraging users from - as is the case in another SPI raised against the master last week - referring to the vandal as "Lrednuas Senoroc" in conversation (both within that SPI and on other talk pages), when that name was deliberately chosen to cause confusion with an unrelated user. --McGeddon (talk) 13:53, 14 March 2017 (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.

What am I doing wrong?

I fill this out Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/66.87.121.220. When I saved it, I got three separate messages telling me each IP mentioned "was not sent because the user is anonymous". — Maile (talk) 01:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm assuming it's because the checkuser/checkip templates create notifications, but notifications are only sent to registered users. In any event, it's nothing to worry about. The report was created.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:33, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. — Maile (talk) 01:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
@Maile66: What you did wrong: you used {{checkuser}} template for the first IP, and {{checkip}} template for other two. {{checkuser}} should only be used for registered accounts, while {{checkip}} is for IPs. I fixed it. Not a big problem anyway. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:02, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
@Vanjagenije: And I still don't understand why we suggest to filers that it isn't always a good idea to notify someone but don't let them know that the mere act of filing alerts them. Me, I'd like 'noping' added to the template so that people aren't automatically notified. Doug Weller talk 17:33, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: Interesting. I didn't even know that {{checkuser}} creates a notification before Bbb23 mentioned it above. Changing it to {{noping}} is good idea, but I want to point out that Mark-blocked script does not work with the {{noping}} template, so I wouldn't recommend changing before this issue is resolved. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:26, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

General question follow-up about this

This particular one had been taken care of as much as possible. Suspected sock of a long-term master. I don't know the history any of the socking of this master that did not deal with the specific article noted in my filing. But I am noticing that it's getting more personal and never ending, and based on what I saw on both the article's talk page and mine, somewhat alarming in tone. In cases like this, what is the eventual outcome? Does SPI just keeping blocking the socks as they come up? If it comes to the point where an editor receives personal threats, is there a different venue for this? A little preparation would be a good thing on my part, because this socker has a grudge. — Maile (talk) 18:19, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:911 (contacting WMF) for personal threats, otherwise just WP:DENY. ansh666 18:36, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations/Archive_18&oldid=1159114511"