Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Archive 5

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shuppiluliuma

This is annoying to me. I am annoyed. Where is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shuppiluliuma? This new page is a pain in the arse. Hiberniantears (talk) 03:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

When you fix it, comment on my talk page, because this new system is... stupid. Hiberniantears (talk) 03:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the rants/annoyance about the new process, I'm sorry you are annoyed. That past, I tried to figure out what you did but I'm confused. You created the SPI case, with a reference to Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Shuppiluliuma. I go there and I still don't see the case. Doing an SPI case is the same thing as doing a RFCU case, you list the socks/ranges/ips whatever, provide your evidence and wait for an admin or cu to do the rest. Please advise as you have me confused too! :) —— nixeagle^{email me} 04:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

My post was in relation to User:Shiham K, who is a puppet of Shuppiluliuma, which requires a review of the entire old case. My annoyance is not with you, but with the fact that old sock cases do not flow smoothly into this new system, and the fact that the CU who could have handled it best is retired. I need all underlying IPs of Shiham along with collateral damage estimates in order to evaluate the effectiveness of range blocks. Hiberniantears (talk) 04:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Posted to AN/I in the hope that an informed CU can help. Anyone who is not a CU, I do not need your help, but feel free to actually read into the background of the case. Hiberniantears (talk) 04:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

If you want to create a new SPI case, you need to create an SPI with a request for CU. You can do this by clicking the following link (you then just fill the blanks in): link.

The new system will show the old RFCU case as a link so that the check users can see the prior history. You are asked to provide a bit of background information especially if the checkusers most familiar with the case are retired.

Doing what I said and clicking the link and filling out the information is functionally similar to WP:RFCU, same codeletters same everything. —— nixeagle^{email me} 05:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

As Nixeagle says, the system is very similar to the old RFCU, and is designed to bring all prior SSP/RFCU cases to the table. I've fixed the case, copying the stuff that you put in the old case here, and endorsed it for CU attention. Mayalld (talk) 06:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help... I was clearly quite lost! Hiberniantears (talk) 13:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JuStar

Will a clerk other than Mayalid look at this one? He self-endorsed, and now it seems stuck in "awaiting clerk approval". Perhaps if one of you changed it to "endorsed", it will move.—Kww(talk) 18:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shuppiluliuma redux

Just a note that I made some updates to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shuppiluliuma, including a revision of my request, and some better context on the history behind the case. This time, I managed to do it without breaking the page, or blowing a gasket. ;-) Hiberniantears (talk) 18:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Is any actual checkuser looking at this case? Starting to feel a little like I'm just talking to myself. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

You are third in line at this moment. You can monitor the queue at WP:SPI.—Kww(talk) 15:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

There's got to be a faster way to do this. Double the number of CUs? Hiberniantears (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

That would probably work. This isn't an RFCU/SPI problem, though ... if anything, it's going a little faster on average, and generally more predictably, since the changeover. I think the problem now is that the first case in line is a little complicated, because it incorporates Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Huntdowntheconspiracists/Archive by reference, so everything is having to be cross-checked against a dozen accounts. That tends to slow things down considerably.—Kww(talk) 16:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Despite my initial cranky disposition above (caused largely out of my own ignorance to the new process, and a lack of proper sleep), I do actually like this new process better. I'm afraid my case will also be a bit of a time consumer as well, and I never really took the time previously to consider how relatively few CU's we actually have. Aside from the privacy concerns, it just seems like this should be a much faster process... like same day results. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Same day results probably won't ever happen. Same day results probably won't ever happen for all cases. Its possible that even now we are averaging near same day results on cases. Just more complex cases take longer and simple cases can get done in far less then a day. We get on average 10 new SPI cases (most don't require a cu... but on average 10 cases are opened). The backlog is almost never over 20 cases open at one time. I have not done the analysis but I think most cases are getting done on average in a 2 or 3 day timeframe. Complexity figures into it as well. Simple cases get closed quickly, more complicated cases not so much.

I have done case count comparisons against SPI and SSP and SPI is by far quicker then SSP ever was. As more admins get involved SPI should speed up. I have not compared SPI versus RFCU, but I have a feeling we beat RFCU as well (as far as number of cases handled in X timeframe). In general I think those that work with the process daily are working as best as they can to make it faster (we do get more cases per day then SSP did, and we handle them faster). I do think that you are expecting quite a bit from a volunteer process :) Plus most checkusers are not time-sensitive. A day or two more does not make that much of a difference as far as the amount of disruption occurring. —— nixeagle^{email me} 19:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Archived cases

If it is allowed, can somebody please transclude this or the appropriate transclusion to the investigagion page? Thanks. —Mythdon t/c 02:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The case has already been closed by Synergy (talk · contribs). There is nothing left to do. Tiptoety ^talk 02:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Question on how Checkuser works

A little while back a SPI was filed and checkuser determined that some five or six accounts were all sockpuppets. Does the act of Checkuser automatically bring up all accounts that were associated with the IP addresses in question, or does each username have to be checked individually? The reason I ask is that an account that has been around a while seems to be doing the exact same behavior of the blocked puppets that led to them being reported in the first place, and some others hav done some similar actions, and I was wonder if the checkuser would have nabbed them as puppets automatically if they were or if they have to be checked individually? DreamGuy (talk) 13:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

We've got three key features: get IPs by user, get edits by IP, get users by IP. Most checks involve some interaction between those three. Do bear in mind, of course, that these bits of information aren't held indefinitely by the server, and that very old accounts/edits are therefore useful only for behavioral comparison. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. OK, so... Regarding this case where five editors were determined to be socks of each other and using the account to harass me and involve themselves/himself in AFD and other deletion (or anti-deletion) activities... Since their ban, User:Colonel Warden, who is an old account always active in AFD type things, has seemingly picked up the torch in inserting himself specifically in AFDs I created, articles I touched that he never touched before, writing uncivil comments directed at me, etc. just as the editors in the previous case had done that alerted me to the sockpuppeting. Is it safe to assume that if there was a link that he would have turned up as a match in the checkuser in that case even though he wasn't specifically named at that time, or do I need to see if I can get him checked? DreamGuy (talk) 19:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that you are going to get a definitive answer on that question. It depends too much on who ran the checkuser, how carefully they examined the results, how widely used the IPs are, whether they may have encountered the editor but decided that his overlap was coincidental, etc. If you really suspect that Colonel Warden was sockpuppeting (not implausible, IMHO), you'd be best off explicitly submitting an SPI about him.—Kww(talk) 19:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I'll have to see if I have enough diffs to provide a coherent SPI report. DreamGuy (talk) 00:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

To answer the question of this section.. it works, very sloowwwwllllly. I filed a case 6 days ago. Checkuser's been ran but nothing else done. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 03:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

That is because we currently have a lack of active administrators. We have a few but some of us (like me! have finals). :) So, if you want cases done faster please encourage admins you know to close a case every now and then. I'd be happy that the todo list is under 20 (currently 14) cases for admins. —— nixeagle^{email me} 17:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I looked at your case, and I see why its hung up. Checkuser came back inconclusive, which means an admin needs to find the time to read through the whole evidence (which is very long!) and come up with their own conclusions. Its a bit of tl;dr going on I think ;). —— nixeagle^{email me} 17:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to look at it anyway. I've got it watchlisted so when something happens, I'll find out sooner or later. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 18:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Continuing investigation into sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry

In a recent SPI submitted by Travelplanner concerning Skipsievert, and suspected sockpuppet AdenR, the checkuser did not find the two accounts to be related.[1] This surprised a number of people who have indicated (on the SPI page and elsewhere) that given of the consistency of viewpoints of the two, if it isn't a sock, it is very likely a meatpuppet. I've taken a look at the edits of the two accounts and find a striking concordance. The case is significant because of the level of disruption and the possibility that the main account is evading a 1RR restriction. I would like to present this evidence, but since the SPI has been closed, am unsure how to proceed. Would someone be able to advise me on the best way to present my evidence? Sunray (talk) 07:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I would talk to the checkuser that did the check. It is possible for admins to block for socking based on behavior evidence alone (we do it all the time) but if checkuser returns negative, not just possible etc then admins are unlikely to block. The relevant question to ask the CU is if their check is conclusively not related (CUs very rarely return this result), or is it simply not provable by checkuser, in which they return possible or simlar. —— nixeagle^{email me} 14:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Issue with IP groups, edits separated by some months

All these appear to be the same individual, self described as "Gaetano Marano" or "gm", all posting the same or similar material to Shuttle/Hubble articles (example diff):

• 62.10.104.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 62.10.103.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 84.220.47.124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 84.221.30.135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 84.220.206.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I've opened sock puppet investigations before, but never with an IP only individual, and never when the edits are spaced so far apart (first was in September last year, last was today). Should I proceed with this in the usual way, or is there some alternative procedure I should follow? -- Scjessey (talk) 17:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

If its spaced so far apart my opinion would be that it is likely not sockpuppetry. The changes in the 84 IP addresses indicate that its a dynamic IP. The same applies to the 62 IP. If they identify as the same person then they are not using IPs to avoid scrutiny, so no problem. —— nixeagle^{email me} 14:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

If you examine the contributions, you will see that they appear in groups. 2 IP addresses are being used at the same time. This edit by 62.10.103.27 is followed by this edit by 84.220.206.180 less than an hour later. Different IPs used by the same individual. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Bug in SSP2notification template?

I believe I encountered a bug in Template:SSP2notification (or maybe that template needs to be subst-ed). See Template talk:SSP2notification. --Orlady (talk) 20:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Question over tagging sock IPs

I'm currently involved in a minor dispute with Tennis expert over the IPs tagged with {{IPsock}} in Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Musiclover565 and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Korlzor. When Tennis expert tagged those IPs, he would tag them for not just the sockpuppeteer but also multiple sockpuppet accounts. While this might be OK, this is just strange, and involves the creation of multiple unnecessary suspected sockpuppet categories, and in my opinion only serves to feed the trolls (or puppeteers in this case), as well as make understanding the SPI cases involved more difficult for people new to the case.

Yesterday, I did a runthrough with AWB and changed the IPs to just point to the puppeteer, at which point Tennis expert objected, despite his having effectively acknowledged my complaint about this before. My question is, which method should be followed? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Posting a proposal on my discussion page does not automatically result in my agreement to the proposal, Mendaliv. Why would you believe otherwise? And as you know, my longstanding editing history shows that I was and am opposed to the AWB edits you made. Aside from that, AWB may not be used to make controversial edits. As for the puppeteers in question, there is no evidence to support Mendaliv's theory that using multiple sockpuppet tags, all of which have been confirmed by Checkuser, merely "feeds the trolls". The problematic editors in question, which began editing under Musiclover565 and Wikitestor, have been decreasing their disruptive activities steadily since we (myself and other editors) began resisting them. One of the strategies we use is to employ multiple sockpuppet tags so that it is clear to third parties exactly the accounts we are talking about. Tennis expert (talk) 02:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC) See this. Tennis expert (talk) 02:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but there seems to have been a misunderstanding here. What I meant was that by not responding to my response, and just deleting the talk page section without an edit summary, when your response didn't appear to address my actual question, you left your position open to interpretation.

As to your use of multiple {{IPsock}} templates, I have serious doubts as to whether there's any provable efficacy to what's essentially PunishReputation. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:MascotGuy for a good argument against tagging every single sockpuppet that a certain person has used, per M:DFTT, WV:SHRINE, WP:DENY, which, while they are neither policy nor guideline, are at the very least somewhat accepted standards by which the community treats disruptive individuals.

I'll also note that Musiclover565 is neither blocked nor banned. As such, he is entitled to edit anonymously, unless that's merely an administrative oversight. Your tagging of every single IP that Musiclover565 uses could be argued as disrupting someone's legitimate use of Wikipedia. And furthermore, per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Musiclover565, following the IP address around is pointless as Musiclover565 does not appear to reuse his addresses. Yet, if another person were to be assigned that IP address before anyone else accessed Wikipedia, they would assume those messages were for them- a pretty bad violation of WP:BITE. I seriously doubt Musiclover565 is the only person who uses that enormous IP range.

But, perhaps this is the wrong place to discuss this issue. Would CFD for the sock categories be a more appropriate way to address this issue? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

(1) Not responding to a post on one's discussion page does not warrant your making assumptions about what the owner of the discussion page intended. Silence on a user discussion page does not necessarily equal agreement. (2) If something is not policy, not a guideline, and not consensus, then there is no "community standard". What you're talking about is your own, individual interpretation of how things should be done. (3) See my post below about Musiclover565. And he does occasionally reuse IP accounts, as he has done recently on my discussion page. Tennis expert (talk) 11:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, not sure on the specifics of this case, but the IPsock templates are to be used only when it has been established that the IP has been used abusively. Preferably after some discussion in an SPI case or elsewhere. Just randomly tagging accounts/IPs based on someone's suspicions does no good and is harmful the encyclopedia in general. After all whats stopping me from tagging both of you as suspected socks of willy on wheels. I have my suspicions ;). In short if the IPs/user has never used the IPs abusively, they should not be tagged. —— nixeagle^{email me} 01:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Quick note, if they are tagged due to abuse, the abuse should be documented somewhere, preferably here, but WP:ANI will work if they were blocked as a result. If the IPs have not been blocked, they don't need tags. —— nixeagle^{email me} 01:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

That's an interesting point, Nixeagle, which I hadn't considered. From what I can tell, few if any of the Musiclover565 IPs have been blocked (and in fact, the sockmaster himself was never blocked), and from what I can tell, the Korlzor IPs weren't handled to avoid collateral damage. However, my concern was Tennis expert's use of multiple {{IPsock}} tags on a single IP's user talk page (User talk:81.184.253.185, for example), pointing to multiple socks of a single sockmaster. To me, this seems obviously wrong, but Tennis expert has been insisting that I base this in policy, despite his specifically having been asked by an SPI clerk not to do so in the past. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

(1) As you know, Mendaliv, an administrator permanently blocked Whitenoise123 (a self-admitted sockpuppet of Musiclover565) and then engaged in an extensive discussion with the often-disruptive Musiclover565 about the terms for Musiclover565 being allowed to resume editing. Musiclover565 never agreed to the terms, turned his back on the discussion, and resumed editing under a series of anonymous IP accounts, at least one of which is self-admitted. Musiclover565, by his own admission, has a long, ongoing history of flat-out dishonesty about sockpuppetry and continues to be disruptive as evidenced by numerous comments from other editors on the discussion pages of his IP accounts. Therefore, there is a high degree of usefulness with my tagging of his anonymous IP accounts that edit tennis-related articles. (2) Too bad you missed and didn't link my response to the SPI clerk, to which that clerk never responded. I was very clear about my intentions then, and my edit history since then has been very clear about this, too. (3) Every registered account I cite when I tag the 81.184 and 62.57 series of IP accounts (relating to Wikitestor, Korlzor, et al.) has been confirmed by either Checkuser or an administrator as belonging to the same blocked individual. And that individual flat-out lied every time he was asked directly about whether the registered accounts belonged to him. Note that I tag those IP accounts only when they make tennis-related edits and only based on a careful reading of WhoIs and other evidence. Tennis expert (talk) 11:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

If the tags cannot be used by an individual editor, then the wording of those tags really needs to be changed. This is what the tag says, "An editor has expressed concern that this IP address has been used by blocked user XXXXXX." Every tag I have added is based on my genuine concern. I do not use "proven" sockpuppet tags. Tennis expert (talk) 11:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Alrighty. Several issues here. The major one here is if checkuser has confirmed any of this (regarding the two IP series) could we have a few links here. Do we have any case history for this user, here, AN, ANI, SSP or RFCU?

As far as the "suspected sock" tags go, I'm split with regards to them. Their use based on someone's suspicions is extremely damaging. It amounts to an accusation that the user is socking, and a label on the user that they cannot easily get rid of. (its much easier to apply these tags on new users then it is for the new users to get the tags off their userpages). I've seen several users who are not socks get these tags applied in my time here on SPI. In the case where the accusing user is wrong, much damage is done as far as the accused additude towards wikipedia. As such my preference (not consensus by any means) is to see these accounts where its not clear cut socking, (eg no block was issued) be watched until such a time that it can be shown that socking is actually happening. If you have a case based on the pattern of the IP addresses, etc a case should be opened.

In short I see the use of the tags for mere suspicion as more damaging to new users then helpful to wikipedia in general. If someone is not willing to block for sockpuppetry, then we should not be willing to label these users either. The correct action is to create a case here at SPI where a second and third user can review the suspicions and actually do something about it if the suspicions are valid. —— nixeagle^{email me} 14:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Tennis, additionally if you have a case with regards to those IP addresses being abusive socks or someone envading a ban, I'd really suggest a case be opened. What you describe is someone that has access to two dynamic IP ranges. Tagging each and every IP address on those ranges is silly, the person has access (likely by plugging and unplugging his router, or just by DNS timeouts) to the whole of those ranges. —— nixeagle^{email me} 14:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Let me clarify even further. If the ranges are dynamic (they look like it by your descriptions), tagging each new IP you see is utterly pointless as they will never reuse an IP address (but someone else in the same area/same ISP may use it). When their IP changes they get a random IP address, highly unlikely to ever be the same as one they used before. In short tags on old dynamic IP addresses are likely not accurate and wrong as those IPs will never be used again by the same person. —— nixeagle^{email me} 14:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

If you don't like the sockpuppet tags currently approved for use, then perhaps you should try to get them changed. This does not appear to be the appropriate venue for that. By the way, my user name is "Tennis expert", not "Tennis". Tennis expert (talk) 15:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Musiclover565 (and his sockpuppets) plus Wikitestor (and his sockpuppets) reuse IP accounts regularly. I have roughly 1,000 tennis pages watchlisted, and I see this happen. Tennis expert (talk) 15:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the abbreviation, however you are missing my point re the tags. The use of those tags in this instance is pointless as the IPs are dynamic regardless of my opinion. :). More important is to establish that UserX is on Y range and then deal with as appropriate. We don't tag 32,000 IP pages, we just note that they are on that range and move on.

I also asked above, but I'll ask again, could you point me at where checkusers confirmed the IP relationships? I'm still not seeing how this user is abusively socking. —— nixeagle^{email me} 15:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I also will make a quick point above where I said not using the tags before a relationship has been established has not been made consensus. Generally around this process tagging is not done until after a case is finished. Mayelld alluded to that in his comment to you. However I don't recall ever having an explicent discussion about it, hence why I said it was not a consensus, but it may be considered current practice. Again though regardless of whether tags should or should not be used, tagging IP socks on a dynamic range is generally not done as it is not very useful. —— nixeagle^{email me} 15:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

In fact, this discussion here is my attempt to start an explicit discussion so we can establish a consensus that's reflected somewhere, if not in an actual policy or guideline, then in the documentation for the tags themselves. Tennis expert's argument that this is the wrong venue is problematic in that, if this isn't it, there is no correct, centralized venue for this discussion. This strikes me being like an argument that a discussion regarding the use of deletion sorting tags doesn't belong at WT:AFD. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

See this. Tennis expert (talk) 15:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Am I arguing that the template be deleted? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea because I can't read your mind. Tennis expert (talk) 15:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

It may be generally pointless or not useful. But it has proven very effective concerning the two problematic editors in question, particularly Wikitestor et al. Diligent tagging and reverting has helped tremendously. And as I have told Mendaliv, there are many editors involved in this effort. Tennis expert (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Proven where? And which editors? Please don't give the same incorrect evidence you did at my user talk page, which I've thoroughly refuted. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Proven by a vast decrease in the number of edits attempted by the indefinitely blocked Wikitestor et al. Hang around the 1,000 tennis articles I watch and you'll soon see it. Tennis expert (talk) 15:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Not valid proof- Korlzor could just have easily gotten a job that is more engaging than fighting with people on tennis articles. And if it is effective, I'd argue that such a tactic is tantamount to harassment. WP:HUSH does not as far as I can tell make a distinction between editors in good standing and editors in bad standing. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Proven registered sockpuppets of Wikitestor: Counter pistol, Dalkman, Dreamblack, Keita24, Korlzor, and Troickovin. See also Checkuser case concerning Keita24 being a sock of Korlzor/Wikitestor, Checkuser case concerning Wikitestor/Korlzor belonging to the same person, administrators noticeboard discussion concerning Dalkman, and Checkuser case of Korlzor having many IP socks in the 81.184 and 62.57 series. Disruptive and vandal editing patterns in tennis articles like Rafael Nadal, Roger Federer, and Novak Djokovic have proven that Wikitestor et al. are from that series of IP addresses, and he has admitted the same (and bragged about it) several times. Tennis expert (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC) Another "see also": Administrators' noticeboard: Evasion of block by User:Wikitestor. Tennis expert (talk) 16:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Can I have links to where it has been admitted? Regardless, instead of tagging a few range blocks should be looked into. —— nixeagle^{email me} 15:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Range blocks have already been considered in one of the Checkuser cases cited above. Tennis expert (talk) 15:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The only case I've seen like this is where an IP claiming to be Musiclover565 posted a comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tennis expert. Though... since Musiclover565 isn't blocked himself, I don't see how this is abusive, unless the lack of block to Musiclover565's account is an oversight by the clerk in the case where the connection was discovered. And with regards to rangeblocks, I'll actually note that one has been previously performed after Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Korlzor. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

See, for example, this admission. There are many others that would be time consuming for me to find. Tennis expert (talk) 16:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

It needs to be re-considered if the disruption is continuing. If we can't rangeblock due to collateral, that also means that other people are using those IPs tagged as socks, and those other people are not socks, hence the tags are currently inaccurate. Would you list me the last 10-15 sock accounts used. (eg those most recently used)? —— nixeagle^{email me} 15:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a vast overgeneralization. As I've already said several times, I tag only IP addresses in that range that make tennis-related edits and for which WhoIs and other evidence support the tags. Tennis expert (talk) 15:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC) Also, a few administrators are watching for Wikitestor et al., too. GlassCobra is one of them. Tennis expert (talk) 16:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh I'm not saying your tags are wrong at the time, far from it! But as the ranges seem to be dynamic after a week or a month the tags are no longer accurate as he won't be using that IP again. —— nixeagle^{email me} 16:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Can the last 10 to 15 used IPs be listed please? —— nixeagle^{email me} 16:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The ones I know about.

Wikitestor: 62.57.213.158, 62.57.8.69, 62.57.213.137, 81.184.71.120, 62.57.197.70, 81.184.39.1, 81.184.39.179, 62.57.9.180, 81.184.38.154, 81.184.39.231, 81.184.70.6, 62.57.239.134, 81.184.65.201.

Musiclover565: 92.18.74.41, 92.16.125.40, 92.11.231.251, 92.15.47.255, 92.0.151.105, 92.16.19.208, 92.3.218.148, 92.4.79.166, 92.3.128.196, 92.3.139.237. This sockpuppet investigation also might be relevant, particularly concerning the use of similar IP addresses by 03md. Tennis expert (talk) 17:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The set of IPs you've given for Musiclover565 couldn't possibly be blocked without taking out a large chunk of the UK. 62.57.0.0/16 is also a fairly large range and a block wouldn't be feasible. A block on 81.184.0.0/17 is more reasonable. I've looked at the traffic, and a softblock in the range of a few days to weeks could work. It does appear that on these ranges tagged IPs are more likely than not to not actually ever be used by the person in question by the time they've been tagged, so it doesn't accomplish much and may confuse later users of the IP to tag them. Dominic·t 22:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

SPI does not handle tagging ips, yet. This should be done under limited use only. IP's with single users, blocked for extended periods of time are the only cases in which I could see it being done, justifiably. IPs subject to change, or are used by more than one person, should not be tagged. The rest of this debate should be continued on someones talk page, and not here please. Thank you. Synergy 16:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Tagging IPs is only necessary in certain circumstances. Tagging random dynamic IPs on a range is a waste of time. It is only useful in the cases of static IPs or IPs on a small range. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry again if this is not the correct venue for this discussion, but having reached an impasse very quickly in a more private discussion with Tennis expert, I had requested further insight be seen here. And... for the record, the dispute here is not so much about the use of {{IPsock}}, but the use of {{IPsock}} to point at each of a sockpuppeter's socks, as has been done in this case. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you; that's just wrong. ;) Only use {{IPsock}} once, for the master account, but never multiple times like that. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree - the {{IPsock}} template should be used to indicate the sockmaster, not each individual puppet. Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 17:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I was notified about this discussion by Mendaliv as I have previously placed two Ipsock templates on a talk page of an IP user that was obviously evading an infinite block (and boasting about it). I may even have put in more tags. I must admit that I just did it in anger over that particular IP, resulting in some gut reaction: "The more tags the scarier". I never gave it any deeper thoughts, so I would not like my actions to be taken as evidence for any adherence to some "consensus". --HJensen, talk 21:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Considering the above suggestions, and that Tennis expert has for some reason still felt it necessary to revert the AWB runthrough, I'm starting CfDs on the redundant sock categories. Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 13#Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Whitenoise123 and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 13#Korzlor sockpuppets for the discussions. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Section break: Clerk opinions on the use of {{ipsock}}

• I for one think that PeterSymonds is justified in this revert, and believe that {{ipsock}} should be reserved for use with master accounts only (so it's going to be very rare having two different sockmasters using the same IP) and only when the IP is going to be the subject of an SPI case (tagging and not reporting makes no logical sense). ~fl 12:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
• Of course I agree, but if a legible consensus is required, I lodge my opinion again for the record. PeterSymonds (talk) 12:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
• As Peter. Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 13:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I propose that we amend the following text (or something similar) to the {{ipsock}} (and perhaps other relevant sock templates) documentation page:

This template should be placed on the userpage of an IP editor that is suspected of evading the sockpuppetry policy. It should only be used in conjunction with master account names, not the names of sockpuppets. If more than one template appears on a page, it should only be because two different puppeteers (master accounts) have used the IP address.

It is a best practice to only tag IP addresses that are either largely static and/or on small IP ranges and to report such IP addresses to Sockpuppet investigations on discovery.

A person who has had any suspected sockpuppet template placed on their userpage should not remove it, unless it has been placed in bad faith. Repeated removal of the template without a valid reason may result in page protection or other sanctions.
Valid reasons for removing a sockpuppet template include:

• No sockpuppet investigations case or long term abuse page exists for the puppet master involved with the sockpuppet.
• It is highly likely that the IP is dynamic, the user involved has not edited from the IP address in a week and the disruption from that IP did not last for very long.
• The placement was obviously made in bad faith, or evidence of disruptive editing is not present in the user's contributions.

What do you guys think? ~fl 23:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC) Proposal changed, original in html comment. 11:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• Sounds perfectly reasonable. — Jake Wartenberg 23:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Non-clerk discussion

• • I stumbled into this discussion and felt the need to comment on this suggestion. I find that tagging the addresses of users who are on dynamic IPs is the best way to keep track of abuse from one user; often I come across new IPs for the same user who need to be blocked, but starting an SPI is pointless. I recently filed an abuse report for a serial dynamic-IP vandal, and had the accounts not been tagged, it would have been an even more complex matter. Just thought I'd add my two pennies. – Toon^(talk) 12:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I agree completely, Toon05. You and I have had very similar experiences. And to PeterSymonds, I have repeatedly initiated SPI and ANI cases about the sockpuppet masters in question. Those cases have been helpful to some extent. However, IP range blocks have not been done. In lieu of those blocks, the tagging appears to have had the desired result of decreasing vandalism through peer pressure and making sure that other editors are aware ("heads up") that the repeatedly blocked sockpuppet master has returned through IP editing. The multiple tagging is one of the very limited number of tools available to us. Tennis expert (talk) 13:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Please note that what Tennis expert is discussing, and the issue at hand, are two completely and entirely different problems. The issue at hand is tagging one IP for a sockmaster and all of that same sockmaster's confirmed sockpuppets. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
        • Not true. The issue is whether you may repeatedly revert another editor's good faith placement of suspected sockpuppet tags on the discussion page of an IP account. The tags specifically say, "An editor has expressed concern that this IP address has been used by blocked user XXXXX." And those tags relate to confirmed and blocked registered accounts, not to other IP accounts. Tennis expert (talk) 13:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
          • So you're arguing that the tags are intended to correspond to accounts rather than individuals? Interesting. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
• If you tag the IP with just one {{IPsock}} for the master, the page will show in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Example. All the users being tagged are theoretically one person, so they will all be in that category. It's just an extra click. They're not all master accounts, so the multiple tagging is redundant and incorrect. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

With regards to fl's proposed documentation rewording, I would suggest that some criteria for the removal of such templates also be provided per concerns stemming in part from this ANI thread. Of course, it should be considered generally inappropriate for someone to remove a suspected sockpuppet template from his/her own userpage unless it's obviously in bad faith. But if no SPI case is started in a reasonable length of time, there's no LTA case page with criteria for identifying sockpuppets, and the IP range is likely dynamic (WHOIS comes back as a major ISP or other large institution), the template ought to be removed. Also, it should be clearly noted that templates like {{IPsock}}, {{sockpuppet}}, {{sockpuppeteer}}, etc never belong in the user talk namespace (at the very least from a WP:BITE perspective, as new IP users are unlikely to see their userpage). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I've expanded it a bit. Feel free to give feedback. ~fl 11:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds pretty good to me! —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Clerk please move Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/YesOn8 to DavidYork71

If you check the archive of YesOn8, you will note that nishkid says this is DavidYork71. It would be nice to have the archives moved and YesOn8 given {{SPIarchive notice|DavidYork71}}. Plus the socks in that case need their tags adjusted. Thanks. —— nixeagle^{email me} 05:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done Tiptoety ^talk 23:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Case created but not showing up

Sometime ago I used the tool to put a new sockpuppet on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mersey57. The page is now in Category: Open SPI cases but doesn't (has never?) show up on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. I only noticed this because said user is now trolling on Talk:Martin Kelner. Can anyone help? William Avery (talk) 10:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

That is because it has already been dealt with and is closed. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mersey57/Archive for more information. Tiptoety ^talk 23:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

the use of secret evidence in Sockpuppet investigations

There's an inherent problem with asking the community to act upon evidence that the community itself cannot examine in full. This is one of the reasons why ArbCom is a necessary evil. Please take this matter to the Committee. As imperfect as they are, it's less bad than roving noticeboard quarrels. Durova^Charge! 19:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Extended content

Secret evidence in Sockpuppet investigations Since there was much talk during a recently closed case about the use of the so called secret evidence I have a couple of questions in regards with it. From what i understood the secret evidence is the evidence which can't be disclosed because allegedly the person under investigations could learn what "gave him away" this time and he could avoid making the same error the next time. My questions in regards to this are: 1) Who has the authority to decide which evidence is secret and which made public? is that: a) the person who submitted the evidence b) the admin who first received the evidence c) any of the admins involved in the case d) the clerk who closed the case. e) else 2) Also I'd to know who decides which admins have the access to the secret evidence and which don't because they could allegedly leak the evidence to the accused. 3) My final question is what happens to the so called secret evidence after case is over? Are the person who submited it and the admins who saw it allowed to keep it on their computer for future use or do they need to delete it. I thank in advance for any clarifications on this delicate issue. Loosmark (talk) 17:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC) You are referring to Molobo, who was, very generously, not banned indefinitely, but only blocked for a year for sockpuppet abuse, in spite of having been indef'ed and put on parole twice before. There really is no "delicate issue" here, no matter how much Molobo's supporters try and make it seem that way. All evidence that played a role in the process was on the table. Molobo was found "guilty" strictly on grounds of publicly available evidence (coincidence of style, CU result, editing pattern), as repeatedly explained by the admin closing the case. Since you can't put forward any plausible reason why the outcome should be called into question, you're bringing this up on a number of vaguely related pages instead (most recently on the talk page of the closing admin), in what looks like a retroactive FUD campaign. Your concerns vary, including "secret evidence", "the process took too long" (if it had been short, you'd probably be using that as an argument instead), or alleged "secret communication". According to the closing admin, his judgment was not based on any "secret evidence", so this is a discussion about nothing. Again, if you have reasonable evidence that the result is invalid, please submit it to WP:ANI or WP:BASC - but don't start small discussions all over Wikipedia. --Thorsten1 (talk) 18:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Thorsten1 i have already told you that your opinion doesn't interest me. You keep following me around and i've to say i'm starting to feel stalked and harrased therefore I would politely ask you to stop doing it. I indeed had some concerns in regards with that specific case and after a talk with Avraham he advised me I could bring the topic here which I have done. Please also note that my questions are of a general nature and not directly connected to the Molobo case. If you can answer them please do otherwise please leave other people to answer. Loosmark (talk) 18:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC) "i have already told you that your opinion doesn't interest me." You sure have, but it doesn't interest me that it doesn't interest you. You seem to be on a FUD spree, and I have a right to comment on your "arguments". If you feel "harassed" because of that, I can't help it. "after a talk with Avraham he advised me I could bring the topic here" - if I recall correctly, he advised you to take it to WP:ANI or WP:BASC. Of course you can take it anywhere you like, but if you want to get Molobo's block lifted, then this just isn't the right place. Your "questions" are really a disguised attack, implying that there were irregularities involving "secret evidence", which is unfounded. --Thorsten1 (talk) 18:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Huh my geniune questions are a disguised attack? Forgive me for saying this but you are a bit paranoid. Loosmark (talk) 18:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC) "you are a bit paranoid." No, you are. Your questions are clearly designed to imply that Molobo's SPI was based on, or at least significantly influenced, by "secret evidence", handled by some sort of conspiracy. when I call you out on this, you complain that you feel "stalked and harrased". And then you're seriously telling me that I'm the paranoid one round here? This is just ridiculous. OK, I'm out of this. --Thorsten1 (talk) 19:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC) To answer the questions asked.. strictly IMHO: 1) Who has the authority to decide which evidence is secret and which made public? is that: In the vast majority of circumstances, the evidence is in the form of an email. We have a long standing policy that email can't be posted without the consent of the sender, thus I would say that the original sender must give permission to post it. If it's an email thread, then we'd need permission from everyone who commented on the thread. 2) Also I'd to know who decides which admins have the access to the secret evidence and which don't because they could allegedly leak the evidence to the accused. It's always good practice to assume that once something leaves your email client that the entire world may see it some day.. while I'd like to think that those in positions of responsibility would use good discretion and only forward as needed, there are no guarantees. 3) My final question is what happens to the so called secret evidence after case is over? Are the person who submited it and the admins who saw it allowed to keep it on their computer for future use or do they need to delete it. Wiki has no control over what people do with what arrives in their inbox. It would be best to assume that someone, somewhere, has kept a copy.. and if it was sent to one of the email lists, it's a certainty that it will remain in the archives. --Versageek 18:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC) I've got nothing to add to that, except that all this matters only insofar as a decision was based on "secret evidence" in the first place, which obviously wasn't the case here. --Thorsten1 (talk) 18:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Generally speaking this sort of situation is very rare - there aren't, as far as I'm aware, formal protocols for handling evidence that doesn't contain private information but should not (for whatever reason) be disclosed. Even so, practice in other situations is that information which is communicated by e-mail should only be released with the permission of the sender. In Molobo specifically... it was pretty clear based solely on public evidence (which is all I've seen) that he was socking with Gwinndeith. Nathan T 18:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Thanks Nathan. Perhaps a protocol even for those rare situations wouldn't be a bad idea. For example: first the admins examine only the evidence which is made public and any mention of secret evidence is prohibited. If the conclusion could be reached based on that alone then fine, case closed, otherwise they request the additional secret evidence. Loosmark (talk) 19:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

31 known socks, but it's a new case?

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jessica Liao lists 31 socks, and I think that User:Academiic should be in the list -- same focus on special ed in the same part of New York, same unsourced nonsense in special ed articles, etc. But when I tried to submit the case, it said "You are about to create a first request and new page for the user or case: Sockpuppet investigations/Jessica Liao" -- even though Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jessica Liao clearly exists. What should I be doing?

(My usual approach, which is to contact the admin most familiar with her work only resulted in the editor deleting the message; the admin appears to be inactive at the moment. And, yes, this kind of wikistalking is absolutely expected behavior from this user.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

It will be a fresh case for SPI, and the old cases will show up on our case for reference. :) Synergy 02:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The architecture of case reporting changed (from RFCU to SPI), but you can create a new case under the current structure, submit your evidence and link to the prior case. Clerks and CUs will review the case as before and it should be resolved more quickly than in the past. Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 02:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I think that I have it set up correctly. (Someday, we need an automated way to assemble that information...) WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I may be jumping to conclusions, but I'll bet "dollars to doughnuts" that Kate432 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is the latest Jessica Liao sock. The case Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jessica Liao/Archive was closed a little less than a week ago. Kate432's first edits were three days later, to some of Jessica Liao's very favorite pages. Should I try to re-open the recently closed case, or file a new one? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

You should file a new one, at the same location. It will show up as a new date, for the same case. Syn 00:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Strong gut feeling

Yeah, I know, we're not supposed to act on gut feelings but the behavior of User:JulieSpaulding is throwing up more red flags than I can comfortably ignore. Like User:Buttermilk1950, a now-banned sock of User:ItsLassieTime, before her, she appears out of nowhere and some of her first edits are in AfD discussions and she's become heavily involved at DYK reviewing hooks and, now on multiple occasions, trying to improperly promote her own hooks onto the queue for the main page. She says she's been editing anonymously for "about a year" but her behavior is anomalous. Although I've caught and reported a few sockpuppets over the last two years, this is not my area of technical expertise so I was hoping somebody with more finely honed skills in this area could review her edits and see if a more formal proceeding is warranted. I and my gut thank you. - Dravecky (talk) 18:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Tough call, here - it's sometimes difficult to distinguish between an outstanding newcomer or a returning sock. In this case, and speaking purely on a technical basis, I'm not able to find any direct overlap between these accounts, but a relationship between them is  Possible. Behavioral cues are more likely to resolve this, one way or the other. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

New combined sockpuppet template

OK. Are we ready to implement User:Avraham/Sandbox/SPOM yet? The mapping should be based on User:Avraham/Sandbox/SPOMTest. Assuming SPOM gets renamed as "Sockpuppet"

• {{sockpuppet|username}} --> {{sockpuppet|username}}
• {{sockpuppet|username|blocked}} --> {{sockpuppet|username|blocked=yes}}
• {{sockpuppet|username|confirmed}} --> {{sockpuppet|username|status=confirmed}}
• {{CheckedPuppeteer}} --> {{sockpuppet|username|status=checked}}
• {{CheckedPuppeteer|blocked}} --> {{sockpuppet|username|status=checked|blocked=yes}}
• {{CheckedPuppeteer|spipage=Example user}} --> {{sockpuppet|username|status=checked|spipage=Example user}}
• {{CheckedPuppeteer|blocked|spipage=Example user}} --> {{sockpuppet|username|status=checked|blocked=yes|spipage=Example user}}

There are similar mappings for {{SockpuppetCheckuser}} where casename replaces spipage and evidence stays as it is.

The question is how to re-map the current {{sockpuppet}} to the new one when the new template is inserted. Thoughts, and can we do this shortly? -- Avi (talk) 15:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I informed nix about this. So he should be here soon. Synergy 17:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

We can have them remapped by having a script go through the whatlinkshere on the template and modify each instance to the "new" instance. Since you gave me the mapping that should not be too difficult, but no matter what we do our actions won't be in sync... I will probably have to program and test a program that does the mappings before we can do anything else. BAG will likely have to approve of it. Else if someone wants to do AWB for this task instead of a "bot" I'm not going to say no to that :) —— nixeagle^{email me} 20:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe I covered all possibilities at User:Avraham/Sandbox/SPOMTest, but the mapping above is not necessarily complete (for example, I forgot proven maps to status=proven OR status=confirmed. Perhaps we should do away with "proven" only map to "confirmed" for parsimony's sake? maybe I better build a complete mapping. -- Avi (talk) 20:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you make a complete mapping as I'm basically going on your word for what is needed. Basically when I write the script, its going to do the whatlinkshere, then search/replace the template with the new replacement. Each bit should take me less then 5 or 10 minutes to do, but ideally I have a complete mapping to work with. —— nixeagle^{email me} 20:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, Nix, but that may take a bit, as there are at least 5 separate templates, each with various options that have to be mapped. I'll let you know when I'm done, but it will likely not be before next week. -- Avi (talk) 18:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

In general, I like the wording of these new templates, but I have two comments:

• Shouldn't the templates also contain links to the SPI report for the puppetmaster?
• At User:Avraham/Sandbox/SPOMTest I didn't see a template for the suspected puppetmaster. (Am I looking in the wrong place?) There needs to be a message along the lines of "An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be engaged in sockpuppetry." --Orlady (talk) 04:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Orlady. In response:

• • The puppet templates do have the option to link to the report, it is the spipage= tag which can see in operation near the bottom of User:Avraham/Sandbox/SPOMTest. Not every checkusered sockpuppet has a report page, however. That is why it is an optional tag. The only mandatory tag is the name of the puppetmaster.
  • The puppetmaster template was much less complicated, and I have already made the changes to the in-force template. Please see {{Sockpuppeteer}}. The puppet templates had more variations and had more complicated logic in the parser functions, so a re-write and a re-map was the only way I could find to allow for bringing all existing templates with all of their options under one umbrella.

Thank you for your suggestions. -- Avi (talk) 17:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I notice one parameter missing: the time duration if it is not infinite. MathCool10 ^{Sign here!} 03:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

That is a good idea, I did not think about that. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 21:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this one; I'm not sure we need a time parameter on the sockpuppet template. Any time other than indef should be noted on the talk page, not the user page, and this template belongs on the user page. -- Avi (talk) 06:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Notices

I placed notices on the template talk pages of the five templates, linking to a discussion at Template talk:Sockpuppet#Template overhaul planned to allow for comment. -- Avi (talk) 18:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Delay

I have to apologize for the delay, but with the holidays fast approaching, I have not had enough time to create the mapping and add the time parameter. Please bear with me for a few more weeks. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 20:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Mapping

OK, I think I have a complete mapping. Please let me know if I missed anything (obvious or not). This assumes that {{User:Avraham/Sandbox/SPOM}} gets renamed to {{sockpuppet}}:

• {{Sockpuppet}}
  • {{sockpuppet|username}} --> {{sockpuppet|username}}
  • {{sockpuppet|username|blocked}} --> {{sockpuppet|username|blocked=yes}}
  • {{sockpuppet|username|confirmed}} --> {{sockpuppet|username|status=confirmed|blocked=yes}}
  • {{sockpuppet|username|proven}} --> {{sockpuppet|username|status=confirmed|blocked=yes}}
  • {{sockpuppet|username|blocked|foo}} --> {{sockpuppet|username|blocked=yes|evidence="foo"}}
  • {{sockpuppet|username|confirmed|foo}} --> {{sockpuppet|username|blocked=yes|evidence="foo"}}
  • {{sockpuppet|username|proven|foo}} --> {{sockpuppet|username|status=confirmed|blocked=yes|evidence="foo"}}
  • {{sockpuppet|username|blocked|evidence=foo}} --> {{sockpuppet|username|blocked=yes|evidence="foo"}}
  • {{sockpuppet|username|confirmed|evidence=foo}} --> {{sockpuppet|username|blocked=yes|evidence="foo"}}
  • {{sockpuppet|username|proven|evidence=foo}} --> {{sockpuppet|username|status=confirmed|blocked=yes|evidence="foo"}}
• {{Blockedsockpuppet}}
  • {{Blockedsockpuppet|username}} --> {{sockpuppet|username|status=confirmed|blocked=yes}}
• {{CheckedSockpuppet}}
  • {{CheckedSockpuppet|username}} --> {{sockpuppet|username|status=checked|blocked=yes}}
  • {{CheckedSockpuppet|username|SPI request subpage title}} --> {{sockpuppet|username|status=checked|blocked=yes|spipage=SPI request subpage title}}
• {{CheckedSockpuppet-nb}}
  • {{CheckedSockpuppet-nb|username}} --> {{sockpuppet|username|status=checked}}
  • {{CheckedSockpuppet|username|SPI request subpage title}} --> {{sockpuppet|username|status=checked|spipage=SPI request subpage title}}
• {{SockpuppetCheckuser}}
  • {{SockpuppetCheckuser|username}} --> {{sockpuppet|username|status=checked|blocked=yes}}
  • {{SockpuppetCheckuser|username|checkuser request subpage title}} --> {{sockpuppet|username|status=checked|blocked=yes|casename=checkuser request subpage title}}
• {{SockpuppetCheckuser-nb}}
  • {{SockpuppetCheckuser-nb|username}} --> {{sockpuppet|username|status=checked}}
  • {{SockpuppetCheckuser-nb|username|checkuser request subpage title}} --> {{sockpuppet|username|status=checked|casename=checkuser request subpage title}}

-- Avi (talk) 07:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I'll try to get to it in a while, I'm approaching finals week here and its getting sorta frantic because of that. I may not be able to implement the bot mapping for a week or so. I'll be paying attention to this page and will consider any updates as I begin programming the mapping. —— nixeagle^{email me} 00:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Just making sure this does not get archived until it is done. -- Avi (talk) 04:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, should these templates be on user or user talk pages? While I'm doing this run I might as well get them all in the same convention. Thoughts? —— nixeagle^{email me} 06:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

{{SockpuppetCheckuser-nb}} ::  Done. I need some discussion on moving all to user talk or user, or user pages for accounts and user talk for IPs.

Of course we can't run this until we get all of them done and verified, as this is something that needs to be done relatively at the same time. (so we don't have random broken stuff) —— nixeagle^{email me} 06:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• User talk:Siddiqui transcludes the userpage which has the warning. Its the only one I've found so far... —— nixeagle^{email me} 02:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I've blanked the large lists, as the work you guys have done (thanks Synergy and others) was enough to get me down to this list... and the bot is correctly doing each entry on it, so we should be good to go. There are several quesetions that need to be answered before the bot runs. (I'll put the list in its own section below).

1. Should the bot have a "preference" for where the tags go? For accounts should the bot put all tags on the userpage, and for IPs put the tags on usertalk?
2. Some of these pages are protected, which means the bot won't be able to edit them, I may be able to get BRFA to flag the bot as a sysop for the duration of the task... I will query WP:BAG about this. It would suck to have to do these edits manually. Please ask any other questions with relation to implentation of the task if you can here and answer my question about preferences. Thanks. —— nixeagle^{email me} 02:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Preference: User page and usertalk, unless deleted. Also, ips don't have userpages, so it has to be on the talk page. If the talk page doesn't exist, don't create it.

Could the bot update a page, telling clerks that it found a protected page and let an admin fix it? Seems like a more reasonable senerio that doesn't involve making the bot +sysop "just because a few pages are protected". Synergy 00:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

list

• Template:Sockpuppet
• User:Solitaire11
• User:Moral Clarity
• User:Nomorecorruptcops
• User talk:Smmurphy
• User:War on Terror
• User:Peter File
• User:Mapmaker
• User talk:Marmot454
• User:YumaKid

• Question, what does this list represent? Also, should we move {{sockpuppet}} to {{sockpuppet2}} or the like and then move User:Avraham/Sandbox/SPOM tp {{sockpuppet}}? -- Avi (talk) 04:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  • The list above is a list of items that the bot will skip over because it does not match a matching pattern that the bot knows. I found it easier to do the mappings you gave, then run the bot and have the bot tell me what it would not be changing, fix a few of the ones it was not changing and run again. Rinse and repeat. These are the last few, though there may be more once I figure out a little bug in the framework I'm using.
  • Moving the template to a new name would probably be fairly wasteful as far as edits are concerned. We are talking about some 46,000 edits to move sockpuppet to sockpuppet2. Then we do 56,000-59,000 edits to correct everything back to sockpuppet. Considering the bot's run will be done in 12 hours or less, I can do faster if I multithread that portion, its probably not worth it. —— nixeagle^{email me} 04:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Nix. I don't mean bot-move the template on the page, I mean actually rename the template so that the new one can slide in. If you can do that in one fell swoop, by all means. -- Avi (talk) 04:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

If you can do it without doing 46,000 edits I'm fair game. That means I don't have to run the bot fast, which saves some on server load, even though the bot does adhere to replag. Don't worry about doing it now yet though. I'm probably not going to actually do the run until next friday (after my finals). —— nixeagle^{email me} 04:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

BRFA

Pending the approval of the bot in Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/SPCUClerkbot_3, the completion of the lists above, and discussion of my question above (about user/user talk) this will be run. We will need to time the move of the new template and the bot's run to be roughly the same time. The bot will need to modify about 50,000 pages, so I can see this task taking a 12-36 hours to complete. —— nixeagle^{email me} 16:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Nice. May I ask how you are going to do it? -- Avi (talk) 14:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I've added three more mappings that correct the notch/moral clarity issue. -- Avi (talk) 14:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Preventing archiving until this is done. -- Avi (talk) 23:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

So................wikipedia stores every editor information.

For how long? i'm talking about the information related to the location the editor was and another information that can be used in sockpuppet investigationsRB etihw atar (talk) 22:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not exactly a secret that we keep this information available assist us in stopping disruptive behavior. The policy states "a fixed period of time". See Also WP:CHECKUSER. --Versageek 22:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Help! Misplaced report

Resolved

 – — Jake Wartenberg 18:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

After a long dormancy, a sockpuppet reappeared and I thoughy I would save myself some time by manually recreating the report. Since then, the format had changed, and I foolishly assumed that a move to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Racepacket (3rd) would deal with the problem. After reviewing the new process, it appears that I may have screwed up the works. Please let me know what I need to do to get this filed. Alansohn (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Bot notifications

Are the bots notifying suspects? [2] That edit lead me to believe suspects were being notified, so I did not notify them. What's the deal? Jehochman ^Talk 13:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Nixeagle will have to answer that, but I am pretty sure the notification feature is currently not working. Maybe he should change the edit summary. Tiptoety ^talk 22:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Waiting on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Racepacket

I want to thank all involved for getting Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Racepacket listed properly. The case seems to have been sitting for a few days with no action taken on the checkuser request. While one of the alleged sockpuppets and I have had a nice back and forth, the problems still persists. Please let me know if there is anything that I need to do to get the process moving. Alansohn (talk) 21:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I suspect the reason that there has been little movement is because of how long the evidence is. I know that me personally, I do not have the time currently to review all of the evidence provided on that page and make a determination, and I am pretty sure the other clerks feel the same way. The best thing would be to consolidate the most important evidence and go from there. Tiptoety ^talk 01:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I always though that thorough evidence was better, not worse, but I compressed done most of the gory details. I appear to be having an argument here with several sockpuppets, so any action on a checkuser will be appreciated. Alansohn (talk) 14:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Clerk bot down

SPCUClerkbot is down right now, and the case listing is not working properly. The bot's owner, nixeagle, has been contacted and we hope the problem will be resolved soon. Thanks for your patience. — Jake Wartenberg 17:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The bot has been blocked; case listings are being maintained by hand. — Jake Wartenberg 00:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)}}

New cases

Please post the case name of newly filed cases here, and a clerk will make sure it appears on the project page. Hopefully the bots will be back soon. Nathan ^T 16:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

New Cases for listing

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wildhartlivie - Submitted by Viriditas (talk) 00:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done Icestorm815 • Talk 02:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Fishing expeditions

Checkuser is not for fishing.

As a public service, have restored this image from an 1840s checkuser expedition. Needless to say, Wikipedia was not very successful in the 1840s and bad CU practices were part of the problem. In this enlightened era it might be good to remember our shared history? ;) Durova^Charge! 03:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

/me wonders... Should we be taking this as a reminder, or more of a "reminder"? Tiptoety ^talk 04:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Was kinda thinking your page was in need of illustration. :) Durova^Charge! 04:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, okay. :-) /me debates placing it on the main page. Tiptoety ^talk 04:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

(tempts you) :) Durova^Charge! 05:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Or put it on cases where it's rejected because it's fishing. (At least it suits the theme!) OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 21:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Iconic. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't find it appropriate. Just so you know. Syn 21:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Muntuwandi

Does the new information regarding a CU that was run regarding Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Muntuwandi need to be posted here somewhere? William M. Connolley is on top of the issue at the moment as regarding confirmed CU results, but there are a few additional users who need to be checked. See the background thread on the CU at AN/I here. Thanks, Hiberniantears (talk) 17:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Need a little more assistance with this case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Muntuwandi. It was closed yesterday, but I added some other difs indicating a need for the underlying IP or IP range as well. No idea how to transclude it correctly. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done A checkuser has run a check and has performed the necessary IP blocks. Icestorm815 • Talk 20:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Justanother

In tagging the userpage for Justallofthem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with {{Checkedpuppeteer}}, I set the spipage= to "Justallofthem", and redirected Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Justallofthem to the historical checkuser case page from the old format, which was Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Justanother. Is there a way to migrate old checkuser case pages to the new SPI format? Cirt (talk) 22:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there a reason to reformat in this case? Future cases in the SPI format will refer to prior cases, in any format, so I don't think reformatting old cases is standard practice. Nathan ^T 23:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Mainly because the template {{Checkedpuppeteer}} only gives a field option for "spipage", not old "checkuserpage" or something like that. That's why I had to redirect it. Cirt (talk) 23:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Retagged with {{sockpuppeteer}} (specifically {{sockpuppeteer|evidence=[[Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Justanother]]|checked=yes}}. That one allows more freedom with the evidence. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 23:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Cirt (talk) 23:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Hrm, however it still seems that Template:Sockpuppet category, at the sock category pages (confirmed and suspected) still link to the new SPI version, which without the redirect would be nonexistent. Cirt (talk) 23:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

If you ping Avi, he will know. I believe he is handling the templates. Syn 18:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

please transclude

this was not transcluded. Kingturtle (talk) 20:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/pzrmd Kingturtle (talk) 23:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done The case has been transluded. Icestorm815 • Talk 20:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

please include

I have been the repeated subject of attacks by a new user. I believe this to be a recently retired user "newyorkborn" . please take place insert this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations/Newyorkborn 208.120.47.96 (talk) 13:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done Moved case from talk page, and added it to main case, then transcluded it. Syn 13:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Page design

In the extended absence of a bot to manage listing, moving and archiving cases I think the format of transclusions should be re-evaluated to make managing the process simpler. As an example, I think we could combine the clerk approval, CU and pending close cases into a single subpage rather than transcluding from three separate subpages. Since the cases themselves are subpaged, we might consider abandoning the subpage queues altogether so that pages can be moved from queue to queue without multiple edits. Thoughts? Nathan ^T 22:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the CU section needs to remain the same for the time being. I'll give this more thought, but I need pending to be as is also for my workweek. I find it easier to not have to go through all the cases to see which ones are ready to be archived. I wouldn't mind merging a few, I'm just not sure which ones yet. Syn 22:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I was entirely clear, because I wasn't proposing merging cases - merely presenting the different queues on the main page, with transcluded cases as normal. The only reason the queues are subpaged, as far as I can tell, is to support management by bot. Changing the structure should have relatively minimal impact on the appearance or management of cases aside from reducing the number of edits required to move between queues. Nathan ^T 23:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't the same amount of edits be made though? Syn 23:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

No, if we used one page to transclude everything you could move a case from the open section to closed in one edit, and it would be a lot easier, too. I think we should just transclude everything on the main SPI page for the moment. — Jake Wartenberg 16:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

oooh. Sorry. This was a running joke. I was giving Nathan a hard time about it. As you can see, I made the edit he was talking about, and a few fixes in the coding were made. It may still need to be ironed out. Syn 20:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

IP sock puppets

I'm not sure if I'm in the right place to report a sock puppet, if I'm not please move this to the proper place.

• 4.227.109.176 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - IP vandalism, possible WP:sock puppet of 4.227.106.12, vandalism of BabyFirstTV. Both IP's are changing the year the network was founded from 2003 (clearly stated on the channel's official site and referenced with an inline citation) to 1982 (obviously untrue, no reference cited) without explanation. Please block both IP's. TomCat4680 (talk) 11:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. Please see the instructions at the top of WP:SPI, and file a case page. This is so the case can be archived for record keeping. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 15:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Stale cases

I just saw stale cases get added... could someone explain to me how that category works? Plus could someone explain to me how attending to "stale" cases is any more important then attending to any one part of the backlog? —— nixeagle^{email me} 02:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

At present, it doesn't seem to work! call it an experiment that didn't work out as I hoped. The idea was that it would flag up any case that hadn't seen any action in 24 hours. Ah well, back to the drawing board! Mayalld (talk) 15:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

If you guys want this, I *can* have the bot identify cases without edits after X days and keep an updated list. That list would likely be more useful then what is there anyway. (Also note that old cases and cases without an edit to them in a while are *always* at the bottom of the bot's list on WP:SPI. Whenever an edit is done to the case, the case gets moved to the top of the list. —— nixeagle^{email me} 15:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

As I see it, there are two categories of "Stale" cases;

• Cases that have been open for some extended (2 weeks?) period of time, without resolution.
• Cases that haven't been edited in some shorter (3 days?) period of time, and which don't seem to be moving forward.

In terms of passing admins, cases that have been open for weeks, but which are still active don't need somebody to take them on. Cases that have stagnated do.

The stale cases thing works by comparing the current time to the last saved time, and categorises as stale if more than 3 days have passed. Unfortunately, a null edit is needed to make it work (must be truly null otherwise it updates the time stamp). I null edited everything this morning, and we have over 20 cases where nobody has commented in the last 3 days. If this categorisation is useful, it might be useful to have the bot null edit cases daily to categorise them. For now, I'll use AWB from time to time to do the null edits. Mayalld (talk) 12:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting really to be honest its the cases that have been open forever that matter the most, we really ought to attempt to close those. (All of the really old ones just need someone to take 30 minutes to close them). Also so you know, another way to tell which cases have not been modified in a while is just to look at the order of the bot's list in the open cases section. Cases at the top are new/modified recently and the ones at the bottom are old/not modified in a while. —— nixeagle^{email me} 15:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)]

Also IMHO our problem right now is not people knowing which cases are old or anything like that. Our problem is simply being backlogged and not having very many admins interested in reviewing caess. That means work on the process itself should be focusing towards making the directions clear and advertising that we need help in places where admins might be hanging around. —— nixeagle^{email me} 15:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Cases that have been around a long time are equally problematic. We can see those (as you say) from the order of the queue. However, cases don't get shifted around in the queue as they are modified. If I put a note on the oldest case, it won't jump to the top. Also, it appears that those admins who are patrolling seldom look at the CU declined queue. Should we merge the CU not required and CU declined queues? Mayalld (talk) 16:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Mayalid they do get shifted around the queue if they are modified (I think, if not I can make a small change to the bot to have it shift them), go try it :) Don't forget to purge too. —— nixeagle^{email me} 16:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Just remember that some cases might be there, awaiting arb com decisions (and this will obviously take quite a bit of time, usually). There should be some type of marker drawn up, to show why its still sitting there. Another reason, is when the a CU states that it will in fact, take some time to process. Synergy 19:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Bot TODO list

Can you guys help me figure out exactly what is left as far the bot being feature complete? I've got the following:

1. Fix bug with bot not removing {{checkip|master}} where master is the case title. The bot removes {{checkuser|master}} already without problems. (The "master" or page title username is already linked and having more confuses the bot when it goes to generate the report for WP:SPI/C.

   done —— nixeagle^{email me} 05:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

2. Fix reports - Requires a re-write in perl of a php script I wrote.
3. Have the bot notify all listed socks that they have been mentioned. (notice message should be nice/informative/inform them the notice came from an automated process).

What else? If you guys mentioned stuff or I said I'd do something and I have not done it... its because I forgot ;) Please add it to the list above. Feel free to add more features. —— nixeagle^{email me} 02:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• Handling of completed CU cases. When a CU case is flagged as complete by a CU, it moves to the CU not needed or completed queue. However, if anybody other than a CU or clerk edits it subsequently, it moves back to the waiting approval queue. Mayalld (talk) 15:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Right, I thought I fixed that one... if its still an issue let me know (eg it happened sometime in the last... 2 days or in the future). —— nixeagle^{email me} 15:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Test Created a case as endorsed. The bot put it in the CU queue. Set it checked. The bot moved it to the ordinary queue. Added a comment whilst logged out. The bot moved it to the awaiting clerk approval queue. About 5 minutes ago. Mayalld (talk) 08:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Struck out the request, its fixed and verified as fixed by myself. (Just did it about 15 minutes ago). Nuclearwarfare also did a check and it is confirmed as fixed —— nixeagle^{email me} 04:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Banner removal

Hello! Here is the situation. Back in August, User:MarkRae was called a sockpuppet, and banned for 24 hours, as evidenced by this SSP form. However, the above user e-mailed AGK, the one who had banned him, and admitted to the admin that he was that I.P. and had only used it when he would accidentally forget to log-in. AGK had promised the user that he would remove the SSP banner on MarkRae's page, ("He said that he would remove the sockpuppet banner on 30 August because he felt that I'd 'learned my lesson', but I guess he's decided not but AGK retired before he could [remove it]"). MarkRae didn't know if he should've deleted the SSP banner or not, since the admin had retired before he could, so I decided to go bold and remove it myself. However, recently, the user who had reported MarkRae for sockpuppetry has reverted my edit and re-added the SSP banner. I want to ask you guys this: If an admin has said that they would remove the banner but retired and left Wikipedia before they could do so, would it be correct of me to go bold and remove the banner myself? I was wondering if I was able to remove it, or if MarkRae could, or if an admin could remove it themselves. Thank you and have a nice day! :) CarpetCrawler (talk) 07:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I've asked User:BGC to comment here. He is the person who most recently restored the banner to MarkRae's user page. EdJohnston (talk) 19:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Since the sock issue is now old (August 2008), the user has not continued the behavior, and his recent edits seem helpful, I went ahead and removed the sock template from his user page. EdJohnston (talk) 15:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Wonderful! Thank you very much for helping this user out. :) CarpetCrawler (talk) 17:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for all your invaluable assistance in this matter - I really appreciate it. MarkRae (talk) 20:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Instructions in case a case already was investigated and new socks appear

I'm not knowledgeable in SPI matters and so I was quite confused when I came across User talk:Gonzonoir#Help request. I would like to ask someone here to answer this user's question if possible. Generally speaking, I think it would be a great idea if someone were to add detailed instructions to WP:SPI as to what to do in case someone suspects an user to use new socks after the previous case was closed. Regards SoWhy 10:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

There are two possible scenarios;

1. Additional socks when a case is open (or indeed when it is "pending close" - Just add the extra socks to the case, and leave a note in the case that you have done so.
2. Additional socks after a case is archived - File a new case using the buttons.

Anybody care to pretty that up as nice instructions? Mayalld (talk) 11:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to add that we DON'T use case numbers. All cases are filed under the name of the potential master account, and the bot archives as required. Mayalld (talk) 11:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It should work exactly the same as creating a fresh page, the only difference is that the bot removes the case and sends it to its own article. So in other words, the same process applies, whether a fresh case, or an old one. I'll look more into it, and hopefully post soon. Synergy 19:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Help needed to file a Sockpuppetry Report

Can some one help me to file a report regarind the banned User:Kuntan ?. Here are the suspected sockpuppets of User: Kuntan, Anonymous User with IP address 59.91.253.113, 59.91.253.110, 59.91.254.63, 59.91.254.38, 59.91.253.112, 59.91.253.70, 59.91.253.225, 59.91.254.94, 59.91.254.8. He was silent for some months now and again sprang up suddenly. One another editor emailed me and told that he is one Mr. P. Krishnakumar from a city called Calicut in Kerala. This man is involved in serious mutilation of a particular wikipage of SUCI. His personal vengance to the party is evident from him edits for the last 2 years. He is also using abusive language on this editor and others. One of this puppet IP is already banned. Please help.--Radhakrishnansk (talk) 15:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

A new puppet User: 59.91.253.27. He is again abusing other editors--Radhakrishnansk (talk) 16:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Go to Wikipedia:SPI#Instructions for instructions on creating a new case. Understand that providing diffs of the behavior that makes you suspect socks will result in faster case processing. —— nixeagle^{email me} 16:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Automated "suspected sock/master" notification by User:SPCUClerkbot

I am very close to having this feature complete. I still need to program in a few safegaurds to prevent the bot from double notifying someone but other then that we are mostly go. For the time being I have the bot maintaining a commented out list after ;Suspected sockpuppets on a case... This is used by the bot as a quick way for it to know who it has already spoken to. It will also do checks to make sure that it won't double post, but if the bot does not have to load the page it won't. You can see the list at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Test. The bot will be maintaining lists on all cases for the time being until this gets approved for trial.

Anyway regardless I need some clerks/interested users to come up with a nice sounding message for the bot to post. See the redlink on User:SPCUClerkbot (the bot's userpage has a list of all templates it uses) and make the link blue please.

I will have to request permission from WP:BAG before we can turn it on for real, but getting a notice for the bot to hand out is an important step that needs to be done. Thanks to whoever takes this one up ;). —— nixeagle^{email me} 07:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Parserfunction problem

If we can, can a clerk get through and close the 6 pending close cases sometime soon and revert the changes to the SPI template so that we can have the show/hide boxes back on the main page. Our problem is just that we got backlogged fairly badly earlier. We are doing better now :) —— nixeagle^{email me} 07:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Make that 8 pending close. —— nixeagle^{email me} 07:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Spaces missing in example?

In the bluely backgrounded instructions I read the following:

"Eg, if the case name is about User:John Doe or the existing case is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JohnDoe, then you should enter Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JohnDoe in the box."

Shouldn't that be

"Eg, if the case name is about User:John Doe or the existing case is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/John Doe, then you should enter Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/John Doe in the box."

? DVdm (talk) 18:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are very right. Good catch, feel free to make the change if you like. ;-) Tiptoety ^talk 23:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

How many puppets IS an editor allowed?

TheRedPenOfDoom has declared the use of a puppet Notnotkenny. But and dispite this declaration, both accounts have been editing the same pages. When asking about use of two accounts, RedPen was given the go-ahead by User:Mazca diff. However, and though I appreciate this transparency, I can determine no good reason for both accounts to edit the same page as this gives the uninitiated an impression of a sense of consensus to actions per actions by both accounts on

8_Simple_Rules_for_Buying_My_Teenage_Daughter

A_Hero_Sits_Next_Door

A_Picture_Is_Worth_a_1,000_Bucks

And_the_Wiener_Is...

Baby_Not_On_Board

Barely_Legal_(Family_Guy)

Boys_Do_Cry

Brian:_Portrait_of_a_Dog

Brian_Does_Hollywood

Brian_Goes_Back_to_College

Brian_in_Love

Chick_Cancer

Chitty_Chitty_Death_Bang

Da_Boom

Dammit_Janet!

Death_Has_a_Shadow

Death_Is_a_Bitch

Death_Lives

Deep_Throats

Don't_Make_Me_Over_(Family_Guy)

E._Peterbus_Unum

Eek,_a_Penis!

Family_Gay

Fast_Times_at_Buddy_Cianci_Jr._High

Fifteen_Minutes_of_Shame

Ginger_Kids

He's_Too_Sexy_for_His_Fat

Holy_Crap

I_Never_Met_the_Dead_Man

If_I'm_Dyin',_I'm_Lyin'

Jungle_Love_(Family_Guy)

Let's_Go_to_the_Hop

Long_John_Peter

Love_Thy_Trophy

Meet_the_Quagmires

Mind_Over_Murder

Model_Misbehavior

No_Chris_Left_Behind

No_Meals_on_Wheels

North_by_North_Quahog

One_If_by_Clam,_Two_If_by_Sea

PTV_(Family_Guy)

Padre_de_Familia_(Family_Guy_episode)

Pandemic_2_-_The_Startling

Patriot_Games_(Family_Guy)

Perfect_Castaway

Peter's_Daughter

Peter's_Got_Woods

Peter's_Two_Dads

Peter,_Peter,_Caviar_Eater

Petergeist

Play_It_Again,_Brian

Running_Mates_(Family_Guy)

Saving_Private_Brian

Stewie_Griffin:_The_Untold_Story

Stewie_Kills_Lois

The_Courtship_of_Stewie's_Father

The_Fat_Guy_Strangler

The_Father,_the_Son,_and_the_Holy_Fonz

The_Former_Life_of_Brian

The_King_Is_Dead_(Family_Guy)

The_Man_with_Two_Brians

The_Passion_of_the_Jew

The_Son_Also_Draws

There's_Something_About_Paulie

Wasted_Talent

Talk:List_of_South_Park_episodes

User talk:Notnotkenny

User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom

If such IS found to be acceptable, it will then encourage ALL editors to declare and open multiple accounts to edit the same pages all over wiki, as you this will allowed the acceptable precedent for such perception of consensus. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

i second uyou , if this member is allowed then all members have such right's ....then this will be unjustifiable to those who have been banned due to double accounts .....this is not fair ....--Doctor muthu's muthu ^{wanna talk ?} 23:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

While I will admit I have not looked into this at all, I can answer the general question. Wikipedia:Sock puppetry stakes that "A sock puppet is an alternative account used for fraudulent, disruptive, or otherwise deceptive purposes that violate or circumvent enforcement of Wikipedia policies." That said, it also states that the use of multiple accounts is allowed. I will note that it somewhat specifics what types of activities one should be using an alt. account for. Tiptoety ^talk 23:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

New case

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wiki brah – can a clerk file it and notify the parties concerned, in the absence of the bot? – iridescent 00:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the bot is out of the hospital and in business. :-) Tiptoety ^talk 00:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)