Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Archive 7

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

Three Audit Subcommittee vacancies: Urgent call for applications

The process to appoint the three non-arbitrator members of the Audit Subcommittee is underway. If you are suitably qualified, please see the election pages for the job specification and application arrangements. Applications close 22 October 2009.

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies talk 19:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Audit Subcommittee elections: Urgent! Final call for applications

Time is rapidly running out. The closing date for completed applications is 23:59 (UTC) 22 October 2009. If you are interested in becoming one of the three non-arbitrator members of the Audit Subcommittee, see the election pages now for the job specification and application details.

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies talk 17:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Unsure about this

I am not sure if this needs to be reported, or if it even should be. On the deletion debates of James Ackerman (USMC) & Alexander Schott they appear to have nominated simultaneously by User:CynofGavuf & User:GB fan almost within minutes of eachother. GBFan then voted in CynofGavuf's deletion debate. I am not making any accusations here, but that strongly suggests cross conversation and a possible violation of WP:MEAT especially with one or either of them voting in the other one's deletion suggestion. Again, I am NOT accusing these users of anything nor do I want this appear as if I am trying to gain favor in a deletion debate. I am just mentioning it due to the timing of the nomination of on topics of exactly the same nature. How should this be handled? -OberRanks (talk) 20:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I suspect it's a case of one AFD in an area drawing attention to similar articles. I certainly looked at the list of notable service numbers in Service number (United States Marine Corps) while responding to this AFD. My attention was drawn to the pair of them by this question.—Kww(talk) 20:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

looking for Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikedit-34

Is the bot working? I posted this one several hours ago. Hairhorn (talk) 20:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, the case was removed from the queue by a vandal edit. The bot didn't seem to notice, so I have re-added the case manually. Hairhorn (talk) 03:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

New case - User:Thegn/User:Gavin Wilson/User:Ombudswoman/User:AmyCrescenzo/User:GJW

I want to start a case but the page only comes up with 'view source'. I'm not sure how to proceed. Basically, User:Thegn (the oldest username), who can be identified as Gavin Wilson, has several socks - User:Gavin Wilson, User:Ombudswoman] and User:Amy Crescenzo. All but User:Gavin Wilson have contributed to the Wikipedia article on Gavin Wilson.

Ombudswoman started the Gavin Wilson page, and 'her' last edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ombudswoman) shows that she is User:Thegn, who also substantially contributed to the article. User:Gavin Wilson/sandbox has a link to the Gavin Wilson article and draft categories for it at the bottom of the page. This diff (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Amy_Crescenzo/Sandbox&diff=prev&oldid=75328466) shows Amy Crescenzo also drafting the Gavin Wilson article. 'She' also added two photos of Wilson. I suspect there may be more socks, going on what I have found so far.

Wilson uses the socks to add info to various pages he is interested in, such as Thames Ditton Lawn Tennis Club (Thegn and AmyC); Proximity mapping (all but Ombudswoman); Kingston Defence (Thegn and AmyC). The Gavin Wilson page is a vanity page, made almost entirely by Wilson's socks, and all the publications bar one that he cites are in-house reports or an obituary of a boss of his; the one 'monograph' he has published looks very likely to be self-published and therefore doesn't pass muster, and so I put the page up for deletion.

I first came across him as User:Thegn had put a school photo of Bruce Dickinson into BD's article, and on the photo page claimed to be its author and owner of the copyright. As elsewhere on the Bruce Dickinson talk page User:Thegn said that he was school with Dickinson, it seems highly unlikely that he took the photo, which looks like an official school photo taken by a professional photographer - and therefore the copyright is not Thegn/Wilson's. I left a message on his talk page asking for clarification.

Just found another - User:GJW.

Unsure what to do or how to do it. Thanks86.140.128.38 (talk) 16:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I tried to put in a sockpuppet charge and I can't seem to edit the template

Is it usable only to registered users?

Anyway this is the evidence I have

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=321208025&oldid=321206918

As shown on the link above, I post a message (bottom of page) to Kenosis asking

Aren't you capable of clicking on a link and LOOKING?

Salty Boatr, who was not a part of the thread before this responds with

I am capable of looking, and I looked

Now why would SaltyBoatr respond to a question directed at Kenosis as if he was Kenosis unless he is Kenosis?

I would have made the sockpupet complaint sooner but SaltyBoatr got me banned for a week for not being civil - I was more then a bit annoyed at the duo for engaging in POV push, historical revisionism, and slander of an important historical figure. The ban may have been damage control to prevent me from reporting their activities. I did object on the talk page but "tedder" seems to have the kind of mind that - once made up it - is difficult to change. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:96.237.123.191&oldid=321474793 98.118.13.212 (talk) 03:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Additional evidence: Kenosis SaltyBoatr take turns reverting material I tried changing. Material includes slander of an important historical figure - he wants the slander included in the article and I want it out.

First revert by Kenosis http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=323083386&oldid=323050127

Second revert by SaltyBoatr http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=323113576&oldid=323095451

Third revert by Kenosis http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=323159838&oldid=323159569 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.129.194 (talk) 21:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Some steps of the WP:SPI filing procedure may be difficult or impossible for anonymous users. Occasionally a registered user will come along who feels that an anonymous complaint is legitimate and will file it on behalf of the IP. Since I find it hard to believe that Kenosis and SaltyBoatr are the same person, I won't volunteer to do that. People who've been here for two years or more and have worked in a variety of areas are not so likely to be socks of one another. Mere coincidence of opinion on a hotly disputed article is not enough evidence. If you are 96.237.129.194 (talk · contribs), you've been here for two days and have already managed to get blocked for a month, so I doubt that this will be pursued further at SPI. I suggest that other IPs from the 96.237.* range not bother to join in to pursue this further. EdJohnston (talk) 20:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

AUSC October 2009 elections: Vote now!

The election, using SecurePoll, has now started. You may:

The election closes at 23:59 (UTC) on 8 November 2009.

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies talk 07:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Codeletters

After having worked as a clerk here for months I have become convinced that our codeletter system contributes nothing other than instruction creep and bureaucracy, making cases harder to file and not really adding any information that can't be gathered from the evidence that clerks and checkusers read anyway. Does anyone feel this is useful? If not, can we please get rid of it? — Jake Wartenberg 18:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I would be fine with getting rid of it. NW (Talk) 18:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
While I do agree that it's a little creepy, the codeletters do indeed serve a purpose imo. Inexperienced users who need to use the system (SPI) use the codeletters as guidance to whether or not CheckUser is necessary. Example: I find two people who i want to test to see if they're socks and have no evidence, but i'm new and haven't read the CU policy or anything. I come to SPI looking for a checkuser and see this funky "code letter" thing. Hm, my code letter's not in this nice big list they gave me, maybe I'm in the wrong place.
Personnally I think we need to link MORE to the list of codes. Too many editors create a new case and have no code letter, many of these cases are invalid. GrooveDog • i'm groovy. 20:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
To be honest, in that case, I'd rather have them file it with a request for CU that doesn't work. It is easy for the clerks, who are familiar with the checkuser policy, to look the case quickly and decline it if it is appropriate to do so. NW (Talk) 21:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

By way of background, the code letter system was installed by UninvitedCompany a couple of years ago, at a time when (1) he was doing the largest share of the on-wiki-requested checkusering, and (2) there were an awful lot of requests filed that didn't warrant checking. (One change made since the code letters were started is the addition of the "other" category, which if I recall correctly, didn't originally exist.) Not being active on this page, I don't have a view whether requiring use of the code letters increases the percentage of cases that are reasonable requests, or saves the checkusers or the clerks any time. The active checkusers' views might be particularly relevant on this issue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I do find the merits in the code system. Often I bumped into cases with code letter C, which immediately prompts me to check whether if the socks affected the outcome of an XfD. It cuts all the time needed to review many links that might not help in the end. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Back at RFCU, they allowed for quick sorting between wheat and chaff -- it can save a lot of effort if clearly spurious requests are stopped before filing -- but I do agree it can add to confusion and red tape. They were a very good idea at the time, but I'm open to the possibility they're doing more harm than good, now that we have more eyes and more steps involved in the process. So long as we bear in mind that all checks need to be justified within policy, and likewise bear in mind the generally expected nature of those justifications, we could try going without for a while to see how things go. Other ideas to streamline the process are always welcome, though. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd be for getting rid of it, as it serves virtually no additional utility in as far as SPI is concerned (as opposed to RFCU, which it did). Clerks and Checkusers should be able to discern from looking at the evidence why a check is requested or why a check is needed, such as edit-warring, vandalism, or vote-stacking via socks. Furthermore, code letters doesn't sort anything more as far as SPI case processing is concerned. With that said, clerks and Checkusers, regardless of the reason(s) given for a CU request, still have the prerogative to decline such requests which can be determined exclusively from behavioral evidence or for other reasons already outlined in the CheckUser policy and in the WMF's privacy policy. MuZemike 01:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't ever look at the code letters, that's all I have to add to this discussion. Brandon (talk) 01:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, just to let everyone know, if we're going to go through with ditching code letters, we will need to hold off on the change (i.e. in the {{RFCU}} tag) until User:Nixeagle finishes redeveloping a new version of the SPCUClerkbot, as changing anything between now and then will certainly break something. MuZemike 21:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Help!

I was advised to come here, but can't start a new case myself, so I wanted to see if someone else would help me. Basically, my situation started over a silly little argument - silly enough that I won't get into it (other than to say that this person was aggressively positing something that I found counter-intuitive, and could not back these claims up with any sources at all).

I undid some changes this person didn't like, so they reverted me saying "Get over it" - not a big deal, I figured, but I reverted and they responded by reverting me with "You're an idiot." as an edit summary and informing me that I'm a "major retard". So, I went to AN/I and the anon was warned about NPA, blanked the page and called the admin an "Ass", which prompted the admin to restore the warning, which prompted the anon to blank the page again and tell the admin "Go fuck yourself.", which prompted the admin to block the anon for 31 hours.

At this point, the user created an account while blocked to continue edit warring with me, and then confirm that this was the same person with "By the way, I see you cried like a little baby to the administrators because you couldn't handle a few insults. Yes, I'm rude but I do have a heart." This got the new account indef blocked. I was warned by another party to stop edit warring, for which I apologized and stopped.

Now, the user decided to create another new account while still under the initial 31 hour block, and continue edit warring with me. I'm worried that this anon will continue this business, with or without more sock accounts. Help? 24.148.0.83 (talk) 06:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

And now, although the initial IP block has expired, it looks they have created yet another account just to continue to edit war (although this one has not yet done anything else abusive). 24.148.0.83 (talk) 12:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks like they've been at this for a while; the history of Lady Deathstrike, plus contribs made from accounts/anons that seem to be in the mix, make it clear this is a problematic pattern. I've done some checking and some blocking, but I doubt that'll be the end of it. Thanks for bringing this issue to our attention. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
It's so bizarre, the lengths this person has gone to over one seemingly insignificant edit. :\ I would have dropped my side eventually if he hadn't gotten hostile with me in the first place. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 00:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Urgent! Last call for votes: AUSC October 2009 elections

There's only one day to go! The Audit Subcommittee election, using SecurePoll, closes at 23:59 (UTC) 8 November. Three community members will be appointed to supervise use of the CheckUser and OverSight tools. If you wish to vote you must do so urgently. Here's how:

MBisanz • Tznkai;

  • Or go straight to your personal voting page:

here.

For the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 17:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Sock template cleanup

I've been running through a number of old socks lately, they'd been tagged with indefblocked or otherwise ended up in CAT:TEMP and someone deleted the talk pages, I undeleted and was retagging when I realized that I had no idea which tags to use. Some had old subst tags on them and it wasn't always clear whether I was dealing with the puppetmaster or a sock, in at least two cases it was the puppetmaster. Not being used to tagging socks, I began chugging through the lists of current tags and found:

I'm sure there are more, I probably even ran across some and forgot to note them. Anyway, I noticed:

1) They don't all categorize the same or in the most useful way. For example, if you use {{sockpuppet|user|confirmed}} it will not include a cat for suspected socks. If you use one of the puppeteer tags, it won't even include the confirmed socks. Some of the subst templates that were on the pages when I got there included links to both the confirmed and the suspected socks of a puppetmaster. It seems that when looking at a puppetmaster's page one should want to see all the known socks, confirmed and suspected.

2) The parameters aren't consistent, {{checkedpuppeteer}} only allows for an evidence link to an spi page. old RFCU links won't work.

3) Many of these have cross-over parameters, so you can create {{sockpuppet|blocked}} and {{sockpuppet|confirmed}} or you can make {{blockedsockpuppet}}; You can make {{sockpuppeteer|blocked}}, {{sockpuppeteer|checked}}, {{sockpuppeteer|proven}}, and you can add evidence or spi parameters OR you can use {{Checkedpuppeteer|blocked}} or with an spi link. So, if I'm working with a sockmaster whose been checkusered, do I use {{Checkedpuppeteer}} or {{sockpuppeteer|checked}}.

Trying to sort out exactly which parameters, including which type of evidence I wanted to cite was very confusing, and then whether that was confirmed, proven, or should be a link out to evidence - ughh. I saw no way to tell whether if I said it was checked would it link to an RFCU or an SPI/RFCU case equally well. Add to that figuring out which cats were going to be fed and I was starting to give up hope of even tagging the dozen or so I was working with consistently or getting it done within a few hours. I asked PeterSymonds on IRC and he said that {{sockpuppeteer}} gives more flex as {{checkedpuppeteer}} only allows spi pages, which I'd started to figure out, but it certainly wasn't obvious and it begs the question "why?" Can we simplify this mess of templates? I understand there was once an attempt to do some sort of mass-merger that failed. Can we just start by deprecating {{Checkedpuppeteer}} and replacing all the instances? Then move on to sorting out the remaining ones. Please let me know if there are more (I've deliberately avoided the IP templates).--Doug.(talk • contribs) 21:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

You missed {{checkedsockpuppet}}, {{IPsock}}, {{CheckedSockpuppet-nb}}, {{SPIconfirmedsock}} and probably some others from Category:Sockpuppet templates. We've tried once or twice to get templates deleted that we no longer use, but it doesn't work out that well at TfD. For instance, we no longer tag IPs as sockpuppets - most IPs are dynamic, sometimes very rapidly so, so tagging them doesn't serve us well and may result in some confusion if the address is reassigned to a new user who edits. But when we tried to get it deleted, a stack of people told us that they use it as well and would like to keep doing so. Their reasons didn't necessarily make sense (there really is no useful knowledge behind a 5 year old IPsock template), but we don't own the templates. Plus, I get the feeling that even the clerks don't always use the same template - in fact, I might vary from template to template just by myself depending on which I remember first ;) I'd have no objection to consolidating them via AWB, but that might be tricky. Nathan T 21:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Ughh! I'm glad I did or I never would have finished what I started out to do. I suggest we just make decisions and start the deprecation process. We can list at TFD if we want, but we really need to sort it out first so there is a plan. Maybe McBride could make a report that would show dates for the last, say, 25 transclusions of each. Then we could contact the editors who are using the ones we don't like and ask them for comments rather than posting at TFD and having people come out of the woodwork because a proposed tfd template showed up when they used one of these.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 22:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Based on my experience at TFD, I think it would be worthwhile to make a decision here and do the AWB or bot runs to replace the tags then nominate for TFD the tags that had already been de facto deprecated. Consensus here that the tags were not useful would carry some weight but no longer in use is a common winner at TFD, in part probably because there is no work for the closing admin but to kill the template page. I am willing to work on replacing tags once others give advice on what should be deprecated and what needs to be kept.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 17:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

←I feel like the following can be deprecated and replaced:

These are probably uncontroversial enough that you could just go ahead and do them without anyone raising a fuss. NW (Talk) 22:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems like {{Sockpuppeteerproven}}, which was never mentioned before NW brought it up, should actually be made into {{Sockpuppeteer|proven}}
Many of the above are only transcluded a few times and therefore easily deprecated, they may be widely substituted but that doesn't really have any affect.
We do need to keep in mind Wikipedia:SOCK#Tagging which is part of a policy.
We've completely overlooked {{Sockpuppetry}} - which claims to the be the master sock puppet template
The following templates are intended as user warnings and should normally be subst on talk but they have been transcluded on a few userpages so we should at least make note of them:
--Doug.(talk • contribs) 20:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I see that NW has addressed the policy issue just now by changing Wikipedia:SOCK#Tagging to a link to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Administrators instructions#Blocking and tagging. That simplifies things. That page currently directs the use of {{Sockpuppeteer}}, {{CheckedSockpuppet}}, or {{sockpuppet}}.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 20:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
As mentioned above, I created a template in April that duplicates the functionality of all existing sockpuppet templates through one template ({{Sockpuppetry}}) and with one consistent look with all the different types of templates. I personally think that we should adopt the use of a "master" template (not saying that we should use mine, but hey, it is just sitting there ;)) and then deal with the legacy templates by replacing their contents with transclusions to the master template. i.e. Replacing the contents of {{sockpuppeteerproven}} with {{Sockpuppetry|{{{1|proven}}}|t=master|casepage={{{2}}}}} would make it a backwards-compatible redirect to {{Sockpuppetry}}. Just my 2 cents. ~fl 03:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
The issue seems to be that these templates are not flexible enough in that the parameter for evidence only allows for spi cases. Many socks have other kinds of evidence or have old RFCU cases.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 09:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Foxy has updated the documentation to show greater flexibility is actually available.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 18:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I also noticed User:Avraham/Sandbox/SPOM, has this project been abandoned? It appears to be an attempt at a more flexible version of foxy's multi-functional template.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 09:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
It does seem to have been abandoned due to a lack of time. If you could resurrect it and figure out how to code the template properly, it would be very much appreciated. NW (Talk) 16:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Certainly not I, I haven't the technical ability. See above though, it appears that Foxy's multifunctional template may actually be all we need after all - maybe.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 18:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Single sockpuppet template

I believe that the template at User:Avraham/Sandbox/SPOM has no technical issues. The holdup was that it requires re-mapping, as the existing templates did not use consistent named or numbered parameters. Given {{User:Avraham/Sandbox/SPOM}} gets renamed to {{sockpuppet}}, the mapping is:

If someone can write a bot to do the above, that would leave maybe 10-20 templates which would need manual adjustment in the entire project, IIRC. -- Avi (talk) 07:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone do the mapping? -- Avi (talk) 04:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Commented on Wikipedia:Bot requests asking for help. NW (Talk) 05:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
It's easily bottable (unless for some reason a large number of uses are fully protected). Note that there are 49192 uses of {{sockpuppet}} at the moment, meaning that there would be a rather long period during which some but not all instances of the template had "new"-style parameters (and thus leading to breakage one way or the other unless backwards compatibility is retained, at least temporarily). We'd also need to see consensus for doing specifically this, as opposed to the general consensus above that something would be good.
There is also Fl's suggestion in the section above to consider, at least as a starting point: make all these templates transclude one master template. Once that is done, it would be even easier to replace the deprecated ones with direct calls to the master. Anomie⚔ 12:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I asked months ago on the templates talk page (see Template talk:Sockpuppet) and no one complained. Maybe we need to drop a suggestion elsewhere, such as Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous). -- Avi (talk) 16:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC) Note dropped on Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous). -- Avi (talk) 16:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I've just written some code that should be able to do this. Unless any objections are raised within the next few days I'll file a BRFA. --Chris 08:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Can we clarify the differences between Avi's SPOM and Foxy's "Sockpuppetry", why is one better than the other? I support a single template in either case, but above Anomie refers back to Foxy's template with a positive comment, I'm not clear we've really worked out what we want. BTW, Template talks are not normally very active places and I deal with a lot of templates that I wouldn't have watchlisted (if my watchlist were even useable), lack of comment there seems practically meaningless.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 22:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I like what I put together, obviously, but I admit bias :). -- Avi (talk) 01:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Avi's is a bit more user-friendly I think, but both are fine. NW (Talk) 01:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Even though personally I don't really like the "=yes" parameters at the end because people could easily forget to type that in, this should greatly simplify things especially for people new to sock puppetry. MuZemike 17:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
      • The issue with the "=yes" is that the parameters (other than the sockpuppet's name) are all named now, not dependent on order (which was the source of much of the contradiction between the existing templates). This helps for a number of things. For example, it allows the parameters to control more than one part of the template. So "checked=yes" now calls the Checkuser phrase, AND changes the spi link to read "Checkuser investigation" from "Sockpuppet investigation". Also, should there ever be a need in the future to replace the template, having each parameter named will greatly simplify future mappings. -- Avi (talk) 18:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • BRFA filed --Chris 11:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Puppeteer templates

As I built functionality into {{sockpuppeteer}} to handle spipages (automagically), casenames (for old RFCU's), and noting checkuser results, I've deprecated {{Checkedpuppeteer}}, {{CheckedPuppeteer}}, and {{Sockpuppeteerproven}}. Any and all help replacing those templates with {{Sockpuppeteer|blocked|checked=yes}} or other appropriate tags would be appreciated. -- Avi (talk) 14:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I've nom'd all three for WP:CSD#T3 - in 7 days we can delete if there are no objections, if there are I'll nom at TFD; I'll try to get around to installing AWB on my sons' PC and do a run to replace these instances.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 06:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Sweet, I'm doing them manually now :) -- Avi (talk) 06:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Puppeteer Mapping

  • {{CheckedPuppeteer}} --> {{sockpuppeteer|checked=yes}}
  • {{CheckedPuppeteer|blocked}} --> {{sockpuppeteer|blocked|checked=yes}}
  • {{CheckedPuppeteer|blocked|casename=Foo}} --> {{sockpuppeteer|blocked|checked=yes|casename=Foo}}
  • {{CheckedPuppeteer|blocked|spipage=Foo}} --> {{sockpuppeteer|blocked|checked=yes}}(automatically picks up the spipage UNLESS it is under another username, in which case add the "|spipage=Foo" tag)
  • {{Sockpuppeteerproven}} --> {{Sockpuppeteer|proven}}
  • {{Sockpuppeteerproven|blocked}} --> {{Sockpuppeteer|proven}}
  • {{Sockpuppeteerproven|blocked|Foo}} --> {{Sockpuppeteer|proven|casename=Foo}}

I think that should do it. -- Avi (talk) 06:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, re {{sockpuppeteer|blocked}}, what if it's an (old) RFCU page? That was one of the initial problems I ran into that brought me here.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 18:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • OK great, sorry I missed that in the mapping above. How would you map the following: {{Sockpuppeteerproven||casename=Foo}} (note the double ||), where the user is not blocked. Also not other Sockpuppeteerproven tags for users who are not blocked.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 20:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
    Also, I'm not sure that I got this right. This seems to have gone from a confirmed checkusered blocked account to a "suspected of abusing accounts".--Doug.(talk • contribs) 21:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
    Running into a lot that have multiple tags, really slows down the AWB runs, what do we want to do with sockpuppetproven, in particular a {{sockpuppetproven|Foo}}?--Doug.(talk • contribs) 21:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
    And while we're about it what are we doing with IPs? I'm finding a lot tagged with Sockpuppeteer.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 21:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
    Just came across another one: {{checkuserblock-account}}; not sure what to do with it. Page was tagged twice so it could probably be removed in this instance User:Veesicle.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 22:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
    275 of the 360 some instances of this template have been replaced. The rest need a closer look.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 22:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Another issue raised on my talk page is that the blocked versions state that the reason for the block is the socking, some old templates didn't make such a direct implication. In some cases the user is blocked for other reasons separate from being a sock or sockmaster. See discussion here.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 19:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I ended up not worrying about the non-blocked possibilities under {{sockpuppeteer|proven}}, but User:MarkStreet is an example as is User:Freedom_skies. If we come up with an unblocked version we can ask McBride to run a database report. I can no longer identify the instance I noted above of a template changing from confirmed to suspected when I replaced with the recommended mapping. I have fully deprecated the templates and made the determination that tagging for CSD:T3 is not a good idea. There remain several odd-ball templates that need to be deprecated or otherwise cleaned up.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 05:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
As long as the non-blocked puppeteers were checkusered, we are safe, because {{sockpuppeteer|checked=yes|casename=XXXX}} does not default to blocked, as proven does. See the two cases above now. If no CU was done, how would we say "proven" anyway? -- Avi (talk) 14:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
That's a good question and one that deserves addressing further; however, the issue is that some "proven" puppeteers are not blocked. Policy does not require blocking the puppeteer and only serious offenders should be indef blocked; going back to change the template when the block expires would be a real pain. I suggest wording for all puppeteers that says that the user may be blocked and possibly suggest a reader check the block log or maybe to the talk page where block tags belong. This is especially because the blocking info would normally be on the talk page and the user may have requested unblocking and it may have been granted but checking the userpage for tags isn't part of normal unblocking.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 18:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 Done -- Avi (talk) 06:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

IPs

I ran into some IPs along the way, I converted the tags but in accordance with current policy we should probably go back through and untag all the IPs at somepoint.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 06:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Socks vs masters

A couple thoughts came to me along the way of the process above, I thought these tied enough to what we're talking about to keep the discussion here rather than moving it to the policy page:

1) Why do we distinguish between sockpuppeteers and sockpuppets? There appears to often be some question as to which account is primary and in many cases the determination may be somewhat arbitrary. The real relationship is simply that they are multiple accounts/IPs of a single editor - it's the editor who is the puppeteer, not an account. I understand that for us there needs to be a name to tie them all to for purposes of a case page name, but in many cases the determined master is indef blocked together with all known puppets and is sometimes (see example) later determined to itself be a sock; so it seems to be a distinction without a difference.

2) Even if we do distinguish, why can't we even go so far as to combine {{sockpuppet}} and {{sockpuppeteer}}; having two templates makes it difficult to determine which one to use in some cases and makes it more likely that some sock hunters will double tag - I ran into several of these.

3) Even if we do distinguish, why do we have a different policy as to what to do with the talk page; i.e. why don't we blank and redirect the talk pages of the puppeteer for the very same reasons we do so with the puppets? Doing this differently makes it particularly difficult to determine what to do when it's not clear if someone is a puppet or a puppeteer.

--Doug.(talk • contribs) 06:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to keep picking out a sockmaster when we can, because we need a consistent label both for clerical ease and to allow a useful understanding of behavior patterns. We may not need a separate template; a |master=yes param could do it easily enough. Or if the template already incorporates the name of the master (either via the case name or another param, depending on the template) and that name matches the userpage where the tag is used, it could default to the "sockpuppeteer" wording. Nathan T 15:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I think that would be great to have a |master=yes parameter.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 18:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I'd rather keep separate sockpuppet and sockpuppeteer templates, simply for categorization purposes. Otherwise, we could takeFoxy's work and tweak it, I guess. -- Avi (talk) 19:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this something that could be adapted to your template or would it require remapping to Foxy's? We don't need to decide right now whether to implement but I see that the bot request is in part tied up over whether we've settled on a master template - yours or foxy's.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 23:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I guess I could write something, but if we are going the master route, and Foxy's is available, then why duplicate effort? -- Avi (talk) 08:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk page tags

Is there something we gain by keeping the talk page of a sockpuppeteer up but redirecting the talk page of a sockpuppet? The reason for replacing the talk page of a sock with a redirect to the user page is 1) it gets rid of the trophy and 2) there's no need for a talk page since socks are always blocked, so anyone coming to the talk page to leave a message should be redirected to the user page so that he or she can see that user is a sock and has been blocked (and thus there's probably no point to leaving a message). I understand that in some instances the puppeteer might not be blocked or at least not indef blocked, but in the vast majority of cases it is (and our only talk page tag {{subst:SockmasterProven|period=indefinite|evidence=[[FullPageName]]|sig=yes}}. is only for confirmed sockpuppeteers and defaults to indef blocked anyway) . Why not have the same process instead of a special template that does nothing but refer users out to the same evidence that's on the user page tag? It's kind of confusing and as I mentioned above, we can't always tell if we're dealing with the sock or the master. If there's not some really good reason, I suggest we make the treatment of indef blocked sockpuppeteers identical to the treatment of socks. If we happen to have one that isn't indef blocked we can still use a tag like this on the talk page. Unlike the process above, there will be no need to replace current tags as they are substituted, we can just redirect them to talk as we come across them. --Doug.(talk • contribs) 18:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

If I didn't misunderstand you, I think you are saying we should redirect talk pages of sockpuppeteers to their user pages? If not, please do correct. I think the reasoning behind it is that if a former sockpuppeteer does try to reform himself and appeal his block legitimately, the best way to do so would be through official channels using {{unblock}}. NW (Talk) 20:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Issues with the template code before we run the bot

  • I may have mentioned above that |blocked=no doesn't work, not sure. Anyway, it's from using #if: instead of #ifeq:, I believe. If you use #if: it tests for any value so if you type |blocked=no it reads it as blocked = something so use the blocked template; whereas if you use #ifeq: you can make it check for =yes. I think we need to review that before we run the bot. BTW, The bot approval is waiting on us to clarify what we're doing here, where Avi says above: "Otherwise, we could takeFoxy's work and tweak it, I guess." We need to make it clear whether we've settled that issue and if so, should we tell the bot to run.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 09:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Do we need to check for "blocked=no" or is having the blocked parameter active enough? -- Avi (talk) 08:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
      • We need to determine what the default is and check for the other answer. If the default is "blocked=yes" then make the #ifeq check for "|blocked=no"; otherwise default to "yes". If the default is not blocked then the other way around. :) follow? Whatever way it is we need to make sure it's documented. If we want to require an answer, we should make the template check for both yes and no and act accordingly and spit out an error if neither is input.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 14:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

New cases

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please list new cases that you just created below this line. MuZemike 20:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Listed cases
  • Note that the bot is back up, so there is no longer any reason to add cases to this section. NW (Talk) 00:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

is here a check necessary?

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meisam Tabatabaei get a lot of keeps from very new users and I suspect that this are accounts all from the same person. --Stone (talk) 11:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the need. Read the code letter C bolded words. The votestacking did not affect the outcome of the AfD and does not merit a CU. OhanaUnitedTalk page 22:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Bot status & repercussions

Cases currently pending closure (those at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Subpage - Pending close) are not included at SPI, due to this edit by NuclearWarfare (edit summary: "nowiki until the bot comes back online"). A side effect of that is there are currently 27 cases in limbo at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Subpage - Pending close.

For instance, two socks of User:The Wurdalak — User:Children will try and User:Loose Noose — were blocked on 14 November. However, User:The Wurdalak hasn't stopped socking. See, for example, his new sock User:Falsehoods Aplenty (created on 15 November) who said over here that "[Y]es, I am one of the great sockpuppeteers at Wikipedia."

But until the previous report is closed/archived, I can't file a new report about User:Falsehoods Aplenty.

Is there a plan to change this? An expected date for the bot to reappear? An alternate method to file reports that I've completely missed?

Thanks in advance, Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 05:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I blocked Falsehoods Aplenty based on his admission of socking. It sounds like the general problem remains. EdJohnston (talk) 05:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
The accounts listed here have all been blocked, but even if a case is still up, you can create a second report at the same time via the same process as one would use to create the original case. NW (Talk) 09:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Advising the accused?

Is there an obligation on the user asking for an investigation to inform those being investigated of this fact? I see that there is a section for comments from the alleged sock puppets, but unless they are aware of the SPI there is no way for them to reply.

In a recent case (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JuliaHavey) several users were alleged to be sock puppets, but not one comment was made there - presumably because they had not been informed. Subsequently, one of the blocked users appealed against the block on her user talk page and this is currently under review by a different admin.

The complainant, User:Rhode Island Red, in the course of giving evidence for the blocks, knowlingly made inaccurate remarks about me, which I discovered only by checking on his recent contributions. I say knowingly, because he had already been told by another editor that the accusation of COI editing by one of the accused was unfounded. I was not accused of sock puppetry but neither was I informed of these unfounded allegations, given as evidence against others. This doesn't seem right either.

I realise that it is difficult to keep all users affected by such procedures informed, but when an official investigation is requested which could result in serious consequences for a user accused e.g. of puppetry, the process seems to be inadequate.

If there is no obligation, neither on the complainant nor on the investigating admins, this is akin to performing a trial in absentia. If there is an obligation, it was not adhered to in this case. Sure one should have an opportunity to reply to accusations.

What is the situation? Are changes to the SPI process required? --TraceyR (talk) 09:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

No, there is no obligation. It's plainly listed in WP:SPI: "Notification is not mandatory, and may, in some instances, lead to further disruption or provide a sockpuppeteer with guidance on how to avoid detection". Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
So what's the point of the Comments section. Seems a waste of space to me. I would have thought it commonsense (and good manners) to inform people so that they know (1) that they are being investigated and (2) what they are being accused of. The guilty parties may choose not to defend themselves, but all should be given the opportunity. It may be convenient for the accuser to have things rushed through but it offends against common justice to have things decided in secret. Actually I was hoping for a neutral voice here; I could already imagine what your take would be on this, since you didn't think it a good idea to warn those you were accusing. No doubt some of them are/were sock/meat puppets, but were they all? And whatever their status, surely "innocent until proved guilty" should be the guiding principle. Could some neutral opinions be given here please? Thanks. --TraceyR (talk) 23:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
We don't require notification because in some instances its counterproductive. It's still generally a good idea, and some tools automate it. The "comments from the accused" section is there as a courtesy; fairly often its left blank, and even when its used the comments left are rarely very useful. We have clerks, administrators and checkusers that are experienced at finding and evaluating evidence despite bias in the initial presentation or lack of an effective rebuttal. Nathan T 15:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Nathan. While at some point in time the socks should be notified, doing so at the beginning of an investigation may also provide them the opportunity to do more damage very quickly or to remove some of their tracks by getting oversighting done on edits that aren't yet under scrutiny. No police investigation starts by alerting the suspects that they are being observed and investigated. Suspects must not be allowed to use such knowledge to aid them in covering their tracks. They must be observed while committing their crimes, IOW "in the act", whenever possible. Keep in mind this isn't about a content dispute, dispute resolution, AfD, RfC, or other situation where early notification is required, but about socking, which is a deliberate violation of very fundamental policies on several levels. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. It's not surprising that it's usually left blank, if no-one's aware of the investigation. And an investigation is usually started after suspicion has been aroused, when plenty of evidence will already be available. Any damage done post-SPI can easily be repaired - it is my understanding that tracks cannot be covered, so where's the problem with notification? --TraceyR (talk) 19:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Tracks can/cannot be covered.....hmmm... Well, yes and no. I know of a case where the tracks of a sock puppet were removed by the simple deletion of articles involved in two AfDs. Yes, it might be possible to somehow recover the evidence, but when an article is deleted, all edits to that article are deleted from all the contribution histories of all the editors who ever edited them. Only those who witnessed it happen would realize what was going on. Other editors who come along after the deletions wouldn't notice anything in the editor's contribution histories because the evidence was removed. So, if you suspect sockpuppetry in connection with vote stacking in AfDs, react promptly, because if you wait as I did, the evidence of vote stacking in at least two AfDs, will be gone from ordinary editor's view. Without prior knowledge, one cannot know that a question should be asked, and the answer will obviously never be found. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

BullRangifer, I remember you kicking up quite a fuss when you thought I had intentionally not notified you of submitting a sockpuppet report on you [1] [2]. You only quit complaining when I pointed out that I did start to inform you, and only stopped when I realize the SPI was already closed, because they had already run a Checkuser on you in the previous SPI (which I didn't realize until after I submitted my SPI). Why do you think that courtesy was something that should be extended to you, but not to others accused of being a sockpuppet? I think this is a bad part of the SPI policy. A person should be notified and allowed to defend themselves. Especially since this is a favorite strategy used by some regular editors to discredit new editors of opposing POV. stmrlbs|talk 18:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Investigations should be conducted covertly; trials should be conducted publically. In other words the suspected sock should not be notified during the investigation but, in some cases, could be given the opportunity to comment after the invetigation has concluded but before a final ruling is made. In many cases, the evidence of sock puppetry is so obvious that a reply from the susepected sock is totally unnecessary and would just eat up time and resources for nothing. Let's not forget that WP is not a democracy. Editing here is a privlege, not a right. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Rhode Island Red, take a look at the main page of Wikipedia, where it says "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." Anyone. Not a privileged few. Wikipedia is not the FBI - if a person is accused of something on Wikipedia, they should be made aware of the accusation so they can defend themselves. The accuser should not have more "rights" than the accused during the investigation process. I don't know of any other area of Wikipedia where someone can be accused, investigated, and it is supposedly "ok" not to inform them. stmrlbs|talk 18:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it's "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" -- as long as one obeys the rules. WP:FREE describes that editing here is a privlege not a right. The rationale for not notifying users named in an SPI is pretty straightforward -- so as not to compromise the investigation by giving the suspected socks the chance to evade detection. It also gives admins the chance to observe problem behavior in real-time from suspected socks in action, which can make it much easier to make a reliable decision about blocking. If a user feels that have been wrongly blocked, they can appeal it, and if the block is unjustified it can be overturned. Sockpuppetry is a serious form of attack on Wikipedia. The exisiting policy provides a measure of defense against such attacks while still providing reasonable mechanisms to redress mistakes. The system makes perfect sense to me. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Old checkuser cases

Resolved

A recent change in block/sock templates resulted in a template that previously directed editors to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Sussexman was pointing to the then-redlinked Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sussexman. As a temporary measure and being unsure as to whether the checkuser case should have been removed I've just made it a redirect, but I assume this is something that will need dealing with for a lot of cases? 2 lines of K303 14:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Oooh, that's interesting. I fixed up that particular case, but I think it is necessary to undo that redirect. I have done so.[3] Thanks for the alert. NW (Talk) 22:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Yep, easy fix really. As you will see form the templates history when the merger (to SPI) was performed we addressed this issue and found it best to just leave the old templates and add a notice saying not to use them. Tiptoety talk 23:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chalkfarmcowboy

The above listing was added to the list of SPIs that needed to be transcluded while the bots were down. It was not transcluded, the bots came back up, and it looks like it was accidentially missed. Could a clerk kindly transclude it please? Singularity42 (talk) 16:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done - Tiptoety talk 06:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Please reopen old case

John254 (talk · contribs) has come back as Ywmpq205 (talk · contribs) and Kam47625 (talk · contribs), and 爆笑連合 (talk · contribs) and 三平 (talk · contribs). 70.20.88.18 (talk) 03:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/John254. NW (Talk) 20:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Investigating self?

I have been accused of sockpuppetry by a participant in a recent RfC. Is it possible (or wise) to instigate an investigation on myself and my accused sockpuppet. Thanks. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

IP Concerns

An IP address, Special:Contributions/166.217.214.229, appeared this evening and quickly blanket reverted a number of edits made recently by an established editor, User:Amoruso. The edit summaries it left with each reversion, and its response to my comments on its talk page, leave me with a feeling of WP:DUCK. I researched the IP and it resolved to cellphone company. Not sure if and/or how to proceed, since I have been unable to identify a possible "master". --nsaum75 ¡שיחת! 06:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Relevant discussion at the Village pump

[4]. Tiptoety talk 21:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Archive links

This problem has not been addressed. When looking at the David Shankbone page, there's no link to the archive. DrKiernan (talk) 08:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

That's strange. This is what I see. NW (Talk) 10:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
What NuclearWarfare sees
I don't know why we saw different versions earlier, but now that Enric Naval has done whatever he did to correct the problem [5], I see the same version as you do. DrKiernan (talk) 15:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Purge the cache, and then you'll see it. MuZemike 17:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I have had similar problems, and have even found that purging my cache (multiple times) does not work. There are times when I simply do not see a link to the archive, and other times I do. Not sure why this is, as there is no distinct pattern. Tiptoety talk 21:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

SPI case layout simplification

I was thinking, why don't we combine a few sections to make it a little easier. We could, for instance, combine "Evidence submitted by X", "Comments by accused parties", "Comments by other users", and "Clerk, patrolling admin, and checkuser comments" into one single "Evidence and discussion" section, including the standard note for accused parties. Any thoughts? MuZemike 21:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the "Evidence submitted by X", "Comments by accused parties", and "Comments by other users" section could be combined especially as most of those are hardly ever used. I think the "Clerk, patrolling admin, and checkuser comments" section should stay on its own for ease of reading. Often times patrolling administrators leave comments in that section like: "I have blocked the accounts." It is easy to just scroll down to that section as a clerk, see that administrative action has been taken, and close the case. Just my 2 cents though. Tiptoety talk 21:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Request for assistance

This is my first time here. I am wanting to submit an SPI request, but am unable to fill out the online form properly myself, as it is too complex. Can someone help please and complete the form for me?

The request will apparently need to have a CU component per criteria E: " Evasion of community-based bans or blocks"

This is my evidence:

User:Nopetro has engaged in disruptive editing for some time (see User talk:Nopetro#Inappropriate additions relating to renewable energy) and it now seems that he is a sock of User:Mac, a known sockpuppeteer (see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mac (2nd nomination)) and indefinitely blocked user [6].

As someone who has edited and watched many energy-related articles for a long time, I have had my suspicions for a while, as Nopetro became more active after Mac was blocked in November 2008. Now I've compared these editing tool results with these and there are a lot of common editing patterns and pages which both have edited, across similar subject areas. For example, plug-in hybrid is the top edited article for Nopetro and the second top for Mac and both have been active at Portal:Electric vehicles. Both have also been very active on pages related to solar cells.

And (at the other end of the spectrum) there are some quite obscure pages which both have edited, eg., Template talk:Infobox Automobile and those related to Category:conversion templates. Both have also been active in creating many dubious category pages, some of which have later been deleted.

Thanks. Johnfos (talk) 03:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

There are buttons on the main page. You want the one on the right, replace SOCKMASTER with Mac, and then fill out the fields for evidence and suspected socks. If you've tried that and can't get it to work, post here again and one of us will set it up for you with your evidence in the evidence section. Nathan T 19:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Seem to have got something down at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mac. Please feel free to revise as necessary. Johnfos (talk) 21:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Template Remapping

About 2 months ago I filed a brfa for a requested bot to remap the old sockpuppet templates to the new single template system. Over the last month or so I've been caught up with things IRL and haven't been paying much attention, so does the remapping still need to be done (or has it been done?), and if not did we ever come to a decision on which template to remap too? (iirc, both avi and foxy loxy created templates). --Chris 11:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

How to add to archived case?

Michael Holand Shepard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a new account for a banned sockpuppet and vandal Michael Holland Shepard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), see [7]. The case is archived. How do I officially report the new sock? — John Cardinal (talk) 15:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you just add to the base case page... –xenotalk 15:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I have blocked the account in any case, so no need to create the case. NW (Talk) 17:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

New cases

As the SPCUClerkbot is down again, it may take some time for your case to be listed in the appropriate queue. If you are familiar with the SPI process, you may add the case yourself; otherwise, please ask myself or any other active clerk to list your case and all unlisted cases in Category:Open SPI cases. NW (Talk) 15:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Help with formatting

I submitted a sock puppet case, but the directions are difficult to follow and my edit did not result in a case listing. Can someone fix it? Thanks. My submission.--IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 21:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

 Case handled NW (Talk) 22:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh, thanks. I see that what I missed was the already existing case, but the sock puppet provided me with that information. I came here to delete this. Thanks for the quick work. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 22:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Case seems to have disappeared

WalterMitty had been listed but seems to have disappeared from the list without any disposition that I can find. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

 Case relisted NW (Talk) 00:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Page format

I've switched this page to the non-bot, non-subpaged format. The cases are transcluded in sections, and cases can be moved from section to section by editing the whole page. That should be easier than editing multiple pages to move cases through the process. It doesn't look like there are any TOC issues; let me know if any crop up, and we can find the edits we used way back to fix that problem. Nathan T 22:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pickbothmanlol

Quick note that the above SPI still hasn't received a final review by a clerk or checkuser, after the socks were discovered, blocked, and tagged two weeks ago. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 21:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The bot has been down for the past two weeks. Unfortunately, Category:SPI cases pending close quite a number of cases are like that. We just have to wait until the bot comes back up. If there is a pressing need to archive a case though, it can be done manually. Is there such a need here? NW (Talk) 21:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, we're waiting for the bot to come back up before clerks and CUs can archive cases (i.e. move SPI cases into ".../Archive" pages and make note in WP:SPI/CLOSE). –MuZemike 21:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Help

Could somebody please move Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/BlackJack to Wikipedia space? --85.210.127.158 (talk) 17:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

 Moved and listed NW (Talk) 18:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

alleged bot analysis

I keep seeing the same message on SPI reports abut the bot analysis that is still in testing and not all cases will have one. I have yet to see a case that does have one of these. I guess I'm just curious, are there any cases that do have one? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope! Nathan T 22:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
When Nixeaglebot is working, it has a function that generates an editing intersect report. I think we were experimenting awhile back (a long while back) with having it show up on a /Report subpage for each case, but it never got past experimentation. The bot has been down for some time anyway, so I've removed the verbiage from {{SPIcat}}. Thanks for bringing it up. Nathan T 22:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually, there are a few cases that have them. But those are some of the first cases ever created when SPI was but a new born. As for {{SPIcat}}, please note that it does more than just place the bot analysis on the case page, if I recall correctly it also helps with categories (with the bot down it does not matter much though). It would be a better idea to remove the bot analysis from the SPIcat template directly than remove the SPIcat template entirely from the case pages. (Nixeagle is far more of an expert on this than I). Cheers, Tiptoety talk 06:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually ended up just removing the written notice from the template - it's still on every case page. Nathan T 13:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Ah, perfect! Tiptoety talk 08:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Free the kingdom of tibet

Hi:

I noticed that a mildly disruptive user called Free the kingdom of tibet is listed as a sockpuppet Wikipedian but has not been investigated here. He or she became a user on April 19th in 2009 and instantly got into an edit war with The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick and stopped editing imediately and entirely. Anyway, this person has not been investigated and should be to see if it is really appropriate for this user to still have the sockpuppet tag on their user page anymore. Vadac (talk) 02:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The data required for checkuser investigation isn't stored indefinitely; this account looks to be  Stale in that regard. Page history from around that time might be worth a look, to see if there's similar behavior around the same time. Is this a pressing matter? – Luna Santin (talk) 00:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Self-nomination?

After commenting in AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hari Dhillon, User:Annette46 has made allegations of sockpuppetry linking myself, User:Todtanis and the IP user 81.156.64.209.

I have asked that she file a report here so that the matter can be quickly resolved, but she claims that would be "interfering in the AFD process".

I'd like to file a report regarding myself and the anon IP user. I'm on a completely different ISP, IP range and geographical location to that IP so it would be a simple case of checking my own IP details, to which I readily assent. I'm technically on a dynamic IP but it's been unchanged for at least six months, which covers all of my edits. Is such a self-nomination allowed?

Secondly, I'd like to clear my name with regards to User:Todtanis. I'm guessing this would be a longer process (I can only assent to having my own details checked) and User:Annette46 has indicated she might file a report after the AFD, but is there any reason why it shouldn't be filed now? If being involved in an AFD excluded users from sockpuppet investigations, all they'd have to do is to post in AFDs daily to be permanently immune. Thanks, Holly25 (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment. I did not make any allegations of Sockpuppetry concerning the 3 editors (or collaborative editing). These were made by 2 other editors (with much longer edit histories), and I was stating the results of my own subsequent analysis. I reiterate that User:Todtanis and User:Holly25 are obviously both experienced WP editors with accounts less than a month old. User:Todtanis in particular is a WP:SPA concerning the article Highgrove Luxury Condominiums which is up for Afd but "he" also seems to have escaped a SPI because the person who filed the SPI request was a blocked user. <--- I personally think the "Socks" are getting smarter these days, and that User:Holly25 doth protest her innocence too much. This is not an SPI request on my part. Annette46 (talk) 16:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Holly25, The answer is no. In general, we do not allow checks to be run to "prove one's innocence" per our sock puppetry and CheckUser policies. Regards, –MuZemike 17:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. What is the recommended course of action if repeated accusations of sockpuppetry are being made but the accuser refuses to file a report? Holly25 (talk) 18:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

FAQ?

Unsure why Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Richard Daft isn't appearing on the project page - is it a manual process? --Dweller (talk) 16:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Yup, it is. I'll put {{SPI|Richard Daft}} on the main page. Nathan T 17:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NYyankees51

I might be mistaken, but was the old case never closed archived? APK whisper in my ear 19:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The bot that did the archiving has been down since about that time. MuZemike is working on manually archiving, which is an involved process that includes updating WP:SPI/C. Nathan T 23:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

May I un-ask for checkuser?

Just posted a sock investigation here, and decided on second thought that this could be a DUCK issue. Does it have to wait for a checkuser? Or could an admin please review it and act without? Thanks... Auntie E. (talk) 17:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you sure may. Just note that in the SPI case, and a clerk should come by and decline it per your request. –MuZemike 17:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

SPI header/SPCUClerkbot down instructions

Regarding this template:

For those of us less familiar with this page, it would be helpful if the above notice template had an instruction to add case to the top/bottom of the queue. Additionally/alternatively, an invisible comment would be useful. Wine Guy Talk 22:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I have clarified the note at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/header. NW (Talk) 17:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Report based on admission of sockpuppetry

An indefinitely blocked user has posted a message to his talk page boasting that he has sockpuppet accounts for the purpose of evading his block. Is this alone sufficient evidence to file a SPI/checkuser request? —Psychonaut (talk) 17:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that's sufficient to ask for a sweep.—Kww(talk) 17:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Query about how to proceed

Ive seen some suspicious behaviour from two accounts which were both created no less than 5 days ago. Both accounts seem to exhibit Wikipedia:Signs of sock puppetry They both appear to be editing more advanced articles like AFD, RFC, RFA etc, They both appear in the same AFD discussions, edit the same types of articles, edits appear close together in time frame. This to me sounds suspicious. But as in what i said suspiicous. Im aware at SPI you need to provide evidence. But I also dont sense a level of malice/disruption from both editors aside from what appears to be vote stacking (but to me AFDs are not determined by votes anyway, They are determined by consensus and reasoning behind such). Can I ask, what levels of edits are sufficent for actual filing a SPI report? and Am I assuming good faith by even opening an investigation since these accounts are young and it appears to be very 'bite'ish of new comers on my part to do so. Should I investigate further and wait on it?, should I just approach the editors individually? Thanks for any recommendations Ottawa4ever (talk) 10:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

If things reach a level where assuming good faith becomes difficult or impossible, an SPI or other less intimidating response might be worthwhile. It may be the case that there's something more innocuous going on -- could be that these two are friends, maybe? If either or both of them has email enabled, and you think they'd take kindly to it, some people might not mind a friendly heads up about sock/meatpuppetry policies. Hopefully they're not socking, certainly, and it may even be the case that you're better off not worrying too much about it unless it comes up in a situation where it actually matters. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply. It had turned out i wasnt the only one noticing something going on. I guess thats something else that shows up in these investigations that you wont be the only one to observe weird behaviour. Apparently there were about 6 accounts tagged to this user.Happy editing Ottawa4ever (talk) 12:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Ah, well. Sounds like you've got a good nose, then, eh? ;) – Luna Santin (talk) 21:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

This pattern look familiar?

Just noticed this guy creating his own account plus 5 alternate accounts. I've left him a note, but not sure what to think here. Does this pattern look familiar to anyone?  7  02:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked already. This is MascotGuy. Tim Song (talk) 02:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks!  7  02:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet categories

I recently submitted a sockpuppet investigation request on User:Jimcrik7. He's been tagged with {{sockmaster}} and his suspected socks with {{sock|Jimcrik7}}. This puts them in a category which is currently redlinked. Should I go ahead and create the category? I'm not too familiar with the policy regarding the creation of new categories so I thought I'd better ask first. Cheers, XXX antiuser eh? 02:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The category should be created with {{Sockpuppet category|Jimcrik7}} if the accounts are blocked, until then the category should stay uncreated. Let me know if you have any further questions about this, kindest regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 09:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Call for applications for Checkuser or Oversight permissions

The Arbitration Committee invites applications for Checkuser or Oversight permissions effective with the posting of this motion. The application period will close at 2359 hours UTC on 1 August 2010. For this round of appointments, only administrators will be considered. Candidates who ran in the May 2010 elections elections are encouraged to apply for consideration in this round of appointments. Administrators who applied for permissions in the round leading to the May 2010 election may email the Committee at arbcom.privileges@wikipedia.org by the close of the application period, expressing continued interest and updating their prior responses or providing additional information. New applicants must email the Committee at arbcom.privileges@wikipedia.org by 30 July 2010 to obtain a questionnaire to complete; this questionnaire must be returned by the close of the application period on 1 August 2010. The Arbitration Committee will review the applications and, on 13 August 2010, the names of all candidates being actively considered for appointment will be posted on-wiki in advance of any selection. The community may comment on these candidates until 2359 on 22 August 2010.

For the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 17:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations/Archive_7&oldid=1159114146"