Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Archive 9

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

Submitting case inputbox

You know, I was thinking, we probably only need the one inputbox now, since we now use the {{SPI report}} template as our default for formatting of SPI cases. If somebody needs to request CU, then they can change the "checkuser" parameter to "yes". Any thoughts about combining that? –MuZemike 15:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. T. Canens (talk) 10:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Sockblock

Template:Sockblock has been nominated for merging with Template:SockBlock. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Bsherr (talk) 19:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Voluntary checkusers requests for IPs

Under the current policy, requesting a checkuser for IPs is impermissible. It is foreseeable that a user accused of using IPs as sockpuppets may want to request a checkuser to acquit themself of wrongdoing and I see nothing wrong with that. Marcus Qwertyus 23:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Previously, when the letters were still used to identify the reason for checkuser, requesting checkuser to prove innocence wasn't listed as one of the reasons and was one of the tips or times checkuser will not be used. There have been circumstances when this has been accepted, I can only remember one or two, but I forgot which cases. Typically though, requests for checkuser to prove innocence is declined. See also Wikipedia:Checkuser#Grounds for checking last two lines. Elockid (Talk) 23:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Line breaks

Suddenly when I save a report it has no line breaks for the reported socks - and I can't figure out how to fix it. It may be something to do with the latest version of Chrome. Dougweller (talk) 06:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not just Chrome; it happens in nearly every report. Not sure what's going on with it, though... — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 12:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Transclusion

About 24 hours ago, I posted a report to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Antony1103, but it has not yet been transcluded to this page. Is there a problem with the bot, or did I do something wrong? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It may have been because there were two reports listed there, and it was just seeing the first. Give the bot fifteen minutes or so to rerun, and then see if it shows up. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 17:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yep, that's it. DQ.alt (t) (e) 17:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Should I have archived that at the time I filed the new report? If so, should there have been some instructions about doing so? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
No, archiving is done by the clerks. We're just a little backed up right now, is all. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 18:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
No problem, I know how you feel! Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Blocked me

Hi! Blocked me, please, I'm Dr Claudio. Jackson Harrison (talk) 18:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Blocked, and some other sleepers as well. TNXMan 18:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Help with accusations of sockpuppetry

I'm seeking some expertise on how to handle accusations of sockpuppetry. Specifically, PranakanLegion has made edits that are extremely similar to other editors found to be sockpuppets of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/DPeterson. PranakanLegion is understandably upset at the situation. Suggestions? --Ronz (talk) 16:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

PranakanLegion has been added to the DPeterson report. Still, I think it would be helpful to hear suggestions for PranakanLegion. --Ronz (talk) 18:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Pranakanlegion has been notified of the sockpuppet filing, this page and ANI if he has complaints. All with links. Fainites barleyscribs 19:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Some method to allow anons to report new suspected sockpuppets

I think we should have some method for anonymous users to create sockpuppetry cases for users without any previous ones. Currently, due to the fact that these cases are in the Wikipedia: namespace, and anons can't create pages there, there's no way for them to do it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

A note on posting to ANI, or emailing ... someone? Rd232 talk 10:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Let them register. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
The record on IP accusations about registered editors being socks is not good (some editors will forward the complaint here, so the IP's complaint does get listed). Indeed, many have been shown to be socks in themselves :(. Collect (talk) 11:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I doubt that the barrier of creating an account could be a deterrent for a sockpuppeteer to create new reports; it may, however, deter other people who have no interest in ever creating even one account. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I think that anyone who chooses to take an interest in guarding the community through catching naughty community members should formally join the community by registering. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Most IPs I've seen take any interest in such matters are banned users trying to continue the battles they were banned for, usually against registered users who are not socking, simply to cause further trouble. Yworo (talk) 01:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) AFC currently allows anonymous editors to submit content. Anonymous users can create pages in the Wikipedia talk space. Perhaps we could use this in some fashion to allow them to submit SPI cases? TNXMan 02:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

IPs at Talk:Right-wing politics and Roger Scruton

There is a dynamic IP who I believe to be a sock of User:Yorkshirian, who is involved exclusively on Talk:Right-wing politics. I have asked for semi-protection of the page, but apparently that remedy is unavailable. Is it possible to have an SPI? TFD (talk) 22:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you talking about 88.110.4.199 (talk · contribs), 88.110.8.64 (talk · contribs), 88.110.3.165 (talk · contribs), 88.110.8.60 (talk · contribs), 88.110.12.237 (talk · contribs), 88.110.13.69 (talk · contribs), etc?
If so, he's very insulting. He's currently explaining to me at Talk:Roger Scruton what a stupid bigot I am, and how I obviously know nothing. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that is him. I requested protection[1] and WP:OP[2] but they were not able to help. TFD (talk) 23:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Is there a reason to think he's Yorkshirian apart from his editing of Talk:Right-wing politics? Was Yorkshirian insulting in the same way? The IP address seems to resolve to Nottingham, [3] though I don't know whether geolocation can be trusted in the UK, as it seems to work differently. The best place to request semi-protection, by the way, is WP:RfPP. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 10:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
88.110.0.0/20 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) blocked for a week. This is Tiscali, however, so semi is likely the only long-term solution. That, or revert on sight. T. Canens (talk) 10:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that, Timotheus. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 10:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

(out) Here are excerpts from Yorskshirian in the archives: [4]

This is a very contentious and bias addition. Fascists are certainly not part of the traditional right, far or otherwise. They didn't even exist when the traditional right was defined following the French Revolution. Which is made up of monarchists, theocracists and reactionaries. Mussolini was a revolutionary, who began his career as a Marxist and claimed as his biggest influence Georges Sorel, the revolutionary syndicalist. He and his movement are to the left of Bonapartism. It is absolutely disputed where this is on the political spectrum and as thus should not be included here.
Then you seem to be confused, or at least not very well read on the subject. Study the origins of the political spectrum—when it was first traditionally defined following the French Revolution, on the right were Theocratic Catholics and the Absolute Monarchists. It has always been disputed whether fascism is on the right, since it emerged during the 1930s (more than a century after the traditional definition of "the right"). Even by fascists themselves, such as Oswald Mosley who presented themselves as a third way. Though the left, especially in North America, seem to try to negate the complexities of this quite persistently, especially the inconvient fact that Mussolini began as a Marxist and throughout his career was influenced most prominently by Georges Sorel. Most scholars on fascism disagree with your opinion, to put it bluntly.

The writing and viewpoint seems similar to his discussion at Talk:Right-wing politics. In my experience with English IPs the results seem to vary. I did ask for semi-protection but the request was declined.[5]

TFD (talk) 19:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The same person is back today at Roger Scruton as 85.211.78.147 (talk · contribs). It's clearly him, because he said on talk on December 3 as 88.110.8.64 (talk · contribs) that he intended to add material from a few Scruton books, including Gentle Regrets: Thoughts from a Life and A Political Philosophy: Arguments For Conservatism, and that's what he did today as 85.211.78.147. He has also posted on talk as 85.211 referring back to his earlier post as 88.110: "I promised I would provide a brief text based summary ..." and has resumed the same kind of insults on talk. [6] I've requested semi-protection at RfPP. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 14:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Just noting here that this person continues to cause problems. There has been plagiarism at Philip Rieff, as well as POV pushing, reverting, and insults at Right-wing politics, Roger Scruton, and their talk pages. Roger Scruton and its talk page have been semi-protected, and two more IPs were blocked today for 6RR at Right-wing politics. I'm keeping a note of the IPs and the issues at User:SlimVirgin/RS. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Some of the IPs

He has been editing sporadically since at least February 2006, focusing on Talk:Right-wing politics and Talk:Roger Scruton, using dynamic IPs that resolve to the ISP Tiscali in the UK. The more recent IPs resolve to the midlands or north of England—often Leeds, Nottingham, Yorkshire, or Scunthorpe. The earlier ones in 2006 resolved to Dunmow, Essex, and in 2007 High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, in the south. The problems have been serial reverting, plagiarism, and insults on talk pages. He routinely calls other editors stupid, ignorant, bigots, and liars. Some editors believe he may be banned Yorkshirian (talk · contribs); see the SPI report from December 4, 2010.

Roger Scruton and Talk:Roger Scruton have both been semi-protected because of him. Philip Rieff had to be deleted and rewritten because of extensive copyright violation. There have been several requests to semi-protect Right-wing politics or Talk:Right-wing politics: individual and range blocks have been tried instead. Right-wing politics was semi-protected for three months because of him on January 26, 2011.

List of IPs below. For geolocation, try Utrace. In February 2011, he began editing as ERIDU-DREAMING (talk · contribs). See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ERIDU-DREAMING.

Wrong name

Normally, it doesn't matter much if we list the wrong account out of a drawer as the puppet master, since they are all the same person. However there's a case that's come up repeatedly over the last year which has a mix of sock and meat puppetry and proxying. A business associate of the "ring leader" was mislabeled as the puppet master. She's no longer his associate but he continues to sock, etc., under other accounts. That still might not matter except that she signed on with her real name as her account name. Smkovalinsky (talk · contribs) The real puppet master is Petrosianii (talk · contribs). It'd be easy to re-tag the user pages. Is there any problem with renaming an SPI? Would it be hopelessly confusing for future investigations of the same user?   Will Beback  talk  08:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and start re-categorizing the already tagged accounts, and I assume we'll be able to resolve the SPI naming issue.   Will Beback  talk  23:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
As Petrosianii is the older account, I don't think that should be a problem. TNXMan 23:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
If everything is moved properly, there shouldn't be a problem. T. Canens (talk) 23:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks!   Will Beback  talk  00:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Some puppetry accusations

Could one or two folks experienced with puppet investigations take a look over the two sets of socks/meatpuppets noted in this ANI thread and/or give this user some advice? If the latter, still take note of the ANI thread as the accusations are a two-way street. Thanks for any assistance! --Vassyana (talk) 15:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

No notification needed?

I was told recently that "Sock reports don't require notification, unlike ANI reports". Is this true? And if so, what is the rationale? I think that when an accusation is made against another editor, whether it is 3RR, AE/ANI report or SI, they should be informed so they can defend themselves. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Suggested, not required. Sometimes, notifying a sock of a serial sockpuppeteer (for instance) will cause the user to become more disruptive. Even worse, it may lead to the user to become more sneaky and try to evade detection or suspicion. I believe the last discussion we had on this was at Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Archives/Archive7#Advising the accused? –MuZemike 01:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Just spotted this, and I'll go further: I'd recommend that the accused not be notified. Invariably causes drama, and rarely affects the outcome one way or the other. The rare false blocks can be undone using the normal unblocking process.—Kww(talk) 22:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:TFD reminders

First, Template:Sockblock and Template:SockBlock are being proposed for merging together. See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:Sockblock for discussion and details; it has now been relisted twice, so any additional comments would be great (as I just did).

Also, I have nominated Template:SPIevidencebottom, Template:SPIevidencetop, Template:SPIhistorybottom, and Template:SPIhistorytop for deletion as they are unused and redundant with Template:Collapse top and Template:Collapse bottom; see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:SPIevidencebottom for details. –MuZemike 22:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

New Tool for Help with Investigations

Hey there. I made a tool today that is supposed to help with these investigations. It produces graphs similar to this that are useful for the illusive sockpuppet master. The tool is still in development, but I thought I'd leave a note here to see what you all thought. Right now, access is limited to only administrators (and me, of course), as a measure to protect privacy of users (these graphs could reveal information about location/lifestyle). To ensure this, admins that want to use the tool must log in using TUSC. Any and all feedback is appreciated on my talk page. Thanks! Tim1357 talk 03:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and the tool is here: http://toolserver.org/~tim1357/cgi-bin/UserGraph/main.py Tim1357 talk 03:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Noob question: what is TUSC? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
A TUSC account is an account that anyone may have, that identifies them on the toolserver. You can make one yourself, just start here. Tim1357 talk 04:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, if it helps any, we do have a list of all cases from 2009 up until March 2010 (when we stopped archiving due to the non-availability of any competent bot) over at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Closed/2009 and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Closed/2010 if that helps any. –MuZemike 03:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that I might find this tool useful, but do not have TUSC access. If the graph output is similar to the example image, it does not reveal anything that can not be seen by looking at the users' contributions. Options? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but it is part of the Toolserver Privacy Policy that this information not be publicly available. Tim1357 talk 04:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, which specific part of that policy applies? Are you publishing "data that is not also publicly available on the public Wikimedia wikis sites in some form"? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
It made my browser crash before the graph appeared. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 04:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I've run up against that problem myself. The problem is that I am using a google chart api, rendering the chart in-browser as an svg image, which is quite intensive. I tried other methods, but because of the scale of the datasets that are used, this was the best option. I'll keep trying with other methods, and will update the tool if I find one that is more efficient. Tim1357 talk 04:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Tim. It looks as though it'll be very useful. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 04:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I can't login with my Commons TUSC account :( - Alison ❤ 04:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, you must have a separate TUSC account for this tool; one that is connected to your en.wikipedia account. Tim1357 talk 04:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Tim, one thing that would help is to give some guidance on what kinds of results are significant. For example, if we find that two users with 20,000 edits each have made 30 edits within 10 seconds of each other, is that statistically significant or not? How do we judge for each new set of parameters what's significant and what's to be expected? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 04:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

User:PetefromDundee

Not sure how to file a sockpuppet report but this user is clearly a sockpuppet of user:Mersey57 Valenciano (talk) 11:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The Fat Man

The Fat Man Never Came Back had his account registered in 2006; but unlikely has association with The Fat Man Who Never Came Back. --Perseus, Son of Zeus 19:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

And The Thin Man Who Returns Repeatedly... --Perseus, Son of Zeus 19:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure what action you would like taken. The first account you mention has never edited and the second last edited two years ago. TNXMan 19:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Noindexing

I believe most of the sockpuppetry-related pages are 'noindexed'. But I've just noticed that the categories themselves are not. I'm guessing they should be. –xenotalk 19:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that would be an easy fix, assuming the category-space is not NOINDEXed; just add it somewhere in the {{sockpuppet category}} template. –MuZemike 20:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Has been in there for years. To get any untagged category pages we could also add a line to MediaWiki:Robots.txt excluding everything starting with "Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of". Or someone AWB through them from time to time and add the category, probably just as good. Amalthea 21:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Was mostly referring to the more "toplevel" categories [10] [11] for which Google sometimes indexes and a few names are cached. –xenotalk 21:50, 17 January 2011

IP hopper

This guy has been blocked indefinitely and is now hopping from IP to IP; please see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Zombie433. What can we do, and is it worth launching an SPI? Thanks, GiantSnowman 18:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

79.213.64.0/18 blocked for 72 hours. Hopefully that will help. TNXMan 18:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Many thanks, but this guy has a new IP just about ever day! Luckily there's a number of editors over at WP:FOOTBALL who recognsise his quack, but I think we need a long term solution. GiantSnowman 18:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Possibility of going botless again

Per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Trying to defuse a problem with NFCC#10c removals, we are going to need to prepare for the possibility/likelihood User:Δ is re-banned and would effectively shut down User:Δbot in the process. If anyone has any ideas of how to keep SPI functioning without a bot, please give any suggestions. –MuZemike 23:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

You don't have the source?—Kww(talk) 23:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Nope, he never gave it to us, but since a few tasks of mine have failed, I would be willing to start coding. -- DQ (t) (e) 23:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I will be honest, I am slightly peeved. If we are going to get a new bot, it must be open source (as was promised with User:Δbot if I remember correctly). Tiptoety talk 02:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Tip, how ever much you trust my word, I promise the code. -- DQ (t) (e) 21:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
If you guys forget, I ran a clone that I wrote during the BRFA. I still have the source, and could start it up again if the worst case scenario occurs. (X! · talk)  · @268  ·  05:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Heh, I wasn't around for that. Actually that would be better and I that'll give me some time to build mine too (if we want features) while accomidating all my projects. Thanks X!. -- DQ (t) (e) 20:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Where to obtain action on repeat socks

I have been advised by an admin here that I have reported a new sock of indefinitely blocked User:LouisPhilippeCharles in the wrong Wiki forum and/or in the wrong manner. I did so in an attempt to follow the instruction of another admin here. Please advise as to the most effective way to obtain prompt investigation and action on a new incarnation of this increasingly aggressive, habitual block evader? FactStraight (talk) 07:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Whenever you would like to open a new case, you should put the material on the investigation page. I've moved the material for you. I hope this helps. TNXMan 12:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Really?

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations#Archived cases shows nothing since March 2010. What's up? LeadSongDog come howl! 22:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

We discontinued that system back in March 2010, since it was tedious to update the pages, and consensus upon their purpose was unclear. Now-a-days if you want to search the archives I'd recommend doing an "x prefix:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations" search using Special:Search. Kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 23:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I do wish we had a better archival system, though. Something more like WP:LTA, which also isn't really updated. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 01:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
It probably doesn't work to have an archive system organized by month since new cases of old user's sock abuse would scatter all around different pages. Archive by month is not an ideal approach if you want to detect sock patterns. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I totally agree with that. A better system would be, I don't know, tagging or something. Some form of metadata. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I suppose there should be a few words about searching and the suspension of archiving added old archive list.LeadSongDog come howl! 06:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Can someone check this?

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Padmalakshmisx to see why it's not showing up in the logs? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 12:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I see it now. Dougweller (talk) 13:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Ah yes, now I do too. Took quite a while, or... —SpacemanSpiff 13:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
The bot is just a little slow, that's all. :-) Tiptoety talk 19:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Where is the list of socks please?

I notice User:Antichristos now has a page of socks associated. However there was a page about his sockpuppetry before saying he seemed a sock of User:Systemizer. He was banned then but I can't find any list of the sockpuppets that used to be associated with Systemizer or that Antichristos used before. The confirmed and suspected sockpuppets links for Systemizer are red links. What's happening? do old pages like that get cleared? Thanks Dmcq (talk) 15:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Antichristos exists; those are the confirmed ones. You may also want to read the archived case for Systemizer. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry I see thanks. They banned Antichristos before because of all the ip socks but didn't come definitely down on that they were a sock of Systemizer because as far as I can see since it was older they couldn't check the ip. Dmcq (talk) 15:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Archived SPI re-start problem?

I submitted an SPI for a suspected reappearance of an old one, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Manacpowers, but it won't appear on the main page, even if I purge. Have I messed up something during submission? --Rontombontom (talk) 21:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The bot may be down for a bit or something. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 22:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Just checked its edit history, it does indeed seem that it was last active just seconds before my SPI. --Rontombontom (talk) 22:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
The bot is still dead... --Rontombontom (talk) 12:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
You're right has been dead for about 17 hours now. I will let the bot owner know. -- DQ (t) (e) 13:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, the bot got stuck on a malformed case. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 02:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I just noticed that the archives at the bottom of the page end in February 2010 instead of 2011. Are the years wrong, did we stop populating the archive last year, or is this part of the bot problem? --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 05:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Category:SPI requests needing an Administrator

Hi all. While I know the addition of the above category was a good faith attempt at improving SPI I would like to ask that before changes such (that ultimately effect the bot as well) are made there is a discussion here. Also, it might help if the category was actually created so that it is not a redlink. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 21:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, this is my doing. Obviously a bold action. I was talking it over with Delta so the bot wouldn't break, last I checked he was on it. I wasn't able to finish all the administration of unredlinking everything before I had to move locations. I created this category for Non-admins mostly (aka Ktr101 and Spitfire). This is so we can make admin recommendations so admins can take a quick look, verify, and do as needed. This would also be for admins or CU who feel involved to request another administrator to do the action they feel involved. I do have to say this is more for clerks to make recommendation, not non-clerks. I will throw this up for discussion now, and deal with the redlink soon enough. Sorry for the delay on that. -- DQ (t) (e) 21:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
For what it is worth, I'm not opposed to this. Tiptoety talk 21:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Questions

I recently submitted my first SPI report. See here. I have two questions:

1. I said checkuser=yes because I thought it would be needed for the IP part. The truth is I really don't know when checkuser is needed and when it's not. Given the instructions, the noticeboard clearly doesn't want you to change the default unless you have a good reason, but I couldn't find any guidance on the issue.

2. I listed two IPs as possible sockpuppets. The admin/investigator said: "No comment on the IPs." What does that mean?

Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Revealing IP addresses, or that a particular user edited from a specific IP address, is generally considered a privacy violation. Sometimes users pretty much advertise by themselves what IP address they are editing from, but in general, Checkusers strive to avoid revealing this information. So "no comment on the IPs" typically means there is neither confirmation nor denial that a particular IP is associated with a user. In such cases, sometimes an admin may decide to block IPs anyway, based on behavioral evidence. That's not always done, but it happens.  Frank  |  talk  03:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of CrnaGora

Discovered this category quite randomly while looking through some old RfAs. It seems that an IP added this to User:CrnaGora in 2006 during a period when CrnaGora was retired. CrnaGora came back but then retired again at the end of 2007. In 2008 User:Prevalis (also now retired) created the category based on the IP's edit and tagged all the users listed as suspected sockpuppets. None of the users tagged have edited since. I don't know what the policy says, but tagging them as suspected sockpuppets on the basis of an unsubstantiated comment by an IP feels wrong. Any thoughts as to what should be done? Alzarian16 (talk) 17:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

New editor

New editor created the unusual dab page Wikipedia:Scibaby to sock puppet investigation and created other new pages.[12] -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 07:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

 Doing... TNXMan 12:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 Done. Thanks for catching this. TNXMan 13:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

AFD socks?

Is it me, or are there actually socks at this AFD? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cloud Computing Modeling Notation -- DQ (t) (e) 17:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Not just you - the following users at best, are associates, and at worst, the same person. I would lean more towards the former, rather than the latter, however.

How long is the data for CheckUser kept?

On March 22 2011, Jimbo Wales states "An additional concern, about which again I have drawn no firm conclusions, is that this edit led to a block. I just now personally ran checkuser and found nothing; I invite more experienced checkusers to follow up on my exploration." However, the block took place on 2 September 2010. Would the relevant data go back nearly six months? -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 06:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Checkuser data automatically expires in 3 months, so Jimmy running a checkuser now is meaningless. An individual checkuser might hold onto data in their own personal files for longer than that, but it wouldn't be retained on the Wikimedia servers. NW (Talk) 06:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I hope there are no untoward consequences for your helpful "expert testimony" 1/2 :-) -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 08:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, that would be stale. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 01:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Do we sign or don't we?

In the edit box when reporting a suspected sock, the template tells users not to sign with four tildes. Yet, when you preview your entry, there is a line reminding users to sign their evidence. This is conflicting. I'm an experienced editor but this is my first time reporting a sock and if I find it misleading, I'm sure someone else will as well. I just wanted to bring this to someone's attention and since I'm not familiar with this corner of WP, I'm hesitant to be bold with this. Dismas|(talk) 10:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

You mean the "Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"" that shows up just above your signature when you preview? That's meant for the people after you. I can understand the confusion you're having, then. Anyway, when you're first starting a case, you don't sign inside the SPI report template. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Heads up

Due to issues related to privacy I have adjusted the results of my UserCompare tool, I cannot go into exact details, however the functionality of it remains the same, but I converted it to use a 48 point scale with a rotating base salt value. What this means is every 2 points is an hour, but the timescale does not reflect UTC timezone or any other timezone due to the salt value. Ive kept the functionality, without actually providing the real time, so that timezones and other personal data cannot be profiled. This salt value does change daily so do not try to figure it out, it will be a waste of time. ΔT The only constant 16:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Does this process really follow the Jimbo's Principles?

What triggered this post is a specific SPI and an accompanied failed appeal (Byanose and One000 Sockpuppetry case). What I want to question is whether the SPI Process itself as currently documented really follows Jimbo's Principles? (specifically 2 - welcome newcombers, 7 - treating people with dignity and 8 - Diplomacy). This is not really about the editors or the administrator involved because they have followed the SPI process, but I need to use the context of this case to explain my points:

  • We have a controversial page where the editors can be passionate times, but nonetheless everyone tries to work with the WP:PnG.
  • At 17th 15:51 we had a newbie, Byanose, start editing the page in a hostile manner and
  • At 17th 20:04 Byanose was given a 3RR warning.
  • At 18th 13:28 another newbie, One000, did a revert to the page with an accompanied explanation on the talk page. (Half the revert was correct; half questionable).
  • At 18th 13:50 I reverted this and gave him some "beginners welcome" advice not to edit a contentious page until he/she knew what they were doing but gain experience on non-contentious pages and discuss his issues on the talk page. One000 complied with this request and this one edit was his only edit to the page.
  • At 18th 15:43 another editor raised the SPI on Byanose and One000 after notifying One000 but no one else (including Byanose who not surprisingly did not respond to an SPI that he/she could not be aware of).
  • The originating editor, another editor, One000 and I then commented on the SPI and it was quite clear that the newbie didn't have a clue as to what an SPI was or what was happening.
  • At 21st 00:29 the case was closed by an administrator "Per behavioral evidence I've blocked".

So we have a page with no history of sock puppet attacks, we have two newbies joining close together whose behaviour and talk content was very different IMHO, and there was no logical reason why Byanose would need to create a second account since the 24hr ban would have lapsed 3 hrs later anyway. The second newbie tried to cooperate and followed advice but was banned indefinitely, and the first that got the 3RR in the first place hasn't been.

I agree that their coincident joining and interest in the same content could be a case of meatpuppetry, but these issues have also been covered in detail in a number of blogs and on the last few episodes of the This Week in Virology Podcast, where the virology experts that participate frequently promote the use of Wikipedia, so there are plausible alternative reasons for this coincidence.

So what is wrong with the SPI process?

  • No obligation to notify interested or involved parties. As in this case one of the accused and other editors that might have had input were not notified, thus biasing any discussion. The current process permits this.
  • No evidence of the relevant history is taken into account. From the wording of this SPI it would appear to the casual reviewer that this was just another repeat case of sockpuppetry, but in fact we've had no other cases of this type on this page.
  • The current conduct of the accused is not taken into account. In this case the informed newbie was not acting disruptively, but rather going out of his/her way to cooperate with editor advice. Most newbies are barely familiar with WP PnG, and SPI is a complex process and many like One000 (unlike genuine repeat sockpuppets) are entirely at sea with it. Once accused of being an SPI with a couple of very experienced editors acting for the prosecution, they have little chance of a fair hearing, and no effective defence. Surely in the case where the accused is cooperative and not being disruptive, then they should be given the opportunity to understand the process, solicit comments from independent editors and have the right to a fair hearing.
  • Unsubstantiated 'evidence' seems to be accepted on the nod. Statements of self-evident "fact" can sound damning, but a statement without supporting evidence is merely opinion.
  • The closure process. Once the case is closed, the comment process is also closed, and appeals dismissed as 'disengenuous'. I can see the need for expediency in banning disruptive editors, where all of the reasonably involved parties have been informed and there is broad consensus that the ban is the correct thing to do. But why the undue haste in drawing a line under a process where those that might reasonably want to comment haven't had the opportunity to do so? Would it not be better to introduce a {{SPIcontested}} tag or equiv so if the one of more independent editors feel that the accused is being rail-roaded, then they can have the opportunity to request extra comment and challenge the evidence? If necessary an interim ban on editing Main and Talk could easily be put in place.

Sorry for this long edit, but this case -- two black balls and a cry of duck by a couple of experienced editors and a newbie is banned from WP for life three days after joining for doing one edit -- shows that the SPI system can act as an exploitation of the potentially innocent by WP bureaucracy closing ranks. I feel that this needs to be said, even if I become another casualty by raising this issue. The case might be closed, but the weakness in the process remain.

PS. Perhaps you should also ban Byanose, the only editor here who actually disobeyed WP PnG and who seems to have been forgotten entirely.

I guess that its time to for me to take a wikibreak, but I'll hang around to see this thread out. -- TerryE (talk) 14:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the main issue is that the user lied - he/she said "I am not the same user" when clearly they were. Also we have had ongoing sockpuppetry and troublemaking for quite a while on the CFS pages from a btcentralplus ip and I'm guessing this is the same user. --sciencewatcher (talk) 16:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
While we have indeed had some IP sockpuppetry on the CFS page, and some rather unbelievable claims that it's not, Terry does have some good points. Like those involved in the SPI, I believed, and continue to believe, that this was another case of sockpuppetry. That said, however, some of Terry's points are worth exploring a little more: if by some chance it wasn't a sockpuppet and it really was a coincidental new user, was this investigation conducted fairly? I think the answer to that is "no"...or at least, "it was a little hasty based on the small amount of evidence available".
On the other hand, it seems Byanose has now also been convicted of sockpuppetry (see User:Byanose) and blocked. Still, we are supposed to assume good faith, at least in the beginning, and even if this was a case of sockpuppetry, I think things could have been done to make it a bit more of a thorough and fair process, and one that involved more than just a few users. – RobinHood70 talk 17:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
But what are the chances of two users editing the same article with the same views and editing style from (I assume) the same ip range and user agent? It seems highly unlikely. Also, Barny Toll seems to be the same sockpuppet. --sciencewatcher (talk) 18:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I really hoped for a discussion about my last set of bullets with bold headings; about the guidelines themselves and how they should be documented here or on associated pages. (I needed the case only to set these general issues in context and it is now closed and gone and it was perhaps a mistake including its synopsis). For example, should the practice be that an originating editor openly notifies all involved editors (e.g. by posting a flag on the article talk page), or should we rely on an invisible and selective email notification from the originating editor to selected participants for the SPI? The latter approach will certainly expedite the SPI, but does it pass the test of natural justice? The SPI instructions should be clear, so editors who want to raise an SPI know what to do here. -- TerryE (talk) 18:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
As SW notes, the puppetmaster admitted to sockpuppetry in an unblock request. The case was very obvious to me from the start. As I have stated repeatedly, it is highly improbable that two unrelated individuals would make the mistake of placing four tildes in their edit summaries whilst edit warring over the exact same content in the same article during a 24-hour period. Both accounts were created to agenda-edit a controversial article, the second only after the first was threatened with an edit warring block. Also, neither account edited any other articles until TerryE appeared to coach them.
Indeed, it is interesting to note that the editor who wishes to promote AGF against all evidence when the sockpuppets are perceived to have an "allied" POV was quite happy to discard said principle and file a lengthy sockpuppet case, one that involved literally days of research by TerryE and others, in an attempt to silence editors who were on what TerryE viewed as the other "side" of the debate. This past frivolous case, based on pure speculation and depending on simultaneous edits by the accused parties on the one hand and separate edits on the other, was ultimately dismissed as a retaliatory gesture. In fact, some editors suggested that TerryE should be blocked for this behaviour.
Also concerning is the fact that TerryE clearly coached the sockpuppets, urging them to edit other articles to avoid detection and to set up an off-Wikipedia email account to allow "notifications" (read coordination).
This type of behaviour, in which an editor with strong POV comes to the rescue of ideologically aligned individuals who wish to abuse Wikipedia to advance an agenda, is exactly what requiring notification of all involved editors would produce, and it would effectively encourage sockpuppetry and other forms of abuse. Besides, editors like TerryE already monitor closely the activities of editors with whom they disagree. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

(←) My comments, like Terry's, may have applied to this specific case, however they were intended to be taken in the broader context. If this is happening on one SPI, then indeed, it's probably happening on others.

As to KCACO's comments, most of them are simply uncalled for. You have been told not to comment on your assumptions of editors' motivations previously, and I will tell you again: stop commenting on what you believe other editors' motivations to be! This is not acceptable behaviour on Wikipedia. If you have a legitimate complaint, then take it to the appropriate channels. – RobinHood70 talk 22:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I think KCCO really needs to get a grip on himself/herself. I sent a polite email to him/her a few days ago but haven't gotten a response so I guess we'll just do dirty laundry in public. KKCO needs to realise that TerryE isn't his/her enemy...I've interacted with both TerryE and Robinhood over the years and they are both decent people who show good faith and follow wikipedia policies. It is ridiculous to say that Terry was coaching the sockpuppet - if you read Terry's comments on the user's page it is obvious that Terry was just being polite to a new user and offering advice on how to constructively edit. I think KKCO needs to get over this dispute with Terry because it's wasting everyone's time. --sciencewatcher (talk) 00:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Morning all. There seem to be two different issues here, firstly, specific concerns about the handling of the Byanose SPI case, and secondly, concerns that the attitudes and conduct perceived there are prevalent throughout SPI. Hopefully I can help address both of these, starting with the Byanose case.
I've read through this entire case and all the background to it, and after doing so, it seems to me that the blocks made were justified, as it seems clear that sockpuppetry was occurring. Just to very briefly sum up some of the evidence supporting this: Both accounts edit at the same time of day. Both sign ~~~~ in their edit summaries occasionally (the fact that One000 showed a familiarity with this method of signing in his first ever edit is also odd to say the least). The One000 account only started supporting Byanose after Byanose received a 3rr warning. Both are SPAs. Possible CU result. Etc etc. Given the large amount of evidence supporting the accusation of sockpuppetry, it seems unfair to imply that editors in this particular case were accepting unsubstantiated evidence 'on the nod'. The admins who patrol SPI are extremely meticulous in researching the cases (HelloAnnyong especially), and they always do so with an open mind. No one is railroading anything here. All this said, I would like to note that I fully support TerryE's kind and open approach in dealing with the accused. The accusation that Terry was somehow coaching the user is ridiculous and should be given no further attention. Dealing with accused users in a frank and helpful manner is appropriate and should be encouraged. Sorry for banging on about this case; I understand that Terry is more interested in discussion about SPI at large, however, I wouldn't feel comfortable launching into such a discussion without first making sure the context surrounding it is accurate.
I'll reply to Terry's points as he made them,

  • Notifications to involved parties: Currently, such notifications are not compulsory. This is largely to prevent any disruption that such notifications could result in (e.g. in the event that the user is socking, he or she realizes they've been found out and start creating socks by the dozen, or they redouble other malicious behaviour). The current system seems to work well, and we haven't had significant problems with it in the past.
  • Conduct of the accused: firstly, just to make something clear: the conduct of the accused user/s is pivotal to all SPI cases, as it's generally exactly what's being investigated. However, it has absolutely zero impact on how the case itself is conducted. Everything a user does on wikipedia is fully logged, so how effective a "defence" any particular user can make, or how good the "prosecution" is will have no result on the outcome, as the admins who review these cases are third-parties who actually read through the diffs and logs. Community input is vital to the SPI process, but any users twisting or bending the facts of a case will find that their efforts are wasted. We are not morons. ;)
  • Relevant history: all SPI cases have a link to an archive of any past cases concerning the user. When there is no such archive, this link is not shown. All clerks and admins who patrol SPI can spot at a glance whether a case is the first filed on a user, or whether relevant history exists. In both scenarios, they take this into account.
  • Unsubstantiated 'evidence': as I mentioned earlier, all cases are reviewed thoroughly before any action is taken, and again afterwards by the archiving clerk. The users who review the cases spend most their time trawling through diffs. We don't just assume that the evidence given with the case is fact.
  • Closure process: (before I start on this, just to clarify something: we block sockpuppeteers and socks at SPI. We do not ban them. Generally longterm socks are only banned after discussion at ANI.) The closure process at SPI is sturdy; non-cu cases are first reviewed and then acted (or not acted) upon by an admin, who closes the case once he or she has done so. A clerk then reviews the case before archiving it. Throughout the case members of the community are invited and encouraged to comment on it. All the clerks are competent, and all the admins are community approved wielders of the mop. In the event that a user wishes to appeal a block, they should do so via the proper methods, as they would with any other block (these methods being a usertalk unblock notice, emailing the unblock list, visiting the IRC unblock channel, etc etc). All these methods are fully detailed on the media wiki blocked-text notice.

Overall, I am confident that the SPI process is robust but fair, SpitfireTally-ho! 06:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

As an SPI clerk, I have seen plenty of newbies sign four tides (~~~~) in their edit summary. If this evidence is part of the reason why the two accounts are blocked, then we got a problem. And unless a CU is conducted, in my opinion, behaviour evidence should not warrant an indef block unless the evidence is crystal clear. I find the SPI process heavily skewed favouring the person who initiated the case. The "veteran" of Wikipedia will be more favourable than the "newbies" in presenting their own side of story because they know how to format and organize the evidence into readable form for all. Moreover, the accused is always at the mercy of the person who filed the report because the accuse cannot present evidence that suggest they're not linked. On top of that, cherry-picking evidence is a frequent occurrence at SPI. And finally, this process may not be as perfect as everyone thought. It's prone to abuse. I remember one case where an individual (say person A) had a grudge on another (person B). To get B blocked, A purposely created a new account and jumping into all the discussions that B participate. A also made sure the editing style, edit summary, and tone of discussion follows exactly just like B. Someone else filed an SSP (suspected sockpuppet, the precursor of SPI) report and B got banned indef thanks to the "behaviour evidence". I don't remember how B got unblocked, since it's a long time ago, but I think a CU was conducted on the sock account and revealed that it was A and not B who was socking. Maybe it's time to rethink the entire process. OhanaUnitedTalk page 07:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Being on the clerk list just means one is at SPI to lend assistance to the management of cases, it doesn't have any impact on one's status in community discussions. When two accounts make the exact same edits at the same time of day using the same style of edit summaries and only assisting each"other" when one is threatened by 3rr it's pretty obvious that there's a valid concern of sockpuppetry. The SPI case in question and my comment above both make it clear that a checkuser was preformed, so I don't see why you're bringing that up. There is no "problem". Referring to a case from SSP 3 odd years ago (which ended with successful outcome in which the user trying to game the system was found out) to back up your argument that SPI is prone to abuse doesn't really offer any relevance. Saying that SPI is skewered in favour of those filing the cases is hearsay unless you can actually produce a some cases in which that skewering is evident. The comment "the accused is always at the mercy of the person who filed the report because the accuse cannot present evidence that suggest they're not linked" is not true. The accused user is more then welcome to present evidence to show that they're not linked to other users, and they often do. Kindest regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 09:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Spitfire, thanks for your detailed and considered response. I realise that there needs to be a level of privacy around the detailed processes carried out by the teams to prevent leakage of information that might help genuine sockpuppets avoid detection. Nonetheless, some sort of general documentation / guidance of the type that you've just given somewhere within the group SPI pages could help editors work in and with the process when they feel that it needs to be applied, and also possibly help to discourage frivolous SPIs. -- TerryE (talk) 01:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
So what exactly makes an SPI case "frivolous"? The more important question: What additional "documentation" or "rules" do we need for people to follow, while at the same time not drive them away from here and to WP:ANI instead (which is what we don't want)? –MuZemike 05:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Spitfire, I am commenting from my experience so it is wise to preemptively declare my role up front to avoid any misinterpretations or misunderstandings. I somewhat disagree with your statement "the accused user is more then welcome to present evidence to show that they're not linked to other users." It is far easier for anyone to connect the dots and look at the similarity between accounts than looking how the accounts differ. Heck, it's easy to present evidence suggesting 2 totally unrelated accounts and call them related. Often, especially in SPI, some people are prone to tunnel vision and only want to see the desire outcome. OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
A lot of the time, when users file cases, they are in a content dispute with the user they're reporting, or otherwise involved, and they can tend to, as you say, OhanaUnited, tunnel-vision. As Terry mentions above, these users can also be unfriendly towards the users they have accused. These kinds of attitudes are problematic and Terry and Ohana are both right to point them out. However, it is wrong to assume that the users who deal with the cases (admins, clerks and other helpful souls) let the general atmosphere of a case or the disposition of the users involved effect their decisions regarding that case. They always check the evidence themselves, and they are always third-parties. I agree that users discussing or involved with the case often have poor attitudes and that this is a problem that should be dealt with (how?), but I do not consider it right to assume that these attitudes effect the outcomes of cases. Best, SpitfireTally-ho! 18:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

(outdent)Like all detection tests, we have a classic Type I / II 2x2 structure: the user is or is not a sockpuppet and the outcome of the investigation is that the use is or is not. The correct judgements are the is/is and innocent/innocent cases, and we want this process to be as streamlined as possible. The other two cases, the false positive and false negative, mean the a sock puppet is wrongly acquitted and continues the puppetry with an acquittal to flaunt at any subsequent accusers, or an innocent user is wrongly blocked; either is not good for WP. My "frivolous" case was just a subset of the innocent/innocent category where the admins and clerks investigating the case (quietly) ask themselves "Why on earth was this case brought? It's a waste of time". I really have to bow to you guys and gals -- Spitfire, OhanaUnited, MuZemike, and the rest of the admin/clerk team -- who have access to the SPI analyses to know whether this is a problematic issue or not. What I meant was that if it is then if originating editors knew that you basically review all of the evidence, then they might hesitate to request such investigations and save your team some effort. I took a day to think about this before responding but it seems to me that:

  • I know that we mention sock puppetry a couple of times in the preamble but I would be a lot more upfront in the Important Notes section by having the first bullet read something like:
  • Before you initiate an investigate using this process, please first read the guidance on what is and what is not sock puppetry. Provide evidence (preferably with diffs and any reasonable deductions and impressions as a result) that show disruption or deception via IPs or accounts through puppetry. Cases without any evidence or with solely vague beliefs or assumptions will be rejected.
  • I think that we should tighten up the various guidance documents to make absolutely clear that suspected sock puppet should be treated with the normal courtesies and mechanisms (including of course the normal remedies if they are warring etc.) if and until the SPI confirms the puppetry.
  • I think the newbie guidance needs to be simplified and streamlined, with a readable set of does and don'ts, including advice that sockpuppetry is like driving over the alcohol limit: it will result in a automatic block.

-- TerryE (talk) 17:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

My concern is that if we start going in that direction more and demand "hard-and-fast rules", not only will the community more likely simply piss on them, but they won't use SPI at all – as I said, they're going to go to WP:ANI instead, which I know a few do; at that point, we're not really accomplishing anything. As far as the "evidence" is concerned, I'm not sure what else needs to be added; I mean, it gets to the point that some people (more often than not, the accused) will dismiss said "evidence" entirely because they don't believe it. Also, there are some cases which I may not "automatically block" for socking; ironically, newcomers is one of them, and in most cases (exceptions vary, depending on the level and severity of the disruption, in which I will block right away), I normally give the sockmaster a warning and leave it at that (unless the user repeats, of course).
Finally, with the exception of myself and the rest of the CheckUsers, and admins when deleted edits are involved, all editors have the same access to everything and can make simple deductions as far as suspecting sock puppetry is concerned. Moreover, any admin can, in their correct judgment, block sock puppet accounts. I'll end with this: "sock puppet" is not a new term that was coined by Wikipedia – the term goes way back to the infancy of the Internet. It should be common sense that using multiple accounts for the purposes of deception or disruption is a no-no; if I were to re-write the sock puppetry policy, it would be much simpler than it currently is for that reason alone. (Unfortunately, as an Internet community "sprawls out" and gets older, the more the simple stuff needs to be "spelled out" word-for-word, and for many policies, we're not even good at that!) –MuZemike 01:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Terry: it's impossible for users to provide evidence when reporting a possible sockpuppet - we don't have access to users' ip addresses, user agents, etc. The whole point of an SPI is that admins on wikipedia do have access to this information so they can see if it is actually a sockpuppet. Before they do a checkuser all we have are 'vague beliefs and assumptions'. --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Just a correction (I assume it was a mistype) - admins cannot see the IP information, only checkusers can. Admins can see deleted (but not oversighted) content, so that may help them in presenting evidence...but otherwise we are going with the same information available to everyone else if we have to present evidence at the SPI. Syrthiss (talk) 15:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
@sw, re evidence for SPIs, if it's a pair of newbie's that are suspected of puppetry, then you are right, probably just the flag might do, since the first thing that the admin / clerk will do is to pull up the two user contribution listings. In the case where one or more of the puppet candidates are not newbies, then it gets a little more complicated as the edits and actions might span a period and a number of pages; here the originating editor should provide enough key points to hand so that the admin / clerk can see that their is at least enough of a case to start the SPI process proper.
@MuZemike, I see that you seem to be concerned that users might veer towards ANI, but closing an ANI with "Sorry but this should but an SPI. Please raise an investigation request. This incident is closed." seems to be a lot lighter weight than the converse. -- TerryE (talk) 15:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Ah, it seems I completely misunderstood the SPI process. Most of the time a checkuser is not done and it relies solely on the behavioural info that everyone else can see. That seems a bit ridiculous and I see Terry's point. I'm used to admins on forums having complete information about user's ip addresses and I don't see how you could do a proper SPI without having access to that info. --sciencewatcher (talk) 17:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
That is because we are limited per the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy limits us as to what scope in which we can run CU on accounts; I think requiring that every user in an SPI case be checked would violate that policy. Moreover, CU is not the be-all and end-all in determining sock puppetry. Sometimes, it's obvious that two users are related, even though the CU results may say otherwise; the same applies with "false positives". –MuZemike 19:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

(undent)@Sciencewatcher: The issue is that the checkuser evidence is always supplementary to the behavioral evidence, as it should be. Consider the following hypothetical scenarios:

  1. Two usernames have nearly identical behavior patterns. Checkuser confirms that the two usernames share an IP address.
  2. Two usernames have nearly identical behavior patterns. Checkuser notes that the two usernames edit from different IP addresses.
  3. Two usernames have no absolutely connection behaviorally, and are only linked coincidentally when a Checkuser finds them both editing from the same IP address.

Which situation should result in the conclusion that shenanigans are going on? Clearly #1 has the strongest case. But what about #2 and #3. Well, #2 is still highly likely to be sockpuppets of the same person, while #3 probably isn't. Why? Because #2 is easy to explain since IP addresses frequently change; the same user can be editing from multiple locations (an airport hotspot one day, home on another day, a public library another, work on another, a friends house the next day) while there are far more cases where multiple users could coincidentally share an IP address (both use the same ISP which periodically shuffles addresses, both edit from the same public library, etc.) If behavioral evidence is strong, then no checkuser is run. When behavioral evidence is borderline, a checkuser can provide a small amount of extra help in nailing things down. What checkuser is really useful for, however, (IMHO) is not in proving guilt or innocence, which is still mostly determined by basic behavioral evidence, but in rooting out "sockfarms" on abusive sockpuppeteers. Checkusers are important, but don't overstate their importance here. 90% of sockpuppet accounts would probably still be blocked correctly and accurately on behavioral evidence alone. --Jayron32 21:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Improving the process for adding cases

I receive at least one message every other day asking me how to reopen an SPI case. I'm pretty sure this is because it's not crystal clear on the SPI page how to actually do that. Can we look at ways of improving either the top of the page (e.g. a link that says "REOPEN A CASE" or something) or some other options? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 12:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Create a template then put on the SPI page. Baseball Watcher 02:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I will be trying to code it in Template:SPI report. ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 22:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Made Template:ReopenSPI and added it to Template:SPI report. It is a button at the top of the page. ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 10:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Reopened this to allow a full discussion of all possible improvements. -- DQ (t) (e) 11:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
That template isn't a bad idea, but I'm not sure it's the most ideal solution. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 12:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I know. What is your idea? ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 14:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Not only is that button hideous, it isn't even quite right. T. Canens (talk) 22:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
How would you make it better and what makes it not quite right? ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 22:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Does it have to be pretty. Baseball Watcher 22:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

No, but it's not really in line with the standard Wikipedia format. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 23:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties

I thought of putting Comments by accused parties back in. I will be putting it in for now. If you revert, please explain why here. ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 22:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I did revert, clerks somewhere, I can't really find where at the moment were at a consensus that the section needed to go. -- DQ (t) (e) 11:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
I think I did that in order to consolidate most of the sections; the "accused parties" section wasn't getting used very often, so I merged that into the "other users" section. –MuZemike 23:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for checkuser review at ACC

Resolved
 – By Frank. Wifione ....... Leave a message

Thanks. Wifione ....... Leave a message

I've been accused of using sockpuppetry

Is it possible for me to open an SPI on myself to nip this in the bud? The (thinly veiled) accusation is right here [15]. Furthermore, what remedies/sanctions are available against editors who make spurious sockpuppet accusations? Thanks. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 15:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I never said I was referring to you, but it is quite amusing that's automatically the conclusion you jumped to when an anonymous editor with no history in this article whatsoever popped up out of no where to defend your position. You can open an SPI on yourself if you'd like, but I wasn't planning on it. In the mean time, do both of us a favor and stop dragging a content dispute across a dozen different Wikipedia pages and let other editors weigh in. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go enjoy the rest of my day outside with friends and family. Erikeltic (Talk) 17:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and the sactions you're thinking about are probably the same ones that exist against editors that file bogus 3RRs when they know they're wrong. Erikeltic (Talk) 17:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
What's amusing is that you're not brave enough to make an overt accusation. What's more amusing is that you're monitoring my contribution history to see what and where I'm posting. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 17:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
"stop dragging a content dispute across a dozen different Wikipedia pages" - that's rather disingenuous of you, since you posted a CSD just to make a point. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 17:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Maybe I wasn't clear about my point below. Drop it. This is not the relevant place to continue your dispute, and continuing to do so will likely result in blocks. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 19:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I really don't have time to be dealing with this while I watch a Star Trek marathon on SyFy. Put simply, to answer your question, the "remedies available against editors who make spurious sockpuppet accusations" are the same ones associated with WP:NPA. That being said, this really is not the way to handle it. First off, don't open an SPI case against yourself. Secondly, checkuser cannot be used to prove innocence, for technical reasons. I suggest you two come to an agreement here, or find a third opinion, or else what's going to end up happening is the page will get locked and individuals will begin to get blocked for general edit warring. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Where does one discuss banning meatpuppets

An editor has stated on AN/I that he suspects another account of being a meatpuppet (note, not a sockpuppet), and that he's requesting administrative action. A response was given that it was probably better to bring this as an SP/I case. Is that really true? If an editor—on purely behavioral grounds—suspects a userid of being a meatpuppet, does not suspect the accounts are actually the same individual, and wishes administrative action, is this the correct board? The AN/I thread in question is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Csteffen13 Jayjg (talk) 19:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. I guess technically it would go to SPI, but I really don't see a reason to split the discussion. If they're not suspected of being the same person, there's no technical information a checkuser could provide that would help. At that point, it would be up to a patrolling admin/clerk to close the SPI and decide what, if any, action to take. Leaving it at ANI just skips straight to the admin action part. TNXMan 01:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Would you mind commenting to that effect in the AN/I thread? Jayjg (talk) 00:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Done. TNXMan 11:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Behavioral Signs of Sockpuppetry and/or Meatpuppetry in AFD debate

There are multiple new and one time users attempting to sway voting on the debate below that signed on after the deletion process began and are disrupting the voting with excessive linking, excessively long paragraphs, attacks on people of differing opinions, etc. Apologies if I'm going about this the wrong way. I read the form on how to open an investigation into the use of sockpuppetry but I'm not understanding the process but I think this needs looking into.Aa1232011 (talk) 00:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marisol_Deluna

I don't know about socking, as a few of those listed IPs are from completely different cities. I think your suspicion of off-wiki canvassing is so far pretty accurate. –MuZemike 00:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply. I'm assuming a program or independent editor can look into canvassing if merited without me making a report? Please advice. Thank you.Aa1232011 (talk) 00:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
His accusations of meat puppetry, sock puppetry, and canvassing are baseless. I have not been contacted by any one, nor have I been in contact with anybody, on or off Wiki, concerning the AfD debate in progress for Marisol Deluna. All of the registered users who have posted are from different locales and in different industries, and I doubt there is canvassing taking place on the part of the subject in question... --Mr. Brown (talk) 03:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Of course you would say this seeing how you were one of the main contributors of the article and one of the most vocal supporters of the subject on the talk page. I never accused you personally of anything but you show an interesting response to my inquiry. If my accusations are baseless, why not allow an outside editor or admin to look into the matter? What do you have to lose? In fact, for someone who as been freely accusing me and others of a "personal vendetta", you should welcome a deeper investigation. Also, please don't be following me around from page to page to continue your mudslinging. I am attempting to bring clarity to this issue that YOU made into a personal attack in order to muddy the waters and focus attention on something other than the subjects lack of importance and insignificant/unreliable outside sources for verification. The following users are just some of the ones I've noticed have signed up after the debate started and have contributed only to Marisol Deluna pages and conversations so far (again, apologies if I'm doing this incorrectly or need to strike this from the record for any reason I will):

(66.65.66.144) (62.252.182.132) (72.1.155.66) (HenryJC) (99.141.126.125) (71.255.139.226). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aa1232011 (talk • contribs) 04:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC) Must make a note that I am unsure how to link to other users but these accounts all exist and can be found in the before mentioned talk page and undoing revisions in articles where Deluna's name had been removed due to lack of citations or undue inclusions.Aa1232011 (talk) 04:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I would always welcome any investigation into sock puppets, but it's clear that they're not being used in this article, as a quick check of the WHOIS entries for the various IP addresses would show that they're posting from various locations. Most known proxies are banned from editing Wikipedia, so they couldn't be in use here, so unless the accused has access to several different computers throughout the United States and possibly the world, then there's no sock puppetry going on. Accusing random folks of sock puppetry and announcing it in an AfD debate certainly isn't the way to go about doing things and, is, in my opinion, an ad hominem attack, something which you have been so quick to decry, but so quick to do and something which you seem to know so much about (e.g. Cementville, the fact you seemingly know so much about the subject despite not knowing her and finding her "insignificant").
Secondly, just because a user signs up and contributes to Wikipedia after an article is nominated for deletion means nothing. A user may have simply searched for the subject, saw that their article was nominated for deletion, and felt strongly enough about the subject of the article to post. Thirdly, IP addresses, for the most part, are dynamic. Just because a user has seemingly never posted to Wikipedia before doesn't mean they have not done so, as most users (99%) IP addresses are changing on a regular basis.
I would also point out that I'm not "following [you] around", as you put it -- you gave a link to this investigation on the AfD and I'm clearly just giving my feedback. You are clearly paranoid -- this is the second time you've accused me of stalking you on and off wiki... again, no clue who you are.
This is just a way by yourself to further muddy the waters, as you put it, on this debate about a subject you obviously care and know so much about, despite her "lacking importance". --Mr. Brown (talk) 14:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
You CONSISTENTLY acuse me of things you do yourself and your double standards are tiring. I did not give a link to this discussion in the AFD debate and that's your first easily verifiable lie right there. My link was to the DEFINITION page. You ARE following me around and replying to all my comments and continue harrassing me even after I stopped responding to your accusations in the hopes you would leave me alone. Like I said in the beginning of this question, I am unsure what "stuffing the ballot" falls under or how to go about reporting it, but as MuZemike already pointed out, there does appear to be CANVASSING going on with all new users who just "happen" to stumble unto the debate exclusively to vote for a "KEEP" and then disappear. I have friends in four continents and all it would take is an email to get several people from different cities to join in the discussion. I wouldn't do it, but clearly someone else has and that too can be (and has been) confirmed by other users. You say you have no clue who I am and then go on to say with certainty that you know for a fact I know Deluna based on an edit I cross-referenced from information easily accesible online and which I already explained and provied links to in the debate. GET OVER IT! You accused me of vandalism for making necessary changes that SEVERAL other edtors un-did and then re-did because they were in keeping with Wikipedia's policies. etc. In short, this is the last time I want to have any contact with you whatsoever or exchange words with you on Wikiepdia as you are harrassing me! Please do not respond to my posts, follow me around different pages spewing your conspiracy theories, speculate as to my motives which you have no way of knowing, and accuse me of things you have absolutely no proof of. Enough already! Aa1232011 (talk) 16:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
One last thing, know that my background is in journalism and I was taught to cross-reference and double check information and sources before taking what anyone says as fact precisely because people have a tendency to fabricate flattering personas for themselves. I had moved on from this debate and article after the first edits I did and only got "personally involved" as you say, after you and other new users started accusing me of things in the hopes of derailing the debate. So YOUR BEHAVIOR is the cause of my continued vigilance on this subject. You seem very caught up on a few simple facts that I discovered on Deluna's background that you seem especially motivated to "bury". This is very telling to a person in my profession and I am now becoming even more interested to delve further into the subject and provide more reliable sources that support my position as time allows. Lastly, me knowing or not knowing Deluna has absolutely nothing to do with almost a dozen other editors having deleted false and unverifiable claims on hers and other articles and nominating it for deletion. So you don't even have a point to make there. Aa1232011 (talk) 17:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations/Archive_9&oldid=1159114206"