Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Privacy policy & case endorsements

Two notes:

• I have been seeing clerks/patrolling admins write that CheckUsers cannot connect, as in, perform actions which compare/associate an account with its IP address(es) due to the privacy policy. This is incorrect. Of course CheckUsers can retrieve the IPs used by an account, or the accounts on an IP or range of IPs. What they do not do per the privacy policy is *publicly comment* on those results.

• In Winter 2012, CheckUsers became concerned at the number of courses where checks had been run, but justifications for checks, i.e., arguments supported with diffs and log entries hadn't really been spelled out. That's not to say they weren't necessarily justified, but SPI is perhaps best thought of like a maths test: show your working. It became clear what was happening - cases were being filed without the evidence being spelled out, and people's working was being done off-stage. Not ideal. Many changes were made around the SPI area which put the emphasis on the person filing the case to show their working, and use diffs to support it; not least on the basis that it is unacceptable that the person most familiar with a situation leaves it up to a) those least familiar with a situation b) to retrieve their argument for them.

It is entirely reasonable to expect Clerks and CheckUsers to have some measure of familiarity with well-known sockpuppeteers. However, I am seeing clerks increasingly substantiating the argument that the filer should have provided so that they can endorse a case for CU attention. While it is commendable they don't wish to leave things to the imagination, my concern is that this behaviour of filling in the blanks will allow the previously mentioned bad habbits to creep back in. Thoughts welcome. WilliamH (talk) 10:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• • I've gone and provided the diffs to justify the CU on several occasions myself when it is simple and obvious only because that is the fastest and easiest way to achieve the desired end result. In those cases, it doesn't bother me to help them. Part of the problem is that many people filing the the SPI are not as familiar with the requirement (and not all CUs have the same apparent threshold, to be honest) and it is often easier and less bureaucratic to simply help them along. If the linkage isn't simple and obvious, I will ask for more info. I will note this is part of the of the reason I started this essay User:Dennis Brown/Dealing with sock puppets which can be put in mainspace if the CUs and Clerks find it useful. I tend to think that helping them once or twice while pointing them to the essay to instruct them in the future is the best option, however, I am happy to comply with whatever the CUs clearly state the procedure should be. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 14:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
• Perhaps a template is needed that precisely explains the issues with publicly connecting accounts to IP addresses? Maybe that would help to address the issue - I think a lot of it is the choice of words. --Rschen7754 21:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

That's a splendid idea. WilliamH (talk) 21:32, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Case merge needed

Could a clerk please merge Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/IranitGreenberg to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AndresHerutJaim and retag to AHJ? Elockid ^(Talk) 17:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• Give me a minute and I will merge it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Elockid ^(Talk) 17:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I've copy/attributed the archive and move/histmerged the current case page. I still need to go through and change all the sock tags, which will take a while to complete as there are a lot of them. I will also change the block on IranitGreenberg from 3 months as master to indef as sock. For all intent and purposes, call this  Done. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Urgent request

Technoquat is vandalizing each of his sock account talk pages which did not have the talk page access yanked when they were blocked. I'll need some help cleaning this up, and please make sure that their talk and email are disabled when the socks are blocked. Thanks, --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Let me see what I can do, although most of them are no longer tagged. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I think I got all of the 12 or so that popped up at RFU. It will still be helpful to go back and plug the talk page editing loophole. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm about to head out, but I'll try to nuke the lot when I get back. Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I've already nuked the archive (around 28 of them that weren't already no tp/em), now will work on the hidden blocks via my block log. Easy peasy. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the help guys!--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Investigation credibility

Is there a way for non admin editors to have some assurance of the strength of the evidence used to block a suspected sockpuppet? I've been relatively blissfully unaware of the process until I happened to notice an editors comments deleted as a sockpuppet in a controversial article. When I followed the links to the investigation archive the evidence appeared to be non existent (other than a lame observation that the infamous sock puppeteer - like the accused editor - had a fondness for "clever" names). I might have assumed that the suspected editors shared IP's and that this would serve as the damning evidence, but in the same investigation archive someone claimed that the sock puppeteer "makes extensive use of proxies, therefore his IPs geolocate to dozens of countries" so it would appear that the investigation simply looks at the accused's edits and if it reminds them too closely of the sock puppeteer they are summarily banned. Surely the indefinite blocking decisions have more credibility than that?Zebulin (talk) 19:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree, what you described is not sufficient for a block. However, what most likely happened is that their edits resembled those of the master and their IP was found to be an open proxy. If they really weren't a sock, well tough luck, they shouldn't have been editing on proxies anyways. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:20, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

SPI Request

Hi all, could someone checkuser these two accounts for me? I suspect they are the same, as they post at ITN/WT:Main Page, and both seem pretty outraged regarding the Trayvon Martin verdict. The accounts are: User:Mission Twelve and User:Boomer Patrol. Thanks, ★★RetroLord★★ 02:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations#Submitting_an_SPI_case. Legoktm (talk) 02:35, 19 July 2013 (UTC)