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)

Question

Hi. Just a question: I have evidences that a user is a sock-puppet of Shayan7 who has been blocked for using multiple accounts. This new account voted in a case which is related to Pejman Akbarzadeh. Shayan7 and other socks were engaged in the promotion of this journalist. How can I report this case? Do I submit a case under his/her name and add those socks to it?Farhikht (talk) 15:24, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Submit a case under the name of the sockmaster. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 15:35, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

2013 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Invitation to comment on candidates

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint additional users to the CheckUser and Oversight teams, and is now seeking comments from the community regarding the candidates who have volunteered for this role.

Interested parties are invited to review the appointments page containing the nomination statements supplied by the candidates and their answers to a few standard questions. Community members may also pose additional questions and submit comments about the candidates on the individual nomination subpages or privately via email to arbcom-en-clists.wikimedia.org.

Following the consultation phase, the committee will take into account the answers provided by the candidates to the questions and the comments offered by the community (both publicly and privately) along with all other relevant factors before making a final decision regarding appointments.

The consultation phase is scheduled to end 23:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC), and the appointments are scheduled to be announced by 24 August 2013.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Discuss this announcement

Malformed report

This report is malformed; it looks like the updated information was simply tacked on to the archived copy? --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that I have it repaired. It appears that the user used a copy/paste method that was incomplete.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Berean Hunter; results posted.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:54, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

False accusations

Could someone here tell me the appropriate action to take when a user has baselessly accused me of socking as an IP. Thank you in advance. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:00, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Basically, sockpuppet allegations without evidence are personal attacks, so they can be dealt with at ANI. If he has evidence, he should present it in a neat orderly manner that shows the alleged sockpuppetry. If he does not have evidence, he should refrain from baseless accusations of deceitful behavior. If he continues despite a request to present the evidence or stop the accusations, you should probably take him to ANI for unsubstantiated insinuations.

TL;DR: Tell him to "put up or shut up". Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:55, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Check please

Can someone be so kind and check users User:Aspielman (account creation June 10, 2013‎) and User:AspieWiki (account creation from February 26, 2013 to July 12, 2013)? Just a heads up, I don't accuse anyone of sockpuppetry but the account creation which is roughly couple of months a part looks suspicious. However, if its not a problem then I wont bother.--Mishae (talk) 01:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

As I have tried to explain to Mishae, I doubt a checkuser will take this case and I doubt they need to. What we have here is two accounts with relatively similar names, but I'm pretty sure that's down to nothing more than coincidence; Aspielman is meaningless, and is probably a name (A. Spielman) rather than anything to do with aspies. The accounts were created 4-5 months apart, when we have 3,000 edits a day, and show absolutely no similarities in user behaviour or writing style. Ironholds (talk) 01:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

If you want a check, you need to file a report, but I suspect this request would be declined and possibly deleted. --Rschen7754 02:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

OK I posted a report in Quick CheckUser requests (I hope that's the right place) on the Project page.--Mishae (talk) 02:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I have subsequently removed it because it is not a quick request, and you provided no evidence to run a check. --Rschen7754 public (talk) 17:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Verbosity of SPI front page instructions

Cross-posted from functionaries-en mailing list. Comments are welcome here, as well as at the functionaries' list (if you are a subscriber).

This message is directed at the checkuser team, although comments from everybody are very welcome.

On IRC, we were discussing the problem of SPIs being submitted with little or no evidence, particularly when checkuser data is requested at the SPI subpage. I speculated that the problem lies with the SPI front page. Please take a look at it now; it's an impenetrable wall of text, isn't it? Personally, I have never came across a Wikipedia process page that contains so many words in its instructions section. It's not even laid out especially nicely, or phrased very elegantly (the latter probably due to the fact it's been "written by committee" over the years).

Taking the Meta process as a template, and working under the assumption that we need to say as little as possible in the SPI lead section, I've created a mock up of what our new front section could be. It's complete minimalist, especially compared to what we have now, but I think this is the only way we will be able to get everybody to read and understand our instructions.

My proposal is to simply replace the current contents our lead section with everything in the sandbox. On the current SPI front page, everything before the table of open investigations would go, though most of it will still be present in the extended guide page linked to in the sandbox mockup.

Thoughts and comments are most welcome. AGK [•] 17:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

As the resident grump of SPI standards (or, as Coren so aptly described me, the "grumpy old grandfather of SPI"), I very much approve of this. The new instructions are concise, and contain all necessary information for filing the case, so it's a fantastic improvement over the old header. People that like to have comprehensive documentation available (such as me) can still read the guide which is linked to from the page. I thank AGK for taking the initiative in this. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 18:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it looks good. --Rschen7754 18:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppet but

Hi there, I suspect that User:Armyantz is a sockpuppet of User:Karuna.muthu, but I can't provide diffs as the same article, Karunanidhi Muthu, was created by these users, but it has been deleted on both occasions. An admin could look at the diffs, though. Hence I'm leaving this note on the talk page. The person is running for Mayor of Wellington at the moment. Schwede66 00:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Report Archive Link

The archive page link is not appearing on this case page. Can anyone please fix it? Thanks --SMS ^Talk 12:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Waiting for CheckUser for 11 days.

The case of User:DeFacto has been awaiting a CheckUser confirmation of sockpuppetry since 14 August (11 days ago). It took 14 days for an Admin to endorse the sockpuppetry request and to request a check user. Can someone please have a look. Martinvl (talk) 17:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Airports

Is there an editor with SPs involved with modifying airport data that anyone's aware of?

I have this editor's contributions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/50.150.118.95 Mfield (Oi!) 04:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Probably related to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/64.134.224.96 Mfield (Oi!) 05:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Cross-project Check user

If a user has different accounts on Commons and en.Wikipedia, and is using these accounts for dishonest reasons such as changing filenames and data to make photos on Wikipedia articles xhe edits to appear as if xhe is the creator of the image, what is the CheckUser (or other) process, if any? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Different accounts, like non-unified ones? Tiptoety ^talk 17:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes. One on Commons and one on en.Wiki. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:08, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, the best way would be to file requests at both here and the Commons page. In theory, you can ask at SPI to have the information forwarded to Commons, but in practice that has rarely worked out for me. --Rschen7754 19:23, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

@Kudpung, email me. I have CheckUser permissions on both this wiki and commons. Tiptoety ^talk 21:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Will do. Tomorrow morning. It's late here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Issue already resolved. It was an amazing coincidence but a case of mistaken identity. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Addmins are niggers!

Can someone please verify that the above user is the same one who vandalized Mohonk Mountain House couple of days ago? I'm thanking the responding party in advance!--Mishae (talk) 15:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

That account does not exist. Tiptoety ^talk 16:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Case waiting

Hi, the investigation case on Lucyintheskywithdada has been waiting for about 10 days. I wonder if maybe it's very long, I just wanted to add all the evidence possible not to leave any doubt that the behavior is almost identical and we are dealing with the same person, as per WP:Duck. Please let me know if there is something which could be improved with that kind of report. While the investigation awaits, it's impossible to edit the article or the talk page, as the user forcefully reverts anything by any other editor and behaves on the talk page as the omnipotent authority of the article. It seems this user has been doing the same thing for 7 years and is likely to keep returning. I wish there was a way to report his socks which wouldn't leave the article in his control for so many days at each of his returns. Thank you. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 12:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

If you'd like to work on Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University, just jump in and edit (the history shows no edit from your account). You needn't wait for the SPI to finish. If you can provide "verifiable information based on reliable third party sources" as requested, your changes will have a better chance of remaining. I see seven comments from you on the talk page; you're being heard. —rybec 15:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice, Rybec. I fully agree, but in this specific case, for some weeks I observed that Januarythe18th has a very aggressive editwarring behavior, insistently reverting edits that came from consensus on the talk page. All editors agree on the talk page, that the article (which was completely made by the sockmaster) is a mess, full of unsupported claims presented as fact, which seems to be based on religious hate by the sockmaster. They tried to place tags of "conflict of interest" to inform readers, but as I said, I never heard of an edit which wasn't reverted by Januarythe18th. Why would I feel any interest in taking my time to make any edit knowing that it will be reverted even though it has already been agreed by consensus on the talk page? Thank you. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 16:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Warning at the top of the page

If you suspect sock puppetry by an administrator or you need to submit off-wiki evidence, you must e-mail the CheckUser team or the Arbitration Committee to open an investigation.

Let's say I start socking disruptively, and someone notices. Why should my admin rights exempt me from a normal SPI? Shouldn't I be treated like anyone else? The sockmaster's user rights don't have any effect on the need, or lack thereof, for private information that may not be posted on-wiki. Nyttend (talk) 22:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Because, if you were to be caught sockpuppeting, your admin rights would need to be revoked before you knew you were caught. Given that loss of the admin buttons would be almost guaranteed, along with a block, you might decide to cause mass disruption (block everybody, nuke users with large numbers of created articles, vandalize high-use templates and push the job queue into the millions, etc.) with the admin toolkit before you could be emergency-desysopped. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

In other words, once you got found out, you would have nothing to lose by going on a blocking spree. --Rschen7754 00:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, makes complete sense. It sounded to me as if admins somehow were officially immune from normal SPIs, i.e. some weird "admins are more equal than non-admins" thing, rather than a method of protecting against Wonderfool types. Nyttend (talk) 02:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I am confused??????????

I want to ask if two editors are from Iran and they are editing same Iran related Articles would they considered as sockpuppets.the checkuser would consider him as likely and blocking admin would easily find behavioural evidences as they are editing related articles.In short if two users are from same country it is possible that both have same kind of views and both can edit in favour of their country.46.185.44.198 (talk) 20:48, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I am not a CheckUser, but I think that's a little more precise than "they live in the same country". Also, neither editor should be editing "in favour of their country"; that would be a violation of our policy on a neutral point of view, and if it persists and disrupts the encyclopedia it might be grounds for a block all on its own, sockpuppetry or no. Huon (talk) 21:54, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

peremptory closure of SPI

Multiple reports regarding User:Morning277 have been closed and archived by DeltaQuad without any sign they were investigated. When I asked why, [1] the answer was

We do not have the power given by the community to 1) CU meatpuppets 2) massively block them without some sort of major disruption. Therefore SPI is not equipped to deal with such cases.

Very few requests for check-user had been made, so the first concern seems superfluous. As for the second, the activity has involved the posting and re-posting of several hundred articles, from several hundred throwaway accounts, on behalf of banned editors. I feel that it qualifies as major disruption. —rybec 20:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Rybec. Here is the problem, SPI does not have the staffing, or the ability to adequately deal with a case of this size and nature. The majority of the CheckUsers, administrators and clerks who frequent SPI are not familiar enough with the specifics of the case to feel comfortable taking action on it. In my opinion, this is a case that the foundation needs to be handling with regards to enforcing the terms of use.

I agree that the majority of the Morning277 socks and meatpuppets are in violation WP:BAN (specifically WP:PROXYING), that said paid editing is not a block-able offense on its own. I would suggest creating a user subpage where those with the proper knowledge, time, and interest can investigate allegations of socking without bogging down SPI. Tiptoety ^talk 20:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting. I'm aware of the table that shows open SPI cases. Besides its presence in that table, forcing uninterested readers to scroll down, is there some way that the existence of this case was interfering with the resolution of other matters?

I imagine that the SPI workers are not familiar with the specifics of most of the cases that are presented here. For this one, I wrote a long-term abuse page. Is the information there inadequate?

This seems like the most promising place to find "those with the proper knowledge, time, and interest" in investigating allegations of sock-puppetry. This is the official place for that. Someone's user page is not. Moreover, moving this investigation elsewhere would make it less visible. It would likely be seen as, or actually become, a non-neutral forum.

About the statement that there isn't enough staffing to keep up with this: recently about three short reports had been made daily. Most of them were being closed by Rschen7754, at the same pace. When Dennis Brown and WilliamH were available, a much larger volume of reports was being handled. There aren't many people making the reports; it shouldn't take many to review them.

DeltaQuad said that the closure of the Morning277 reports was done after discussion with other SPI clerks. Where did that discussion take place? I'd like to read it. —rybec 22:11, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

SPI is just not designed for such a heavy load; there were at times towards 70-80 sections on that page, and it was painful to clerk. --Rschen7754 22:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

We don't know that all those accounts are even paid by the Morning277 group. For all we know, all these slow reposts by random unrelated apparent meatpuppets are actually the clients who paid for the text. For all we know, they are now just writing up wikitext and emailing it to their clients to put up for themselves. All we know is that they are no longer making sockpuppets. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:01, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The evidence I presented in the reports indicates otherwise. I would like to know where this sudden closure was discussed, and by whom. I don't see it discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/Clerks nor on the talk page of the Morning277 SPI, nor here. Was it discussed in private? If so, why? —rybec 01:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The conversation took place between individual CheckUsers in passing while discussing the case (as is standard practice with many cases). That said, I would not consider these conversations binding or treat them as consensus amongst the entire SPI/CU team. As for by whom, I can't speak to that other than DeltaQuad and I had spoken briefly about it. Tiptoety ^talk 02:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)