Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Archive 11

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

→

Private evidence system for SPI

This idea came to me recently, and since apparently the proposed clerk mailing list isn't going anywhere, I'm posting this for discussion:

We are now insisting that SPI requests be accompanied by evidence in the form of diffs and an explanation on why the accounts are likely related. This approach usually works, but there are cases where it is not advisable to post the evidence in public (WP:BEANS, etc.).
The way this has been dealt with in practice right now is for the private evidence to be emailed or otherwise sent (e.g., IRC) to a clerk/CU or several off-wiki. Several problems with this approach include: emails can and do get lost in the cracks, record-keeping is extremely difficult if not impossible, only very few individuals ever look at the case (thus increasing the potential for confirmation bias), and the blocking admin may not be around when the blocked party requests an unblock.
So the proposal is to solve this problem by creating a system in which case filers can post private evidence. It will work - roughly - in this manner:
- The filer will enter their private evidence (with diffs, etc.) in the system.
- The system will generate a ticket number and a key.
- (maybe) The filer can use the key to modify the contents of the ticket - for example, to update it if new socks are added to the SPI.
- The filer will open an SPI case in the usual manner, posting the ticket number instead of the actual evidence.
- Only the SPI clerks and CUs will be able to read the tickets, but they cannot comment on them in the system - to hopefully avoid the scenario of a CU accidentally posting raw CU data (although since it's an entirely separate system and not just another mailing list, it might not even be a big issue).
- Tickets are kept by default for three months then purged, but may either be kept for longer or deleted early if a clerk/CU sets the respective flag.

Comments? T. Canens (talk) 12:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

How will you prevent abuse of such "sekrit testimony"? I have noted (as has ArbCom) that "the usual reasons" are used for way too many bad accusations - and the new system proposed seems like it would prevent others from noting just how weak the accusation is, as there would then be a presumption that sufficient reasons were provided privately. Rather I would suggest that SPI accusations made in that manner should not be publicly posted unless and until a "positive finding" was made by at least three CUs or clerks based on solid evidence (not just claims that the diffs fit a "pattern" or the like). In other words, require all such proceedings to require more than a "likelihood" but a "certainty" that the posts are by directly related accounts. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

If the private case was weak, we can and probably will make a public notation to that effect. The whole point is that right now usually only one person sees the evidence (either in email or IRC) and act on them, while with a system like this we can get a lot more eyes on it. T. Canens (talk) 03:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

People who want a CU check based on private evidence can already e-mail CUs directly, or send a post to the functionaries mailing list. There seems to be no need to create a parallel system of private evidence for SPI, particularly when private evidence has been a subject of much controversy over the years. Additionally, any system like Tim's above would have to be hosted off-wiki - giving rise to a lot of potential issues related to the access, retention and use of private information. Nathan^T 23:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, first private evidence are also helpful for some behavior-based blocks when CU is useless (all old accounts are stale, etc). Second, the system would allow for much better record keeping. As to the private information, whatever posters decided to post themselves is fair game. I retain all my emails (including lots of WP-related emails) indefinitely, and no one seems to mind. This is IMO pretty close to a mailing list. Because we don't allow clerks/CUs to post comments, no CU data should be posted in the system. If you are referring to the data collected by the server hosting the system, if we are going along with this it will most likely be the toolserver, and they have a pretty well-established policy for this. T. Canens (talk) 03:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Tim: overall I think it's a good idea, but I worry that it would fall into disuse. We'd have to make a real effort to keep it up to date, so it'd have to integrate pretty well with the current SPI tools. From a system design perspective, you could spend hours building that sort of thing... — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm speaking purely hypothetically since I'm not sure we need such a system, but couldn't we just use a private queue on OTRS for this? We could set it to only be viewable by WMF staff and checkusers. OTRS could be set to reply to any email sent to that queue telling the user their ticket number. They can then use this ticket number as described above. Checkusers are already identified so obtaining OTRS access is not an issue. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 11:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Not all the clerks (e.g. me) are OTRS, though... — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

If the evidence truly needs to be private then the clerks shouldn't be reviewing it anyway; it should only be sent to the checkusers to minimise the number of people that see it. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 12:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

And we already have an existing implementation for the Oversight queue. - Mailer Diablo 11:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Can I get a merge done

I'm just about to head out the door, so could someone merge these cases and their archives pls? :)

User:DavidYork71 investigation, problems with template

I believe that User:DavidYork71 has shown up again in User:SternComradeLoyalFascist but I am having problems with the template WP:Sockpuppet investigations/DavidYork71. The template is showing SternComradeLoyalFascist as Sock 1, but is all the code and pipes. Can we correct this? the evidence section is fine.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

never mind, the template fixed itself.Coffeepusher (talk) 18:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Matt Giwer

Doesn't seem to be showing on the main page. Dougweller (talk) 10:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

That's because we're over the transclusion limits for the page again. We could think about restructuring the page, but it's generally a sign that we have a backlog. Get to work, admins/clerks/CUs. Amalthea 11:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Dougweller (talk) 17:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, why didn't the bot update the main SPI page directly? I've always wondered about that. T. Canens (talk) 03:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. Nixeagle ‎subpaged it early during SPCUClerkbot development, but at a glance can't find out where it was discussed (there's no BRFA for it). Tiptoety may know. Amalthea 12:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

There was a good reason, but I can't recall what it is. Let me dig through some notes/archived discussions and see if I can come up with something. Tiptoety ^talk 17:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Noting here that I didn't find anything in my notes that explained the reason for the current set up. Tiptoety ^talk 05:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

And this one is also not showing up, but, perhaps it'll be automatically added, not sure (I'm not savvy with bots and such!) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Helpalot. Sarah (talk) 22:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Superfluous report

I've posted a report that may've been rendered moot, or just plain incorrect, by a CU block as different sockpuppeter. I don't know how to withdraw my report; strike it? blank it? make a statement describing the situation? The checkuser in question hasn't responded to my post on their user talk...it's lunchtime where I am and maybe for them as well. Thanks Tiderolls 16:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

K, nevermind. The CU is about so my embarrasing post should be cleared up momentarily. Tiderolls 17:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry! Cases like that need only a quick tagging with {{unnecessary}} and then they can be archived away within seconds. You're not wasting any time or anything. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 13:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Koov

Is this SPI properly closed? It was marked as closed by MuZomikx (an impersonator of MuZemike), who was reverted by Boing said Zebedee, who then self-reverted; his edit summary makes me think that he didn't realise that MuZomikx was an impersonator. It's since been closed by Spitfire, but I'm not sure if that's because it should be closed or simply because it was already marked as closed. Nyttend (talk) 12:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the last case, it looks like everything was completed. Roadkill1x was confirmed by Deskana to be a Koov sock. The account was blocked and the case archived. TNXMan 13:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Good. I was afraid that it had fallen through the cracks due to vandalism. Nyttend (talk) 13:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Design flaw

When filing a CU via the form, there is a clear instruction not to fill out the headline section. There being such a section, there is no edit summary box. It is therefore reasonable to assume some kind of automatic edit summary will be used. This, however, is not the case. Some of us do make a point of always using some kind of edit summary, so it is annoying to be forced into making an edit without one; especially given it is something so important as (re-)opening an SPI. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 15:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

That is really a design flaw with MediaWiki. The problem is that MediaWiki uses the same parameter for both edit summaries and section headlines, which does not seem to me good software engineering practice since the two have rather different semantics. The only way we can show a preloaded report is if we use the "new section" interface, and in order to not mess up with the formatting, the headline section must be left blank so that it does not create L2 headings. T. Canens (talk) 14:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

<nods> I suspected as much. I wonder if a warning can go in, somewhere... Perhaps in the same place as the warning not to modify the heading? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Navigation links

What has happened to the links box at the bottom of the page? It has been replaced by the text "Template:Noticeboard links". This seems to have happened in an edit by Amalthea2[1], but I can't understand how, or how to repair this. Could someone please help. RolandR (talk) 17:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

There are other problems, too. "Open cases: awaiting Checkuser processing" seems to be malformed, as does the LTA section and some others. Please investigate and resolve! RolandR (talk) 17:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Transclusion limit. See also top section. Amalthea 19:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what that means. RolandR (talk) 22:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

It means that there are too many open cases on the mainpage (cases that are transcluded there). Tiptoety ^talk 06:05, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Editor interaction tool

Thought you might be interested in a new tool I'm working on. It's similar to (and was inspired by) the popular stalker tool, except that it sorts common pages by time between edits. So, if two users edited the same page within a short time, that page will show up higher on the list than other pages. It also gives you a view of both users' edits to one page in chronological order. Take a look if you're interested: http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/editorinteract.html ‑Scottywong | soliloquize _ 20:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I can see how this would be useful when investigating some types of sockpuppetry. Can you explain why some lines are coloured differenty, as in this example of two completely unrelated users chosen at random? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

That is probably just the "visited link" color. Some other editors have been confused by that coloring as well, so I think I will probably change it soon. ‑Scottywong | converse _ 21:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

That does appear to be it. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Could we possibly make it for more than just two users? Because I like the interaction time feature. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 15:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I've thought about that. It would increase the complexity of the analysis by quite a bit (which, in turn, would make the tool take a lot longer to return results, especially in cases where all the editors have a lot of edits). I'll think about making a copy of the tool which works on multiple users, but only on (for instance) their last 5000 or 10000 edits. ‑Scottywong | yak _ 16:58, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Experimental version for up to 10 editors: http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/editorinteractmulti.html ‑Scottywong | spill the beans _ 20:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Heh I just got back to checking back to this page, this is awesome, though 5k edits should be more than enough. Thanks! :) -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 21:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I like it, too. One request: Strip any trailing whitespace from the usernames. I sometimes end up with an extra space when copying. Thanks for the nice tools! —DoRD (talk) 21:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Notice of an SPI restriction

This is a notice that I have officially restricted User:Darkness Shines on SPI investigations to the following:

In my SPI clerk hat, you are being restricted from:
Filing SPIs against well established users (guide is 500 edits, not including major sockpuppeters, except as the next item)

Filing against Nangparbat

From using presenting evidence against established users

From filling huge SPIs with multiple editors involved (5 is a general max)
This is an indefinite restriction till you can show otherwise that you will not waste SPI clerk time with baseless cases. Your normal cases (which you have been pretty good with recently) are still allowed and encouraged. Appeal is to the SPI clerk/CU team as a whole, and I will be giving them notice of this restriction.
— User:DeltaQuad 22:55, 23 April 2012

Feel free to contact me with any questions. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 22:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I wonder under what kind of authority this ban was enacted. Since when do "clerks" have the power to unilaterally impose block-enforced editing restrictions on individual users? And since when is the "SPI clerk/CU team as a whole", rather than the community as a whole, responsible for hearing appeals about anything? WP:SPI/C clearly states that "SPI clerks do not [...] Have any special authority over the general community; their actions can be overturned by the community or by any CheckUser; [...] Have any special status or any immunity with regard to consensus or other policies". Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I trust the clerks to make a call like this, but this is still a fair question which deserves a good answer (preferably from DeltaQuad). --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 13:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I must insist the sanction imposed on me from filing SPI's on Nangparbat be removed immediately. DQ had not the authority to enact it, and I will not be prevented from filing an SPI against a prolific sockpuppeter who continually stalks and harrases me. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:26, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

This doesn't seem outside of typical admin scope. I certainly wind up in the position of telling an editor "I have determined your behaviour to be disruptive, and if you do it again, I will block you". This doesn't seem to be any different. The target editor can bring it up in advance at ANI or afterwards in an unblock request, but issuing the warning/restriction isn't really all that unusual.—Kww(talk) 15:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll keep that in mind the next time I meet a user making bad image uploads – I'll simply topic-ban them from uploading any others. But no, seriously, last time a possibility like this was discussed among admins, the consensus was very clearly that individual admins should not have such an authority, and that general restrictions of this sort should remain the prerogative of the community as a whole. There is an objective difference between a normal, legitimate admin block warning, and a restriction of this sort. A block warning says: "you've been doing disruptive things X; if you do X in a disruptive way again, I'll block you". However, a formal restriction (as in this case, or as in the case of a topic ban) says: "you have been doing a mixture of good and bad things in area X. From now on, if you do anything at all in area X again, be it objectively good or bad, I'll block you". That's a far stronger measure, and in this case it was handed out with the air of a special authority (somebody "wearing his SPI clerk hat"), and I am just questioning whether this type of hat comes with this type of authority. Last time I looked, it didn't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I would consider that checkusers have the authority to warn users for misuse of the SPI process, and block users if they do not heed the warnings. Out of curiosity, Fut.Perf, would you? --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 15:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

That's just the difference between a "warning" and a "restriction" I described above. General warnings may of course be legitimate (block if user does something disruptive again). A generalized formal restriction (block user irrespective of objective merit of any future action) is something different. BTW, I'm not sure what "would you" refers to – would I consider? would I block? would I heed? – Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I meant "Would you consider". It seems your answer is yes, because as you pointed out I failed to spot the distinction you made in your post. Thanks for your feedback. FYI, I've left a message on DeltaQuad's talk page inviting him to comment on your question. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 15:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I can accept the distinction, but it seems to me that DQ has erred primarily in attempting to be excessively formal.—Kww(talk) 15:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

When someone is so disruptive that it's causing harm to a process, there are three options. 1) Block them (which causes collateral damage if they're useful elsewhere), 2) ignore them (which is rude, and often ineffective because the disruptive person won't take the hint), or 3) interaction or topic ban them. This is an application of option 3, and admins do have the ability to unilaterally impose topic bans or interaction bans. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

(without particular prejudice to this circumstance) I don't think so. Wikipedia:Editing restrictions clarifies that this is either done by Arbcom or the community via a noticeboard like WP:AN. I've never seen a single admin impose such restrictions.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 20:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (without seeing Sven's or Berean's comments) Future Perfect, I actually was not trying to stop the wider community from having input on this, I actually was only adding another step into the process hopefully to eliminate the drama by taking it to a lower body first who could point where they feel I have erred in the wrong, or where the user has improved. My intention with the appeal note was to have the SPI team on the appeal first, then the general community, then further up the community chain, at last leading to ArbCom. As for where I felt the "jurisdiction" to issue such a restriction Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerk and checkuser procedures states "Full clerks may ask users to cease patrolling or posting to SPI pages (other than to open a case or present evidence) if there are problems." Obviously I did not note the "other than to open a case or present evidence" when I last read the procedures several months ago. Though it doesn't seem to be "in jurisdiction" I would like to ask the team, and if needed, the further community to consider that this restriction may be better. As to the spirit of the restriction, I hate and never want to tell a user to stop filling SPIs. But when it becomes a burden or over burden to the clerk and checkuser teams, we have an issue. I have had three checkusers comment whether in public or in private (and maybe the private part is part of the issue here) that Darkness Shines SPI filings are an issue. One had even noted that DS needed to stop filing against regulars and that a restriction was definitely should be considered if not administered. I also did not consider myself out of scope issuing a 'restriction' in what ever term you want it as per Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Final_warnings and the restrictions given there. Also the problem I would be dealing with if I gave a pure warning in your terms is all I could say is that "If you file another bad SPI or a disruptive one, I will block you." So i'm stopping a good editor from editing within the community, where the contributions might actually be useful, over issues with an administrative process? That's why I tried to err on the side of not making it a warning, but at the same time, it needed to be stopped. If I gave the warning stated above, it would be open to great interpretation of any administrator caring to review an unblock requested by DS. If I had 1 out of 1,487 current administrators disagree with me, then the editor would be unblocked, leaving the same issue resulting and a broken process for administrative enforcement. I hope I have answered all the questions, I will look back here and try to answer any other questions, but I hope this explains the nature, the process and my thoughts. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 21:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you going to remove the restriction on my filing against Nangparbat or not? Given he today again posted on my talk page which shows he is still stalking me. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Personally I'd just scrap the complicated restrictions in favor of just topic banning you from SPI entirely, but it's not my call. I'm not an active clerk at the moment. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Darkness shines, there is no point in filing IP addresses for Nangparbat. They rotate every 24 hours, they are not on a blockable range, and he is only doing it to annoy you at the moment. You are obsessed with socks. Just leave it for a while - you are disruptive at the moment when you file at SPI, and if you don't take the hint for a few months, you probably will end up topic banned by the community, who (like the clerks and checkusers) get fed up with you reporting everyone who takes the opposite view to you as a sock. Elen of the Roads (talk) 08:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion

See Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Hershebar#Move. Not really sure what's up with this, I don't think I've ever seen an SPI come through RM. In any case, I think it's being requested that the two SPI files be histmerged, which I guess makes sense if it's all the same guy (wouldn't have a clue if they are, though). Hoping someone with a bit of experience with SPIs can take a look at it, because it's languishing in the RM backlog. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 04:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

New members

Is SPI still accepting new members? The project page is flagged as having "a backlog that requires... administrators," so I don't know if more non-administrators would help. Lack of any information about how to join makes me lean towards no, but I am interested in helping out if so. --BDD (talk) 16:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

You may want to apply to become a trainee SPI clerk. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

"User compare report" link

Clicking the "user compare report" link for Lui1721 at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lui2021, I get an HTTP403 Forbidden error. Has Betacommand forbidden us to use his tools in retailation for banning him? Or is this tool only available to certain users? Nyttend (talk) 00:11, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Doubtful. It was probably just temporarily down. It worked for me when I clicked on it just now. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 21:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

SP Allegations

Just would like to confirm Wikipedia policy, what do you do if you have been accused of being a sockpuppeteer? On Talk:Phil Mason I have been accused of being one (which, I am not) on circumstancial grounds from another user. They've tagged the other account but not started an spi. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 14:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

If they have not taken any further action, I would say you could ignore it. Without looking at the specifics, I would guess they are trying to intimidate you. TNXMan 20:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure that's not allowed under WP:NPA judging from guidance at WP:INTIM. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 18:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Note that the page in question was deleted on May 8 per WP:G10. —DoRD (talk) 00:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Cannot open case - assistance needed

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hi. I'm unable to open a case as the submission form at WP:SPI requires an account (I'm an IP editor). Once I put in the username it takes me to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/$USERNAME, however I can't create the page--probably because it's in Projectspace.

I did try asking about it at #wikipedia-en-spi but I don't think anybody was around to respond. I've written the case submission ready to add. What should I do? Do I give the username here requesting a blank page be created in that name so I can paste in the details, or should I place the name+evidence information here, or is a different way preferred?

Thank you for any help. Regards, --92.6.200.56 (talk) 20:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, either add the information here or place the information at the WT page and request a move by placing a {{editsemiprotected}}. Regards, mabdul 21:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, mabdul! I created the page and added {{editsemiprotected}} requesting it be moved to project space. Kind regards, --92.6.200.56 (talk) 21:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

A lovely and fast person took care of it. Thanks! --92.6.200.56 (talk) 21:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

That'd be me. No problem, thanks for helping to root out sockpuppets. Furries (Talk) 21:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and create a new button for IP users which creates the WT page automatically and placing automatically an {{edit semi-protected}} on it. Regards, mabdul 11:01, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Aww, that's very thoughtful of you mabdul. Thank you for doing it, it makes it much clearer. 92.6.200.56 (talk) 13:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Likely IP sock evading Indef Ban

I very strongly suspect that 110.174.4.210 (talk · contribs) is actually indef blocked editor Bowei Huang 2 (talk · contribs) (block for socking).
This is based on:

use of similar IPs such as 110.174.63.234 (talk · contribs),
IPs are through same internet provider,
editing patterns (type of article and type of edits; esp re-directing against consensus and edit warring to maintain same),
non-use of edit summaries, blanking of talkpage when warned.

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bowei Huang 2. Several editors reverted almost 100% of their last slew of edits. What should my next move, if any be? Just add the IP to the list of suspected sockpuppets ie. {{IPsock|Bowei Huang 2}}? - 220 of ^Borg 08:46, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I've started a new investigation page and requested a rangeblock, if one is possible. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 01:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yasht101

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yasht101, which is requested by me includes quiet a lot of evidences. However, the user is not using his old account claiming that he has retired and won't be in Wikipedia anymore. Hence, should I go ahead with the SPI, tough the user is not contributing from his another account? -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 06:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The situation sounds quite complicated, but speaking generally you should never be afraid of filing an SPI as the worst that will happen is that it gets declined. There are no negative consequences for filing declined SPIs. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 15:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to modify the clerk team

Please see the proposal to modify the clerk team. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 12:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

User:SuperblySpiffingPerson actually sock of User:DavidYork71

I was wondering if we could get User:SuperblySpiffingPerson labeled as a sock of User:DavidYork71 rather than a sock master. Checkuser confirmed that one of Superblys' socks, User:Janoskian was actually a sock of David. David has a long history of abuse and consolidating all of his socks under the single sockmaster will, in my opinion, make fighting his abuse easier.Coffeepusher (talk) 01:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Inappropriate category

For some reason, the project page has been placed in the category Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of AndresHerutJaim. This is obviously a mistake; but I can't see where this has been added. Could someone please remove this. RolandR (talk) 15:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

[2] -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 16:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)