Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 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)

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'sPonyobons mots 22:08, 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'sPonyobons 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'sPonyobons 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-c@lists.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'sPonyobons 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'sPonyobons 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)

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)

Lucyintheskywithdada/Januarythe18th: Need to appeal

I was shocked and disappointed that the above SPI case was closed without a positive result. I don't just suspect that Januarythe18th is a sock of Lucy. I actually KNOW that he is a sock of Lucy, as do other editors that have to endure his aggressive anti-Brahma Kumaris taunts, intimidation, grandstanding and extreme article ownership.

The person behind all these accounts is well known off-Wiki and I can provide off-Wiki evidence proving that Januarythe18th is the same person as Lucy and the defunct 195...244 account. I realise I can't just post this stuff on Wiki so I would be grateful to know how to proceed with this. Do I email the evidence? If so then who to?

I was also surprised that the evidence presented was considered insufficient. I would really like more eyes on this as I thought it was WP:DUCK. The behavior of Januarythe18th is literally identical to Lucyintheskywithdada, and I presented a long list of diffs so that there couldn't be any doubt that the duck is the same, feather by feather. I appreciate that the clerks have a heavy workload but if any of the clerks have any other suggestions I would be most grateful.

The admin who closed the case said Januarythe18th could be a follower/fan of the subject of the article, when it's completely opposite. He is a person with inflammatory religious hate AGAINST the Brahma Kumaris movement, and well known off-wiki. He is a person daily dedicated on heavy criticism of the subject of the article since many years and the edits he makes to the article are exactly the same Lucy's socks used to do. I think the evidence presented was not fairly considered.

Please advise on how to proceed with this. I need a fair result. It can't be right that a banned user is free to hijack a topic to bait and taunt members of an organisation he is campaigning against like this. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 17:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

And who is your master account? Someguy1221 (talk) 18:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Someguy1221, if you think I am using sockpuppets, please DO investigate that rigorously, but as rigorously as the Lucy case. I am really a new user to Wikipedia, GreyWinterOwl is my first and only account ever made here. I do like Wikipedia very much and it has helped many of my studies and researches. But just now I am learning how it works on the inside. As Wikipedia guidelines tell, bad or biased editing attracts new editors, and this is part of why I have signed up. Do I not have the right to be a user and denounce issues I can clearly see? If others have denounced the same issue in the past, I think it only proves that the issue is the same and bothering people in the same way. If 2 people complain about something, maybe it proves that some issue is real, rather than the 2 persons complaining are the same, don't you agree? GreyWinterOwl (talk) 19:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
GreyWinterOwl, if you have time to collaborate with improving page content, I will try and resurrect what was happening before the sock was launched. When I think about it, I would probably have made the same decision the admins have made here if I was in their shoes. I think it's best we accept their decision and move on. Our perception is biased by 'off-wiki' information. It's true that if they knew all that stuff the decision would have been different. But both of us need to build up more credibility within Wikipedia by editing more broadly - I think it's a very fair-minded and kind community, but they get lots of SPA 'insurgencies' they have to protect Wikipedia from, and in many ways that is just what we look like. Anyways, this is my view, hopefully no offense taken...Regards Danh108 (talk) 19:45, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: GreyWinterOwl made his first edit on 18 August this year, and less than a week later, without having been particularly active on Wikipedia, he opened an SPI case. Likewise, he has already been active at WP:AN3 and WP:ANI. I smell a sock. Toccata quarta (talk) 14:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern about me being a sock, TC. I was following the process on the BKWSU article for some weeks before making my account. I read the history and realized the similarity between previous accounts and Jan18. If I had a previous account, why would I make a new one? Why would I want to use more than one account? It would probably be better to use the original anyway. Opening an SPI is not difficult, after learning how to link diffs there is no mystery. Reporting something on AN was also the only logical step for what I wanted to report. I'm new to wikipedia, but not to internet in general. I read the wiki guiding material on my own, really. If I was an old user, I wouldn't have opened the AN3 because my request was invalid after all. I thought as a new user I had the same rights as other users, the guidelines for new users sounded welcoming. But in no way do I have intention to disrupt, only to contribute. Sorry if I did something wrong. Like you, I also have interest on chess and classical music and if you need some work to be done in that area, I would be happy to help. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 01:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Question about adding socks to a confirmed report

I created Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/User1215 to investigate several accounts that were disrupting AfD/Vinay Iyengar. Now that the user has been confirmed by CheckUser to be using multiple accounts in violation of policy, I see evidence that at least one additional account and an IP is also involved. The SPI investigation is checked and accounts have been blocked, but the case is not closed. Should I add the additional accounts to the open case or start a new one? DPRoberts534 (talk) 17:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any other suspicious edits at the AfD, but maybe I'm missing something. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. The suspicious edits are at the related page Vinay Iyengar and another page about a student at a local school, Valerie Ding. I suspect that multiple accounts are being used to try to present a broader interest in the subjects. DPRoberts534 (talk) 18:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Materialscientist answered my question. DPRoberts534 (talk) 03:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Apparent sock

Hi, I don't know if I am on the right page for this or not, but this user here, abuses multiple account rule. He is also known under:

Can someone be so kind and intervene?--Mishae (talk) 20:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

As explained at my talk page, these are new users editing as part of an Education Program course. They have few edits so far, but I don't see any indication they're anything other than what they say they are. Unless you have evidence beyond their contributions, they aren't socks. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

New tool

There's a new tool that might be of interest to those that work here. See Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Deep User Inspector for details. 64.40.54.143 (talk) 00:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Correcting my mistake.

I attempted to report two IP's for repeated vandalism which seemed to be connected, and accidentally reported the incorrect IP. The page is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/118.195.65.250, I've moved it from 108.82.148.123. I don't think I'm able to correct the actual case on here or if I'm even going about this correctly, so I thought I'd mention it. The two IP's I meant to report are on the current page which I've moved it to. Thanks! {C  A S U K I T E  T} 02:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. I've deleted the redirect that was left behind by the page move. Provided the current SPI report contains the correct information (which you've indicated it does), then there's nothing else to do other than that. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 04:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
@Asukite: I'll add that SPI isn't really the best venue for something like this case, as we aren't really set up to deal with simple vandalism and often have a backlog. Ongoing vandalism needs the more immediate attention of WP:AIV. At any rate, both IPs have been blocked for an extended period as open proxies. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:39, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! I'll be more careful in the future. I did feel that it was a bit much for that case. {C  A S U K I T E  T} 12:58, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Why so long?

Why does it take so long to close the case? Some cases are more then 2 weeks old. --Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 08:06, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately there are few admins who actively review non-checkuser SPI cases. Several pleas have been made at the appropriate noticeboard, however these cases are regularly backlogged.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 16:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm a relatively new trainee clerk at SPI. As for my tackling open cases, all I can say is it's a ton of work. Although I was often involved as an administrator in SPI cases, clerking is much tougher and I'm still learning. I just "took on" one of the open cases, and I've spent over an hour working on it when I really should be doing my paid work instead of Wikipedia work. I'm not complaining, mind you, just saying.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Yeah but, does your real world job pay you in cuddly kittens and barnstars? I think not.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 17:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, you're wrong, so there. In fact, that's why I'm rapidly losing weight - can't afford to eat. Any moment now, just like the wicked witch of the west, I will have melted to nothing but a black, administrator cape and mop broom.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
One of the reasons is that it's one of the few Wikipedia tasks I find actually painful, and I suspect I'm far from alone in the admin corps in feeling that way. Good faith and reasonable cases are buried in a pile of caterwauling and unfounded spite.—Kww(talk) 18:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 79.180.48.58

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 79.180.48.58, which you might have created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 17:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 71.3.101.247

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 71.3.101.247, which you might have created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 17:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 187.208.150.144

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 187.208.150.144, which you might have created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 17:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 198.228.216.168

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 198.228.216.168, which you might have created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 17:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mbreht

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mbreht, which you might have created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 17:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

What is the pages purpose

After seeing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/UrbanNerd closed today even though the editor is still editing is puzzling to me. -- Moxy (talk) 15:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Strange goings-on

An IP has created Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/TAG speakers with an edit semiprotected request to move it to Wikipedia space. LOL. Could someone who understands such things please handle it? --Stfg (talk) 22:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved it. —rybec 23:08, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Sock and meat puppeting at AFD

Enough. Please take this to an actual SPI. --Rschen7754 06:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

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

I wanted to initiate an investigation related to the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiger Lilov, but not sure where to begin (as there are possibly more than one sockpuppeteer). A lot of new accounts are involved in this AFD that have no or extremely few edits not related to the dispute (including the nominator). It's probable that some are people that have been canvassed to participate on online forums, but at least some the accounts seems to be used by the same person (or possibly two, with sockpuppeting on both sides of the dispute). I get the feeling that in some edits there is a "good hand"/"bad hand" tactic (which mean that it is difficult to see which sock belongs to whom). Some of the new accounts are:

A second or third opinion on this messy AfD would be welcome. --Soman (talk) 23:18, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment: Well, well, well, my introduction to wikipedia editing has been quite the short and nasty ride. I realize I am one of the people named in the above notice. I would like to add that I have strong reason to believe that at least two of these aliases, fishface gurl and Bulgarian Chess Dude are the same person, and that they correspond to the person on chess.com who has gone by at least two aliases on chess.com, namely 'Indyfilmguy' and Umberto_Unity. Of course I have no way of verifying any of this 9well, I can verify that Umberto_Unity and Indyfilmguy are the same person, but I can't do the same verification on the wiki site), but let's just say I have strong reason to believe this, and if there's any way of verifying these people by their Ip addresses or whatever, do it. Thanks. Talkingfacts (talk) 03:58, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure Bulgarian Chess Dude is Wiki brah (talk · contribs). The rest of the issue is a mess. Toccata quarta (talk) 04:09, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Thomas Hauser 41 is the same person too. I have just confirmed this on chess.com. Three peopole that I busted within 45 minutes on chess.com responded by...closing their accounts. It is one person. One of them was called Thomas_Hauser on chess.com, and the other two aliases were Umberto_Unity and Indyfilmguy. \I cannot guarantee that they coorespond to three aliases of a sockpuppet on wikipedia, but I can certainly confirm that they are three aliases of one person on chess.com, all with the same axe to grind, and with the same linguistic idiosyncracies. Alright, enough sleuthing for one day. Over and out. Talkingfacts (talk) 04:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Yep, like I said before, these Chess.com sockpuppets are really crawling out of the woodwork to support their "boy" Lilov, the Generalissimo of the Chess.com sockpuppet army. Fishface gurl (talk) 04:25, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

@Fishface gurl: nope. the above three, which includes you, Bulgarian Chess guy and Thomas Hauser, are anti-Lilov people. I am sure you, Bulgarian Chess guy, and thomas Hauser are one and the same. talkingfacts99.231.52.185 (talk) Talkingfacts (talk) 05:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC) 05:17, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

    • Response. Learn some wiki markup and how to sign "~~~~" your contributions. I can tell that you are a chess.com sockpuppet, based on your paranoia and your fascist "citizen patrol" type attitude. Fishface gurl (talk) 05:23, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


Response: NativeForeigner, I received a message via the wiki messaging service from 'fishface gurl' confirming his identity as the sockpuppet I identified above. That message was also consistent with disruptive behaviour that he used on chess.com. I do not wish to engage in bickering on here, but I wish help in filing the SPI, as I don't know how to do so. I am willing to open up the message that 'fishface gurl' sent me to confirm his identity, and to confirm that his identity is one with some others. Please contact me via message. Thank you. Talkingfacts Talkingfacts (talk) 05:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)(talk) 05:53, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

This foolishness, Should I Put my chess set into production? is on the internet for the world to see. Fishface gurl (talk) 05:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Regular checkusering of long-term abusers

Perhaps this already happens, perhaps this is policy-forbidden somehow, but wouldn't it be in some cases easier (faster) if for some long-term and prolific sockmasters, a CU was done every week, without waiting for a SPI? I'm thinking about cases like Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sju hav/Archive, where we have probably more than 100 socks, with SPIs going back three years, and a new one every two weeks. If, in such cases, the CUs would perform a check every week or so, until no new socks appear for e.g. three months running, then it would probably save some time at our side and be a small deterrent for the socker. Thoughts? Fram (talk) 14:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

This isn't the NSA. As a practical matter, our Checkusers have historically been in high demand. I'd rather have them focus on current problems than scanning for stale issues. Moreover, checkuser won't work when the last edit was >90 days ago. Jehochman Talk 15:20, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
All true but hardly relevant. In a case like Sju Hav, where new, active socks are discovered every two weeks or so, there is a clear "current problem", the last edit clearly is not more than 90 days ago, and SPIs will be filed anyway and a check needs to be done then. Fram (talk) 19:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Specifically to the sju hav case he's moving around in terms of IPs. so although we're finding regular sockfarms a regular check would not be effective especially because I handed out a comprehensive and long term rangeblock on that case. NativeForeigner Talk 22:20, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. So you specifically need a DUCK each time before you can effectively conduct a further check in this case? That makes sense. Fram (talk) 09:01, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Exactly. A lot of the LTA guys use proxies, change IPs, work on ranges that are impossible to thoroughly check, etc. Some people we can just hard rangeblock, and that's that. Most of the recurring ones we need a duck to take good action on. NativeForeigner Talk 21:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Too bad. I'll file an SPI when I notice a new sock then! Thanks for the explanation. Fram (talk) 07:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Morning277 SPI

The company Wiki-PR has been linked to the activities reported in the Morning277 investigation, and has just been given a community ban [2]. I'm here to request that the warning and restrictions [3] on reports in the SPI be lifted and that the reports which were archived without investigation [4] be reopened. —rybec 21:49, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

If we were to do this, I don't think we could use the traditional SPI format - the templates made it difficult to edit anything. --Rschen7754 22:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
How about something like the format used in XFD, where an initial report is followed by a single section for comments? —rybec 22:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
I was thinking about this. We need a sort of "SSPI" or Special SPI for that. I don't think the standard format works well. Something a little more open ended might be necessary but I wasn't able to come up with a satisfactory conclusion for how it should be done. NativeForeigner Talk 23:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Requesting Assistance

I am a fairly new user on Wikipedia requesting assistance. I am trying to determine if I properly initiated a sockpuppet investigation. This involves a user with at least two IPs, 71.167.98.43 and 108.170.85.234. The page can be found here: Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations/108.170.85.234 Please advise if I correctly published this complaint. I apologize if this inquiry has been placed here inappropriately. But thanks for verifying if I followed correct protocol. 70.111.147.221 (talk) 10:54, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

When do I make an SPI request?

The article Bleeding Edge was vandalized (in very minor ways) twice in a row this morning, first by UY81OFU (talk · contribs), who has just started editing since yesterday, and then by UY81OFU37 (talk · contribs), a brand-new account. I assume it's not a coincidence. And I assume the names are offensive.

The reason I'm asking right away is I presume this might be somebody's idea of how to not get blocked for vandalism--perhaps there are other one off accounts? Choor monster (talk) 12:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Horizontal Law. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:11, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
OK, thanks, but UY81OFU37 (talk · contribs) was not part of the above list of sockpuppets, and it has vandalized again. This time Talk:Bleeding Edge. Choor monster (talk) 17:10, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

A second request re:UTRS

The two IPBE requests I noted last week are still open in the UTRS CU queue. I've been handling nearly all of the requests there and it would be helpful to have some fresh eyes to review and respond to them. I've always declined requests for IPBE to allow for proxy editing unless they meet the "exceptional circumstances" clause, but perhaps others are more lenient? --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 19:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Template:Checkuser

As I have come to just notice (from being inactive and things), I note that the checkuser template has changed. Now instead of providing the results that are needed, it blocks the name of the master unless it has a certain parameter. I personally don't see how this is going to benefit us, and I don't see how it was broken in the first place. We are trying to solve a problem by changing something unrelated to the problem. We have clerks for a reason, and it should cover this. If you really wanted, instead of an error you could put a colored notice on the end labeling it as a master, but I think the error is really counter-productive especially since checkusers have been using that template for a long time now. I would like to get others opinions. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:38, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the obvious compromise is to, instead of changing {{checkuser}} to add this new feature, we should have created a new template to do it, which acts like {{checkuser}} except in the error case, and is used only when filing a case. However, restricting improvements because "what we have is good enough" is pointless. I would prefer not to do things that a robot can do. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 23:13, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

maximum article size exceeded

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Morning277/Archive is listed in Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded. Templates toward the bottom of the page aren't rendered. People writing about the problem [5] [6] say that splitting an article into parts can resolve this. —rybec 11:20, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Return of the codeletters

There is a consensus against restoring the requirement of codeletters for checkuser requests. Both supporters and opposers were concerned about the increase in bureaucracy and further work required to submit SPI request, especially since the abuse of accounts needs to be explained and shown in the report anyway. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Should SPI restore the requirement of selecting codeletters for checkuser requests?

There has been an increase in the number of SPI requests that discuss the likelihood of users having and using multiple accounts concurrently, but that do not indicate any pattern of abuse. Per the policy on sockpuppetry, sockpuppetry is defined as "the use of multiple Wikipedia user accounts for an improper purpose" (emphasis mine). For this reason, checkuser requests which suggest the presence of multiple accounts but do not indicate any pattern of abuse are generally denied until such abusive behavior can be identified.

Several years ago, to file a request for checkuser, the filing editor had to select a "codeletter" which indicated what category of abuse (vote fraud, ongoing serious vandalism, ban evasion, etc.) was occurring along with the request. This was later abolished on the basis that it was confusing to editors. This RFC is regarding a possible return of those codeletters, potentially with improvements to avoid the confusion from before. The old set of codeletters can be found here. A "support" consensus on this RFC would imply a need to re-evaluate the old codeletters, adjust them if necessary, and support clerk denial of checkuser requests that are not using established codeletters. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 00:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Support

  • As proposer. I recognize that I could be noosed for proposing to bring back something that was once considered awful, but I think that we should evaluate how we could have improved the old system, rather than continuing to abolish it. Especially with the expanded use of twinkle, coordination with twinkle developers could result in the old codeletter system being as simple as using a dropdown, making it easier on users that need to report. The biggest benefit of this system in the past was that it required people to think before they filed the request, resulting in fewer reports filed just because of a similarity between two accounts with no pattern of abuse. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 00:36, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Some way that an editor reporting a possible sockpuppet can summarize the nature of the issue would help prioritize investigations. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - As a longtime utilizer of SPI, I felt that, in the past, socks who were tagged as evading were dealt with much faster when it was immediately apparent to the case reader that that was what they were doing. Conversely, the last SPI I filed (while admittedly minor because this time it didn't develop into a problem) took six weeks to resolve, which is already halfway to stale. Part of the reason for this is the tendency for a mishmash of "oldest first"/"most serious first"/"complexity sorting" wrt to prioritizing. Therefore, by being able to code a case (as Robert mentions above), the most disruptive socks can be dealt with quickly. MSJapan (talk) 05:00, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Sounds good to me. I check SPI cases frequently and find them completely lacking any evidence for a check. I've tried telling people about this, but it's never changed anything. We've tried adding information on how to file a case, but it never changed anything. We then tried simplified the information that's available so that people could find it more accessible, and it never changed anything. I'm all for a more radical approach at this point. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 23:09, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
  • In general, yes. I'm not sure code letters are the most friendly thing though, maybe we could just use the categories themselves? "This request is for checking a banned user" instead of "Code letter A". Legoktm (talk) 23:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Ditto per Legoktm - it will take forever for me to memorize the codes. --Rschen7754 public (talk) 00:03, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I like Legoktm's modification, to make things move smoother. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:31, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I dislike codes. A simple explanation for why they violate policy is more than enough for me. That being said it would significantly help in the handling of cases. NativeForeigner Talk 05:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I support the system, but dislike the use of code. Write it out in full. The Banner talk 01:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, but codes sound somewhat confusing. APerson (talk!) 01:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

  • Oppose, but a rather mild oppose, and I'm open to discussion. Filing an SPI can be rather complicated, especially for inexperienced users, and I'm disinclined to make it any more complicated. (I have also gotten a feeling when I have initiated requests myself that there is a bit of a culture here of being a little too by-the-book, in the sense of needing to have very obvious behavioral evidence spelled out in detail beyond what sensible editors would need – just saying.) I'm not really persuaded that there is a problem here that needs to be fixed. Is it really too burdensome for SPI clerks to ask users who post a request to provide more information, and to decline to endorse CHU when adequate information is not provided? --Tryptofish (talk) 15:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose There is so much procedure involved in filing a formal request, that I have never done so, but work with other aspects of the problem. Increasing it is the worst possible direction. We need to encourage people to file requests, not the opposite. Filling out forms is a RW procedure, designed to cope with marginal literacy and let machines handle the information. Here we have people who can read a request, however informal. DGG ( talk ) 23:07, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
    • "We need to encourage people to file requests"... again, we should not be encouraging people to file CU requests that cannot be fulfilled under policy, in the hopes that they will be granted. --Rschen7754 04:35, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose (but open to more discussion). I realise that filing an SPI is already a complex process (I've done plenty of them myself), and understand the arguments for such a system of short cuts. However, having filers continue to provide their own reasons for a CU request would help ensure that the cases have been well researched and thought out. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:26, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - You have to describe the abusive behavior anyway, or you won't even get a block. The case will be summarily closed if no evidence of abuse is presented. Checkuser is just a tool used when there's evidence of abuse of multiple accounts, but not enough evidence to block the accounts outright. It is also used to find the sockpuppets that either haven't yet edited or have only edited innocuously to build up a history, and it is useful for placing IP blocks when major disruption is occurring. Re-adding the code letters will just increase the bureaucracy of this already overly-bureaucratic process. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We not automatons. Although I spend a lot of time working on CSDs, I still get annoyed and have to think when someone talks about a "G10" - what on earth is a G10? Likewise with SPI requests. People should describe the reason in words. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - As one of the founders of SPI, this goes against everything SPI stands for. The idea was to create a streamlined process that both new and established users could navigate. The reason that the old RFCU had fewer cases lacking evidence was because there was separation between SSP (suspected sock puppets) and RFCU (requests for checkuser). This created a more clear distinction between those cases that require behavioral investigation and cases that have enough evidence to warrant a CheckUser. That said, it also created a lot more work for clerks moving cases from SSP to RFCU, and vice-versa (I was a clerk at both RFCU and SPI). I can say with certainty that the code letters were not the reason there were fewer cases lacking evidence at RFCU. Adding code letters just creates another layer of pointless bureaucracy and just another reason for people to stay clear of SPI. While I share Deskana's frustration with cases lacking evidence, I would also challenge clerks and CheckUsers to remember that not everyone is intimately involved in SPI like they are. I really don't see how it is that hard for a clerk or CheckUser to add {{decline}} to a case and ask for more evidence - matter of fact, that is part of your job description. A code letter is not the solution here. Tiptoety talk 02:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose The more I think about this, the more it doesn't sit well with me. If people have to categorize socking especially on the old system, it sometimes misses some of the stuff that is covered in SPI. Futhermore, as better said by RHaworth, they should be able to spill it out consistently. I also agree with Tiptoety, though more to the latter part of his comments. (I think I'll improve on my answer here a little more tomorrow) -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose The views I have mirror those of Tryptofish and Tiptoety. There's no critical issue that needs to be resolved right away. The system that is there right now, works. While the intentions of Shirik are good, I think if one wanted to simplify the process here (as Tim's spihelper script does for regulars at the desk), then one could add multiple sequential input boxes for editors filing SPI reports rather than hand them over to an edit box with considerable instructions. But then again, that's veering off the point here. Let's not introduce stuff that's not solving any critical issue here. Wifione Message 16:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I have been putting off commenting here, but since it is still open... I think that the code letters were needlessly bureaucratic, and as a much less experienced editor back when I went to file a CU request under that system, I found it somewhat confusing. That being said, I completely agree with Deskana in that we currently end up with far too many cases with entirely inadequate evidence. Rather than a return of the code letters, though, I would prefer a technical solution in the form of a case-filing wizard such as this. The wizard should explicitly ask the filing party to categorize the type of abuse they are reporting and insist on complete evidence before the case can be filed. I'm not a Javascript programmer, but I can't imagine that it would be too difficult to implement something like this. Then we could do away with the current error-prone template system, or at least relegate it to the few instances where users don't have or don't want to use Javascript. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

Would it work to require the filer to simply describe the abuse instead of having to pick a code letter? A place in the template or prototype that says "Describe briefly the specifically abusive behavior that the socking user has engaged in" or something of the sort? DES (talk) 18:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it would work, because a description is required along with the evidence section, so it would either repetitive or vague. I'd imagine a lot of "see evidence" or "vandal" statements in that case. MSJapan (talk) 15:42, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
It would be nice if there were a list of editors who were willing to help SPI filers, in cases where requests are (initially) denied. (See, for example, Wikipedia:Accessibility advocates.) If there were, then the (initial) denial could be accompanied by a suggestion to contact one of the editors, preferably by email, for assistance. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:49, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
That's what we require now, and it isn't working. --Rschen7754 21:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
I was under the impression that what John Broughton brings up is what the SPI clerks are for in the first place. MSJapan (talk) 04:20, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
SPI clerks may choose to help people out of their own volition, but they are not required to do so. The responsibility is on the filer to make the case for the request; repeatedly, clerks have been told to not make the case for the filer, as that encourages fishing. --Rschen7754 04:34, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Probably around one to five or so. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Inaction

No action is seen at the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Priyaaravind since its filing on 14th November. On the other hand, one of the suspected sock is quite active again since then. Is something missing in the case? Am i suppose to add anything more to it? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:38, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I must also query the lack of action in regard to investigations that have been up for nearly a week such as this one that I posted on the 2nd of December. It is a clear cut case that would take only a few minutes to process. Mabuska (talk) 11:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
We do tend to be chronically backlogged, and the holiday in the US also didn't help matters. Hopefully we will get to these soon. --Rschen7754 11:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


Request removal of Reaper Eternal as a CU clerk

Closed - Withdrawn by OP

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

 KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   17:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I am formally requesting Reaper Eternal be removed as a CU clerk. His actions amount to interfering with the CU reports. He has deleted two CU reports outright, without even allowing the actual CU's to weigh in.

The first one was a very detailed report on multiple IP's filed here . Reaper removed it and gave a reason that someone's real name may be revealed.

First of all, a CU NEVER connects a real name to an IP , second a real name was never part of that report, third, the IP's in question showed as being in different parts of the county, even though they edited the same way and the same articles, so his reason was without merit at all !!. I did speak with him on his talk page here he remained insistent that somehow, someway, a real name would magically be revealed and therefore he refused to allow a CU to even see that report.


Yes, I dropped that issue. I filed another report recently here (different user) here's the page . A CU declined it, no big deal, happens all the time, however, once again, Reaper removed the report saying that it amounted to an attack on two editors, and was baseless. While I won't go into specifics, I will state I'm not the only person that questioned if that editor was actually a different editor that is currently indef banned from creating anything to do with NHRP items.

Reaper is clearly going beyond the bounds of what a clerk should do. In example 1, he's sheltering a suspected sock-puppeteer based on no evidence whatsoever, when a request to CU had a fairly in-depth case. In example 2, he's deleting a case where the indivduals identity was questioned by more than one user, and is pretty much a classic duck quacking into the microphone . A clerk should never remove a case prior to CU because the suspected sock gives some excuse like "it's my brother"...etc.... yet this is exactly what he's done. Nor should he delete a case where the identity of a suspected sock is an indef editor and the id has been questioned by more than one user.

He needs to no longer be a CU clerk.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   12:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Uh, what! Are you aware that he is a checkuser and not just an SPI clerk? You can see a list of checkusers here.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  • refused to allow a CU to even see that report - I'm pretty sure that ArbCom was aware of the report. All ArbCom members are CUs. In any case, at least a few CUs were aware of the case before it was deleted and suppressed.
  • A CU declined it, no big deal, happens all the time - It was declined by one clerk, closed by another clerk and then deleted by a CU (Reaper Eternal).
Please check your facts before making requests such as this. Thanks. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:49, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  • KoshVorlon; it does appear, (to a neutral observer), that you are biased by your own good faith motivations; having become a bit overzealous. Clearly, your report here is lacking assumptions of good faith, (being devoid of any) while simultaneously juxtaposing confluent assumptions, (other than wp:agf), Into a synthesized presentation of fact, (show to be fallacious). The mistakes are clear, (I believe they are excusable as well); you should also be seeing these truths, and without groveling, lay amends before the aggrieved. Then, go forth in earnest, endeavoring to do better. My advice is to next time, simply ask your question, and—in asking; be open to the answer given!—John Cline (talk) 13:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
I did actually assume good faith with the first report and discussion on his page. I see consensus is firmly against me.

No problem. I respect the conensus and will drop this  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   15:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A question about proto-sleeper-socks

Hi all,
In recent months, an editor has produced a mixture of obvious socks and more subtle sneaky socks which take time to build up experience &c. I've noticed another sleeper sock being developed, but at this early stage the evidence is quite subtle (the account hasn't yet joined in the usual controversies) and I'm sure many folk would regard the current evidence as... circumstantial. I'm wary of publishing more of the editor's "tells" as that will just make future socks harder to identify. What's the best approach? Wait until there is more obvious socking? bobrayner (talk) 00:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to send an email to a member of the clerk team or a CheckUser. Legoktm (talk) 01:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I'll be happy to take a look at your evidence, Bobrayner. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 01:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
It looks like you checkusered and blocked the account already :-) Still, good to know for next time. Thanks. bobrayner (talk) 09:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:AN discussion regarding the information in the header

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive258#Notifying users of a sockpuppet discussion. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppet question

Hi, please see my Teahouse question. Thanks, Matty.007 20:09, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what I should be doing, so would be grateful if someone experienced at SPI could deal with this. Thanks, Matty.007 20:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Please see [7] – I was given permission to re-register on the English Wikipedia following a successful appeal to BASC. Thanks, Cloudchased (talk) 20:49, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
I am very sorry. Have a merry Christmas! Matty.007 20:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

World number 1 male tennis player rankings

Obvious socking going on here along with the edit warring via IPs, but I cannot be arsed to sort out who is who there, anyone up for a challenge? Darkness Shines (talk) 00:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I've semi'd the page. If they come back I'll start blocking. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:17, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Multiple accounts making same edits to The Courtier's Reply

Hi. I have a question regarding whether a set of accounts used by what appears to be the same user falls under the WP:SOCK#LEGIT. In May of this year, JHobson2 made this POV edit to The Courtier's Reply. I tried to explain to him in this discussion on the article's talk page, and in an exchange on my talk page and his that Wikipedia policy precludes this. The discussion went nowhere, as he did not respond to the issue of policy, but instead insisted that I removed his argument from the article because I personally disagreed with it. When I tried to explain that his edits constituted original research, he dismissed this, arguing that he didn't really do any "research" in order to make the edits. He refused repeatedly to even acknowledge any statements on my part regarding our policies, and their application, while simultaneously demanding that I respond to his demands for specificity and clarification. So I gave up on the discussion. His last message on my tp was the claim that he had just read Terry Eagleton's review of The God Delusion (which was already cited elsewhere in the article for other material), in which JHobson2 says Eagleton voiced the same criticism, thereby "agreeing" with him. In fact, Eagleton never mentions The Courtier's Reply, reserving the criticism in question for The God Delusion. The Courtier's reply is never mentioned in that review. However, I said nothing at the time, having given up trying to get through to him.

Then on December 8, 2013, a user with a near-identical username, JHobson3 added the same criticism, indicating in his edit summary that he and JHobson2 were one and the same and citing the Eagleton review for the addition, claiming that he "found" a source for his previous comment. Since it had been months, I double-checked that review, and again, it contains nothing of what JHobson3 indicates it did.

My question is whether these two accounts conform to WP:SOCK#LEGIT, specifically, WP:SOCK#NOTIFY. I'm not saying that they don't, I'm simply asking. Thoughts? Nightscream (talk) 06:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't look like a legit alternate account to me. No declaration of an alternate account seems to be there. However, since the second account has not edited concurrently with the previous account, the question of socking is much less clear. Sure, it's the same user. But one can abandon an account and pick up a new one provided they don't go back to using the first account without declaring the second one as being them. Doc talk 07:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
So should someone be notified, or should we just let it go? Nightscream (talk) 19:30, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I would ask them to state it for clarity. They do not appear to be trying anything deceptive on the face of it and I would guess that they may have forgotten their password and created the new account. If they own up to the previous account then no harm done / no foul.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Where and how should they state it? Nightscream (talk) 12:46, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
There's no need to state it. This is not a sock scenario unless they claim the accounts are unrelated and/or edit the accounts concurrently. They could abandon Hobson3 and create Hobson4, and there's still no issue unless they go back to using Hobson3. Doc talk 07:40, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
They could use {{User previous account}} on their userpage. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:06, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so it's pretty much a non-issue, as long as they don't try to pass off the accounts as belonging to different people, right? Okay, I just wanted to make sure. Thanks for your time, and Happy Holidays. Nightscream (talk) 00:32, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Title blacklist

What would people think about titleblacklisting Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/User: to prevent misfiled reports? --Rschen7754 08:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

99% stat's evidence for fanery &/or paid fanclubery (FaoPFC) subjects?

What constitutes a FaoPFC subject?

Mostly, I edit with much higher WP:NPOV than my piers (I'm aspie), I mostly eclectically edit music articles(:contributions) lots of ce / grounding / cohesion / WP:CSB / WP:ACCESSIBILITY edits and some international cohesion / WP:NOPIPE-type stuff. I'm a pro-openness/clarity WP-tightener – I notice stuff.

Therefore, I spend a high proportion of my edits herding cats (taming fanboy/fangirl-ishness), which is tiresome but worth it – so long as they're not (semi-)representatives of The Man (sockish).

So for example, pop/rock/etc. music, where:

  1. media prowess is a key to success
  2. fanery (fanboy/fangirl) prdominates (if genuine, I do think that fanery should be tolerated)
  3. socks are rife
  4. fanery to the point of sockery is rife
  5. I'm sure that (e.g. esp' in Asian pop, via strong commercially funded fan clubs, et al, and where media prowess is intrinsic), sockery and fanery merge.
  6. citation coverage is generally tolerated to be low
  7. a sock's adoption of a fan-like behaviour is little impediment to their WP:POV objectives (again heightened in Asian pop where 1st-lang-English editor proportion is low and little-English editor proportion is high)

Thus, esp' Asian pop (subjects) – However, I'm sure there are many other more and less FaoPFC subject areas where action should be taken, supported and encouraged!

Reporting impetus in FaoPFC subjects

WP:SPI evidence spec' excludes exclusively statistical evidence.

I'm here (WP:SPI) for the first time in over seven years / 3K+ edits, not cause I never suspect sockery (far from it), but 'cause I anticipated the process being onerous, where sockery is veiled with, of semi-, fanery ... and it is!

Reporting suspected sockery in a FaoPFC subject will have many false-positives / indeterminates and may have a vindictive risk. However, this heightens such as an area where confidential reporting is unusually fruitful.

Currently, for the suspected editor that broke that impetus, I have a handful of trivial diff's, a couple of circumstantial (WP:EASTEREGG user page, blank not redlinked) and heaps of stat's (e.g. from :contributions where vague IP-reverts/external-link edits predominate and, excepting heaps of Notification-postings without further talk, contra-WP:BOLD with registered editors) and a X!'s Edit Counter chart – I often sniff these when entering WP:BRD – that I consider a sockish (or teamster-sockish), is remarkably disparate with my own and alien to the general).

FaoPFC subject misc' inc. project?

Is are there project(s) working in that area?

Thus, I think, there are number of independent and interlinked problems.

Want wood? Got wood? ... Sure that's not forest in you pocket? :P   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 22:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this makes absolutely no sense. Are you asking something? --Rschen7754 08:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

SPI endorse flow chart

To attempt to demystify when clerks should endorse or decline something, I've made a flowchart. This is a first draft, so any feedback would be helpful. Please note that this is not a substitute for thinking the request through carefully and evaluating it based on policies! --Rschen7754 08:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

A "start" node would make it easier to grasp. [8] —rybec 10:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
The flowchart's first draft looks good, but it seems a little bit muddled up. I think a simpler pattern, preferably in a more systematic way will look better. ~TheGeneralUser (talk) 22:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
{{Sofixit}}. Tiptoety talk 22:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
If anyone is interested in making it look more pretty, I will not be offended if they redo it. My artistic skills have always been lacking. --Rschen7754 02:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I'd be willing to add the start node if Rschen7754 would be willing to provide the PPT file. —rybec 08:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
As I repeat over and over, the issue of declining a checkuser for an IP is not simply "ooh, it's an IP". It's a case for a checkuser to decide based on whether the actions of the IP editor justify running a checkuser. The checkuser may then choose not to reveal much about his actions, but it is a misreading of policy to claim that checkuser may not be run upon IP addresses based on valid suspicions. While the clerk may reasonably require a fairly high standard of evidence, it isn't a knee-jerk "decline all requests against IP addresses" issue.—Kww(talk) 13:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree. I don't think that Wikipedia:CheckUser#CheckUser and privacy policy prohibits running a CU on an IP address. Flow charts are great and this one looks useful but sometimes they oversimplify a situation that isn't cut and dried. Dougweller (talk) 17:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Actually, clerks generally do decline any CU request that point-blank asks them to reveal the IP of a user. --Rschen7754 18:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I understand that and have told other editors that, but I think the point is more "Is it ever appropriate to run a CU check that includes an IP editor" - or the other way around, is that prohibited. Dougweller (talk) 18:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
At SPI, yes, because you're publicly asking the question, and the CU is forced to answer it publicly. --Rschen7754 18:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Not at all true. Checkusers are free to lie about the results of running checkusers. I remember the questionnaire for getting the results specifically asking whether I was comfortable with that.—Kww(talk) 19:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Look, if you want to go and try to change the CU policy, you are free to do so at the appropriate venues, but your views are quite out of step with the community and the CU team. --Rschen7754 19:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not asking for any change whatsoever to CU policy. Checkusers are permitted to run checkuser on IPs for numerous reasons. They are strongly discouraged from revealing the results of those checks. Putting the filter at the clerk level is not mandated by policy, and only serves to make it difficult for the typical user to get a check run when it may actually be a good idea. When I need a checkuser run on an IP, I build my evidence and e-mail a checkuser directly, so as to not get into the issue of publicly revealing the IP. That's not a path that the average editor is going to know how to use. There's nothing at all wrong with having a clerk approve a case that has strong evidence supporting it, having a CU look into it, and then not publicly commenting on the result. Please don't represent that as somehow being a violation of policy, because it isn't. What it is is a way to ensure that abusive sockpuppetry doesn't become easier just by failing to log in.
Somehow our policy of discouraging the linking of IPs to editors has turned into a prohibition against asking about IPs. That is neither the letter of policy nor its intent.—Kww(talk) 23:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
That's great and all, but the point of the clerks is to weed out such frivolous requests that cannot be fulfilled such as what you describe. If any clerk did what you described on a regular basis, they would not remain a clerk for very long. --Rschen7754 23:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
If approving requests that have substantial evidence justifying a check would result in someone losing clerkship, there's something seriously wrong. Our processes shouldn't render an editor that uses IPs to sock with substantially more difficult to deal with than an editor that uses alternate accounts to sock with. Any interpretation of checkuser policies or guidelines that makes that true is a perversion of their intent.—Kww(talk) 01:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Again, as I have said, the problem isn't running the CU; the problem is holding up the SPI microphone to the CU and asking "Does X user use this IP?" The CU is forced to either lie about running the check (which would not stand up to the Ombudsman Commission) or say yes or no. Saying "I took care of it" does no good, because anyone can see if the IP was blocked or not. That is why we decline these sorts of requests. --Rschen7754 07:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
This flowchart is purely about the handling of checkuser requests, not SPI reports in general, is that right? A report about a named account and one or more IP addresses seems like it could proceed on just the publicly visible evidence, without CU. —rybec 09:07, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that is correct. --Rschen7754 18:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Which means that a case that could have been conclusively made against an editor by checkuser may be rejected as ambiguous on behavioural grounds, giving an unreasonable protection. From WP:Checkuser:"Accounts that engage in problematic conduct to the point that requests for administrative action or blocking are raised and considered valid for CheckUser usage, and where CheckUser then determines the user probably has engaged in such conduct, must expect the protection of the project is given a higher priority than the protection of those who knowingly breach its policies on editorial conduct.". Note, for example, this SPI case where I had to squabble with an SPI clerk over this very topic because of a case where the behaviour was too ambiguous to act. Your flowchart doesn't conform to policy, and should be corrected.—Kww(talk) 03:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
And, again, as I have said, you declining them deprives most editors of any method of having the check run. Your flowchart indicates that they should be declined without thought and without examination of the evidence. That's not justifiable by any interpretation of our policies.—Kww(talk) 13:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations/Archive_13&oldid=1259746083"