Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20

Question on tagging WP:DUCK socks

I just blocked User:Moneystarr as a WP:DUCK sock of User:Whiskyrum1852 (reposting the same page deleted at AfD in its entirety). Should I add this new sock to the case page archive? If so, how should I do that? The admin instructions were not clear on this. Thanks. –Grondemar 14:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

@Grondemar: You don't have to do anything, but if you want to document the puppet, it's best to reopen the case, list the puppet, explain at the case that you are doing this just to document it, and then close it. You can use the admin parameter (that automatically closes it), or not. If you're not sure how to close, someone will come along and do it for you. Editing the archive directly is not a good idea.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
I went ahead and filed the report; let me know if I did anything wrong. Thanks. –Grondemar 19:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Perfect.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Change checkuser no to yes?

I have an SPI request in the queue. I didn't ask for cu. Is it possible to amend the request to ask for it? Jeh (talk) 12:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Yep absolutely. Change {{SPI case status|}} to {{SPI case status|CUrequest}} and add your reason for requesting CheckUser after your initial statement. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:09, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Maybe?

I'm unsure whether or not to bring this to SPI. Long story short, earlier this year Squeakmore was blocked for disrupting Wikipedia because they kept creating pages for things that either didn't exist or were outright speculation. Here's an example of some of their work. They tried contesting the block on their userpage and eventually got their talkpage access revoked because it became clear that they didn't learn anything and were just wasting admin time with repeated unblock requests. Earlier tonight I came across Squeakmo3. It was an obvious DUCK scenario, as they had the same habits of creating pages for things that either didn't exist or didn't warrant a page, as well as inserting speculation into pre-existing articles.

I wasn't going to bring this to SPI since I wasn't sure that there were any other accounts. They struck me as a "one account at a time" sort of person. However the number at the end of their name, 3, somewhat gives off the impression that there may have been a second account at some point in time. I'm not sure if this account would be stale or not, as it likely would have been opened after they were blocked in January. What are you guys' thoughts on this? I slightly wouldn't mind the papertrail, as this would allow for a place to have the information all in one place (as opposed to multiple talkpages), but I can't guarantee that there are more accounts and I'm worried that this would just needlessly take up time that could be better spent on SPIs where there's more possibility of multiple accounts. (I have a strong feeling that there will eventually be more accounts after this one and SPI may become necessary then, but that's not really the point here since I'm wondering whether or not it's necessary now.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Vinodhchennu archive

Why is there no link to the SPI case archive at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vinodhchennu? The archive template seems to be included but it's not showing up on the page. Am I overlooking an inconspicuous typo? —Psychonaut (talk) 09:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@Psychonaut: See User_talk:Vanjagenije/Archive_10#SPI. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Just fixed it for y'all. See also User talk:Salvidrim#Archive link missing? :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

No "search button at the bottom of ths page"?

The Guide to filing cases page in the Important Notes section [[1]] says, "Before submitting a case, verify that there isn’t one already in progress using the search button at the bottom of this page." But the link doesn't seem to take me to a page with a button at the bottom of the page. Does it mean the search box for the archives at the bottom of the infobox? Or does it really mean I should just alphabetize/scan the current cases? I'm probably being stupid. valereee (talk) 14:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not at the "bottom" of the page. It's at the bottom of the right-hand box in the part "SPI Archives".--Bbb23 (talk) 15:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
I've changed the wording in the guide to be clearer, although it's wordier than before.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
I just knew that as soon as I used "wordier" NE Ent would come to the rescue. I like his change, but it still needed a link to WP:SPI, which I inserted.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Nice, thanks! valereee (talk) 16:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Yea, I think it's because we missed the instructions and didn't update them after the slight layout changes done per this discussion: Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Archives/Archive16#Archived cases section. Sorry! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Report not listed

User 4ing filed a new report for Sju hav just recently, but I can't see it listed as a current case, so I wondered if it might be overlooked. Dunno what may have happened here. Iselilja (talk) 19:32, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

It's missing the {{SPI case status}} template, which I've now added. It should be listed eventually. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppets putting photos in volleyball articles

Pretty sure Nqtiny [2], Virushou [3], and Bryanmella [4] are all the same person because they are all SPAs adding the same odd content to the same group of articles in the same time period. Not sure this warrants investigation as there isn't much in the way of edit warring on the pages, so I'm putting it here. Rracecarr (talk) 02:29, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Something stupid is going on here, with so many additions of photos of women's rear ends. --NeilN talk to me 02:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
All three accounts are  Confirmed. All the "paperwork" can be found here. Mike V • Talk 03:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Bot malfunctioning

Amalthea (bot) stopped working completely, so I switched to the backup table (User:DeltaQuad/SPI case list). I wish this could be fixed. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Uhuh, the backup list has not been updated since June, I just noticed that. I'm reverting my edit and hope Amalthea will start working soon. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Are you sure the bot is down? It seems to have updated the list a couple of minutes ago... Special:Contributions/Amalthea (bot) there was a 1h20m gap but nothing dramatic AFAIAC. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:04, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
@Salvidrim: Yes, it is working again. Albeit with some problems (this has been going for few days). I see that Bbb23 notified bot's owner about that (User_talk:Amalthea#Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations.2FCases.2FOverview). Vanjagenije (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
A lot more than a few days, unfortunately.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

SPI

I created an SPI request on a talk page as requested; could someone move it so that it goes live? 2601:240:C701:45F0:29D3:1A7D:61A1:8AEF (talk) 12:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! 2601:240:C701:45F0:29D3:1A7D:61A1:8AEF (talk) 13:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Move request

Please move Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Legendswillneverdie to the WP space. Thanks. 153.173.65.195 (talk) 15:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done TDL (talk) 16:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Second Opinion

@Vanjagenije: @Bbb23: You two have much better feel for questionable accounts than I do, so I want a second opinion about User:TheIRCtroll, who claims to be a banned user/editor (I just noticed that, sorry...) This guy sound familiar to either of you two from a past case? TomStar81 (Talk) 07:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

It's him. He's trolling our irc channel from past week. - Supdiop (T🔹C) 08:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
@TomStar81: He is now blocked. Do we need to investigate anything further? Vanjagenije (talk) 08:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
@Vanjagenije: No, that was it. Since he said he was banned I thought the two of you might recognize the account from somewhere to verify the claim about already being blocked/banned, but if he has been blocked then its no longer a major issue. Thank you for looking into this though, I do appreciate it. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

How to identify a sock master?

Normally when a SPI is ignited, the sock master is known and the suspected sock puppet(s) are listed in the investigation after which the technical people will review whether they are indeed sock puppets by looking at the behavioral evidence and gathering technical evidence. However, at the Formula 1 WikiProject we have been disrupted for several months (the most recent one just today) by a series of sock puppets accounts launched to impersonate members of the project in order to get them into problems, but the account that is creating all these sock puppets is unknown.

The "impersonators" that have appeared so far are:

Tvx11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (an impersonation of myself))

Prisonernonkeys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Twirlypæn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Zwærg Nase (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (this one only appeared today)

Additionally, there is at least one other active sock puppet, based on behavioral evidence:

Darrandarra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

So my question is: is there a way to identify the sock master and by doing so put a halt to this continuous string of impersonations? Tvx1 21:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@Tvx1: Identifying the master is not needed to stop the disruption. Disruption can be stopped even without that. Whenever you know about several accounts you suspect belong to the same person, you should assume that the oldest of those accounts is the sockmaster (in this case, Tvx11 is the oldest). Then, you can open a SPI case under the name of that master. If it turns out that those accounts belong to some even older master, it is not a problem, the case is then moved or merged with older case. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:28, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Ok, @Vanjagenije:. I've done that. Thanks for your advice. Tvx1 23:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Well the SPI ended with the accounts being connected with each other, but the actual sock master wasn't identified. So it wasn't an entire succes. Tvx1 16:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
@Tvx1: Id depends on how you define "success". The role of the WP:SPI is to stop the disruption. And, those accounts were blocked, which means that their disruption is now stopped. That is success. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:12, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Vanjagenije's response is spot on.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, that depends on how you define stopped. The active accounts that were irritating the project have indeed been blocked, but you can't say for certain that the person behind it setting up those sock puppets has been stopped from setting up more and thus from causing more disruption. In fact, they were already blocked for impersonating/trolling before the SPI got endorsed and the only thing it achieved was to tag the accounts as sockpuppets. Tvx1 00:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
@Tvx1: Yes, but would this person be stopped if we found his oldest account (sockmaster)? You said that the investigation was unsuccessful because we didn't find the original master. But if we did find him, how would we stop him to create new accounts? How would that be more "successful"? Vanjagenije (talk) 00:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I thought account creation could be blocked? Tvx1 00:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GoldenClockCar

After filing realized I was barking up the wrong tree. Blanked it, would like to withdraw it. Apologies. 18:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC) Sorry, I must be addled today. Certainly not my day. This is a valid request. Apologies again. I'd explain further but I'm too embarrassed. Coretheapple (talk) 18:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Coffeeloverlarge seems to be missing the usual link to a recently archived case. The necessary template seems to be there, so I'm not sure what's missing. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:43, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry: I've purged the page, i had the same issue with another case page recently LorTalk 08:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Lor. All good now. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Setting off a spidey vibe

I recently had to deal with a problematic editor that was trying to re-add a channel TV Guide-esque listing for WakuWaku Japan's horror films. I also noted that they created the article as well. I didn't think anything of this until today, when I had to block them for disruptive editing - namely them trying to again add the list page to Wikipedia despite a clear warning not to do this and a detailed explanation as to why it was deleted in the first place.

There's something about the editor's username that seems familiar to one of the sockmasters we've previously had to deal with, but I can't place which one. The editor's name is Mario1811111111111 and if my little vibe is correct, then they will likely sign up with new accounts. I have nothing really to go on beyond that it seems similar to someone else and I believe that they've done entertainment related edits, but that's about it. I figured I'd lose nothing by asking if this rings a bell with anyone else. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Paleontologist99

We had an unusual request over at WP:AFC/C for the creation of Category: Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ipadguy. I declined it suggesting that it's better left to a clerk, but notice that Ipadguy (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is themselves a sock of Paleontologist99 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). I then notice that the three IPs mentioned in 2002:43F4:3ABB:1234:28A3:E67:3CF6:614C (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)'s request, namely

were blocked by Materialscientist on 24 November, but have self-tagged their talk pages with {{sockpuppet|Ipadguy|blocked}} and {{sockpuppet|Paleontologist99|blocked}} and 27 November. Pinging other involved admins (Yamla—OhNoitsJamie—Kudpung). Sam Sailor Talk! 13:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

  • I'm aware of this and have processed an UTRS ticket and am still undecided on the merits of filing an SPI for the sole purpose of archiving the socking. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:32, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
I am not quite sure what to make of this request. It's possible the blocked user is claiming there are actually two different sockpuppeteers, one User:Paleontologist99 and one, User:Ipadguy, and that those pages should be in the list of sockpuppets for the latter? It's possible, though the edits are almost exactly the same and we know through checkuser evidence that the user is indeed a sockpuppeteer, despite the user him/herself requesting checkuser. User has also repeatedly made promises to refrain from further abuse and harassment, and rarely goes even a full day without breaking the promise. It's possible they are just continuing to waste people's time. --Yamla (talk) 00:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Make an SPI?

This one is a little tricky, as it involves this ANI thread.

Recently a user (BarfBag666) signed up and made edits that centered around The Satanic Temple. Their edits were seen as problematic by other users and not without reason, as the edits were the type that you'd typically see from relative newbies that know little about Wikipedia editing. A discussion on their talk page went rather poorly and I do have to admit that they reacted badly, as they were far too defensive. However I will say that they reacted well to my attempts to interact with them and they did seem to be trying to follow my suggestions - I came across them via a REFUND request. (IE, editing a draft after I asked them to write a draft.) The user was ultimately blocked for having a promotional username.

I decided that I was going to help them, so I improved a draft they'd made for the Temple. During this process I thought that it'd be nice to have pictures of some of the Temple's projects. Since none of their artwork is currently on display (ie, none of us could travel to take a picture), I figured that the best option would be to contact the Temple and ask them to upload pictures. I was very careful to give them the typical COI spiel (no direct edits, edit carefully, etc) but I forgot to tell them to be transparent. (Which I can't believe I did, but that's on me.)

A new account, HAILXSATANX666, signed up soon after the email and by all accounts looked to be the person who read my email because their edits followed my instructions. They were also blocked for having a promotional username. A third account signed up (ILOVESATAN666) and posted the ANI thread where they stated that they were experiencing religious discrimination. I don't agree with all of their comments, but I can understand how they'd feel upset.

Now here's where SPI comes in: people are saying that all of these accounts are by the same person. None of them have come to SPI since if they are the same person then there's no reason why they can't sign up with a new username. However I also don't like that many are automatically assuming that they're the same person after I've repeatedly stated that I've personally approached the Temple, so there's a good possibility that they aren't the same person. There's the possibility that they know one another, but we can't automatically say that.

What I'm wondering is if I should open up an SPI just to check and see if all three are the same person or not. If they aren't, then that is something that could potentially change things at ANI. If they are, then that wouldn't change much now other than how I approach things. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:21, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes and please make sure to request CU. I will endorse it if another clerk doesn't get to it before I do tomorrow. Headed for bed soon.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 06:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Good to get the endorsement. I figure that at least this way we'll know for certain one way or another. I've been figuring that it's possible that it is different people and if this is the case, it'd be good to know this. If it isn't, then I'll have to adjust the way I do things - mostly to tell the person that they can open new accounts, they just have to be transparent. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Lost

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheEditor1985 seems to have fallen through the cracks. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:58, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

{{Possilikely}} up for deletion

I would like to inform that the template {{Possilikely}} is up for deletion. Since this template appears to be extensively used for SPI, I have decided to notify here. --TL22 (talk) 21:47, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Seeking advice before acting

This is my first time here, so I would like some advice regarding what I have observed before I make any concrete allegations. A real person's name is involved, so for now please allow me to use aliases instead of the actual usernames.

A user has had at least three accounts blocked for sockpuppetry, the most recent being user "Cowboy" in October following an investigation. A few months earlier they created a draft in their userspace about an "entrepreneur", who I will call John Smith. John is supposedly notable for creating a website. On the day that Cowboy was blocked, they created a separate (but similar) biography for John in the Draft space.

In mid-November a new account was created, named "Smith.John77" After some useful edits, this account created a draft article for the entrepreneur's website on their second day, and rewrote John's biography on their third day. The draft has been rejected a few times but they continue to tinker with it.

Smith.John77 came to my attention by adding several external links to John's website. I recognize this is also a COI problem, because the new user is probably either John or someone close to him. But there is also the problem with the previous user being blocked for sockpuppetry. The sockmaster was originally blocked for also trying to push an article about John into the mainspace.

My question is that, given the current sockpuppet uses John's real name, what is the appropriate course of action for me to take to avoid unnecessary outing? All advice is welcome. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:53, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

@Athomeinkobe: The appropriate step is to open a SPI as explained at WP:SPI (the box that says "How to open an investigation"). It is not "outing" if you say someone's Wikipedia username. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:27, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
(ec) If someone has used their real name as their account name then simply mentioning that does not constitute an outing. Links to some of the above would help. Having a COIN investigator such as Brianhe look into it may also help shore up the evidence.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:34, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Keep an eye out

Hey, just giving a head's up because I get a feeling that there might be some socking in the future. Recently I came across Kazmandu2, who came across as a pretty obvious paid editor. They denied it when I outright asked them, but there was just so. much. evidence. that I ended up blocking them for advertising and for operating a compromised account, since they referred to themselves as "we". I think that they're likely editing on behalf of Rockstar Marketing given the spammy draft article they wrote for the company and an image they uploaded to the Commons, and their editing style shows that they're somewhat familiar with Wikipedia. I just get the feeling that they'll likely be back under new accounts. I've nothing to back this up, just that the type of paid editors that try to hide their affiliation are usually the ones that do this sort of thing. Just sort of spreading this around so others are aware, since that way there will be more eyes out there for articles like the ones this editor made. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Not sure whose sock this is...

Recently I came across Doublelife123, who created several hoax pages for the shows Double Life (TV series) and Ally, Jessie and Teddy. They also tried to insert this into other articles with this edit. There have been several sockpuppeteers that have tried to create fake Disney related pages and the ones that stand out the most are Bambifan101~enwiki, Caidin-Johnson, and KuhnstylePro. I'm just not sure whose it is, however. The editor seems fairly familiar with editing so they're likely someone's sock but I can't put my finger on who. Any ideas? The user has been blocked, mostly this is just to ensure that I tag them with the right person. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't know who the master is, but I've also blocked Superkidz123 (talk · contribs), Superkidzt.v.series (talk · contribs), LucasandLola (talk · contribs) and Doublelife (talk · contribs) as  Confirmed socks of the same user.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

What to do with this one?

this editor admits to the account being a sock. But no clue who the master is, and no statement that they contacted ArbCom and put a request for a legitimate undisclosed account to them. Absent a known master account, not sure what to do here. The editor is clearly in a COI situation (see contribs) and it's definitely a single-purpose account. Thoughts? Montanabw(talk) 22:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

  • His claims that his alternate account is legitimate per the privacy point of WP:SOCK#LEGIT doesn't seem to be in bad faith. COI and SPA don't mean that they are violating sockpuppetry policies. In fact, if they have a COI in a topic and wish to edit it they must disclose said COI, and for privacy reasons might prefer that disclosure to remain separate from their main account. I don't immediately see a violation of sockpuppetry policy. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:45, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Notice to participants at this page about adminship

Many participants here are core editors, understand the problems faced at Wikipedia, know policy well, and much more. Well, these are just some of the considerations at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and maybe even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:15, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Documentation issue suggestion

Please comment there on this Documentation issue suggestion.--Elvey(t•c) 16:18, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Template where there's been no CU

I've done a CU today tracking an IP that had sent someone a password reset message, and determined that 3 accounts, 2 already blocked, are related. There was no SPI case (although it was pretty obvious from the edits). I was going to tag the puppetmaster but {{sockpuppeteer|blocked|checked=yes|spipage=CASENAME}} needs a casename. Any suggestions? Doug Weller talk 12:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: No, actually "spipage" parameter is optional, does not need to be filled. {{sockpuppeteer|blocked|checked=yes}} works fine. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:47, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Great, thanks. Doug Weller talk 13:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

There is a user (Dontmakemetypepasswordagain) who appears to be pushing a racist POV

Dontmakemetypepasswordagain appears to be extremely fluent in wikispeak for a new user with apx. 100 edits and is pushing that POV that "It was a mass sex assault of white women by Arab/North African men". I don't have time to fill out the paper work for this investigation but if anyone else would like to look into this all the evidence you need is on the article and talk pages of New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 17:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

He is very suspicious, I agree. His first edit was to create empty user page for himself, so that his username is not a red link (usual for those who want to appear like experienced users). Maybe a checkuser can check him? Pinging DoRD and Bbb23. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:50, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
I had a look, but it didn't reveal anything useful. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:49, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Check requested

Can a CU please check Idkanymoreplshelp? He is a vandal who is behaviourally the exact same asPussy123321. 96.237.20.21 (talk) 21:59, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

The account is already blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:39, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

question

Someone recently filed an SPI on me (lol). I commented there. Now both the SPI and my comments and the filer's comments have disappeared. Not "disappeared" as in have been rev-deleted but just... no record of it as if it had never happened. I don't really care but I just wanted someone to explain this to me.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:52, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: To explain you what exactly? If you would like to know why the page was deleted, you should ask the deleting admin. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm just asking what the procedure/reason is. I can't ask the "deleting admin" because I have no idea who that is and the reason I have no idea who that is is because there's no record of the SPI page or any comments made there. They're not even in my editing history which is strange. Not just striked out in my edit history, they're just not there as if I had dreamed the whole thing.
I don't care about the SPI (it was against me, and aside from the entertainment value, I don't care if it disappears), I'm just wondering what the general procedures here are.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:57, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Here's the link Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Volunteer Marek. Click on it. Poeticbent talk 19:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. That makes sense.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:57, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Elusive sock

I was wondering how to deal with a situation in which a persistent sock continues to re-create articles by making adjustments in the article title to defeat detection. How does one keep watch for such efforts? If I have Core TheApple watchlisted and it is deleted, if it is re-created as Core The Apple it is not going to appear on my watchlist. Coretheapple (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

The only solution that comes to me at the moment would be to have the page title added to an edit filter and then to monitor the filter log. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps. I notice that a couple of users have zeroed in on one particular sock very quickly, and am not sure how they do it. I've asked em to email me to discuss it, but so far no takers. Coretheapple (talk) 14:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Suspected socks

Can they please be unblocked? They haven't been confirmed of performing sockpuppetry. --Bazaan (talk) 11:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Which accounts are you referring to, these? ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, of course. Even if technical data matches, it doesn't prove they committed sock puppetry.--Bazaan (talk) 00:25, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, the block on the IP address expired a long time ago, so no unblock is possible, and the technical data on the account was enough for the CheckUser at the time to determine that it was "extremely  Likely" to be a sockpuppet. If the CU was somehow mistaken, the user is free to file an unblock request for themselves. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 01:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Can't sort by date?

It seems the SPI case table can't be sorted by date, by any of the three date columns. Is that deliberate? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: I can sort it by any of the three columns. It works fine for me. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:56, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, I can't sort by timestamp, either using Firefox or Safari, but it works with Chrome. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:04, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Hrm, I'm on Firefox. I'll have to try later with Chrome, don't have it on this computer. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Confirmed: doesn't work in Firefox on Win7, Win10 or Ubuntu, works fine in Chrome on Win10. I'll ask at WP:VPT. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:24, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
It certainly /used/ to work in Firefox, but not anymore. Has the table sorting javascript been changed?
If you can figure out a workaround or a different format to emit the timestamps that works then let me know please.
Amalthea 22:21, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Check an IP?

I dunno if it's worth opening a new SPI just for an IP, but we recently had an IP request restoration of Arjun Prabhakaran at REFUND. The article was created by Aparna tutu, so it's possible that it's him evading a block. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

@Tokyogirl79: Is that the IP listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aparna tutu? Vanjagenije (talk) 22:19, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
If it's an actor in 32aam adhyayam 23aam vaakyam, it may well be Aparna tutu. GABHello! 22:54, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Category creation

Hey guys. I've just created around 700 sockpuppet categories which appeared on a query I ran (although I wasn't really looking for sock categories!), typically they are missing categories from a pair of suspect/confirmed where the other one exists, so there should be a few more useful blue links for you. There was one where creation was blocked - I don't suppose someone could salve my OCD and create Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of AMILTON DE CRISTO with a {{sockpuppet category}} for me please? TIA Le Deluge (talk) 19:19, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

  • @Le Deluge:  Done Steel1943 (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
  • @Le Deluge: I have no comment on the massive number of automated edits you did creating non-sock puppet categories, but you should not have created categories for confirmed or suspected puppets. When an account is tagged, it goes into the category, which remains red-linked. That's standard practice. There's no necessity or even wish to have them transformed into blue links, even if for some reason the "other" category is blue-linked. I deleted one you created per G6, but obviously I'm not going to go through your contribution list and find all the others. Too much effort. Just don't do it again please.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:29, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
I've created a few of these categories before. Why are they unwanted? Isn't it useful if you want to look through Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets to see if a sockpuppeter is already included and what their previous sockpuppets were? I'm not a fan of automatic editing (outside of Twinkle) but I don't see how creating these categories is a bad thing. Liz Read! Talk! 20:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
  • @Bbb23: I'm sorry about that. Perhaps you could point me to where discussions on this kind of thing take place, so that I can find out what the consensus is on this kind of issue before I accidentally contravene that consensus? I've been waiting to see {{sockpuppet category}} at TfD, because it only exists to populate sock categories, so if such categories are against consensus then surely that template has to go? And don't worry about looking through my contribution list, you'll find 15,000 candidates conveniently listed at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets - if one is subject to G6, then they all are? Le Deluge (talk) 18:21, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

SPI case not appearing on case list

Last night, I opened a sockpuppet investigations case here. However, the bot still hasn't added it to list of cases. Supposedly, the bot thinks that it is malformed, but I don't see how that could be possible since I created the report using Twinkle and followed every step. Can anyone figure out why this is happening? --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 00:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@A guy saved by Jesus: I see it on the list. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:45, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
I see it now too. I thought it still wasn't there since it's still listed on the malformed cases page. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 00:51, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Clearing an alleged sock?

Per this close [5]

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi has decided that these two IPs are socks (of an acknowledged sockmaster) and is bulk-reverting their valid edits, citing WP:DENY. This is on no evidence whatsoever. IPs of 112.* annd 115.* are far from "close". To avoid yet more edit-warring, there needs to be some recognition that these are not socks. Surely SPI (where the CUs are) is the appropriate platform to clear this up? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Andy Dingley. During the course of acquiring your 100,000 edits did you never realise that they rarely (if ever) perform CUs on IPs as sucks of accounts, for reasons of OUTING? May I also suggest that, as an exercise in precision, you rephrase your statement more accurately: "that Fortuna reverted the IP once fifteen hours ago [from when you posted], and never since." In any case, WP:AN3 is right over there. Cheers, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 11:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
I love the way you make a contributions history sound like an insult.
The 115.* editor from Singapore has been recognised by SPI as a likely sock of Profile101. The 112.* editor from Hong Kong has not been claimed as a sock by SPI, or by anyone other than yourself (which you chose to do, quite remarkably, by quoting a virulently anti-Asian expression popularised in the Vietnam war). Yet you have chosen to bulk revert them.
The difference between these accounts is what I'm looking for SPI to settle, so that even you can see it. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Help needed

I opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/79.78.168.63, but it is misformed. Can somebody please fix the page. Debresser (talk) 09:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

@Debresser: There is an extra square bracket near "which was previously [quoted". Simply remove it to fix it - probably easier if you fix it yourself. -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Done. Thank you. Not good that the template is so easily broken. Debresser (talk) 11:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Contacting checkuser team by email

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations refers to "email[ing] the CheckUser team" in cases where private information is involved, but it gives no instruction for how to do so. What email address can be used to contact the checkuser team? -- Rrburke (talk) 18:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

You can send an email to functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org. Mike V • Talk 18:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Hist-merge versus copy-paste

How should reports which get filed under the wrong master be handled? I'm getting mixed messages on this from Vanjagenije so would like some clarification. Vanjagenije has told me that for cases like this, where the report is misfiled under a master for which no casefile previously existed, that the report should be hist-merged and not copy-pasted to the correct master for proper archiving. However, for cases like this, where the report is misfiled under a master for which a casefile did previously exist, Vanjagenije has said that the report should be copy-pasted and not hist-merged to the correct master for proper archiving. Fundamentally, these are the same situation (edits to one page that belong on another) so I can't see the logic in this argument. If it's deemed worthwhile to hist-merge to the correct master, then why only do it in some cases and not others? TDL (talk) 00:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Because we're not talking about encyclopedic contributions, histmerging and copypasting are mostly the same thing -- moving a report from a title to another. Especially when there are only one or two revisions by the report filer. I personally prefer histmerging whenever possible (especially with reports that have had more contributors), but I don't think there is anything wrong with copypasting either. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Something weird

Hey guys, I can't help but post this. There's something really, REALLY weird going on with this AfD.

Here's a bit of history:

This article was created by Nassrinmirsadeghi. It was nominated for speedy deletion, which was turned into a PROD by‎ Safiel. (Safiel, I'm pinging you in this because you opened the AfD. Please don't mention this elsewhere just yet since I'm still looking for evidence.) This PROD was removed by Atlantic306 with the rationale that it "passes GNG". Now at AfD there was an argument for retention by Matt14451 with just the rationale "Do not delete".

Now what is odd about this is that these are all edits coming from people who are, as far as I can tell, uninvolved with one another and certainly otherwise uninvolved with Nassrinmirsadeghi since his only edits were to create this page and make a minor edit on his userpage. Matt14451 and Atlantic306 both started editing in 2015 and while I haven't done an exceptionally deep search of their edits, I don't see anything that outwardly screams that they're socking or meating. They both edit music and movie related topics, but so far I haven't seen an article that they've both been involved with. Both seem to know Wikipedia policy, although they do have some problems with justifying inclusion per Matt's keep argument at the film AfD.

My offhand thought is that this probably isn't sockpuppetry, rather a case of meatpuppetry or possibly paid editing. There's just something about this that is just doesn't feel kosher, like it's some sort of organized effort to keep pages on Wikipedia. It's not enough to open an SPI just yet, especially since I'm unsure if it's socking or meating, but this sort of coordinated editing just feels off somehow. Anyone else got some input at this? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

@Tokyogirl79: They have one article in common: Cameron Ocasio (see: [6]). Here, Matt14451 was the one to remove PROD tag [7], and Atlantic306 was the one to vote "keep" in the AFD [8] (opposite from the case you mentioned). It's surely weird. I'm calling CUs to help: Checkuser needed. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't see any technical evidence directly linking these accounts to each other.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Looks like there's really not much to go with other than it just feeling really off. At least we know to watch them for a while then. To make matters stranger, Matt argued for inclusion at the movie AfD, yet his justification is for deletion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

spihelper.js

You might have noticed that it isn't working anymore. It seems now you have to fetch it as raw. 

mw.loader.load('//en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User%3ATimotheus_Canens%2Fspihelper.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript'); //[[User:Timotheus Canens/spihelper.js]]

--QEDK (T ☕ C) 13:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Also: Template talk:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations --QEDK (T ☕ C) 18:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Categorizing cases

I just noticed that SPI cases are categorized while they are open but once they are closed and archived, all categories are removed. This makes old cases difficult to search for and the only tool is the search field on the main page which I haven't had much success with. Is there a reason why categories are not used? Liz Read! Talk! 01:42, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Process question

How do I add new IP addresses and/or usernames to old sock puppet investigations, or do I have to create a new process? For example, banned editor Mouse001 was found to be a using ICat Master per this archived investigation. Subsequently, I have discovered the same editor likely has used this IP and is almost certainly currently using this IP. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

You should start a new investigation below the archive notice at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mouse001. After the investigation is completed it will be added to the archive. Twinkle can do it automatically if you're familiar with using that tool. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't believe the report will transclude correctly if it's just tacked on to the archive. You need to go to WP:SPI and click "show" next to "How to open an investigation". Put the suspected sockmaster's name (i.e. Mouse001) in the box and click "submit" then follow the instructions that appear.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for that. I have done what you suggested. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit the instructions for opening an SPI?

Hello all- Anyone know how to edit the instructions under "How to open an investigation"? I think the wording could use a couple tweaks. My suggested changes are below, replacing the strikethrough text with the black bold text:

For example, if the case name is about User:John Doe or a prior case was at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/John Doe, then you should input enter John Doe in the box below.

You will then be taken to another a new investigation/case page containing a form which you must complete in order to open the investigation. The process for opening an investigation is the same for re-opening an old case (that is to say, if a case under that name already exists) as for creating a new case. Again, do not include "User:" in any of the sock or ip fields.

If you also require a CheckUser to investigate, change checkuser=no to checkuser=yes in the edit box on the next investigation/case page.

Eric talk 20:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppets of US political consultants

Hi SPI Team,

I don’t know your usual procedure--I realize it may not be linear--but I wanted to ask about Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lesbianadvocate being passed over in the queue this week. This case potentially involves six years of high-profile politician biographies (US senators and representatives, as well as their opponents) being rewritten right before elections by paid political consultants, and propaganda about major ongoing court cases being inserted into articles. When other users and I first put this evidence together, I assumed site administrators would be very interested, but so far I’m not sure we’ve managed to get an administrator to even comment in any forum--much less any action taken against the likely sock puppets or clean-up on the articles they altered for their clients. I’m a little surprised that Wikipedia doesn’t take this sort of thing more seriously.

Would it be possible for someone here to take a look and offer guidance? If the evidence isn’t yet sufficient to get an administrator’s attention, or if there's a problem with format or another issue, would it be possible for someone to indicate what more we should provide?

Whether you have a chance to take a look or not, thanks everybody for volunteering your time here, and the great resource you provide. Glad to be working with you,

Ellen

-- EllenMcGill (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Notification, next steps

Hi folks. Longtime listener, first time caller. I'm curious if notification is required when filing an SPI. I didn't see it listed in the instructions and I wasn't sure if there was another policy/instruction page I might've missed. Also once I create the page, is that it or are there other steps to list the investigation? Thanks. Protonk (talk) 13:43, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I always notify users as a matter of courtesy. Dunno if it is required. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, probably should anyway.  Done Protonk (talk) 15:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  • @Protonk: Notifying is not required and in many cases is not even recommended per WP:beans. When you create the SPI report, it is automatically listed at WP:SPI by the bot, you don't need to do anything more than that. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Well, shoot. :| On the plus side, the user has already been told by a few editors about the pretty obvious relationship. Could you add a note like that to the filing instructions? I defaulted to 'no', but didn't feel strongly as to why, as you can see. Thanks. Protonk (talk) 15:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

How to refile a simplified case?

Ellen being a bonehead

A site administrator finally informed us that there was too much discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lesbianadvocate for anyone here to be willing to look at the case. I've deleted almost all the text there to try to simplify things. Could someone look and let me know if it now meets your required format?

For what it's worth, this seems like it should be an important case--six years or more of paid political consultants using sock puppets to rewrite the biographies of US politicians during election season. I continue to be surprised how openly contemptuous Wikipedia's administration is of our requests for help. -- EllenMcGill (talk) 01:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, never mind. Now I've been told both that no one will look at our case as long as too much text is there, but that we're not allowed to delete any of that text. What's the normal way to proceed in this case? After we re-file, is there a way to block other users from adding evidence and comments to the page to make sure it doesn't get too long again? Any guidance would be greatly appreciated! Thanks very much, Ellen -- EllenMcGill (talk) 01:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
You are a very new editor. You are distorting some of my comments. Your so-called contempt is misplaced and not atypical of a new, overly zealous user. I think you should step back and allow other more experienced editors to deal with this case. In any event, the case will not be refiled with the sole purpose of simplifying it.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
I apologize if I've misunderstood you, and have redacted my comments accordingly. I certainly don't mean to give offense. But I'm sure you can understand how, as somebody who's been struggling with this for a while--it took me two weeks to figure this out and get other editors involved at all--it's very frustrating to have an administrator suggest that our case won't even be read or considered, and to offer no suggestions about how to fix it.
The sockpuppeting is obvious and easy to prove, and it seems a shame that this may be derailed on procedural technicalities. All someone from the SPI team would have to do would be to read the few short paragraphs posted by Brianhe right at the top... it's probably less than 150 words. The four accounts he lists (two active, two stale) edit the same obscure articles to push the same POV, use each other's sandbox drafts, upload each other's photos, and use the same edit summaries; one of the accounts is already banned from the German Wikipedia for sockpuppeting. I don't know how these investigations usually go, but it's hard to see how it could be more evidence short of a user actually posting "I am a sock puppet of Account X."
I've collapsed as much text as I could in the rest--is this now in a format you or another SPI team member would be willing to look at? Let me know if there's anything else I can do to help, but I will otherwise refrain from following the case any further at your request. Thanks for your time. -- EllenMcGill (talk) 15:16, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

User on tyres

Hi. I was working through the pages-moved-by-a-new-user log, when I noticed that several user pages were moved in a similar fashion: User:Name to User:Name on tyres. So far, all the page movers have been blocked, either as vandalism-only accounts or for socking. I was wondering if there's a specific SPI related to this? - HyperGaruda (talk) 20:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Based on my own knowledge, I would guess Starship9000, Vote (X) for Change, or Willy on Wheels. Pinging Ponyo, who most likely knows. GABHello! 22:41, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
No clue. The "tyres" makes the obvious "wheels" reference, but that could just as likely be a red-herring or a wanna-be. If you see them again I would just report them to AIV as an obvious vandal.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:40, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
magic eight ball The CheckUser Magic 8-Ball says: It's probably Ss9K. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 00:09, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Eh, it was a lucky guess on my part. There are a lot of trolls out there. GABHello! 00:23, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Purge

Just a suggestion, but maybe there should be a purge button on the main page as the list doesn't update without a purge for me. --TJH2018talk 15:34, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

@TJH2018: There is a purge button at the top. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:39, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Possible socking?

Long story short, the editors Aieroel and Monsieurdan were trying to add or edit articles on Solidiance and one of its leaders, Damien Duhamel to Wikipedia and Aieroel tried to add PR pieces by the company to a few articles. The first account was clearly warned about editing with a COI, puffery, and posting copyright violations, which looks to have been ignored since they continued to try to add copyvio and puffery in various pages.

The two accounts appear to be working in tandem and I don't know if this is a case of sockpuppetry or not. My gut reaction is telling me that this is likely meatpuppetry and that the two know one another, but aren't the same person. Can anyone run a quick check on these guys just to make sure? I'm blocking both so it's somewhat of a moot point but I just wanted to make sure since there's such a strong connection. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:48, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

MeinFuhrer sock

Whose sock is TruckFump (talk · contribs)? The edit summaries are familiar. Doug Weller talk 09:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Either Fuhrer Trump (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fuhrer Trump/Archive) or Kingshowman (see User:HeilTrump). Vanjagenije (talk) 09:41, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
@Vanjagenije: Or an active unblocked user. This is confirmed as FuhCallYall (talk · contribs), TrumpTakesADump (talk · contribs), and UncleTomCarson (talk · contribs). And an active user who doesn't edit in the area. Hm. Doug Weller talk 10:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Good-hand, bad-hand? GABHello! 01:25, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruption_by_TrumpErmNo_et_al.

Bear with me on this one. I don't really do the SPI thing.

There's a lot of fishyness going on with the subject of the linked ANI thread (posted by me, full dis). I strongly suspect that the user is continuing to edit under the listed IP, in circumvention of a user name ban. I somewhat suspect that they are a previously banned user.

I don't really know what kindof WP secret squirrel tools are at your disposal, but if someone could look into it more than my amateurish fumbling around that would be much appreciated. At least prove me wrong and let's close the thread. TimothyJosephWood 18:23, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

SPI is not functioning at all

I posted a problem to WP:AN#SPI is not functioning at all―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Requested Merger

moved from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tikeem cumberbatch uttp tcgp own Ivanvector 🍁 (talk)

I don't know whether this is the right way to request this, but could Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Madam queefnuggets and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fart nutz both be merged into this case? The accounts listed on those pages are clearly Tikeem Cumberbatch socks. Passengerpigeon (talk) 02:45, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@Passengerpigeon: I moved your request here. I think probably it's best not to merge these cases, per WP:BEANS, but someone with more experience may wish to correct me. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Wondering whether or not to open an SPI

I wonder if I should file an SPI on something I stumbled across, which does not appear to be malicious. This article was submitted for GA review on 23 March 2016, and is still there. All edits occcurred in March 2016, and all accounts began that month: six redlink editors, and one newly created account (DakaotaSage94). One of the redlink editors nominated it at GA. There does not appear to be malicious intent on this article, but is this a situation where an SPI should be filed? — Maile (talk) 18:30, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

@Maile66: Feel free to open a case. Don't forget to use the oldest account as the master and to explain everything and provide evidence. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Given how much the accounts' edits overlap time-wise, it's almost certainly a case of meatpuppets, not socks. In any case, if there is no disruption or anything else violating WP:ILLEGIT, I wouldn't bother with a case. ansh666 21:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Rename SPI from Persian?

Is it worth renaming a repeat-sock SPI with a Persian master username into an anglicised version, or to the name of a later sock, for ease of reporting by editors who don't read Persian? Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/جواد رمضانی شوراب seems to be a regular vandal, and the Arabic-text username is slightly awkward to copypaste and to refer to in conversation. Google Translate converts it to "Javad Ramezani brine" ("Javad Ramezani" is the sock's bio subject of choice), and the oldest Latin-text sock (only two of the 100+ socks have used a Persian name) is User:Be yad asatid. --McGeddon (talk) 20:22, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

@McGeddon: I don't thinks it's such a big problem to copy-paste. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
The thing there is that it drags from right-to-left instead of left-to-right when you select it - I've almost filed one SPI report against a non-existent user by missing off a character because of this (and not realising because I don't read Persian; "Javad Ramezan" would be an obvious typo if I'd just checked an SPI about Ramezani, "جواد رمضانی شورا" is not). --McGeddon (talk) 07:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Bbb23 made this comment at an SPI case opened by User: Brianhe and on which User: Lemongirl942 commented. Bbb23 it seems to me you are expressing some things you have been reflecting on/struggling with, and I want to be sure that I and other folks who work on paid editing/COI hear you. I am not completely clear on what you want to say and it seems that you are working your way toward something. If you and other CUs/admins who work SPI would like to say more, I would like to hear it. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Stumbled upon invalid SPI

Hi all, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/204.82.203.59 will ever get actioned - should it not be closed? -- samtar talk or stalk 08:23, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

@Samtar: That is because the case is malformed and misses the {{SPI case status}} template. We have a bot that should report such cases at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Malformed Cases Report, but it obviously missed this one. @Fastily: Can you take a look? Vanjagenije (talk) 08:40, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
The bot has a filter that only flags SPI reports where both {{SPI case status}} and {{SPIarchive notice}} are missing. I'll tweak the filter so that SPI reports missing either {{SPI case status}} or {{SPIarchive notice}} will be flagged. -FASTILY 09:33, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
@Vanjagenije: I've been testing the updated filter and have found it to be netting a ton of false positives. Since archived SPI reports do not transclude {{SPI case status}}, the updated filter (which flags reports missing either {{SPI case status}} or {{SPIarchive notice}}) is erroneously returning many archived SPI reports. That said, I do not think there is a good way for my simple API bot to accurately identify the small number of pages missing {{SPI case status}}, but correctly transcluding {{SPIarchive notice}}, without consuming an excessive amount of WMF server resources :/ -FASTILY 05:58, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
@Fastily: Yes, I understand. But, can you make it like this: the bot reports pages that are (a) missing both {{SPI case status}} and {{SPIarchive notice}} (like before) and (b) pages missing the {{SPI case status}} template, but having the {{checkuser}} or {{checkip}} template. If the page is properly formated, but is only missing the {{SPI case status}} template, than it has to have at least one {{checkuser}} or {{checkip}} template. Archived cases do not have those templates. Vanjagenije (talk) 08:51, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
@Vanjagenije: I don't think that will work either, since {{SPIarchive notice}} also transcludes {{Checkuser}}. Just tried it out, and (b) filter as described found many false-positives -FASTILY 10:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
@Fastily: YEs, you are right. I have no more ideas . Vanjagenije (talk) 14:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
No worries, thanks for trying :) I'll let you know if I can think of a better solution in the meantime! -FASTILY 03:34, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
We can put a hidden tracking template in {{SPI report}}, possibly removed on archival. Of course, that just begs the question of "what if the hidden template isn't there either?" T. Canens (talk) 14:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Accessibility

Why are you using an empty description list for the words "Suspected sockpuppets"? It not only causes inconvenience for screen readers, but creates invalid html. There's guidance at WP:BADHEAD about avoiding pseudo-headings, and I can't see any reason why "Suspected sockpuppets" isn't marked up as a level 4 heading, the same as the other headings in the section. It is, after all, a section heading. --RexxS (talk) 13:37, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Historical reasons, I think, but I'm not really feeling like doing archaeology right now. I know of nothing that depends on it, so  Fixed. T. Canens (talk) 14:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Many thanks. The template is substituted, so I'll just amend existing ones when I happen to read them. --RexxS (talk) 14:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC) Post script --RexxS (talk) 14:59, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Editnotice edit request

I don't know how to do it and I don't think I can do it myself anyway, but can someone add the {{selfendorse}} template to the list of clerk actions in the SPI editnotice? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:53, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done Mike V • Talk 14:13, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Technical help needed

I need someone to edit {{SPIarchive notice}} template. It transludes the {{Checkuser}} template ({{Checkuser|1={{{1}}}|master=yes}}). But, we use {{Checkuser}} template for accounts, while for the anonymous IPs, we use {{Checkip}} template. Can we edit {{SPIarchive notice}} so that it transcludes {{Checkuser}} for accounts and {{Checkuser}} for IPs? Currently, it transcludes {{Checkuser}} in all cases. That creates problems. See this example: different template is used for the master and for the sockpuppets although they are all IPs. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

  • When checkip is used and I click on SPI block, there is no default time period for the block, whereas when checkuser is used, the default is indefinite. I don't want the checkip default to change to indefinite as I might inadvertently block an IP indefinitely.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I started looking at them and think a merge (or at least making them more similar) is reasonable. Here are some thoughts:
  1. The deleted-edits link only appears for named users, not IPs, but IP edits are generally useful for admins who are not CU to build cases or correlate new abuse.
  2. The cross-wiki-contributions link only appears to IPs, not named users, but this is another tool I find useful for tracking several different patterns of abuse (especially en.wp<->commons).
  3. {{Checkuser}} has a "SUL" link to the local Special:CentralAuth and "CA" to the CentralAuth on meta. I tried a few examples of accounts that have various types of special bits or blocks, and it seems like the local one is never more than a subset of the information on meta. Is the unified-login migration complete, or do we still need a separate local lookup?
  4. The block times are different ({{ec}}:) I agree with this difference, but don't want to lose track of it.
By the by...holy crap, do we have a lot of similar lists of links! DMacks (talk) 20:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Module:IPAddress has functions to determine whether a string is an IP or not. DMacks (talk) 21:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
    • @DMacks: Can we merge the two templates into one, but keep the default blocking time different (plus, of course, "WHOIS" link for the IPs)? Vanjagenije (talk) 21:37, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
      • Certainly! Any item could be made to appear on one, the other, or both modes. As a start, {{checkuser}} could hand off to {{checkIP}} if the parameter is actually an IP (wrapper around that alternative). But for the longer term idea of actual unification, I'm just trying to make sure we know what all the differences are (and whether they really should be different:). DMacks (talk) 22:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
        • {{checkip}}'s internals have unconverted copypaste from {{checkuser}}...using "Example" rather than "127.0.0.1" as some defaults:) And some parts also allow specifying the target as named |User= while others only use positional. What a mess! Will do some overhauling, but real life might be pretty busy until mid next week. DMacks (talk) 06:12, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
I've noticed something else. When the "tag" link is clicked in either {{checkuser}} or {{checkip}}, it just opens user's user page for editing. Can we change it so that when it's clicked, the user page opens for editing and all the content is replaces with {{sock}} tag without parameters, so that we just add parameters? That would really be "tagging". Vanjagenije (talk) 08:41, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Possibly. Real life has settled down for the next week or two. First I'll work on merging/unifying, then we can think about other changes. I'm in the process of clearing out all cases where these templates are called with no params, presumably expecting some default for demonstration purposes. Well that's pretty confusing if one template has quite different behaviors depending on the nature of the parameter... DMacks (talk) 05:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

@Vanjagenije and DMacks: I just want to make sure that the templates aren't made to be overly complex, as some cases (Orangemoody/Archive comes to mind) end up with dozens of instances of Template:Checkuser, and we don't want to run afoul the transclusion limit. I'm not sure if this is even a factor, to be honest, but it's something to keep in mind. Thanks ​—DoRD (talk)​ 10:07, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Roger. That SPI case doesn't appear to be pushing Wikipedia:Template limits:
NewPP limit report
Parsed by mw1305
Cached time: 20160707061817
Cache expiry: 2592000
Dynamic content: false
CPU time usage: 2.940 seconds
Real time usage: 4.315 seconds
Preprocessor visited node count: 51563/1000000
Preprocessor generated node count: 0/1500000
Post‐expand include size: 1452392/2097152 bytes
Template argument size: 85402/2097152 bytes
Highest expansion depth: 9/40
Expensive parser function count: 5/500
Lua time usage: 0.205/10.000 seconds
Lua memory usage: 7.23 MB/50 MB
Number of Wikibase entities loaded: 0

Transclusion expansion time report (%,ms,calls,template)
100.00% 1314.665      1 - -total
 58.40%  767.814    459 - Template:Checkuser
 23.25%  305.602      2 - Template:CollapsedShell
  8.98%  118.051      2 - Template:Reflist
  7.32%   96.297     23 - Template:Cite_web
  6.33%   83.220   4608 - Template:Middot
  4.99%   65.578      2 - Template:Infobox_company
  4.82%   63.393      2 - Template:Ambox
  4.03%   52.943     21 - Template:User2
  3.83%   50.357      2 - Template:Infobox
(ca. 459 socks!) but definitely the more I can actually unify in a main template instead of wrapping subtemplates, the better. One of the reasons I want to clarify what's special about each mode is to try to keep all the mode-specific links adjacent to each other so we'd only need a single #if comparison. DMacks (talk) 19:31, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Alternate implementation

I'll mention {{IPvandal}} and {{vandal}} as examples that are implemented as wrappers around the generic {{User-multi}}, where that generic one is a togglable set of links chosen by the wrapper. Let's see here:

{{checkIP|127.0.0.1}} 127.0.0.1 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
{{IPvandal|127.0.0.1}} 127.0.0.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
{{checkuser|Example}} Example (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
{{vandal|Example}} Example (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There are a few links in the "check..." that are not in the "...vandal": the "+" of the "talk" (for starting a new section on the talkpage), "tag", cross-wiki/centralauth stuff, and CU things that aren't available in User-multi. Probably easy enough to implement them, as a future project. Note that User-multi only supports its predefined set of items, no way to pass in arbitrary special ones from wrappers. DMacks (talk) 05:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

...but the underlying module is in lua, so it doesn't have as many parser-function expenses for its internal logic (vs #if and friends). Essentially we'd be avoiding some template work at the expense of a lua call. I think that's not a net loss? But minimizing any logic is still better:) DMacks (talk) 19:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

No Clerks?

Is there anyone actively clerking SPI at the moment? The backlog of checked cases awaiting review is significant.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:35, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I'll e-mail you.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
I've been away for a few weeks due to a significant move and crappy internet service, but I'll see if I can help with the backlog tonight or tomorrow. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
It's getting desperate enough I may be willing to chip in for a faster internet service for you! Does you provider accept Bitcoin?--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:28, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
I am very busy and will be busy in the next few weeks too. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Vanja, you are a Wikipedia treasure. Do what you need to off-wiki, but please do come back soon!--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:08, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I've taken some time (on my employer's dime, no less!) to clerk the oldest cases that were in the "checked" status. Tomorrow is shaping up to be a very slow day at work so I expect to be able to pitch in some more. Sorry if I regularly haven't been pulling my fair share of the weight and Vanja, you've more than earned a break from this shit. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:30, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Cheers for that Salv.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:40, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Silly idea, but a bit more clerks and checkusers would help in my opinion... The Banner talk 22:42, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
There is no Checkuser backlog; having more Checkusers would not make any difference to the current state of SPI. Clerk training takes time and has an extremely high attrition rate. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Clerks are too busy to clerk, so they're even more "too busy" to train new clerks properly, making this a seemingly endless cycle of playing catch-up. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:19, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
@Bbb23: Do you know when there will be another clerk training? — Music1201 talk 06:01, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
None is scheduled, and I doubt a training similar to the scale of the previous one will be conducted. Whether we will hold group trainings on a smaller scale or take on individuals on our own or both, I don't know.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:54, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Some of the "checked" cases don't necessarily require a clerk action but just admin action to take it to a "close" status so if a few more admins step in then the clerk workload can be reduced too, unless I'm doing something that I shouldn't be doing. —SpacemanSpiff 12:33, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm starting a new job soon. Hopefully when I'm settled in and life calms down, I can get back to active clerking. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm starting to pick away at the backlog but I'm still quite busy IRL, and my internet is still *expletive*somewhat unreliable. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

A question

What's the appropriate response to a blocked editor socking in order to non-disruptively edit their own user space? Specifically, I'm curious about how to respond to this. On one hand, it is technically evasion, on the other, it seems harmless enough, so I'd like someone else's opinion on this. Thanks. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

  • In my opinion, the page you linked to is absolutely block evasion. A blocked editor is limited to editing in their own userspace in the interest of addressing their block, i.e. blocked editors may constructively appeal their block, but they may not contribute to the encyclopedia at all. This editor is clearly sandboxing a page which they intend to move to mainspace (WP:FAKEARTICLE), which is something blocked editors are not allowed to do, and if they did do it (aside from block evasion) they would break attribution rules. I'm not an administrator, but can I recommend blanking and semiprotecting the page? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations/Archive_17&oldid=1159114471"