Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 s/Archive1 s/Archive2 s/Archive3 s/Archive4 s/Archive5 s/Archive6 s/Archive7 s/Archive8 s/Archive9 s/Archive10 s/Archive11 s/Archive12 s/Archive13 s/Archive14 s/Archive15 s/Archive16 s/Archive17 s/Archive18 s/Archive19 s/Archive20 s/Archive21 s/Archive22 s/Archive23 s/Archive24 25

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Sock template cleanup

I've been running through a number of old socks lately, they'd been tagged with indefblocked or otherwise ended up in CAT:TEMP and someone deleted the talk pages, I undeleted and was retagging when I realized that I had no idea which tags to use. Some had old subst tags on them and it wasn't always clear whether I was dealing with the puppetmaster or a sock, in at least two cases it was the puppetmaster. Not being used to tagging socks, I began chugging through the lists of current tags and found:

• {{sockpuppet}}
• {{Blockedsockpuppet}}
• {{Sockpuppeteer}}
• {{Checkedpuppeteer}}

I'm sure there are more, I probably even ran across some and forgot to note them. Anyway, I noticed:

1) They don't all categorize the same or in the most useful way. For example, if you use {{sockpuppet|user|confirmed}} it will not include a cat for suspected socks. If you use one of the puppeteer tags, it won't even include the confirmed socks. Some of the subst templates that were on the pages when I got there included links to both the confirmed and the suspected socks of a puppetmaster. It seems that when looking at a puppetmaster's page one should want to see all the known socks, confirmed and suspected.

2) The parameters aren't consistent, {{checkedpuppeteer}} only allows for an evidence link to an spi page. old RFCU links won't work.

3) Many of these have cross-over parameters, so you can create {{sockpuppet|blocked}} and {{sockpuppet|confirmed}} or you can make {{blockedsockpuppet}}; You can make {{sockpuppeteer|blocked}}, {{sockpuppeteer|checked}}, {{sockpuppeteer|proven}}, and you can add evidence or spi parameters OR you can use {{Checkedpuppeteer|blocked}} or with an spi link. So, if I'm working with a sockmaster whose been checkusered, do I use {{Checkedpuppeteer}} or {{sockpuppeteer|checked}}.

Trying to sort out exactly which parameters, including which type of evidence I wanted to cite was very confusing, and then whether that was confirmed, proven, or should be a link out to evidence - ughh. I saw no way to tell whether if I said it was checked would it link to an RFCU or an SPI/RFCU case equally well. Add to that figuring out which cats were going to be fed and I was starting to give up hope of even tagging the dozen or so I was working with consistently or getting it done within a few hours. I asked PeterSymonds on IRC and he said that {{sockpuppeteer}} gives more flex as {{checkedpuppeteer}} only allows spi pages, which I'd started to figure out, but it certainly wasn't obvious and it begs the question "why?" Can we simplify this mess of templates? I understand there was once an attempt to do some sort of mass-merger that failed. Can we just start by deprecating {{Checkedpuppeteer}} and replacing all the instances? Then move on to sorting out the remaining ones. Please let me know if there are more (I've deliberately avoided the IP templates).--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 21:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

You missed {{checkedsockpuppet}}, {{IPsock}}, {{CheckedSockpuppet-nb}}, {{SPIconfirmedsock}} and probably some others from Category:Sockpuppet templates. We've tried once or twice to get templates deleted that we no longer use, but it doesn't work out that well at TfD. For instance, we no longer tag IPs as sockpuppets - most IPs are dynamic, sometimes very rapidly so, so tagging them doesn't serve us well and may result in some confusion if the address is reassigned to a new user who edits. But when we tried to get it deleted, a stack of people told us that they use it as well and would like to keep doing so. Their reasons didn't necessarily make sense (there really is no useful knowledge behind a 5 year old IPsock template), but we don't own the templates. Plus, I get the feeling that even the clerks don't always use the same template - in fact, I might vary from template to template just by myself depending on which I remember first ;) I'd have no objection to consolidating them via AWB, but that might be tricky. Nathan ^T 21:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Ughh! I'm glad I did or I never would have finished what I started out to do. I suggest we just make decisions and start the deprecation process. We can list at TFD if we want, but we really need to sort it out first so there is a plan. Maybe McBride could make a report that would show dates for the last, say, 25 transclusions of each. Then we could contact the editors who are using the ones we don't like and ask them for comments rather than posting at TFD and having people come out of the woodwork because a proposed tfd template showed up when they used one of these.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Based on my experience at TFD, I think it would be worthwhile to make a decision here and do the AWB or bot runs to replace the tags then nominate for TFD the tags that had already been de facto deprecated. Consensus here that the tags were not useful would carry some weight but no longer in use is a common winner at TFD, in part probably because there is no work for the closing admin but to kill the template page. I am willing to work on replacing tags once others give advice on what should be deprecated and what needs to be kept.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 17:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

←I feel like the following can be deprecated and replaced:

• {{CheckedPuppeteer}} should be made into {{Sockpuppeteer|blocked|checked=yes}}
• {{CheckedSockpuppet-nb}} should be made into {{CheckedSockpuppet}} (I think; someone should double check me on this one)
• {{SPIconfirmedsock}} should be turned into {{sockpuppet}}
• {{Sockpuppeteerproven}} should be made into {{sockpuppeteer|blocked}}

These are probably uncontroversial enough that you could just go ahead and do them without anyone raising a fuss. NW (Talk) 22:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems like {{Sockpuppeteerproven}}, which was never mentioned before NW brought it up, should actually be made into {{Sockpuppeteer|proven}}

Many of the above are only transcluded a few times and therefore easily deprecated, they may be widely substituted but that doesn't really have any affect.

We do need to keep in mind Wikipedia:SOCK#Tagging which is part of a policy.

We've completely overlooked {{Sockpuppetry}} - which claims to the be the master sock puppet template

The following templates are intended as user warnings and should normally be subst on talk but they have been transcluded on a few userpages so we should at least make note of them:

• {{Sockblock}}
• {{SockBlock}} (not the same as the last one)
• {{SockmasterProven}}

--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 20:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I see that NW has addressed the policy issue just now by changing Wikipedia:SOCK#Tagging to a link to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Administrators instructions#Blocking and tagging. That simplifies things. That page currently directs the use of {{Sockpuppeteer}}, {{CheckedSockpuppet}}, or {{sockpuppet}}.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 20:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

As mentioned above, I created a template in April that duplicates the functionality of all existing sockpuppet templates through one template ({{Sockpuppetry}}) and with one consistent look with all the different types of templates. I personally think that we should adopt the use of a "master" template (not saying that we should use mine, but hey, it is just sitting there ;)) and then deal with the legacy templates by replacing their contents with transclusions to the master template. i.e. Replacing the contents of {{sockpuppeteerproven}} with {{Sockpuppetry|{{{1|proven}}}|t=master|casepage={{{2}}}}} would make it a backwards-compatible redirect to {{Sockpuppetry}}. Just my 2 cents. ~fl 03:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The issue seems to be that these templates are not flexible enough in that the parameter for evidence only allows for spi cases. Many socks have other kinds of evidence or have old RFCU cases.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 09:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Foxy has updated the documentation to show greater flexibility is actually available.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 18:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I also noticed User:Avraham/Sandbox/SPOM, has this project been abandoned? It appears to be an attempt at a more flexible version of foxy's multi-functional template.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 09:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

It does seem to have been abandoned due to a lack of time. If you could resurrect it and figure out how to code the template properly, it would be very much appreciated. NW (Talk) 16:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Certainly not I, I haven't the technical ability. See above though, it appears that Foxy's multifunctional template may actually be all we need after all - maybe.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 18:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Single sockpuppet template

I believe that the template at User:Avraham/Sandbox/SPOM has no technical issues. The holdup was that it requires re-mapping, as the existing templates did not use consistent named or numbered parameters. Given {{User:Avraham/Sandbox/SPOM}} gets renamed to {{sockpuppet}}, the mapping is:

• {{Sockpuppet}}
  • {{sockpuppet|username}} --> {{sockpuppet|username}}
  • {{sockpuppet|username|blocked}} --> {{sockpuppet|username|blocked=yes}}
  • {{sockpuppet|username|confirmed}} --> {{sockpuppet|username|status=confirmed|blocked=yes}}
  • {{sockpuppet|username|proven}} --> {{sockpuppet|username|status=confirmed|blocked=yes}}
  • {{sockpuppet|username|blocked|foo}} --> {{sockpuppet|username|blocked=yes|evidence="foo"}}
  • {{sockpuppet|username|confirmed|foo}} --> {{sockpuppet|username|blocked=yes|evidence="foo"}}
  • {{sockpuppet|username|proven|foo}} --> {{sockpuppet|username|status=confirmed|blocked=yes|evidence="foo"}}
  • {{sockpuppet|username|blocked|evidence=foo}} --> {{sockpuppet|username|blocked=yes|evidence="foo"}}
  • {{sockpuppet|username|confirmed|evidence=foo}} --> {{sockpuppet|username|blocked=yes|evidence="foo"}}
  • {{sockpuppet|username|proven|evidence=foo}} --> {{sockpuppet|username|status=confirmed|blocked=yes|evidence="foo"}}
• {{Blockedsockpuppet}}
  • {{Blockedsockpuppet|username}} --> {{sockpuppet|username|status=confirmed|blocked=yes}}
• {{CheckedSockpuppet}}
  • {{CheckedSockpuppet|username}} --> {{sockpuppet|username|status=checked|blocked=yes}}
  • {{CheckedSockpuppet|username|SPI request subpage title}} --> {{sockpuppet|username|status=checked|blocked=yes|spipage=SPI request subpage title}}
• {{CheckedSockpuppet-nb}}
  • {{CheckedSockpuppet-nb|username}} --> {{sockpuppet|username|status=checked}}
  • {{CheckedSockpuppet-nb|username|SPI request subpage title}} --> {{sockpuppet|username|status=checked|spipage=SPI request subpage title}}
• {{SockpuppetCheckuser}}
  • {{SockpuppetCheckuser|username}} --> {{sockpuppet|username|status=checked|blocked=yes}}
  • {{SockpuppetCheckuser|username|checkuser request subpage title}} --> {{sockpuppet|username|status=checked|blocked=yes|casename=checkuser request subpage title}}
• {{SockpuppetCheckuser-nb}}
  • {{SockpuppetCheckuser-nb|username}} --> {{sockpuppet|username|status=checked}}
  • {{SockpuppetCheckuser-nb|username|checkuser request subpage title}} --> {{sockpuppet|username|status=checked|casename=checkuser request subpage title}}

If someone can write a bot to do the above, that would leave maybe 10-20 templates which would need manual adjustment in the entire project, IIRC. -- Avi (talk) 07:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone do the mapping? -- Avi (talk) 04:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Commented on Wikipedia:Bot requests asking for help. NW (Talk) 05:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It's easily bottable (unless for some reason a large number of uses are fully protected). Note that there are 49192 uses of {{sockpuppet}} at the moment, meaning that there would be a rather long period during which some but not all instances of the template had "new"-style parameters (and thus leading to breakage one way or the other unless backwards compatibility is retained, at least temporarily). We'd also need to see consensus for doing specifically this, as opposed to the general consensus above that something would be good.

There is also Fl's suggestion in the section above to consider, at least as a starting point: make all these templates transclude one master template. Once that is done, it would be even easier to replace the deprecated ones with direct calls to the master. Anomie⚔ 12:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I asked months ago on the templates talk page (see Template talk:Sockpuppet) and no one complained. Maybe we need to drop a suggestion elsewhere, such as Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous). -- Avi (talk) 16:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC) Note dropped on Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous). -- Avi (talk) 16:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I've just written some code that should be able to do this. Unless any objections are raised within the next few days I'll file a BRFA. --Chris 08:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Can we clarify the differences between Avi's SPOM and Foxy's "Sockpuppetry", why is one better than the other? I support a single template in either case, but above Anomie refers back to Foxy's template with a positive comment, I'm not clear we've really worked out what we want. BTW, Template talks are not normally very active places and I deal with a lot of templates that I wouldn't have watchlisted (if my watchlist were even useable), lack of comment there seems practically meaningless.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• I like what I put together, obviously, but I admit bias :). -- Avi (talk) 01:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Avi's is a bit more user-friendly I think, but both are fine. NW (Talk) 01:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Even though personally I don't really like the "=yes" parameters at the end because people could easily forget to type that in, this should greatly simplify things especially for people new to sock puppetry. MuZemike 17:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
    • The issue with the "=yes" is that the parameters (other than the sockpuppet's name) are all named now, not dependent on order (which was the source of much of the contradiction between the existing templates). This helps for a number of things. For example, it allows the parameters to control more than one part of the template. So "checked=yes" now calls the Checkuser phrase, AND changes the spi link to read "Checkuser investigation" from "Sockpuppet investigation". Also, should there ever be a need in the future to replace the template, having each parameter named will greatly simplify future mappings. -- Avi (talk) 18:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• BRFA filed --Chris 11:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Puppeteer templates

As I built functionality into {{sockpuppeteer}} to handle spipages (automagically), casenames (for old RFCU's), and noting checkuser results, I've deprecated {{Checkedpuppeteer}}, {{CheckedPuppeteer}}, and {{Sockpuppeteerproven}}. Any and all help replacing those templates with {{Sockpuppeteer|blocked|checked=yes}} or other appropriate tags would be appreciated. -- Avi (talk) 14:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I've nom'd all three for WP:CSD#T3 - in 7 days we can delete if there are no objections, if there are I'll nom at TFD; I'll try to get around to installing AWB on my sons' PC and do a run to replace these instances.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 06:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Sweet, I'm doing them manually now :) -- Avi (talk) 06:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Puppeteer Mapping

• {{CheckedPuppeteer}} --> {{sockpuppeteer|checked=yes}}
• {{CheckedPuppeteer|blocked}} --> {{sockpuppeteer|blocked|checked=yes}}
• {{CheckedPuppeteer|blocked|casename=Foo}} --> {{sockpuppeteer|blocked|checked=yes|casename=Foo}}
• {{CheckedPuppeteer|blocked|spipage=Foo}} --> {{sockpuppeteer|blocked|checked=yes}}(automatically picks up the spipage UNLESS it is under another username, in which case add the "|spipage=Foo" tag)
• {{Sockpuppeteerproven}} --> {{Sockpuppeteer|proven}}
• {{Sockpuppeteerproven|blocked}} --> {{Sockpuppeteer|proven}}
• {{Sockpuppeteerproven|blocked|Foo}} --> {{Sockpuppeteer|proven|casename=Foo}}

I think that should do it. -- Avi (talk) 06:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, re {{sockpuppeteer|blocked}}, what if it's an (old) RFCU page? That was one of the initial problems I ran into that brought me here.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 18:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• "|casename=Foo" should work for that. -- Avi (talk) 19:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• For example http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Marthaerin1888&diff=prev&oldid=322086013. -- Avi (talk) 19:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• OK great, sorry I missed that in the mapping above. How would you map the following: {{Sockpuppeteerproven||casename=Foo}} (note the double ||), where the user is not blocked. Also not other Sockpuppeteerproven tags for users who are not blocked.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 20:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

  Also, I'm not sure that I got this right. This seems to have gone from a confirmed checkusered blocked account to a "suspected of abusing accounts".--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 21:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

  Running into a lot that have multiple tags, really slows down the AWB runs, what do we want to do with sockpuppetproven, in particular a {{sockpuppetproven|Foo}}?--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 21:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

  And while we're about it what are we doing with IPs? I'm finding a lot tagged with Sockpuppeteer.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 21:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

  Just came across another one: {{checkuserblock-account}}; not sure what to do with it. Page was tagged twice so it could probably be removed in this instance User:Veesicle.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

  275 of the 360 some instances of this template have been replaced. The rest need a closer look.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Another issue raised on my talk page is that the blocked versions state that the reason for the block is the socking, some old templates didn't make such a direct implication. In some cases the user is blocked for other reasons separate from being a sock or sockmaster. See discussion here.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I ended up not worrying about the non-blocked possibilities under {{sockpuppeteer|proven}}, but User:MarkStreet is an example as is User:Freedom_skies. If we come up with an unblocked version we can ask McBride to run a database report. I can no longer identify the instance I noted above of a template changing from confirmed to suspected when I replaced with the recommended mapping. I have fully deprecated the templates and made the determination that tagging for CSD:T3 is not a good idea. There remain several odd-ball templates that need to be deprecated or otherwise cleaned up.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 05:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

As long as the non-blocked puppeteers were checkusered, we are safe, because {{sockpuppeteer|checked=yes|casename=XXXX}} does not default to blocked, as proven does. See the two cases above now. If no CU was done, how would we say "proven" anyway? -- Avi (talk) 14:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

That's a good question and one that deserves addressing further; however, the issue is that some "proven" puppeteers are not blocked. Policy does not require blocking the puppeteer and only serious offenders should be indef blocked; going back to change the template when the block expires would be a real pain. I suggest wording for all puppeteers that says that the user may be blocked and possibly suggest a reader check the block log or maybe to the talk page where block tags belong. This is especially because the blocking info would normally be on the talk page and the user may have requested unblocking and it may have been granted but checking the userpage for tags isn't part of normal unblocking.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 18:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done -- Avi (talk) 06:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

IPs

I ran into some IPs along the way, I converted the tags but in accordance with current policy we should probably go back through and untag all the IPs at somepoint.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 06:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Socks vs masters

A couple thoughts came to me along the way of the process above, I thought these tied enough to what we're talking about to keep the discussion here rather than moving it to the policy page:

1) Why do we distinguish between sockpuppeteers and sockpuppets? There appears to often be some question as to which account is primary and in many cases the determination may be somewhat arbitrary. The real relationship is simply that they are multiple accounts/IPs of a single editor - it's the editor who is the puppeteer, not an account. I understand that for us there needs to be a name to tie them all to for purposes of a case page name, but in many cases the determined master is indef blocked together with all known puppets and is sometimes (see example) later determined to itself be a sock; so it seems to be a distinction without a difference.

2) Even if we do distinguish, why can't we even go so far as to combine {{sockpuppet}} and {{sockpuppeteer}}; having two templates makes it difficult to determine which one to use in some cases and makes it more likely that some sock hunters will double tag - I ran into several of these.

3) Even if we do distinguish, why do we have a different policy as to what to do with the talk page; i.e. why don't we blank and redirect the talk pages of the puppeteer for the very same reasons we do so with the puppets? Doing this differently makes it particularly difficult to determine what to do when it's not clear if someone is a puppet or a puppeteer.

--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 06:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to keep picking out a sockmaster when we can, because we need a consistent label both for clerical ease and to allow a useful understanding of behavior patterns. We may not need a separate template; a |master=yes param could do it easily enough. Or if the template already incorporates the name of the master (either via the case name or another param, depending on the template) and that name matches the userpage where the tag is used, it could default to the "sockpuppeteer" wording. Nathan ^T 15:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that would be great to have a |master=yes parameter.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 18:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I'd rather keep separate sockpuppet and sockpuppeteer templates, simply for categorization purposes. Otherwise, we could takeFoxy's work and tweak it, I guess. -- Avi (talk) 19:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this something that could be adapted to your template or would it require remapping to Foxy's? We don't need to decide right now whether to implement but I see that the bot request is in part tied up over whether we've settled on a master template - yours or foxy's.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 23:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk page tags

Is there something we gain by keeping the talk page of a sockpuppeteer up but redirecting the talk page of a sockpuppet? The reason for replacing the talk page of a sock with a redirect to the user page is 1) it gets rid of the trophy and 2) there's no need for a talk page since socks are always blocked, so anyone coming to the talk page to leave a message should be redirected to the user page so that he or she can see that user is a sock and has been blocked (and thus there's probably no point to leaving a message). I understand that in some instances the puppeteer might not be blocked or at least not indef blocked, but in the vast majority of cases it is (and our only talk page tag {{subst:SockmasterProven|period=indefinite|evidence=[[FullPageName]]|sig=yes}}. is only for confirmed sockpuppeteers and defaults to indef blocked anyway) . Why not have the same process instead of a special template that does nothing but refer users out to the same evidence that's on the user page tag? It's kind of confusing and as I mentioned above, we can't always tell if we're dealing with the sock or the master. If there's not some really good reason, I suggest we make the treatment of indef blocked sockpuppeteers identical to the treatment of socks. If we happen to have one that isn't indef blocked we can still use a tag like this on the talk page. Unlike the process above, there will be no need to replace current tags as they are substituted, we can just redirect them to talk as we come across them. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 18:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

If I didn't misunderstand you, I think you are saying we should redirect talk pages of sockpuppeteers to their user pages? If not, please do correct. I think the reasoning behind it is that if a former sockpuppeteer does try to reform himself and appeal his block legitimately, the best way to do so would be through official channels using {{unblock}}. NW (Talk) 20:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Issues with the template code before we run the bot

• I may have mentioned above that |blocked=no doesn't work, not sure. Anyway, it's from using #if: instead of #ifeq:, I believe. If you use #if: it tests for any value so if you type |blocked=no it reads it as blocked = something so use the blocked template; whereas if you use #ifeq: you can make it check for =yes. I think we need to review that before we run the bot. BTW, The bot approval is waiting on us to clarify what we're doing here, where Avi says above: "Otherwise, we could takeFoxy's work and tweak it, I guess." We need to make it clear whether we've settled that issue and if so, should we tell the bot to run.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 09:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

New cases

Please list new cases that you just created below this line. MuZemike 20:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AlexLevyOne—Gosh, it only took me 21½ hours to see the notice at the top of the SPI page! Deor (talk) 22:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC) -  Transcluded - Tiptoety ^talk 01:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Samlaptop85213—Good thing I checked talk... -Thibbs (talk) 00:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)  Transcluded - Tiptoety ^talk 01:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Waterjuice. Thanks, Postoak (talk) 04:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC) -  Transcluded - Tiptoety ^talk 05:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Talk212. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC) -  Transcluded - Tiptoety ^talk 17:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters. I haven't created a new page for it, but I've placed it on the main WP:SSP page. 71.57.8.103 (talk) 21:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

is here a check necessary?

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meisam Tabatabaei get a lot of keeps from very new users and I suspect that this are accounts all from the same person. --Stone (talk) 11:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)