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.

How does SPI/checkuser work?

I've just had a thought - where are people like me likely to stand with regards to SPI investigations? My IP has already been (quite justified) blocked twice[1] due to vandalism, but I get caught in the crossfire due to sharing the IP as I access Wiki from work. If an SPI was run on one of the previous editors that prompted the block would my username also get flagged? Just wondering. a_man_alone (talk) 20:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

It could get flagged at your IP, but if your editing from work too, that would help unestablish you. Checkuser data is held on the server for three months. But also if your using a different Web browser or Operating System this will help a checkuser establish that this is not you. From what I see from what your telling me, in my opinion the most you could be tagged is possible, and that is only technical evidence. We also determine on behavoiral evidence. Your behavoiral evidence would square you off as not the vandal if he or she created more socks. -- DQ (t) (e) 21:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Update on Audit Subcommittee

The Audit Subcommittee is a subcommittee of the Arbitration Committee, tasked to review and act upon concerns and complaints about checkuser and oversight activities received from the community. Membership consists of three community representatives elected by the community, who serve one-year terms; and three arbitrators, who rotate through this assignment for approximately six months.

In advance of the scheduled election/appointment of community representatives to the Audit Subcommittee, a summary of activity has been posted on the subcommittee's report page.

The community is invited to discuss this report, as well as preferred methods and terms for the selection of community representatives to participate in the audit process. The result of the discussion will inform the Arbitration Committee on how best to proceed before progressing to another election cycle.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) Cross-posted by NW (Talk) 20:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Two RFC's at WT:SOCK

One on splitting WP:MEAT into a separate page, and the other on retiring the "meatpuppetry" term. Interesting how no one notified us. T. Canens (talk) 23:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry suspected

User:Elgor007 and User:Elgor008 are suspected sockpuppets. TYelliot (talk) 21:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

They have been blocked. Assuming your unsure how to open a sockpuppet case, if you read Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations#Submitting_an_SPI_case it tells you how. Regards wiooiw (talk) 21:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

TFD for Template:SockmasterProven

See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 September 29#Template:SockmasterProven. T. Canens (talk) 17:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Ring any bells...?

I came across an "interesting" editor yesterday, and thought that their editing rang a few bells. Today, Gogo Dodo (talk) blocked the editor and a couple of socks. We're wondering if this sounds familiar: an obsession with eye- and hair-colour, and zodiac-signs? (Example edit).

Anyway, blocked editors are:

• Ghtrgwefwetjnrgrfea (talk · contribs)
• Rfhrtgfrvteynh5ygrewf (talk · contribs)
• Dfrgegrthrfweqdeqwe (talk · contribs)

Original conversation is here. TFOWR 19:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)