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.

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Matt Giwer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:DavidYork71 investigation, problems with template

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

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

Superfluous report

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

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

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

Design flaw

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Koov

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

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

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

WP Sockpuppet

User Jim Hardie is a sockpuppet of Blackjack. Based on one being quiet whilst the other is active and the nature of attacks on other users. Blackjack is a multiple offender. Noted the style is very similar to his JamesJJames alias and his attacking style is very similar. Note that although Jim Hardie often deals in the War of the Roses, he dabbles in cricket using a very similar style to blackjack. Note also that the comments made when making small edits are, as they say, dead ringers. Not too that Jim Hardie made a long post on BJ's site but recieved no reply. BJ's editing history is that any attack, criticism or praise is swiftly rewarded. This 'plant' has gone unanswered for two months. Note too similarity of expression down to certain phrases,— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.74.151 (talk) 22:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

My sincere apologies for the inconvenience you have been caused as a result of my unwise action in "feeding a troll". Please see WP:ANI if you are interested in my official response to the problem. Kind regards. --Jim Hardie (talk) 08:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

You will note the same language as used by Blackjack - this is a clear troll. The best evidence is in looking at the previous trolls operated by blackJack. The style, language and production are the same. This is a troll. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.74.151 (talk) 08:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

So BlackJack also uses words like "sincere", "unwise" and "inconvenience", does he, and signs himself "kind regards"? I have checked some of his past mails and he does not say "kind regards" or even "regards": if he ever says anything to sign off, it seems to be "thanks" and I saw one example of "all the best". I agree that the language is the same: it is called English. The accusation is nonsense and smacks of desperation by a cornered troll who is trying to twist things around by means of a counter-attack. --Jim Hardie (talk) 11:28, 14 April 2012 (UTC)