Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations: Difference between revisions

	; 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.

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 19:06, 15 July 2013

Case merge needed

Could a clerk please merge Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/IranitGreenberg to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AndresHerutJaim and retag to AHJ? Elockid ^(Talk) 17:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a minute and I will merge it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Elockid ^(Talk) 17:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've copy/attributed the archive and move/histmerged the current case page. I still need to go through and change all the sock tags, which will take a while to complete as there are a lot of them. I will also change the block on IranitGreenberg from 3 months as master to indef as sock. For all intent and purposes, call this Done. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Urgent request

Technoquat is vandalizing each of his sock account talk pages which did not have the talk page access yanked when they were blocked. I'll need some help cleaning this up, and please make sure that their talk and email are disabled when the socks are blocked. Thanks, --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me see what I can do, although most of them are no longer tagged. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I got all of the 12 or so that popped up at RFU. It will still be helpful to go back and plug the talk page editing loophole. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm about to head out, but I'll try to nuke the lot when I get back. Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've already nuked the archive (around 28 of them that weren't already no tp/em), now will work on the hidden blocks via my block log. Easy peasy. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help guys!--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Investigation credibility

Is there a way for non admin editors to have some assurance of the strength of the evidence used to block a suspected sockpuppet? I've been relatively blissfully unaware of the process until I happened to notice an editors comments deleted as a sockpuppet in a controversial article. When I followed the links to the investigation archive the evidence appeared to be non existent (other than a lame observation that the infamous sock puppeteer - like the accused editor - had a fondness for "clever" names). I might have assumed that the suspected editors shared IP's and that this would serve as the damning evidence, but in the same investigation archive someone claimed that the sock puppeteer "makes extensive use of proxies, therefore his IPs geolocate to dozens of countries" so it would appear that the investigation simply looks at the accused's edits and if it reminds them too closely of the sock puppeteer they are summarily banned. Surely the indefinite blocking decisions have more credibility than that?Zebulin (talk) 19:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 19:04, 15 July 2013 edit Driftwoodzebulin (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 2,552 edits m →‎Investigation credibility: missing ) ← Previous edit		Revision as of 19:06, 15 July 2013 edit undo Driftwoodzebulin (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 2,552 edits m proof read Next edit →
Line 32:		Line 32:
	== Investigation credibility ==		== Investigation credibility ==

	Is there a way for non admin editors to have some assurance of the strength of the evidence used to block a suspected sockpuppet? I've been relatively blissfully unaware of the process until I happened to notice an editors comments deleted as a sockpuppet in a controversial article ~~and~~ ~~when~~ I followed the links to the investigation archive ~~not~~ ~~only~~ ~~was~~ ~~evidence~~ non existent (other than a lame observation that the infamous sock puppeteer - like the accused editor - had a fondness for "clever" names). I might have assumed that the suspected editors shared IP's and that this would serve as the damning evidence, but in the same investigation archive someone claimed that the sock puppeteer "makes extensive use of proxies, therefore his IPs geolocate to dozens of countries" so it would appear that the investigation simply looks at the accused's edits and if it reminds them too closely of the sock puppeteer they are summarily banned. Surely the indefinite blocking decisions have more credibility than that?[[User:Driftwoodzebulin\|Zebulin]] ([[User talk:Driftwoodzebulin\|talk]]) 19:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)		Is there a way for non admin editors to have some assurance of the strength of the evidence used to block a suspected sockpuppet? I've been relatively blissfully unaware of the process until I happened to notice an editors comments deleted as a sockpuppet in a controversial article. When I followed the links to the investigation archive the evidence appeared to be non existent (other than a lame observation that the infamous sock puppeteer - like the accused editor - had a fondness for "clever" names). I might have assumed that the suspected editors shared IP's and that this would serve as the damning evidence, but in the same investigation archive someone claimed that the sock puppeteer "makes extensive use of proxies, therefore his IPs geolocate to dozens of countries" so it would appear that the investigation simply looks at the accused's edits and if it reminds them too closely of the sock puppeteer they are summarily banned. Surely the indefinite blocking decisions have more credibility than that?[[User:Driftwoodzebulin\|Zebulin]] ([[User talk:Driftwoodzebulin\|talk]]) 19:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)