Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 141.154.12.116 (talk) at 03:30, 22 March 2009 (→Asking for sockpuppet investigation). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

First stab at combined sockpuppet template

OK, I took a stab at it. The results are here User:Avraham/Sandbox, the template itself is User:Avraham/Sandbox/SP. It leaves "1" as the (unnamed) parameter for the master. Parameter "2" is gone, replaced by a switch accepting (proven, confirmed, checked). "Proven" is there for historical reasons and is identical to "confirmed". There is a new tag, "blocked" which when set to "yes" adds the "blocked indefinitely" language. (It is possible that a sockpuppet, confirmed or checked, is not blocked, so I wanted to separate it out). It retains the "evidence" tag, but that is no longer defaulted to 3, and will have to be remapped for cases where it sits in the third slot. It also takes "casename" (for the old RFCU pages) and "spipage" for the current version. This does give rise to a bit of funky grammar when there is both evidence AND spi/RFCU, and I'm still working on the spacings, but I wanted y'all to weigh in before I do more work and work out a mapping. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 01:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, it also picks the appropriate picture too. -- Avi (talk) 02:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "spipage=" tag was never tied to "status=checked" However, the text read "Checkuser results." Per Synergy's request (which makes a BOATLOAD of sense), it now reads "Sockpuppet results" UNLESS status=checked, in which case it reverts to "Checkuser results". Keep the ideas coming! -- Avi (talk) 02:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't checked the code yet, so maybe it does, but does this also accept SSP pages? §hepTalk 02:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the old ones? No, not yet. I guess I could add a new tag "ssppage" or something. Can you point me to a canoncial example, please? -- Avi (talk) 02:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I started looking, and the first example I came across (User:Excel 2008) linked to SSP through the evidence param. Seems I was confused about what the evidence param is for. Sorry, §hepTalk 02:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, the "evidence" tag is all one needs. I thought to keep it similar to Sockpuppeteer, which has spipage and casename. I'd deprecate "evidence", but it is used too many times :) -- Avi (talk) 02:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would this be appropriate to convert to {{ombox}} or one of the other mboxes? §hepTalk 02:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Will that work with all of the coding inside the template? I guess I can try later, but I'm not certain it would mesh well. -- Avi (talk) 04:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, that's why I asked. :D I don't have a clue, but figured it might be worth a shot? §hepTalk 04:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take 2

At the suggestion of Shep, I've tried putting these in {{ombox}} form. I think all the coding works. Please compare User:Avraham/Sandbox/SPTest with User:Avraham/Sandbox/SPOMTest (where OM stands for ombox). The actual code resides, for now, at User:Avraham/Sandbox/SP and User:Avraham/Sandbox/SPOM respectively. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 04:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks the same except for the widths (Good). Is it that major enough of a change to not use ombox though? Happy to see the meta template worked. §hepTalk 05:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone else have comments? -- Avi (talk) 18:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like, if we want the widths to stay the same, the width of the baner can be set with |style=, ie |style = width: 400px; §hepTalk 01:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ready for replacement?

So, Nix, I gues your silence indicates approval of the new template schema. Who has a bot ready to do the thousands of renames necessary and can handle the logic of remapping? -- Avi (talk) 18:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, nah my silence simply indicates that I have not had the time to check wikipedia in the last... oh 4 days? I have been busy with midterms and various exams plus my part time job. I likely won't have much time to implement anything until next week. As long as you guys have a decent mapping scheme (I'm sure you do) I'll be able to run it past bag and get a bot going. The actual coding part is not difficult, just requires an hour or so of time that I just don't have atm. —— nixeagleemail me 13:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No prob. The Puppeteer mapping is shown above; Shep offered to do it too. We can wait on the puppet one for a while. Good luck on exams! -- Avi (talk) 15:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See my comments ^^ above (very top). Thanks, §hepTalk 23:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(← Restored from archive.)

Would it be possible to add a parser that checks for an SSP and RFCU subpage and displays nothing if they don't exist? Since new uses of the template most likely won't have either an SSP or an RFCU it would cut down on redlinks and the number of links in general. §hepTalk 01:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I now see that every parameter needs called. §hepTalk 01:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have me confused... btw do we still need me to run a bot to correct the existing templates to the new template model? —— nixeagleemail me 18:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the name of the puppeteer does not need to be called; it is still mapped to 1. -- Avi (talk) 18:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know I'm not losing my mind (or would that statement be denial?). I saw a userpage that had this template on it. It had links to SPI, SSP, and RFCU...the only page that existed was the SPI and SSP and RFCU were redlinks. I can't find the page now though, so just ignore anything I've said above. Are we going to make the switch to this "new" template version? §hepTalk 17:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bot TODO list

Can you guys help me figure out exactly what is left as far the bot being feature complete? I've got the following:

  1. Fix bug with bot not removing {{checkip|master}} where master is the case title. The bot removes {{checkuser|master}} already without problems. (The "master" or page title username is already linked and having more confuses the bot when it goes to generate the report for WP:SPI/C.
    done —— nixeagleemail me 05:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fix reports - Requires a re-write in perl of a php script I wrote.
  3. Have the bot notify all listed socks that they have been mentioned. (notice message should be nice/informative/inform them the notice came from an automated process).

What else? If you guys mentioned stuff or I said I'd do something and I have not done it... its because I forgot ;) Please add it to the list above. Feel free to add more features. —— nixeagleemail me 02:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bot notify stuff is in progress. —— nixeagleemail me 23:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Automated "suspected sock/master" notification by User:SPCUClerkbot

I am very close to having this feature complete. I still need to program in a few safegaurds to prevent the bot from double notifying someone but other then that we are mostly go. For the time being I have the bot maintaining a commented out list after ;Suspected sockpuppets on a case... This is used by the bot as a quick way for it to know who it has already spoken to. It will also do checks to make sure that it won't double post, but if the bot does not have to load the page it won't. You can see the list at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Test. The bot will be maintaining lists on all cases for the time being until this gets approved for trial.

Anyway regardless I need some clerks/interested users to come up with a nice sounding message for the bot to post. See the redlink on User:SPCUClerkbot (the bot's userpage has a list of all templates it uses) and make the link blue please.

I will have to request permission from WP:BAG before we can turn it on for real, but getting a notice for the bot to hand out is an important step that needs to be done. Thanks to whoever takes this one up ;). —— nixeagleemail me 07:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should we try to incorporate parts of {{Socksuspectnotice}} and {{Uw-socksuspect}}, or should those not come into mind? Also, what specific links do you guys think need to be included? I'm thinking there's only a need for the "suspect notes" but I may be missing a useful link? §hepTalk 01:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can look at those two templates, but IMHO it should not start off with "You have been accused of sockpuppetry...". Generally the bot should be giving a notice that simply says that there is a case mentioning the account and relevant links. Obviously a link to the case, and a link to the instructions for them. Go ahead and make a first draft of the template if you like, its not like the bot is going to be using it for a few days anyway.
On a second note, so you guys know the following criteria will apply for the bot to actually go and do the notifications:
  1. The reporter of the case must have more then X edits where X is some value between 50 and 250 (I've not made my mind up on what value is most appropriate).
  2. The suspected sock(s)/master must not already have a mention of the casename on their talk page (if there is the bot will assume that they have already been notified). (Also if one of the two templates above are on the page referencing the case name it will not post for the same reason).
  3. The suspected sock(s)/master must not be blocked for longer then 1 month. If they are, the bot presumes that they have merely been referenced as an example of the case behavior (it happens) and therefor the bot does not leave a notice. They can't reply to it anyway.
Please please comment on this, let me know if I forgot a criteria etc. —— nixeagleemail me 01:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention that I've done a first pass of the notice. Mayalld (talk) 23:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BRFA request has been created, thanks Mayalld. BRFA is at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SPCUClerkbot 2. —— nixeagleemail me 03:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Parserfunction problem

If we can, can a clerk get through and close the 6 pending close cases sometime soon and revert the changes to the SPI template so that we can have the show/hide boxes back on the main page. Our problem is just that we got backlogged fairly badly earlier. We are doing better now :) —— nixeagleemail me 07:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Make that 8 pending close. —— nixeagleemail me 07:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spaces missing in example?

In the bluely backgrounded instructions I read the following:

"Eg, if the case name is about User:John Doe or the existing case is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JohnDoe, then you should enter Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JohnDoe in the box."

Shouldn't that be

"Eg, if the case name is about User:John Doe or the existing case is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/John Doe, then you should enter Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/John Doe in the box."

? DVdm (talk) 18:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How many puppets IS an editor allowed?

TheRedPenOfDoom has declared the use of a puppet Notnotkenny. But and dispite this declaration, both accounts have been editing the same pages. When asking about use of two accounts, RedPen was given the go-ahead by User:Mazca diff. However, and though I appreciate this transparency, I can determine no good reason for both accounts to edit the same page as this gives the uninitiated an impression of a sense of consensus to actions per actions by both accounts on

Collapsed
8_Simple_Rules_for_Buying_My_Teenage_Daughter
A_Hero_Sits_Next_Door
A_Picture_Is_Worth_a_1,000_Bucks
And_the_Wiener_Is...
Baby_Not_On_Board
Barely_Legal_(Family_Guy)
Boys_Do_Cry
Brian:_Portrait_of_a_Dog
Brian_Does_Hollywood
Brian_Goes_Back_to_College
Brian_in_Love
Chick_Cancer
Chitty_Chitty_Death_Bang
Da_Boom
Dammit_Janet!
Death_Has_a_Shadow
Death_Is_a_Bitch
Death_Lives
Deep_Throats
Don't_Make_Me_Over_(Family_Guy)
E._Peterbus_Unum
Eek,_a_Penis!
Family_Gay
Fast_Times_at_Buddy_Cianci_Jr._High
Fifteen_Minutes_of_Shame
Ginger_Kids
He's_Too_Sexy_for_His_Fat
Holy_Crap
I_Never_Met_the_Dead_Man
If_I'm_Dyin',_I'm_Lyin'
Jungle_Love_(Family_Guy)
Let's_Go_to_the_Hop
Long_John_Peter
Love_Thy_Trophy
Meet_the_Quagmires
Mind_Over_Murder
Model_Misbehavior
No_Chris_Left_Behind
No_Meals_on_Wheels
North_by_North_Quahog
One_If_by_Clam,_Two_If_by_Sea
PTV_(Family_Guy)
Padre_de_Familia_(Family_Guy_episode)
Pandemic_2_-_The_Startling
Patriot_Games_(Family_Guy)
Perfect_Castaway
Peter's_Daughter
Peter's_Got_Woods
Peter's_Two_Dads
Peter,_Peter,_Caviar_Eater
Petergeist
Play_It_Again,_Brian
Running_Mates_(Family_Guy)
Saving_Private_Brian
Stewie_Griffin:_The_Untold_Story
Stewie_Kills_Lois
The_Courtship_of_Stewie's_Father
The_Fat_Guy_Strangler
The_Father,_the_Son,_and_the_Holy_Fonz
The_Former_Life_of_Brian
The_King_Is_Dead_(Family_Guy)
The_Man_with_Two_Brians
The_Passion_of_the_Jew
The_Son_Also_Draws
There's_Something_About_Paulie
Wasted_Talent
Talk:List_of_South_Park_episodes
User talk:Notnotkenny
User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom

If such IS found to be acceptable, it will then encourage ALL editors to declare and open multiple accounts to edit the same pages all over wiki, as this will allow the acceptable precedent despite such (false) perception of consensus. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a hard time understanding the rationale behind this pair of accounts as well. It seems inappropriate, even if declared.—Kww(talk) 20:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This does seem inappropriate. As I read everything you can have an alertnate account that you edit under only if the usernames are similar and are for editing in public places, if you don't want your name connected to an article, etc. The sockpuppetry policy and the username policy seem to state pretty clearly that this situation shouldn't be allowed. There might be a good reason for the edits, though I can't come up with one at the moment. §hepTalk 20:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest someone going to him/her and asking nicely why they have two accounts. (eg what possible reason they have for it). Then simply evaulate that reason with whatever harm the account is doing. (making it hard for other editors not knowing of the situation to distinguish the two on talk pages and for purposes of 3RR (if the editor is the type that does lots of reverts). —— nixeagleemail me 01:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It appears they were questioned at 19:16, 14 March 2009, and they have made a dozen edits since then. Maybe they missed it? §hepTalk 01:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would ]ask again nicely one more time, if they can't supply a decent reason and nobody can come up with one for them... I suppose you could open a case... or better may be to report to AN to get some outside opinions outside this echochamber. —— nixeagleemail me 01:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With 13 seasons of South Park and 7 season of Family guy there are an incredible number of episodes that are subject to freqent, but improproper editing. Maintaining all of the episodes on my main watchlist means that the little edits on the SP and FG articles frequently swamp the other edits. By maintaining a seperate account with a watchlist focused on the FG and SP articles, a simple check once or twice a week would allow easier maintenance. Adding the hundreds of episodes to the new accounts watch list and removal of the same from my main account have taken place over a few weeks time. The use of the two accounts has not been hidden and has been as transparent as I could make it and there did not appear to be any policy reasons not to allow such a use. Should the community decide that such a use is improper I have no qualms about leaving the other account simply to hold the watch list and do no editing.-- The Red Pen of Doom 00:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming dual accounts are allowed (which they're not) any transparency would have to be constant. Each time one of the two identities signs, for instance. There must be a way to identify the master and the puppet as one in the same all the time, not just once a few hours ago. Since Consensus is more a matter of convincing than counting, dual accounts can act in hidden allegiance to sway the collective opinion. Consider---One of the multiple personalities makes a convincing argument and the other waits to fill in the gaps as tho he too was convinced by the eloquence of the statement. Put a few dual accounts together and it will look like a parade of support. But, the consensus will be contaminated. There is no good reason for dual accounts. They undermine goodwill expectations.--Buster7 (talk) 02:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Policy agrees with you 100%. Whether in editing or discussions, a use of a sock is a violation per WP:STUFF: "Sock puppets might be used to give the impression of more support for a viewpoint than actually exists" and per WP:SOCK#SCRUTINY: "Using alternative puppet accounts to split your contributions history means that other editors cannot detect patterns in your contributions." Granted, their are limited allowed uses for sockpuppets per WP:SOCK#LEGIT, but their use to perform multiple similar edits over dozens of different articles is not and will not be allowed per WP:SOCK#SCRUTINY: RedPenOfDoom is now aware of this and has foresworn any such use in the future. Further he has clearly marked the account pages of each to acknowledge his use of them as multiple accounts. I do not think further investigation or action is needed at this time, as any further instance of these puppets performing the same edits to the same articles will be an immediate call for action Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If MediaWiki allows 2 or more sets of watchlists, problem would bee solved. OhanaUnitedTalk page 13:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for sockpuppet investigation

I tried to use the templates to ask for a sockpuppet but they only work for administrators, of which I am obviously not one, so I am asking using the this discussion page.

There have been a couple of sockpuppets that have repeatedly tried to change of portion of the Second Amendment article in pretty much the same manner. I would like to know if they are the same person.

One is Conlawgeek and the other is Philo-Centinel. Following are two attempted changes, one per, both attempting to replace the same well sourced material.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=276987343&oldid=276933228

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=277422837&oldid=277416822

I also have a sneaking suspicion that SaltyBoatr may be somehow related to those two sockpuppets. Please check on this as well.141.154.12.116 (talk) 12:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go to Wikipedia:SPI#Instructions for instructions on creating a new case. Understand that providing diffs of the behavior that makes you suspect socks will result in faster case processing. You do not need to be an admin to create a case, your case likely won't be looked at here. —— nixeagleemail me 18:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can an IP create a new subpage though? §hepTalk 18:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a reason why they can't. None of the pages are semi-protected. —— nixeagleemail me 18:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I knew IPs couldn't create articles, I wasn't sure if the same rule applied to new subpages or not. Thanks for clarifying, §hepTalk 20:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It may be that I don't know how to use the templates, but I could not edit anything once I pulled them up. I believe that I am locked out.141.154.12.116 (talk) 23:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An IP can't open an AfD since only logged-in users can create pages. I assumed that this would also prevent an IP from opening an SPI. I left a note for 141.154.12.116 (talk · contribs) suggesting that he create an account, and that he explore some alternatives to an SPI filing. EdJohnston (talk) 16:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
you can't have dispute resolution without good faith efforts on both sides to settle the dispute. Considering the past history, I don't think the other side is interested in good faith efforts for dispute resolutions. I am therefore asking for a sockpuppet investigation to see the extent of bad faith by the other parties. 141.154.12.116 (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What username should the case be under? I'll create the page for you and you could then fill it out. §hepTalk 17:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can it be done under the IP number?141.154.12.116 (talk) 19:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, an IP would work as well. §hepTalk 21:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shep, I have no objection to your assisting the IP, but I suggest that you look into the matter and verify that you yourself believe that sockpuppetry occurred before entering it. His above remarks about dispute resolution suggest an unwillingness to understand or follow our policies. EdJohnston (talk) 18:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was just going to create a blank page for whoever to fill out, deny, delete. I'm not going to get in the middle at all...I have my own sock problems. :D
In order to engage in effective dispute resolution you need good faith on both sides. I have reason to suspect bad faith and I am here asking for assistance in order to determine the extent of that bad faith to see how far I can extend trust. Is a little help for that too much to ask?141.154.12.116 (talk) 19:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your theories about bad faith are not enough. You must also have *evidence* to show a violation of WP:SOCK. Good faith editors sometimes perform the same revert when they have the same opinion, even if they are not socks. On an article with extreme left-right polarization, it should not be a complete shock that editors on the same end of the spectrum will perform the same revert. If you have no evidence beyond that, your case is not credible. EdJohnston (talk) 20:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Above I have gave you two links to changes made to the same material by two different sockpuppets with the changes being similar. Between these two sockpuppets there have been about ten (perhaps more) attempted changes to that section with the intent of replacing well sourced material with what looks like bogus unsourced material. Do you want me to post links to the other attempted changes as well?141.154.12.116 (talk) 21:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I would be nice if someone gave me some guidelines on what constitutes sufficient cause to ask for a sockpuppet investigation. Frankly I'm starting to think that we will waste mote time getting to the point of doing the investigation then the time it would take to DO the investigation In any case here is another attempted edit of that same section from today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=278079172&oldid=278026758 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.12.116 (talk) 04:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody home?141.154.12.116 (talk) 03:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The case has to be filed under a subpage. I need you to give me a specific IP number so I can create the page for you. You can then fill it out, but I need you to give me a specific IP number first. Thanks, §hepTalk 03:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anything wrong with using 141.154.12.116 ? 141.154.12.116 (talk) 03:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

admin-backlog tag

The parser functions that determine whether to display the admin backlog tag are still broken mainly because the category contents are not quite right. Category:Open SPI cases for example as of this moment contains 3 archived cases... which makes the category seem like it is larger then it really is.

ATM by my manual calculation we should have 19 (15 + 4) open cases, that is counting the cases in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations#CheckUser_either_not_requested_or_completed and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations#CheckUser_requested_and_declined.

If we can't make the parserfunctions work correctly I'll program the bot to update the top of this page as appropriate as I know it has accurate counts. As of this moment the bot's count is CheckUser cases = 5 :: suspected sockpuppet investigations = 15 :: Pending close = 2 :: Declined cases = 4 :: Awaiting Clerk approval = 1. Let me know if this is required or not. —— nixeagleemail me 18:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am mystified as to how the category managed to contain the Archived cases! The category is applied by {{SPIcat}}, which explicitly prevents archive cases being categorised. Mayalld (talk) 14:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, no I'm not! The template was vandalised here which caused archive cases to be wrongly categorised. Mayalld (talk) 14:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SOCK vandal (and counting...)

Regarding this report (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pararubbas/Archive),

Unfortunately, the "song remains the same". "User" has opened a new account, MNHT08 ("contributions" here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mnht08), and continues to: operate almost exclusively on Portuguese soccer, glue all sentences into one, creating a very pleasant-to-watch article and, much much more worse, remove all links and refs, just because.

Examples: Rio Ave FC (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rio_Ave_F.C.&diff=prev&oldid=277218083, only glued sentences here), Orlando Sá, Hélio Sousa, Bassey William Andem (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orlando_S%C3%A1&diff=prev&oldid=277163912, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=H%C3%A9lio_Sousa&diff=prev&oldid=275588926, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bassey_William_Andem&diff=prev&oldid=275791155)

Hope this suffices, attentively,

VASCO AMARAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 17:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This editor has now filed his complaint in the normal way at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Pararubbas. No further action on this Talk message is needed. EdJohnston (talk) 22:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can a clerk help to move this case?

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pararubbas is now sitting in the queue for 'Checkuser not requested or completed.' Can it be moved to 'Cases awaiting checkuser'? The need for a checkuser is explained in the case itself. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Tiptoety talk 19:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can I name an investigation by article instead of user?

There's an astroturfing campaign going on over at Talk:Medical cannabis. The accounts involved so far include:

  1. The Pot Snob (talk · contribs)
  2. Patriot minds (talk · contribs)
  3. Agent Agent (talk · contribs)
  4. Hiram408 (talk · contribs)
  5. Maxpowers4040 (talk · contribs)
  6. sko1221 (talk · contribs)

The Pot Snob has been at the advocacy game for some time, although he just returned after a long vacation. I don't know who is in control, but Agent Agent and Patriot minds are admittedly the same accounts, so that is settled. Hiram showed up yesterday, and sko1221 has been cheerleading this bad behavior from start to finish, and its a fairly new account as well. I would like to simply file the investigation under the name of "Medical cannabis" so that it can be marked ongoing as each new account shows up on the page to support the edits of the other account. Is this possible, or do I need to file by user name only? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 23:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are unsure which one could be the sock master, simply file using the username that is the oldest (by account creation date). Unfortunately, you can not file a case using anything other than a username as it will mess up the bot, and screw with some of the templates. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 23:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. What's the procedure for dealing with a controversial article overrun by new accounts making the same bad arguments and trying to form a flash mob consensus? Viriditas (talk) 23:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you should file a case. And should you have enough evidence to warrant a CheckUser being ran, request that too. Should the case return positive results of socking, then blocking and/or protection may be in order. If the article is currently under obvious SPA account attack, then I recommend that you protect it now. Hope that helps, Tiptoety talk 00:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it helps, thank you. I'm waiting on new evidence from another editor that could push this case in one direction or the other (and determine the name of the case). I haven't pursued protection because so far, I feel comfortable discussing the issues raised on the talk page and the dispute there hasn't risen to the level of edit warring. Viriditas (talk) 00:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to have got their attention, as the edit war has now begun. Viriditas (talk) 11:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

move vandalism and quickcheck request

I am a little puzzled by this. Quickchecks were meant to be for blocking underlying IP addresses of suchlike vandals? Agathoclea (talk) 00:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is, but this was not stated in your request. Your request appeared to be a sock case, to check for sleepers (This leads me to believe there are more sleeper accounts out there). We file cases for these, and anything not covered in the four bullet points under the quick cases section. To briefly summarize the chain of events; the case was declined by Mayalld, and I removed it, agreeing with his clerk note (only partially, since there may in fact be more sleepers out there, but its very circumstantial). If you'd like to file a proper case, in which case I and most likely Mayalld can recuse from, you may do so with these instructions. But if this is to block an underlying ip, it will most likely be delined again. Best. Synergy 00:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. Looking for underlying IPs for a hardblock, and fishing for more accounts aren't the same thing. Hardblocking IP addresses only happens when there is an ongoing pattern of socking, and we would be looking for several SPI cases having been filed to show that there is a pattern than requires a hardblock. Using CU to look for sleepers without a shred of behavioural evidence that there are sleepers is fishing, and routinely declined. If there is evidence that there are sleepers, then a CU might be permitted, but that would have to be filed as a case, not as a quick request. If you wish to submit a case, I will recuse from clerking on it. Mayalld (talk) 13:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dealing with cases filed under the wrong name

Up until now, we've been handling by moving the case (or copying the content if the target already exists), then speedy deleting the "wrong" case, and manually fixing the queue.

Leaving redirects around causes things to break further down the line.

This is a bit messy, so I've tinkered with {{SPIarchive notice}}, so that we can point a case at the correct archive and case pages post move.

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TripLikeIDo for what it looks like.

It now tries to tell the reporter not to file further cases here, but if a case IS filed, the soft redirect doesn't break things.

To make this work really well, it would be good if the bot could do a few bits.

  1. If a page is moved, the bot should edit the resulting redirect page, replacing the redirect with {{SPIarchive notice|new target}}, and delist the case.
  2. If a clerk manually replaces a case page with a single line {{SPIarchive notice|new target}} where "new target" is not the case name, delist the case.

Mayalld (talk) 13:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, and I completely agree. There have been a number of these "merges" and as soon as I noticed your edits, I had to try to find out where this archive notice was (for I would have been using it instead of having an admin delete)!
We might need to work out exactly how and what needs merging if a case is still open. For instance: Case x is open, cases y and z are filed, which needs to be merged to case x. What gets merged, how, and how much? Would we need another header or marker for merged comments (as some cases can get pretty large)? And another one for merged accounts? Synergy 13:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can do both requests here provided others don't disagree with this method. I'll try to have it done on monday. —— nixeagleemail me 19:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser either not requested or completed

Is there any way we can separate these? I'd like to see the completed in its own section. I think it would speed up the process a bit more, not only for the clerks, but also for the random admin passerby. I've noticed that some admins, who aren't as experienced, would rather block per cu findings (which is perfectly understandable, since they might be new to the process) and this might give us an edge, sort of speak. Thoughts? Synergy 13:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, first I'm going to remove the declined section unless there are objections. Most if not all declined cases just revert back to being a normal SPI case and so its nonsensical to have two sections with cases admins should look into. Any objections to doing this? If there are none by monday I'll go ahead and implement the changes. —— nixeagleemail me 19:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in favour of removing the declined section. Declined CU cases seem to languish for far longer than no-CU cases. Mayalld (talk) 23:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fine to me, and would need to be mentioned in the header (i.e. CheckUser either not requested or declined). And this would be a suitable replacement in my opinion. Are there any objections to changing the declined section to completed, and renaming the other section to CheckUser either not requested or declined? Synergy 04:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lets do one change a time please. Both of these will involve me making changes to the bot's logic rather then just adding a hook. —— nixeagleemail me 17:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's the current backlog on Checkuser?

I ask because this seems to be floundering due to lack of input. Just want to know how long it is supposed to take. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The backlog isn't currently huge, and simple cases get sorted within 24 hours. More complex cases tend to sit around for rather longer, until somebody able to deal comes along. Three days isn't that long for a complex case to sit around. Mayalld (talk) 16:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is this one more complex than it seems? One of the users admitted to using a meatpuppet in an AfD and discussion and voting. I think its a sock, but either way, Wiki doesn't distinguish between meatpuppets and sockpuppets - they both get shown the door. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is an admission that an editor was pointed at a page by another editor, but not that he was told what to say there. As such, there isn't a clear cut admission of Meatpuppetry, so yes it is a tricky case. Mayalld (talk) 23:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, even though the geolocation of the IPs put them pretty much next door to each other (if not just a rebooted modem). I feel better knowing that someone is trying to make sense of it; I just don't want someone to eventually dump it as stale. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mwalla

Regarding Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mwalla. Things seem to be escalating with Mwalla, who has now seems to be harassing me now with sockpuppets as well as other people. They have created 2 new sockpuppets in less than 24 hours to evade a 1 week block on their account. There seems to be no recent input from staff members here. Can this be upgraded to a more urgent case?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious socks

If I were to see a sockpuppet of a blocked user, and it's obviously them (same name, only formatted differently, for example), would I report it here or somewhere else? DiverseMentality 18:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You report it here just as you would for any other sock case you have to provide the evidence as to why you think the account belongs to that person. —— nixeagleemail me 18:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thank you for the swift response. DiverseMentality 18:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations&oldid=278872398"