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 Piotrus (talk | contribs) at 22:46, 17 December 2010 (→‎No notification needed?: new section). 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.

Submitting case inputbox

You know, I was thinking, we probably only need the one inputbox now, since we now use the {{SPI report}} template as our default for formatting of SPI cases. If somebody needs to request CU, then they can change the "checkuser" parameter to "yes". Any thoughts about combining that? –MuZemike 15:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. T. Canens (talk) 10:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IPs at Talk:Right-wing politics and Roger Scruton

There is a dynamic IP who I believe to be a sock of User:Yorkshirian, who is involved exclusively on Talk:Right-wing politics. I have asked for semi-protection of the page, but apparently that remedy is unavailable. Is it possible to have an SPI? TFD (talk) 22:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about 88.110.4.199 (talk · contribs), 88.110.8.64 (talk · contribs), 88.110.3.165 (talk · contribs), 88.110.8.60 (talk · contribs), 88.110.12.237 (talk · contribs), 88.110.13.69 (talk · contribs), etc?
If so, he's very insulting. He's currently explaining to me at Talk:Roger Scruton what a stupid bigot I am, and how I obviously know nothing. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is him. I requested protection[1] and WP:OP[2] but they were not able to help. TFD (talk) 23:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason to think he's Yorkshirian apart from his editing of Talk:Right-wing politics? Was Yorkshirian insulting in the same way? The IP address seems to resolve to Nottingham, [3] though I don't know whether geolocation can be trusted in the UK, as it seems to work differently. The best place to request semi-protection, by the way, is WP:RfPP. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 10:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
88.110.0.0/20 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) blocked for a week. This is Tiscali, however, so semi is likely the only long-term solution. That, or revert on sight. T. Canens (talk) 10:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, Timotheus. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 10:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(out) Here are excerpts from Yorskshirian in the archives: [4]

This is a very contentious and bias addition. Fascists are certainly not part of the traditional right, far or otherwise. They didn't even exist when the traditional right was defined following the French Revolution. Which is made up of monarchists, theocracists and reactionaries. Mussolini was a revolutionary, who began his career as a Marxist and claimed as his biggest influence Georges Sorel, the revolutionary syndicalist. He and his movement are to the left of Bonapartism. It is absolutely disputed where this is on the political spectrum and as thus should not be included here.
Then you seem to be confused, or at least not very well read on the subject. Study the origins of the political spectrum—when it was first traditionally defined following the French Revolution, on the right were Theocratic Catholics and the Absolute Monarchists. It has always been disputed whether fascism is on the right, since it emerged during the 1930s (more than a century after the traditional definition of "the right"). Even by fascists themselves, such as Oswald Mosley who presented themselves as a third way. Though the left, especially in North America, seem to try to negate the complexities of this quite persistently, especially the inconvient fact that Mussolini began as a Marxist and throughout his career was influenced most prominently by Georges Sorel. Most scholars on fascism disagree with your opinion, to put it bluntly.

The writing and viewpoint seems similar to his discussion at Talk:Right-wing politics. In my experience with English IPs the results seem to vary. I did ask for semi-protection but the request was declined.[5]

TFD (talk) 19:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The same person is back today at Roger Scruton as 85.211.78.147 (talk · contribs). It's clearly him, because he said on talk on December 3 as 88.110.8.64 (talk · contribs) that he intended to add material from a few Scruton books, including Gentle Regrets: Thoughts from a Life and A Political Philosophy: Arguments For Conservatism, and that's what he did today as 85.211.78.147. He has also posted on talk as 85.211 referring back to his earlier post as 88.110: "I promised I would provide a brief text based summary ..." and has resumed the same kind of insults on talk. [6] I've requested semi-protection at RfPP. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 14:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the IPs

I'm listing the IPs I've noticed, in case they turn out to be useful for the future. They resolve to Tiscali in the UK; some say Nottingham, some say Leeds, the rest give no location. Most appear to be the same person. Where there's a large gap in editing from the same IP (e.g., one edit in 2006, the next in 2009), only one of the uses would be his. A characteristic of his talk-page posts is accusing other editors of knowing nothing, of being stupid, ignorant, and bigots.

Extended content

SlimVirgin talk|contribs 10:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for merging of Template:Sockblock

Template:Sockblock has been nominated for merging with Template:SockBlock. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Bsherr (talk) 19:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voluntary checkusers requests for IPs

Under the current policy, requesting a checkuser for IPs is impermissible. It is foreseeable that a user accused of using IPs as sockpuppets may want to request a checkuser to acquit themself of wrongdoing and I see nothing wrong with that. Marcus Qwertyus 23:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Previously, when the letters were still used to identify the reason for checkuser, requesting checkuser to prove innocence wasn't listed as one of the reasons and was one of the tips or times checkuser will not be used. There have been circumstances when this has been accepted, I can only remember one or two, but I forgot which cases. Typically though, requests for checkuser to prove innocence is declined. See also Wikipedia:Checkuser#Grounds for checking last two lines. Elockid (Talk) 23:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Line breaks

Suddenly when I save a report it has no line breaks for the reported socks - and I can't figure out how to fix it. It may be something to do with the latest version of Chrome. Dougweller (talk) 06:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just Chrome; it happens in nearly every report. Not sure what's going on with it, though... — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 12:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transclusion

About 24 hours ago, I posted a report to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Antony1103, but it has not yet been transcluded to this page. Is there a problem with the bot, or did I do something wrong? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may have been because there were two reports listed there, and it was just seeing the first. Give the bot fifteen minutes or so to rerun, and then see if it shows up. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 17:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Yep, that's it. DQ.alt (t) (e) 17:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Should I have archived that at the time I filed the new report? If so, should there have been some instructions about doing so? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, archiving is done by the clerks. We're just a little backed up right now, is all. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 18:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I know how you feel! Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked me

Hi! Blocked me, please, I'm Dr Claudio. Jackson Harrison (talk) 18:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked, and some other sleepers as well. TNXMan 18:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help with accusations of sockpuppetry

I'm seeking some expertise on how to handle accusations of sockpuppetry. Specifically, PranakanLegion has made edits that are extremely similar to other editors found to be sockpuppets of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/DPeterson. PranakanLegion is understandably upset at the situation. Suggestions? --Ronz (talk) 16:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PranakanLegion has been added to the DPeterson report. Still, I think it would be helpful to hear suggestions for PranakanLegion. --Ronz (talk) 18:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pranakanlegion has been notified of the sockpuppet filing, this page and ANI if he has complaints. All with links. Fainites barleyscribs 19:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some method to allow anons to report new suspected sockpuppets

I think we should have some method for anonymous users to create sockpuppetry cases for users without any previous ones. Currently, due to the fact that these cases are in the Wikipedia: namespace, and anons can't create pages there, there's no way for them to do it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A note on posting to ANI, or emailing ... someone? Rd232 talk 10:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let them register. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The record on IP accusations about registered editors being socks is not good (some editors will forward the complaint here, so the IP's complaint does get listed). Indeed, many have been shown to be socks in themselves :(. Collect (talk) 11:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that the barrier of creating an account could be a deterrent for a sockpuppeteer to create new reports; it may, however, deter other people who have no interest in ever creating even one account. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that anyone who chooses to take an interest in guarding the community through catching naughty community members should formally join the community by registering. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Most IPs I've seen take any interest in such matters are banned users trying to continue the battles they were banned for, usually against registered users who are not socking, simply to cause further trouble. Yworo (talk) 01:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) AFC currently allows anonymous editors to submit content. Anonymous users can create pages in the Wikipedia talk space. Perhaps we could use this in some fashion to allow them to submit SPI cases? TNXMan 02:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No notification needed?

I was told recently that "Sock reports don't require notification, unlike ANI reports". Is this true? And if so, what is the rationale? I think that when an accusation is made against another editor, whether it is 3RR, AE/ANI report or SI, they should be informed so they can defend themselves. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations&oldid=402930200"