Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:SSP)
Jump to: navigation, search

Logo for SPI[edit]

Logo for SPI

I have created a logo for SPI. I'd appreciate any comments. I'm planning to put it on the main SPI project page. Thanks. --Pine 01:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@Pine: On which way will it benefit the project? Vanjagenije (talk) 21:36, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
@Vanjagenije: it would create a simple visual identity logo for SPI that could be reused on other pages as needed. I personally find it useful to have logos that I can use for quick identification or association, for example when writing reports. Many other groups and projects have visual identities also, such as the Signpost, the Arbitration Committee, administrators (the mop), and some wikiprojects. --Pine 21:38, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
With absolutely no disrespect for the time and effort you've put in to creating the logo, I'm also struggling to imagine a tangible use for it.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
In SPI Clerk userboxes is the first use I can think off. Our project pages could use some sort of navigation banners.  · Salvidrim! ·  22:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
If anyone would find it beneficial and sees applicable uses then it has my support (not that that's a requirement!).--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:05, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I think it could go on the top of Template:SPI navigation. Salvidrim's suggestions are also sensible. And the next time that someone writes a report about sockpuppetry for the Signpost or the Wikimedia blog, they can use the logo as a part of the visual identity for the piece. (As someone who wrote for the Signpost, I can tell you that I like having visual identifiers in publications.) --Pine 23:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Could it be made to fit the general theme at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Wikipedia/User groups? We don't have anything for SPI clerks. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I thought there already were SPI and ArbCom clerk UBX...  · Salvidrim! ·  01:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I also don't see many purposes to have this logo (plus cue the WP:BIKESHED) OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:53, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
@Someguy1221 and Salvidrim!: There is an unofficial SPI Clerk userbox created by Yunshui, User:Yunshui/Userbox SPIclerk. It uses the green fez as a symbol of SPI clerkship (See also Wikipedia:Fez). Vanjagenije (talk) 10:15, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
No socks.png
I had created this one a few weeks ago, with an eye towards either wearing sandals, a userbox, or inline response. Colorful, less sinister-looking. Might benefit from a slightly smaller ghostbusters and/or the edges of the socks sticking forward a bit? DMacks (talk) 19:39, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I think that's fine for userspace, but it's too casual for project pages like WP:SPI. (: --Pine 22:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm overall getting the sense that there's generally indifference about my proposal one way or another. With that in mind, if there are no objections in the next few days, I'll boldly add it to Template:SPI navigation. If someone feels strongly enough that they dislike it, they can revert it and discuss the situation more here. --Pine 18:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
    • I'm not against the concept of a logo, but I'd rather that the colours were more coherent with the scheme used on Wikipedia; black and white are very harsh colours compared to the default blue and grey colour scheme. Sam Walton (talk) 19:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


Funkatastic and Jayo68 both call themselves "experts" on their pages and are bothboth vandalizing Drake and Fetty Wap's Wikipedia articles and keep reverting people's edits. Please check these two users with checkuser. They are sockpuppets.

See this edit by Funkatastic

See this edit by Jayo68

This person continually adds as sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:50C7:4200:C087:C001:5C8:35FA (talk) 04:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Not sure if I was accidentally tagged in this or not, but either way I got a kick out of it. I've never once used "" as a reference. Very seldom do I edit the page Fetty Wap (can't even recall if I've ever edited it all, just don't wanna overdramatize). Nor have I ever made any edits that could be considered vandalism. If you consider restoring sections completely deleted by unregistered users "vandalizing", you have a very loose definition of the word. The user above just flat out claims "They are sockpuppets", no "maybe", no "possibly". One claim based on little evidence is fact to him. I'm posting this to defend myself, but I encourage whatever user that reviews this claim to take it as seriously as possible. I have nothing to hide.Funkatastic (talk) 05:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
No need to take it seriously. This IP is just HipHopVisionary (talk · contribs) evading his block. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:37, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
LMFAO. SMH. HipHopVisionary was banned and wont give up. Jayo68 (talk) 05:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Are users allowed to know how many times checkuser(s) checked their account?[edit]

Can a user ask checkusers if any checkuser had ran a CU on their account? Supdiop (T🔹C) 06:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Have you fully read WP:Checkuser? Some helpful stuff there. Doc talk 06:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
But It doesn't answer my questions Supdiop (T🔹C) 07:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
They can ask, and a CheckUser can reply, but there is no requirement to reply. -- zzuuzz (talk) 07:16, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Ok, thanks Supdiop (T🔹C) 07:23, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
And they generally won't. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 07:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Wild, wild guess[edit]

I'm looking for a real wild guess on the average time invested on a case. I'm talking all users reading and typing. I'm talking about detecting, reverting, tagging, CUs, reads, digging, looking, comparing, you name it. Total total total. A rough guess per case, total. I'm looking for a number in hours and minutes. What do you think? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The time invested in any particular case varies widely. For cases where the sockmaster is well known, it may take only a few minutes, including filing the case and CU checks, to complete. Other, more complex cases, may take several hours. I didn't work on it, but Orangemoody apparently took several weeks of work by a number of editors, admins, and CUs. Average time, though? That would be difficult to determine without actually logging, over a period of months, I think, the time spent on each case.
For a completely wild, likely inaccurate guess, I'd say somewhere around an hour. I pretty much know what it takes to work a case from this side, but I really don't have any idea how much time an individual editor might have spent preparing a case. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi, DoRD. Interesting. Just to be clear, when I say "case", I am referring the master and all his socks and all the time spent by everyone, including users who read but didn't actually work on it. One hour per case, from the first filing to the last sock before he gives up? (Links to why I'm asking: [1][2] If you think this could be counter-productive, please say. Unproductive, I can take a chance on.) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Forty minutes. That's my answer and I'm sticking to it. :) Do I detect that we may have an enthusiastic volunteer to help regularly patrol SPI cases? That may be the best way to learn the answers that you are after..including why socks do what they do. I agree with DoRD's assessment and yes, there are many cases where work has been done but no results are made public because there wasn't enough evidence to make the associations. Since we work independently, we are often unaware of how much time other investigators have spent working on a case. Some cases may have had hours worth of time invested cumulatively but to view it sitting there in the list, you might think no one has even seen it.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Anna, if I understand your response to DoRD, you just made a very difficult question almost impossible to answer. So, if you have a sockmaster who keeps creating new socks, the case isn't over until the sockmaster dies, gives up, goes on to bigger and better adventures? And does the time between new sock reports count toward the time spent on a case? How much time has to elpase with no activity before we assume the sockmaster has stopped creating new socks, or at least we haven't spotted them? I assumed in your initial question you wanted the time spent on each investitgation, which is hard enough to answer. Unlike DoRD and Berean, I personally wouldn't venture a guess.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:36, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Heh. If it is "from first sock to when they throw in the towel", I can think of two sockmasters who started creating accounts before I started editing 10 years ago, and they're still at it (with a periodic hiatus). All aspects considered, really huge cases like Orangemoody can average over 30 minutes per sock, but that is because there are so many additional elements that come into play when handling cases like that (including developing and maintaining documentation processes just to keep track of that many socks, and quality assurance/sanity checks often calling upon multiple opinions). A lot of it depends on the nature of the request, and the kinds of results obtained when doing the checks; some are incredibly obvious, others need to be sorted out from other accounts. Some cases take a single check. Others take dozens. Keeping in mind checkusers will often just post results and leave the rest (blocks, deletions, etc) for others to do, I'd estimate that half of the cases I do take under half an hour including the checkuser comments. Another quarter take less than an hour. The rest can vary from a few hours to...well, in the case of Orangemoody, weeks. Risker (talk) 14:55, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Sure it varies, Risker, but that's why long-timers like you can provide a gut guess. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Bbb23. I'm sorry I made it complicated. Yes, from discovery to having thrown in the towell. ("Thrown in the towell" means maybe gone for, say, 1 year. I'm guessing the vast majority of year-old archived cases never reopen.) No, the time between doesn't count. I'm talking about resources spent (our time). Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't know if anyone has kept statistics, but there are many archived cases that reopen after a year has elapsed. It makes CUs much more difficult, BTW. Do the towels and socks go in the same drawer? :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 15:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
@Anna Frodesiak:, if you can get Tobias Conradi to stop socking through this process, I shall forever be in your debt. And I'm just taking, I'm ready to ignore the socking at the others :) —SpacemanSpiff 15:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi, SpacemanSpiff. Wikipedians are the smartest bunch ever! Surely we can come up with something and give it a try. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

My links above say what I'm getting at. Trolls are well understood and the plan is DENY. But we treat socks the same way. Where are the discussions about what they might respond to? Imagine a set of cleverly crafted posts that made 1 in 10 stop. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)