|
Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Archive 17
Question on tagging WP:DUCK socksI just blocked User:Moneystarr as a WP:DUCK sock of User:Whiskyrum1852 (reposting the same page deleted at AfD in its entirety). Should I add this new sock to the case page archive? If so, how should I do that? The admin instructions were not clear on this. Thanks. –Grondemar 14:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Change checkuser no to yes?I have an SPI request in the queue. I didn't ask for cu. Is it possible to amend the request to ask for it? Jeh (talk) 12:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Maybe?I'm unsure whether or not to bring this to SPI. Long story short, earlier this year Squeakmore was blocked for disrupting Wikipedia because they kept creating pages for things that either didn't exist or were outright speculation. Here's an example of some of their work. They tried contesting the block on their userpage and eventually got their talkpage access revoked because it became clear that they didn't learn anything and were just wasting admin time with repeated unblock requests. Earlier tonight I came across Squeakmo3. It was an obvious DUCK scenario, as they had the same habits of creating pages for things that either didn't exist or didn't warrant a page, as well as inserting speculation into pre-existing articles. I wasn't going to bring this to SPI since I wasn't sure that there were any other accounts. They struck me as a "one account at a time" sort of person. However the number at the end of their name, 3, somewhat gives off the impression that there may have been a second account at some point in time. I'm not sure if this account would be stale or not, as it likely would have been opened after they were blocked in January. What are you guys' thoughts on this? I slightly wouldn't mind the papertrail, as this would allow for a place to have the information all in one place (as opposed to multiple talkpages), but I can't guarantee that there are more accounts and I'm worried that this would just needlessly take up time that could be better spent on SPIs where there's more possibility of multiple accounts. (I have a strong feeling that there will eventually be more accounts after this one and SPI may become necessary then, but that's not really the point here since I'm wondering whether or not it's necessary now.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC) Vinodhchennu archiveWhy is there no link to the SPI case archive at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vinodhchennu? The archive template seems to be included but it's not showing up on the page. Am I overlooking an inconspicuous typo? —Psychonaut (talk) 09:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
No "search button at the bottom of ths page"?The Guide to filing cases page in the Important Notes section [[1]] says, "Before submitting a case, verify that there isn’t one already in progress using the search button at the bottom of this page." But the link doesn't seem to take me to a page with a button at the bottom of the page. Does it mean the search box for the archives at the bottom of the infobox? Or does it really mean I should just alphabetize/scan the current cases? I'm probably being stupid. valereee (talk) 14:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Report not listedUser 4ing filed a new report for Sju hav just recently, but I can't see it listed as a current case, so I wondered if it might be overlooked. Dunno what may have happened here. Iselilja (talk) 19:32, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Sockpuppets putting photos in volleyball articlesPretty sure Nqtiny [2], Virushou [3], and Bryanmella [4] are all the same person because they are all SPAs adding the same odd content to the same group of articles in the same time period. Not sure this warrants investigation as there isn't much in the way of edit warring on the pages, so I'm putting it here. Rracecarr (talk) 02:29, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Bot malfunctioningAmalthea (bot) stopped working completely, so I switched to the backup table (User:DeltaQuad/SPI case list). I wish this could be fixed. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
SPII created an SPI request on a talk page as requested; could someone move it so that it goes live? 2601:240:C701:45F0:29D3:1A7D:61A1:8AEF (talk) 12:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC) Move requestPlease move Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Legendswillneverdie to the WP space. Thanks. 153.173.65.195 (talk) 15:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Second Opinion@Vanjagenije: @Bbb23: You two have much better feel for questionable accounts than I do, so I want a second opinion about User:TheIRCtroll, who claims to be a banned user/editor (I just noticed that, sorry...) This guy sound familiar to either of you two from a past case? TomStar81 (Talk) 07:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
How to identify a sock master?Normally when a SPI is ignited, the sock master is known and the suspected sock puppet(s) are listed in the investigation after which the technical people will review whether they are indeed sock puppets by looking at the behavioral evidence and gathering technical evidence. However, at the Formula 1 WikiProject we have been disrupted for several months (the most recent one just today) by a series of sock puppets accounts launched to impersonate members of the project in order to get them into problems, but the account that is creating all these sock puppets is unknown. The "impersonators" that have appeared so far are: Tvx11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (an impersonation of myself)) Prisonernonkeys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Twirlypæn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Zwærg Nase (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (this one only appeared today) Additionally, there is at least one other active sock puppet, based on behavioral evidence: Darrandarra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) So my question is: is there a way to identify the sock master and by doing so put a halt to this continuous string of impersonations? Tvx1 21:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Missing archive linkWikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Coffeeloverlarge seems to be missing the usual link to a recently archived case. The necessary template seems to be there, so I'm not sure what's missing. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:43, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Setting off a spidey vibeI recently had to deal with a problematic editor that was trying to re-add a channel TV Guide-esque listing for WakuWaku Japan's horror films. I also noted that they created the article as well. I didn't think anything of this until today, when I had to block them for disruptive editing - namely them trying to again add the list page to Wikipedia despite a clear warning not to do this and a detailed explanation as to why it was deleted in the first place. There's something about the editor's username that seems familiar to one of the sockmasters we've previously had to deal with, but I can't place which one. The editor's name is Mario1811111111111 and if my little vibe is correct, then they will likely sign up with new accounts. I have nothing really to go on beyond that it seems similar to someone else and I believe that they've done entertainment related edits, but that's about it. I figured I'd lose nothing by asking if this rings a bell with anyone else. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC) We had an unusual request over at WP:AFC/C for the creation of Category: Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ipadguy. I declined it suggesting that it's better left to a clerk, but notice that Ipadguy (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is themselves a sock of Paleontologist99 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). I then notice that the three IPs mentioned in 2002:43F4:3ABB:1234:28A3:E67:3CF6:614C (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)'s request, namely
were blocked by Materialscientist on 24 November, but have self-tagged their talk pages with
Make an SPI?This one is a little tricky, as it involves this ANI thread. Recently a user (BarfBag666) signed up and made edits that centered around The Satanic Temple. Their edits were seen as problematic by other users and not without reason, as the edits were the type that you'd typically see from relative newbies that know little about Wikipedia editing. A discussion on their talk page went rather poorly and I do have to admit that they reacted badly, as they were far too defensive. However I will say that they reacted well to my attempts to interact with them and they did seem to be trying to follow my suggestions - I came across them via a REFUND request. (IE, editing a draft after I asked them to write a draft.) The user was ultimately blocked for having a promotional username. I decided that I was going to help them, so I improved a draft they'd made for the Temple. During this process I thought that it'd be nice to have pictures of some of the Temple's projects. Since none of their artwork is currently on display (ie, none of us could travel to take a picture), I figured that the best option would be to contact the Temple and ask them to upload pictures. I was very careful to give them the typical COI spiel (no direct edits, edit carefully, etc) but I forgot to tell them to be transparent. (Which I can't believe I did, but that's on me.) A new account, HAILXSATANX666, signed up soon after the email and by all accounts looked to be the person who read my email because their edits followed my instructions. They were also blocked for having a promotional username. A third account signed up (ILOVESATAN666) and posted the ANI thread where they stated that they were experiencing religious discrimination. I don't agree with all of their comments, but I can understand how they'd feel upset. Now here's where SPI comes in: people are saying that all of these accounts are by the same person. None of them have come to SPI since if they are the same person then there's no reason why they can't sign up with a new username. However I also don't like that many are automatically assuming that they're the same person after I've repeatedly stated that I've personally approached the Temple, so there's a good possibility that they aren't the same person. There's the possibility that they know one another, but we can't automatically say that. What I'm wondering is if I should open up an SPI just to check and see if all three are the same person or not. If they aren't, then that is something that could potentially change things at ANI. If they are, then that wouldn't change much now other than how I approach things. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:21, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
LostWikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheEditor1985 seems to have fallen through the cracks. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC) {{Possilikely}} up for deletionI would like to inform that the template {{Possilikely}} is up for deletion. Since this template appears to be extensively used for SPI, I have decided to notify here. --TL22 (talk) 21:47, 12 December 2015 (UTC) Seeking advice before actingThis is my first time here, so I would like some advice regarding what I have observed before I make any concrete allegations. A real person's name is involved, so for now please allow me to use aliases instead of the actual usernames. A user has had at least three accounts blocked for sockpuppetry, the most recent being user "Cowboy" in October following an investigation. A few months earlier they created a draft in their userspace about an "entrepreneur", who I will call John Smith. John is supposedly notable for creating a website. On the day that Cowboy was blocked, they created a separate (but similar) biography for John in the Draft space. In mid-November a new account was created, named "Smith.John77" After some useful edits, this account created a draft article for the entrepreneur's website on their second day, and rewrote John's biography on their third day. The draft has been rejected a few times but they continue to tinker with it. Smith.John77 came to my attention by adding several external links to John's website. I recognize this is also a COI problem, because the new user is probably either John or someone close to him. But there is also the problem with the previous user being blocked for sockpuppetry. The sockmaster was originally blocked for also trying to push an article about John into the mainspace. My question is that, given the current sockpuppet uses John's real name, what is the appropriate course of action for me to take to avoid unnecessary outing? All advice is welcome. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:53, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Keep an eye outHey, just giving a head's up because I get a feeling that there might be some socking in the future. Recently I came across Kazmandu2, who came across as a pretty obvious paid editor. They denied it when I outright asked them, but there was just so. much. evidence. that I ended up blocking them for advertising and for operating a compromised account, since they referred to themselves as "we". I think that they're likely editing on behalf of Rockstar Marketing given the spammy draft article they wrote for the company and an image they uploaded to the Commons, and their editing style shows that they're somewhat familiar with Wikipedia. I just get the feeling that they'll likely be back under new accounts. I've nothing to back this up, just that the type of paid editors that try to hide their affiliation are usually the ones that do this sort of thing. Just sort of spreading this around so others are aware, since that way there will be more eyes out there for articles like the ones this editor made. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC) Not sure whose sock this is...Recently I came across Doublelife123, who created several hoax pages for the shows Double Life (TV series) and Ally, Jessie and Teddy. They also tried to insert this into other articles with this edit. There have been several sockpuppeteers that have tried to create fake Disney related pages and the ones that stand out the most are Bambifan101~enwiki, Caidin-Johnson, and KuhnstylePro. I'm just not sure whose it is, however. The editor seems fairly familiar with editing so they're likely someone's sock but I can't put my finger on who. Any ideas? The user has been blocked, mostly this is just to ensure that I tag them with the right person. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
What to do with this one?this editor admits to the account being a sock. But no clue who the master is, and no statement that they contacted ArbCom and put a request for a legitimate undisclosed account to them. Absent a known master account, not sure what to do here. The editor is clearly in a COI situation (see contribs) and it's definitely a single-purpose account. Thoughts? Montanabw(talk) 22:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Notice to participants at this page about adminshipMany participants here are core editors, understand the problems faced at Wikipedia, know policy well, and much more. Well, these are just some of the considerations at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page: You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and maybe even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate. Many thanks and best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:15, 13 January 2016 (UTC) Documentation issue suggestionPlease comment there on this Documentation issue suggestion.--Elvey(t•c) 16:18, 14 January 2016 (UTC) Template where there's been no CUI've done a CU today tracking an IP that had sent someone a password reset message, and determined that 3 accounts, 2 already blocked, are related. There was no SPI case (although it was pretty obvious from the edits). I was going to tag the puppetmaster but {{sockpuppeteer|blocked|checked=yes|spipage=CASENAME}} needs a casename. Any suggestions? Doug Weller talk 12:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
There is a user (Dontmakemetypepasswordagain) who appears to be pushing a racist POVDontmakemetypepasswordagain appears to be extremely fluent in wikispeak for a new user with apx. 100 edits and is pushing that POV that "It was a mass sex assault of white women by Arab/North African men". I don't have time to fill out the paper work for this investigation but if anyone else would like to look into this all the evidence you need is on the article and talk pages of New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 17:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Check requestedCan a CU please check Idkanymoreplshelp? He is a vandal who is behaviourally the exact same asPussy123321. 96.237.20.21 (talk) 21:59, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
questionSomeone recently filed an SPI on me (lol). I commented there. Now both the SPI and my comments and the filer's comments have disappeared. Not "disappeared" as in have been rev-deleted but just... no record of it as if it had never happened. I don't really care but I just wanted someone to explain this to me.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:52, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Elusive sockI was wondering how to deal with a situation in which a persistent sock continues to re-create articles by making adjustments in the article title to defeat detection. How does one keep watch for such efforts? If I have Core TheApple watchlisted and it is deleted, if it is re-created as Core The Apple it is not going to appear on my watchlist. Coretheapple (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Suspected socksCan they please be unblocked? They haven't been confirmed of performing sockpuppetry. --Bazaan (talk) 11:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Can't sort by date?It seems the SPI case table can't be sorted by date, by any of the three date columns. Is that deliberate? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Check an IP?I dunno if it's worth opening a new SPI just for an IP, but we recently had an IP request restoration of Arjun Prabhakaran at REFUND. The article was created by Aparna tutu, so it's possible that it's him evading a block. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Category creationHey guys. I've just created around 700 sockpuppet categories which appeared on a query I ran (although I wasn't really looking for sock categories!), typically they are missing categories from a pair of suspect/confirmed where the other one exists, so there should be a few more useful blue links for you. There was one where creation was blocked - I don't suppose someone could salve my OCD and create Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of AMILTON DE CRISTO with a {{sockpuppet category}} for me please? TIA Le Deluge (talk) 19:19, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
SPI case not appearing on case listLast night, I opened a sockpuppet investigations case here. However, the bot still hasn't added it to list of cases. Supposedly, the bot thinks that it is malformed, but I don't see how that could be possible since I created the report using Twinkle and followed every step. Can anyone figure out why this is happening? --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 00:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Clearing an alleged sock?Per this close [5] Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi has decided that these two IPs are socks (of an acknowledged sockmaster) and is bulk-reverting their valid edits, citing WP:DENY. This is on no evidence whatsoever. IPs of 112.* annd 115.* are far from "close". To avoid yet more edit-warring, there needs to be some recognition that these are not socks. Surely SPI (where the CUs are) is the appropriate platform to clear this up? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Help neededI opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/79.78.168.63, but it is misformed. Can somebody please fix the page. Debresser (talk) 09:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Contacting checkuser team by emailWikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations refers to "email[ing] the CheckUser team" in cases where private information is involved, but it gives no instruction for how to do so. What email address can be used to contact the checkuser team? -- Rrburke (talk) 18:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Hist-merge versus copy-pasteHow should reports which get filed under the wrong master be handled? I'm getting mixed messages on this from Vanjagenije so would like some clarification. Vanjagenije has told me that for cases like this, where the report is misfiled under a master for which no casefile previously existed, that the report should be hist-merged and not copy-pasted to the correct master for proper archiving. However, for cases like this, where the report is misfiled under a master for which a casefile did previously exist, Vanjagenije has said that the report should be copy-pasted and not hist-merged to the correct master for proper archiving. Fundamentally, these are the same situation (edits to one page that belong on another) so I can't see the logic in this argument. If it's deemed worthwhile to hist-merge to the correct master, then why only do it in some cases and not others? TDL (talk) 00:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Something weirdHey guys, I can't help but post this. There's something really, REALLY weird going on with this AfD. Here's a bit of history: This article was created by Nassrinmirsadeghi. It was nominated for speedy deletion, which was turned into a PROD by Safiel. (Safiel, I'm pinging you in this because you opened the AfD. Please don't mention this elsewhere just yet since I'm still looking for evidence.) This PROD was removed by Atlantic306 with the rationale that it "passes GNG". Now at AfD there was an argument for retention by Matt14451 with just the rationale "Do not delete". Now what is odd about this is that these are all edits coming from people who are, as far as I can tell, uninvolved with one another and certainly otherwise uninvolved with Nassrinmirsadeghi since his only edits were to create this page and make a minor edit on his userpage. Matt14451 and Atlantic306 both started editing in 2015 and while I haven't done an exceptionally deep search of their edits, I don't see anything that outwardly screams that they're socking or meating. They both edit music and movie related topics, but so far I haven't seen an article that they've both been involved with. Both seem to know Wikipedia policy, although they do have some problems with justifying inclusion per Matt's keep argument at the film AfD. My offhand thought is that this probably isn't sockpuppetry, rather a case of meatpuppetry or possibly paid editing. There's just something about this that is just doesn't feel kosher, like it's some sort of organized effort to keep pages on Wikipedia. It's not enough to open an SPI just yet, especially since I'm unsure if it's socking or meating, but this sort of coordinated editing just feels off somehow. Anyone else got some input at this? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
spihelper.jsYou might have noticed that it isn't working anymore. It seems now you have to fetch it as raw. mw.loader.load('//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ATimotheus_Canens%2Fspihelper.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript'); //[[User:Timotheus Canens/spihelper.js]]
--QEDK (T ☕ C) 13:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Categorizing casesI just noticed that SPI cases are categorized while they are open but once they are closed and archived, all categories are removed. This makes old cases difficult to search for and the only tool is the search field on the main page which I haven't had much success with. Is there a reason why categories are not used? Liz Read! Talk! 01:42, 5 April 2016 (UTC) Process questionHow do I add new IP addresses and/or usernames to old sock puppet investigations, or do I have to create a new process? For example, banned editor Mouse001 was found to be a using ICat Master per this archived investigation. Subsequently, I have discovered the same editor likely has used this IP and is almost certainly currently using this IP. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Edit the instructions for opening an SPI?Hello all- Anyone know how to edit the instructions under "How to open an investigation"? I think the wording could use a couple tweaks. My suggested changes are below, replacing the strikethrough text with the black bold text:
Eric talk 20:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC) Sockpuppets of US political consultantsHi SPI Team, I don’t know your usual procedure--I realize it may not be linear--but I wanted to ask about Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lesbianadvocate being passed over in the queue this week. This case potentially involves six years of high-profile politician biographies (US senators and representatives, as well as their opponents) being rewritten right before elections by paid political consultants, and propaganda about major ongoing court cases being inserted into articles. When other users and I first put this evidence together, I assumed site administrators would be very interested, but so far I’m not sure we’ve managed to get an administrator to even comment in any forum--much less any action taken against the likely sock puppets or clean-up on the articles they altered for their clients. I’m a little surprised that Wikipedia doesn’t take this sort of thing more seriously. Would it be possible for someone here to take a look and offer guidance? If the evidence isn’t yet sufficient to get an administrator’s attention, or if there's a problem with format or another issue, would it be possible for someone to indicate what more we should provide? Whether you have a chance to take a look or not, thanks everybody for volunteering your time here, and the great resource you provide. Glad to be working with you, Ellen -- EllenMcGill (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC) Notification, next stepsHi folks. Longtime listener, first time caller. I'm curious if notification is required when filing an SPI. I didn't see it listed in the instructions and I wasn't sure if there was another policy/instruction page I might've missed. Also once I create the page, is that it or are there other steps to list the investigation? Thanks. Protonk (talk) 13:43, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
How to refile a simplified case?
User on tyresHi. I was working through the pages-moved-by-a-new-user log, when I noticed that several user pages were moved in a similar fashion: User:Name to User:Name on tyres. So far, all the page movers have been blocked, either as vandalism-only accounts or for socking. I was wondering if there's a specific SPI related to this? - HyperGaruda (talk) 20:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
PurgeJust a suggestion, but maybe there should be a purge button on the main page as the list doesn't update without a purge for me. --TJH2018talk 15:34, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Possible socking?Long story short, the editors Aieroel and Monsieurdan were trying to add or edit articles on Solidiance and one of its leaders, Damien Duhamel to Wikipedia and Aieroel tried to add PR pieces by the company to a few articles. The first account was clearly warned about editing with a COI, puffery, and posting copyright violations, which looks to have been ignored since they continued to try to add copyvio and puffery in various pages. The two accounts appear to be working in tandem and I don't know if this is a case of sockpuppetry or not. My gut reaction is telling me that this is likely meatpuppetry and that the two know one another, but aren't the same person. Can anyone run a quick check on these guys just to make sure? I'm blocking both so it's somewhat of a moot point but I just wanted to make sure since there's such a strong connection. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:48, 27 April 2016 (UTC) MeinFuhrer sockWhose sock is TruckFump (talk · contribs)? The edit summaries are familiar. Doug Weller talk 09:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Bear with me on this one. I don't really do the SPI thing. There's a lot of fishyness going on with the subject of the linked ANI thread (posted by me, full dis). I strongly suspect that the user is continuing to edit under the listed IP, in circumvention of a user name ban. I somewhat suspect that they are a previously banned user. I don't really know what kindof WP secret squirrel tools are at your disposal, but if someone could look into it more than my amateurish fumbling around that would be much appreciated. At least prove me wrong and let's close the thread. TimothyJosephWood 18:23, 7 May 2016 (UTC) SPI is not functioning at allI posted a problem to WP:AN#SPI is not functioning at all―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC) Requested Mergermoved from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tikeem cumberbatch uttp tcgp own Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) I don't know whether this is the right way to request this, but could Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Madam queefnuggets and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fart nutz both be merged into this case? The accounts listed on those pages are clearly Tikeem Cumberbatch socks. Passengerpigeon (talk) 02:45, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Wondering whether or not to open an SPII wonder if I should file an SPI on something I stumbled across, which does not appear to be malicious. This article was submitted for GA review on 23 March 2016, and is still there. All edits occcurred in March 2016, and all accounts began that month: six redlink editors, and one newly created account (DakaotaSage94). One of the redlink editors nominated it at GA. There does not appear to be malicious intent on this article, but is this a situation where an SPI should be filed? — Maile (talk) 18:30, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Rename SPI from Persian?Is it worth renaming a repeat-sock SPI with a Persian master username into an anglicised version, or to the name of a later sock, for ease of reporting by editors who don't read Persian? Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/جواد رمضانی شوراب seems to be a regular vandal, and the Arabic-text username is slightly awkward to copypaste and to refer to in conversation. Google Translate converts it to "Javad Ramezani brine" ("Javad Ramezani" is the sock's bio subject of choice), and the oldest Latin-text sock (only two of the 100+ socks have used a Persian name) is User:Be yad asatid. --McGeddon (talk) 20:22, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Paid editing cases at SPIUser:Bbb23 made this comment at an SPI case opened by User: Brianhe and on which User: Lemongirl942 commented. Bbb23 it seems to me you are expressing some things you have been reflecting on/struggling with, and I want to be sure that I and other folks who work on paid editing/COI hear you. I am not completely clear on what you want to say and it seems that you are working your way toward something. If you and other CUs/admins who work SPI would like to say more, I would like to hear it. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC) Stumbled upon invalid SPIHi all, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/204.82.203.59 will ever get actioned - should it not be closed? -- samtar talk or stalk 08:23, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
AccessibilityWhy are you using an empty description list for the words "Suspected sockpuppets"? It not only causes inconvenience for screen readers, but creates invalid html. There's guidance at WP:BADHEAD about avoiding pseudo-headings, and I can't see any reason why "Suspected sockpuppets" isn't marked up as a level 4 heading, the same as the other headings in the section. It is, after all, a section heading. --RexxS (talk) 13:37, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Editnotice edit requestI don't know how to do it and I don't think I can do it myself anyway, but can someone add the {{selfendorse}} template to the list of clerk actions in the SPI editnotice? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:53, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Technical help neededI need someone to edit {{SPIarchive notice}} template. It transludes the {{Checkuser}} template ({{Checkuser|1={{{1}}}|master=yes}}). But, we use {{Checkuser}} template for accounts, while for the anonymous IPs, we use {{Checkip}} template. Can we edit {{SPIarchive notice}} so that it transcludes {{Checkuser}} for accounts and {{Checkuser}} for IPs? Currently, it transcludes {{Checkuser}} in all cases. That creates problems. See this example: different template is used for the master and for the sockpuppets although they are all IPs. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
@Vanjagenije and DMacks: I just want to make sure that the templates aren't made to be overly complex, as some cases (Orangemoody/Archive comes to mind) end up with dozens of instances of Template:Checkuser, and we don't want to run afoul the transclusion limit. I'm not sure if this is even a factor, to be honest, but it's something to keep in mind. Thanks —DoRD (talk) 10:07, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
NewPP limit report Parsed by mw1305 Cached time: 20160707061817 Cache expiry: 2592000 Dynamic content: false CPU time usage: 2.940 seconds Real time usage: 4.315 seconds Preprocessor visited node count: 51563/1000000 Preprocessor generated node count: 0/1500000 Post‐expand include size: 1452392/2097152 bytes Template argument size: 85402/2097152 bytes Highest expansion depth: 9/40 Expensive parser function count: 5/500 Lua time usage: 0.205/10.000 seconds Lua memory usage: 7.23 MB/50 MB Number of Wikibase entities loaded: 0 Transclusion expansion time report (%,ms,calls,template) 100.00% 1314.665 1 - -total 58.40% 767.814 459 - Template:Checkuser 23.25% 305.602 2 - Template:CollapsedShell 8.98% 118.051 2 - Template:Reflist 7.32% 96.297 23 - Template:Cite_web 6.33% 83.220 4608 - Template:Middot 4.99% 65.578 2 - Template:Infobox_company 4.82% 63.393 2 - Template:Ambox 4.03% 52.943 21 - Template:User2 3.83% 50.357 2 - Template:Infobox
Alternate implementationI'll mention {{IPvandal}} and {{vandal}} as examples that are implemented as wrappers around the generic {{User-multi}}, where that generic one is a togglable set of links chosen by the wrapper. Let's see here:
There are a few links in the "check..." that are not in the "...vandal": the "+" of the "talk" (for starting a new section on the talkpage), "tag", cross-wiki/centralauth stuff, and CU things that aren't available in User-multi. Probably easy enough to implement them, as a future project. Note that User-multi only supports its predefined set of items, no way to pass in arbitrary special ones from wrappers. DMacks (talk) 05:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
No Clerks?Is there anyone actively clerking SPI at the moment? The backlog of checked cases awaiting review is significant.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:35, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm starting a new job soon. Hopefully when I'm settled in and life calms down, I can get back to active clerking. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
A questionWhat's the appropriate response to a blocked editor socking in order to non-disruptively edit their own user space? Specifically, I'm curious about how to respond to this. On one hand, it is technically evasion, on the other, it seems harmless enough, so I'd like someone else's opinion on this. Thanks. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
|
