I'm wondering if it might be worth using Amazon Web Services' Machine Learning service over the WM database, to detect socks by pattern? I'd try it myself, but I'm painfully time-limited at the moment. Jonsg ( talk) 10:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Discussion on machine learning continued at User:Doc James/Paid editing#11b. score articles on "sockiness". — Brianhe ( talk) 02:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply

@ Brianhe: FYI David King, Ethical Wiki ( Talk) 16:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Very, very interesting, thanks for passing this along. Weird feature list. The letter "L"? Brianhe ( talk) 04:37, 16 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• Put the subjects of these articles under Discretionary sanctions for the next 90 days so that further abuse or copycat behavior can be nipped in the bud.

• For the next 6 months, put an edit filter on the re-creation of an article that was deleted by the bot, with the action being:

• 1) a friendly, welcoming notice to the user's talk page that he is editing a page that was previously the subject of abusive editing and that as a result, there may be extra scrutiny, along with a link to this discussion and to various "new editor help" pages and to related policy pages (e.g. WP:BLP, WP:ORG, WP:BIO, etc.)
• 2) a tag on the edit so page-patrollers and others will be able to spot the page-creation, and
• 3) addition of the page to a new hidden category, Category:Pages associated with certain long-term-abuse (ARBCOM)/Orangemoody, with that category having a built-in expiration/bot-de-population date of March 31, 2015 (or some other reasonable date). There would also need to be an edit filter to flag or prevent removal of that category before its scheduled expiration/de-population date.

davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 18:16, 2 September 2015 (UTC) reply

FYI the third action can't be achieved with an edit filter. Sam Walton ( talk) 18:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Perhaps not directly, but it can be achieved by a bot going over the edit filter's log. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 18:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Aren't all BLP articles already under ArbCom discretionary sanctions per WP:NEWBLPBAN? Would the new sanctions be an extension of this? Mz7 ( talk) 19:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Remember, not all of the Orangemoody-socknest articles were about people. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 20:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply

You're right. My apologies. Mz7 ( talk) 20:34, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply

This story has caught the public eye. "Hundreds of Wikipedia editors fired for taking payments to secretly promote brands". news.com.au. 3 September 2015. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Except they were not fired. They have simply "moved" to new accounts such as likely these [1]. What we have here is a game of whack a mole and we just realized that it moved up a few levels a year or more ago. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 02:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply

I wonder if we'll ever get to the point where every "save" throws up a confirmation dialog box saying "I swear, under penalty of perjury, that I am not a banned editor". Sigh. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 03:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Wound not likely accomplish much. This group new what they were doing. We need to simply make it harder for them so they can at the most do less and it becomes more expensive for them wrt employee hours. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 03:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Well, it would accomplish something: The implied-but-very-real threat of possibly-felony-criminal-charges (perjury is a criminal offense and is frequently a felony) would deter sockpuppets who are subject to US laws (namely, residents and possibly citizens abroad) from doing this or at the least, make them go to the expense of using an offshore proxy. On the other hand, it would very likely be seen as "over the top," "reactionary," or "the WMF allowing themselves to being manipulated" by the general public, which is a bad thing. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 04:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Is it by design that User:Orangemoody and User talk:Orangemoody just look like ordinary user pages? I was surprised not to find any notices there at all. — Brianhe ( talk) 17:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

The user page was recently blanked by an editor with checkuser rights. I think we can trust that he knows the state of the user talk page and he left both pages in those states intentionally. As to why, I've got no clue, nor do I think it is terribly important to know. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 17:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

It is passing strange that the standard method of identifying socks (a template with associated category) is not being used in this case. But it is a very unusual case in many ways. It seems that the functionary cabal went off into a secret huddle at some point (early July). All the best: Rich  Farmbrough, 17:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC). reply

This is pure speculation on my part, but NOT having a quick-link from these user pages back to this case may be a partial WP:DENYal to those behind this mess. Another speculation is that with all the press, it may be a legal caution in case even one editor is mid-identified as being affiliated with this very public situation. In any case, this is one of those cases where I'm more than willing to give those we elected (arbcom) and those protecting our legal interests (WMF) and other highly trusted users (checkuser) wide latitude in keeping secrets that would, under typical circumstances, be kept private. At least for the time being.

In a few years, when all the legal options are exhausted and when (or if?) we are absolutely sure that a given account is involved in this situation, I expect the WMF, ARBCOM, and the checkuser crew to issue a joint report, telling us all they can tell us and stipulating as specifically as they can what must be kept secret that is normally not kept secret and why it must be kept secret (I expect the answer the the latter will be "legal reasons" and/or "legitimate privacy concerns"). davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 16:58, 12 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Do we have a standard way of identifying socks that was not followed? I find Rich's comments about cabals and secrecy confusing, not sure what was trying to be said there. If there was a huddle I missed it. Chillum 17:18, 12 September 2015 (UTC) reply

The Orangemoody userpage had the sock tag added four days after I started this thread. This probably causes confusion now when reading it. It was, however "passing strange". — Brianhe ( talk) 00:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

The controversy at WP:COIN#Everett Stern and WP:AN/I#Everett Stern COI editing and supposed "extortion" may possibly be related. The article subject (a political candidate) complains of receiving a demand for money with the threat that his bio article would be deleted. Accusations of conflict of interest editing reached WP:COIN. Various SPAs were involved on both sides. There are ORTS tickets with more details. We looked at this at WP:COIN, noted that there were a large number of SPAs on both sides, and kept the article while trimming it down to basic facts. The editing pattern does not seem to match the described Orangemoody behavior, but is worth a mention here, and possibly some sock checks. John Nagle ( talk) 07:53, 12 September 2015 (UTC) reply

It appears that this was a red (or orange?) herring. All the best: Rich  Farmbrough, 17:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC). reply

Can be found at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 81#Premia Spine Limited and many others.

All the best: Rich  Farmbrough, 12:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC). reply

An OM-deleted article, Mireille Liong-A-Kong, just popped up on my watchlist. It was created by SPA Tonykarunga7. What should be done now? - Brianhe ( talk) 19:22, 18 August 2016 (UTC) reply