This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
At Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Agljones I tried to open an SPI, but the initial entry did not substitute correctly. One possible reason: I had used a {{quote|This is a quote... }} within the submission; I revised to avoid that since. I don't know what can mess up a SUBST. wp:Substitution gives no advice about debugging upon failure. I would appreciate if someone could complete the submission or advise me how to do that. What did i do wrong? Thanks in advance. -- do ncr am 09:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I've been getting numerous errors related to using the SPI script recently. A session timeout may be related but it is occurring frequently. Is this happening to anyone else? A bit frustrating. Maybe I should take a screenshot or two.
—
Berean Hunter
(talk) 13:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I found myself lost when trying to open a case. Please would someone who knows the SPI-related pages check this edit and review other nav links? – Fayenatic L ondon 22:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
On the WP:SPI page, there is a section titled "Archived cases". The only purpose of the section is to search old cases, but there is already the search field in the main infobox on the top right of the page. So, the "Archived cases" section is redundant, and I think it should be removed. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
@ Salvidrim!: You are right. But, those archive are linked through the main SPI infobox ( Template:SPI navigation). In the infobox, there is the "Archived cases" link which leads to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Closed. That page, in turn, has links to the 2009 and 2010 (and even older) archives. So, my proposal is to just remove the "Archived cases" section from the main SPI page, as it serves no purpose. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:29, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I can swear that this is a sock of someone but for the life of me I can't remember who. The editor's name is User:MARIOSPONGE and he created multiple hoax pages for MTV Kids, trying to establish that this network exists. ( TNICK) He'd tried to previously create it under the title of Cartoon Central as well. His other edits aren't that over the top, like this one, but the hoax pages were enough to where I just went ahead and blocked him. For some reason this guy just reminds me of someone and I can't remember who. I think it was someone with a long term pattern of socking and a habit of making cartoon and Blue's Clues related edits. If anyone can remember, I'd recommend adding this name to the pile for posterity. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 09:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Tokyogirl79, Two cases worth checking:
After more coffee, others may come to me.
—
Berean Hunter
(talk) 13:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
In the SPI already blocked Asdidis case I've requested CU on a freshly opened account Detoner, on 2001:41D0:8:90C6:0:0:0:1, and another one, Michael Cambridge, who was regularly sidelining with the blocked Asdisis. The case handling administrator Bbb23 who is a CU too, rejected the CU request without giving any reason for it. I've renewed the CU request insisting on another CU. My reinstated CU request was removed by the same administrator with the threat of me being blocked. I am surprised by the way the case gets handled. I thought that all Wikipedia decisions are based on consensus, the disagreements must be allowed, not suppressed, as in this case. What are the opinions of other users, administrators, and CU? -- 72.66.12.17 ( talk) 22:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I've recently restored this archive and the associated sock puppet category after they were disrupted by the blocked user. It has been suggested that these pages be protected. I'm loath to take such a drastic action in an area where more experienced editors have not been consulted. The individual behind these socks is extremely active at the moment, as well as extremely disruptive. If the consensus is that more action should be taken I leave that for others to take. Regards Tide rolls 03:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi. I seem to have stepped on the toes of someone who's playing dirty tricks a nasty effort to retaliate. I opened an AN/I on Tarc, which was going along - an apology for a personal attack resulted - and there was support on both sides but it was bogging down/heading off track. An involved admin closed the discussion, and I reopened it per WP:INVOLVED. I opened a case on AN about it, and then removed it moments later. Now I see there's edit warring going on at AN/I, and I'm being accused of having logged out by Reyk. I resent the false and unfounded accusation of sock puppetry and welcome investigation as to what regular user is using the IPs in question - 169.57.0.213 and 104.200.154.17 and evading scrutiny - because they appear to be trying to frame me. Incendiary edit summary on this one: ( diff) I suspect it's one (or more) of the involved users. I ask that the two IPs be considered for indefinite non-overridable blocks. -- Elvey( t• c) 06:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/header has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please edit Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/header to say "user name (or if there isn't one, IP address)" where it now says "user[ ]name", in order to avert future confusion like that seen above.-- Elvey( t• c) 00:11, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Zaketo ( talk · contribs), who has socked before, changed their user name and chose to vanish. But they are back to using sock-accounts ( Sony2k20 ( talk · contribs) and Xbox420 ( talk · contribs) that I know of) to edit disruptively. Do I file an SPI under the previous name (ie, a continuation of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zaketo), or start a new one under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vanished user oinwn4toindcin23rjnsd? Abecedare ( talk) 06:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I just tried to do a quick edit and was not logged in but got a block message Editing from 195.147.0.0/18 has been blocked (disabled) by Mr. Stradivarius for the following reason(s): Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sardanaphalus. Given that my IP is currently 195.147.30.116 the block has exceeded the range described by at least 7000. What is the actual blocked range (the logs don't identify this) ? My (dynamic) IP is from ISP wholesaler Daisy Communications Ltd - what are the rules about blocking ISP ranges ? -- John ( Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 09:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Currently SPI cases use header level 4 for the name of the sockpuppeer, header level 5 for the month and year of the report and header level 6 for the two comments sections. This is because the SPI report pages were originally transcluded to the main SPI page. To make these headings look a reasonable size span tags are used to increase their font size. Based off this I thought I might suggest that we change it to:
Making the change won't require any changes to already filed SPIs (as long as reports with the new headers on the same SPI are archived after the old reports). Merges however, might require some adjustments, but there are pretty rare already. See
User:Callanecc/sandbox/SPI for an example of old and proposed styles. The purpose of the change is to make things a little easier and make the code a little less intricate and long - so primarily purely cosmetic. If we make the change I'll also remove the <noinclude>__TOC__</noinclude>
code to reduce overall size as the pages aren't transcluded anymore and aren't likely to be.
What do we think? Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 01:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
big
tag (four = and a <big> + </big>
tag) for the comments by other users and admin/CU comment sections (change
Template:SPI report)....put a link to the notification template somewhere at the top of this page? I can't remember where to go to find the "you've been mentioned here, chime in if you like" template used for the SPI process, and there doesn't appear to be any mention of it anywhere on this page, which frustrates any effort to notify users about this in a timely manner. TomStar81 ( Talk) 16:09, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
The Clerks 'New request' list has half a dozen candidates listed, with some candidate's requests stretching back about 6 months. Considering the volume and occasional backlogs here are SPI, is there any chance that these new Clerk candidates can be vetted and put in to training (or not) soon? Just sayin'. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 19:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Hey guys, I'm giving you a bit of a head's up about something that may need a check for sleepers in the future. Recently someone created the page Doctor Dan, which was a rather nastily written attack page and a little research shows that several accounts have been posting awful things about this person (if he exists) for years, along with several of his staff members. The main account for this seems to be Wolfpawz, as this was the oldest account, and all of the other accounts are stale except for Dirtbagdan and EnglishWikiWoka. The editing pattern is fairly similar, making this a WP:DUCK situation, and all are blocked. The main thing that worries me is that if these are real people, then this is an organized attempt by one person to harass someone online and something they've been doing for years. The vandalism is pretty obvious and is caught quickly, though, which is good. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 07:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Hey, who wants to check to see if this is Brunodam under a new account? I'm having some exchanges with Onomaticus at Draft talk:Roman cheese. They tried creating an article that claims that the Romans came up with cheese. It was nominated for a speedy deletion (for not expanding on the section in the cheese article) and I chose to move it to the draftspace so they could work on it. Rather than be happy at the chance to improve the article (as opposed to outright deletion), they've accused myself and the speedy nominator of an abuse of power. I decided to look and see when they started editing since they claimed that they've "seen this countless times on Wikipedia" and I noticed that they created the article Christian Berbers, which was previously deleted as a creation by a Brunodam sock. I hate to say that it looks to be extremely likely that this is a new wave of Brunodam socks, but the hallmark is pretty clear. (Promoting Roman culture above all others, trying to re-create an article by a Brunodam sock.) I'm going to ping User: Berean Hunter and User:Vituzzu on this, since they'd be able to pick out an obvious Brunodam sock better than I can - although this looks to be a pretty big WP:DUCK scenario. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 15:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Would someone remind me of how to reopen an investigation of an existing sockmaster [Vote (X) for change] when it begins employing a new IP address? Jc3s5h ( talk) 18:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Looks like they're back again, this time as User:Lukeisthebest03. I haven't seen any other accounts but odds are there are some. Would it be worth opening up an SPI to check to see if there are any other accounts? The older accounts are stale, but maybe we can do something with this account? Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 05:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
See AN report. CU help will be appreciated. Abecedare ( talk) 17:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Just raised a new case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cyntiamaspian without realising it had been opened for the same susopected sock yesterday! do I need to do anything or can the clerks sort it out for me? thanks. MilborneOne ( talk) 10:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
A fairly new account is repeatedly adding references to www.similarweb.com, but intermixing these edits with simple linking edits. Looking at the time-stamps of the edits involved, I believe the editor is demonstrating advanced knowledge of Wikipedia practices and policies, and is making the linking edits to create "forensic camouflage" of the activity. So far, it's working; while numerous edits have been reversed, I was the first (and so far, only) editor to warn the new editor against spam. Someone complained about overlinking, and a couple of automated messages popped up because the terms linked went to disambiguation pages. The thing is, on every edit checked, without fail, the outside refs all point to various pages on the web site I mentioned above. I would simply follow the procedure to start a sockpuppet investigation, if I knew of a related account. But I haven't seen this pattern before, so instead I'm posting here in a collaborative effort, hoping someone else might recognize the pattern and be able to put a name to any related sock or sockmaster. As a side note, I will follow the procedure to report the account for spamming, just as soon as the account violates a level 4 warning. Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 10:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Hey, can one of you do me a favor? I've got a somewhat suspicious situation going on here. Long story short, there was an AfD for Mike Rossi. The article was horrendous, as it looked like it was written with the intent to call Rossi a cheater. The article's creator, 262jelle, seems to have signed up with the sole purpose of making this page and they were called out on the page being an attack page. There was one account Inconvenient Veracity that signed up just to back up the claims of him being a cheater on the AfD talk page. I kind of wondered if there was some socking going on here, but I figured that I'd just ignore it since it's entirely possible that it was just some random person wandering in or maybe a case of meatpuppetry. However now I've got two brand spanking new accounts that came to my talk page ( GregTakacs, Triathleteguru just to try to add Rossi to Marathon_course-cutting#Publicized_incidents_of_disputed_marathon_results. I've told them that I would prefer that they not add him to the list because honestly, I don't think that he received enough coverage to really warrant inclusion - and I don't really think that some of the people already on the list really warrant inclusion either since their coverage is fairly light as well. (IE, it's all recentism and the whole "right great wrongs" thing) Triathleteguru has made one prior edit to the Rossi page, but by large they seem content to back up Greg's claims. I just can't help but feel that at the very least there's some sort of organized attempt off of Wikipedia to add him somewhere in relation to the cheating allegations. It's a definite BLP nightmare, to say the least. Can someone take a look at this and see if this would be worth an SPI? I'd also appreciate someone just kind of looking into the situation and keeping an eye on it, since the article for Michael Mike Rossi was pretty much an attack page. I'm going to ping Collect in this since they were involved in the AfD and could probably give their own opinion on things. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 05:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I see a lot of CU completed cases (that I patrol to check if any behavioral evaluation and admin actions are required) where all necessary admin actions have been completed, should I just mark them for close for a CU/Clerk to do the last rites, if there's no further admin action required? I usually do that only on cases that I've done something, but not others. Might help reduce the long list of open cases. cheers. — Spaceman Spiff 17:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
This user, blocked under the Orangemoody LTA purge, is requesting unblock. They do appear to have some good-faith contribs. Check please? Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 01:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
After this discussion where User:Clintric (now blocked) and User:Ivetliviya9 (a blocked Orangemoody sock) accused each other of paid editing, User:ChutiyaAlaricia vandalised User:Clintric. At this point ChutiyaAlaricia is at best a one-edit attack account, and at worst a sockpuppet of a blocked paid editor. -- Slashme ( talk) 19:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In August, a CU was performed on my account as part of an SPI, which was reported to have been "inconclusive". I would like to know why it was inconclusive, in detail. Alakzi ( talk) 17:03, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Really not be where to go or what to do in these case, but José Julián Moreno user already has me tired and stubborn, all the time have to be reverting your edits. His main account was blocked by be adding names of fake actors in several articles of telenovelas. But even so the user continues through different ips, and actually already not be to do. Some of the articles which frequently vandalizes are: La Patrona, Los miserables, Soñadoras, Cañaveral de pasiones and Rosalinda and not is if you have more articles where José Julián Moreno has vandalized. Can you not do anything about?. Here some of the ips this user has used:
This single are some of the ips used. Not is if you can do something.-- Philip J Fry • ( talk) 17:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
OK guys... giving you a head's up. I came across the article Secrets of the Last Nazi and it had a LOT of issues with sources and you can read about those here. Someone suggested that we redirect to the author's article. So far it has the exact same issues with sources - a lot of which are primary and misattributed to make it appear as if they were from RS.
I strongly suspect a paid editing ring because of the way the articles are written and because of the similarity of how the sources are used. I'm going to give more of a rundown of the similar edits, but three accounts I suspect offhand are Fergus the widget ( talk · contribs), Philofiler ( talk · contribs) and Cantelo ( talk · contribs). Cantelo was the sole editor of the book's article and Fergus made similar edits at the article Iain King. Philofiler made a similar edit to Cantelo's book article with here.
Basically what I'm asking for here is for help. This looks like it has the potential to be a fairly large paid editing ring if my suspicions are correct and getting the proof for this is going to be a monumental task, especially if this is a group of editors editing on topics other than King. I will try to do as much of this as I can on my own, but I would absolutely love help looking at the editors' behavior and looking for similar edits. I figure that you guys would probably prefer to hold off on similar edits until I finish looking over the sources at Iain King (which I'm doing here), but if anyone wants to do anything they can, I'd absolutely love you forever. Mostly what can be done now is just looking for similarly sourced articles by the three editors I've mentioned or other similar edits.
Cantelo is denying being a paid editor, but the edits here suggest otherwise. I also kind of have to say that the sourcing issues here are actually the worst I've seen in my history on Wikipedia and it reminds me of the articles I've seen with Morning227, only I believe that they didn't abuse sources to this extent. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 09:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
I'd agree that these editors might be related to each other, but my point is that they don't show much resemblance to the Orangemoody socks. -- Slashme ( talk) 20:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
I did a search for "its class is insecta", because it is likely to turn up Orangemoody socks. The only new one I found was Bonidesuza17 ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki) -- Slashme ( talk) 20:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Here's another one: Salonisew ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki) -- Slashme ( talk) 21:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
There was a block today of a sock of Undertrialryryr so I was looking at the case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Undertrialryryr/Archive. The listings in the archive are out of chronological order, I expect because some cases were merged. But it is confusing to read as is. I would do a quick cut and paste myself but I expect a nonSPIclerk editing an archived investigation page wouldn't meet with approval so I'll just post a notice here. Liz Read! Talk! 20:37, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
The ip 103.41.212.42 should be added to the Sajed Mahmud's sockpuppet investigation, it shares a the same location, interests and way to edit with 103.244.187.27 and the other socks, adding content with bad punctuation and referenced with bare links. Examples: A [1] B [2]. Rupert Loup ( talk) 20:57, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
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)
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 https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Drake_(rapper)&diff=683411860&oldid=683267470
See this edit by Jayo68 https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Drake_(rapper)&diff=675591778&oldid=675591560
This person continually adds ballerstatus.com as sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:50C7:4200:C087:C001:5C8:35FA ( talk) 04:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Can a user ask checkusers if any checkuser had ran a CU on their account? Supdiop ( T🔹 C) 06:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
At Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Agljones I tried to open an SPI, but the initial entry did not substitute correctly. One possible reason: I had used a {{quote|This is a quote... }} within the submission; I revised to avoid that since. I don't know what can mess up a SUBST. wp:Substitution gives no advice about debugging upon failure. I would appreciate if someone could complete the submission or advise me how to do that. What did i do wrong? Thanks in advance. -- do ncr am 09:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I've been getting numerous errors related to using the SPI script recently. A session timeout may be related but it is occurring frequently. Is this happening to anyone else? A bit frustrating. Maybe I should take a screenshot or two.
—
Berean Hunter
(talk) 13:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I found myself lost when trying to open a case. Please would someone who knows the SPI-related pages check this edit and review other nav links? – Fayenatic L ondon 22:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
On the WP:SPI page, there is a section titled "Archived cases". The only purpose of the section is to search old cases, but there is already the search field in the main infobox on the top right of the page. So, the "Archived cases" section is redundant, and I think it should be removed. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
@ Salvidrim!: You are right. But, those archive are linked through the main SPI infobox ( Template:SPI navigation). In the infobox, there is the "Archived cases" link which leads to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Closed. That page, in turn, has links to the 2009 and 2010 (and even older) archives. So, my proposal is to just remove the "Archived cases" section from the main SPI page, as it serves no purpose. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:29, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I can swear that this is a sock of someone but for the life of me I can't remember who. The editor's name is User:MARIOSPONGE and he created multiple hoax pages for MTV Kids, trying to establish that this network exists. ( TNICK) He'd tried to previously create it under the title of Cartoon Central as well. His other edits aren't that over the top, like this one, but the hoax pages were enough to where I just went ahead and blocked him. For some reason this guy just reminds me of someone and I can't remember who. I think it was someone with a long term pattern of socking and a habit of making cartoon and Blue's Clues related edits. If anyone can remember, I'd recommend adding this name to the pile for posterity. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 09:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Tokyogirl79, Two cases worth checking:
After more coffee, others may come to me.
—
Berean Hunter
(talk) 13:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
In the SPI already blocked Asdidis case I've requested CU on a freshly opened account Detoner, on 2001:41D0:8:90C6:0:0:0:1, and another one, Michael Cambridge, who was regularly sidelining with the blocked Asdisis. The case handling administrator Bbb23 who is a CU too, rejected the CU request without giving any reason for it. I've renewed the CU request insisting on another CU. My reinstated CU request was removed by the same administrator with the threat of me being blocked. I am surprised by the way the case gets handled. I thought that all Wikipedia decisions are based on consensus, the disagreements must be allowed, not suppressed, as in this case. What are the opinions of other users, administrators, and CU? -- 72.66.12.17 ( talk) 22:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I've recently restored this archive and the associated sock puppet category after they were disrupted by the blocked user. It has been suggested that these pages be protected. I'm loath to take such a drastic action in an area where more experienced editors have not been consulted. The individual behind these socks is extremely active at the moment, as well as extremely disruptive. If the consensus is that more action should be taken I leave that for others to take. Regards Tide rolls 03:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi. I seem to have stepped on the toes of someone who's playing dirty tricks a nasty effort to retaliate. I opened an AN/I on Tarc, which was going along - an apology for a personal attack resulted - and there was support on both sides but it was bogging down/heading off track. An involved admin closed the discussion, and I reopened it per WP:INVOLVED. I opened a case on AN about it, and then removed it moments later. Now I see there's edit warring going on at AN/I, and I'm being accused of having logged out by Reyk. I resent the false and unfounded accusation of sock puppetry and welcome investigation as to what regular user is using the IPs in question - 169.57.0.213 and 104.200.154.17 and evading scrutiny - because they appear to be trying to frame me. Incendiary edit summary on this one: ( diff) I suspect it's one (or more) of the involved users. I ask that the two IPs be considered for indefinite non-overridable blocks. -- Elvey( t• c) 06:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/header has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please edit Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/header to say "user name (or if there isn't one, IP address)" where it now says "user[ ]name", in order to avert future confusion like that seen above.-- Elvey( t• c) 00:11, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Zaketo ( talk · contribs), who has socked before, changed their user name and chose to vanish. But they are back to using sock-accounts ( Sony2k20 ( talk · contribs) and Xbox420 ( talk · contribs) that I know of) to edit disruptively. Do I file an SPI under the previous name (ie, a continuation of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zaketo), or start a new one under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vanished user oinwn4toindcin23rjnsd? Abecedare ( talk) 06:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I just tried to do a quick edit and was not logged in but got a block message Editing from 195.147.0.0/18 has been blocked (disabled) by Mr. Stradivarius for the following reason(s): Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sardanaphalus. Given that my IP is currently 195.147.30.116 the block has exceeded the range described by at least 7000. What is the actual blocked range (the logs don't identify this) ? My (dynamic) IP is from ISP wholesaler Daisy Communications Ltd - what are the rules about blocking ISP ranges ? -- John ( Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 09:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Currently SPI cases use header level 4 for the name of the sockpuppeer, header level 5 for the month and year of the report and header level 6 for the two comments sections. This is because the SPI report pages were originally transcluded to the main SPI page. To make these headings look a reasonable size span tags are used to increase their font size. Based off this I thought I might suggest that we change it to:
Making the change won't require any changes to already filed SPIs (as long as reports with the new headers on the same SPI are archived after the old reports). Merges however, might require some adjustments, but there are pretty rare already. See
User:Callanecc/sandbox/SPI for an example of old and proposed styles. The purpose of the change is to make things a little easier and make the code a little less intricate and long - so primarily purely cosmetic. If we make the change I'll also remove the <noinclude>__TOC__</noinclude>
code to reduce overall size as the pages aren't transcluded anymore and aren't likely to be.
What do we think? Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 01:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
big
tag (four = and a <big> + </big>
tag) for the comments by other users and admin/CU comment sections (change
Template:SPI report)....put a link to the notification template somewhere at the top of this page? I can't remember where to go to find the "you've been mentioned here, chime in if you like" template used for the SPI process, and there doesn't appear to be any mention of it anywhere on this page, which frustrates any effort to notify users about this in a timely manner. TomStar81 ( Talk) 16:09, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
The Clerks 'New request' list has half a dozen candidates listed, with some candidate's requests stretching back about 6 months. Considering the volume and occasional backlogs here are SPI, is there any chance that these new Clerk candidates can be vetted and put in to training (or not) soon? Just sayin'. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 19:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Hey guys, I'm giving you a bit of a head's up about something that may need a check for sleepers in the future. Recently someone created the page Doctor Dan, which was a rather nastily written attack page and a little research shows that several accounts have been posting awful things about this person (if he exists) for years, along with several of his staff members. The main account for this seems to be Wolfpawz, as this was the oldest account, and all of the other accounts are stale except for Dirtbagdan and EnglishWikiWoka. The editing pattern is fairly similar, making this a WP:DUCK situation, and all are blocked. The main thing that worries me is that if these are real people, then this is an organized attempt by one person to harass someone online and something they've been doing for years. The vandalism is pretty obvious and is caught quickly, though, which is good. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 07:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Hey, who wants to check to see if this is Brunodam under a new account? I'm having some exchanges with Onomaticus at Draft talk:Roman cheese. They tried creating an article that claims that the Romans came up with cheese. It was nominated for a speedy deletion (for not expanding on the section in the cheese article) and I chose to move it to the draftspace so they could work on it. Rather than be happy at the chance to improve the article (as opposed to outright deletion), they've accused myself and the speedy nominator of an abuse of power. I decided to look and see when they started editing since they claimed that they've "seen this countless times on Wikipedia" and I noticed that they created the article Christian Berbers, which was previously deleted as a creation by a Brunodam sock. I hate to say that it looks to be extremely likely that this is a new wave of Brunodam socks, but the hallmark is pretty clear. (Promoting Roman culture above all others, trying to re-create an article by a Brunodam sock.) I'm going to ping User: Berean Hunter and User:Vituzzu on this, since they'd be able to pick out an obvious Brunodam sock better than I can - although this looks to be a pretty big WP:DUCK scenario. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 15:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Would someone remind me of how to reopen an investigation of an existing sockmaster [Vote (X) for change] when it begins employing a new IP address? Jc3s5h ( talk) 18:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Looks like they're back again, this time as User:Lukeisthebest03. I haven't seen any other accounts but odds are there are some. Would it be worth opening up an SPI to check to see if there are any other accounts? The older accounts are stale, but maybe we can do something with this account? Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 05:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
See AN report. CU help will be appreciated. Abecedare ( talk) 17:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Just raised a new case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cyntiamaspian without realising it had been opened for the same susopected sock yesterday! do I need to do anything or can the clerks sort it out for me? thanks. MilborneOne ( talk) 10:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
A fairly new account is repeatedly adding references to www.similarweb.com, but intermixing these edits with simple linking edits. Looking at the time-stamps of the edits involved, I believe the editor is demonstrating advanced knowledge of Wikipedia practices and policies, and is making the linking edits to create "forensic camouflage" of the activity. So far, it's working; while numerous edits have been reversed, I was the first (and so far, only) editor to warn the new editor against spam. Someone complained about overlinking, and a couple of automated messages popped up because the terms linked went to disambiguation pages. The thing is, on every edit checked, without fail, the outside refs all point to various pages on the web site I mentioned above. I would simply follow the procedure to start a sockpuppet investigation, if I knew of a related account. But I haven't seen this pattern before, so instead I'm posting here in a collaborative effort, hoping someone else might recognize the pattern and be able to put a name to any related sock or sockmaster. As a side note, I will follow the procedure to report the account for spamming, just as soon as the account violates a level 4 warning. Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 10:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Hey, can one of you do me a favor? I've got a somewhat suspicious situation going on here. Long story short, there was an AfD for Mike Rossi. The article was horrendous, as it looked like it was written with the intent to call Rossi a cheater. The article's creator, 262jelle, seems to have signed up with the sole purpose of making this page and they were called out on the page being an attack page. There was one account Inconvenient Veracity that signed up just to back up the claims of him being a cheater on the AfD talk page. I kind of wondered if there was some socking going on here, but I figured that I'd just ignore it since it's entirely possible that it was just some random person wandering in or maybe a case of meatpuppetry. However now I've got two brand spanking new accounts that came to my talk page ( GregTakacs, Triathleteguru just to try to add Rossi to Marathon_course-cutting#Publicized_incidents_of_disputed_marathon_results. I've told them that I would prefer that they not add him to the list because honestly, I don't think that he received enough coverage to really warrant inclusion - and I don't really think that some of the people already on the list really warrant inclusion either since their coverage is fairly light as well. (IE, it's all recentism and the whole "right great wrongs" thing) Triathleteguru has made one prior edit to the Rossi page, but by large they seem content to back up Greg's claims. I just can't help but feel that at the very least there's some sort of organized attempt off of Wikipedia to add him somewhere in relation to the cheating allegations. It's a definite BLP nightmare, to say the least. Can someone take a look at this and see if this would be worth an SPI? I'd also appreciate someone just kind of looking into the situation and keeping an eye on it, since the article for Michael Mike Rossi was pretty much an attack page. I'm going to ping Collect in this since they were involved in the AfD and could probably give their own opinion on things. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 05:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I see a lot of CU completed cases (that I patrol to check if any behavioral evaluation and admin actions are required) where all necessary admin actions have been completed, should I just mark them for close for a CU/Clerk to do the last rites, if there's no further admin action required? I usually do that only on cases that I've done something, but not others. Might help reduce the long list of open cases. cheers. — Spaceman Spiff 17:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
This user, blocked under the Orangemoody LTA purge, is requesting unblock. They do appear to have some good-faith contribs. Check please? Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 01:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
After this discussion where User:Clintric (now blocked) and User:Ivetliviya9 (a blocked Orangemoody sock) accused each other of paid editing, User:ChutiyaAlaricia vandalised User:Clintric. At this point ChutiyaAlaricia is at best a one-edit attack account, and at worst a sockpuppet of a blocked paid editor. -- Slashme ( talk) 19:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In August, a CU was performed on my account as part of an SPI, which was reported to have been "inconclusive". I would like to know why it was inconclusive, in detail. Alakzi ( talk) 17:03, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Really not be where to go or what to do in these case, but José Julián Moreno user already has me tired and stubborn, all the time have to be reverting your edits. His main account was blocked by be adding names of fake actors in several articles of telenovelas. But even so the user continues through different ips, and actually already not be to do. Some of the articles which frequently vandalizes are: La Patrona, Los miserables, Soñadoras, Cañaveral de pasiones and Rosalinda and not is if you have more articles where José Julián Moreno has vandalized. Can you not do anything about?. Here some of the ips this user has used:
This single are some of the ips used. Not is if you can do something.-- Philip J Fry • ( talk) 17:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
OK guys... giving you a head's up. I came across the article Secrets of the Last Nazi and it had a LOT of issues with sources and you can read about those here. Someone suggested that we redirect to the author's article. So far it has the exact same issues with sources - a lot of which are primary and misattributed to make it appear as if they were from RS.
I strongly suspect a paid editing ring because of the way the articles are written and because of the similarity of how the sources are used. I'm going to give more of a rundown of the similar edits, but three accounts I suspect offhand are Fergus the widget ( talk · contribs), Philofiler ( talk · contribs) and Cantelo ( talk · contribs). Cantelo was the sole editor of the book's article and Fergus made similar edits at the article Iain King. Philofiler made a similar edit to Cantelo's book article with here.
Basically what I'm asking for here is for help. This looks like it has the potential to be a fairly large paid editing ring if my suspicions are correct and getting the proof for this is going to be a monumental task, especially if this is a group of editors editing on topics other than King. I will try to do as much of this as I can on my own, but I would absolutely love help looking at the editors' behavior and looking for similar edits. I figure that you guys would probably prefer to hold off on similar edits until I finish looking over the sources at Iain King (which I'm doing here), but if anyone wants to do anything they can, I'd absolutely love you forever. Mostly what can be done now is just looking for similarly sourced articles by the three editors I've mentioned or other similar edits.
Cantelo is denying being a paid editor, but the edits here suggest otherwise. I also kind of have to say that the sourcing issues here are actually the worst I've seen in my history on Wikipedia and it reminds me of the articles I've seen with Morning227, only I believe that they didn't abuse sources to this extent. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 09:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
I'd agree that these editors might be related to each other, but my point is that they don't show much resemblance to the Orangemoody socks. -- Slashme ( talk) 20:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
I did a search for "its class is insecta", because it is likely to turn up Orangemoody socks. The only new one I found was Bonidesuza17 ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki) -- Slashme ( talk) 20:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Here's another one: Salonisew ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki) -- Slashme ( talk) 21:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
There was a block today of a sock of Undertrialryryr so I was looking at the case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Undertrialryryr/Archive. The listings in the archive are out of chronological order, I expect because some cases were merged. But it is confusing to read as is. I would do a quick cut and paste myself but I expect a nonSPIclerk editing an archived investigation page wouldn't meet with approval so I'll just post a notice here. Liz Read! Talk! 20:37, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
The ip 103.41.212.42 should be added to the Sajed Mahmud's sockpuppet investigation, it shares a the same location, interests and way to edit with 103.244.187.27 and the other socks, adding content with bad punctuation and referenced with bare links. Examples: A [1] B [2]. Rupert Loup ( talk) 20:57, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
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)
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 https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Drake_(rapper)&diff=683411860&oldid=683267470
See this edit by Jayo68 https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Drake_(rapper)&diff=675591778&oldid=675591560
This person continually adds ballerstatus.com as sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:50C7:4200:C087:C001:5C8:35FA ( talk) 04:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Can a user ask checkusers if any checkuser had ran a CU on their account? Supdiop ( T🔹 C) 06:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)