Wikipedia talk:Suspected sock puppets

List of sock-puppets?

I am a professor at a large state school in the U.S., and am starting a research project on how companies use Wikipedia to influence public perception. Is there a way to get a comprehensive list of all sockpuppets that have been blocked on Wikipedia? I have been looking around, but, have found nothing. Reply here, or on my talk page.

Any other thoughts you might have on ways of identifying paid users, or Wikipedia articles edited by paid users, would be appreciated. Thanks!

Jlamro (talk) 12:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Meatpuppets? Give me a break!

Suppose 20 employees of a small firm know that it's in violation of labor or environmental laws. They collectively sign up and post the facts, which are NPOV within the community in which the company operates.

This "meat puppet" rule neatly silences all but one. Then, of course, people who instinctively suck up to wealth and power can pile on to the whistle-blower.

[Yeah, dig it, some opinions are facts. Such as "thou shalt not kill".]

Basically, wikipedia is based on a Western, individualist model of personality and as such is absurdly infected with binary thinking: people have no nuance: they think of the strangers they encounter as either "good guys" (envisioning them in most cases as members of the dominant class in their community, usually white Americans but perhaps sometimes as high-caste Hindus when the member is from India), or unspeakable "trolls" (does anyone see the racism implicit in this term, which has much to do with early-mediaeval displacement of the Celts?)

Therefore, by labeling a poster's friend a "meat puppet" you've neatly avoided having to address their point.

I demand the removal of all such labels from wikipedia.

Lilith2396 (talk) 09:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Difficult to start report

It just takes too much effort to compile a sock report, even for the simplest cases. I have been put off reporting cases in the past because I know from experience that I will need to devote a fair chunk of time to getting it completed. Here are some suggestions (but I have no idea how to do any of this myself);

1. Above the "Start a Case" button, have an edit box for the puppetmaster name rather than just expecting the user to edit a text line. This will give a visual clue that a name must be entered before pressing the button.

2. After, completing the report, automatically add it to the current cases. I can't think of any circumstances where you would create a report and then not list it. This eliminates one step for the originator.

3. Automatically add the needed tags to the suspects talk pages. There is no reason that the reporter needs to do this manually. However, a warning to the reporter that this is going to happen might be in order.

Thanks for listening

SpinningSpark 14:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Assistance required

This is all too confusing for me! Would someone please look at User:Pvsamrat and User:Ankur0412 for me. They have both been active creating articles which have been deleted as non-notable/spam etc, and recreating them when deleted. I have posted about this on wp:aiv. Ankur0412 has posted a message of support on Pvsamrat's talk page. I think they are possible sock puppets of each other. Would someone experienced in these matters take the case up please? Mjroots (talk) 10:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Think I've managed to do it, but the instructions are not clearly written and seem daunting to first timers. Mjroots (talk) 11:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

EBot II returns for archiving

My apologies over the last few weeks for my bots which have mysteriously been taken off my crontab! (I'll have to blame someone from the Toolserver for that..) They will start to archive again from this notice onwards. Thank you. — E ^talk 06:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Need clarification on the rules

Let me give an example. An editor is blocked for a year. During that year a number of very short lived accounts appear editing the same topics as the blocked editor and in the same style. After the block expires the originally blocked editor continues editing, in some cases making very very similar edits to those made by the suspected sock-puppets. Is it too late to now make an entry in "suspected sock puppets", in order to possibly have the original block extended if the evidence is considered enough for judgement? --Stor stark7 ^Talk 11:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It isn't too late to do so, but whether or not there would be any merit to it, I think, boils down to IP addresses. When blocked, the original editor's underlying IP should have been blocked, and account creation also blocked. That means that if the new accounts were created from by the original editor, whilst blocked, then it would have been from a different IP. As a result, whilst a suspected sock puppet case might provide sufficient evidence that the editor had been abusing multiple accounts to avoid a block (and thus deserved to have the block reinstated, and / or extended), the only definitive way to prove it would be a check-user, which would presumably show different IP's, and thus unable to conclude definitively one way or the other. Hope that helps! _{The public face of GB}^T/C 13:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

2nd

When opening 2nd case for a user, the new page treats it as though it is User:Bla... (2nd) instead of User:Bla... but it seems that the suspected sockpuppeteer name is not allowed to be corrected. Therefore the suspected sockpuppeteer name stays as User:Bla.... This is stupid as that one doesn't exist.

(That is User:Bla... (2nd). Btw, this is just an example)

Users should be allowed to correct this to the proper suspected sockpuppteer. Simply south (talk) 21:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

RFCU for IPs?

I was advised to request an RFCU for 82.201.156.201 and related IP socks, but RFCU is geared towards reports of registered user accounts as sock masters, not IP addresses. The RFCU template is not designed for entering an IP address as the sock master. Does RFCU take IP addresses as sock masters? - Neparis (talk) 15:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You could use whois, traceroute, geolocation and other similar tools. The whole point of checkuser is to find which IPs are being used. MER-C 05:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Whilst a RFCU would clearly be a waste of time in determining whether the IPs are related (you already have the information that checkusers use to decide this), a RFCU can be used to discover whether the batch of IPs are also related to any registered accounts. Mayalld (talk) 07:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Well CheckUser isn't magic, it can't look over the internet and see who is using the computer, checkusers use a combination of information (the biggest being the IP addresses of editors with usernames which aren't visible to everyone else) to give some technical weight to if they are the same user (Checkuser can be negative even if they are socks and vice-versa it isn't 100%). You have the IP information, so the checkuser isn't required to do such analysis, and the checkuser looking at an IP won't be able to discover related IP information. I'd have to ask what you think the value of the exercise it though? As above it can't determine an identity of who it is, it can't predict future IPs etc. so what value is knowing they are all the same person? In reality if the IPs are individually engaging in blockable behaviour, then just get them blocked as and when they arise. If it really gets out of hand then reports to ISPs are possible. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 09:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

If all of the suspected socks are IPs, there's not much a checkuser could do. If there's any question of whether there are other users on those IPs, then a checkuser could potentially be worthwhile (whether such a check would be run, of course, depends on circumstances -- I wouldn't hold your breath). Most obvious uses of checkuser are out the window, once you know the IP. As MER-C mentioned, tools like whois can be very useful in determining potential ISP relationships or geographical similarities between IPs. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Isn't RFCU also a way of confirming or denying user-agent matches from the server logs? The whois records for the IPs in this particular IP case, all show an Egyptian origin. - Neparis (talk) 02:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Would that prove a great deal? Some user-agent strings are going to be fairly common so would be prone to false positives, it might add some weight to them being different people (but that's very easy to spoof from the same machine, and may vary if someone was using different internet cafes (say)). As I asked above, what value do you perceive in confirming these are indeed the same real person? In all practical senses assuming they are seems fine. As an aside in the WP:RFCU request you mention the use of URL cloaking services, I assume these too are being added to the spam blacklist? (There should be no need for anyone to use them when externally linking from wikipedia) if they are new and unusual services they may inadvertantly be doing us a favour tracking them down --81.104.39.63 (talk) 14:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

There is potentially more than just user-agent available as evidence, depending on what is recorded in the logs. I'd rather not go into the details here per WP:BEANS. I agree with you that the use of url hiding services on wp seems generally undesirable. However, I seem to recall a long-ago discussion somewhere on the issue of blacklisting such services that failed to reach consensus. - Neparis (talk) 21:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

OK in the dim distant past I've certainly listed them for the meta blacklist and had them added, I guess things must have changed. (Tinyurl etc. are on the list) --81.104.39.63 (talk) 07:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Range too big to block, take to RFCU (which has not been filed as far as I can tell), to sort this out. Or, go to ANI and ask for range blocks (I know too little about them to do one. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Innapropriate handling of suspected sockpuppets?

I have been accused of sockpuppetry. Is it not permitted for the accuser to ask other users to provide evidence against the accusee? Please reply on my talkpage if you can, but right here is OK I guess. -- Ketchup Krew ^{Heinz 57!} 19:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Order of list

It seems like a lot of admins are taking cases from the top of the list where the cases are the oldest at the bottom. I suggest that the page is augmented to show admins they need to go to the bottom of the pile first. hAl (talk) 13:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Need to get more admins active here

I tried posting on WP:AN a few times, but it didn't help much. This has been severely backlogged for over a week, with some cases still needing attention from weeks ago. Enigma ^msg Review 07:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I try to drop by when I can - I cleared a handful yesterday, and intend to clear a few more today, if I get the time. I think a large part of the problem could be that (i) new cases are listed at the top, (ii) when there's a backlog, it looks immensely daunting. I think people could be inclined to drop by, scroll down, find one they look like they can knock on the head quickly (I'm guilty of that myself) then get rid of it. The bigger ones, or the ones further down the list, then tend to languish.

I think there'd be a lot to be said for completely clearing the backlog - that would make it much less daunting, I think. I'll be rolling up my sleeves later... _{The public face of GB}^T/C 08:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that the comment one section above is on the right track, incidentally - perhaps it would be better to list old cases at the top, rather than the bottom. I think that might go some way to getting them dealt with more quickly...? _{The public face of GB}^T/C 08:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I do agree that it makes more sense to do it that way, if admins are going to start at the top. Also agree about clearing the backlog. I worked with an admin a few days ago to help clear some cases, but there's a limit to what I can do, given that I'm not yet an administrator. I'm hoping we can get a few admins to work together here and get rid of this backlog. Maybe in the future, it can be kept at a reasonable level. Enigma ^msg Review 08:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll post on WP:AN with a suggestion that we change the order around to see what people's views are generally. _GB^T/C 12:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a question

This is quite a daunting task to initiate and while there are some guidelines, it's not completely clear what constitutes good evidence vs. so-so vs. bad. I'm mostly wondering if there is a good example of a well prepared sock puppet case that one could use as a guideline. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Anything is fine, as long as it provides diffs and is likely to be truthful. An excellent current SSP case to model your potential one upon, is Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Setanta747. Rudget (review) 18:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

ifexist limit

FYI: This is one of the pages that surpasses the limit on "expensive parser functions" and is therefore listed in Category:Pages with too many expensive parser function calls. It is mostly caused by the many uses of {{user5}} in the sockpuppet reports. January 2008 archive has "Expensive parser function count: 532/100" for instance :D --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

SSP/RFCU merger proposal

See WP:AN/SSP-RFCU merger proposal - opinions valued. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Reporting new information regarding closed case?

The procedure for reporting new information regarding closed cases is not clear to me. As noted at Wikipedia talk:Suspected sock puppets/Jvolkblum (2nd), a recent checkuser request has confirmed the status of a couple of previously unconfirmed socks from a now-closed case. It would be sensible to post this information on the closed case, but closed cases are not supposed to be edited or reopened. I added the info to the the talk page for the case, as instructed, but I don't know if any admins watch for new talk pages for closed sockpuppetry cases. --Orlady (talk) 13:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned request

I stumbled across Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Business Publication, which was never listed. —{admin} Pathoschild 15:10:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

I am a bit confused, but I found a sock puppet of Komodo Lover, Operating under the name of Total Ignorent boy. Could an admin please block him. T.Neo (talk contribs) 11:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

please archive this request

Hello, I filed thi

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Mantanmoreland

..but then I realized that I should have filed a CU instead, which I did (Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Mantanmoreland). So therefore; could somebody please archive the above Sock-puppet request? Thanks! Regards, Huldra (talk) 11:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikistalk

First off, I am writing this without my username on purpose. This is User:SportsMaster. I have a case of Wikistalk with GoHuskies9904. He has been editing article I have created almost exclusively. For a small portion of the list of articles he has done this to see the following. Homer E. Woodling [1], Robert F. Busbey [2], Weird U.S. [3], 2004 NBA All-Star Game [4], 1997 NBA All-Star Game [5], 1981 NBA All-Star Game [6], 1972 NBA All-Star Game [7], [[1951 All-Star Game [8]. Please not that he did not mark any other NBA All-Star games as stubs (presumably because I didn't create them). Here are more examples. Vixen (RV), Dodge Meadowbrook, Suzuki FZ50, Waterloo Hawks, Waterloo Hawks all-time roster, Moondog (mascot), Whammer (mascot), Robert E. Hawkins, Yahoo! Sports, Yahoo! Fantasy Sports, 2007-08 Drake Bulldogs men's basketball team, Maxwell Show. It seems to me he carries a beef with me since I reverted his incorrect edit on 02:48, February 27, 2008 about the 2007-08 Drake Bulldogs men's basketball team. [9] Here is a listing of all of his edits [10] Please also take not that this has gone on for months at a time.

--65.43.184.190 (talk) 20:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Non-admins closing cases

Are non-admins allowed to close cases? I refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fonez4mii, where Shalom Yechiel decided to arbitrarily close the case, and archive it, while admitting to not even reading the full discussion on the page, and worse still, admitting to not even looking at the opening evidence. I really feel that's a little (a lot) unacceptable. --Schcambo^{aon scéal?} 15:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• Well, I know Shalom edits SSP quite a bit, and looks through many of the reports here. I trust their judgment. While a non-admin closing a report may be out of process, did he do something incorrect? If not, just let it be. Steve Crossin (contact) 15:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he admitted to not looking at the opening evidence. That's very poor behaviour. I think, unless the case is reviewed by an admin, I will bring it to AN/I. --Schcambo^{aon scéal?} 15:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The reviewer did look at the evidence, and assessed the case. Your refusal to listen to the decision places you in the same position as Jack Forbes. Fone4Me 15:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The user admitted that he did not look at the opening evidence. That is very black and white. --Schcambo^{aon scéal?} 15:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Please try to read in context. He says that he/she did not read the opening evidence that discussed what proved the IP was mine, because I openly stated the IP was mine, meaning there was no need to prove or disprove that. The user read all the relevant information. I suggest you go to the AN/I now, as I am becoming increasingly tired of your persistence, and would like this to be dealt with now. If not, then move on. You and Jack Forbes are tiring the entire community with your antics. Fone4Me 15:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

This is beyond the pale. He said that he only read some of the comments and did not look at the underlying evidence. That evidence was key to the argument over whether you intentionally misled people. At the least, an admin with experience at SSP should have taken a look at the evidence and arguments.

Simply get an Administrator to either re-open the cas or declare the case closed. Thus removing any doubts. GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I've done that. Jehochman ^Talk 15:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Warning the accused

I made a number of attempts to warn at User Talk:LuisGomez111 in accordance with the instructions given (see the history for what I tried). I totally failed to get the template to work, & gave up, just entering my own words instead. Could someone revise the explanation so it's clear what to do? Peter jackson (talk) 11:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I added it for you. For future reference add: {{subst:socksuspectnotice|1=LuisGomez111}} ~~~~, changing the name to the sockpuppeter in question. TheChrisD ^{Rants•Edits} 11:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry & thanks. I see what I did wrong now: I wrote puppet instead of suspect. Might I suggest the actual text be available on the edit page here for direct copying to avoid hand-copying errors. The edit page gives only a transclusion to a page with no link that I can find. Peter jackson (talk) 14:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for priority?

I realise there are alot of cases, but can someone with experience (perhaps even checkuser status) take a look at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nimbley6 (4th)? We have a new (self-confessed) sock-puppet everyday, who has claimed they "will not stop until their edits are kept". This individual has already spoiled an important mediation process, and has inserted several copy-vio images onto Wikipedia, so I think this warrents a priority of sorts. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Is real evidence required?

Can anyone just make up stuff, get a few buddies together and post the same nonsense and get someone labeled a sockpuppet? Is any real proof required? Do the people looking at these cases look at the evidence? AlbinoFerret (talk) 19:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

There has to be some sort of proof, such as diffs, that can be shown to link an account as a sockpuppet. Just a bunch of people pointing fingers saying "S/he is a sock puppet" isn't enough. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

How about pages that are not on Wikipedia but the internet, and that no longer exist? Is it enough for an accuser to say they saw it and a bunch of their buddies saw it? How about saying a nickname on a non wikipedia site and a nickname on a different sites forum are the same people? How about multi step theories with half the steps missing? AlbinoFerret (talk) 23:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry only refers to Wikipedia, again backed up with evidence on Wikipedia itself. What happens on different sites really doesn't apply to Wikipedia. Wildthing61476 (talk) 00:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

If that is true, then this case must go against the rules on how these cases should be judged. None of the so called evidence happens to be on Wikipedia. None of it can be checked because it doesn't exist. Yet the person who judged this claim said the evidence was so strong it linked me to another user who had not edited in months.AlbinoFerret (talk) 01:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

There is hard evidence in the case you posted, though. There are diffs of suspiciously similar behavior listed in the case. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 12:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

As did another editor, but he was not declared a sockpuppet. So all the evidence required is that you make 2 edits like someone else? AlbinoFerret (talk) 14:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there a way to appeal the findings

How can someone appeal the findings of an admin who looked at a sockpuppet case? AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

See the dispute resolution page. You'd start by discussing it with the admin. He or she should also help you to pursue an appeal, if you ask, perhaps suggesting another admin to review the case, or you can find one yourself. If the matter is urgent, you can start a report on WP:AN/I, the incident report noticeboard, to get some attention from independent administrators. Be sure to remain civil, to assume that if a mistake has been made, it was done in good faith, and to stay focused on the narrow issue of the sock puppetry allegation.

If the accounts accused of sock puppetry have both been editing, during any period involving 500 edits or more (from each), there is a method I have discovered for proving or refuting sock puppetry with high certainty. This is still confidential, but I'd be willing to look at pairs of such accounts, and could intercede if it looks like an incorrect finding has been made. --Abd (talk) 13:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Indicators

Can we start employing some indicators used by RfCU to help improve clarity (especially in long reports)? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 00:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I find the use of these indicators confusing, because I associate them so strongly with Checkuser that when I see them on SSP I think a Checkuser has been run. If the closing admin confines their comments to the "conclusions" section and the only comments in that section are from the closing admin, things should be clear enough, I think. --Akhilleus (talk) 12:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Akhilleus. They're so associated with checkuser that it's ingrained in my consciousness (and I'm not the only one) that it implies you did a checkuser and determined "likely", "confirmed", or "unrelated". Enigma ^message 20:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree with the above - since in some instances an SSP case does progress to a CU but within the original SSP sub-page and without a separate CU being opened, there is considerable scope for confusion. _Gb^T/c 20:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I guess I'll just stick with {{IPblock}} and {{Completed}} then. OhanaUnited^{Talk page}

Mea Culpa

I am responsible for the multiple accounts (Upward15 being one of them) making some of the same changes – repeatedly. I got carried away and I abused my privileges. I know some of what I did was inappropriate. I’m sorry. I feel bad and I will abstain from editing Wikipedia. I feel admonished and I’m sorry. I will leave a similar message on Scarian’s page. I hope that my mistakes won’t harm my co-workers ability to participate on Wikipedia. I am responsible for the multiple accounts and I take full responsibility. Thank you. 206.188.48.225 (talk) 17:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Some advice sought

Over on Esther Hicks there is currently efforts to gut the article down to nothing and remove anything at all that is not sourced to her official biography. It is not a high traffic article, but recently several newly created accounts have started reverting changes and saying the same thing basically "no discussion needed" and are all putting in the same version. There are also several raw IPs that appear to step in when the user accounts are close to 3RR. Is there enough material there to pursue this for sockpuppeting? Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Lost

I had hoped to enter a mild case of sockpuppetry by User talk:By749b who has successfully circumvented a semi-protect on Iraq War for nuisance edits. The user name is in red in the history yet his edit was allowed. He also edits under several IPs one of which I believe to be 99.1.99.177. As usual, when I tried to enter this directly on the prior page, my previewed template was in red so I abandoned that and tried going to "some other" page where I seemed to be encouraged to do a similar search for sockpuppets which didn't turn up anything but still couldn't enter template. I'm stuck. What now? Student7 (talk) 21:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Whoops

I'm an idiot and forgot to remover the User: prefix in the case of Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/User:Skyeromer. Please forgive me - I haven't tried to fix the mistake for fear of making things worse. Cheers, Mostlyharmless (talk) 09:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I fixed it for ya! SQL^{Query me!} 11:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Sock-puppet report revert

Hi SQL, those links to userpages are just names. The editor seems to have just created names and did not fill any information on the page. If you click on the discussion page of user: Goingoveredge you can find the editor was blocked. The other 2 accounts have been created today itself back-2-back in time and have been used to pursue the same motive as user: Goingoveredge. --Roadahead (talk) 02:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

What to do about abusive sock puppet accusations?

Being the potential target of a false and abusive sock puppet accusation has caused me to look at the process. It seems very unfair, one sided and, as demonstrated at least by my case, open for abuse. This is at least the 4th sock puppet case with the accuser as either the initiator or a strong advocate of sanctions. In all cases he/she is making the accusation against editors who are disagreeing with him/her. It is part of his/her bullying of editors to suppress all dissent from his/her viewpoint. It seem to me there should be some sort of abuse of process sanction against such editors (he/she is very careful to not infringe any policy). I will produce whatever evidence is necessary to prove I am not a sock puppet, but I find it absurd and disappointing that there does not appear to be any recourse in this or any other process that I can find. Any advice. Tom94022 (talk) 04:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Tools: time analysis

Does anyone have a tool or efficient method of analyzing editing by time of day and day of week? I've tried to put information into a spreadsheet but have found it hard to get Excel to parse the times, to convert them into datecode, and then to do analysis. Any ideas? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Backwards reporting style

I'm sure this must have come up before, but if not /shrug, I'll still make my noises...

Reporting SSPs is backwards and non-intuitive from expected. When I report to AIV, or any other noticeboard, I report the user at hand. Here, I start my report with the "master" account, which may be several years old, and which I may not even be aware of. I file my report, it's backwards. In this case, I'm filing Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/RhoLyokoWarrior, based on the current user, RhoLyokoWarrior, but I should actually be filing it as Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Rikara, at which point, I think it's too late. Just a little annoyance for me, but which rears its head whenever I do need to use SSP. Yngvarr (t) (c) 16:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking the exact same thing when I created one yesterday, I ended up creating a new report which I then realized was back to front and it then had to be manually linked to the old one(s). Mfield (talk) 16:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think everyone approaches it the same way. Some day, Soccermeko will be back, and I'll report him at the 12th generation of his socking report. I really won't be paying much attention to what IP address he is editing from or what silly name he's cloaked himself in this time ... I'll just recognize the compulsion to inflate Nicole Wray's status and inability to conjugate verbs, and say "Damn it, it's Soccermeko back again". Kww (talk) 17:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

EBot II

Anyone knows why it's not archiving? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 11:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

User:GNAADar

User:GNAADar and User:GNAAdar both have same user page. Neither has edited in a long time, so I don't know whether this is something that still needs to be addressed. Maybe it can be handled just like User:GNAA popeye. -- Suntag ☼ 07:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

creating sockpuppet categories

It would be very helpful if persons creating sockpuppet categories (such as Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of JJGD) would use the {{sockpuppet category}} template. This automatically makes Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets a parent category and keeps them from clogging up the uncategorized categories report. - Stepheng3 (talk) 21:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

A point to clarify on the page. Also clarify the difference between using {subst:uw-socksuspect|1=SOMExUSERxHERE} and putting Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Sarsaparilla (for example) on a talk page. Is the latter only if there already is such a category. Or do you put it on as your first comment to the suspected sock puppet?? Carol Moore 17:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Blocked user Consist

User:Consist has been blocked indefinitely, but a person claiming to be consist and using a range of IPs has been a nuisance at Talk:Clade since early Oct 2008 - see [this series of edits]. The process for reporting suspected sockpuppets looks as bad as tax return, and I suspect Consist is relying this to get away with continuing disruption. --Philcha (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

a request

When creating a category for a sockpuppet or suspected sockpuppet, please include {{Sockpuppet category}}. This will prevent the category from showing up on reports such as Wikipedia:Database reports/Uncategorized categories. Best wishes, - Stepheng3 (talk) 19:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Where they at

I haven't seen this before in other article's I've looked at. If you enter "Marriage" at stats for English Wikipedia and then go through the list of User statistics from the highest number of edits on down, you will come across an amazing string of blocked, banned, or no longer editing users and others who fall into such a category. -- Suntag ☼ 17:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Anlirian & High poems

Seems to be related to Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/AzLehrer and seems to have created a WP:COI article about self (Andy Lehrer) and is back on the controversial family that he has created for the genus Bengalia which seems to have gone without question on the Romanian WP. Shyamal (talk) 12:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Offsite 'check user' function

There is a new tool, which provides 'check user' capability available here which could be worth evaluating. PhilKnight (talk) 21:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Virgil is a clever fellow. His older versions were powerful enough, actually, to be of quite some... dunno what. Worry? Use? Interest? ++Lar: t/c 22:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Templates used in reports

Would it be possible to remind people to use a template to format users in doing reports to be one that includes the CU link? Someone used user5 instead of Socklinks ... Might save a step or two. ++Lar: t/c 22:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Ways to assist?

Hi, I noticed that this page has a backlog notice. I'm an admin and would like to become more involved but I'm not exactly sure what I could do to help. Is there some sort of clerk role or way that someone can start getting their feet wet by helping out? Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 22:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Bot unhappy with some SSPa tags. Why?

I noticed the following SSP reports have been tagged for a while with {{SSPa}}, but the bot isn't archiving them.

1. section: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets#User:PoliticianTexas (4th) • page: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/PoliticianTexas (4th)
2. section: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets#User:Fraberj (5th) • page: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fraberj (5th)
3. section: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets#User:Simpsonj3 • page: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Simpsonj3

Can someone with more knowledge of... whatever it is that I need more knowledge of... figure out why? I've tried to fix one and it still won't archive. Bot isn't on strike because recent reports I've closed myself get archived within 5 minutes. The only clues I have (and they may be red herrings) is that in all three reports, when I first clicked on "edit this page", the SSPa tag at the top didn't show; I had to load the page, do a cache purge, and then edit the page; and that all three have either a number at the end of the page name, or a (Xth) at the end.

Also, it might be easier to manually archive them than figure out what's wrong, but I'm scared I'll mess it up. Is there anything involved in the archiving beyond simply removing them from the page? A list I need to update, for example?

Last question: does anybody watch this talk page? I see lots of questions and no answers; are they being dealt with on user talk pages, or am I talking to the void here? --barneca (talk) 00:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, E-man and I had the same trouble a while back. We contacted the bot owner and he just told us to double check we were doing it right. So, when we both can be bothered to clear out the backlogs, I just get E-man to archive them manually. He didn't have any trouble archiving; just chucked them in there. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 00:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

My brain finally popped out of idle, and I realized I just needed to look at the bot's contribs to see what needed to be done. I've removed the three reports manually, and archived them to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Archive/December 2008. I'd still love to know why it's doing what it's doing. --barneca (talk) 04:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The most logical thing would be to ask the bots owner again, but, seeing as I didn't get the greatest of responses last time, I vote for you to do the asking ;-) Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 14:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I also encounter similar experience. The bot owner's response was horrible. He denies that his bot is not functioning properly on some cases and instead, ask us to verify that we didn't subst {{sspa}}. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 14:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:SSP2

Just as a heads up, the RFCU/SSP merger will be going live on January 10th. The cases on this page will be moved to a subpage until they are handled and new cases will be filed using the new process. The new page can can be found here. Any comments, concerns, or suggestions are welcome on the talk page. Tiptoety ^talk 22:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't hesitate to come and break things ;) -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Can someone intervene here?

Barryispuzzled has returned with multiple sock puppets. He was already indefblocked [11] for sockpuppetry. He said he would come back through sockpuppets, using whatever connection he could find. He focusses on the Baconian theory and the Shakespeare authorship question articles, deletes material and tries to start disputes. Here is his sock case Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Barryispuzzled. As you can see, he has already used Sycorax and Prospero in his puppet names, as well as numerous puppets ending with 2 digits (01, 02, 03, 20, 14, etc.)

All these puppets were created in the last 3 days: user:JeffersonT02 (Jan 8), user:BuyBuyBaby (Jan 10), user:ProsperoY (Jan 8), user:Sycorax14 (Jan 8), user:Kessinger03 (Jan 8), user:RegHiside (Jan 9), user:TipToesTulip (Jan 10) and user:JudgeJulianZ (Jan 10). user:Torricelli01 was started in August, when some of Barry's other puppets were created, and has been mostly dormant, but has now jumped in with mass reversions of the same exact material as Barry. Torricelli01 deleted sourced material, failed to use the talk page and used language identical to Barry in his edit summary here[12]. This edit matched exactly these edits by the above socks: [13],[14]and very the very same as the combination of these two edits:[15] and[16] Can some of you administrators intervene? Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 07:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Luna Santin has already caught them! Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 09:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Please add

Thanks --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 04:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Page is protected. Please also add: {{Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dcourtneyjohnson}}. Thanks. THF (talk) 17:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Guys, WP:SSP is defunct. Please use the new reporting system; it *does* work. See WP:Sockpuppet investigations, and follow the directions. If you need assistance, ask at WT:SPI. EdJohnston (talk) 17:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Banner removal

Hello! I was recommended to go here via User:Emperor. Here is the situation. Back in August, User:MarkRae was called a sockpuppet, and banned for 24 hours, as evidenced by this SSP form. However, the above user e-mailed AGK, the one who had banned him, and admitted to the admin that he was that I.P. and had only used it when he would accidentally forget to log-in. AGK had promised the user that he would remove the SSP banner on MarkRae's page, ("He said that he would remove the sockpuppet banner on 30 August because he felt that I'd 'learned my lesson', but I guess he's decided not but AGK retired before he could [remove it]"). MarkRae didn't know if he should've deleted the SSP banner or not, since the admin had retired before he could, so I decided to go bold and remove it myself. However, recently, the user who had reported MarkRae for sockpuppetry has reverted my edit and re-added the SSP banner. I want to ask you guys this: If an admin has said that they would remove the banner but retired and left Wikipedia before they could do so, would it be correct of me to go bold and remove the banner myself? I was wondering if I was able to remove it, or if MarkRae could, or if an admin could remove it themselves. Thank you and have a nice day! :) CarpetCrawler (talk) 00:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Guidance re. IP editor

Hiya. User:90.202.94.11 and User:90.208.53.16 are almost certainly the same person (based on contribs; IP addresses don't actually resolve geographically, but there're always other possible explanations for that). The editor's !voted under these IPs at the same AfD, and he also appears to be the same editor as User:90.202.94.99. The editor's relatively short edit history and quick contributions to cats and AfDs to me suggests the possibility of either a) other IPs (in which case, c'est la vi) or b) perhaps a registered account. I don't think a checkuser request to "fish" for such an account would be approved -- or am I wrong? IP editors' comments at AfD I believe are generally discounted, so maybe this really isn't a big deal. But, anyone who spends more time than I looking into checkuser/sockpuppet issues want to weigh in? --EEMIV (talk) 17:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editrequest}} Please add the shortcut WP:RSP to the article. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 01:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

We already have WP:SUSPSOCK and WP:SSP; is another required? And why is WP:RSP a sensible redirect for this page? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

If it is not sensible, than why we have it? Should i take it for WP:RFD? (not on my watchlist). Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 15:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I've disabled the request. You could take it to RfD if you like. The redirect is completely unused. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from , 28 October 2011

I want to list a WP:SSP user named "Amritballia" and not able to list it. Please allow me to edit and list the suspected user. Thanks.

Satya563 (talk) 13:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

 Not done This board has been merged into WP:SPI. Go there and follow the instructions. Anomie⚔ 19:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for guiding me Anomie. Satya563 (talk) 05:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Brand New User Suddenly Nominating Articles for Deletion [AfD]

No user page exists, and he is nominating AfD. This is very suspicious. How does he already know so much about Wikipedia? I suspect User:Kevin_Gorman for sockpuppetry. If anybody can find evidence for this user or a different user, I would be grateful. — Carrot Lord (talk) 20:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

That is quite a stretch you make there. I see absolutely no behavior in common between those two users. Wfunction (talk · contribs) has been on the project since 2009, but has very few edits, and Kevin_Gorman (talk · contribs) is a long time editor who happens to disagree with you. --Versageek 20:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

On 30 July 2013, Ethan haden731 (talk) was blocked indefinitely due to vandalizing WP:BLP adding unsourced materials and also uploading copyrighted images at Commons. Wikimedia, which later got deleted. On the same day at the blocking of Ethan haden731, another editor Laufenty93 (talk) start editing and also uploading copyrighted images at Commons.Wikimedia.

I think they are sockpuppets of each other because both edit Wikipedia from their mobiles and uploaded the copyrighted images for Jasmine Villegas , following the same pattern.--Jockzain (talk) 13:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 10 May 2020

P;ease add {{short description|historical document}}. —¿philoserf? (talk) 02:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

To anyone responding to this, please see my comments at Wikipedia talk:Boilerplate text#Protected edit request on 10 May 2020. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Is it important to have short descriptions on ancient unused project pages? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Probably not, but I have added {{short description|historical project page}} — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)