Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:59, 9 May 2017

• WT:SPI
• WP:CU/N

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 s/Archive1 s/Archive2 s/Archive3 s/Archive4 s/Archive5 s/Archive6 s/Archive7 s/Archive8 s/Archive9 s/Archive10 s/Archive11 s/Archive12 s/Archive13 s/Archive14 s/Archive15 s/Archive16 s/Archive17 s/Archive18 s/Archive19 s/Archive20 s/Archive21 s/Archive22 s/Archive23 s/Archive24 25

Why so many socks?

I know, it's a dumb question. But in moments of frustration, like when the community has to clean up after another extended-confirmed sockpuppet when it could have used that time to do something else, I find myself asking this question. Please humor me for a second. There has to be thousands of sockpuppets. I've never done it before, but they make it seem as if evading blocks is no trouble at all. I've seems many, many cases where the socks make it all the way to WP:XCON status before being detected, multiple times over. It's like the block button has no effect whatsoever. Why is it so easy for blocked editors to come back? Why are there so many socks? Sro23 (talk) 01:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Sro23: It's your fault. If you didn't file so many meritorious SPIs, many of the socks would escape notice completely.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

If a sock gets blocked in the forest... GAB 02:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• By "how many socks" does anyone have a distribution plotted for socks vs. sockmasters? My impression is that a handful of sockmasters are extremely prolific, such that a very large proportion of the total socks are coming from a small number of masters. Within those, there are both the dedicated POV pushers and the commercial editors, as two distinguishable groups. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

That very well could be true - that the majority of socks come from a small number of dedicated masters. Probably the most common types of masters are the POV pushers, the nationalistic sort of editors in general. But then there's also prolific sockmasters like this one, for example. CC5K socks are obsessed with Justin Knapp and will insist Weekly Shōnen Jump is a terrorist/hate group. Isn't that oddly specific? Sro23 (talk) 02:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Sro23 regarding "the most common types of masters". I also think that many of them are paid editors. 46.221.223.222 (talk) 06:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Anonymity while reporting?

Hi,
Can a user maintain his anonymity while submitting a request for sock-puppetry investigation? Kindly ping me when you reply. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: A user can try. It is not prohibited, but that sort of action invites scrutiny of the filing party, and may result in him being checked for sockpuppetry or block evasion. The case will still be looked. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Someguy1221: Thanks. But wouldnt this automatically create trouble/problems between the reporter and abuser? —usernamekiran (talk) 19:58, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: Yes, but the same is the case for reports to AIV, ANI and AN3. Unless the report involves private information that should not be posted on Misplaced Pages, it is preferred that all discussions be public. And that is because it was decided at Misplaced Pages's founding that transparency is important. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran and Someguy1221: you can also try emailing a trusted user or admin to request that they file the case for you and keep you anonymous; that way they can vouch for the good faith nature of the request. ansh666 22:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ansh666: yes, that seems doable. Thanks for the advice. :) —usernamekiran (talk) 22:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Re-open a closed SPI?

Is it possible to re-open a closed SPI?

I submitted an SPI with behavioral evidence which seemed overwhelming. An unrelated administrator commented: "In my opinion this is obvious and should be blocked per WP:DUCK and the below CU result", as well as "In my opinion this is a clear sock, or a closely related meatpuppet (friend/roommate/etc) editing at his direction. The editing interests, style, and combativeness are the same".

The SPI was investigated and the result was "inconclusive". The suspected sock is a prolific editor, and their talk page is littered with warnings.

My intent is in no way meant to negatively comment on the original clerk. I'm just requesting a second opinion. I haven't seen any policy about this however. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Magnolia677 which case?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Berean Hunter - See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Xboxmanwar/Archive. The only editor I suspect is "Bloomdoom2". The other suspected socks listed were added by other editors. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Looking this over some more, the likeness of the edits, couple with the volumes of behavioral evidence, seems too unlikely to be a coincidence. In two minutes of looking I found more...

• - The only edit was to "Epic Records".
• - Edit to the word "Daxz". It goes on and on like that. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• @Magnolia677: Those comments that you quoted were written by Laser brain who is not an administrator as you claim. Vanjagenije (talk) 07:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Vanjagenije: He was when he wrote them. Magnolia677 (talk) 09:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• I don't believe there's any relevant policy, but I'm happy to have another clerk review the case in detail. I've already reviewed it twice. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 13:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
• I object to it being reopened. No need to review it again.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Bbb23, I completely understand why you would object, and the last thing I would want to do is waste anyone's time on here.

As you know, I'm not a regular on these boards, but from time to time I notice similarities in editing and I report it. In this case, I had many interactions with the blocked puppetmaster, Xboxmanwar, who was an angry and prolific editor of rap music articles, and whose editing behavior could best be summarized as "80% sourced, 20% original research". It took months until they were finally blocked indefinitely, and I regularly encounter the mess this editor left behind.

Most of my edits are to small US towns, which I love, but for about a year now I have been reverting vandalism to rap music articles. I rarely add content to the rap articles. When I encountered Bloomdoom2, the similarities to Xboxmanwar appeared overwhelming. I spent hours compiling difs and reported them, and then a few months later, I discovered what I felt was a very clear offline link between Xboxmanwar and Bloomdoom2 as well. I reported this subsequently.

My efforts to curtail Bloomdoom2's "80% 20%" style of editing has been difficult, as you can see by his talk page. The level of hostility this editor expresses towards those who question their edits is another striking similarity between these two editors. Just look at this edit summary and this one.

I realize how much time Misplaced Pages demands of us, and I would not be asking that this be looked at by a different clerk if I did not feel it would benefit the project, particularly a part of the project so plagued by vandals and paid editors. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I still object. I suggest you let it go.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2017

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Copy from Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Found that User-4488 may use socks puppets repeatedly improper editors. Like Pipcai and User-4488.The common point is that the edited pages have traces of IP-(2600:387:6:X)'s edits

* 袜子1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)  May be User-4488 and use IP 2600:387:6:80d::7a 2600:387:6:80d::75 / 2600:387:6:80d::82.
:See  / Special:Contributions/2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:82 / Special:Contributions/2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:75 / 
Special:Contributions/2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:7a /  / [[https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Widgetsz89&action=history%7CUser 
talk:Widgetsz89: Revision history]] / Special:Contributions/User-4488 / Special:Contributions/袜子1
:These IP and account editing time is quite close account editing time is quite close. 61.224.5.200 (talk) 01:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
:: Note:  This seems a bit more sophisticated, consider taking this to WP:SPI —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · 
Contributions) 01:22, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
::Add new Pipcai may be User-4488. find use 2600:387:6: X find 2600:387:6:80d::84 and Widgetsz89 in 
Military activity of ISIL.--61.224.5.200 (talk) 06:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)61.224.5.200 (talk) 06:48, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

--61.224.5.200 (talk) 06:48, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done. Please expand the box labeled "How to open an investigation:" on the main SPI page, then expand the green box within to file a report. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:10, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Tirgil34 - new SPI request on the wrong page

This has been brought by an IP who added it to the wrong page, and I'm not sure what is the best way to fix it. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 13:54, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I copy/pasted it to the main SPI, referencing the request in the edit summary. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:00, 7 May 2017 (UTC)