Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:34, 5 August 2020

Talk page stalkers are free to respond to any edit made here. I'm fine with general discussion of issues related to Misplaced Pages and Wikimedia projects here, even if I don't respond. If you post here, I will reply here: I typically ping you in reply, but not always. To make sure you see a response, either watchlist this page or check back later.If I haven't responded and some time has passed, please feel free to leave a followup message. If you are here requesting oversight do not post here. Instead, follow the instructions at WP:OS

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present.

A possible essay for The Signpost

Tony, I was looking at a WP:essay for this next issue (next Sunday) of The Signpost and ran into Misplaced Pages:Not compatible with a collaborative project. I usually pick one that has been around for awhile, but this one looks pretty good. What do you think? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

If you want to put it in the signpost, I’m fine with it :) TonyBallioni (talk) 19:43, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Mail

-- MelanieN (talk) 18:32, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Self-block

Hi Tony. I saw you listed at this category and wondered if you would be willing to consider my request.

I am taking a wikibreak and will be on simplewiki. I request you to block me until 20:20, 30 August 2020. Thank you. Also, please do not answer this request until 20:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC) or after. ◊PRAHLAD (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 19:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done TonyBallioni (talk) 22:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Help

I'm User:Prahlad balaji's public account, and I'm wondering if you could help me out. Please remove the line importScript('User:Prahlad balaji/Enforcer.js') from my common.js. I accidentally set it to a number way higher that I was supposed to, and since you're an interface admin, you could help me out. Thanks! Prahlad balaji.public (talk) 20:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done TonyBallioni (talk) 22:26, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2020).

Administrator changes

Red Phoenix

Euryalus • SQL

Jujutacular • Monty845 • Rettetast • Madchester

Oversight changes

GB fan

Keegan • Opabinia regalis • Premeditated Chaos

Guideline and policy news

• There is an open request for comment to decide whether to increase the minimum duration a sanction discussion has to remain open (currently 24 hours).
• Speedy deletion criterion T2 (template that misrepresents established policy) has been repealed following a request for comment.
• Speedy deletion criterion X2 (pages created by the content translation tool) has been repealed following a discussion.
• There is a proposal to restrict proposed deletion to confirmed users.

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sockmaster no longer stale

Hi, in this sockpuppet investigation, you were unable to check CU data because the suspected sockmaster was stale. However, the sockmaster just returned, which might make it possible to check CU data? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:16, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, appears to be  Unrelated to that sockfarm (though I guess I could go with very  Unlikely.) @NinjaRobotPirate, GeneralNotability, and Ritchie333: I think all of you have been involved with this to some degree. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:56, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

TonyBallioni, I'll be honest, that's not the result I was expecting. Would you like me to handle the requisite clerking to move it to whichever account is oldest (RaymondCHedges, I think)? GeneralNotability (talk) 19:03, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, a few thousand miles away and on different devices. People can travel, but technically I wouldn’t bet on it. Unless NRP disagrees, I’d move it to a different case page. The oldest other account there works fine. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:09, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Same country but otherwise unrelated. A technically skilled (or extremely lucky) person could get around the CU tool or even make it say whatever they wanted. But most people can't even figure out how to make a ping work properly. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:41, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, my thoughts as well. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

"But most people can't even figure out how to make a ping work properly": Or maybe that's just what they want you to think! ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:44, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm no computer scientist, but even I can think of a very simple way the sockpuppetry could be accomplished. which I'd rather not discuss here as I wouldn't want to give bad actors any ideas. Any involved admin who cares to ask can email me. Carlstak (talk) 01:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Sure. No CU would tell you otherwise. Most people are lazy, though. Also in this case, it’s pretty clear that no attempt to hide data is occurring. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Whatever his other attributes are, Wink is anything but lazy when it comes to WP adventuring, but it wouldn't require any effort at all, is trivially easy, and yields exactly the same results that seem to confound you guys. So simple I'm sure that a good deal of WP person-hours is spent dealing with it. Hiding data isn't even a consideration, and Occam's Razor applies. Carlstak (talk) 02:17, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

And yes, I'm tripping hard on mushrooms. Carlstak (talk) 02:31, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

It’s fairly unlikely that he can be on a normal ISP thousands of miles away from other accounts also on a normal ISP. We’re talking different ends of a continent here. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:33, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

That's surprising. On the basis of the circumstantial evidence I provided, I thought there was a 50% chance that Winkelvi was MetaTracker, but the added evidence by other editors (including User:Calidum and User:MrX) made me 90% sure. Could the CU data not come from intentionally using a device that they never used before and using a VPN? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:54, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

This wasn’t a VPN. It’s one of the few ISPs I’ve never seen anything fishy on in regards to surprising geolocations, etc. Sometimes there actually are two people in the world with the exact same oddly specific interests... TonyBallioni (talk) 20:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I would defer to the CU results especially since Tony just confirmed that a VPN wasn't used. In my opinion, the behavioral evidence was not conclusive. Interestingly, I also gave it about a 50% chance even looking at all the evidence, thus my comment "Winkelvi could be the master." - MrX 🖋 20:35, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• Since I was pinged here, I have to say I'm surprised the accounts aren't related but I will defer to TB's judgement. Calidum 21:19, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• Heh, I just came here to suggest re-checking, apparently a couple days late. It would be unfair not to clear WV's name in case they ever appeal the site ban. I don't know how Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Winkelvi/Archive would need to be moved/refactored though. ~Awilley (talk) 22:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • GeneralNotability, could you clean up the case archive here and split off the other accounts into a new SPI based on NRP and my comments here? Don’t think this is Wink, and I agree it’s not fair to him if he appeals his site ban. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

    TonyBallioni, yup, I'll take care of it. GeneralNotability (talk) 12:26, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Quick question about recent SPI

Just a few hours ago, you posted the results of an SPI. While the results were "unlikely," a brand new editor has just jumped into the exact same dispute with a lot more knowledge of Misplaced Pages that I'd expect of a typical new editor. Would it be appropriate to add this editor to the same SPI or would I have to open a new one since the existing one is waiting for a close by a clerk? ElKevbo (talk) 02:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

You can add it to the SPI and note it in the comments by other users area. For clarity about what  Unlikely means here: it’s two different countries, but transit between the two cities wouldn’t be unthinkable in non-COVID times, especially given that the overlap is in higher ed. That being said, from a technical perspective it is unlikely, but not unlikely enough for me to rule it out given the context of academia. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 02:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I went ahead and checked. This account is the original master. The  Unlikely account isn’t. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Your recent sockpuppet investigation close

Hi @TonyBallioni: I'm extremely confused about your recent sockpuppet investigation close. At least three sockpuppets of WildlyAccurate have now spontaneously appeared for the sole purpose of defending PurpleDeskChair. Two of these sockpuppets were on the actual sockpuppet investigation for PurpleDeskChair. Doesn't that strike you as an obvious sign that PurpleDeskChair is being operated as a sockpuppet of WildlyAccurate? --Drevolt (talk) 02:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Not when they’re in two different countries on non-VPN ISPs. People generally can’t bilocate :) TonyBallioni (talk) 02:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: And there aren't any possible workarounds that could be in use here? As detailed in the original sockpuppet investigation, PurpleDeskChair is a brand new account that picked up exactly where the various other sockpuppet accounts left off with the same exact pattern of targeted editing, so it seems virtually impossible that they aren't at all related. --Drevolt (talk) 02:49, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Hey Drevolt. Would you mind stopping with trying to delegitimize me? I am only trying to offer constructive edits to wiki pages. I realize they oppose your views but I don’t think it’s appropriate for you to continue harassing me about this. I have been nothing but civil. PurpleDeskChair (talk) 02:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

They might know each other. They’re not the same person, though. CU isn’t a perfect tool, but I don’t see any effort at evasion here. The data’s pretty clear and normal: not the same person. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:57, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Wouldn't that still qualify as sockpuppetry per the definition given here then? --Drevolt (talk) 02:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I think you’re referencing WP:MEAT. That’s a bit of a vague policy, and we usually look at the entire context of an SPI while enforcing it. In this case we have two people in different countries who may know each other, or may be two people with similar views. I don’t know. It’s not enough to block over, though. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: What strikes me as especially suspicious is that several confirmed sockpuppets were made just to comment on the sockpuppet investigation for PurpleDeskChair. Even if we assume that they are in fact two different people, PurpleDeskChair would have had to explicitly tell WildlyAccurate to get involved in the ongoing sockpuppet investigation in order for that to happen, which would be an especially egregious instance of WP:MEAT. Based on the activity of the confirmed sockpuppet accounts, t's virtually impossible that they aren't intentionally coordinating this. --Drevolt (talk) 03:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Hi. I am the user in question. I am responding because these allegations are completely untrue. I have no clue who these other users are. But I will say Drevolt has caused enough drama over at the UChicago article that I think others have noticed— I would not be surprised if that is how they got involved. Drevolt has been making accusations like above on several talks. Thanks so much for your professional handling of this. PurpleDeskChair (talk) 03:18, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

No worries. We try to be fair to people at SPI, even if the process can be stressful or take a while. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, there’s nothing to assume here because they are in fact different people. I’m not seeing a reason to block. Sorry. There’s really no “appeal” of SPIs closed by a CU without action. I guess Callanecc could take a second look at the case when he’s on and if he or another CU wants to block I don’t mind, but it’s not something I’m going to do, and I don’t really see a need to keep the case open. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Sorry to keep on dragging this out, but that's not what the policy documents say: "CheckUser cannot confirm with certainty that two accounts are not connected; it can only show whether there is a technical link at the time of the check" (from here) and "An editing pattern match is the important thing; the IP match is really just extra evidence (or not)" (from here). Closing it on CheckUser grounds alone doesn't seem appropriate based on the relevant policies. --Drevolt (talk) 03:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@Drevolt:: if a CheckUser finds no evidence the suspected accounts have something in common from a technical point of view, you can hardly fault them for not finding that they are socks--what they have found is evidence that suggests they are not. I don't quite understand what the problem is here: apparently the CU was not convinced of your behavioral arguments, and saw no technical evidence that the two were connected. There is no more you can ask for. Drmies (talk) 03:33, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Drmies: I want to be clear that I'm not trying to fault TonyBallioni for anything, and I'm sorry if it came off that way. Dealing with this ongoing sockpuppet problem has been a pretty frustrating experience, but I don't feel any personal frustration with TonyBallioni or with any other admins over this. However, my concern is not that the CU thought that the behavioral arguments were unconvincing; it's that the behavioral arguments have been ignored completely and the close only mentioned the CheckUser report. I didn't even request a CheckUser to begin with, and at this point I would expect WildlyAccurate to be engaging in subterfuge in order to get around having so many sockpuppets blocked, so I'm concerned about the fact that the overwhelming behavioral evidence has been ignored because of the CheckUser report when policy specifically says that the CheckUser report should always be secondary and can never provide a definitive answer in a sockpuppet investigation. --Drevolt (talk) 03:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

No worries. Re: the check, CUs often run checks even if one isn’t requested. Sometimes we see things you don’t or think it would be helpful. Generally, I would agree with what everything you said. CU cannot prove someone is not a sock. For a variety of reasons that is beyond its scope. What it can show is that one account is on a normal ISP in one country that is one of the least spoofed ISPs around and is virtually never used as an open proxy, and that the other accounts are in another country using an ISP that is similarly not known to have compromised hosts or to provide web hosting services. Now, there are ways to do that in theory, but when they’re done we’d expect to see a very different set of underlying CU data than we have here. It’s not just the locations: it’s the specifics of the technical data that makes it extremely difficult for any behavioural evidence to overcome it.

I see you’ve asked ST47 to weigh in and I’ve pinged Callanecc. If either of them disagree with me either on the technical bits or my analysis of SOCK/MEAT, I don’t mind them blocking. I just personally don’t see it. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Please know I am willing to defend myself however possible. These accusations are completely superfluous. Please let me know if there is anything I can do to further prove I am an independent user. PurpleDeskChair (talk) 03:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I’ve already checked you. There’s no technical evidence suggesting you are related to the other accounts blocked today. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Alright, that sounds like a very reasonable way of handling this. Thanks again for your help. --Drevolt (talk) 03:58, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@Drevolt: (edit conflict) I have reviewed the behavioral evidence as well and while the CU-results definitely stand for something and technically aren't showing a match, I see many of the same connections you see to the prior sock puppets and am also concerned. This isn't an off the wall or unjustified SPI request, I think that this is just definitely a very unique situation that we will have to wait and see on. -- Dane 04:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@Dane: Hi Dane! I am the accused user. I want to reach out and let you know that I am an independent user. I created this account recently— but it is my first account. I initially helped contribute to the UChicago article because I have worked with the institution and have background which I hope to lend towards. I am not the only one who has made edits to the lead paragraph— in fact several users (beyond the sock puppet ones mentioned) have reverted Drevolt’s edit warring. I am only trying to preserve civility and neutrality on an article that I care about. I am more than glad to answer questions you have. PurpleDeskChair (talk) 04:18, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Break

Okay guys, if another CU wants to comment here, I don’t mind it, but I think I’ve about explained it as good as I can, so I don’t think much more discussion here will do much good. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• I've checked some of the accounts here and there is a distinct difference between WildlyAccurate and their confirmed socks compared with PurpleDeskChair. I'd say it's quite possible that the two operators may know each other but I don't think I'd characterise it as obvious-enough meatpuppetry to warrant a block. I may have been more tempted to leave the result as technically unlikely but unrelated is a perfectly legitimate and reasonable result too. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@Callanecc: Sorry for the delayed reply, I must have missed this earlier. I just wanted to say that this seems like a very reasonable conclusion to reach based on the evidence, and obviously I'll abide by it. Thank you for taking the time to look this over. --Drevolt (talk) 04:43, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• Drevolt, I am an SPI clerk (but not a CU), so I'll comment on the behavior. I get that your biggest concern is the WildlyAccurate socks showing up to "defend" PurpleDeskChair. I obviously can't say for sure, but it could be what we call a joe job, which (in this context) is someone engaging in sockpuppetry and pretending to be a different user with the intent of getting the unrelated user blocked. A joe job here would be WA seeing that a new sock was reported (since they're clearly aware of the existence of their SPI page), knowing the sock wasn't theirs, and then intentionally engaging in socky behaviors with more accounts to try to get PDC blocked anyway (to troll us, I guess). Again, this is all conjecture on my part, but if the two are unrelated that's the best story I can think of that fits the behavior and the technical data mentioned by CUs above. GeneralNotability (talk) 13:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@GeneralNotability: Thanks for your reply. Right, that seems like a plausible alternate explanation. But what still bothers me is that if that were the case, it would still be very hard to explain the observed editing pattern, where WA took a break from creating sockpuppet accounts for a few days while PDC (within a 24-hour span) suddenly created an account and picking up exactly where WA left off. And PDC had extensive knowledge of the history of editing on the page just a few hours after the account was created and had an entire premade user page ready to go as soon as the account was created, which at least strikes me as very suspicious given the ongoing sockpuppeting campaign on that article for the past several months. All of which is to say, it still really seems like WA and PDC have to have been closely coordinating their actions if they aren't the same person. But I recognize that this is probably going to be a case where reaching any verdict with certainty is pretty much impossible, and I think that the joe job theory definitely holds water. --Drevolt (talk) 21:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

What to do with sockpuppet-likely behavior, but no clear sockmaster suspect?

This editor screams sockpuppet (and all their edits since 23 July is just stalking me across several pages), but because the editor has so few edits, it's impossible to build a convincing case that they are the sockpuppet of a specific sockmaster. Can a CU check be done without a suspected sockmaster-sockpuppet relationship? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah; I’m pretty sure that’s Architect 134, so I went ahead and blocked him and then passed the account on to the list so someone who is more familiar can do a sleeper sweep (for LTAs we all have “our cases” and this one isn’t one of mine.) In general, yeah, you can ask a CU on their talk page or via email or on IRC. The standard is reasonable suspicion of abuse of multiple accounts, and the policy explicitly says we don’t have to know who the master is. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:23, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this user is also Architect 134. The account is pretending to be my sockpuppet (by commenting on posts as if they were me). What is the template that I can post on user talk pages to request a CU analysis? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC)