Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:30, 4 May 2007

Archives

Archive 1

• ]

Streamlining the reporting procedure

The current procedure for reporting suspected sockpuppets is confusing to many editors; a bunch of cases submitted recently have been improperly formatted. I think streamlining the procedure would make things easier for the users submitting cases and the admins dealing with the cases. WP:RCU is a good model to follow, I think; it's much easier to submit a case there.

In the streamlined procedure, there should basically be three steps:

1. Create the case subpage. We could use an inputbox similar to the one on WP:RCU--a mockup can be found at User:Akhilleus/SSPRequestExperiment. Right now, this step is quite difficult for users--some enter the case details directly onto the SSP page, some users create the subpage but don't use the template, which results in an unformatted mess that's hard to fix.

2. Enter the subpage into WP:SSP#Open_cases. It would be really nice if this step could be automated.

3. Inform the alleged puppetmaster and sockpuppets on their user talk pages. In my opinion, there's no good reason to put the suspected master/puppet templates on user pages--it introduces a bunch of extra steps, and creates the possibility of an edit war, when the user(s) remove the template from their user page. A note on the user talk page should give the accused parties an opportunity to respond.

This would be much simpler than the current procedure, and would lead to a more clearly formatted page. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Building on that idea and Akhilleus's mockup, here's actual working code. Try it out, and if it satisfies, uncomment the copy that's already on the main page (commented out). -- Ben /_HIST 19:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

               (Inputbox commented out here, now activated on WP:SSP main page.)

I think this is a great improvement, and I'm in favor of implementing it. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Based on there having been no objections to your proposal in over five weeks, I've made the inputbox operative on WP:SSP, along with substantially revamping the instructions to make use of it... and put collecting evidence and opening the case before tagging suspect accounts with links to that case. If this was silly of me, that's easily moved around (but why?). Also headlined each item to make the sequence easier to follow in a quick reading.

You'll also find that {{subst:socksuspect}} and {{subst:socksuspectnotice}} are a little bit smarter than they used to be:

You still have to enter the puppetmaster's name into {{subst:socksuspect}}, because that's posted on the suspected sockpuppet's userpage and has no way to know who the master is unless you give it a name... but once you do, it looks up the most recent SSP report for that name: (2nd), (3rd), (4th), up to (20th) if anyone gets that far unblocked.

On the other hand, {{subst:socksuspectnotice}} gets posted on the suspected puppetmaster's talk page, and it will still take the parameter you give it... but if you don't give it any, it looks up the most recent SSP report for that that user.

So you can keep on using these two templates just the way you have... but you can also skimp on effort a bit, if you choose. -- Ben /_HIST 06:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet query

If i suspect a user or two of being a sockpuppet but am not sure who, then what should i do? Simply south 22:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

You'll need to know who you suspect them of being sockpuppets of, but once you know, follow the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Suspected_sock_puppets#Reporting_suspected_sock_puppets to report it. -- Natalya 03:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Can't a procedure be set up so that if you don't know who the master is, you can add suspected sockpuppets anyway? Simply south 10:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

:::How are you able to suspect that someone is a sockpuppet without knowing who they are a sockpuppet of? If you want, you could probably mention it at the administrator's noticeboard, but for any action to be taken, you'd need a good idea of who the puppetmaster was. -- Natalya 17:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC) Don't pay attention to my silly advice, read the knowedgable information of Akhilleus below! -- Natalya 20:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Simply south's question has been answered at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Light_current. Note that if you have good evidence that sockpuppetry is occurring, Checkuser can sometimes find the master account for you. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Administrators: Help I'm blocked on Wiktionary for being a sock puppet

Hello Admins,

My account of the same name has been blocked on wiktionary for being a sock puppet of Primetime but this is not true. As far as I can tell, I am unable to make any edits on wiktionary whatsoever, so I am clueless as to how to resolve the issue over there. It would seem that the sock puppet process is not as mature over there as I never heard about that user until the block was imposed. Please help me resolve this issue. Thanks.

WilliamKF 03:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

This issue has been resolved. WilliamKF 19:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Accusations of sock-puppetry

Nobody is making accusations of sock-puppetry anymore. I certainly am not. ScienceApologist has admitted using three user names on this page. I am therefore stating baldly the fact that SA has employed sock-puppets. The fact that SA can admit this and yet still protest his innocence is breathtaking in both it's arrogance and its total lack of integrity. Who are you now trying to kid, yourself?.Davkal 01:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The above comment was posted by User:ScienceApologist, apparently taken from Talk:Electronic voice phenomenon. I don't really understand why it's here. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Curious as to the silence

I'm new to reporting sock puppets, but is there any reason as to why there doesn't seem to be any feedback on the pages? I reported Landau7 and it would seem to not just be my report, but others. What will occur in the event that the 10 days run out and an admin doesn't comment? Drumpler 07:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

This page doesn't get much attention from admins. If there is an urgent problem it's best to post it at WP:ANI. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I have posted it there and the problem still hasn't been resolved. Drumpler 10:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Akhilleus; unfortunately, the only administrator to my knowledge that said he or she will try and clean up this page was Seraphimblad...earlier today. So there is quite a backlog. I'm trying to help provoke discussion on the individual subpages. I'm not sure if the "10 days" thing is a technical issue or just a procedural issue...and, at any rate, you can see that it is being ignored anyways. Again, if you have specific issues where the user is obviously a sockpuppet of another, then report them to WP:ANI, where you should be able to get a reply sooner or later. Otherwise, please help out here if you can. BTW, I'll look at your post at ANI and your sockpuppet report a little later. --Iamunknown 16:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Drumpler 16:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes, things do get backlogged. It's getting worked on, and they will get examined, hopefully sooner in the future. Your patience is much appreciated, these can take some time to look through and make a determination on, and I'd rather make one good determination than ten bad ones. Seraphimblade 05:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked user creates new account is that sockpuppet?

A previous user who was indef blocked I suspect created a new account. Thier contributions almost pick up perfectly where the other left off. The edits are identical at times to edits made weeks ago that were contested. Is this sockpuppetry? Or something else entirely? If so what. Is this accept policy? The account but not the person is blocked? --Xiahou 22:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

That's a sockpuppet, yes. Go ahead and file a case. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

took some digging but I added it. --Xiahou 23:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Suspected sock puppet tags on user pages

There's a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#Removal_of_sockpuppeteer_notice about putting notices of suspected sockpuppetry on user pages. Currently, step #8 of the reporting process tells us to "Tag the suspected sockpuppet(s)" by placing {{socksuspect}} on their user page. This sometimes leads to edit wars when the tagged user gets upset and removes the notice from their user page, and the user who reported them restores the tag. As far as I can see, the notice on the user page serves no practical purpose. The accused parties should be informed of the SSP case with a message on their user talk page (that's currently step #9). Therefore, I think we should get rid of the step of tagging user pages, which will eliminate some edit warring and simplify the reporting process. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It notifies the rest of the community who may not monitor the administrative boards. WHy not tag and temporarily protect? Tvoz |talk 14:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The note on the user talk page should be sufficient to inform the wider community. The user page should not be protected in these situations, because a fair number of users who are reported aren't sockpuppets; and at any rate users are allowed to remove warnings from their userspace. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Or tag and don't edit war over it if they remove the tag. Tvoz |talk 15:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

That's a nice idea, but edit wars over users removing warnings from their talk pages are pretty common; we can't stop them by saying "don't edit war!" But we can eliminate an opportunity for edit warring by not tagging user pages. Also, note the Checkuser procedure--they don't require any notification of the suspected users, not even a note on the user's talk page. Compared to Checkuser, SSP is mired in instruction creep. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

No doubt - I'm just giving the perspective of a non-admin who has been involved in some SSP events, and I found it helpful to find the user page tag when I was looking at a suspicious user. But I'm not involved enough to know if it's more trouble than its worth as you're suggesting. Just don't streamline so much that non-admins are left clueless. Tvoz |talk 18:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me add some comments from another side - an incorrectly accused editor. I recently was accused of being a sockpuppet and wouldn't have even known a case was filed (or even known where to check for one, as I wasn't aware of how this process worked before), if it wasn't for the tag being placed on my user page. The tag doesn't say you ARE an abusive sockpuppet, just that there is currently discussion about the possibility.

I think the tagging process is useful in notifying the user and community, and removing it by the user is a conflict of interest (obviously) and should be strongly discouraged. In my case, they found there was no problem and later an admin removed the tag for me. I think this is a perfect example of how it should work. People caught sockpuppetting will invariably get upset, trying to change the process will not elliminate that. Keep the tags. -- Gregory9 23:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Gregory9, whoever filed the case on you, if they were following the steps listed on the page, should have done two things to inform you of the case: tag your user page with the {{socksuspect}} notice, and left a {{socksuspectnotice}} note on your talk page. From looking at the history of your user page and user talk page, your user page was tagged (), but Ati3414 never left the notification on your user talk page. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.)

If we make the change I'm proposing, users will still be notified on their talk pages. Now, it's still possible that the person filing the case won't follow all the steps and won't leave a notice on people's talk pages. It's my belief, though, that users are confused by the SSP instructions, and if we make the procedure simpler, people are more likely to follow all the steps. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... I didn't realize he didn't follow the instructions correctly. Looking at the instructions again, it sounds like it distinguishes between a puppetmaster (the "original" account) and a sockpuppet. The instructions only say to put {{socksuspect}} on a sockpuppet's user page, and don't say to put anything on the talk page. But the puppetmaster is notified on his talk page.

So you're just suggesting to notify all parties on their talk pages instead of treating the "sockpuppets" and "puppetmasters" differently? I agree, that sounds simpler. However it seems like it justs moves the problem of some people reverting notices on their user pages, to reverting on talk pages instead. So while I agree your proposal could simplify things some, I don't agree it will reduce any edit warring over these issues.

If you switch to only notifying on the talk page, maybe there should be a policy to always put such notices on the TOP of the page (so it doesn't get buried in the talk page and edittors interacting with this user are informed better). Actually, maybe that is why they suggested to put it on the user page instead in the first place. After all, I agree with Tvoz that these notices are also to notify the community rather than just the immediate user. -- Gregory9 04:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

procedural query

quick question: if an IP has been banned for vandalism, and a registered user i am almost certain is the same person (which i'm sure an admin can verify) continues to edit, albeit constructively, what is the official policy? --Kaini 19:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Suspected puppet -- no time to make case

I am very confident User:Tenisnut3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a sockpuppet of Austinwoodtennis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)(indef. blocked). I don't have time to write up the case now. Their edits coincide almost completely, and they have the same content in their (deleted) user pages. Anyone volunteer to put it together? Thanks, Ichibani 03:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

71.143.18.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is the same. Compare his vandalism to the user pages. User:Tenisnut3 doesn't seem to have been deleted yet, so check its history. He also vandalized Jeff Smith (cartoonist) minutes after Tenisnut3's last edit. Ichibani 03:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

User:fakeguy2 and User:The fake guy and vandalization

Both of these users have shown a marked fondness for vandalizing the Bob Dylan page in recent days. Given the similarity in names and vandalism preferences, I think there is a reasonable chance the second account was created after the first account had been given a final warning. Is there any way to substantiate this, and/or impose any sort of penalty? John Carter 19:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)