Someguy1221 (talk | contribs) |
Vanjagenije (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 41: | Line 41: | ||
:I would suggest that you follow the process at [[WP:SPI]]. Before doing so, you might want to consider some questions that might be asked about how a Wikipedia editor arives on Wikipedia today able to fully participate in discussions like that, and in AfD discusssions, populate a very full user page yet with no previous history in Wikipedia. I am well aware that many IP editors take some time to decide to adopt a user-name, but you may face some tough questioning unless you care to reveal what name you have previously been editing under. <span style="background-color:lightblue">''''' [[User:Velella|Velella]] '''''</span><span style="background-color:lightblue"> <sup>''[[User talk:Velella|Velella]] Talk ''</sup> </span> 11:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC) |
:I would suggest that you follow the process at [[WP:SPI]]. Before doing so, you might want to consider some questions that might be asked about how a Wikipedia editor arives on Wikipedia today able to fully participate in discussions like that, and in AfD discusssions, populate a very full user page yet with no previous history in Wikipedia. I am well aware that many IP editors take some time to decide to adopt a user-name, but you may face some tough questioning unless you care to reveal what name you have previously been editing under. <span style="background-color:lightblue">''''' [[User:Velella|Velella]] '''''</span><span style="background-color:lightblue"> <sup>''[[User talk:Velella|Velella]] Talk ''</sup> </span> 11:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC) |
||
:{{ec}} No, you do not get to ask for a fishing expedition because someone reverted you a couple of times. [[User:Someguy1221|Someguy1221]] ([[User talk:Someguy1221|talk]]) 11:38, 5 February 2017 (UTC) |
:{{ec}} No, you do not get to ask for a fishing expedition because someone reverted you a couple of times. [[User:Someguy1221|Someguy1221]] ([[User talk:Someguy1221|talk]]) 11:38, 5 February 2017 (UTC) |
||
::It seams to me that {{U|Absinthia Stacy 13}} is actually {{U|Heracletus}}. '''[[User:Vanjagenije|<font color="008B8B">Vanjagenije</font>]] [[User talk:Vanjagenije|<font color="F4A460">(talk)</font>]]''' 12:13, 5 February 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 12:13, 5 February 2017
Quick question
I normally don't notify users when I open an SPI against them because I think it influences the behavior. However, I wonder, does it ping you automatically when you are mentioned as a suspected sock in a sockpuppet investigation? Sro23 (talk) 19:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Not necessarily, there was a discussion on this on one of the village pumps a couple days ago. The {{checkuser}} template generates a ping, but that would only ping the accused sockpuppets, not the sockmaster. So I guess the answer to your question ("does it ping you when you are mentioned as a suspected sock") is "yes", as long as you sign your edit. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, I see. I wonder why it does that. To me, it would make more sense for it NOT to ping you, like at WP:AIV. Filers can always courtesy notify users with {{Socksuspectnotice}} if they so choose, and there were advantages to having the suspected not be notified. It used to be very damning evidence when a user participates in an SPI they were never notified about, but this no longer applies now that it automatically pings you. Sro23 (talk) 00:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, I could definitely get behind a non-notifying template. GABgab 00:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- I previously changed the template to not ping, but was asked by Bbb23 to revert it. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:05, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Some comments. First, the change to the template also made the effects of a script I use less visible. In other words, it made my work at SPI harder. Second, as I understand it, there is no notification when the SPI is created because it signs it for you and therefore the notification fails. Third, all this time I didn't realize the template pinged. It doesn't seem to matter. 90% of the time, when the puppet makes an appearance, they complain they weren't notified, so for whatever reasons, they're not receiving the ping. Finally, a lot of editors notify puppets of the SPI on their Talk pages, so they're notified directly in those circumstances.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- I previously changed the template to not ping, but was asked by Bbb23 to revert it. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:05, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, I could definitely get behind a non-notifying template. GABgab 00:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, I see. I wonder why it does that. To me, it would make more sense for it NOT to ping you, like at WP:AIV. Filers can always courtesy notify users with {{Socksuspectnotice}} if they so choose, and there were advantages to having the suspected not be notified. It used to be very damning evidence when a user participates in an SPI they were never notified about, but this no longer applies now that it automatically pings you. Sro23 (talk) 00:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Malformed SPI report by Twinkle
I just created Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vineetpl7 using Twinkle, but for some reason it came out malformed. It wasn't listed in the sockpuppets case page list, either. I can't see anything obviously wrong in the page code... help? --bonadea contributions talk 10:17, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Bonadea: Fixed - there was an extra bracket on one of the links which broke the whole thing. Could you go and add your signature to it please? The template added mine at the end, which I removed. ansh666 10:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
How long does a block usually take?
It's been 9 days since I reported this sock [who has at least 5 other past socks]. He is still editing stuff and pretty much told me as long as I keep assisting to get him blocked, he will keep on making accounts. basically, it will never end. but I was just curious how long an SPI usually takes. He is an obvious sock. I do appreciate all the clerks who have blocked all these reports, don't get me wrong. --Jennica✿ / talk 22:04, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- (note from a passer-by who doesn't know much about SPI stuff) You can ride this carousel round and round and round, but I think this should get more efficient once a number of admins become acquainted with the sockmaster and watchlist the articles that are prone to socking. If the socking is obvious they can then just block on sight without the need of going through SPIs. But I it does take time until this stage is reached. – Uanfala (talk) 11:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Investigation request
I request a sockpuppet investigation to establish whether User:Denniss is a sockpuppet of User:Codename Lisa because Denniss appears to always protect the edits of Codename Lisa as can be seen in this diff and also in this diff and many others as you can see in the users' contributions. Absinthia Stacy 13 (talk) 11:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- I would suggest that you follow the process at WP:SPI. Before doing so, you might want to consider some questions that might be asked about how a Wikipedia editor arives on Wikipedia today able to fully participate in discussions like that, and in AfD discusssions, populate a very full user page yet with no previous history in Wikipedia. I am well aware that many IP editors take some time to decide to adopt a user-name, but you may face some tough questioning unless you care to reveal what name you have previously been editing under. Velella Velella Talk 11:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) No, you do not get to ask for a fishing expedition because someone reverted you a couple of times. Someguy1221 (talk) 11:38, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- It seams to me that Absinthia Stacy 13 is actually Heracletus. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:13, 5 February 2017 (UTC)