Content deleted Content added
NuclearWarfare (talk | contribs) →New cases: case listed |
ClueBot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 1 discussion to Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Archive 25. (BOT) |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<noinclude>{{pp-move-indef}}</noinclude> |
|||
{{Talk header|wp=yes|WT:SPI}} |
|||
{{tmbox |
|||
| type = notice |
|||
| text = <big>This is <strong>not</strong> the page to report suspected sock puppetry.</big> Please instead create a report at [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations]]. |
|||
}} |
|||
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis |
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis |
||
|archiveprefix=Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations |
|archiveprefix=Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Archive |
||
|format=%%i |
|format= %%i |
||
|age= |
|age=336 |
||
|index= |
|index=no |
||
|header={{Talkarchive}} |
|header={{Talkarchive}} |
||
|headerlevel=2 |
|headerlevel=2 |
||
|nogenerateindex=0 |
|nogenerateindex=0 |
||
|maxarchsize= |
|maxarchsize=150000 |
||
|minkeepthreads=0 |
|||
|numberstart= |
|numberstart=24 |
||
|archivebox= |
|archivebox=no |
||
|box-advert=yes |
|||
}} |
}} |
||
{{clear}} |
|||
__TOC__ |
|||
== Backlog at "awaiting clerk approval" == |
|||
Can we get this backlog cleared? If the report never makes to the people with checkuser power, they never get cleared. Is there something that people are waiting on?—[[User:Kww|Kww]]([[User talk:Kww|talk]]) 14:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:If it's any consolation, I sometimes look through those, as well. – <small>[[User:Luna Santin|<font color="#28f">Luna Santin</font>]] ([[User talk:Luna Santin|talk]])</small> 19:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:: Did someone changed "pending close" section? [[User:OhanaUnited|<b><font color="#0000FF">OhanaUnited</font></b>]][[User talk:OhanaUnited|<b><font color="green"><sup>Talk page</sup></font></b>]] 02:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:The subpage simply not transcluded anymore, because it was taking up too much space. The link is still there though. <font color="navy">'''[[User:NuclearWarfare|NW]]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">[[User talk:NuclearWarfare|Talk]]</font>)'' 02:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC) |
|||
==New cases (old)== |
|||
The SPI bot is down. Please list cases below so that clerks can list them on the main SPI page. Clerks, please strike cases after you have transcluded them. — [[User:Jake Wartenberg|<font color="#21421E" face="Harrington">Jake</font>]] [[User talk:Jake Wartenberg|<font color="#21421E" face="Harrington">Wartenberg</font>]] 05:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC) |
|||
*<s>New checkuser case at [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bruninho]].</s> — <span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">[[User:Satori Son|<b>Satori Son</b>]]</span> 17:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC) |
|||
*<s>New sockpuppet case at [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PoliticianTexas]], prepared by [[User:LadyofShalott|LadyofShalott]] and augmented by [[User:Uncia|Uncia]]. --[[User:Uncia|Uncia]] ([[User talk:Uncia|talk]]) 04:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)</s> |
|||
*<s>[[WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Petergriffin9901]].—[[User:Kww|Kww]]([[User talk:Kww|talk]]) 03:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)<s> |
|||
:The bot is back up now. — [[User:Jake Wartenberg|<font color="#21421E" face="Harrington">Jake</font>]] [[User talk:Jake Wartenberg|<font color="#21421E" face="Harrington">Wartenberg</font>]] 21:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== Why can't section headers be used for SPI == |
|||
I'm wondering why the SPI pages can't use section headers? |
|||
It makes it very hard to add your evidence/defense when you have to edit the whole page (especially if you are at the end). I am just wondering why ";" has to be used instead? --[[User:Stmrlbs|<span style="color:#AF0AAB;background:#FFFFbb;font-family:Viner Hand ITC; margin-right:0;padding:2px 5px 1px">'''stmrlbs'''</span>]]|[[User_talk:Stmrlbs|<span style="color:#396400;background:#CCFFff;font-size:85%">'''''talk'''''</span>]] 01:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:I know that it seems rather annoying, but the way the transclusion system is set up, ";" has to be used, or else the entire page breaks. If you dislike posting with that format, simply make your post elsewhere, and ping a clerk to correctly format it onto the page; we will be happy to help. <font color="navy">'''[[User:NuclearWarfare|NW]]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">[[User talk:NuclearWarfare|Talk]]</font>)'' 02:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:: That is what I heard, that it "breaks the page". But I tried transclusion first with a page that I created with section headers, and then I tried transclusions of a fairly complex talk page with many sections. No problem. Here are a couple of examples ''(If you open each example page for editing, you can see it is just a template call of the other pages)'': |
|||
::* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Stmrlbs/sandbox2/archive/001]a transclusion of a simple page I created |
|||
::* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Stmrlbs/sandbox2/archive/003] a transclusion of Jimbo Wales talk page ''(this page will say that I am on Wiki-break because the inner macro picks up the page name, and the transclusion is on my User subpage.)'' |
|||
:: So.. what is broken? --[[User:Stmrlbs|<span style="color:#AF0AAB;background:#FFFFbb;font-family:Viner Hand ITC; margin-right:0;padding:2px 5px 1px">'''stmrlbs'''</span>]]|[[User_talk:Stmrlbs|<span style="color:#396400;background:#CCFFff;font-size:85%">'''''talk'''''</span>]] 03:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::Editing sections through multiple layers of transclusion used to be quite hairy -- the URL to edit a page contains a section number, where sections are numbered sequentially from top to bottom without any hierarchy... in the older days, that number would be derived from the page being ''viewed'', rather than the page being ''edited'' (section 2 on the case subpage might be section 24 on the front page, and so on). A few months ago I notice this seems to have been improved, if not fixed completely. A [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Light_current&diff=prev&oldid=306967416 quick little test] on my part ran into no obvious trouble, just now. I've also had some trouble editing our longer SPIs, for just the same reasons... this probably could bear more discussion. – <small>[[User:Luna Santin|<font color="#28f">Luna Santin</font>]] ([[User talk:Luna Santin|talk]])</small> 12:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::: So, what you are saying is that when the page is transcluded as a subsection of another page containing sections preceding the transcluded page, the section numbers would all change? What pages are the SPI transcluded into? (I'm still finding my way around Wikipedia). |
|||
:::: Does this just happen for SPI pages? or is it a problem elsewhere? |
|||
:::: Do you have to "edit" each SPI? why? Can you give me an example? The reason I'm asking so many questions is I will be glad to write up a bug report if I can get it to happen myself. I realize that you can't have errors with official SPI reports.. but it is hard to pin down a problem without a good example. Then either I can submit it or I can give it to you to submit. --[[User:Stmrlbs|<span style="color:#AF0AAB;background:#FFFFbb;font-family:Viner Hand ITC; margin-right:0;padding:2px 5px 1px">'''stmrlbs'''</span>]]|[[User_talk:Stmrlbs|<span style="color:#396400;background:#CCFFff;font-size:85%">'''''talk'''''</span>]] 17:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I hadn't realized how complicated that sounds! But yes, that's about it. As far as examples, here's one: [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations]] transcludes [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Subpage - Open CheckUser cases]], which calls {{tl|SPI}} in such a way that the transcluded template page ''also'' transcludes [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Light current]] (the case subpage). Under the old system, clicking a section-edit link for a section that's been transcluded to hell and back could have some very unintuitive results. I know that this used to be a serious problem, but I'm under the impression that some more recent software updates have mitigated -- if not solved -- that problem... I don't recall off-hand whether those updates were made before or after the move from RFCU to SPI. – <small>[[User:Luna Santin|<font color="#28f">Luna Santin</font>]] ([[User talk:Luna Santin|talk]])</small> 00:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::::: I looked for something like this in the bug reports (bugzilla). I couldn't find anything.. but I didn't look through all the bug reports (several hundred or none were returned, depending on what keywords I tried). What I would suggest is to give me a sockpuppet request that you think will cause it. Save a copy, then change the ";" section headers to regular section headers (==). Save that copy. Or you can give it to me, and I will do it (the wiked tool makes this pretty easy). Then.. try it working with the report with normal headers. If you have a problem, please note what happened. Then restore the working version (with the ";" headers), and give me a link to both saved copies of the report. Then.. I can set up a dummy transclusion in my own userspace and write up a bug report. There are 2 possibilities. The software has been fixed, and no one was notified - or the software hasn't been fixed, and maybe a bug report was never submitted. But, either way, the only way to find out is to try it. And if it is broken, submitting a bug report about how it affects this part of Wikipedia administration will perhaps get it fixed. --[[User:Stmrlbs|<span style="color:#AF0AAB;background:#FFFFbb;font-family:Viner Hand ITC; margin-right:0;padding:2px 5px 1px">'''stmrlbs'''</span>]]|[[User_talk:Stmrlbs|<span style="color:#396400;background:#CCFFff;font-size:85%">'''''talk'''''</span>]] 04:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Two tracking bugs might be useful, there: [[bugzilla:12652]] and [[bugzilla:4899]]. As I think I mentioned before (while neglecting to include a diff), I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Light_current&diff=prev&oldid=306967416 ran a quick test] of my own - since removed - and didn't notice any obvious problems when directly editing sections from the SPI front page. Some more testing might be wise, but my current impression is that this is supported by software. If we think we ''can'' do it this way, with those subsections, the question remains whether we ''should''; I personally think it would be useful in case subpages of great length, but gets in the way in shorter ones. – <small>[[User:Luna Santin|<font color="#28f">Luna Santin</font>]] ([[User talk:Luna Santin|talk]])</small> 21:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::: Thank you for the bug number. How does this get in the way in shorter pages? I thank you for taking the time to explain this to me. --[[User:Stmrlbs|<span style="color:#AF0AAB;background:#FFFFbb;font-family:Viner Hand ITC; margin-right:0;padding:2px 5px 1px">'''stmrlbs'''</span>]]|[[User_talk:Stmrlbs|<span style="color:#396400;background:#CCFFff;font-size:85%">'''''talk'''''</span>]] 21:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::Just a matter of clutter. :) Where there's a lot of content, breaking it down into sections makes it easier to read and edit; where there's not, I find the opposite will sometimes be true. I don't have an especially strong opinion on it, here -- I'd be fine trying it out, to see how it goes -- but others might feel differently (this is your chance to chime in, others!). – <small>[[User:Luna Santin|<font color="#28f">Luna Santin</font>]] ([[User talk:Luna Santin|talk]])</small> 22:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC) |
|||
==Why can't any editor simply check for sock puppet without having to show evidence?== |
|||
After the spate of high profile sock puppets, include an arbitor and an editor who commented with multiple socks in numerous AFDs: |
|||
Why can't any editor simply check for sock puppet without having to show evidence? Why not make sock puppet checks routine and no big deal? As long as an IP address is involved, there is really no privacy involved. |
|||
I think trust in wikipedia is damaged without a more robust checkuser. I know myself and hundreds of other editors, are constantly wondering if an editor is a sock. [[User:Ikip|Ikip]] ([[User talk:Ikip|talk]]) 01:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:As checkusers, clerks, or simply interested editors, it's our obligation to protect the privacy of editors. Asking for evidence prevents many baseless claims of sockpuppetry. It also saves us time digging for evidence ourselves. <font face="Forte">[[User:Steve Crossin|<font color="black">Steve Crossin</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Steve Crossin|<font color="#FFCC00">The clock is ticking....</font>]]</sup></font> 02:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::[[m:Privacy policy]]. – <small>[[User:Luna Santin|<font color="#28f">Luna Santin</font>]] ([[User talk:Luna Santin|talk]])</small> 12:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::Mr. Steve Crossin, you bring up three issues: |
|||
:::# '''privacy''' and [[m:Privacy policy]]. I can understand how privacy is an issue if one account is an anon IP account. But lets say I am account [[User:SOCK1]] and [[User:SOCK2]]. Revealing both of these accounts are socks does not in anyway effect my privacay. |
|||
:::# '''baseless claims of sockpuppetry''' What is wrong with phishing in that if there are 4 times more sock puppet claims filed, but there are twice as many socks caught. |
|||
:::# '''saves us time digging for evidence ourselves''' IP checks are fairly quick. I am not talking about digging through edits, I am talking about IP checks. This could easily be solved by allowing more editors with check user authority. |
|||
:::If arbcoms have been caught using socks, that means the behavior is very widespread. What do you think? [[User:Ikip|Ikip]] ([[User talk:Ikip|talk]]) 15:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::There's a common misunderstanding of what "fishing" actually implies. If a checkuser suspects sockpuppetry on good grounds, a check can often be done. Fishing is basically a baseless check without evidence of sockpuppetry. Checking everybody is neither feasible nor appropriate on any level, so yes, it is extremely important that evidence of socking is provided. |
|||
::Addressing your second point, IP checks can reveal users on the IP. If, for example, a school IP was checked and it revealed one or more respected editors, you would know where that editor(s) edit from. That is private information, and users must have the full trust of the arbitration committee/community to hold the private information of any user. |
|||
::Recently, functionary elections ended, and there will likely be three more checkusers by the end of the week (just fyi). <font face="Arial"> [[User:PeterSymonds|<font color="#02e">Peter</font><font color="#02b"><b>Symonds</b></font>]] ([[User talk:PeterSymonds|<font color="#02e">talk</font>]])</font> 15:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::It may also help to read Deskana's view of "Fishing" in his email to ArbCom at [[Wikipedia:CheckUser#"Fishing"]]. There, he brings up more creative ways of utilizing the WMF's privacy policy as well as the CheckUser policy to ''stop the disruption'' (as opposed to the "full frontal assault" approach by bringing everything out into the open). Don't know if that helps, but I think it's worth mentioning. [[User talk:MuZemike|MuZemike]] 18:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== Sock investigation tools == |
|||
I can't find an list of tools for investigating possible socks. http://toolserver.org/~sql/socktime.php seems to be down, and there's no indication of a replacement. <b>[[User:Will Beback|<font color="#595454">Will Beback</font>]] [[User talk:Will Beback|<font color="#C0C0C0">talk</font>]] </b> 04:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC) |
|||
: I have one.[http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/User_compare.htm] But you have to ask Betacommand to get a key. [[User:OhanaUnited|<b><font color="#0000FF">OhanaUnited</font></b>]][[User talk:OhanaUnited|<b><font color="green"><sup>Talk page</sup></font></b>]] 18:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::Thanks, I'll ask him. We should start a list of these if there isn't one already. <b>[[User:Will Beback|<font color="#595454">Will Beback</font>]] [[User talk:Will Beback|<font color="#C0C0C0">talk</font>]] </b> 00:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== Are we giving up on the combined sockpuppet template? == |
|||
See [[User:Avraham/Sandbox/SPOM]] for the template, which would require re-mapping of the current sockpuppet templates as discussed ''ad nauseum'' in the archives of this page :) -- [[User:Avraham|Avi]] ([[User talk:Avraham|talk]]) 05:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:I thought that was proceeding, if perhaps slowly. Maybe somebody just needs to throw the switch? – <small>[[User:Luna Santin|<font color="#28f">Luna Santin</font>]] ([[User talk:Luna Santin|talk]])</small> 22:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC) |
|||
==How can I clear myself of charges?== |
|||
I've been tagged a "possible scibaby sockpuppet" in circumstances than make think the system is being abused. This is like "The Trial" by Kafka. Someone throws an accusation and I don't know who it is, what is it based on and how can I be cleared of charges. So someone please answer my question before this overzealous BOT archieves it again [[Special:Contributions/78.131.137.50|78.131.137.50]] ([[User talk:78.131.137.50|talk]]) 22:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:See [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guidance#Defending yourself against claims|Defending yourself against claims]]. It says right there on the case page. [[User talk:MuZemike|MuZemike]] 00:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::It doesn't say how can I know who tagged me, who investigates my case, when would I become untagged etc [[Special:Contributions/78.131.137.50|78.131.137.50]] ([[User talk:78.131.137.50|talk]]) 01:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== Um... == |
|||
...this may be a stupid question, but could someone explain why the [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rex Dominator|User:Rex Dominator case]] is listed under "'''Open cases: not awaiting CheckUser'''"? This is not my first time reporting a sock, and I believe I can objectively say that the evidence is quite compelling in this case. |
|||
[[User:Rex Dominator]], somewhat new on Wikipedia, has yesterday (14 August 2009) been reporting me for all sorts of nonsense because of a tough debate he and I have been having on the [[Chetniks]] article. Strangely, a new account was created the same evening to agree with him on the reports and insult me. :) However, it seems to me now (I may be very wrong :) that because User:Rex Dominator's reports were a tad bit "silly" and were thus mostly ignored, my report is being ignored as well. I assure you, this is not some kind of "retaliation". It is a serious report backed by compelling evidence. Regards, --<font face="Eras Bold ITC">[[User:DIREKTOR|<font color="DimGray">DIREKTOR</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DIREKTOR|<font color="Gray">TALK</font>]])</sup></font> 13:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:Anyone out there? :P --<font face="Eras Bold ITC">[[User:DIREKTOR|<font color="DimGray">DIREKTOR</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DIREKTOR|<font color="Gray">TALK</font>]])</sup></font> 15:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::Hi, sorry. Basically when you file an SPI, you're given two options. The default is to request a suspected sockpuppet case (evidence of sockpuppetry but a checkuser is not wanted or required). The second option is to request checkuser attention, which puts the case into a different category. I'll work on some cases when I have some spare time. If you want to request checkuser for the Rex Dominator case, add <tt><nowiki>{{</nowiki>[[Template:RFCU|RFCU]]|[[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/Checkuser_criteria_and_letters|code letter]]|No2ndLetter|New<nowiki>}}</nowiki></tt> to the page (filling in the code letter–if the case has two letters, change "No2ndLetter" to the second letter). Best, <font face="Arial"> [[User:PeterSymonds|<font color="#02e">Peter</font><font color="#02b"><b>Symonds</b></font>]] ([[User talk:PeterSymonds|<font color="#02e">talk</font>]])</font> 15:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC) |
|||
==New cases== |
|||
The SPI bot is down. Please list cases below so that clerks can list them on the main SPI page. Clerks, please strike cases after you have transcluded them. — [[User:Jake Wartenberg|<font color="#21421E" face="Harrington">Jake</font>]] [[User talk:Jake Wartenberg|<font color="#21421E" face="Harrington">Wartenberg</font>]] 01:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC) |
|||
*<s>[[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/64.238.120.226]]</s> [[User:EllePollack|EllePollack]] ([[User talk:EllePollack|talk]]) 03:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC) |