Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Administrators instructions

SPI case status

Are the instructions for this still correct, because I couldn't figure out how to do this when trying to close Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Franklin.vp. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging IPs

The page advises that "The talk page of an unblocked IP may be tagged with the {{IPSock}} template", but IPSock conflicts by saying "Place this template on the user page (not the user talk page) of the IP editor." Should it be placed on the user page or talk?—Bagumba (talk) 05:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The wording instructions should be reversed. Completely. No one should put a sock tag on an IP's user page over an IP's talk page, as IPs get recycled. I would change the instructions myself, but I'm not an admin. There are plenty of editors that believe that IPs should not be tagged at all, and advising that one tags an IP's user page over the talk page is probably part of the reason why. This template needs to be updated in a major way. I had not even seen the language here. I certainly know that it's not the way to tag IP's in practice or theory. Doc talk 06:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this conversation should be moved to WT:SPI, as I doubt that people watch this page. --Rs chen 7754 06:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Once I learned that it was better to tag an IP's talk page over their user page, I switched all my tags. This was awhile ago. I'm shocked that I hadn't seen this really bad bit of template instruction before Bagumba thankfully brought it up. We need to fix this ASAP. Doc talk 06:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of the time, IPs should not be tagged at all. Unless the IP is static and is used exclusively by the sockmaster, it rarely makes sense to tag them. —DoRD (talk) 06:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heh - we need to do baby steps ;> Do you not agree that reversing the instructions on the template to tag only the talk page is a better thing? The template is used all the time, by lots of users... Doc talk 06:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Rschen7754 I've left notification of this at Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations.—Bagumba (talk) 07:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we should only tag IP talk pages not user pages. And I agree that we should only tag IP talk pages if the IP is static and not used by a large number of people. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I go with DoRD (exclusive) and Callanecc (user page), but I never tag IP user pages because the "static" denomination isn't always accurate.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, in part. There are multiple reasons why an IP's page (I don't care whether it's "user" or "talk", except that it should not be removed by the subject) should be tagged temporarily, even if not static, and even if not blocked. My take is that we should tag the user's (page or talk page) if it is static or rarely used except by the offender. In the case of the "Michigan Kid", I had run across cases where the IP, although not static, was used only by the offender, sometimes in blocks of 2-12 hours running over at least 4 years.

To notify the offender that we are on to him. (If this is inappropriate, the User page would be preferred to the User talk page, as, if he/she does return, he/she won't be informed of changes to the user page.)
To notify those editors looking at articles which the sock-puppets edited that those edits may be reverted per WP:EVASION. I have not yet been able to set up a script that would revert all of an IP's edits, with edit summary including WP:EVASION. if I could do that, it would help.
To gather information in order to find the appropriate range to block, keeping WP:COLLATERAL in mind. This use suggests that the tags should be persistent, to determine usage over months of time, in the case of persistent, but rapidly changing IP, vandals, such as the Michigan Kid.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:15, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like there is consensus that when tagging is appropriate, it should be on the talk page. I will update the docs for Template:IPSock.—Bagumba (talk) 07:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is still a problem; normally, IPs are allowed to remove things from the talk page. It needs to be specified that this tag may not be removed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck. I've found it difficult to convince others to cede some WP:BLANKING liberties.—Bagumba (talk) 20:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking IP socks

For IPs that are socks, the page says: "The autoblock placed on the sockmaster is going to take care of the IP." I wonder if this statement should be removed. In Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/T23tran, a new sock account was created a bit after 24 hours since the sockmaster was originally blocked. User:Versageek confirmed with CU that the socks were using the same underlying IP. In the original SPI, I explicitly did not block the IP because of the guidance to rely on autoblock. Unbeknownst to me at the time, autoblock (and presumably account creation block) lasts for only 24 hours. Unless I'm missing something, it seems insufficient to rely on this short auto block to take care of IPs.—Bagumba (talk) 06:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the dot point because there is also no way to know whether an IP used by an account is the same as the one which is reported without CU. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:31, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sockmaster tag says indefinite

I want to tag a CU confirmed sockmaster but the template says indefinitely blocked. Needs a link to Template:Sockpuppeteer somewhere but I'm not sure where. Doug Weller talk 16:22, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

{{sockpuppeteer|checked=yes| spipage=Example user}}? I don't think we have an option for a non-indef block. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:53, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: If you're referring to Gonzales John (talk · contribs · count), what you did, which is what Jo-JO Eumerus suggested, worked. However, why wouldn't you want it to say indefinitely as the account has been indefinitely blocked? Also, whenever we tag accounts, we replace what's there with the template rather than add it to the top.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:02, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: My bad, I was going by the block notice on his talk page, which says 3 months. I should have recalled that Callanecc indeffed after he continued to sock. I'll change the template and delete everything else. I normally delete everything, not sure what happened there. Any reason I shouldn't add a new block notice? Thanks. I still think a link to the template page would be useful. Doug Weller talk 18:17, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: I fixed the template. You just left out a parameter.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:22, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IP block template

We are encouraged to use {{subst:SockBlock|period=1 day|sig=yes}} but there is a message at Template talk:SockBlock:

"Not sure if I did something wrong, but the template is defaulting to "blocked indefinitely" no matter what I specify in "period=" (or if I leave that parameter blank)."

The message is 5 years old and I have the same problem. Am I being dense or do we need to change the suggested template? Ben Mac Dui 12:24, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ben MacDui: There's a caveat in the documentation that says to set |masterblock=yes for |period= to work. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 12:34, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thx - so the instruction on the project page here should really say {{subst:SockBlock|period=duration|masterblock=yes|sig=yes}}? Ben Mac Dui 13:30, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only place I see mention of {{SockBlock}} at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Administrators instructions is for IP addresses, which would typically not be sockmasters. I'm thinking the template itself should be changed to remove the sockmaster restriction for |period=—Bagumba (talk) 13:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]