Wikipedia talk:Suspected sock puppets/Archive 1

Opening comments

If ever a page was destined to create conflict and ill feeling, this is it. Who is a sockpuppet is infinitely less important or interesting than what the editor, whichever name they use, does. Still, one ought not expect good sense to prevail in a decaying society; Cassandra was ignored even while Troy was burning. -- Grace Note.

Do you have any better idea about how to effectivly combat sock puppetry? --Dijxtra 10:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Universal access to everyone's ip and ability to scan user passwords for common passwords (I bet many socks use identical or similar passwords and you could set up a system that still didnt allow users to know other users passwords), ie only technologically driven solutions will work, the wiki is just far too big and far too disorganised otherwise. While I suspect Grace is right in his or her overall appreciation of our community project I equally dont beliueve that this page is a cause of that decay though it is an effect, SqueakBox 04:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

duh

If not administered, then should be deleted

When one does a search on someone (say in google) and the first thing that comes up is a Wikipedia sockpuppet accusation, then this now reflects on people's reputations if not dealt with in a timely manner. I refer to the Peteris Cedrins case, brought by someone who has accused a number of individuals of sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry (there is no comment intended on that person's intentions, only a statement of fact). If this article/list is not going to be administered and dealt with in a timely manner, then the whole thing should be deleted. A "backlog" is simply not acceptable where people's integrity has been impugned.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I should add that I don't mean to say there should not be a forum for sockpuppetry to be dealt with, but the list can't just be left to grow. At $900,583.50 donated to the Wikimedia Foundation (current count), one could actually hire people to administer this.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely. We post here in order to get answers, and get something solved. It is not a witch-hunt but it can easily appear that way to the "victim" if there is no one on the other end to administer the policies. Everyone wants closure, whatever the outcome, and not be left hanging. Please show a bit of efficiency. - Mauco 17:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep. The system simply doesn't work as it is, I've been very tempted to go to MfD. It's not about efficienct - there's simply no poistive way for admins to deal with compelx sock reports, especially when they get mixed in with all the easier ones. Please see proposals at Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry#Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets policy overhaul. --Robdurbar 09:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Robdubar, thank you for your efforts. I just want to make mention here that I have visited the proposals and commented and I urge anyone considering posting a sockpuppetry investigation request to join that discussion (and perhaps before posting here). It's unfortunate that in the discussion of contentious issues those that don't play by the rules make it more likely the innocent get accused as well--if offenders are not dealt with efficiently, then it's just an invitiation to more abuse, creating an escalating cycle of accusations of both guilty and innocent. We should recognize that and deal with it far more constructively than a pretty much ignored list.
     I see the banner to donate has gone away, perhaps that means there will be some "official" resources devoted to this matter. It's not fair to moderators, who give their time and energy to improve the quality of Wikipedia's articles to saddle them with IP address tracing, blocking, checking logs, etc.--I can guarantee that was not a mission any of them signed up for.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Bad idea

This page is not a good idea. It encourages people to discuss in detail why they suspect that such-and-such is a sockpuppet. A consequence of that is that such-and-such will know how to change his behavior in order to become a better sockpuppet, and in general people wanting to use multiple accounts for deception will be able to pick up tips. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Still Used?

This doesn't appear to be listed anywhere (it certainly doesn't seem to be in WP:SOCK), and many admins have given significant objections to it, but there still seem to be quite a few users using it. Should we put a note telling them to stop, and directing them elsewhere? --Philosophus ^T 22:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

A little help here, please

I believe that all of the users listed here are sock puppets of each other, but I have no idea how to absolutely prove it. These accounts are all working together to avoid breaking 3RR, they have similar edit methods, and I'm not the only one who thinks something fishy is going on. Will someone more familiar with this kind of thing please take a look at this? I don't want to list them here otherwise. Thanks! ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Look like sockpuppets to me. See what the checkuser results turn out to be. ;) -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|e|Chugoku Banzai!} 02:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks like I was right. They are all blocked/banned now. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Listing peculiarity

I'm trying to list a second case on [1] but for some reason it's not coming up properly when I try to list it, all appears right, although I have a feeling that the (2nd) might be causing an issue.ALR 22:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Iolakana|^T 18:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Puppets or puppeteers?

Are we supposed to report suspected sock puppets, or suspected sock puppetteers? What if we're not sure who the person behind the puppet is, or what if we think they qualify as an SPA? - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 18:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

GarrettRock

GarrettRock of the case Wikipedia versus Rocky is back, and editing his user page... wasn't he blocked? —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Request

Hi, I am requesting a sockpuppet check on user Whitemanners. I believe he is the sockpuppet of one of the following users: Mcconn, Dilip rajeev, Omido, Fnhddzs, HResearcher, Olaf Stephanos. Whitemanners has never contributed to any article but instead has followed and attacked me constantly. Thanks for your work. --Samuel Luo 09:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Folow the instructions on the page! Iolakana|^T 15:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Help with PoolGuy Accounts

In an effort to help with organizing the PoolGuy accounts that pop up there is a template created to standardize the block warning and page categorization. As it stands, many different templates have been used, and several errors exist throughout with bad links etc. I am posting to get some assistance adding the template to the multiple accounts already identified [2] (there are almost 100 here already), and help finding the ones not identified yet. Here is the template [3]. Thanks. SunCoastHighway 12:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

User:OhmyΩ as a sockpuppet

Hello. I have an issue on sock puppetry that I have been desperately trying to resolve. User:OhmyΩ, who seems to be someone who knows me in real life, seems to use that account for the sole purpose of posting random, even harrassing comments on my talk page- [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. I have no clue who the master account may be, but I'm pretty sure this person is a Sockpuppet. This user even stated here: "I have other acounts LOL". Please help! Thanks, --Basawala 15:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet ban is one route. But you may also try to just get User:OhmyΩ blocked for violating WP policy on WikiStalking or posting personal information. Both are more serious than sockpuppets.--Tbeatty 08:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try to do that, but I'm not too sure where to start. I'll look into it. --Basawala 20:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

User:OhmyΩ has been successfully blocked. --Basawala 21:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

suspect user

HeresyFromHell (talk • contribs) has posted what seems to be an admission of guilt here, and the page history at Tree of life is also suspect. I do not know if this user is banned, or even if there is sock puppets involved, but it raised some flags in my book so I am reporting it here, not knowing what other steps to take, if any at all are needed. I encountered the user at Book of Revelation, changing the common phrase "tree of life" found in the KJV to "wood of life". I almost thought it was vandalism, however, this view is a very minority POV and I reverted this editor twice on this issue. Anyway, that's that.--Andrew c 23:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Falsely accused

So I come on to Wikipedia this morning to look something up, and find a message on my talk page accusing me of being a sockpuppet. I'm a member in good standing with over 3000 edits to the English Wikipedia. What action should I take? | Mr. Darcy talk 14:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

New Possible Sockpuppet

I would like to report a possible sockpuppet of the infamous Willy on Wheels, Willy on Wheels is DEAD!. I gave him a message warning him about the name and giving him strong advice to change it if innocent, but he didn't take action. He has just started his username. He hasn't made "contributions" yet, but I would just like to report it. --Yancyfry jr 22:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

User has already been blocked. Neil916 (Talk) 23:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I.P. relevance to sockpuppets

As i've been watching this page for updates on some sockpuppetry cases, i noticed that one of the edit summaries stated "although i don't know what I.P.'s have to do with sockpuppetry" (or something along those lines) and i have to agree. I'm pretty sure i understand this, but editing from different I.P.s means that the computer you're working on has a different internet registration- it means that the computer has a unique address- see IP address. So really, this means that users are editing from different computers- how is this sockpuppetry? I can edit from home or school, but i'm not a sockpuppet- and i log in whenever i edit- so i don't understand how I.P.'s can classify as this. Please respond- CattleGirl 10:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

While the act of using various IP's for normal, wholesome, Wikipedia purposes is not a problem, in certain specific cases, people may believe that the only reason the IP's are changing so much is to avoid blocking. Nationalparks 13:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

SoundPound500000

Okay, this guy is even SAYING he has a sock puppet.—ウルタプ 04:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, never mind. I guess you could call it an alternate account. Whatever.—ウルタプ 04:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Request clarification re:Fwdixon case conclusion

This case has been archived (Oct 06). The conclusion was "This is best taken to WP:RFCU. Thanks, Kilo•T " Does this indicate that the case appears to fit under one of the letter-code classifications? Because I'm having trouble determining which one. It's basically a "false-consensus" type case, with personal-abuse elements. If it's a "disruption-obvious-block"--first lines on the chart--does that mean it should be listed at WP:RFCU, but without a code letter? How does the blocking "happen"? Doxmyth 16:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Major re-write of the "how to" section.

I re-worded pretty much the whole thing. [9] I think the new version has better grammar, and is more clear to non-technical users. But I had to puzzle through it myself to do the rewrite.

I'm still not satisfied with step #2. In particular, this sentence "If the evidence page is not new, you should manually edit the notice on suspect userpage to point to [[Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/PUPPETMASTER (2nd)]] (or (3rd), (4th) and so on)." I'm sure if I'd ever posted a puppet complaint I'd know what to write, but it's got me stumped what it really means. I might have made some technical errors, as I've never actually followed these instructions before.

I'd appreciate if someone knowledgeable would please check my work.

Also, I would recommend replacing the word 'impersonator' with the word 'impostor' in the "subst:Socksuspect" template. It would also be helpful to provide a link to the actual template here. I went searching but came up empty handed. The best I could do was cause it to be rendered, so I could read it. It'd be nice if a reader of these instructions can see what it looks like before they start using it. --Loqi T. 20:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's what it means. Let's pretend that I was suspected of controlling an abusive sockpuppet named "abuser". Someone would file a suspected sockpuppet report for me, under Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Neil916. The investigation would continue as normal. Now, suppose a month later, someone thought that I was controlling an abusive sockpuppet named "PersistentAbuser". They would initiate a second sockpuppet investigation against me, but when they went to create the Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Neil916 page, it would already exist with the previous investigation in it. So instead of blanking the page or deleting it, they are supposed to create a second page, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Neil916 (2nd) so that my history of sockpuppet investigations would be preserved. Does that clarify things? Neil916 (Talk) 21:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Neil, I fixed that problem. But now there's a new problem. Step 6: "If the evidence page was initiated by you, [add a line 'PuppetMaster', 'PuppetMaster (1)', etc to the list-of-suspects file]." By my read of your explanation, every complaint will have a seperate accuser, and so there's no 'If' for step 6. A single incident of abuse can lead to multiple complaints from multiple accusers. Is this how it works? Or is a complainant supposed to look at what's already out there and add more stuff to an existing page if theirs fits with what's already in one. What's the "month later" part of your explanation mean? After an investigation has closed? --Loqi T. 00:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Going back to my hypothetical example... Let's assume that I have been accused of controlling an abusive sockpuppet "abuser" and someone has created a sockpuppet report here under Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Neil916. If you come along, prepared to accuse me of also being a sockpuppeter of the user "ObnoxiousAbuser" and the first case was still open, then you should just add your accusation and evidence to the same Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Neil916 page. If that first case had been closed, you'd create a new case Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Neil916 (2nd) or Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Neil916 (3rd) or whatever. Neil916 (Talk) 05:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I think I just need one more detail to fix step 6. How does the accuser know if a case has been closed? Do they look inside an evidence page? Well, actually two more details. What's the most convenient way for them to find the next available file name for an evidence page on a chronic suspect? Sorry to be so blind here, but I've never actually done the process before, so I'm not confident I'm getthing all the detalis right. --Loqi T. 07:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

As far as how someone would know if a case has been closed, I believe they should add the evidence page to their watchlist. I don't know of a way of finding the next available page name for a chronic subject other than just manually checking for the existence of each page. Neil916 (Talk) 07:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I've reported quite a few suspected sockpuppets, and I can confirm that you have to manually check for whether there's a (2nd), (3rd), and so on. This is one of the more annoying parts of the process. If you're reporting someone for the 4th (or 9th) time, though, you've probably been following their activities, and have an idea how many cases have been reported.

Putting the individual case page on your watchlist is also the best way to monitor progress in the case--if you only have WP:SSP on your watchlist, you won't see changes in individual cases, because they're transcluded onto the main page.

I think Loqi's rewrites have made the instructions clearer, but this is a ridiculously complicated process involving multiple pages. I'd really like to make the reporting simpler. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry from anonymous IP's

Over the last several days we've had several anonymous ip's attempt to add the same POV and unverified information to an article on a particular IP, violating several policies (WP:CONSENSUS, WP:SOCK, WP:3RR, WP:SIG etc.). The IP's have been used interchangably on the article and the talk page. The admin who semi-protected suggest I report the case, but I see no cases listed (or guidelines) with all-anonymous sockpuppetry. What is appropriate? It should be noted that spoofing multiple IP's is easy via open proxies (often installed by virii or trojans) or proxy engines (such as squid). /Blaxthos 01:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Admins checking into these?

How long should it take for admins to check into these reports? I noticed some have been on there for awhile --AW 03:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I notice that at the top of this talk page there is concern about whether this page should exist at all and the fact that many admins don't like it. Is there some other way to report socks? Gdo01 15:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes socks are reported at WP:ANI, sometimes people just contact an admin and explain the problem. There's also WP:RFCU for some types of sockpuppet cases. Frankly, I'd rather have an "official" process for reporting socks like this page, but if admins don't check regularly, then the page doesn't seem very useful. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

There are now some 44 cases listed, and I don't think anyone's looked into it in ages... The last conclusion para was written on the 9th Nov. Makes you wonder whether it's worth bothering reporting... Dibo | Talk | Contribs 22:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Seriously. Is there some way I can go through them and do some action on them? Or do I have to be an admin? --AW 21:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Nothing would stop a regular editor from stating their opinion whether someone is or isn't a sockpuppet, but to take meaningful action, like blocking, you need to be an admin. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Er... this is starting to get a little ridiculous now... There are 65+ SSP cases listed. Is anyone there? Dibo ^{T | C} 23:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I posted a note at WP:ANI. For the time being I would suggest that any cases of suspected sockpuppetry be posted there. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Viriditas case

Hi, could we archive the Viriditas case, on the grounds the editor raising it has been indefinitely blocked and there are no diffs provided? Addhoc 11:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Cbuhl79 case

I would like to remove or archive this case since it appears that neither user is currently active on Wikipedia. I stand by my earlier concerns, but there is no use in anyone pursuing the sock-puppetry at this time. It's seems to be moot. Can I simply de-list the case, or does it need to be done by an administrator? Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Editor???

I've had a user come to the mulatto board making constant changes. When I left him a personal note on his user talk, he responded to me on his own talk page. The only way I knew he did that was I went back to explain another edit I did. I told him that if he needed to leave me a message he needed to leave it for me on MY page, not his. He finally figured it out and posted a message on my page saying something about he would block me because he was an edittor. He's a new user and in no way was I vandalising, he was. I told him I would report him for both vandalism and harassment because there was nothing to show he was an editor. Then some guy named User:Squeakbox contacted me saying that administrators would block me if I reported User:Media anthro saying he wasn't an editor because he really was. Does this sound fishy to you? Americanbeauty415 05:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

This guy has a sockpuppet noptice on his user page. To accuse me of being the sockpuppet of Media is truly ridiculous, this user doesnt like criticism and lashes out with wild accusations, SqueakBox 16:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments requested

I know this isn't the proper way, nor is it a real reporting, but I would like to ask for your insights into a matter concerning a user with multiple accounts. The other day, I stumbled upon the user Love is all we need. He/she is using multiple accounts (1), but I would not go so far to say that they are being used for vandalism, but instead the user swiches between them in discussions and in editing, creating a situation where others might believe it is multiple commentators/editors. The user claims to follow wikipedia policies, but I would not say so, as he/she is switching between them even in the same articles. I would suggest that the user is issued an warning and a recommendation to limit accounts to only one, what would you say? --MoRsE 06:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

sockpuppet

I'm 90% sure Rts freak is a sockpuppet. I'm sorry, I don't know the puppeteir.Fattdoggy 18:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Judging from the above user's contributions, it's very likely that he/she is a sockpuppet her/himself (since 90% of his few edits were to his user page, and then "somehow" he ended up here). - [rts_freak] | 5p34k 2 /\/\3 01:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Question

if 72.75.72.174 was the same person of any other user that voted here, would that a case of sockpuppeting? - anon

If they voted for the same Deletion review, then yes, it would be and it'd be a violation of WP:SOCK. --Bobblehead 03:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

How about this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sa'id Akhtar Rizvi. If the anon is the same person as someone else in the afd, would that be a violation of WP:SOCK? I would like to request a well investigated answer. Consider that the anon has not "voted" per say, but only argued, but at the same time added a "this is not a vote" tag on the afd. "Voting", and then arguing as a anon, is that a violation of WP:SOCK? -anon

Not sure on Puppeteer?

What would you do in a case you don't know who the master is but are fairly sure they're not actually a new editor. For example, this [10] has my warning bells flashing all over the place. An individual who's first edit outside of his page is to perform maintenance on a project and begin participating in a bunch of AfDs (and who also talks like his familiar with certain policies).--Crossmr 04:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

If you don't know the sockmaster, then you have absolutely no reason to believe that it is abuse of sockpuppets. Remember, just having a sockpuppet is not against the rules, even if you don't disclose it. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

No but I can't think of a good reason to have a sockpuppet JUST for AfDs and DRVs, and as we've now discovered through more digging on AN/I there are at least 4 puppets and they appear to have been created to push through the PGN article.--Crossmr 06:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a question that I've been wondering about as well, and I came to this talk page with the intention of asking it until I read this post. I've noticed numerous situations where a group of editors will "patrol" a certain topic. In the course of that patrol, I've noticed that there are some rather sockpuppety accounts. I won't name names, in the interests of not giving any personal attacks, as well as I've noticed this phenomenon among many groups and I don't want to single one out in particular.

Anyway, I'll often find one account that seems to be ever-present in debates along with 2 or 3 other editors. The account will never usually have a userpage, and will confine their edits only to things that his 2 or 3 buddies are discussing/AfDing. This seems like classic sockpuppetry (well, maybe meatpuppetry as well). The problem is, you can't know for sure who the sockpuppeteer is because you have an entire group which may be at fault. I was thinking, wouldn't it make sense to allow a checkuser on the suspected puppet, and not necessarily the puppeteer? That would be advantageous in cases where the origin of the user is hazy. .V. 05:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

New Sock Puppet Policy Proposed

To deal with the fact that none of us are answering the reports at the failed Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets, I have proposed a new way of dealing with users approaching admins about potential abuse of sock puppets. Please see:

• Wikipedia:Simple sock puppets
• Wikipedia:Complex sock puppets

Robdurbar 14:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

New to listing here

Hi. I have spotted my first case of suspected sock puppeteering. All the dire warnings on the board have scared me off posting there. For one thing, I don't know who's mastering who. And for another, I don't know for sure it's sockpuppetry. This confuses me, because I thought the purpose of reporting it was to find out if it is or isn't. Anyway, here's the case history ([11]), an article protected to stop addition of nonsense material, that's subsequently had three users add suspiciously similar material, namely User:StuartRupertClark, User:Jitarth and User:Bharat99, plus anons (for whom the page was protected) User:61.88.112.90 and User:124.189.5.9. Apologies if I've got this wrong. Page was protected by User:Blnguyen and User:Stephen_Turner has also been influential in dealing with this. --Dweller 13:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Based on edits to Sajid Mahmood, which feature a very similar set of people adding a picture of dubious authenticity, I would add User:Thugpoet99 and User:Sajmahmood99. Stephen Turner (Talk) 14:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I blocked all of them indefinitely except Jitharth, and the IPs, since they are filtered out anyway and warned them. If Jitharth plays up again, I will block him indefinitely as well, seeing as he did have some proper contribs earlier. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Possible sock puppets at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Croomed

Not sure really how to follow this procedure with a case of sock-puppetry where the puppet "master" is unknown, but it seems that there is something shady going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Croomed where multiple accounts have appeared with very similar reasons for opposition, and little or no prior edit history except to the article Croomed or the Afd. Could someone either list this in an appropriate manner or just get on with the process of determining if any sock-puppetry is being perpetrated. Thanks. QmunkE 20:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Why Auntorious got into sockpuppet list?

I want to know why am i on sockpuppet list? And who in the world is newlightmyanmar? I need to a good explanation why I am banned? I thought wikipedia can tell my IP address, if I create another account you guys can tell, but now this happened. I believe myself that i shouldn't be on the sockpuppet list. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Auntorious (talk • contribs) 14:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

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 ^TALK/_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 ^TALK/_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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 ^{Talk to me} 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 Wikipedia: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 ([12]), 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)

User claims to have been unaware that he was vandalising - can/should I remove him?

I recently added 70.228.100.104 to the list as a suspected sock puppet of Cavalierboy 28. Both accounts had vandalised. Cavalierboy 28 soon contacted me and told me that he hadn't been at all aware that what he was doing was vandalism, and would in fact stop editing Wikipedia altogether. He even e-mailed me and asked me how to remove all the images he'd uploaded, because he wanted to leave Wikipedia.

While I'm fully aware that this might just be a way to get out of being blocked (or otherwise punished), his apology did seem sincere to me. I decided it would be better to simply point him in the direction of some Wikipedia policy pages, so I removed the report I'd left for him from the suspected sock puppets list.

However, after doing so, I noticed that someone had replaced the sock puppet notice at the top of his page (Cavalierboy 28 had blanked it after apologising), and I realised that it might not be as easy as simply removing the report from this page.

Therefore, I have two questions.

a) Can I just remove the sock puppet notice from his page(s) and point him in the direction of Wikipedia's policies (especially ones regarding vandalism)?

or

b) Should I replace the report, given that although he wasn't aware of it, he was still breaking the rules by vandalising with a sockpuppet?

The report I left is here (its separate page hasn't been deleted yet) in case you wanted to check it out.

(And I'm aware that if he's so disillusioned with Wikipedia, whether or not he gets blocked isn't particularly important - but it's the principle of the thing. I don't want to report someone who had no idea what they were doing was wrong. And in any case, if he changes his editing behaviour after reading up on the rules, he might be encouraged to stay as a helpful contributer.)

Thoughts? --DearPrudence 04:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I had replaced the sockpuppet notice. I didn't see any apology, so a suspicious account removing a process notice from his own page was just another part of a pattern of suspicious activities. I obviously have no problem if you, the placer of the tag, have second thoughts and don't mind removing it...probably a good idea to mention this on the sockpuppet evidence page you started for him. He has also emailed me, explaining how he didn't realize how image copyright issues worked around here...seemed sincere enough. DMacks 15:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I have removed one of the tags (he removed the other one without permission, but I don't think he knew he wasn't allowed to) and withdrawn the report. --DearPrudence 05:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Backlogged

I've noticed the page has become extremely backlogged, could someone take care of it please? --Whsitchy 17:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

New process of archiving due to new bot

When my new archival bot is up and running for this page, all the archiving process will be changed.

• When you are ready to archive the report, simply add {{subst:SSPa}} to the top of the report and the bot will automatically archive it. There is no more need for human intervention once the template is added to the request.

A update will be posted here when the bot is ready to run and the immediate change to this new process will take place. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask. E ^talk 07:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Possible adoptee problem

Another editor has said that my new adoptee is very likely to be the same person as a recently blocked user and that this is a breach of WP:SOCK. My adoptee is making constructive contributions, although mixed with occasional immature comments I admit, and does seem to be taking things more seriously (see his various messages on my talk-page for example). My initial reaction was to think that an editor who wanted to contribute positively should be allowed to do so, even though he had been blocked (NB not banned) in the past - although, clearly, he'll get less leeway this time if he steps out of line. Is this right, or must my new adoptee inevitably be blocked immediately for his past sins? Should he perhaps be required to complete some "community service" task to prove good intentions? Bencherlite 17:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe do a request for Checkuser if you're not really sure about it. E ^talk 07:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is much doubt, particularly given his latest message on my talk page. However, my question is whether someone who has behaved badly can be allowed back under a different name if he behaves himself under his new name, or whether somebody who has been blocked can never, ever edit Wikipedia again. Bencherlite 07:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

If the user's block has expired and they are editing nicely under their new account, it should be alright for the user to continue editing. There have been many Wikipedians who have successfully converted from a reformed vandal to a nice contributor after they learn their lesson of a block. E ^talk 07:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Trouble is that the block on the "old" account is an indefinite block... so, by definition, hasn't expired! Bencherlite 00:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

policy wording

I tweaked the page wording [13] a bit because the word "sanctioned" in that context is highly ambiguous in that it can simultaneously mean the conduct is both allowed and disallowed! -N 13:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Archival bot edits

Just to let all users know, the archival bot is currently editing under the Wikimedia Toolserver's IP address (145.97.39.143) due to a login failure on the bot source code which is currently being investigated. It does seem to be removing and archiving correctly, which is also good. The IP editing should soon stop, but the bot will continue to run for the trial period. E ^talk 07:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Login problem has been fixed and the bot will continue to run for the trial period. E ^talk 02:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it's working well now. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep, just made a good edit, and logged in too :) E ^talk 03:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion?

In an ideal world, this page would exist, and administrators would attend to these reports. In practice, this has become a place for reports to be filed and ignored, thereby unintentionally aiding abusive sockpuppeteers. The addition of a backlog template has had no discernable effect.Proabivouac 06:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Responding to sockpuppet reports, just like everything else at WP, is a volunteer job; this one is really not much fun, so it tends to get ignored. If there's something horrible and urgent going on, try to get someone's attention at WP:ANI; otherwise, the cases will be dealt with when they get dealt with. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll be able to get back to it some now, as I'm pretty well done with getting settled in here. Still, Akhilleus is right, no one exactly gets paid to do this, so we kind of get to it as we can. If they're obvious vandal or banned user socks, they can be reported to WP:AIV or WP:ANI for a faster response, filing here is oriented more toward complex or uncertain cases that are going to require a significant amount of time to investigate anyway. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Puppeteer unclear

I've observed a new account that seems a very likely sockpuppet but am unsure as to the puppeteer (two possible users). The new account's first ever edit was weighing in and aligning itself with two users on one side of a long-running edit war; specifically over an esoteric battle over category POV. The account's second ever edit is in the same dispute thread, mentions "possible mediation" and various other wikijargon unlikely to be used by a newbie. The account's latest post in the thread is disctinctly un-CIVIL and demonstrates familiarity with the edit history of another participant on the other side of the dispute. The account seems specifically created to tip the balance in the content/category debate on the article, unfortunately, I don't know which of the two existing users is the puppeteer and am loath to accuse one which may be innocent. What is the apppropriate way to proceed? AUTiger » talk 16:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Report template broken....

The timestamp tag, when rendered, is reading the hours:minutes semicolon as a line indent semicolon and breaking the time in half. MSJapan 19:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Speedy indef. block

I'm requesting that User:NintendoDSKing be indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry. My basis is that he has a similar editing style as User:King of America, who is a sockpuppet of User:Super World Champions (see here). He has not made edits to Nicktoons articles or WWE articles like they have, but they do have other similarities - the user turned the Picross DS image from the PAL one to the NTSC one (something which KoA fought to do), and he edits List of Virtual Console games (North America), 2007 in video games, and List of Nintendo DS Wi-Fi Connection games]], which KoA regularly edited. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Bogeymen is Arrow740?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Bogymen&action=edit

This person edited the same section (restrictions on marriage) using the same revision word for word as Arrow740 was doing on 7/17/07 when I reported him posting bigoted comments on the Women and Islam article. FOA 06:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by FollowerofAllah (talk • contribs)

Doubt it, considering the contribs. Anyway, you are supposed to use WP:RFCU if you suspect sock puppetry.--Sefringle^Talk 07:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I haven't looked at this too closely, but off the top of my head, I'd think User:DavidYork71 a far more likely candidate, if sockpuppetry is afoot. This notorious sockpuppeteer is known to frequent this article, while we've no reason to believe that Arrow740 is operating multiple accounts.Proabivouac 07:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Arrow740 made the same revision in the same wording as Bogeymen again today. I will report it on the sockpuppet page. Thank you!

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Women_and_Islam&curid=4724183&diff=145970449&oldid=145858650 FOA 18:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if my addition has worked properly

I tried to add an entry for a suspected sock of User:Hkelkar, a banned editor. I can find the page, but it doesn't appear here. I think I may have got something wrong - I found the instructions very confusing. Would appreciate a bit of help. Thanks. Itsmejudith 21:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Fixed for you. This: [14] is what you needed to do. Gscshoyru 21:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Very kind of you, thanks. Hope I don't need to do so frequently I become a dab hand ;-) Itsmejudith 22:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Problem with instructions

If you click on the link to start a new case you get the instructions

# If the puppetmaster's exact username is "Name", it will be filled in automatically. If there's a difference (like added "(2nd)" or "(3rd)" etc. in the filename), please replace the {{SUBPAGENAME}} tags below with the puppetmaster's exact username

but the actual text to edit appears as :-

===[[User:{{subst:SUBPAGENAME}}]]===
;Suspected sockpuppeteer
{{user5|1={{subst:SUBPAGENAME}}}}<br>
...

So the instructions should say:

# If the puppetmaster's exact username is "Name", it will be filled in automatically. If there's a difference (like added "(2nd)" or "(3rd)" etc. in the filename), please replace the {{subst:SUBPAGENAME}} tags below with the puppetmaster's exact username

I would change this myself but could not find where this help text is coming from. If you point me in the right direction i'll do it. GameKeeper 23:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I found the place and changed it see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/000 Docs 000/000 Header 000 and made the edit. GameKeeper 23:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Obvious socks?

Where do I report obvious socks? --Kaypoh 10:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Send 'em to this beautiful place. Moreschi ^Talk 10:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fioranoweb (2nd) -- entry screwed up somehow

Apparently I screwed something up when I tried to list this last week -- my complaint doesn't show up on the main WP:SUSPSOCK page.

Can someone either fix this or point me in the right direction? Thanks, --A. B. ^(talk) 00:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

you need to pick up the process from point 7 onwards here Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets GameKeeper 10:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, --A. B. ^(talk) 14:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

No manual archiving!

Now that the bot is up and running for this page, all the archiving processes will be automated.

• When you are ready to archive the report, simply add {{SSPa}} to the top of the report and the bot will automatically archive it. There is no more need for human intervention once the template is added to the request.
• There is no need, whatsoever, to archive any request manually unless the bot has been down for excess of 24 hours. In the case of the bot is down, please email the operator.

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask. — E ^talk_bots 13:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Random-5000

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Random-5000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Duff5545 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Evidence

Duff5545 is SPA whose only edits are blanking the Random-5000's talk page. Before theese blankings, Random-5000 blanked his own talk page several times, so it seems that Duff5545 is Random-5000's sockpuppet. --83.131.87.188 12:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Why does this take so long?

I've had a report sitting on this page for nearly three weeks now (since August 3rd) and it hasn't been dealt with by an admin yet. And I'm pretty sure the 7 reports below me have been there even longer. My case, (or at least it seems to me) is pretty straightforward, but I really don't think there's any reason why these reports should take quite as long as they do.

A couple ideas I've had to speed this process up a little bit:

• First and foremost... the backlog here really needs to be dealt with. It's been a backlog way, way too long.

• Second of all, the fact that only admins have any ability to close these cases makes sense, as they are the only people who have the ability to block, and are most trusted in determining whether users have violated wikipedia policy. However, there's no reason why regular users can't have some form of involvement in this process. Users could A) search through the accused's violations for incriminating diffs, or the lack thereof, and thereby provide easier access to evidence for the admins. And B) mark cases as a obvious case of sockpuppetry, in order to implement a sort of SJF system, so that more cases are dealt with faster. This means that the obvious sockpuppets will be blocked faster, and psychologically, if there are fewer cases to deal with, more admins will attempt to resolve these cases, as there aren't as many to deal with.

I'd be perfectly willing to volunteer as one of the non-admin helpers during whatever trial period there may be with this system, if it's decided that there should be one. Gscshoyru 15:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You're more than welcome to make comments on cases, I personally find it very helpful when other users express their opinions. If you find that a case is very obvious (e.g., a set of accounts named Puppet1, Puppet2, Puppet3) you can send it to WP:AIV. However, this page is unlikely to ever be dealt with efficiently, because it's entirely a volunteer operation, and dealing with sockpuppet reports just isn't much fun. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Archival Bot

I have changed the bot so it checks the page every 5 and not 15. Hope that helps. — E ^talk_bots 06:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

False Positives

I have recently been giving this page a great deal of thought concerning sock puppets, identification, and false positives. Almost all sock puppets are evaluated based on a pattern of behavior. If another account routinely supports a specific user (especially immediately following a block or 3 reverts) they are labeled a sock puppet and banned accordingly. No matter how much the user may protest it isn't them, it really doesn't matter. My concern then becomes, what if someone wanted to frame someone and get them banned? All it would take is opening up a new account and watching the person closely. Every time they reach 3 reverts on a page, immediately swoop in and follow up with a 4th revert. Every time they do this just report the person to the sock puppet notice board and they will get a ban. It is pretty much a guaranteed way to get an innocent person banned. No matter how much the innocent person protests it doesnt matter, there is nothing he can do. Am i missing something here? Because this is a scary concern. Debeo Morium (to be morally bound) 12:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, actually, it is a concern, but not one that I'd loose any sleep over. Anyone who skirts the guidelines or policy so closely that the addition of a sock is enough to get them banned (note that the pupeteer, as a rule, only gets 3 days) was already being borderline disruptive.

Given that alternate accounts are allowed unless used to be disruptive, and that acting like someone who isn't disruptive isn't likely to get you in trouble... — Coren ^(talk) 23:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Ive seen users who, to me, dont seem borderline disruptive get a ban for sock puppetry though. Unless you call 3 revisions without breakign the 3RR border line disruptive? I guess i just feel the rules should be a bit more conservative. Use the IP address as evidence or stricter policies on behaviors showing sock puppetry. - Debeo Morium: to be morally bound (Talk | Contribs) 23:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I call it disruptive. Three reverts is edit warring, and there is no entitlement to those. Do you have specific examples of such users or do you mean you specifically? — Coren ^(talk) 02:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Well my concern here was applied generally, yes. But this concern was sparked by a particular ban that really made me concerned. I spent time looking through the logs, and at least to me, he may be innocent. Here is the talk page where i gave my two cents, linked to the case itself: Wikipedia_talk:Suspected_sock_puppets/SalvNaut - Debeo Morium: to be morally bound (Talk | Contribs) 10:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Meatpuppet - what do I do?

Hi, Folks. I not very good at this, what do I need to do if I think two or more editors are acting as a team. I am sure that they are different people but they are obvious working as a team working with each other and reverting even good edits.

I have been accused of being a sockpuppet just because I copied and pasted in some question regarding a citation that had been asked before on a discussion page but not answered. One of them stuck a table on my user page; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lwachowski

One of the guys seems to have a history of doing this. [15]. To me, it only seems to about intimidating other editors. I put a lot of effort into sorting out references and he just wants to wipe them. --Lwachowski 01:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Socknotification question

I have just filed Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/70.143.68.157 and i'm wondering if i've notified the parties correctly. From my understanding - each user has a tag applied to their tp and their up. Is this correct? or are you supposed to tag the "puppetmaster" several times? Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  20:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Nearly confirmed multiple accounts, but sockpuppet?

Hi all. I'm not very familiar with WP:SOCK, so I thought I'd ask someone's opinion before creating a report. I reported a problem with User:Raasgat at the admin noticeboard: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Raasgat - possible sockpuppet of User:Paul venter. It's quickly getting burried under new conversation. Problem is, it's very obvious the accounts are connected, but are they violating WP:SOCK? The only thing I could conclude is that the new accounts were created to avoid supervision after the last block on the User:Paul venter account. Any help here is appreciated. Cheers, --Rkitko ^(talk) 16:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

5RR rule is a better idea to reduce socks?

Forgive me if you strongly disagree, but has anyone considered a 5RR rule for a specific issue? This could eliminate socks because the first sock would be limited to 2RR and the second sock limited to 0RR.

For example, if some edited "Esteemed author X is an idiot and here's a citation", opposing editors could change it to "Esteemed author X is not an idiot and here's his IQ test results". 2 conspiring editors can do 6RR and outnumber one editor's 3RR. This may cause socks to be created.

With a 5RR rule for each issue, it's useless to create socks. The sockpuppet complaint board may shrink. Conflict and suspicion could also shrink.Archtrain 20:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

No, this just shifts the problem. With a 5RR per issue rule, people would manipulate it with sockpuppets so the other side reached 5RR first. Also, restricting the things I can do based on someone else's actions doesn't seem fair. -Amarkov moo! 01:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Help

How do we get rid of this sock puppet:User talk:144.134.81.190 - he's been vandalizing various user pages as well as articles. Thanks --Endless Dan 14:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Not sure why you think he's a sock -- but if he's vandalized past a final warn, report him at WP:AIV. Gscshoyru 14:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

He has various accounts. And he keeps saying 'I'm the sock puppet master'. --Endless Dan 14:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:SSP Candidate for speedy deletion

I'm not sure why, but the WP:SSP project page is showing up at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. Could someone look into this. Thanks. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 17:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Circular referrals for new sockpuppets of an archived case

Maybe I'm missing something. I'm trying to report User talk:24.208.224.153 and User talk:Koopa turtle as sockpuppets of Nintendude. When I check for existing puppets, this page comes up telling me not to change it, and refers to the "detailed instructions" back on this page, which really doesn't say what to do in this situation. Torc2 01:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions for a suspected meatpuppet investigation?

I've written a couple of sockpuppets so far, and do not in any way feel comfortable doing so given there seem to be a lot of unwritten (or hard-to-find) rules and assumptions that come into play. This time I've a long-running meatpuppet situation, which from everything I've read is even more difficult to report. I'll probably take some time to go through the archives looking for past meatpuppet investigations, but I'd like and perfer advise here as well. --Ronz 18:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Unintentional sockpuppetry

I've come across a user who has created 3 accounts, all some version of his real name, two of which disclose who he is in real life and I've chatted with the third account and he is the same person. I suspect he forgot his password. How should I (should I?) encourage him to consolidate his accounts and/or only edit from one username? It doesn't appear that he's in need of a doppleganger, though he's made slightly different types of edits with each account. Katr67 17:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Formatting problem

Whoever added B_Nambiar (talk · contribs) put the report on the bottom of the Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/71.156.47.81 subpage instead of creating a new subpage for B_Nambiar. I'd fix it, but I'm not quite sure what the best way to proceed would be, since I don't use this page very often. Could someone more familiar with SSP's workings straighten this out? Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like Akhilleus took care of it. Thanks! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem. If you have any suggestions for how this page can be simplified (I think it's ridiculously complicated), I'd appreciate knowing them... --Akhilleus (talk) 01:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Template:Socksuspectnotice problem

I believe there's a problem with the {{Socksuspectnotice}} template. The user name defaults to {{SUBJECTSPACEE}} no matter whose name is used as a parameter. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 14:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

This actually isn't a problem with the template. I recently made a change to the directions for filing a case, and failed to notice that the {{socksuspectnotice}} template wasn't ideal for informing suspected sockpuppets of the cases--previously, this template was only used on the talk page of the suspected puppetmasters. I will fix this, but I won't have time to do it for a couple of days. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I think this is fixed now, but if it doesn't work please let me know. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

World History WikiProject

If any of you ever looked at the page Wikipedia:WikiProject World History I think you might see that the seven most recent members of the project have each only had the single edit of adding their names to the project page. I'm not sure if that violates any policies, but it sure looks weird to me. 207.160.66.129 01:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Preemptive question regarding my roommate and our shared IP

I've gotten very active on Wikipedia this year, and my roommate has become more and more interested in becoming an editor. She's done very little editing so far, but is hoping to get more involved after her semester ends. I tend to work mainly on pop culture articles, while she's planning to work on political articles, but she is hoping to get my help (I've already helped her some with her maiden edits) and we've even talked about potentially starting an activist history WikiProject together. Suddenly, I realized that she could end up looking like my sockpuppet because, of course, we often use the same IP address... our home internet connection.

I figured that this question must have come up before, but I don't see anything about it in the WP guidelines. Does anyone have suggestions for how we might deal with the potential issue? Should we disclose that we share an IP on our user pages, or is that unnecessary or ill-advised? Can we edit the same articles? Must we avoid participating in the same debates even if we are both editors of the same article? Must we not start a WikiProject?

I would appreciate getting everyone's feedback on this, because the last thing I want to do is get banned over an inaccurate accusation of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry! I've invested too much at this point to blunder while helping my friend come on board. --Melty girl 04:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

If you put this information on your respective user pages, that would take away a large part of the problem. Your questions about joining the same debates are very appropriate. If you work on the same article together, you could certainly disclose that on the article's Talk page. Joining the same WikiProject seems OK. I'd suggest you not vote in the same AfDs or RfAs, to avoid any hint of impropriety, and avoid being in any voting situation together. Canvassing off-wiki is still considered canvassing. And of course don't create any sockpuppets for any reason and don't edit as an IP. EdJohnston 04:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

When you've been friends with someone for 15 years, you usually don't need to canvass to be in agreement! :) But of course, we disagree sometimes too. Anyway, more to the point, I appreciate the specific advice. I would love to hear from other people too. --Melty girl 05:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You should note too that such actions generally aren't a problem, as long as you can explain yourself when questioned. Sock puppets are usually rather apparent without even looking at IPs, due to similar editing styles, opinions, and arguments. Just being able to confirm your true identities to admins who are concerned about some edits should be enough, especially if you also note the situation on your user pages. You should, however, be careful about meat puppetry, since your roommate has done very little editing. You don't want her to simply start editing in the same areas as you with the same arguments and !votes. But if you aren't editing in controversial areas, it generally isn't even brought up; even if you are, it's generally obvious when you aren't sock puppets; just act like the two different people you are. I edit in some of the most controversial and war-torn regions of Wikipedia. There have been occasions when, for the sake of hilarity, a friend of mine and I (both well-established editors) have !voted in the same AfD within minutes of each other using the same computer, but despite the numerous editors who would like to see us banned, no one has ever brought into question these edits. --Philosophus ^T 07:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very reassuring. She's not going to be editing in areas that I have previously edited regularly -- pop culture. It's more like she's probably going to be getting me off my butt where American leftist history is concerned. But while we have much in common, we definitely have different writing styles, and she'll probably be doing the heavy lifting while I copyedit and wikify, so given your experience, I bet it will be fine. --Melty girl 07:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Procedure for adding new suspected socks to old SSP

The user User:MoreGunsInSchools appears to be continuing to make sockpuppets, the latest suspect is User:IntelligentVoter. What is the process for adding the latest account? They show up every couple of days and I'm not sure if I need to open a new SSP everytime. Arthur 21:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Open a new one, the old ones are archived. If it's often, just put a note about the new one to leave open for awhile. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It's every couple of days, there is yet another probable one yesterday, which would bring the count up to nine. I wish there was some better solution. Arthur 21:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

"You are not allowed to remove this notice..."

I posted a concern I have about the operation of SSP on another page, but this page may get more attention, so I thought I should cross-post here. I would welcome comments at Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry/Notes for the suspect#"You are not allowed to remove the notice...". Thanks, Newyorkbrad 15:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppeteers

I noticed that one of the user accounts of a suspected sockpuppeteer was very rude in their edits; if this happens and there seems to be a pattern that is extremely similar with another user, are we supposed to automatically assume that they are a sockpuppeteer or a sock puppet?

Abluescarab 01:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Well even if it is a sockpuppet, so what?

"Well even if it is a sockpuppet, so what?" crossed my mind when I looked at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Agavtouch so I looked at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Heathspic and thought, oh yes, the voting on deletion issues.

I recommend that every suspected sockpuppet page like that had a mandatory section in which the person making the accusation has to articlulate some reason why, even if this person is a sockpuppet, they should not be welcome at wikipedia. For example, if the person had the edit history of User:!!, then he evidence presented here would be worthless.

The evidence that a user is a sock or meat puppet must be weighed against their edits and not the edits of the claimed sock-master or else as we get more and more sock masters, all new editors will look like one of them!

In this guy's case, asking him to refrain from voting and instead to write articles might be a solution if he is an innocent. But he probably is up to no good. Maybe we should just change the rules at article-deletion so newbies are not allowed to vote - only allowed to present sources of information. WAS 4.250 (talk) 07:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

WAS, it's generally true that people who create SSP cases do a poor job of explaining why the accounts are sockpuppets and how they've violated policy. In this case, though, a short look at the contribution histories explains it. Generally if I encounter a situation where someone's created socks (or recruited meatpuppets) to vote at an AfD I block the socks but leave the main account active, so the person can continue editing if they feel like it. Heck, if the other accounts genuinely belonged to other people, they're free to create new accounts and contribute constructively. In this case, I don't see a need to block any of the accounts, because they've stopped editing.

I like the idea of preventing newbies from voting--it seems like it might cut down on some AfD drama--but how would we define a newbie? And anyway, when an account with a low edit count shows up at an AfD, a {{spa}} tag usually gets slapped on their contribution--so their votes almost never count. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

SSP Empty

Congratulations all, the main SSP page is now clear of reports. Thank you all for your great efforts! My bot can now have a little nap and will be waiting for the next archival request soon. — E ^talk_BAG 06:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Why the bot doesn't archive sometimes...

Spacing, spacing, spacing. One word that the bot does not like when archiving.

For example, this is what is shown on the main page. "\n" means a new line and "<SPACE>" means a space.

{{Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Test}}\n

Now, sometimes, people want to add unneccessary spacing beside it, so the bot skips it:

{{Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Test}}<SPACE>\n

If possible, can we make sure that space is not there when closing a particular SSP report? That way we can all live happy (including the bot!). — E ^talk_BAG 23:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

TTN

I would like Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/TTN undeleted. This was not a moment of poor judgement by me whatsoever. I echo User:Maniwar, and I am very serious by the evidence I have presented that my claim needs serious consideration. Taric25 (talk) 16:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 7#Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/TTN. Taric25 (talk) 18:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

How to deal with reports violating AGF

We need to be more careful not to have SSP cases descend into WP:BITE and WP:AGF violations. I've now seen a very bad pattern at least twice: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Hxseek, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Alexander Mak.

• A newish user employs a second account in a misguided but good-faith way, evidently without any attempt at deception (in both cases, the two accounts were so similarly named that it was plain obvious it was the same user.)
• An opponent jumps at the opportunity to file an accusatory SSP report, without even the common decency of first asking the user in question whether the second account is his and why they are using it.
• And in both cases, inexplicably, we get not only indef blocks on the second account but completely unnecessary punitive 48-hour blocks on the first account.

This must stop. Admins, please remember:

• No intent of deception = no abusive sockpuppetry. Simple. And:
• Filing complaints in violation of AGF = blockable harassment.

Even if it turns out that the double account use is considered unacceptable (as it was in both the cases above), there are alternative common-sense ways of dealing with it. You can simply, politely ask the user to return to their old account. Or let them continue with the new account but request that they keep their user pages linked. Or, in rare cases of very problematic block histories on the first account, make the 1-second notification block on the new account to link it to the old account's block log.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

You make some good points but the problem with leaving both usable when they both have problematic histories is that it defeats the whole purpose of WP:SOCK, following this logic, they could have a multitude of socks that they could keep using. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but experience shows that once a user has made an account change that is publically known, they rarely return to the old one. Why should they? I know many users who have gone through large numbers of accounts and have left the old ones lying around unblocked, without any problem. And anyway, even if you end up wanting to block one of the accounts for safety, you can very well do that without adding the stigma of "sockpuppetry accusations", "abuse", {{blockedsock}} tags or the like. In these cases, the focus should always first be on the user being given a chance to voluntarily clarify the situation by committing themselves to one account, marking the other as alternate, etc. You can then still silently block with a block reason "discontinued alternate account of ..." or "user has switched accounts to...". Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I can see that in cases where the new account has a clean record, which is NOT the case with the Alex Mak accounts, nor with Rambutan/Porcupine/Circuit Judge, etc. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed template change

I'm proposing an additional category in the Template:Editabuselinks to reduce the number of posts at WP:AN and WP:AN/I, please feel free to comment here User:Mbisanz/TemplateSandbox. This page is already on the template, hence the notification. MBisanz ^talk 13:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Request input on Notes for the Suspect

Per NewYorkBrad's suggestion, I'm leaving a note here to get more eyes on the Wikipedia:Sock puppetry/Notes for the suspect page as well as it's entry at MfD. If there are any experienced editors or Admins that have time, your input would be appreciated. Oh one more thing, the MfD was nominated on the 4th so if it runs as usual there are about 2 days left. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 04:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Striking as Mfd has been closed due to the re-write. However the page probably needs some further tweaking, should anybody with some experience in this area want to help. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 18:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I wanna have these guys checked

Some are known socks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/84.217.244.70 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/84.217.253.130 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/84.217.229.118 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/217.24.240.11 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Burrash http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/DODONA_e_Epirit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Durim_Durimi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/84.217.228.74 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/84.217.244.169 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/84.217.228.139 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/84.217.228.139 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/84.217.229.244 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/84.217.244.152 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/84.217.244.70 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Taulant23 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/tolaci http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Burra http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/77.242.25.223 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dardan_of_Macedonia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/81.208.36.87 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/PIRRO_BURRIMegistias (talk) 18:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Lemme see. We do have a problem here with some abusive users, but there's more than one individual involved, and probably not all of them equally bad. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

standard

What exactly is our standard for blocking (rotating) IPs who are avoiding a block. What's needed to establish that a person is evading a block? It seems to me obvious to me -- and User:Wiggy! will likely agree -- that all of these are the same guy:

• Fox53 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) - indefblocked
• Captain Future (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
• Kay Körner (talk · contribs · logs · block log) - indefblocked
• Kay Körner (Dynamo Session) (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
• Kay Körner 20.12.1983 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) - indefblocked
• 194.95.143.150 (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
• 212.201.55.6 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) - was accused of being a sock of Nadia Kittel aka User:ABlockedUser, but the edits don't fit the pattern and are rather exact copies of Kay Körner aka Fox53 edits ...
• I think there was another IP, but I can't remember which one ...

A look at the history of March 27 and SV Dynamo is plenty of proof for me, so it seems like it would be silly to go through the bureaucracy of reporting and all ... - Revolving Bugbear 22:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)