Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Archive 16

Requesting merger of two SPIs
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  03:24, 12 June 2015 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  12:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * As per evidence pointed out on my talk page by User:Thomas.W, it seems apparent that the SPI surrounding Altimgamr and their socks should be merged with JasonHaddad's SPI, as the two accounts belong to the same person. There's clear links between them that date back over a year ago in the former SPI, and indeed Thomas.W actually requested the merger back then within the SPI itself, but nothing ever happened. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 00:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, wait, there appears to be no SPI surrounding User:JasonHaddad, my bad; in that case, the Altimgamr SPI needs renaming to reflect the true master, with a redirect left in place. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 00:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * We normally leave accounts where they are when they are more prevalently known by that name for so long as opposed to following the oldest account rule. I agree with Thomas W. that this is him but it may be best if we do a post-archival note that ties the accounts together since there was no other SPI case. The archived case would involve hand-tagging large numbers of accounts and not all of those accounts in the archive belong to this master...this one for example. I'll wait for the opinions of other clerks and checkusers to see if that is how they would like this handled. I imagine this may be why it was closed without moving before. Archive link for reference.
 * I'm not certain that they actually realized that Thomas asked, because the comment was made after that particular SPI had a CU run and the results reported on. It's also worth noting that one of the very first "Altimgamr" socks clearly used Jason in their name, and that JasonHaddad was blocked in 2009, so there are four years worth of sockpuppets missing somewhere I believe (I can't see how this user went quiet for that long before starting up again.) Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 09:30, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I've made the post-archival note to reflect the likely master.

SUBST failure in a new submission; help needed
At Sockpuppet investigations/Agljones I tried to open an SPI, but the initial entry did not substitute correctly. One possible reason: I had used a "This is a quote..." within the submission; I revised to avoid that since. I don't know what can mess up a SUBST. wp:Substitution gives no advice about debugging upon failure. I would appreciate if someone could complete the submission or advise me how to do that. What did i do wrong? Thanks in advance. -- do ncr  am  09:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


 * . I don't know what was wrong, but I fixed your submission manually (not using the SPI report template).  Vanjagenije  (talk)  11:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅Thanks for that and for your formatting and other fixes, clarifications, too! -- do ncr  am  12:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Mismatched square brackets tend to confuse the MediaWiki parser. In your case, it's [Editor Interaction Analyzer . [[User:Timotheus Canens|T. Canens]] (talk) 17:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

SPI script issues
I've been getting numerous errors related to using the SPI script recently. A session timeout may be related but it is occurring frequently. Is this happening to anyone else? A bit frustrating. Maybe I should take a screenshot or two. — Berean Hunter   (talk)  13:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's necessarily tied to the SPI script. Other users have noticed a recent issue with session timeouts at the village pump and a phabricator ticket has been opened. Mike V • Talk 16:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That looks like it. Thanks Mike. If there were one improvement that I would like to see concerning our interface, it would be to have the input box as multi-line (small box) as opposed to a single line entry.

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  17:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * In normal situations when editing Wiki, I have the habit of doing a Ctrl-C to catch what I'm writing in case of a failure but in that line entry I seem to forget. The Ctrl-C was from the days when the WP servers would break which fortunately hasn't happened in a long time.
 * I've seen two complaints asking for multiline input boxes already, so ✅. T. Canens (talk) 18:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Please check navigation links around the SPI cases
I found myself lost when trying to open a case. Please would someone who knows the SPI-related pages check this edit and review other nav links? – Fayenatic  L ondon 22:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Your edit seams wrong. The old instruction speaks about requesting the CheckUser in a Sockpuppet investigation ("Similarly, to request CheckUser..."). You changed the link to Sockpuppet investigations, which is about quick CheckUser requests, which is completely different thing. Quick CheckUser requests are used for cases that do not involve sockpuppetry.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  00:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I have traced the diffs now, and it's long out of date. The heading "Submitting"... was changed on a sub-page to "Open"... in April 2012. The "CheckUser" section on that page was removed in January 2011. I'll make the link on the AI page more specific about quick CheckUser requests, as there is no longer a separate section about other CheckUser requests.
 * as you made the changes to the main SPI page about CheckUser, please would you review the AI page, which I suspect is more generally out of date? – Fayenatic  L ondon 07:48, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Archived cases section
On the WP:SPI page, there is a section titled "Archived cases". The only purpose of the section is to search old cases, but there is already the search field in the main infobox on the top right of the page. So, the "Archived cases" section is redundant, and I think it should be removed.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  13:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Both archive boxes search the same thing (and their redundance isn't necessarily harmful) but I still a link to the per year/month 2009 and 2010 archives needs to be somewhere. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  00:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Why?  Vanjagenije  (talk)  11:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Because they exist and need to be linked to from somewhere or they'll fall into total oblivion. Total archival of everything is one of the hallmarks of Wikipedia (over a decade of diffs across the project). We don't delete archive, and for the same reason we try to keep them somewhat accessible. However, I think a shorter blurb in the infobox above the search bar might be enough, instead of an actual section. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  13:41, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

You are right. But, those archive are linked through the main SPI infobox (Template:SPI navigation). In the infobox, there is the "Archived cases" link which leads to Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Closed. That page, in turn, has links to the 2009 and 2010 (and even older) archives. So, my proposal is to just remove the "Archived cases" section from the main SPI page, as it serves no purpose.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  09:29, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oooh, yeah, I had never really noticed that link. Do you think it could be moved lower, closer tot the clerk archives & search box? ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  15:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I moved it lower, just above the search box (that looks logical to me). Do you think we can remove the "Archived cases" section from WP:SPI now?  Vanjagenije  (talk)  17:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Absolutely! Sorry for being a kinda contrarian voice and thanks for the compromise! ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  22:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Which sock is this?
I can swear that this is a sock of someone but for the life of me I can't remember who. The editor's name is User:MARIOSPONGE and he created multiple hoax pages for MTV Kids, trying to establish that this network exists. (TNICK) He'd tried to previously create it under the title of Cartoon Central as well. His other edits aren't that over the top, like this one, but the hoax pages were enough to where I just went ahead and blocked him. For some reason this guy just reminds me of someone and I can't remember who. I think it was someone with a long term pattern of socking and a habit of making cartoon and Blue's Clues related edits. If anyone can remember, I'd recommend adding this name to the pile for posterity. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  09:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * , I'm going to ping you since for some reason I seem to remember you handling many of the accounts with this. I don't think that it's User:EstebanJals, likely someone else. I'm looking through some of my former SPIs and nothing is popping out but I could swear that I've seen something like this on SPI before. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  09:15, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's User:Bambifan101 I'm thinking of? It looks like Mike V is more familiar with that case somewhat, so I'll tag him as well. The name does seem slightly in line with Bambifan, since they do like Nintendo themed names, and they're definite fans of creating hoaxes. I'm not going to do anything just yet, but if either of you think that this fits either person's MO or anyone else's, I'll put in an SPI to check for other accounts. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  09:19, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

, Two cases worth checking:
 * Sockpuppet_investigations/ChrisRock1998/Archive
 * Sockpuppet_investigations/Taylor_iMac/Archive

After more coffee, others may come to me. — Berean Hunter   (talk)  13:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * (SPI here) also frequents cartoon articles.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:56, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I think it was Finealt I was thinking of - I remember deleting some of their pages via speedy, but I'd not interacted with them otherwise. Hmm... that reminds me of another account I'd dealt with a long while back. It's a stale account, but it was an account labeled User:DisneyFXHD - they tried creating a lot of blatantly fake pages for this station DisneyFXHD that never existed. (It was a channel that was supposedly a fusion of the FX channel and Disney that only lasted a few days and somehow received zero notice from the media.) In any case, you guys think that it'd be worth opening up a new SPI? The account is blocked and I don't see where there are other accounts. I normally just open one for record's sake but there's a pretty big backlog. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  03:36, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

A practical question
In the SPI already blocked Asdidis case I've requested CU on a freshly opened account Detoner, on 2001:41D0:8:90C6:0:0:0:1, and another one, Michael Cambridge, who was regularly sidelining with the blocked Asdisis. The case handling administrator Bbb23 who is a CU too, rejected the CU request without giving any reason for it. I've renewed the CU request insisting on another CU. My reinstated CU request was removed by the same administrator with the threat of me being blocked. I am surprised by the way the case gets handled. I thought that all Wikipedia decisions are based on consensus, the disagreements must be allowed, not suppressed, as in this case. What are the opinions of other users, administrators, and CU? --72.66.12.17 (talk) 22:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Weathereditor/Archive
I've recently restored this archive and the associated sock puppet category after they were disrupted by the blocked user. It has been suggested that these pages be protected. I'm loath to take such a drastic action in an area where more experienced editors have not been consulted. The individual behind these socks is extremely active at the moment, as well as extremely disruptive. If the consensus is that more action should be taken I leave that for others to take. Regards  Tide  rolls  03:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks like a clear block evasion so I'll give them a short IP block as a warning. I'd block them longer, but rules with IPs are different since there could be others on the same range. If no one objects, I don't really have a problem with semi-protecting the page for the archive since that's really not a page that IPs and new editors should be editing anyway. I've given it a temporary protection for about 3 weeks, so hopefully that'll deter them. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  03:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Dirty tricks - framing attempt.
Hi. I seem to have stepped on the toes of someone who's playing dirty tricks a nasty effort to retaliate. I opened an AN/I on Tarc, which was going along - an apology for a personal attack resulted - and there was support on both sides but it was bogging down/heading off track. An involved admin closed the discussion, and I reopened it per WP:INVOLVED. I opened a case on AN about it, and then removed it moments later. Now I see there's edit warring going on at AN/I, and I'm being accused of having logged out by Reyk. I resent the false and unfounded accusation of sock puppetry and welcome investigation as to what regular user is using the IPs in question - 169.57.0.213 and 104.200.154.17 and evading scrutiny -  because they appear to be trying to frame me. Incendiary edit summary on this one: (diff) I suspect it's one (or more) of the involved users. I ask that the two IPs be considered for indefinite non-overridable blocks. --Elvey(t•c) 06:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I note your refutation, and also that the accusation didn't really look anything more than cheap and non-credible. The IPs are both proxies (hosted servers), possibly open. Six months blocks would probably be more appropriate. My guess is it is a regular user who is involved in some way; their precise identity is currently virtually impossible to identify. -- zzuuzz (talk) 07:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, the first IP was doing exactly the same edit warring and making the same inaccurate accusations of WP:INVOLVED that Elvey had been making moments earlier. I figured Elvey had probably gotten logged out somehow without realizing it. Reyk  YO!  07:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Slightly similar? Sure. Close to "the same"? Nonsense.  Incendiary edit summary on this one: (diff) is nothing like me.  And Ed was totally taking Tarc's side in the discussion. and hence WP:INVOLVED applied. --Elvey(t•c) 07:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "The first IP", I said. I did not say anything about the one making the homophobic slurs. And someone disagreeing with you on an ANI thread doesn't mean they're WP:INVOLVED or taking sides, it might just be because you were wrong. Reyk  YO!  08:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * True, you did say that. I see your point there.   If Ed wasn't involved, then WP:INVOLVED seems meaningless to me.   Ed was WP:INVOLVED - even if I am 100% wrong about whether Tarc violated NPA or threatened me.  How right I am is tangential. --Elvey(t•c) 08:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC).
 * Thanks for the note and evaluation, zzuuzz.  6 months: I'd be happy with that. They're not open proxies, presumably. A Checkuser can identify any other users using those IPs, as well as, possibly, some other socks.  So identifying the involved regular user to a reasonable level of certainty is something tools such as those available to users with checkuser right could well accomplish.  Given the abusive behavior, I strongly feel it's worth looking into.  I don't like that wikipedia insists on a privacy policy that allows the tracking that makes such investigations more fruitful, but since it does, I am adamant the tracking ability be used when there's an opportunity to do good with it.  I ask for indefinite bans to be considered for users with the same browser fingerprint as those connected to the edits that framed me. (On second thought, apropos the IP block term: it looks like 169.57.0.213 has been used for other dirty tricks, so I urge an indef hard block of that IP.)   --Elvey(t•c) 07:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * If you want to open an investigation, go to WP:SPI and follow the steps described at "How to open an investigation". Do not open an investigation here. Thank you.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  08:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * But User:Vanjagenije, this isn't an investigation that starts with a user. It starts with an IP; those steps require it start with a user.  Which is why I did what I did.  Please open the investigation on my behalf if you see a way to do so that's better than what I did, or undo your removal of my opening one here. OK?  TIA.--Elvey(t•c) 08:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It has no difference whether the master is an account or an IP, the procedure is the same. We have many investigatios where a master is an IP (this, for example: Sockpuppet_investigations/156.61.250.250).  Vanjagenije  (talk)  08:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * But User:Vanjagenije, the master account isn't a IP named user.  The instructions don't allow that; I don't see that you are you a clerk or admin, so I'm not going to break the rules on your say-so.  So, please open the investigation on my behalf if you see a way to do so that's better than what I did, or I will undo your removal of my opening one here.  You said you were going to move it.  Move it if you want. --Elvey(t•c) 08:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I am a WP:SPI Clerk. I don't really understand what you want to say. First, you said that the case "starts with an IP", than you say that "the master account isn't an IP". Whatever, if you want to open an investigation, go to WP:SPI, click on "How to open an investigation", then type the name of the master (or IP address, it's OK), and follow the instructions.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  09:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, since you're a clerk. Corrected my missstatement, above.  --Elvey(t•c) 23:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I would personally block one of the IPs if I thought it would be used in a similar abusive way again; the other hardly rises to the level of policy violation. These are throwaway IPs, used because they leave no trace for checkusers. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No trace, eh? Are you familiar with browser fingerprints,  zzuuzz ?--Elvey(t•c) 08:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Requesting an SPI - instructions
Please edit Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/header to say "user name (or if there isn't one, IP address)" where it now says "user[ ]name", in order to avert future confusion like that seen above.--Elvey(t•c) 00:11, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree with here. It should be made clear that IP address is also acceptable as a sock master. A Template editor is needed, because of the protection.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  11:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Alakzi (talk) 11:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Yay! :-) --Elvey(t•c) 15:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Procedural question: Socking by vanished user
, who has socked before, changed their user name and chose to vanish. But they are back to using sock-accounts ( and that I know of) to edit disruptively. Do I file an SPI under the previous name (ie, a continuation of Sockpuppet investigations/Zaketo), or start a new one under Sockpuppet investigations/Vanished user oinwn4toindcin23rjnsd? Abecedare (talk) 06:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Pinging who had implemented the name-changes and as bureaucrats may be more familiar with such scenarios. Abecedare (talk) 06:44, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Since the username hasn't been taken, it's probably simpler for the clerks if you file it under the previous name (with a note in the text on the vanishing and the new username), to keep everything together. T. Canens (talk) 07:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't really think if any prior examples; if there are no bona fide privacy concerns perhaps the vanishing should just be undone. in the meantime, filing under the old name should be fine. –xenotalk 12:07, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I can confirm, as a clerk, that it should be filed under the existing old name. We can always rename before archiving if deemed necessary. I know CU data can be notoriously confusing in the case of renamed (vanishings or otherwise) but it may still be worth looking into. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  15:15, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * File under the oldest name, despite the user having gone through the vanishing process. In this case, the right to vanish has been violated by the user, so there's no reason to refrain from the old name. Binksternet (talk) 17:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks everyone. The advice makes sense (esp. the old "username hasn't been taken" condition, which I hadn't even thought of). Will file the actual SPI in a few hours. Abecedare (talk) 18:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Filed. If socking is independently confirmed, and there are no privacy concerns, it would be good to undo the vanishing and restore the edit and talk-page history under Zaketo (or User:Chemicalstrips, which was a intermediate name they had used for a few hours). That way we will avoid the scenario of someone else taking up the username Zaketo, and us having to file future SPI reports along the lines, "Zaketo is again socking, but not this Zaketo, but the-user-who-was-previously-known-as-Zaketo." :-) Abecedare (talk) 19:15, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Block - more addresses have been blocked than detailed in the block notification.
Hi, I just tried to do a quick edit and was not logged in but got a block message Editing from 195.147.0.0/18 has been blocked (disabled) by Mr. Stradivarius for the following reason(s): Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sardanaphalus. Given that my IP is currently 195.147.30.116 the block has exceeded the range described by at least 7000. What is the actual blocked range (the logs don't identify this) ? My (dynamic) IP is from ISP wholesaler Daisy Communications Ltd - what are the rules about blocking ISP ranges ? -- John (Daytona2 &middot;&#32; Talk &middot;&#32; Contribs) 09:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  13:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The IP address you have indicated is indeed inside the indicated range. 195.147.0.0/18 translates as the addresses from 195.147.0.0 to 195.147.63.255. The current block only blocks IPs and allows accounts to edit. Blocking IP ranges are a discretionary decision and are usually based on checking the range contribs (the full /16 range is shown here as that tool has an error) and determining how much collateral damage may be done first. A decision is then made on whether it is better to block the range in order to block the editor (disruption) or not block as in the case of having too many other IP editors busy in that range.
 * Thanks Berean Hunter, I hadn't understood the /18 -- John (Daytona2 &middot;&#32; Talk &middot;&#32; Contribs) 14:52, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The rangelinks template may be informatiive: will show you . And, if you try to display the contributions from any of the IPs in the range, for example Special:Contributions/195.147.63.0, you should see the block log entry for the rangeblock that covers that IP at the top of the screen. EdJohnston (talk) 18:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Header levels on SPI report template
Currently SPI cases use header level 4 for the name of the sockpuppeer, header level 5 for the month and year of the report and header level 6 for the two comments sections. This is because the SPI report pages were originally transcluded to the main SPI page. To make these headings look a reasonable size span tags are used to increase their font size. Based off this I thought I might suggest that we change it to: Making the change won't require any changes to already filed SPIs (as long as reports with the new headers on the same SPI are archived after the old reports). Merges however, might require some adjustments, but there are pretty rare already. See User:Callanecc/sandbox/SPI for an example of old and proposed styles. The purpose of the change is to make things a little easier and make the code a little less intricate and long - so primarily purely cosmetic. If we make the change I'll also remove the  code to reduce overall size as the pages aren't transcluded anymore and aren't likely to be.
 * Header level 1 (one =) for the name of the sockpuppeteer (change Template:SPIarchive notice).
 * Header level 2 (two =) for the month and year of the SPI (change Template:SPI report).
 * Header level 3 (three =) for the comments by other users and admin/CU comment sections (change Template:SPI report).

What do we think? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I assume the SPI Helper Script uses header to detect the sections of cases, so as long as everything keeps working, I don't have any issues with the changes. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  02:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Good point: ping . Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, there needs to be changes, but should be straightforward. T. Canens (talk) 23:33, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * This is a long-overdue improvement, IMO. I always wondered why the Comments... and Clerk... sections were more prominent than the main ones: it makes it really hard to parse the archive pages. Could the  under the Clerk... section go too? it seems unnecessary with the new design.  —S MALL  JIM   08:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Good stuff, thanks Callanecc. :) A minor note about proposed header levels - there should only be one =h1= per page (for semantic reasons, HTML element), and that's the pagetitle itself, so please start at ==h2== and go down from there, regardless of any other changes. Thanks! Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 21:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * So are we changing it - and when? T. Canens (talk) 03:55, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep I'll change it as soon as you're ready however with a change to accommodate the no level 1 header:
 * Header level 2 (two =) for the name of the sockpuppeteer (change Template:SPIarchive notice).
 * Header level 3 (three =) for the month and year of the SPI (change Template:SPI report).
 * Header level 4 and a  tag (four = and a   tag) for the comments by other users and admin/CU comment sections (change Template:SPI report).
 * Also, Tim, is it possible to get rid of the horizontal rule or does the script need that? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:56, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, the script depends on the horizontal rule; it uses it to determine where to insert the comment. I can probably change it, but that's a bigger change. T. Canens (talk) 06:26, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright I'll make the header changes now if that suits Tim? The horizontal rule doesn't have to be anytime soon. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:37, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I've implemented the regex changes, so go ahead. T. Canens (talk) 06:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Can we please
...put a link to the notification template somewhere at the top of this page? I can't remember where to go to find the "you've been mentioned here, chime in if you like" template used for the SPI process, and there doesn't appear to be any mention of it anywhere on this page, which frustrates any effort to notify users about this in a timely manner. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:09, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You don't think a simple wp:ping is enough?  Vanjagenije  (talk)  16:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The ping does work, but I personally prefer the template since I like to leave no question of notification for editors involved in a process like this. I suppose its a difference of perspective, no one is really right or wrong here, and as long as the ping counts I'll be content to make use of it. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:18, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * What kind of template are you exactly looking for? To inform a user that he's accused of sockpuppetry, or to call an unaccoused user to join the discussion?  Vanjagenije  (talk)  16:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think they are talking about the SPI notification template... and I agree that I wish it were more handy. It becomes available when you start an investigation - to find it I generally just start an SPI on myself and then abandon it.  I just boldly added the template to the bottom of the page.   If anybody disagrees please feel free to revert or to tweak it. Jytdog (talk) 16:32, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The former, I think. The one I'm looking for says something to the effect of 'an editor thinks that you may be involved in sock puppetry and has opened an investigation [WP:SPI/X|here]. You are invited to reply, but please read defending yourself against claims first. Sincerely, (name of user leaving template)'. I know its one here, and I know that I've found it before, but I am drawing a blank as to where to go (must be the waking hours, I've been up since yesterday :) TomStar81 (Talk) 16:35, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * that is the one I just added to the bottom of the Project page. Jytdog (talk) 16:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That is Uw-socksuspect. You have it if you use Twinkle (warn --> Single issue warnings --> Sockpuppetry). But, as I know, the consensus is not to inform suspected users if you run a SPI against them, but to let clerks decide whether the notification is needed. Anyway, there is no policy that dictates that such a notification is needed.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  18:37, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * yes just reverted my addition of the template to the project page.  I didn't know that the consensus was not to notify.  I can guess why that would be... and that explains why the instructions say "if you wish to notify..." unlike every other noticeboard in WP which makes notification mandatory - I had always done notifications as I thought that was WP-wide.  Good to know that this is how things work at SPI - didn't know that. Jytdog (talk) 18:40, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No offense, of course. I haven't checked since before I became a checkuser. Is it still "mandatory" when using Twinkle to notify? If so, it should be optional at most. This notification business has a long history, and I've gone though the details of it before, although I forget when or where. Suffice it to say that notication is usually not a good idea, although sometimes it is constructive depending on the circumstances. I know that lack of notification seems to fly against the idea of due process, but so often sock puppetry is based on deceit. An example of when I notify (if it's up to me) is when the person accused of sock puppetry is a long-standing apparently trouble-free editor. Another example is when I suspect the motives of the filer.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It was never mandatory through Twinkle to notify. It's not the default either. I used to notify but stopped after the last time this came up. --Neil N  talk to me 18:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * If we are talking about uw-socksuspect, then I strongly agree that adding a version of this to the top of the SPI project page with a notice (a la ANI) that editors should add this templated message to any Talk page of any user they are launching sockpuppet investigation into. (If necessary, a warning about using such, regarding Bbb23's concerns, can be added to the notice text. But it definitely seems inappropriate not to include a notification notice here at SPI, regardless of the potential concerns...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No. Editors should not add template messages to a Talk page of a user they are launching sockpuppet investigation into. This just helps sockpuppeteers to better understand the process, and to avoid being detected next time. It also gives undue recognition to vandals. Clerks and admins should decide whether it is useful to inform the user about an investigation against him. This is not the same thing as WP:ANI. Here, we usually investigate user's technical data, so no defense is needed.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  19:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem with this approach is that it's coming at this from the "everybody is a dangerous long-term sockpuppet" point-of-view. What about editors who are actually innocent, and are never notified that a sockpuppet investigation was launched against them, and thus were offered no opportunity to defend themselves? This is especially concerning as not all SP investigations are resolved via a CU, but are instead closed based on "behavioral evidence". Now, I'm going to guess that if a CU is declined, then the SPI crew notifies any suspected users directly at that point?... But I find this approach disturbing (even if there are good reasons for it). Has a community wide RfC ever been held on this issue? If not, I really think a wider community discussion about this may be needed here... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Follow-up question: So is Socksuspectnotice another one of those templates that should only be used by the SPI crew, and not by regular editors?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Clerks' Noticeboard (WT:SPI/Clerks)
The Clerks 'New request' list has half a dozen candidates listed, with some candidate's requests stretching back about 6 months. Considering the volume and occasional backlogs here are SPI, is there any chance that these new Clerk candidates can be vetted and put in to training (or not) soon? Just sayin'. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There would probably be more applications if it seemed like they were being processed too; I'd be interested in helping if it seemed like there was a need for more. Sam Walton (talk) 19:55, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * In January 2015, the (last) group training was started. Five applicants took part (all those that posted request at the Clerks' Noticeboard were welcomed). The training lasted about a month. Four out of five trainees abandoned the training before it was concluded. I am the only one who finished the training. So, I guess that clerks and CheckUsers are a little down about new trainings. They don't want to waste their time if the trainees quit at half.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  20:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Can Clerks help with the process of training new Clerks? That could help reduce the Admin workload... FWIW, most of those currently listed don't seem to me like the type to "drop out halfway through" (though, of course, you never know...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. Clerks and CheckUser train new clerks. I made a proposal at WT:SPI/C to start a new group training.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  23:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Head's up
Hey guys, I'm giving you a bit of a head's up about something that may need a check for sleepers in the future. Recently someone created the page Doctor Dan, which was a rather nastily written attack page and a little research shows that several accounts have been posting awful things about this person (if he exists) for years, along with several of his staff members. The main account for this seems to be Wolfpawz, as this was the oldest account, and all of the other accounts are stale except for Dirtbagdan and EnglishWikiWoka. The editing pattern is fairly similar, making this a WP:DUCK situation, and all are blocked. The main thing that worries me is that if these are real people, then this is an organized attempt by one person to harass someone online and something they've been doing for years. The vandalism is pretty obvious and is caught quickly, though, which is good. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  07:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Check out a new account
Hey, who wants to check to see if this is Brunodam under a new account? I'm having some exchanges with at Draft talk:Roman cheese. They tried creating an article that claims that the Romans came up with cheese. It was nominated for a speedy deletion (for not expanding on the section in the cheese article) and I chose to move it to the draftspace so they could work on it. Rather than be happy at the chance to improve the article (as opposed to outright deletion), they've accused myself and the speedy nominator of an abuse of power. I decided to look and see when they started editing since they claimed that they've "seen this countless times on Wikipedia" and I noticed that they created the article Christian Berbers, which was previously deleted as a creation by a Brunodam sock. I hate to say that it looks to be extremely likely that this is a new wave of Brunodam socks, but the hallmark is pretty clear. (Promoting Roman culture above all others, trying to re-create an article by a Brunodam sock.) I'm going to ping User: Berean Hunter and User:Vituzzu on this, since they'd be able to pick out an obvious Brunodam sock better than I can - although this looks to be a pretty big WP:DUCK scenario. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  15:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Also pinging User:Middayexpress. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  15:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The content in the current and deleted versions of Christian Berbers isn't identical, but a quick glance shows that there are some similarities in the writing, namely these passages:
 * (old): The first appearance document that allows us to understand Christianity in Berber Africa is located in the Africa of the early Christians, before the year 180 AD: the "Acts of the Martyrs scillitans" . This is the record of attendance of a dozen Christians (called Scillitan Martyrs) in a village of Africa Proconsularis still not identified, in front of the proconsul of Africa.
 * (current): The first record of Christians in Africa is a document known as the "Acts of the Martyrs scillitans" dating from 180 AD. This documents a dozen Christian (known as Scillitan Martyrs) in a village of Africa Proconsularis, which is yet to be named, in front of the proconsul of Africa.
 * It's not super identical, but the phrasing is just a little too identical. Onomaticus also puts the words "African Christianity" in parentheses like the sock did. The "see also" section looks to be identical, though - something that I don't think that anyone that isn't Brunodam would be able to re-create so easily. Should I just go ahead and open up an SPI for this? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  15:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, please. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Done! I'd started typing something up. Since neither User: Berean Hunter and User:Vituzzu have edited in a few days, I've made this fairly long since I'm afraid of not including enough evidence, since this will largely be decided on behaviors. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  16:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * it doesn't seem to be Brunpodam but another user sharing a similar pov, afair local checkusers should be able to find some older accounts by the same guy. --Vituzzu (talk) 17:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * They are fairly similar and it seems like it's an awfully big coincidence - do you think that this could be meatpuppetry? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  17:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Also,, can you state this at the SPI? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  18:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I just can't get past my unease at the similarities between the article they created at Christian Berbers and the one created by the known sock. Some sections are just a little too similar for it to be a completely random, uninvolved person. I do think that there is a strong chance of sockpuppetry here. At the very least I do think that a block will likely be inevitable if the person continues to edit, since they've shown on the draft talk page that they have little to no interest in actively working on any of the issues I brought up with their article, instead choosing to continue to accuse me of abuse. I shouldn't let them get to me since they're pretty much looking to stir up a reaction at this point, but I really would rather (if they were a separate person) to actively try to edit within Wikipedia's policy and to realize that it isn't me making up new, random rules. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  18:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * sorry for being late, basically BDA edits mostly from a country, sometimes from another one, this user edits from third (apparently unrlated) country, this second user is likely to be this one, dunno if he acts as a meatpuppet. --Vituzzu (talk) 14:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

New IP puppet of existing sockmaster
Would someone remind me of how to reopen an investigation of an existing sockmaster [Vote (X) for change] when it begins employing a new IP address? Jc3s5h (talk) 18:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Go to WP:SPI, click on the box which says "How to open an investigation", then type the username of the sockmaster in the box and follow the instructions.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  19:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Bambifan101
Looks like they're back again, this time as User:Lukeisthebest03. I haven't seen any other accounts but odds are there are some. Would it be worth opening up an SPI to check to see if there are any other accounts? The older accounts are stale, but maybe we can do something with this account? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  05:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting us know. These accounts are ✅ to each other and are to be Bambifan101:
 * Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 15:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Bambifan101 was renamed to few months ago. But, (new) Bambifan101 is also blocked for "Long-term abuse". Why? Are they the same person? If yes, then why was the account renamed, it makes no sense?  Vanjagenije   (talk)  16:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe that it has to do with the single user login initiative. The accounts weren't unified and one of the accounts on another project (Commons or Meta, maybe?) was older than the Wikipedia account, which lead to it being renamed. The account was blocked again as a precaution. <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 17:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 15:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Bambifan101 was renamed to few months ago. But, (new) Bambifan101 is also blocked for "Long-term abuse". Why? Are they the same person? If yes, then why was the account renamed, it makes no sense?  Vanjagenije   (talk)  16:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe that it has to do with the single user login initiative. The accounts weren't unified and one of the accounts on another project (Commons or Meta, maybe?) was older than the Wikipedia account, which lead to it being renamed. The account was blocked again as a precaution. <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 17:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Indo-Pak sock war
See AN report. CU help will be appreciated. Abecedare (talk) 17:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Duplicate SPIs
Just raised a new case at Sockpuppet investigations/Cyntiamaspian without realising it had been opened for the same susopected sock yesterday! do I need to do anything or can the clerks sort it out for me? thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 10:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I removed your duplicate report.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  10:27, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Spam sock
A fairly new account is repeatedly adding references to www.similarweb.com, but intermixing these edits with simple linking edits. Looking at the time-stamps of the edits involved, I believe the editor is demonstrating advanced knowledge of Wikipedia practices and policies, and is making the linking edits to create "forensic camouflage" of the activity. So far, it's working; while numerous edits have been reversed, I was the first (and so far, only) editor to warn the new editor against spam. Someone complained about overlinking, and a couple of automated messages popped up because the terms linked went to disambiguation pages. The thing is, on every edit checked, without fail, the outside refs all point to various pages on the web site I mentioned above. I would simply follow the procedure to start a sockpuppet investigation, if I knew of a related account. But I haven't seen this pattern before, so instead I'm posting here in a collaborative effort, hoping someone else might recognize the pattern and be able to put a name to any related sock or sockmaster. As a side note, I will follow the procedure to report the account for spamming, just as soon as the account violates a level 4 warning. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 12px #ceff00, -4px -4px 12px #ceff00;">Etamni &#124; &#9993; &#124; ✓ 10:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't help you unless you disclose the username of that account.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  11:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess it's . I searched SPI archives, but did not find any similar case. Can you give some example of this editor "demonstrating advanced knowledge of Wikipedia practices and policies"?  Vanjagenije  (talk)  11:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I see you replied right away. Sorry for the delay in answering; I posted my question just before going to bed, not expecting an answer for some time.  Yes, the account you mention is the one I am talking about.  Wasn't sure if it is OK to name names here (and now I see how "noping" works, so good thing I didn't).  Here is what I was looking at:
 * 24 June 2015 - created account, made two edits, then it went dormant for a month (not itself a problem, just part of the history of the account)
 * 26-27 July 2015 through 17 Aug 2015: Made a few edits -- just enough to become auto-confirmed, plus some spares -- and then started adding links within articles to the above-mentioned website left and right.  These edits were interspersed with quick interlink edits in random articles, where the user opens an article, picks a likely word to make into an interlink, and then goes on to the next article.  I'm basing this on the time-stamps of the edits.  In the past three weeks, the user has made well over 200 such edits.
 * The user has made zero comments on talk pages, including the user's own. The user has not created a user page either, so 100% of the edits have been in mainspace.
 * Maybe It's too simple, but if I was running a sock for the purpose of paid-COI editing, this (plus more perhaps) is exactly what I would do: Create an account and make meaningless "real" edits.  Once it reached auto-confirmed status, I would continue to make meaningless edits to disguise my intent.  I would use multiple such accounts, one for each client, so that if one of them was caught out, the others could continue to function.  (And I would groom extras for future need.)
 * I don't have any proof that this is a sock account, of course. The user has deprived us of anything that could allow a stylistic comparison -- no user pages, no comments beyond bare edit summaries, no obvious pattern to the "real" edits (unless you count the randomness itself as a pattern), etc.  The only apparent pattern is the constant addition of links to one particular website, over and over again.
 * Could there be a new user who simply doesn't care about talk and just wants to make the encyclopedia better by adding interlinks within articles, and happens to think that the website I mentioned earlier is the best source of info in the entire world about certain topics and nothing else matters? Yes, I suppose that could happen.  I don't think it did though.  I think it's paid COI editing, and if so, it demonstrates enough sophistication to imply it's a sock of some other, more experienced, user. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 12px #ceff00, -4px -4px 12px #ceff00;">Etamni &#124; &#9993; &#124; ✓ 01:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You are probably right, but there is no point to open a SPI, since we have no evidence of socking. Adding spam links is itself problematic, so you should monitor this user's edits to see if he continues adding those links after being warned. If so, it can be dealt with at appropriate noticeboard.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  17:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I will keep an eye on it. Thank you for your advice. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 12px #ceff00, -4px -4px 12px #ceff00;">Etamni &#124; &#9993; &#124; ✓ 23:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

A bit of a check
Hey, can one of you do me a favor? I've got a somewhat suspicious situation going on here. Long story short, there was an AfD for Mike Rossi. The article was horrendous, as it looked like it was written with the intent to call Rossi a cheater. The article's creator,, seems to have signed up with the sole purpose of making this page and they were called out on the page being an attack page. There was one account that signed up just to back up the claims of him being a cheater on the AfD talk page. I kind of wondered if there was some socking going on here, but I figured that I'd just ignore it since it's entirely possible that it was just some random person wandering in or maybe a case of meatpuppetry. However now I've got two brand spanking new accounts that came to my talk page (, just to try to add Rossi to Marathon_course-cutting. I've told them that I would prefer that they not add him to the list because honestly, I don't think that he received enough coverage to really warrant inclusion - and I don't really think that some of the people already on the list really warrant inclusion either since their coverage is fairly light as well. (IE, it's all recentism and the whole "right great wrongs" thing) Triathleteguru has made one prior edit to the Rossi page, but by large they seem content to back up Greg's claims. I just can't help but feel that at the very least there's some sort of organized attempt off of Wikipedia to add him somewhere in relation to the cheating allegations. It's a definite BLP nightmare, to say the least. Can someone take a look at this and see if this would be worth an SPI? I'd also appreciate someone just kind of looking into the situation and keeping an eye on it, since the article for Michael Mike Rossi was pretty much an attack page. I'm going to ping Collect in this since they were involved in the AfD and could probably give their own opinion on things. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  05:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks like they're all active to one degree or another at Talk:Marathon course-cutting as well. I'm going to ping in on this since he's active there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  06:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've brought this up to WP:BLP/N since it brings up a bigger question of whether or not some of the names on the course cutting article's list should even be there in the first place. I mean, if they aren't notable enough to warrant an article or a mention on the marathon's page, then why mention them anywhere, especially given that allegations of cheating can be a BLP issue? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  07:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I tend to want more evidence if I make an SPI report, but it is clear that, at best, some SPAs are out there. And I specifically feel all allegations can be a real BLP issue for sure - and most especially when there is no sign of any prosecution etc.   Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * From a cursory check it would appear that this could be more of a WP:MEAT situation. Perhaps something posted on a marathon discussion group? There seems to be some proxy use at play, so it makes the results less conclusive. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 17:43, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That would make sense. It's part of the reason I was so reluctant to really label them sockpuppets and open up an SPI. I figure that I'll just hold off on any SPI type stuff for now since it seems like only one or two of these accounts are really active. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  06:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Closing cases
I see a lot of CU completed cases (that I patrol to check if any behavioral evaluation and admin actions are required) where all necessary admin actions have been completed, should I just mark them for close for a CU/Clerk to do the last rites, if there's no further admin action required? I usually do that only on cases that I've done something, but not others. Might help reduce the long list of open cases. cheers. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  17:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Personally, if I update the status to "checked" as opposed to "close" then there is still some work to be done, whether it be moving the report to a new master, tagging, or some additional behavioral review. As long as all the loose ends appear tied then there's no reason why they can't be closed.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd definitely leave it alone for sure if I think there's some sort of further action required either by just looking or from any notes present, I meant more in the non-controversial cases like this as an example.&mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  03:27, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The example you gave is not a CU completed case. I'm the same as Ponyo. If everything is done after I run a CU, I close it myself. If I don't, it's because something more needs to be done. In the example you gave, you could close it (I just did while I was there). BTW, it's very nice of you to want to help out.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)--Bbb23 (talk) 04:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Ruski22
This user, blocked under the Orangemoody LTA purge, is requesting unblock. They do appear to have some good-faith contribs. Check please? Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 01:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 23:06, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

User:ChutiyaAlaricia might be an Orangemoody sockpuppet
After this discussion where User:Clintric (now blocked) and User:Ivetliviya9 (a blocked Orangemoody sock) accused each other of paid editing, User:ChutiyaAlaricia vandalised User:Clintric. At this point ChutiyaAlaricia is at best a one-edit attack account, and at worst a sockpuppet of a blocked paid editor. --Slashme (talk) 19:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the account for containing profanity. No opinion on the sock aspect. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  19:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Inconclusive CheckUser
In August, a CU was performed on my account as part of an SPI, which was reported to have been "inconclusive". I would like to know why it was inconclusive, in detail. Alakzi (talk) 17:03, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If you weren't happy with a CU being done in the first place, then you certainly shouldn't expect to receive any detail in public. Luckily I have no knowledge of this case so I can tell you that what this normally means is that it might have been the same user, and it might not have been the same user. There is a lack of evidence that it's the same user, and a lack of evidence that it's a different user. That's why we say, -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * WTF? What does my being happy with it or not have to do with whether I should be told why it was reported as inconclusive? And when did I say that it must be done in public? The other user is a friend of mine, and I do happen to know that we live in different countries; and both of our records should reveal that we don't use proxies or anything of the sort. Therefore, I'd like to know what evidence there might've been to counterbalance the IP evidence. Alakzi (talk) 17:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You are asking this question on a 'public noticeboard' and have shown previous upset at even being checkusered. I notice that you do not recognise any "Audit Subcommittee", so for a response you're probably left with the checkusers themselves, or the Ombudsman commission. However, more relevantly, checkusers are not likely to give away their little secrets. That is, they're going to more than likely keep them to themselves. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It is common sense that I don't invite for my private information to be released on a public noticeboard. I do not care about CheckUsers' secrets; I ask because I suspect ulterior motives. This should've been a routine "unconnected" CU, but something transpired, and I'd like to know what that was. Alakzi (talk) 17:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That's what the Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee is for. In reply to the main point, 'unconnected' should usually mean there is a 'positive evidence' that an IP can be used exclusively by one person. It's a tough criterion. I have no more detail. Try the AUSC if you're concerned. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not consulting with the AUSC. All four CheckUsers (possibly more) should come clean about their dirty deeds. Alakzi (talk) 18:06, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Really not be where to go or what to do in these case, but José Julián Moreno user already has me tired and stubborn, all the time have to be reverting your edits. His main account was blocked by be adding names of fake actors in several articles of telenovelas. But even so the user continues through different ips, and actually already not be to do. Some of the articles which frequently vandalizes are: La Patrona, Los miserables, Soñadoras, Cañaveral de pasiones and Rosalinda and not is if you have more articles where José Julián Moreno has vandalized. Can you not do anything about?. Here some of the ips this user has used:



This single are some of the ips used. Not is if you can do something.--  Philip J Fry  • ( talk ) 17:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Possible paid editing ring
OK guys... giving you a head's up. I came across the article Secrets of the Last Nazi and it had a LOT of issues with sources and you can read about those here. Someone suggested that we redirect to the author's article. So far it has the exact same issues with sources - a lot of which are primary and misattributed to make it appear as if they were from RS.

I strongly suspect a paid editing ring because of the way the articles are written and because of the similarity of how the sources are used. I'm going to give more of a rundown of the similar edits, but three accounts I suspect offhand are, and. Cantelo was the sole editor of the book's article and Fergus made similar edits at the article Iain King. Philofiler made a similar edit to Cantelo's book article with here.

Basically what I'm asking for here is for help. This looks like it has the potential to be a fairly large paid editing ring if my suspicions are correct and getting the proof for this is going to be a monumental task, especially if this is a group of editors editing on topics other than King. I will try to do as much of this as I can on my own, but I would absolutely love help looking at the editors' behavior and looking for similar edits. I figure that you guys would probably prefer to hold off on similar edits until I finish looking over the sources at Iain King (which I'm doing here), but if anyone wants to do anything they can, I'd absolutely love you forever. Mostly what can be done now is just looking for similarly sourced articles by the three editors I've mentioned or other similar edits.

Cantelo is denying being a paid editor, but the edits here suggest otherwise. I also kind of have to say that the sourcing issues here are actually the worst I've seen in my history on Wikipedia and it reminds me of the articles I've seen with Morning227, only I believe that they didn't abuse sources to this extent. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  09:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Having looked a bit closer at these interrelated edits by the editors listed above by Tokyogirl: wouldn't be surprised to learn they are in fact part of the Orangemoody ring, based on editor behaviour. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 173 refs for this Iain King character. Seriously?! Paid puffery. I would nuke it to send a message. Doc   talk  11:32, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I've just looked at their edits, and I don't really see any resemblance to the scores of Orangemoody socks after whom I've been cleaning up. No random italic titles, no italicisation of quoted text, no stupid little edits to species pages, etc. etc. --Slashme (talk) 18:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm running through the similarities. So far I think that there's enough evidence to suggest that the accounts are related. I think that this is probably several people instead of one person, most likely. You can see my rundown here. I'm not finished, but I'm getting there. Some of these accounts are stale, so I'm trying to be thorough because I know that it'd be behavioral evidence at this point. Since at least some of the accounts are active, I figure that it's worth trying to find as many as possible. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  05:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm done, but this was fairly exhausting. The main gist is that one seems to be unrelated except for one or two things, but the others have far too many similarities for it to be a case of one editor copying the other. Most are stale, so I'm not sure if it's worth following for anything other than the active accounts. When I get a chance I'll check out the articles that some of the more obvious editors have edited to see if there are any other accounts making similar edits. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  08:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd agree that these editors might be related to each other, but my point is that they don't show much resemblance to the Orangemoody socks. --Slashme (talk) 20:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

More probable Orangemoody sockpuppets
I did a search for "its class is insecta", because it is likely to turn up Orangemoody socks. The only new one I found was --Slashme (talk) 20:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The account is ✅. I've blocked a handful of other accounts. <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 00:35, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * @Mike V: Some of those other accounts just happen to be the ones I reported at the main investigation, could you list out all the new confirmed sockpuppets there as well? It would also help the editors at Long-term abuse/Orangemoody/Accounts keep track of which of the socks still need to have their edits scrutinized. Thanks! Altamel (talk) 01:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, I've done that here. <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 15:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Here's another one: --Slashme (talk) 21:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Some evidence?  Vanjagenije  (talk)  14:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Same pattern down to the last detail: Starts off with a misplaced italic title and two edits to a species page, one saying what its class is and one saying what its order is, with the same incorrect apostrophe as on all the other Orangemoody species edits; then moves on to incorrectly demote a heading on a page, create a blank talk page, do some nothing edits on a minor maths article, add some wikilinks to other articles and format a ref on a suspiciously promotional page of an artist and create a blank user page. Then adds a spam link to an article of the kind beloved by SEO artists, removes a redlink from some random page, adds the same spamlink, formatted as a citation, to another page, and tries to obfuscate it by italicising some quoted text and adding a "citation needed" and finally does a null edit removing a newline and finishes off by wikilinking two football clubs in some godforsaken article about a 1950s football league. Same pattern that I've seen over and over while patrolling Orangemoody accounts. --Slashme (talk) 18:45, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Archive out of order
There was a block today of a sock of Undertrialryryr so I was looking at the case at Sockpuppet investigations/Undertrialryryr/Archive. The listings in the archive are out of chronological order, I expect because some cases were merged. But it is confusing to read as is. I would do a quick cut and paste myself but I expect a nonSPIclerk editing an archived investigation page wouldn't meet with approval so I'll just post a notice here. Liz <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 20:37, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It seams that made a mistake when merging the archives (those edits).  Vanjagenije   (talk)  22:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * A simple enough mistake between 2014 and 2015 cases. I've patched it all up! ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  23:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Sajed Mahmud
The ip 103.41.212.42 should be added to the Sajed Mahmud's sockpuppet investigation, it shares a the same location, interests and way to edit with 103.244.187.27 and the other socks, adding content with bad punctuation and referenced with bare links. Examples: A B. Rupert Loup (talk) 20:57, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Logo for SPI
I have created a logo for SPI. I'd appreciate any comments. I'm planning to put it on the main SPI project page. Thanks. --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#008C3A 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#01796F -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;"><b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b><sup style="color:#01796F;">✉ 01:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * On which way will it benefit the project?  Vanjagenije  (talk)  21:36, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * it would create a simple visual identity logo for SPI that could be reused on other pages as needed. I personally find it useful to have logos that I can use for quick identification or association, for example when writing reports. Many other groups and projects have visual identities also, such as the Signpost, the Arbitration Committee, administrators (the mop), and some wikiprojects. --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#008C3A 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#01796F -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;"><b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b><sup style="color:#01796F;">✉ 21:38, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * With absolutely no disrespect for the time and effort you've put in to creating the logo, I'm also struggling to imagine a tangible use for it.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * In SPI Clerk userboxes is the first use I can think off. Our project pages could use some sort of navigation banners. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  22:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If anyone would find it beneficial and sees applicable uses then it has my support (not that that's a requirement!).-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:05, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it could go on the top of Template:SPI navigation. Salvidrim's suggestions are also sensible. And the next time that someone writes a report about sockpuppetry for the Signpost or the Wikimedia blog, they can use the logo as a part of the visual identity for the piece. (As someone who wrote for the Signpost, I can tell you that I like having visual identifiers in publications.) --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#008C3A 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#01796F -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;"><b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b><sup style="color:#01796F;">✉ 23:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Could it be made to fit the general theme at Userboxes/Wikipedia/User groups? We don't have anything for SPI clerks. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I thought there already were SPI and ArbCom clerk UBX... ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  01:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I also don't see many purposes to have this logo (plus cue the WP:BIKESHED) <b style="color:#0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b><b style="color:green;">Talk page</b> 02:53, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There is an unofficial SPI Clerk userbox created by, User:Yunshui/Userbox SPIclerk. It uses the green fez as a symbol of SPI clerkship (See also Fez).  Vanjagenije  (talk)  10:15, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I had created this one a few weeks ago, with an eye towards either wearing sandals, a userbox, or inline response. Colorful, less sinister-looking. Might benefit from a slightly smaller ghostbusters and/or the edges of the socks sticking forward a bit? DMacks (talk) 19:39, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that's fine for userspace, but it's too casual for project pages like WP:SPI. (: --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#008C3A 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#01796F -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;"><b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b><sup style="color:#01796F;">✉ 22:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm overall getting the sense that there's generally indifference about my proposal one way or another. With that in mind, if there are no objections in the next few days, I'll boldly add it to Template:SPI navigation. If someone feels strongly enough that they dislike it, they can revert it and discuss the situation more here. --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#008C3A 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#01796F -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;"><b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b><sup style="color:#01796F;">✉ 18:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not against the concept of a logo, but I'd rather that the colours were more coherent with the scheme used on Wikipedia; black and white are very harsh colours compared to the default blue and grey colour scheme. Sam Walton (talk) 19:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppet
and  both call themselves "experts" on their pages and are bothboth vandalizing Drake and Fetty Wap's Wikipedia articles and keep reverting people's edits. Please check these two users with checkuser. They are sockpuppets.

See this edit by Funkatastic https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Drake_(rapper)&diff=683411860&oldid=683267470

See this edit by Jayo68 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Drake_(rapper)&diff=675591778&oldid=675591560

This person continually adds ballerstatus.com as sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:50C7:4200:C087:C001:5C8:35FA (talk) 04:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Not sure if I was accidentally tagged in this or not, but either way I got a kick out of it. I've never once used "ballerstatus.com" as a reference.  Very seldom do I edit the page Fetty Wap (can't even recall if I've ever edited it all, just don't wanna overdramatize).  Nor have I ever made any edits that could be considered vandalism.  If you consider restoring sections completely deleted by unregistered users "vandalizing", you have a very loose definition of the word.  The user above just flat out claims "They are sockpuppets", no "maybe", no "possibly".   One claim based on little evidence is fact to him.  I'm posting this to defend myself, but I encourage whatever user that reviews this claim to take it as seriously as possible.  I have nothing to hide.Funkatastic (talk) 05:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * No need to take it seriously. This IP is just evading his block. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:37, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * LMFAO. SMH. HipHopVisionary was banned and wont give up. Jayo68 (talk) 05:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Are users allowed to know how many times checkuser(s) checked their account?
Can a user ask checkusers if any checkuser had ran a CU on their account? Supdiop ( T 🔹 C ) 06:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Have you fully read WP:Checkuser? Some helpful stuff there. Doc   talk  06:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * But It doesn't answer my questions Supdiop ( T 🔹 C ) 07:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * They can ask, and a CheckUser can reply, but there is no requirement to reply. -- zzuuzz (talk) 07:16, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks Supdiop ( T 🔹 C ) 07:23, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * And they generally won't. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Wild, wild guess
I'm looking for a real wild guess on the average time invested on a case. I'm talking all users reading and typing. I'm talking about detecting, reverting, tagging, CUs, reads, digging, looking, comparing, you name it. Total total total. A rough guess per case, total. I'm looking for a number in hours and minutes. What do you think? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The time invested in any particular case varies widely. For cases where the sockmaster is well known, it may take only a few minutes, including filing the case and CU checks, to complete. Other, more complex cases, may take several hours. I didn't work on it, but Orangemoody apparently took several weeks of work by a number of editors, admins, and CUs. Average time, though? That would be difficult to determine without actually logging, over a period of months, I think, the time spent on each case.
 * For a completely wild, likely inaccurate guess, I'd say somewhere around an hour. I pretty much know what it takes to work a case from this side, but I really don't have any idea how much time an individual editor might have spent preparing a case. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  13:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, DoRD. Interesting. Just to be clear, when I say "case", I am referring the master and all his socks and all the time spent by everyone, including users who read but didn't actually work on it. One hour per case, from the first filing to the last sock before he gives up? (Links to why I'm asking: If you think this could be counter-productive, please say. Unproductive, I can take a chance on.) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Forty minutes. That's my answer and I'm sticking to it. :) Do I detect that we may have an enthusiastic volunteer to help regularly patrol SPI cases? That may be the best way to learn the answers that you are after..including why socks do what they do. I agree with DoRD's assessment and yes, there are many cases where work has been done but no results are made public because there wasn't enough evidence to make the associations. Since we work independently, we are often unaware of how much time other investigators have spent working on a case. Some cases may have had hours worth of time invested cumulatively but to view it sitting there in the list, you might think no one has even seen it.
 * Anna, if I understand your response to DoRD, you just made a very difficult question almost impossible to answer. So, if you have a sockmaster who keeps creating new socks, the case isn't over until the sockmaster dies, gives up, goes on to bigger and better adventures? And does the time between new sock reports count toward the time spent on a case? How much time has to elpase with no activity before we assume the sockmaster has stopped creating new socks, or at least we haven't spotted them? I assumed in your initial question you wanted the time spent on each investitgation, which is hard enough to answer. Unlike DoRD and Berean, I personally wouldn't venture a guess.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:36, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Heh. If it is "from first sock to when they throw in the towel", I can think of two sockmasters who started creating accounts before I started editing 10 years ago, and they're still at it (with a periodic hiatus). All aspects considered, really huge cases like Orangemoody can average over 30 minutes per sock, but that is because there are so many additional elements that come into play when handling cases like that (including developing and maintaining documentation processes just to keep track of that many socks, and quality assurance/sanity checks often calling upon multiple opinions).  A lot of it depends on the nature of the request, and the kinds of results obtained when doing the checks; some are incredibly obvious, others need to be sorted out from other accounts. Some cases take a single check. Others take dozens.  Keeping in mind checkusers will often just post results and leave the rest (blocks, deletions, etc) for others to do, I'd estimate that half of the cases I do take under half an hour including the checkuser comments. Another quarter take less than an hour.  The rest can vary from a few hours to...well, in the case of Orangemoody, weeks. Risker (talk) 14:55, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure it varies, Risker, but that's why long-timers like you can provide a gut guess. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, Bbb23. I'm sorry I made it complicated. Yes, from discovery to having thrown in the towell. ("Thrown in the towell" means maybe gone for, say, 1 year. I'm guessing the vast majority of year-old archived cases never reopen.) No, the time between doesn't count. I'm talking about resources spent (our time). Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know if anyone has kept statistics, but there are many archived cases that reopen after a year has elapsed. It makes CUs much more difficult, BTW. Do the towels and socks go in the same drawer? :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 15:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * , if you can get to stop socking through this process, I shall forever be in your debt. And I'm just taking en.wiki, I'm ready to ignore the socking at the others :) &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  15:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, SpacemanSpiff. Wikipedians are the smartest bunch ever! Surely we can come up with something and give it a try. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

My links above say what I'm getting at. Trolls are well understood and the plan is DENY. But we treat socks the same way. Where are the discussions about what they might respond to? Imagine a set of cleverly crafted posts that made 1 in 10 stop. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)