Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Suggestion?

[edit]
IP and brand new user arguing with each other: this is going nowhere. RoySmith (talk) 12:25, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I cant seem to report new editor user:Smartiest Marty as a sock, given that I want to remain an IP. He is (only) adding NPOV and non-cited edits to a BLP. Exclusively.Here and here - without any edit summary. Warnings don't seem to have an impact. How best to address this? 2603:7000:2101:AA00:8463:3822:2153:CF14 (talk) 03:05, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

sources are cited within the body of text. I am a geuinely a new user. And sock address of whom? Smartiest Marty (talk) 03:12, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
information presented are direct extractions from sources. Smartiest Marty (talk) 03:14, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a content dispute issue, but regardless, the fact that it's about the Arab-Israeli conflict (A contentious topic) means that neither of you should be discussing it. M.Bitton (talk) 03:14, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The addition I made was to document Shmuley Boteach's media engagement on the topic of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Smartiest Marty (talk) 03:17, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you read the comment that I left on your talk page. M.Bitton (talk) 03:17, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your consideration and guidance. I see no conflict here as the contentious topic itself was not discussed but referenced to document the individuals involvement. As per the guidelines, anonymous shouldn't be editing/undo/reverting more than once every 24hrs. I'd like to report their (2603:7000:2101:AA00:8463:3822:2153:CF14) violation of that policy. Smartiest Marty (talk) 03:28, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about what you can see. It is an objective fact that the content is covered by WP:ARBECR. So, it falls outside of what either you or IPs are permitted to work on. I have added a template to the talk page notifying users that parts of the article are within scope of WP:ARBECR. If the ECR violations continue I will request that the page is extendedconfirmed protected. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Genuinely asking, what now? Shmuley Boteach factually said somethings that are with evidence provided. How do I include them? As per the NPOV guidaince: Wikipedia:NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content
" to provide complete information and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean the exclusion of certain points of view; rather, it means including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight."
Anon is not following content dispute procedures and did not discuss the validity of content with me on the talk page, nor edited the content constructively. They opted to simply and flatly delete it.
Do I wait 30 days and 500 edits and add it back in? Smartiest Marty (talk) 08:05, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at the Further information part of the Warning: active arbitration remedies note at the top of the talk page. The procedure is to make an edit request. It can be on the talk page or centrally at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Current_requests_for_edits_to_a_protected_page. Edit requests most likely to succeed are those that are 'Specific, Uncontroversial, Necessary, Sensible' per WP:EDITXY. It will then be handled by extendedconfirmed editors in due course. Might take a while. I know it's annoying but the rules are there to reduce disruption and apply to thousands of articles. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:19, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, or wait until you are extended confirmed. The IP seems to think you are a sock. Are you? Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:20, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Referring to sock puppet, as in a fake account?
Why am I the sock and not the obviously competent anon? You can visibly see that I'm fumbling around, but in good faith, lol.
Read my contributions history, it's me just asking for advice in how to navigate wikipedia.
On top of that apparently just mentioning someone said something negative about arabs is invalid. It's genuinely and fundamentally disenfranchising and culturally invalidating.
Arabs and their issues are not valid unless someone external deems so, pending 30 day review and prove your worth with 500 edits (except for anon). It's so disheartening. Smartiest Marty (talk) 08:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I even accurately referenced the content. Smartiest Marty (talk) 08:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one except the IP user has said you're a sock and that user hasn't given any basis for calling you that. Possibly the IP user doesn't even know what a sockpuppet is. In any event, in the absence of any reason to give credence to that claim, this discussion has turned out to be off-topic and should end. Largoplazo (talk) 11:57, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Paperwork questions

[edit]

Hi SPI, can you please give me some guidance about best practices for these kinds of filings:

  1. If there are multiple socks and I think it's one master, should I open one SPI under the master and list all suspected socks (and then in the filing explain one by one why I think each one is a sock), or should I open multiple SPIs under the same master, one for each sock?
  2. If I have a group of suspected socks but I think there are multiple possible masters, is it better to just pick a master and list all the socks under that master, or should I try and "best guess" which socks go to which master, and file multiple SPIs, and cross-reference them? Like, "here's a bunch of socks, I don't know if they're LTA1 or LTA2 or LTA3, but probably one or more of those", what's the best way to file that?
  3. If I have a group of socks but no idea who the master is, is it better to file it under "best guess," or just pick the oldest suspected sock account and file it under that account as a 'new master'?
  4. If I think it's a compromised account, or group of compromised accounts, and I don't know who the master is, again: should take a "best guess" and file it under that master, or open an SPI under the oldest account as the master with no sock, or open separate "one-account" SPIs, one for each account? (E.g., if I think they're compromised but don't know if they're compromised by the same person or different people.)

The SPIs I have in mind are all ARBPIA and could match to any of a half dozen or so sockmasters who have had socks sanctioned in the same relative time period (first half of 2024), some of whom are familiar LTAs. I know there are editors who are much more familiar with these ARBPIA LTAs than I am and could probably figure out who goes with whom. I'm wondering how much effort I need to put into connecting those dots, as opposed to just saying "here are suspicious accounts with suspicious behaviors [diff, diff, diff]" and letting a CU review it and sort it as they will. What is the best way to organize information in the above 4 categories from the point of view of SPI patrollers? (If there's a help doc that explains this, please point me to it.) Thanks in advance for any guidance, Levivich (talk) 18:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to #1 is clearly open one SPI and list all the accounts you believe are socks. For the purpose of SPI, we define "the master" as the account which was created first. For cases 2-4, I guess just put it all into one SPI filing. SPI cases get split and merged all the time as information emerges, so don't sweat the details. RoySmith (talk) 20:10, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith I've been thinking about similar myself but mostly from a UPE perspective than Levivich's situation. Do you think a table something like the below would be helpful?
Suspected Master/one of their socks Editor A Editor B Additional info
Article and/or behaviour diff/log/other evidence (or ?/possibles)

diff/log/other evidence (or ?/possibles)

diff/log/other evidence

diff/log/other evidence

diff/log/other evidence

diff/log/other evidence

This is extremely crude and it depends on the evidence as what makes sense structurally but I hope you get the idea. S0091 (talk) 20:38, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The best way to write a good SPI is to stick to hard evidence, which usually means diffs and links to log entries. Where things go off into the weeds is when people write long essays. If presenting the diffs in a table works for you, that's just fine, but the important stuff is the diffs themselves. RoySmith (talk) 21:38, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Roy! Levivich (talk) 15:22, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Global lock log?

[edit]

Is there a global lock log that says why a particular account was globally locked? User:Vanished user edc8363ad1718beb64ce9d923ab18295 has no local or global blocks, and I can't find anything at meta:SRG. Is there any public information anywhere? I'm specifically wondering if it's locked due to being a compromised account or due to socking. Levivich (talk) 18:09, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whereas someone like Special:CentralAuth/Leola_Mayert has the log. Everything says to me it's a vanished user, for example one final edit was to add the retired tag. I guess you'd have to assume the log was hidden related to the vanishing. Anyway, the (public) global lock log: meta:Special:Log/globalauth. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see -- thanks, zzuuzz! Levivich (talk) 19:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich: Vanished users get locked to satisfy IIRC EU laws. You are correct though, such locks made through renaming processes are not logged in meta:Special:Log/globalauth. Please also remember that some accounts are locked without prior input on SRG, this is result of stewards performing CU actions through loginwiki or through private email channel. Best regards, A09|(talk) 20:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's this one, right? Salomeofjudea → winter queen lizzie → cloaked rename request → 21:34, 20 August 2024 מקף globally renamed Winter queen lizzie to Vanished user edc8363ad1718beb64ce9d923ab18295 → contributions. I assumed they just decided to abandon this account. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. Levivich (talk) 03:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations&oldid=1246463264"