Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Dealing with sockpuppets

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

Comments

[edit]
Informing suspected socks

The new notification system makes this somewhat moot, as any time their username is linked somewhere, they should be automatically notified. I think, anyway - I don't know whether the notification system sees links in templates.

Reporting socks manually or via Twinkle

You should add something about never including "User:" when reporting since it makes a real mess out of the templates and necessitates page moves, histmerges and other cleanup.

Requesting CU

I think that it would be helpful to explain a bit more about CU requests and the evidence required before requests will be honored.

​—DoRD (talk)​
I've been talking with Okeyes (WMF)/Ironholds about this, having parts of the Wiki on a black list where the Echo notification system will not work. I mention this specifically because of SPI, where notification is often a problem. I'm assuming that it will get implemented and we will be back to non-notification in the future. I will address the other points, which are good ideas. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 14:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding (which could be flawed) is that the system sends a notification if it sees a linked name AND a signature in a single post. I would have to test, maybe with my own name, using TW and the manual interface at SPI to know more. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 00:10, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Name

[edit]

I was thinking WP:sockhelp or WP:sockfix or both, but open to ideas. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 15:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging Socks

[edit]

(talk page stalker) Hello, Dennis! While I know this is an essay in progress, I'd like to point something out to you.

"Do not place tags on their talk or user pages. There are number of different tags that can be used, and often there are reasons why tags shouldn't be used. If you think a tag should be added to a sock puppet page, ask an SPI Clerk to do so."

Why is tagging a sock (a named account or IP) something "NOT" to do? For all editors other than SPI clerks? The notion that SPI clerks should only handle sock tagging needs a bit of "rethinking". For example, the odds of me consulting a SPI clerk before tagging a quacking sock of a vandal I've known for years are not even remote. After all: I would know the case far better than the now extremely overburdened clerk. I don't understand the point of this first "not to do" bullet at all. Doc talk 07:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've seen tons of problems from users tagging suspected sock puppets. Since it is literally labeling someone a policy violator, it something that an admin or clerk should do (not all clerks are admin) as they are more accountable to the community than the rest of the community is. There are sometimes reasons why we do not want someone tagged, which are not always publicly disclosed for good reason (WP:DENY, WP:RBI and tons of other reasons). We answer to the CUs, who will sometimes tell us specifically to not tag, offline. Getting into an edit war over the tag defeats the whole purpose and is disruptive. Besides, the clerks aren't too overburdened to tag. As a matter of fact, we use scripts that pick the right tag for that situation in a single click, less than one second per tag at SPI. Random users tagging other editors is almost always a bad idea and often is done before an SPI has finished. I've had to threaten to block an editor over it more than once for edit warring over a tag. In particular, tagging someone who hasn't been blocked for sock puppetry is considered incivil, no different than accusing someone of sock puppetry without substantiation, and is subject to sanction. There are exceptions, but anyone that would be reading this for guidance certainly should not be tagging socks. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 17:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Understood. Thanks for the explanation! Do you have to be so darned reasonable all the time? ;P Cheers, Dennis! Doc talk 02:39, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I save all my unreasonable thoughts for the wife ;-) Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 12:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further

[edit]

(Firstly, great essay by the way - this would have helped me a year or so ago when I started doing more in WP space. I think, at the time, you gave me some advice anyway so I'm glad to see the advice might now be available to all. I saw a link to this on someone else's talk page - hope you don't mind my 2c...)

On occasion I've brought cases to SPI that were then the subject of CU and were closed with relevant blocks/warnings/etc applied. Quite often I've noticed that the blocking/closing admin will apply relevant block templates to user pages but not to user talk pages, especially those of socks. In cases where a user is moving from one account to the next (rather than operating multiple accounts at once) it is possible that they might only have access to the talk page of the "most recent" account, having "disposed" of earlier accounts. In some such instances I have added the {{SockBlock}} template to talk pages in the interests of fairly giving the person the ability (with instructions) to appeal their block.

I should point out I never add such a tag before the account in question has been blocked - I have only ever added it after an account has been blocked by someone else. But my intentions are good and I don't think it falls into the category of "grave dancing", especially given my aim is to help an editor appeal their block through official channels. Instances are few and far between and I understand this is designed to be for new editors, but I though I'd mention it anyway. Stalwart111 03:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • The main concern for admin is the templates on the user page, primarily the {{sockpuppet}} templates, before or after the block. Those are useful because they populate Categories but there are often reasons why they are not used. As for adding that template on the talk page, that is less problematic but you have to be very discriminating, which you are saying you are. For instance, I often use a regular block template for contribs only socks (without CU) with instructions for unblock requests when the master isn't a known unblock troll. Yes, some socks master are unblock trolls as well. I think that you have to be careful and discriminate in where you use that template, but as long as it isn't done en mass, I don't see a problem. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 10:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That makes sense - good advice as usual. Thanks for taking the time to have a look. I'll continue to be discriminating and use said templates sparingly. Cheers, Stalwart111 10:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle

[edit]

I would add that if a lot of socks have to be reported of the same master, not to keep filing TW report after TW report since everything has to be merged. --Rschen7754 10:01, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 2014 edits

[edit]

Perhaps a semantic point, but I think it's an important one. "Suspected" sock is a distinction without a difference. Given the limitations of what checkusers can do, the only way socks stop being suspected is when the master makes an admission, and that doesn't happen very often. The essay is written from a point of view that the socking is obvious enough for someone to have sought out the essay, and adding "suspected" throughout makes the tone unnecessarily tentative. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 16:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You make a valid point, that socking is difficult to establish with any certainty. I cannot accept your conclusion though that all allegations of socking could therefore be assumed to be evidence enough to dispense with the "suspected" qualifier. A suspect remains a suspect until it has been established without doubt that they are a perpetrator. Wikipedia should strive to rid itself of any such kangaroo-court-like practices. I propose that the word "suspect" be re-inserted in each case where we are talking about a suspect and not a proven sock. Knotweed (talk) 20:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why not notify a suspect?

[edit]

Why the big emphasis on NOT notifying a suspect that they are in the frame? In our system, why shouldn't a suspect be given a fair opportunity to say their piece before any verdicts are reached? I propose changing the advice to recommend that the suspect to be notified of any report against them. This will save time and unnecessary anguish for those wrongly accused. Or is our tag line to be: "better that ten innocent persons suffer than that one guilty goes free"? Knotweed (talk) 20:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I think someone is a sock and I tell them that, and I'm wrong, I've pretty much destroyed any chance of further collaboration. If, on the other hand, I go through the CU process and find out I'm wrong, then I haven't burned down any bridges. That being said, I have confronted socks before as a way of preemptively shutting them down. That's a judgment call on my part, and it's not a decision I take lightly. When I'm at all unsure, discretion is by far the better path. Once a CU or admin has determined socking is likely, there really isn't anything the user can say or do to change the verdict: anything that could be said by an innocent user can be mouthed by a sockmaster. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 21:14, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Guuuuuuuulp! You want to be able to legitimately make accusations (possibly mistaken, even false) behind someone's back? You don't want them to be given the opportunity (some might say fundamental right) to stand up for themselves before they are (rightly or wrongly) blocked? To save your own face if you're wrong? To allow you to keep making allegations about the same person until, with the right administrator on duty perhaps, you get one to stick? No, your argument on that is deeply flawed. You have "confronted socks"? Were they suspected socks? Can you give us an example where that action "shut them down"? You seem content to "shut down" an innocent user ("there really isn't anything the user can say or do to change the verdict") rather than risk losing face if they challenge your mistaken allegation. Is that how it's supposed to work here? Knotweed (talk) 20:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why should time be wasted on pointless proposals? Please do some work on the encyclopedia rather than playing justice forum games. Johnuniq (talk) 00:30, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Second Johnuniq's sentiment. If you've been accused, or falsely so, confront that accusal directly. If you haven't, there's at least one article at Wikipedia which hasn't yet been promoted to featured status. Find that one, and get it there. --Jayron32 02:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Knotweed: Yes. Yes (no fundamental rights are at issue). Yes. Yes. Yes. Again, a distinction without a difference. Yes, but no need to. Yes. And yes. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 20:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The irony that the OP was CU blocked is not lost on me. If a "new user" with 30 edits complains about something as esoteric as SPI notification, I think it's pretty safe to just block them. Dennis - 2¢ 22:23, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recommendations for WP:TPO violations for AfD restored on project page

[edit]
  • On the Project page, an editor has restored the recommendation for WP:TPO violations for AfD.
TPO violations are both improper and unnecessary for AfD.  It is improper advice to remove and hide comments and !votes from the middle of an AfD discussion, as this is a violation of the requirement "never change the meaning" of other editor's comments, which take place in the context of previous !votes.  If removal is really thought appropriate, it is necessary to leave a note that the text has been removed.
An exception is when there are no subsequent edits to the AfD, when removing the sock's edits do not affect subsequent edits.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:50, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The text that was removed was, "For AfDs, it is preferable not to remove the comment or !vote, unless there are no subsequent edits to the AfD."  Strikethrough font is preferred.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The scenario is that a sockpuppet returns to Wikipedia to sprinkle wisdom around the encyclopedia. Keeping their AfD comments will only encourage further abuse, and striking them exacerbates the problem by highlighting the attention-seeker. WP:DENY is a much better response. Johnuniq (talk) 03:51, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • When is the last time you struck a sock's edits on an AfD?  Or removed them?  For that matter, perhaps you can show some examples of your work with WP:DENY.

        The problem is not the WP:DENY, that would be fine based solely on what you are saying, but the problem is that once another editor has commented, you can't take out the comments and still have the flow of the discussion remain the same.  This is already discussed at WP:TPG, as I recall.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:TPG added a comment last December that advised striking only the !vote.  For a sock, this has the problem of leaving the comment itself active in the discussion.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:11, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is not a special case, it is treated the same as all other venues. I have restored the essay to the version that represents how policy is actually written. You have to stop trying to pigeon in words that make AFD seem special Unscintillating, it isn't. The rules aren't that rigid, but they don't differentiate between AFD and other discussions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:46, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that I'm specifying AfD is because that is where I know that there is a problem with the existing text.  If the other discussions are the same, then they have the same problem I am correcting, so can you work with me, instead of finding a problem that is fixable?  Unscintillating (talk) 00:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As always, I'm all ears, but the purpose of an essay isn't to change or redefine policy, it is to give guidance as to current practice and policy. I'm saying that it currently does that. If I'm mistaken and there is an improvement, perhaps discussing here first is best. Keep in mind, the goal of the essay isn't to be exhaustive or cover every situation, it is to be simple, easy to read and to give a relative novice an idea of how to handle problems. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:27, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would also mention that WP:TPO is a guideline, while WP:sock is a policy. Where there is disagreement, you generally refer to the instructions in the policy, not the guideline. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The policy I've been using for reference recently is WP:BLOCKEVASION, which is part of WP:Blocking policy.  Previously, I've used WP:Banning policy.  One of the problems at BLOCKEVASION is that it only uses the word "revert", and editors will say that strikethrough font is not a "revert".  But yes, I'm on board with policies, guidelines, then essays; except in this case, this essay could be used to update WP:TPG.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:49, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Striking through is tricky because it really is meant for when someone changes their mind, not to remove a !vote. Striking has always been controversial and my best guess is that there is no real hard consensus that striking sock votes is ok. Sometimes admin (even me) will strike a vote or whole discussions right after they block the sock, and that is considered acceptable because admin are accountable for the strike and the block equally, but removing is still better until it will cause confusing or remove worthwhile content in the replies. We could argue the nuances of policy all day, but the fact is, those details and exceptions don't belong in this essay. It isn't designed to change any policy and it will never be more than an educational essay designed to give editors a good, general understanding of how to deal with socks. The reason I created it was after seeing too many editors with a few thousands edits doing it wrong, so I wrote this so I could help educate them and stop problematic behavior like grave dancing and finger pointing. While it needs to be updated when policy changes, the scope and objective don't change. We don't talk about what to do at ANI or Arb because anyone reading this wouldn't be making those decisions, for example. K.I.S.S. principle. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:26, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Put shorter: This essay will never effect policy. This talk page isn't for discussing how policy should be. This talk page is for deciding what kind of advice we want to give users in the essay. That advice doesn't have to be complete, just useful and easy to understand. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thanked Dennis Brown at 23:59, 4 December 2016 for his recent edit to the essay. Coincidentally, I also commented at WP:AN. The latter discussion shows that pursuing socks at closed AfDs does not have community support. I repeat my earlier comments about WP:DENY—making a fuss about socks is the worst possible response. Why should the community suffer the sock and suffer a campaign to tag socks when there is no reason to think that such tagging is helpful? Johnuniq (talk) 02:18, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That discussion is beyond the scope of this essay, but yeah, you don't edit closed discussions or tag/strike/delete everything just because you can. WP:COMMONSENSE has to be applied. We remove or strike to take away socking incentive, not as a vendetta or to be pedantic. Again, in this essay, we need to keep it simple and based on the broad consensus. We aren't taking a political stand, we are educating people as to best practices. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • One very good reason for not striking comments in a closd discussion: Some times, a user may appeal the discussion result on the grounds that the result was influenced by sockpuppetry; if you strike out the comments, you are weakening this option, as you make it look like the closing admin saw the discussion with that comment struck out. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Involvement in SOCKSTRIKE

[edit]

Today a serial sockpuppeteer[1] filed a frivolous complaint against me[2] and started canvassing editors[3][4] as a part of his daily harassment routine.

There is just no doubt that he was a sock of Wikiexplorer13 and he was looking to disrupt as much as its possible until the block. That's why two other users removed the canvassing messages from others user talk pages.[5][6] While I had filed SPI, then struck his comment before[7] and after he was blocked.[8]

A couple of users after that have said that if the complaint involves some particular editors, then those editors including other involved editors should not be the one to remove or struck comments of the sock.[9] [10] But they haven't provided any Wikipedia essay or guideline that would support it.

That is highly contradictory to the current standards as highlighted by this essay. There is no differentiation between "involved" or "uninvolved". WP:SOCKSTRIKE allows anyone to remove or strike any comments by socks no matter if the sock has made comment on SPI, ANI, AFD, talk page, or anywhere except own user talk page. Essay also supports that unreplied messages can be removed and one should strike the messages that have been replied.

While good faith should be assumed, it is not even the case here since we are dealing with a harassment sock. For a name, I have also seen Future Perfect at Sunrise removing such comments made by a sock who frequently reports him.[11][12][13]

So here's my main question: Are you required to be uninvolved when you remove/struck any comments of socks? Capitals00 (talk) 10:28, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • The real question is "how sure are you that they are a sock?" If it is a suspected sock you have interacted with before, but they aren't blocked or it isn't blindly obvious, you can run into issues because it looks like you are trying to silence an innocent user. If they are blocked for socking, anyone can remove. If it is obvious to virtually all onlookers they are a sock, anyone can remove. If it is in the middle of a heated AFD or other discussion, anyone can but it might be better to get an outsider to remove simply so it doesn't look like you are deleting opposing opinions. I think it more about tradition and "best practices", which is the basis for policy anyway. So proceed with caution, and be sure you are 100% sure they are a sock, or if you aren't, get an admin to pop in and act on it instead. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:01, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Dennis, and don't really have anything to add to what he wrote. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:41, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Capitals00 is rather economical with the complete truth above. I'm the one who blocked the account but I have no clue whether it's a sock of Wikiexplorer13 or someone other blocked account or just a bad hand account of another active editor, but the disruption was there to see, so I blocked the account when I went through the contributons from ANI report. Now, it is customary to allow suspected sock messages to stand in the SPI pages if they were made prior to any investigation, and Capitals00 wasn't striking it but removing it, likewise, the complaint at ANI which Capitals00 was striking through was about them, and comparing this to someone like Vote X is beyond belief surely! I asked Capitals00 to use common sense even if there's no chapter and verse on involvement at sock strike, and a couple of others before me, but unforunately, Capitals00 does not want to accept any comment contrary to their own opinion. That's about it. —SpacemanSpiff 14:13, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This comment was removed as part of mass removal since he was blocked as "obvious sock", since I had already linked SPI on ANI, though your reasons were different but still a sock. The SPI comment was unhelpful and only showed his continued deception. If you check his background you would find him to be worse than Vote X since he is harassing a dozen of users, his disruption extends to main articles and he has been already range blocked many times this month.[14][15][16] It has been confirmed that it doesn't matters if one is "involved" when removing/striking these sock comments, given it is blindly obvious that Wikiexplorer13 is sticking to his same harassment. I am generally very calm when socks are reporting and I don't remove their comments or strike them even if CU has blocked them as confirmed, but this harassment sock is not one of them due to the nature of his high level disruption. Capitals00 (talk) 07:27, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing about being involved or uninvolved when removing sock comments. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 03:55, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • SpacemanSpiff has it right. As for JosephusOfJerusalem, well, they recently been using edit summaries pointing to WP:COMMONSENSE [17] [18] but clearly are not actually applying common sense when it comes to involvement, given that they are very involved with Capitals00 and went around removing messages left by the account to which SpacemanSpiff refers and which related to Capitals00 (around 0517 19 May). In fact, doing that actually gave support to the dodgy account's theory that there is tag-teaming going on! - Sitush (talk) 05:43, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Policy/standards/consensus, not individual decide what is correct. He has it incorrect and so you do. It doesn't matter if you are involved or not because anyone can remove. Given you have this misunderstanding for years despite multiple editors have told you the contrary[19], this thread was opened for clearing such misunderstanding. JOJ also told you about WP:STICK if you didn't looked, it means that you need to realize that you are wrong and now you should move on! Capitals00 (talk) 07:31, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not true. Any number of admins and neutral editors agree with me, as is indicated above. The thread that you refer to involved a Pakistani nationalist contributor, who has pretty much gone from here after a lot of problems, and another Pakistani contributor who was caught socking big time but somehow let off the hook. You, Josephus and Raymond3023 are among a group of equally disruptive nationalist contributors. It is the people at these two extremes - Pakistani and Indian nationalism - who have a problem with common sense and general interpretation of policies and guidelines. They're not here to improve the encyclopaedia but rather to make it say what they want it to say, at pretty much all costs. That's why they get so aggressive, that's why they try to censor, that's why they spend so much time on the drama boards fighting each other, and that's why they try to get people blocked at the drop of a hat. Unfortunately, it will always be this way because there will always be people trying to manipulate this place to their own ends. You're going to go, Capitals00, and probably before the year is out unless you amend your ways; the same for many of the others in the recent disputes. Common sense cannot be taught, so you either accept that the consensus is that it is common sense not to do what you have been doing (even though you cannot understand it) or you will walk away, perhaps aided or perhaps voluntarily. If you're involved in a matter, it is plain unfair to go around deleting and striking out comments made by those who are reporting you etc. There are plenty of other people who can deal with it, and they will if they see fit. - Sitush (talk) 10:36, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one is supporting your imaginary "uninvolved" factor being necessary when someone is removing comments of socks. If I am a "disruptive nationalist contributor", then what really makes you better as a disruptive caste warrior who is talking about what he doesn't even know about? You need to stick to his articles than meddling in the matters that are better without you. Also grieving over losses of those "people blocked" is redundant to discuss here. In place of convincing people against the established standards of removing sock comments that echo nothing but trolling and harassment how about just follow the established standards? Raymond3023 (talk) 13:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No-one supporting my interpretation? Well, there are at least four admins doing so in this very thread. As for the rest, if you think I am a "disruptive caste warrior talking about what he doesn't even know about" then I suspect you will be in the minority with that opinion also. You're certainly wrong to suggest any grieving over losses and to suggest that I am somehow not in line with "established standards". I found it interesting that you and Josephus dived straight in to remove those various edits after being absent for a bit: it is this swarming behaviour that raises suspicions such as those the person who filed the ANI report mentioned. Whether they are right or wrong is another matter but, as I said in the diff you linked, it does tend to reinforce a perception and it is avoidable. - Sitush (talk) 14:24, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those administrators haven't said that my removal of sock comments from user talk pages was incorrect, they have only said administrative boards. I was not absent for a bit, I have been participating in this matter for days[20] and it is organic when active editors are frequently tracking the disruptive sock from the pages that they have edited before and watchlisted. There is nothing suspicious about it. Socks say anything, but we have to deny their recognition. Raymond3023 (talk) 17:33, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Capitals00 is the one who needs to drop the stick here. It's one thing to remove a sock's edits to an article, or to fora such as AfD or RFA. It's quite another to remove a suspected sock's contributions to a discussion about oneself, and to remove notifications of said discussion; it appears vindictive, and from an admin point of view actually makes it harder to track down what the sock is doing. Vanamonde (talk) 11:06, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see Sitush to be the one who is not dropping stick by ringing bell on everyone's door about which he is obviously wrong.[21][22] What does it have to do with appearing vindictive? It doesn't takes anyone more than a few clicks to find out who was the sock by going through contributions. Raymond3023 (talk) 13:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Capitals00, I see you removed a comment in an SPI investigation. That is one of those places you should never do that. That is an administrative board, and THE admin board for SPI. You should have left it for the clerks to do. Removing it does indeed cause problems. As Vanamonde93 points out (rightly), this is not the same as a reverting an AFD vote or article edit. Removing edits on admin boards is discouraged, and in particular, at SPI where the person editing is the subject of the investigation. As an admin, even I won't remove a comment like you did at SPI unless it was a BLP violation, etc. because you are removing information the clerks need. Unless there is an overriding reason (BLP violation, OUTing, etc) non-admin shouldn't delete comments at ANY admin board. If they need removing, most of the time an admin will strike them instead of removing them, or remove them once we have blocked for sockpuppetry if needed. Admin aren't necessarily smarter than anyone, but WP:ADMINACCT means we are more accountable to the community, which is why the community would rather we do certain actions, not all of which require the tools. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:38, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See my comments below. Capitals00 (talk) 13:08, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Capitals00: your removal of comments from an administrative discussion, ANY administrative discussion, is interference, and is both tendentious in your case and disruptive in general. Do it again and you will be blocked. Consider this a warning not to remove or modify in any way comments from any page in Wikipedia: or Wikipedia talk: namespaces. I don't care who the other editor is. Just stop with the petty battleground antics, already. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ivanvector: In which world reverting a harassment sock is "battleground antics" who is still engaging in harassment while you were writing this message[23]? Does this rule of "not to remove or modify" applies on everyone? How about we mention this on the essay that sock comments needs not to be removed from administrative boards as well as "wikipedia" and "wikipedia_talk" spaces and make this a rule for everyone? Capitals00 (talk) 13:08, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm warning you, Capitals00, that your behaviour is disruptive. This warning is not about anyone else's actions, it is about your disruptive behaviour. Take from this what you will, but I and a number of other administrators are tired of this. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:20, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not and you have ignored my actual question. I haven't removed wrong person's comments. So far I have only removed/struck comments of a harassment sock. What "other administrators" have said is that it should not be done regarding administrative boards, including Dennis Brown, they are not specifically telling me not to do it. With at least some hope that something better can come out from this discussion, I am asking that shouldn't we make it a rule for everyone, by stating it in the essay that comments of socks should not be removed from administrative boards? Capitals00 (talk) 13:33, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am beginning to think that you have a competence problem, Capitals00. Just drop it, please: you are arguing about an essay, you're wrong anyway, and changing the advice in an essay has no binding effect. - Sitush (talk) 14:31, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I am "specifically telling [you] not to do it". Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:33, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sitush: competence problems started from your part when you came up with a totally never seen and contrary perspective that you have to be uninvolved to remove sock comments, I am seeing this problem for the first time in years after you made an unworthy observation. Ivanvector: I have been doing this for years and had no problems. But why I am now seeing that only those are suddenly having problems who come from the same camp that had supported sanctioning same editors including me and now they are suddenly having problems with removal of the comments of a harassment sock? How about we focus on the matter in hands? Capitals00 (talk) 14:49, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When you are at an administrative board, and in particular, where it is a report about a particular editor, you don't remove comments by that editor. Vanamonde told you as much, I'm telling you as much, others have as well. Admin boards are just that: Admin run boards. They are open to editors to participate, but they are still operated under the guidance of administrators. Just as at WP:AE, non-admin are not allowed to comment below the line, same for Arb. ANI and AN have slightly loser rules because they are informal format boards, but SPI does not. It is a formal board with a specific method for participation. I don't know how to make it more clear than that. No one should be reverting anyone at SPI, and most of the time, that includes uninvolved admin. Let the CUs and Clerks do their jobs. You can't just volunteer to be a CU or to be a clerk and do that work. They are *selected* to do specific tasks, specific ways. You might not have meant any harm, but that doesn't change the fact that only Clerks and CUs need to be mucking about reverting at SPI, with very little exception. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Issue was about removing sock comments from anywhere (including other user talk pages) but it seems the issue in the hands is resolved with your comments that while removing/striking comments, we should leave out administrator boards and SPI as not necessary and that SPIs are run by clerks/CUs who will decide what to remove or not. Thanks. Capitals00 (talk) 16:30, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No. Comments were also being removed from user talk pages on the grounds that it was a sock before there was any independent action taken, ie: the swarm were acting as judge, jury and executioner. That, too, was wrong. By all means, remove the stuff from your own talk page but don't remove it from other talk pages. - Sitush (talk) 16:35, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Same can be said for articles that we should not be reverting socks on articles only because they haven't been blocked. It really depends on the obviousness and it was totally obvious that wikiexplorer13 is evading his ban like every other day and creating drama for getting attention. Removal of the comment from user talk was valid and the owner of the user talk can still check from page history since they have received the notification. Raymond3023 (talk) 17:42, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to flat say "never remove an accused sock's comments before action has been initiated", but that is an area you need to tread carefully. It should be painfully obvious they are a sock, enough so that you are willing to go file an SPI report yourself. The problem is that if you are wrong, you just bit the hell out of a newbie. I would discourage anyone from removing (accused) sock comments unless you are filing or there is no doubt in anyone's mind. If you are wrong, you can draw a sanction yourself. I'm not the ultimate authority here (although I did write the bulk of this essay), but reading the "What NOT to do" section might be warranted. In short, if in doubt, don't. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am also thinking along similar lines. A sock's comments; especially if the comment is there with the intent of misleading other users or trolling/causing mischief can and should be removed. In that sense sock comments can be removed anywhere, though SPIs should be left as exception since even if a sock posts misleading information, it would be self-incriminating.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 21:41, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SOCKSTRIKE sock masters, or only puppets?

[edit]

WP:SOCKSTRIKE advises to strike "all blocked sock puppets and sock masters in a discussion". Recently at AfD, an uninvolved editor struck a comment of a sock master that had just been blocked. The comment had been made after the sock master and a puppet had both commented in the same discussion. An involved editor reverted the strike with the explanation "comments are only struck at AFD if they are by a sockpuppet of a blocked editor, not if they were made by the editor before any block at all" and "he was not a sockpuppet when he made this comment, he was later blocked for creating sockpuppets but this account is the original account". I'm not going to mention details because I'm not canvassing and I don't care whether the particular comment is struck or not. But I would like to know what the standard practice is. If the second editor is correct, then should the SOCKSTRIKE advice be changed? I found some discussion here, but it's not conclusive. Is there any policy that supports or contradicts striking a blocked sock master's comments in the discussion where it took place, and/or subsequent comments? --IamNotU (talk) 00:42, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AfD and RfC proposals initiated by sockpuppets

[edit]

Greetings, all. Is there a rule or an essay in Wikipedia about a standard reponse to a sockpuppet submitting a proposal for deletion or starting an RfC? As far as I know, we have (for example, in WP:SOCKSTRIKE) guidance only about commentary, including !votes, etc, by socks. But what about proposals? Are we obliged to strike off a whole AfD discussion, for example, when the discussion is many days old and with many editors involved, when it is suddenly discovered that the initiator is a sock? Thanks in advance for any response. -The Gnome (talk) 11:10, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Late, but just saw this. If a sock opens an AFD in bad faith, someone might choose to procedurally close it as "null" (WP:DENY), although I would recommend it be an admin or at the very least, a very experienced editor, if people have been participating. Someone else can start a fresh AFD if they want. Or if it was opened in good faith and there is a strong basis for the AFD, you could just let it run, but many would prefer to close as null and restart the discussion with a legitimate editor initiating the discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Better late than never, Dennis Brown. Thank you for your input both here and in the quety submitted below by Venkat TL. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 13:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sock is blocked after AfD is closed, strike or not

[edit]

If a Sock is blocked after AfD is closed, should the sock's !vote be stricken off or not? This page does not make this clear. @Dennis Brown since you had an opinion on similar issue, can you please guide, what is the more appropriate thing to do? I believe it should be tagged, since it helps others who view the AfD in future. The thread above by @The Gnome is also a good question that need an answer. Venkat TL (talk) 11:44, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • After an AFD is closed, you don't should not modify the text in any way, unless it is to RevDel or Suppress an edit. To change the discussion after the close would technically invalidate the close, as the !vote is now different than what the closer considered when making the close. If !votes from socks would have changed the outcome if they had not participated, then if it was "no consensus" or "keep", you send it back to a fresh AFD for a fresh discussion, or if it was deleted likely due to their votes, you look at Wikipedia:Deletion review, which may result in undeleting. At that point, anyone could send it back to AFD if they feel it is appropriate. But the original discussion shouldn't be modified except under limited circumstances. I supposed someone could add a note below the closed discussion saying that the participants were socks, but it seems pointless. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:44, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dennis Brown thank you for the response. This is helpful. I believe this should be added into the page for guidance, please consider adding it somewhere for future reference to other. I understood your reasoning and I will follow it. In My opinion, we should document the socking somewhere on the afD page, for future readers. May be at the bottom as a "postclose note" about sock block can be added. Your thoughts? Venkat TL (talk) 13:34, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I put in a short paragraph, mainly pointing people to WP:AN to ask for help on how to handle a situation. There are so many variables, it is best to get input from admin there for any problem. Plus, the goal of the page isn't to set policy, but to just point people in the right direction, so that's probably the best way to handle it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:07, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have noted the addition of the helpful paragraph. Thank you. Venkat TL (talk) 14:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Dealing_with_sockpuppets&oldid=1243816791"