Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Request to merge 2 case pages

1. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Prince-au-Léogâne
2. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FloridaFinest

• Can a clerk please merge the 2nd case page into the 1st, and then redirect FloridaFinest's case page to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Prince-au-Léogâne? They are all socks of Prince-au-Léogâne (talk · contribs).

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 02:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: Also note request for new investigation, at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Prince-au-Léogâne. -- Cirt (talk) 02:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done not without a bit of mess though, but is good enough. -- DQ (t) (e) 03:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Trivial Problem with the SPI form

I mentioned this to someone on the SPI channel at Freenode last night, but figured I'd also make a note of it here too. There is a trivial issue (and I'm sure it is trivial) which needs fixing concerning the SPI form which you fill out to file a report. When the form has been filed, you see this line over the top of the "evidence" section:

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

But - when you fill out the form, you're clearly instructed not to sign the evidence section, as it will be signed for you. I know that the latter one is correct - so could this be clarified or fixed in the form content please? Thank you. Fish^Barking? 14:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

It's up to you folks: would you rather want to sign on the form itself and leave it on the form, or leave that notice off the form and have it signed automatically? –MuZemike 14:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I've already removed the info text: I agree that it was a bit confusing and contradictory, I believe it was a remnant from before that template existed, when its content was preloaded into new SPI case pages. Amalthea 15:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

SPI Cats

Hey guys, I have another little proposal for you. Last time I did this I got shot for screwing something up (I forget what) so I thought I would bring it here. My IRC bot which hangs in the SPI channel has a case status function, which currently won't work because the categories are out of whack. I would like to propose the following arrangement for the SPI categories so the bot can work again.

• SPI cases awaiting a CheckUser
• SPI cases awaiting a CheckUser (endorsed)
• SPI cases awaiting an administrator*
• SPI cases checked by a CheckUser
• SPI cases declined for CheckUser
• SPI cases that are open**
• SPI cases awaiting archival

*: This means the case has been specifically flagged by a user (most of the time a clerk) for a specific administrative action. ie. page move, blocking (after clerk has reviewed evidence), etc.
**: These do not include any declined, endorsed, unendorsed, awaiting admin, or checked requests.

I'm clearly open to a change of the names (this is only a sketch of what I would like it to look like), but this will be ideal for the message that clerks/CUs receive when they enter the channel or query the bot. Thanks guys. -- DQ (t) (e) 02:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Well thought. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 03:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

No objections, so  In progress. -- DQ (t) (e) 21:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The bot didn't take to well with the changes, per Spitfire's request I have reverted until the bot works. -- DQ (t) (e) 22:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Request action due to use of FAC for vindictive manipulation

Resolved

 – Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ItsLassieTime

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Piano non troppo

I'd appreciate swift action at this SPI investigation, due to use of FAC for vindictive manipulation. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 03:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Mail list for clerks/CUs

3 users like this.
Hello everyone, I have come again to a point in this line of work where internal discussion of possible socking or clerking procedures has become very difficult (most of the time because people don't know about the discussion here) and IRC is also not a viable way because it's harder to record, and not everyone has it. My proposal at this time is a mailing list "spiclerks-en-l" for internal communication. It would probably be a low traffic list I'm thinking so it wouldn't be flooding peoples inbox, but I've always asked why we haven't had one, and that's why I'm proposing this list. Would like to get some input from my fellow clerks and CUs on this. -- DQ (t) (e) 16:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely a good idea. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Seems a reasonable method to keep track of discussions, as IRC is not always the best method and at times it could be useful to look over past discussions in relation to reoccuring sockpuppets. I'm assuming checkusers would also be subscribed to this list? Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 17:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thought I made that clear :P I want CUs to be involved. -- DQ (t) (e) 17:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. T. Canens (talk) 17:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

+1  Frank  |  talk  17:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

• If it gets us more coordination, then I don't see how this would hurt. However, I must stress that such a list cannot be used to work on cases themselves, nor do any other activity which can be posted on-wiki, as we need to maintain an acceptable level of transparency here. –MuZemike 18:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
• I must also emphasize that absolutely no checkuser results may be posted on this proposed list; if anyone adds those results, we'd wind up wiping the entire archives. I'd be curious to know how other checkusers feel, as this would be three lists they would be subscribed to just for checkuser work, not counting the standing request for CUs to participate at unblock-en-L and the ACC mailing list. (Me, I'm used to being on a gazillion mailing lists, one more won't make a difference.) Risker (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree with Risker, really. One more mailing list is fine by me and it seems like this one would help. TNXMan 18:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I assume you are referring to raw checkuser data, right? Not the 8-ball-style results like  Confirmed? T. Canens (talk) 20:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
    • I presumed that Risker meant that. AGK [•] 21:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) +1 like. Elockid ^(Talk) 18:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

• Re. MuZemike/Risker: Just would like to clear up my intentions for the list, it would be only to discuss. No case documentation would not be just on the mail list. The one specific reason I came to the conclusion that we should have a mail list today is because I thought there was a behavioural possibility that one user could be a sock of another user, but I want second opinions, but admins and clerks don't always leave their full reasoning on wiki and i'm looking for the FULL reasoning. That being said, I do have to agree with Tim, and that all normal IRC appropriate communication should be acceptable on the list. But yes, overall most things would be documented on wiki. Quick note: I have applied for the list. -- DQ (t) (e) 01:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• I was a checkuser clerk when the process was still called "Requests for checkuser", and this would certainly be useful, unless there has been change in the nature of clerking since then (which from the comments above, I suspect is not the case). In previous years, we used IRC for off-wiki co-ordination, but as a general matter most editors seem to prefer e-mail, because it is more trackable and open than IRC. As an outsider, I don't see any problem with the proposal for a new mailing list. Reading DeltaQuad's initial post, it strikes me first that perhaps just spi-en-l would be a better name (long list names are annoying), and second that there doesn't seem to be a need for the archives to not be public (not that he proposes otherwise). However, that would be something for you all to decide. I haven't visited this page much in the past year or two, but you guys look as though you have the process running well; thank you to the clerks and checkusers for your hard work. AGK [•] 21:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Question of football sockpuppets

I get the pain and misery of seeing articles tagged with the biography banner, but missing required fields. I see 50-100 a day with easily half being football player articles, mostly Brazilian and Argentinian. Almost all come from "new" users who add articles for upto a few days and then are gone. The articles are expertly done, but missing a reference, have reference to a wiki type site, or are to a very obscure players... Brazilian player in the Cyprus league. Something is not right, but I'm at a loss... is this sockpuppetry from an old case? Example users are: User Talk:Jun19, User Talk:Phytos72, User Talk:Qwer25. Bgwhite (talk) 04:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ItsLassieTime

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ItsLassieTime

Added a new sock account to this page: AufVeedersane (talk · contribs). — Cirt (talk) 08:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

This is now  Done for the time being. — Cirt (talk) 14:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

In ictu oculi

As an anon IP (I prefer the transparency this way) I do not have user rights to submit User:In ictu oculi for investigation. It seems he is using a variety of accounts on the Notzrim page and Talk:Notzrim. I would really appreciate someone investigating please. The user repeats the same accusations against anon users which in fact only he himself is guilty of, but by making a lot of noise he manages to get Editors initially on his side against the Anon IPs before they drop support for him realizing that he is the one in breach of the policies he shouts out everyone else is guilty of. He seems to bring new sockpuppets into the argument who at first seem to be on the side of the Majority then defying logical reason presented by the Majority suddenly take his stance (To turn the Notzrim article into a dictionary entry). I hope someone can investigate please as he and his sock puppets are causing a lot of disruption on all related pages for more than a month now. Many thanks.81.103.121.144 (talk) 10:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

secret evidence and battleground mentality

As you no doubt know, some years ago the organization Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting started a small email group off-wiki to encourage new pro-Israeli editors to edit Wikipedia, and which was reported to ArbCom by an editor who was also an employee of The Electronic Intifada. The EI editor had joined the group, which was open, and then published the emails and gave them to ArbCom which immediately took steps to ban everyone on the list who had made any edits to Wikipedia based on any conversation in the emails. At the same time a private closed group existed on Yahoo! called Wikipedians for Palestine which consisted of a dozen members. These members had to give their Wikipedia "handle" and "proof of pro-Palestinian edits" in order to join. This group disbanded almost immediately upon the discovery of the CAMERA group. None of the members of that group were ever discovered, and the chances are that many, if not most, are still editing.

Why do I bring up this old history? Because there appears to be a concerted effort on the part of certain (particularly pro-Palestinian) editors to use SPI as a means of ridding the field of perceived enemies in much the same way that the original EI editor did, or even worse, through the hacking of email accounts. This has led to some success in the rooting out of supposed sockpuppets, mostly on one side. I say "supposed" because the "duck test" simply does not work 100%, and innocents have been banned as sockpuppets. Being tainted as a sockpuppet is essentially a death sentence on Wikipedia, and erring should be done on the side of innocence.

My suggestion is that to accept "secret" evidence is a mistake for a number of reasons. In the first place, no one can defend against such secret evidence, and presumably we are allowed to defend ourselves at CU. In the second place, tech-savvy folks can manufacture evidence that looks very real. In the third place, some of the evidence may not have been got legally, as through hacking of email accounts. And finally, why would we want to encourage editors to spend their time rooting out supposed sockpuppets that otherwise may have done nothing wrong? In other words, the editors who are supposedly socking may not have had a single administrative action taken against them for any reason, and yet other editors are investigating them and their private lives in secret for the simple reason they do not agree with their viewpoint.

Allowing the receipt of personal and "secret" information encourages this kind of underground "secret" activity, and is very harmful to the project. It destroys concepts like AGF or compromise or consensus. In fact it undermines the project completely, substituting outside investigations for well-sourced edits. I hope those responsible for making policy consider this make it a point (and a policy) not to accept "secret" information dug up by other editors against editors who consistently edit in opposition to those they are investigating. 76.179.1.114 (talk) 19:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Upset that you got outed as a sock, are you? → ROUX ₪ 19:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't have any positive thoughts on the content, eh? Nothing to contribute? 76.179.1.114 (talk) 20:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The only people who ever say that our ability to find socks should be restricted further than it already is are people who have been caught socking. As such, your silly wall of text above is supremely ignorable. → ROUX ₪ 22:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Your sentence is silly, implying that you know what everyone says about anything and why. Get real. Some basic precepts of the American justice system are ideas like innocent until proven guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, the right to confront your accusers, are all championed my wall of "ignorable" text above. I think these are ideas that the Wiki Project wants to represent, rather than witch-hunts or trials with "secret" evidence. Trying people on secret evidence? SPI should not convict people on secret evidence nor allow itself to be used to advance an agenda. 76.179.1.114 (talk) 01:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The only 'secret' evidence used at SPI is Checkuser evidence, which is technical data that can personally identify users. For that reason it is kept secret. You have an axe to grind, fine, but it would be great if you made a bare attempt to understand how the system works. → ROUX ₪ 01:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

SPI incorrectly named

I incorrectly named Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NelsonDenis248. It should be Nelsondenis248, the fourth in a succession of SP investigations. Just pointing this out, to be sure it's correctly filed. ScottyBerg (talk) 00:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Already fixed by DeltaQuad. Amalthea 09:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

How to find an old file

I can't locate an old file on Archtransit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), whom I believe is socking again ... under what file name do I start an SPI? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't Archtransit confirmed to be Dereks1x (talk · contribs)? There is a case at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Dereks1x/Archive. TNXMan 14:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I thought it was only suspected-- not certain it was confirmed ... at any rate, should I add to that case, or is an SPI useful in this case? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. It has been a while (I believe) since any checkusering was done on Archtransit/Dereks1x. If there is only one suspected account, it may be best to contact Alison or Thatcher, as I think they were the involved checkusers at the time. If there is more than one active account, you can file the SPI- any checkuser should be able to investigate connections between the active accounts (but would still probably need to ask for input about connections to older accounts). TNXMan 14:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Will proceed as time allows ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

How to merge an old case into a more recent one

I've been relying on the {{SPIpriorcases}} template to cover all prior SSP/RFCU cases on a puppeteer, but I found an instance recently where an old case is not linked to the SPI casepage due to a spelling mistake. What is the correct procedure in this matter? Should the old SSP casepage be renamed (moved) so that the SPIpriorcases template will pick it up automatically or should I simply file a new SPI case requesting a merge? If the old SSP casepage can be renamed/moved, would I be allowed to do this or does it require administrative action? I ask because the old SSP casepage currently states: "...Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page...." -Thibbs (talk) 12:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

SPI case not appearing

An SPI case I submitted using Twinkle Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lynsky123, even after I have purged the cache. How do I add it to this page? RolandR (talk) 15:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Wait for the bot, it comes by every 15 minutes. Amalthea 15:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Tobias

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tobias Conradi has turned up many, many socks of this highly disruptive user. Would it be feasible to periodically check for sleepers? We certainly have just cause to expect Tobias to reappear soon, and I'd like to catch him before he dumps another 2 months' worth of pagemove mess on us. --JaGa^talk 02:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Must notify suspects when SPI initiated?

Please see question at Wikipedia_talk:Sock_puppetry#Should_mention_that_notification_of_SPIs_is_not_required.3F regarding whether the Sockpuppet WP policy page should contain guidance about whether or not to notify users that an SPI has been initiated and they are named as a suspect. That guidance is already present in this SPI instructions page, but is not in the WP:Sock puppetry page. Please post any comments at that Talk page so the discussion is located in one place. --Noleander (talk) 01:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Scibaby

User:Scibaby says, "Note to all admins: This is one of Wikipedia's largest serial sockpuppeters. Please make sure that any contributions are reverted, and that anyone sanctioned for edit-warring with him is promptly unblocked. See also Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Scibaby." That page says, "He has been the subject of several sockpuppet investigations, Checkuser requests, as well as duck tests, and as of December 3, 2024 these have confirmed 1,027 sockpuppets, and he is suspected of having 167 more. As a result, many articles related to global warming have had to be repeatedly semi-protected to keep him from editing, but in general his socks often establish themselves on other pages first and often sleep for a while before attacking GW." Is there more we can do other than merely letting the ISP know that some abuse has occured? Is there any way that we can work with the ISP to be more proactive? Should it be referred to another branch/department of Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation? Banaticus (talk) 17:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

You can try filing an abuse response. From what I've seen, heard, and experienced, ISPs generally don't care about our problems. Some respond, but it seems like nothing happened. I think PMDrive1061 tried contacting the foundation to help curb the abuse of another serial sockpuppeteer, Bambifan101, but there didn't seem to be much being done. There's really nothing more we can do. Elockid ^(Talk) 18:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

error in case name

I just started a case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ajona1992, but I made a typo and it should be at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AJona1992. Is there anything I need to do to fix it? Apologies for any trouble caused.--BelovedFreak 14:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. TNXMan 14:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much. --BelovedFreak 14:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Can someone please fix

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bokan995 - I'm not sure why the old case name isn't showing up. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 10:57, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Now fixed. Dougweller (talk) 11:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Admin clerk needed

Can I get an admin clerk to help/lookover an unblock request that was sent to me directly. I would prefer it to be SPI just because of the nature of the edits/correlation can confuse other admins. I don't have the time to take it up right now, and have already given my reply. So if someone could pick this up that would be great. Just drop me an email or talkpage note. -- DQ (t) (e) 23:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I match neither of your requirements, but I know most SPI terminology and would be glad to give you my informal advice on the request. — Kudu ^~I/O~ 23:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Kudu, but I do have to get an admin to review it anyway, looks like i'm going to have to target someones talkpage... -- DQ (t) (e) 03:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Can someone please fix this too?

I followed the template precisely (or I think I did) and have no idea why its FUBAR: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Legendary Ranger. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

You had some mismatched curly brackets in place of square brackets on WP:QUACK. Syrthiss (talk) 14:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Arghh. Sorry. Thanks for fixing. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

np! Syrthiss (talk) 14:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Would it screw things up if I replaced your signature in the report with mine, or should I leave it alone? ScottyBerg (talk) 14:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Please feel free to do so. I don't see that it would screw anything up, but just felt odd signing it for you. :) Syrthiss (talk) 14:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Changing the Puppetmaster

I created a SPI case for User:Christy's Glowball and later saw evidence that the puppetmaster is probably actually User:MascotGuy. I've had A LOT of trouble changing the puppetmaster name on the case. How do I go about it? --Tckma (talk) 17:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

ACC Backlog

 Done Thank you MuZemike Mlpearc powwow 15:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Just poking the CheckUser community, Account Creations tool is back logged with requests the need CU attention. Thanx. Mlpearc powwow 14:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

In the future, please use Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations#Quick Checkuser requests for such alerts. — Kudu ^~I/O~ 01:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Long-term abuse

So how about adding {{#ifexist:Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/{{subst:SUBPAGENAME}}|{{LTA}}|}}? I just made Template:LTA. The purpose of it is to notify users of an WP:LTA case. ~~Ebe123~~ (+) ^talk
_Contribs 11:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

SPI request not showing up

I created the following SPI request about 10 minutes ago: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jayhammers, but it hasn't shown up on the SPI page. Do I need to do anything else to get it added to the page? Also, do I need to inform the affected parties? Kaldari (talk) 23:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, it just showed up. Kaldari (talk) 23:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

As a general rule, it is a good idea to notify the parties (I think {{Socksuspectnotice}} achieves that). That said, if they are all vandalism-only accounts or socks of repeat problem users it is unnecessary. Tiptoety ^talk 23:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, the SPI bot (User:Δbot) makes updates only four times per hour. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 00:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Cross-post for CVU

So on Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism_Unit/Re-formatting, we have a proposal that includes merging this project to the CVU. ~~Ebe123~~ (+) ^talk
_Contribs 21:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

If we're niggling, sock-puppetry is abuse, but it isn't vandalism. The proposed reforms of the project seem to assume it has, or propose to give it, a much wider scope than the current one of petty disruption. I also don't really like the idea of moving SPI, a huge process with many pages, just for the sake of it, and if it came down to it I'd probably oppose because it seems like a lot of bother for little gain. However, I suppose, if a socking investigation process exists, it doesn't matter much what it is a subpage of. AGK [•] 22:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to agree with AGK. Sock puppetry is not necessarily vandalism and vice-versa. –MuZemike 05:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

AGK, read the whole proposal (by the way, I agree with you). It suggests electing people to run these pages, and having subcommittees, and just extremely excessive levels of unnecessary bureaucracy. No offense to the person who proposed this, but this is an awful idea. Tiptoety ^talk 06:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Please IGNORE this discussion. It is of potential routes CVU may want to pursue in the future. There are not active proposals at this time to merge any projects. There is no more on that page than a rough idea of how I would ideally see a project running like that based on my experience on other wikis, it was not a proposal to take action and do anything. ebe123 jumped the gun posting here. AndrewN ^talk 22:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

What to put as sockmaster?

I have a case where there's pretty good evidence an individual used three user names in a row without seeking proper "bureacrat" OK; done because they were reprimanded for bad behavior on the first two. There is some evidence this person might be a sock of an older 3 times banned user, but it is not as clear a case. I want to present the stronger case, so should I make sock master the original of the three newer cases, and then just mention the possibility related to the original sockmaster? Or put in the original sockmaster? Thanks. CarolMooreDC 14:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

And so the tag-team harassment continues. Details on my talk page. Goodwinsands (talk) 16:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinions which have convinced me best to start with most recent three suspects and only mention more tangential evidence of the other; unless of course on further investigation more solid evidence is found. [Added later: On the other hand in another case I identified the wrong sockpuppet but they figured out the right one. So advice from neutral parties still welcome.]]

I am trying to do this within Wikipedia policy. Feel free to do so as well. CarolMooreDC 00:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

It's worth remembering, Carolmooredc, that Wikipedia policy has something to say about accusations you can't back up but won't retract. Which is what you're doing here. Goodwinsands (talk) 00:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Please note I have not mentioned a name and am asking for general advice. Your commenting here prematurely is the problem. CarolMooreDC 00:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a SPI regular, but file the case for which you have the strongest evidence. If you have additional evidence of possible connections to yet another userid, present that too and a clerk will fix up the titles if your evidence is borne out, they do that all the time. Focus on your best proofs, keeping in mind that checkuser can only help with more recent editing (and CU is run only when you show a reasonable connection), and anything beyond that relies solely on interpretation of editing behaviour. Franamax (talk) 03:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll rely on the clerks. Just needed a couple tweaks to do that and get formatting right and then this puppy will go live. CarolMooreDC 05:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

And, as expected, it contains false claims against me. But it will all come out in the wash. Goodwinsands (talk) 13:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Asking people to take seriously evidence of possible sock puppetry is not a false claim. Perhaps I should have come here immediately when you stalked my edits [1]/[2]/ [3], since I had my suspicions you were former discredited user Spaceclerk, as I more generally expressed in my question on your talk page. Was I being too nice? CarolMooreDC 17:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

So, basically, you just bounce from board to board, from accusation to accusation, hoping one will stick? How's that working for you, Carolmooredc?

Her SP/I against me was closed as groundless earlier today, as all her charges against me have been in the past. With that, this discussion is over. Goodwinsands (talk) 18:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

User:TheRoD1988

Hi there,

This user is currently blocked for edit warring, but IP addresses 202.156.11.10, 202.156.11.12, 202.156.11.11, and 218.186.18.232 have been engaging in the same edit warring behavior on Magneto (comics). 129.33.19.254 (talk) 17:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Δbot

Just a note. Looks like Δbot (talk · contribs) is down at the moment. Elockid ^(Talk) 18:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Looking into it. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 18:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Do we have any banned users from the Raleigh-Durham area?

I know you can't name names, but I also know that records are kept about banned users to help identify their socks in the future. I've got a contentious dynamic-IP hopping user I am pretty sure is evading a ban. I'm looking for a yes/no answer about banned users in the Raleigh-Durham area for additional info before filing this report. Yworo (talk) 20:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

No one is going to confirm or deny that, it would be an eggregious violation of Wikipedia's privacy policy. If you have a banned user in mind, you're going to have to name them. If you don't, checkusers will not find one for you. --Jayron32 01:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, maybe not, but I do know that if the behavior and location match a banned user, you won't simply let them continue editing, no matter how you obscure the details. Have at it! Yworo (talk) 04:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Certainly. What banned user do you have in mind? --Jayron32 04:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Try ColScott (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Yworo (talk) 04:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Another possibility, was blocked, not banned at nearby 174.99.102.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) as a sock of User:PorLaRazaNada. Per this comment, the IP was to be required to create an account to continue editing. Sound familiar? Yworo (talk) 05:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Yworo is referring to me. Please run a checkuser to confirm that I am not the above-named banned users (or any banned user for that matter). 174.99.127.20 (talk) 05:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Centering

How come, a couple of days ago, the collapse boxes had the titles shift from centered to the left side of the page? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Is this worth reporting?

I found a situation that I am not sure is worth reporting. An IP address finished up a vandalism started by an IP address that was blocked for vandalism.

On December 2, before being blocked for vandalism, 12.236.169.190 made a vandalism on simple harmonic motion here. That vandalism was completed today by 76.202.235.115 here. TStein (talk) 04:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

That article has been vandalized numerous times. I think the connection is simply coincidence. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

3RR

It used to be the case that there were code reasons for requesting a checkuser, and that one of them was to verify a 3RR violation with multiple editor names. I see (without giving names or articles), Editor1 having made the change 24 hours ago, then, it rapid succession, Editor2, IP1, and Editor2 again. Would this be a good time to request a checkuser to see if Editor2 = IP1 (being equal to Editor1 is not important, unless Editor1 edit again), or should I wait for the 4th revert? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

3RR is still a possible reason between accounts, but not to link Account to IP (very rare times it does occur). But sock investigations still handle account to IP. -- DQ (t) (e) 17:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Reviving template discussion

It's been quite a while since we last had these discussions. We have a mess of templates to tag sockpuppets depending on whether they are confirmed, checked, etc. I created what I think could be used as a single template to replace them all, but it has the problem that some templates would have to have their parameters changed (I think for the bulk of them it could be dropped in as a replacement). I haven't worked on it for a while, but is this something that would make sense? The template can be found at User:Avraham/Sandbox/SPOM. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 17:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. What if we did 3 parameters,

• |checkuser= (confirmed/possible/WP:DUCK)
• |blocked= (yes/no)
• |evidence= (where ever, if not defined, check if SPI exists and use that)

and deal with the wording based on that? -- DQ (t) (e) 17:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The issue with that is "confirmed" is not specific to CU and "DUCK" is pretty much completely disjoint, although I'm open to being convinced otherwise :). There are plenty of people here with far more advanced template skills than mine who could look at my code and improve on it, I'm sure 8-). -- Avi (talk) 17:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

In practice my experience has been that 'blocked' tends to mean that the account has not been confirmed by CU, but passes the duck test and is therefore blocked; 'checkuser' generally means that the account has been checked and confirmed by a CU, and is therefore blocked. If 'checkuser' is set to yes, then 'blocked' is not really needed (especially since we tend not to tag unblocked accounts): see Template:Sockpuppet for an example of this implementation. Obviously this application is not perfect since CU evidence is considered alongside behavioural evidence, but I haven't really encountered many problems with this application.

For the record, I've personally just always used Template:Sockpuppet and Template:Sockpuppeteer (which could be simplified), applying them as described above. Regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 19:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/87.228.193.254

Please could this case be relisted? It seems to have been removed from the open cases list after an IP blanked the page. January (talk) 17:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

It was removed from the case page, because an administrator or clerk has marked the case for closure and it is now just awaiting archiving. If you are not satisfied with the closure, you can contact the user on their talk page. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 00:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

What am I doing wrong?

My SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Doodleburger000 doesn't appear to have been transcluded to the main page. What editing mistake am I making to cause this? --NellieBly (talk) 01:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

This appears to have been fixed. If there are other issues, please let us know. TNXMan 18:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Throwing out a radical suggestion

Perhaps run all sock investigations on the main WP:SPI page in more of a noticeboard format instead of separate pages for each separate sock investigation. Then, when done and if needed, they can be cut-and-paste moved (as they are right now) to archive pages based on sockmaster.

Obviously this would be to make life easier for those who suspect socking and request that someone look into it. It's easier for users to hit "New section" and then start something from there. --MuZemike 19:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

No thanks. I'd like to stay away from WP:DRAMA (ie: AN/I) as much as possible. Tiptoety ^talk 06:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm with Tiptoety. People already don't understand how to open SPI cases; the last thing we need to do is make that worse. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Is the bot broken?

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Olumideakinsola not listed on main page, it's been more than 24 hrs. Thanks. Hairhorn (talk) 22:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Lack of information provided on SPI cases

Of the seven cases I have done so far this month, four cases had no diffs and only short statements by the submitter providing no information about the suspects other than something like "similar behaviour" or "I think these are socks". I would like to remind people, both clerks and submitters of SPI cases, that if you do not provide evidence, the options a checkuser has are:

• To place their own neck on the line by performing the check when insufficient evidence was provided and (in an admittedly rare and worst-case scenario) subject the Wikimedia Foundation to legal action from the sockpuppeteer.
• To spend their time that could be spent doing other cases trawling through the contributions of the users trying to find the behaviour when the person submitting the case could have picked out diffs in a matter of minutes.
• Ignore the case completely and hope that some other checkuser does it.

Since when has this become acceptable behaviour? It takes irresponsibility and laziness on multiple levels for this to occur; people filing cases can't be bothered to spare a minute to give diffs when they are (normally) intimately familiar with the sockmaster in question, people clerking the cases can't be bothered to either ask for the diffs or they find the diffs and then can't be bothered to provide them on the case page, and the checkusers doing the checks can't be bothered to explain to people why the diffs are an important part of the process. In particular note that what I've said so far is the good faith interpretation of what's going on here, with the bad faith one being that people are filing cases on a hunch, clerks are approving them without evening checking the evidence and then the checkusers are blinding trusting the clerks and carrying out the checks. I really hope that this isn't the case, but on some SPI cases there's actually no evidence that it's not.

Compare the evidence provided in the four present day cases I listed above:

[4] [5] [6] [7]

...with that provided in the first few random cases from RfCU that I picked from my contributions (which incidentally includes an instance of me praising the submitter of the case for the formatting and evidence he provided)

[8] [9] [10] [11]

If this continues, then I feel like I should be going through all the cases with insufficient evidence and rejecting them all outright until people get the picture that not providing diffs is unacceptable. I thought it might be wise to try and address this problem at the source first through.

I'm very disappointed with pretty much all involved at the current standard of cases we have here.

--(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 16:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• I've now just handled two cases that were filed by two SPI clerks that did not provide sufficient information for a check. I am now becoming very concerned at what is happening here, especially since there has been no response to the above message. If the clerks are contributing this much to the problem, it may be that some action may need to be taken. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 21:18, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• Deskana, I did read your above message, and I've interacted with quite a few of the CUs who run quite a few of the checks, and I am asked for reasonings why. I will note that one of the cases I handled is what your talking about, and with all due respect, providing sufficient information != making sure there is absolute clarity for a CU. I provided diffs in looking into this particular case in response to your message above. I also now, just added [12] which outlines the page history, which could of evidently been looked at since all three diffs were from that. You would also note several other key factors that I shouldn't need to spill a mile long list of at SPI like the page protection and the other IPs. Sometimes clerks don't list all of their 'detection methods', and I get it, if clerks have private info they should forward it to CUs, but I think we should also remember WP:BEANS. So I think we can strike a balance between not providing diffs, to overloading the SPI, and making tl;dr cases, or even just giving CUs more to read than they need. -- DQ (t) (e) 22:36, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I simply do not have the time to check every possible thing relating to cases, so I can only check that which is provided. In this case that was a list of three diffs which didn't help me see what was happening. Any relevant evidence should be provided, not implied by providing three diffs of edits to the same page as you did in this case. For example, the comment provided by Cusop Dingle here was extremely helpful at identifying what I'm supposed to be looking at in the diffs. Implying that providing more evidence would create "tl;dr cases" is not correct either, as it's entirely possible to provide evidence succinctly as Cusop Dingle did.

Anyway, I did not want to focus specifically on one case, as I feel there's a broader problem that needs to be addressed. Additionally, the fact that I feel the need to keep double-checking the work of clerks here directly contradicts the definition of a clerk provided on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerks: "the CheckUsers should not feel that they must continually check over their work". To be frank, the vetting that the clerks are currently providing is of no use to me, and it seems to me that something needs to be done to correct this. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 22:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• Hear, hear. - Mailer Diablo 11:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
• Agree -- way too many cases are based on a singular lack of evidence, and all too often "same" is used as the rationale. IIRC, this was brought up in the Climate Change Arbitration case, and remains true. Amd using the excuse "I don't want to tell the person how they got caught" is absurd IMHO. Collect (talk) 16:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
• Agreed. Another prime example: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stanovc. Tiptoety ^talk 18:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
• Deskana, I know I didn't respond to your comment from two weeks ago, but my response is ok, I'll try and provide as clear a set of evidence as I can when I create a case or endorse. Problem is though, i'm not the whole clerk fleet. Anyway, I noticed WilliamH added stuff to the template for people to add diffs, but also Twinkle has a report button and maybe we need to talk to Twinkle developers to add a comment about diffs. -- DQ (t) (e) 02:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't think it's fair that the burden is on us, the SPI clerks, to give evidence. There's no shame in telling a user to provide further evidence before making a judgment. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 06:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
    • True and I was thinking the same thing, and there are cases that are foundless without diffs that I will do that for, but ones that I can see aren't really that hard to go and pull diffs for. -- DQ (t) (e) 21:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
      • That may indeed be the case DQ, but at the end of the day, that's ultimately the responsibility of the person filing the report, and you shouldn't have to establish their argument for them. I did not see yours and HelloAnnyong's comments before making the changes I made, but I hope they'll make a big difference in tackling this issue at the grassroots level it is. WilliamH (talk) 23:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
      • HelloAnnyong is quite correct that it is not fair for the clerks to have to provide the evidence for cases. I would recommend that the clerks either ask the users for evidence or decline cases that do not provide evidence. This is how it used to work on the old RfCU page, and knowing that it worked this way people were quite quick to provide evidence for their cases. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 01:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

Add [[WP:SI]] to the Shortcuts box. 71.146.26.8 (talk) 01:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Done. WilliamH (talk) 02:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Notifying the alleged sockpuppeteer

The current version says "Notification is not mandatory, and may, in some instances, lead to further disruption or provide a sockpuppeteer with guidance on how to avoid detection."

I disagree. I was recently blocked on suspicion of operating a sock. On closer examination of the evidence, it was found that I was only guilty of violating WP:SHARE and was unblocked. I could have pointed that out at my sockpuppet investigation had I known it was going on. During the discussion I learned of another time when I was accused of sockpuppetry. The investigation was quietly closed after a CU cleared me from of the charges.

Can we at least agree that once a SPI has been closed, editors who were hitherto clueless that they were being investigated should be informed about the failed allegations?Bless sins (talk) 20:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

That's not correct. The previous time you were accused, it was concluded that you were meat-puppeting, and your meat puppet was indef'ed: see SPI and subsequent finding of meat-puppetry: [13] 71.204.165.25 (talk) 04:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• Hi Bess sins. I agree that in your case you should have been notified (and if I'd noticed that you had not been, I would have notified you myself). But there are definitely cases where it is preferable not to spill any beans or give the troublemaker any publicity - there are, for example, serial trolls who do it just to get a reaction, and dealing with them as silently as possible can be the best approach. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Please merge User:LouisBrownstone with sockmaster Dantherocker1

1. All related vandal accounts with "Kitties..." =  Confirmed as Dantherocker1 (talk · contribs), per consultation with checkuser list.
2. Please merge Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LouisBrownstone into Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dantherocker1, and re-tag all related pages accordingly.
3. Can a clerk do this and make the proper documentation notes and changes?
4. Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 04:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Umm...before I do this, where is the CU comment on wiki about these, and you make it sound like there is a farm of "Kitties..." users which I only see three. -- DQ (t) (e) 21:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

See block log for "KittiesNeedClaws". Billinghurst (talk · contribs)  Confirmed this to me in discussion on the checkuser-l mailing list, I'll inquire with him. — Cirt (talk) 18:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I was looking at a set of data at English Wikisource, and provided data to CheckUsers about KittiesNeedClaws aligning with one of Dantherocker1's IP ranges, and other Kitties-type account that were used xwiki. If you are after definitive enWP data for the account, then that will be required from a local CU, if you are comfortable with a check of data at another wiki for the account name, then it is confirmed by me for that username. I have seen other xwiki data for the accounts that support the conclusion, but I have not generated it personally. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Billinghurst. Hopefully that  Confirmed result from CheckUsers on other wikis addresses the question raised by DeltaQuad (talk · contribs) about merging the "Kitties" socks here, to the Dantherocker1 casepage. — Cirt (talk) 05:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bluesurfers merge

Could a clerk please merge this case to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tnaniua and also add some tags if they wouldn't mind? Elockid ^(Talk) 23:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 01:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Elockid ^(Talk) 01:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Can a checkuser deal with this?

Two editors were blocked last night after conversations on the IRC help channel for en.wiki on suspicion of being the same person. One has posted an unblock request, here. As the block was looked at by a checkuser (I believe the admin who did the original block was not, but went and got a checkuser), it probably shouldn't be disturbed except by one.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Was there anything more to it? Inlandmamba seems to be constructive, even if the Ibogianeclinic account is controlled by the very same person, I don't see any reason for an indef block at all; not even necessarily inappropriate use of multiple accounts. I'd opt to unblock. Amalthea 11:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

No, I did not see any misconduct. As far as I could tell, that was the sole reason for the blocks. I was following along with the discussion and there was no other factor mentioned.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I've put the unblock request on hold so that Madman and WilliamH can comment. Amalthea 12:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

One other thing: Inlandmamba originally came to the talk channel complaining about being caught by an autoblock--Wehwalt (talk) 12:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) They had the same IP address in #wikipedia-en-help; the former had asked for an unblock as collateral damage of an autoblock, and the second came in later asking for an unblock of the original block. This concerned me. Both claimed not to know the other, then when it was pointed out that that was unlikely (shared IP range yes, both editing from a NATted IP in that range without knowing each other, not really), the whole discussion honestly began to take on the air of a Gilbert and Sullivan musical.

I suspected intent to deceive other editors and/or admins, so on advice I blocked both accounts for the time being and checked in with WilliamH. According to him, the two accounts are identical from a CheckUser perspective; he tried to clarify exactly what the two users' network situations were, but what few answers he did get (regarding user agent and such) didn't accord with the CU data. He had to leave; the user with User:Ibogianeclinic said she was going to solve the problem by editing from another IP and left, leaving me without either CU or users to talk to.

So basically, that was a long way of saying I waited for the unblock request as I didn't know whether or not to unblock without the CU data. I agree that User:Inlandmamba looks like a potentially valuable contributor; I said as much in #wikipedia-en-help and had congratulated her on her approved AfCs before the second user came in. Personally, I'm still concerned by all the questions that were left open by the discussion in #wikipedia-en-help and WilliamH's investigation, but it is within the realm of possibility she had a wireless router open, Ibogianeclinic was within the (short) range of that wireless router, she was using it even though she apparently had access to another connection, and she still didn't know her. If you want to unblock, Amalthea, I certainly have no objection, and if any of my administrative actions were inappropriate, please let me know so I can correct them and it won't happen in the future. Thanks! — madman 12:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Your actions looked fine to me, and thanks for the recap, I had missed some of the nuance. They came under highly suspicious circumstances, and are just going to have to deal with that, whether one person or two. After all, sometimes a duck is just a cigar, so to speak. The reason I brought it up is because she came back and asked for help, so of course I told her how to request an unblock.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I just looked at the unblock request and I certainly did neglect to note the detail that her account was established in 2009, though she's a new contributor; if I had noticed that, I would not have blocked her. — madman 12:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I agree that /both/ accounts coming to IRC is rather odd, I thought it was only one. I for one generally don't buy the little brother/unsecure WiFi excuse either, but by itself and on a first offense stuff like normally doesn't worry me too much.
If no-one minds, and in absence of any on-wiki sock-related disruption, I think I'm going to grant the unblock in a bit with some stern words.
Amalthea 13:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with that, though I would suggest someone more technically adept than me watch them both.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

As above, no objection. I think Ibogaineclinic's the only user who potentially needs watching, and there are plenty of administrators who do that; I'm leaving both users alone, possibly after apologizing to Inlandmamba (if it won't undermine your stern words too much, Amalthea ;)). — madman 13:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

If you want to apologize to cheer her up, swell, but you've done nothing wrong. It looks like you may have gotten hit with the one in a thousand case where a duck may have been a swan. Happens. You did the right thing and got a checkuser.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough; actually, I think the message Amalthea left was the perfect note to leave it on and I'll leave it at that as well, though if I do see her again in #wikipedia-en-help I'll apologize. I'm in there to help editors, not to block them, after all. :p — madman 14:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I would have left Ibogaineclinic blocked since that account still violates WP:GROUPNAME. :)
There is one additional geographic oddity that muddies the water a bit further, not sure what I believe in the end. As I see it: either the user really used an open WiFi and had bad luck that someone with the same specs was sharing it, or he did create a second account for whatever reason (but without typical WP:SOCK abuse). In both cases he is partly at fault for the situation.
What I want to say, and like Wehwalt already said, I don't think an apology is necessary. I hope you didn't misunderstand what I wrote at the very top: I was mostly wondering about the indef part since the master on a first offense is usually only temporarily blocked. You had clear input that they technically looked like the same user, and felt they were trying to game the system, which paints a different than the one I saw.
Amalthea 14:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

There's not much else for me to say as everything has been covered, but I'll agree with Amalthea's course of action: an unblock and some stern words of advice. Ibogianeclinic should obviously remain blocked for the inappropriate username, but the autoblock has been lifted. WilliamH (talk) 14:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

sockpuppet investigation please

SOCKPUPPET

• pt:User:Bythemusic
• pt:User:Ariel_C.M.K.
• pt:User:Yomusicboxx
• pt:Yolanda_Soares

41.6.141.135 (talk) 11:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

If you think that those users are violating the WP:SOCK rules of the Portuguese Wikipedia you'll need to request an investigation there, presumably with diffs supporting your suspicion. Amalthea 13:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The Portugese AN seems to be at pt:Wikipédia:Pedidos a administradores; CU requests are at m:Steward requests/Checkuser. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Did I do it right?

I just submitted an SPI request, but it does not appear to show up on the page after purging. Did I do something wrong or is this working as intended? The case in question is here. Yoenit (talk) 19:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The case is showing on the list. There's a bot that updates the list every so often. TNXMan 19:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xebulon and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hetoum I

I wanted to solicit further opinions from other clerks and checkusers regarding these tangled messes of investigation. As far as I can tell, the same group of users accuse the same opposing group of being sockpuppets. Nothing has ever come of this. Frankly, I think it's disruptive and pointless and am inclined to decline these on sight. Geopolitical disputes cause enough editing problems in article space -I'm loathe to see the same sniping here. What do others think? TNXMan 17:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I got a note on my talk page about it. This whole thing is, quite frankly, a clusterfuck, and I don't really think SPI should be involved in dealing with factional fights like that. Further, this all falls under WP:ARBAA2, so I kinda feel like they're trying to circumvent that process and are instead coming to us for blocks. At this point I'm increasingly becoming convinced that declining those cases is a good idea. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not quite true that nothing has ever come of it. As I look through the archives, I do see the odd sockpuppet blocked here and there. Would it be possible to restrict the originators of the reports? I could see a case for an SPI topic ban against people that frequently cry wolf.—Kww(talk) 04:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if I'm allowed to post here, so feel free to remove my comment if it is not appropriate at this board. I just want to bring to your attention that this is the first time that I file an SPI request on those particular accounts. The last time I filed an SPI request was in March 2011, so I don't think that I do this too often. Plus, most of SPIs that I filed returned positive results, so I don't do it without a good reason. And I don't think that your colleague Golbez is abusing SPI board either. As he himself pointed out, he does it very rarely. This particular SPI request was by coincidence filed simultaneously by two editors, myself and admin Golbez. Now if two totally unrelated editors felt the need to ask for an SPI, and those accounts have already caused suspicions of other editors, then I believe there must be strong evidence that leads all those people, including an admin, to ask for an investigation. And calling me and Golbez "the same group of editors" is really wrong, I have nothing in common with this admin, on the contrary, very often we had our disagreements with regard to the content of the article in question. And some of the previous reports were also filed by people not related to the sides of the dispute, for instance The Devil's Advocate. It's just that there's strong evidence pointing at connection between certain accounts, which forces the people to file the requests repeatedly. I noted in my request that I don't want the SPI to be limited to CU only, I also wanted the admins to look at the behavioral evidence. But unfortunately this was not done. If a bunch of recently created, long inactive or new accounts pop up one after another within a short period of time to rv or comment on a certain article that already was a subject to a number of arbitration cases (Nagorno-Karabakh), it does not appear to be a mere coincidence. Grandmaster 19:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Since I have been contributing to Wikipedia in articles that contain information to Armenia and Azerbaijan I'm aware of this problem that Grandmaster and Tnxman307 speak of, I see two different groups of users coordinating to get each-others view across in a page. I tried helping out the page called Ermenikend, I combined both names to make users satisfied, but the contributors just kept switching back and forth to one name. As for check user, by restricting reports would cause this problem to get twice as worse as it is. Maybe giving it a time limit to make reports for example bi-weekly minimum, would help stop a overflow of reports but just stopping it for a extended time would be a issue to people contributing to articles. This is my opinion from the observations I made on the Armenian and Azerbaijan topics in the past week. In a short period of time I've noticed alot of disruptive users, which seem to be a big coordination of groups, this was just my two cents I'd like to share, hope it helped! thank you.Nocturnal781 (talk) 08:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Given that the most profligate SPI initiator, Tuscumbia, has been blocked from editing Armenia-related articles, the flood of bad-faith SPI's may be curtailed a bit. But it is hard to criticise those who see an open goal and go for it. Tnxman might describe such SPIs as "disruptive and pointless", but the point is that they are not pointless, they are a cost-free way of playing the system. Win and it is a complete win (your opponent is not only banished - he is made a non-person who never actually existed) - loose and it costs the initiator nothing and he/she can always come back for another go at the same or some other target. Meowy 01:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Small script for CUs to help navigate the log

When processing a case it's sometimes useful to look at previous checks of that case. It's easy enough to find when a specific account has been checked, but I found it's a bit of a pain to get to the unfiltered log showing the context of those checks, so I wrote a little script to help with that. The script turns the timestamps on a filtered log page like [14] into links to the unfiltered log which should usually show the context of the check.
I found it often quite useful for myself, so I thought I'd make it public: User:Amalthea/culoghelper.js
Amalthea 14:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks for putting this together, Amalthea. TNXMan 14:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Amalthea, take a bow. It's splendid. You should run it past the CU mailing list. WilliamH (talk) 15:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

If you like that then you might also find User:Amalthea/cufilter at the CU-wiki of interest ... Amalthea 19:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Inactivity...

Are any administrators monitoring this page? I'm seeing investigations that have had no administrator action now for the better part of a week. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Admins are watching the case list, and it's not uncommon for open cases to be open for more than a week. I'll see what I can nuke for open cases tonight. -- DQ on the road (ʞlɐʇ) 18:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

You know, some of us have real life priorities that don't involve monitoring Wikipedia every single second... — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Usurping a name from a sock?

A recent thread at WP:HD involves de:Benutzer:Autofan, who wishes to use the name of the unrelated User:Autofan for unified login purposes. Since the local Autofan was blocked after this SPI, I'm confused — would usurpation cause problems from an SPI point of view? Nyttend (talk) 05:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Considering the age of the account, not likely. We just need to update that page. T. Canens (talk) 08:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Request creation of sockpuppet report

Cut/pasted to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Karesu12340. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

User Amarru

I have reason to believe that the user Amarru is the exact same person who was behind the user called Seaboy123 who was banned from Wikipedia.

In the Wikipedia page (Football records in Spain) he is commiting the exact same vandalism as the user Seaboy123 did.

Moreover he has called me an communist fanatic without any reason in the revision history of that Wikipedia page.

Thank you in advance.

--Suitcivil133 (talk) 20:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Please follow the directions here in regards to opening a case. Thanks, Tiptoety ^talk 02:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Note to clerks and case filers regarding diffs

Pursuant to the notice I posted a while ago regarding the lack of evidence provided to cases, I will now be declining any request for checkuser that does not include meet the following criteria:

1. At least one diff is from the sockmaster (or an account already blocked as a sockpuppet of the sockmaster), showing the behaviour characteristic of the sockmaster.
2. At least one diff per suspected sockpuppet, showing the suspected sockpuppet emulating the behaviour of the sockmaster given in the first diff.
3. In situations where it is not immediately obvious from the diffs what the characteristic behaviour is, a short explanation must be provided (one sentence is enough for this).

Note that this decline will be without prejudice (so that the person can add diffs and then have the case carried out), and that cases will be declined irrespective of any endorsement from clerks if they don't fit the above criteria. Also note that I will make exceptions as necessary (for example if the sockpuppet accounts are creating user accounts with offensive names and no suspected sockmaster is known), but as most SPI cases do not fit this profile, people can expect to be judged by the above standard. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 10:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

And a quick note to the clerks: please bear in mind that it is not your job to provide evidence for the case filers. We appreciate that you have been doing this to make things easier for the case filers, but it is their job to justify the case. If you do not have the time or inclination to find the evidence on behalf of the user (and let me be clear, if I was a clerk, I wouldn't be doing it for them) then a quick note telling the case filer that diffs are not optional would be appreciated. Thanks for your efforts so far. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 10:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I concur with Deskana's statement. AGK [•] 14:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• +1  Frank  |  talk  17:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I also agree with our growing number of cases per day that these are needed, and i'm still seeing lacking diffs quite a bit. I'll see if I can look around and add the fact that diffs are required anywhere. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 23:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Someone might want to update the verbiage on the main page/templates/anywhere to point this out. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Already done, but I probally missed 1/2 a dozen other spots where it is. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 02:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

In some cases WP:BEANS may apply, and we might want to specify that in those cases submission of evidence by email is acceptable. T. Canens (talk) 05:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I want to bring up this case as a place where this rule sort of breaks down. A CU was requested and declined due to the reasons listed above. Given that all the possible diffs were on deleted articles, the OP - a non-admin - could not have listed any of them. The person gave a single sentence which technically meets the criteria listed above, but was still declined. The point here is that in cases where all the evidence is unavailable to non-admins (or perhaps in heavier cases, data has been oversighted out), we may end up with false positive declines. Or am I making a big deal out of a possible edge case? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 05:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I, for one, would hope that at the time a case is brought, the editor (admin or otherwise) who is raising the case would have some basis for it that includes diffs. Presumably admins and checkusers could take over from there, but I don't think it's unreasonable to have some basis from which to work, rather than simply "ZOMG - SOCK!"  Frank  |  talk  02:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

If the filer cannot provide diffs for whatever reason (for example, the diffs being deleted) then the request will not be subject to the above rule. However, it'd be sensible for the filer to say that they can't provide diffs. I can assure you all that I will not be applying this rule blindly where it is blatantly obvious that it is inappropriate. Either way, in this case, the edits were deleted after the case was filed so the user could have included them in the case. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 11:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Template for checkuser use

I've made the template {{DiffsNeeded}} which can be used to tell users that you are declining their request and ask them to provide additional evidence. The template looks like this (without the bars):

---

 Check declined by a checkuser. In order to facilitate and expedite your request, please provide diffs to support your case. Please give two or more diffs meeting the following format:

1. At least one diff is from the sockmaster (or an account already blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of the sockmaster), showing the behaviour characteristic of the sockmaster.
2. At least one diff per suspected sockpuppet, showing the suspected sockpuppet emulating the behaviour of the sockmaster given in the first diff.
3. In situations where it is not immediately obvious from the diffs what the characteristic behaviour is, a short explanation must be provided. Around one sentence is enough for this.

---

Feel free to use it, or write your own message if you'd prefer to do that. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 12:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Added a non-CU part to that where clerks can go |cu=no. My own version for all SPI cases, not just CU requests can be found here, but note that there are two parameters, |cureq (which is a yes or no, default no) and |cu (which is a yes or no, default no). -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 12:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

An example case?

I'm finding the reaction to the template we've created quite baffling. People seem to be complaining about the time investment required to provide diffs, and then writing a few paragraphs on why they think that the accounts are sockpuppets when it would've actually been quicker to provide two diffs and a short sentence. This suggests to me that we aren't making ourselves clear enough to the case filers that all they need are diffs and short sentences, and that in fact this would be preferred to big long paragraphs with vague statements in.

I think we should create an example case — or even better, find an example of a case that someone filed that had all the evidence required in a compact form — that shows people that they really do only need to provide two diffs and a short sentence. Thoughts? --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 14:25, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree and had a really good case I had (even if not short, but that was inevitable), I left the user a batch of brownies on their talkpage. This comment might not make sense, my apologies, i'm just trying to edit while I have a chance, sadly though is not while i'm at my best. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 04:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Objection to response

I object to the response that I received here. Working in dispute resolution, I certainly understand the desire to have people not make our jobs any harder than they have to be, but c'mon. This was a case where the editing pattern can be seen best, and is most obvious by just looking at the contribution logs and would be much harder to see than by looking at individual diffs. Just a glance at the logs would have made that obvious but it doesn't appear to me that the responding editor even bothered to do that. Furthermore, if you have an objection to filers not providing diffs, you need to remember that we're all volunteers here and we don't have to bother reporting suspected puppets at all. Indeed, in this case I don't have a feud going with this guy, haven't been EW'ing with him, or anything like that. Indeed, I made the report reluctantly because I regretted the fact that this guy, who has made useful contributions to the encyclopedia, had slipped off the deep end and gotten himself indef blocked. I just stumbled over it and considered it my duty as a Wikipedian to report it, just as I do when I run into a copyvio or an unsourced negative BLP. If you folks don't care enough to do anything more than this about it, I sure as heck don't care that much. I made the report and gave you enough to go on; if you'd rather let the block evasion continue than bother to put out a little effort to look into it, that's your choice. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 21:45, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Supplement: I just saw the "Note to clerks and case filers regarding diffs" section above. Really? You may as well just shut this project down if you're going to take that position or, better, create a new project, "Sockpuppet Investigation Investigations" to attract people who are willing to do the pre-investigations needed before filing a SPI. As I said above, c'mon. — TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 21:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Diff 1 & Diff 2. I take a quick glance over things when I first look at cases, maybe I don't catch it as easily as you do by my glance. I went through several SPIs yesterday, through ample tons of evidence. You did not even link an article with recent edit warring by such user (like Lendians). You linked an article that was supposedly edited last August. I see that you mean by it being obvious, but why should we be forced to make your case, find your evidence? Sock reports come in by the dozens a day, and no, we don't have time to look through them all, and make all the diffs for those cases. We have to make the blocks, we can't do it on suspicion. That's why we ask for diffs. Your case is now here. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 12:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Might I suggest, based on this entry and the response from an Arbcom member, that much of the problem is not the filers, but that more help is needed. Or are checkuser and admin rights just given out to anyone, and the Arbcom and Bureaucrat elections for nothing? I would say that almost everyone who edits Wikipedia is a volunteer, but asking for positions of authority and/or being elected to serve on the two positions listed above requires more responsibility that the average Wikipedia editor. If clerks and admins that are patrolling SPI do not have the time to do so, or seem inadequate to judge obvious behavior patterns, it's up to the people running the show to add admins and clerks who do have time and can spot obvious behavior patterns. Rather than just let obvious socks continue to disrupt articles and create more havoc, the better answer seems to adjust the the number of people at SPI, and/or perhaps those who have a talent for this particular problem. Dave Dial (talk) 14:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I think your first point is probably quite correct. People have got the impression that writing big long paragraphs of text containing trendy catchphrases (such as "quacks like a duck") is the best way to get their case accepted. This is probably our fault for accepting these cases. In actual fact all that's needed is a few diffs and one short sentence, which actually takes less time to assemble than big paragraphs, and it's easier to read; I speak from experience here as I have compiled short summaries of checkuser cases for ArbCom in the past, and the ones with diffs and short sentences can get immediate responses from ArbCom members. To make this clearer, I think we'll make an "example case" that shows how easy it really is to provide the correct evidence. Thanks for your input! --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 18:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

TransporterMan, unfortunately the tone of your message makes me quite disinclined to responding to it, as it suggests you won't really listen to what I have to say. If you have a constructive message to post regarding the SPI process, then please do so and we can discuss it. If you simply wish to rant about the SPI process, then you're more than welcome to do so here, but you should bear in mind that you might not get many responses. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 14:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for the tone, especially that of my supplement. I committed the sin of editing while impaired, not from drink or drugs, but from the short temper resulting from illness (a cold, which was at its height at that moment, but which has since diminished). Though I abjure the tone, especially to the extent that it was directed towards DQ, I stand by the objective content, at least mostly. I cannot object to any project setting the terms on which it will provide services. We certainly do that in DR and will, for example, quickly reject DR requests which have had no discussion other than in edit summaries. Neither can I object to any Wikipedian not doing any more than they care to do; everyone who toils here is, after all, a volunteer and is to be esteemed for what s/he does, however little it may be, not censured for what s/he does not, however much it may be. What I question is this: The filing requirements here at SPI are so high as to discourage reports by editors who have noticed circumstances which appear to be sockpuppetry or block evasion, but who do not care or do not have the user skills to go to the effort to investigate and assemble enough diffs to state a case. Is the problem of sockpuppetry and block evasion important enough to the community that this project is enough to adequately address that problem with those barriers in place (since the result of those barriers is that instances of those problems will, at least in some cases, be ignored and go unaddressed)? I would be tempted to answer my own question by saying that such matters are not likely to continue for very long before someone who does care enough to report them notices them and reports them, but some recent cases at ArbCom suggest that they can go unaddressed for a considerable period of time. Perhaps the answer is simply that we're not in a hurry. If, on the other hand, if it is a genuine concern, perhaps the instruction page could provide suggestions about what an editor should do if s/he has a good faith belief that puppetry or evasion is occurring, but does not have the skills to assemble, or does not desire to assemble, a case that meets the filing requirements here. Best regards, and apologies again, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 20:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps there could be a group of Wikipedians who would help other editors with matters such as this, with the complexities of DR, the intricacies of ANI, the structure of Arb, and the like. They could call themselves, oh, the Association of Members' Advocates. What do you think? — TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 20:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's where we disagree then; I find that many people write big paragraphs of text (which isn't very helpful on SPI cases) when in fact, finding two diffs and writing a short sentence would get their case handled speedily and it would take them less time to create. We do agree, however, that it is primarily a problem of communication. I think we (the clerks and checkusers) are to blame for gradually letting standards slip to the point where we feel the need to snap them back, and people (understandably) aren't reacting that well to the change. I plan at some point to make an "example case" that shows how easy it really is to make a good SPI case that will be handled quickly. That way people will see how easy it really is if you do it right! :-) --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 09:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it really is just communication (I think by that you may mean, "these have always been the rules here and we've let them slip," to which I would reply, "then perhaps the rules here have always been too strict to best serve the encyclopedia and the relaxation better served the encyclopedia than the original rules"), but I've made my point and don't intend to pick up the stick. Best wishes for your work and let me make a couple of suggestions: (1) Remember that a lot of folks who come here may be newcomers who do not even know what a diff is, much less how to create one. (2) Also remember that diffs, especially just two diffs, may be misleading; in the report I made, the problem is much easier seen by examining the users' contribution logs than by looking at individual diffs. Could different sample cases be needed (or even different filing standards be needed) for puppetry vs. block evasion? Dunno, just a thought. But it seems to me that oversimplification can also result in cases being turned down when real problems exist. (3) This is a side issue, but perhaps you might include better instructions on when and when not checkuser should be requested. The current instructions clearly discourage asking for it if it's not needed, but provide little guidance for when it is needed. Though I'm hardly a newcomer, I'm not at all sure of when I should ask for CU and when I shouldn't.

To close, however, thanks to you to and all the others who work here for what you do and I apologize once more for my prior peevish tone. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 14:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

@TransporterMan: Also my apologies for the comments that I took out on you (and the delay with this, time is not something I have right now), you have at least a valid point to bring up, and I just haven't been at my best for the past while, so the snap backs are coming way too easily and are telling me to step back from the wiki. Sorry about that. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 04:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Account required

An IP at ANI stated that IPs cannot start SPI reports. I could not find any confirmationn of this statement in the instructions here. However, I think it's true because I tried to start a report without being logged in (made me uncomfortable to even begin the process), and the response I got, albeit confusing, seemed to say I had to create an account or log in. Shouldn't this be put in the instructions ("important notes")?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:41, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that it is this comment that is being referred to...? Noted here for the record. BTW, the IP involved has retracted all charges against me and is being quite conciliatory. Hopefully this will have a happy ending. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

To some SPIs, that's right. To all SPIs in general, that is false. But that is only because of page protection which is usually to stop the serial sockpuppet from removing details from their own case, and screwing us up. Example This does not stop an investigation from being brought up. We would prefer that the main account a user owns to be filing the case, not an IP, but it is not a requirement. Also if the case is a privacy issue, there are other venues such as the functionaries mail list, or ArbCom that can be pursued. But again, having an account is not a requirement. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 16:49, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure I follow. Let's assume there is an IP who does not have an account. He could begin an investigation here, but then he couldn't edit the investigation once it began AND he couldn't edit existing investigations?? Is that what you mean by "some SPIs"? I can see that the project page is semi-protected, but how then does that permit even the opening of an investigation by a non-autoconfirmed user?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no direct way to open a case as an IP on a semi-protected page, your right, that is technically impossible. The only permissible way around a protected SPI (other than a private venue) is for a user to post here (and a clerk would then transfer it), or ask for a temporary unprotection of the page. Sorry my words are confusing, but yes, that is what I mean by some SPIs. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 17:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, now I understand, which brings me back to my original point. If an IP legitimately wants to open an investigation, should there be some instructions on the project page explaining how that can be accomplished? Or do you intentionally () not include it because you don't want to encourage it and it would be relatively rare? Another "solution" might be to have a link on the project page to instructions so it wouldn't be so prominent. Don't forget to take into account how few people read instructions, anyway (heh).--Bbb23 (talk) 17:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Is it possible to have a section, initiated by the IP that only the IP can add items to (write only) or fully edit while the remainder of the page is protected against all IP editing? A clerk would then transfer sane partst of the submission into the appropriate formatted argument section of the page as suggested above. The results should be visible on the same page and the IP may feel more in control of his/her input. Perhaps the section could be just under the running arguments so it appears to float with the current and latest discussion input. Sorry if this is way off base. 99.251.114.120 (talk) 04:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay guys.

@Bbb23: We could put instructions, for the reasons you state exactly, and maybe the trolls would step over them, but then I also think this page would be semi'd easily and quite frequently. I'm not quite sure how to respond and would solicit other comments on this. But I do see it as rather rare that some IP would file (i'm talking experience only) an SPI on a serial sock's investigation page. But I do think we owe the community some form of instructions.

@99.251.114.120: I don't fully understand what you are asking, and it sounds like it makes the process more complicated at this point (which is already deterring enough reports) though there might be a good solution to this if we modify your proposal a bit. Thoughts? -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 04:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

We have a problem with the mainpage

Hey guys, I just took a look at the main SPI page, which is like something I never do because of I have my backend userpage, and we just hit the software transclusion limit. So not only are we killing server kitties, peoples time for the page to load, and functionality, but I think this is one of our deterrents for people not to file an SPI report. So to nutshell, without rambling, we need to kill the amount of transcending on the mainpage. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 04:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

HelloAnnyong is taking a break and I'm not really that active these days, sadly. I'll see what I can do. T. Canens (talk) 06:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)