The suspected sock puppets page is where Wikipedians discuss if a fellow Wikipedian has violated Wikipedia's policy on sock puppets. Cases on this page are evaluated primarily on the basis of behavioral evidence, and the editors and administrators who look at the reports typically do not have the ability to determine what IP addresses Wikipedia editors are using. If you believe your case requires an IP check, please go to requests for checkuser.
Sometimes users who appear to work with a common agenda are not sockpuppets (one user, multiple accounts), but multiple users editing with the sole purpose of backing each other up, often called "meatpuppets." Meatpuppets are not regular Wikipedians who happen to agree with each other; they are accounts set up by separate individuals for the sole purpose of supporting one another. For the purposes of upholding policy, Wikipedia does not distinguish between meatpuppets and sockpuppets. Please see Wikipedia:Sock puppetry.
Administrators
Administrators, please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Administrators for detailed instructions about how to determine sockpuppets, archiving, etc. for editing here at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets (WP:SSP). This has recently been updated and therefore administrators should read over the minor changes that have happened.
The problem is current; if the suspected sock puppets have not edited recently, the case will likely be closed as stale. If the problem is not ongoing, just watch the user and report when you see a new instance of abuse.
You have strong evidence. To learn what can be evidence, see here. If your evidence is weak, then it will be nearly impossible to reach a determination of sockpuppetry. All your statements should be supported by diffs.
The sockpuppet account you suspect is not already blocked.
The sockpuppet account you suspect is not already reported. Look through open SSP cases for usernames frequently associated with your suspect. Both older and newer cases, many of whose accounts are now blocked, show up in the categories for sockpuppeteers, sockpuppets, and suspected sockpuppets.
Assume good faith, if possible. An alternate account that is not used for abuse does not warrant a complaint. Keep in mind that users may sometimes make mistakes, so in cases where an alternate account is largely used for legitimate activities, it may be appropriate to ask the user before making accusations. The problem might merely have been caused by a mistaken login or other absent-mindedness.
Fill in the names. Clicking "Start a case" with a new case name-or-number opens a fresh page, with a form ready to be filled in. The puppetmaster's name will be automatically filled in as the filename; if this is not correct, due to added numbers like "(2nd)", replace the {{SUBPAGENAME}} tags with the puppetmaster's username. Also replace the placeholder names SOCKPUPPET1 and SOCKPUPPET2 with the account names of the suspected puppets; add or delete these lines as needed. Always leave out the "User:" prefix.
Make your case. Now write up your evidence in the "Evidence" section. This should describe why you believe there's puppetry occurring, however obvious it might be. If this is not the first time the user is suspected, links to other cases you know about should be provided as well. The evidence should point to one or more instances of illegitimate use of the puppet account. Include the diffs to support your statements. Sign and timestamp your case with ~~~~ on the line below "Report submission by"; preview your report for any problems; and, when you're satisfied, save it.
To start a case report about suspected sockpuppetry:
Cases are created on subpages of Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. To do so, add the username of the puppetmaster (the main account, not the sockpuppet!) -- and the number of the case, "(2nd)", "(3rd)", etc., if there were previous cases on that username -- into the box below. Leave out the "User:" prefix. Replace only the word PUPPETMASTER, leaving the rest as is.
Example: if there were already two cases about User:John Doe, the new case would be titled: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/John Doe (3rd)
Then click "Start a case". You will be taken to a page where you can fill out the report. After you've saved the report, come back to see the remaining instructions below this box.
List your case for review in the WP:SSP open cases section here. Add the line {{Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/PUPPETMASTER}} (or PUPPETMASTER (2nd) or PUPPETMASTER (3rd), etc.) at the top of the list, just below the section header. (Again, remember to replace PUPPETMASTER with the actual account name, without the "User:" prefix.) Save your edit. Check to see that your report shows up at the top of the list, just below the "Open cases" header. If there's only a red link, check that the spelling of the username and the number match the filename you created.
Notify the suspected users. Edit the user talk pages (not the user pages) of the suspected sockpuppeteer and sock puppets to add the text {{subst:uw-socksuspect|1=PUPPETMASTER}}~~~~ at the bottom of the talk page. If this is not the first time the user is suspected, the most recent evidence page should be specified by adding "(2nd)" or "(3rd)", etc., after the user's name: {{subst:uw-socksuspect|1=PUPPETMASTER (2nd)}}~~~~ or similar.
Consequences. If the evidence shows a case of clear abuse, with no serious doubt, an administrator may block any sockpuppets, and take further action against the puppetmaster. In less severe cases, administrators may quietly monitor the account's activities.
Checking further. In some cases, where there is significant abuse and yet puppetry is not certain, it might be appropriate to use technical means to detect puppetry. See Requests for checkuser (WP:RFCU) for details.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
Phoebe-SM changed names of Hollyoaks characters, adding fictitious middle names (and was temporarily blocked for doing it) - Emmahollyoaks has just gone and done the same thing, with exactly the same names.
Pages for comparison: (Phoebe-SM edits first, Emmahollyoaks edits after)
Apologies - I got them the wrong way round then wasn't sure whether I should / could alter it to be the correct way around. ~~ [Jam][talk] 09:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I've gotten stuff backwards myself. — BQZip01 —talk 03:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with submitter's comments. — BQZip01 —talk 03:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
Sock indef'd, 1 week on Phoebe-SM and final warning. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
Agree Given the references and the similarities in styles (vandalism of possibly rival schools and use of similar words), Cyclopticbob should be indef blocked as a sock of Morganenos. — BQZip01 —talk 00:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with additional IPs as the same user with the same style of disruption. — BQZip01 —talk 06:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
Inconclusive. Lots of school articles get vandalized by rival schools. Not enough here to prove same person. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
Likewise, in trying to continually push for recreation of the twice deleted Digital Press page, he has identified himself via
the Digital Press forums:
Disagree First of all, there doesn't seem to be a crystal-clear connection between the IP and the user Stonic. Discussion on a talk page are highly appropriate for such an item. While the desire of such a user to add material to Wikipedia is certainly valid, his use of a different account doesn't meet the criteria of a sockpuppet (Please note that all users are explicitly allowed to start over). He has not spammed links, but only one link; such a categorization is misleading. The provided web-based link does not link to a page the general populous has access to or has been deleted from the website. Combined with the lack of diffs or other clear evidence I do not see a violation of WP:SOCK at this time. Please feel free to add more information if you have it (see other nominations for examples). — BQZip01 —talk 00:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clean start only applies if they do not repeat past disruption. If they come back and repeat spamming they were warned not to do before, they do not get a clean start. They can be blocked as a scrutiny-avoiding sock puppet. JehochmanTalk 05:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Concur, but at the time this was not very clear. It has certainly become more apparent. — BQZip01 —talk 05:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A) The link he added was the exact reason he was blocked indefinitely the last time - he was spamming links to that site. What's the very first thing he does creating the new account? Adds another link to that site. That's hardly misleading. B) As far as what's on the page, I'm including a copy of the post here (the website forum is free and open to the general populace, you just have to register, there is no fee). The first is where he identifies himself as the same previously blocked person:
01-23-2008, 11:00 AM
stonic
This morning I noticed the Wiki page for DP was removed. The page was originally created back in 2005. I can't imagine why it would
have been removed, so I attempted to recreate it, and it was *immediately* removed again! Why? Read on....
Wiki comments in read; DP in blue
(proceeds to copy argument from his wiki talk page)
Clearly, Wiki has changed its policy regarding how pages are created because proving 'notability' was never required before. And I
still don't know why it was removed to begin with. If anyone wants to take up the torch here, feel free. I'd had my fill of blimeys
for one morning.
Then there's this post where he states his intent to keep the pattern of adding those links here:
Yesterday, 08:05 AM
stonic
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebagram View Post
The irony of course is the amount of times wikipedia uses DP for references.
And now he just did it under yet another account, Special:Contributions/Rockgardenmagic. Spamming more Digital Press easter egg links, vandalizing AtariAge related links, atariprotos.com links, and other content. It should also be noted that he (Stonic) runs that easter egg link he keeps spamming. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 06:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree I think these latest edits prove a pattern of disruption. Any users that perpetuate this disruption (whether intentional or unintentional) should share the fate of the primary user. Indef blocks all around... — BQZip01 —talk 05:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
Please contact Wikiproject Spam and ask them whether the domain that is being spammed can be blacklisted. This will end the sock puppetry by depriving the motive. JehochmanTalk 05:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not convinced of the IP, but did tag him. Indef blocks on all named accounts. Notified spam project. The master is Stonic, not Tube bar. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
Account involved in vandalism/edit war on Jim Abbott with the same edit, (One of the best biographical accounts of Jim Abbott is "Current Biography" (1995 edition).), and is now doing blind reverts to preserve that edit, resulting in loss of maintenance tags and copyedits. Not really sure exactly why the user is using sockpuppets, but guessing it's to circumvent bans based on 3RR and vandalism?
Agree I took quite a bit of time reviewing this since its inclusion. I was hesitant to add English sentry to the list, but his edit to 2000 and use of the "minor edit" button to hide major edits leads me to believe this person is one in the same. This user has demonstrated use of sockpuppets to avoid 3RR, violate NPOV, make misleading reversions (like using the "minor edit" button to attempt to hide major reversions), etc. This lengthy and demonstrated abuse of editing privileges should be enforced accordingly. Given the flagrant abuse of such privileges and two previous blocks, I recommend and indef block on all socks and a one week block on the puppetmaster (this can certainly go up if the user has had other blocks of which we are not currently aware). As usual, these socks and the master account should be labeled accordingly. — BQZip01 —talk 00:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
Master previously blocked and used 4 socks to avoid suspicicion. All blocked indef. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now ID'd as Ron liebman socks, retagged these. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
Agree with submitter. Seven contributions all to an AfD? That usually isn't where people start and the pattern of edits seems to fit a sockpuppet's general description to a T. Given that this is not a deciding vote (deletion for these articles seem pretty one-sided) I would not suggest submittal to WP:RFCU to back it up. Indef block & label the sockpuppet + block puppetmaster for 24 hours (1st offense). Recommend giving 1-2 days for user to respond. I'm willing to listen to a reasonable explanation (can't think of one, but I'll give someone the chance). — BQZip01 —talk 03:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree and Disagree I agree that the vote will not change the results of the AFD, which isn't a vote, but a discussion. Blocking the accused sockpuppeteer based on inexact evidence is potentially bitey. What the new editor with only 2 AFD's may learn is that the addition of a vote in an AFD discussion is insufficient to change the AFD results. I'll talk with the accused sock. Archtransit (talk) 22:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sock's edit pattern is not the standard one of a new account and the master's 6th edit was to an AFD. These are not the standard new user profile. Sock blocked indef and master 24 hours. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
Agree with submitter in general. These diffs make it clear that, even if these are not sockpuppets of the master account (appears to be Lunasblade(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·page moves·block user·block log)), they are perpetuating the disruptive edits and deserve to share the same fate. Recommend indef blocks of all users and IPs listed at the top, 1 week block for Lunasblade (for multiple violations of WP:3rr, WP:SOCK, etc.). — BQZip01 —talk 03:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to add this user. Only one edit so far, which is the same edit as Kyleain's. GSlicer (t • c) 02:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a confusing situation. I prefer to request checkuser before making a determination. Doing that now... JehochmanTalk 17:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]