|
Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets
|
Administrator instructions
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).
Reporting suspected sock puppets
view •
 |
Before creating a report at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets (WP:SSP), please be sure that:
- 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. 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.
Open cases
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
- Three Musketeers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- Kiano123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
~~ [ジャム][talk] 19:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Evidence
Almost identical username to indef blocked sock Kiano1234 (talk · contribs) and also this edit - 1 - arguing about Strictly results like the sock Kiano1234 did
- Comments
- Conclusions
- Suspected sock puppeteer
Weareallone (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · checkuser)
- Suspected sock puppets
- Report submission by
- Evidence
Following the indef block of User:Mmmovie, which was self-identified as an account of Mark Bellinghaus, an account which had been dormant for eight months, User:Weareallone, was reactivated. User:Weareallone removed sourced material from Mark Bellinghaus (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) and added unsourced material about Bellinghaus' rivals. The account was indef blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Mmmovie, for block evasion.
New user User:Mendocinocap reverted corrections that had been made to make the article agree with sources, and then removed a reference, removed a paragraph containing unflattering but sourced information, and added material about Bellinghaus rivals. New user User:TerpischoreMuse made a series of edits inserting new material about Bellinghaus and his business partners, again focusing on Bellinghaus' rivals.
Please see the earlier sockpuppetry case - this may be associated users working together. Please also note that following this rather poisonous and protracted ANI discussion, I am voluntarily refraining from editing Mark Bellinghaus (|talk|history|links|watch|logs), so none of the edits listed above have been reverted.
- Comments
- Conclusions
- Suspected sock puppeteer
Bolly Nickers (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · checkuser)
- Suspected sock puppets
- Report submission by
- Evidence
- Previous discussion was at [1]. I'm not even sure which one was the original account. I'll go with Bolly Nickers because it was one that was caught and banned. Over several weeks in April and May of this year, this individual's dozens of sockpuppets were caught and banned. A number of them had made threatening and harrassing statements to me and other users, and most of that abuse had to be removed by Wikipedia's oversight process. I don't have much specific evidence of the connection here, but these sockpuppets mostly edit articles related to license plates in the United States, often creating graphically manipulated images of historical license plates that never actually existed, then inserting them into articles in some elaborate campaign of misinformation against Wikipedia (why, I have no idea). Some of these socks that have not yet been banned include User:Battersea Bosco, User:Campbell Showing, User:Mr. License Plate, and User:Yuck Flu By Road for a comparison of their user contributions with these new sockpuppets. User:NJ Plates, specifically, added the same unsourced content as these most recent sockpuppets have been re-adding recently. I can try to be more specific if necessary, but, unfortunately, I'd venture that more of this puppetmaster's contributions have been oversighted than not. Qqqqqq (talk) 02:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Comments
- Conclusions
- Suspected sock puppeteer
Fraberj (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · checkuser)
- Suspected sock puppets
- Report submission by
- Evidence
SPA account editing two of the articles Charles Collins is so obsessed with. Special:Contributions/71.114.33.233
Please also semi-protect the articles
Ralph_Merkle
Robert_Freitas
- Comments
- Conclusions
- Suspected sock puppeteer
71.28.210.204 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · checkuser)
- Suspected sock puppets
- Report submission by
- Evidence
- Blanking of Jenkins, Kentucky by Dynamic IPs registered to Windstream, which provides telephone and internet service to the city. Diffs: 1, 2, 3, and 4. Last two diffs by same IP today.
- Comments
- Conclusions
- Suspected sock puppeteer
Highfructosecornsyrup (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · checkuser)
- Suspected sock puppets
See also accounts from the checkuser case cited below:
- Report submission by
- Cirt (talk) 21:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- Evidence
- Comments
-
Whoa, hey, Cirt? Highfructosecornsyrup turned out to be a sock of Wikipediatrix, who was duly chastised for it and had the sock indef-blocked. She apparently liked arguing with herself. But I seriously doubt she'd do it again. --GoodDamon 23:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Well, after further review of the editing history on all accounts, I'm very chagrined. This really does look like sockpuppetry; the editing styles are very, very similar. I'm striking my previous comments, and now support this running its course. I'm just shocked that the puppeteer, if there is one, would tip his/her hand by editing at the High-fructose corn syrup article. --GoodDamon 23:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I did edit in Dianetics recently. And got attacked for adding a reliable source by an editor who seems to fulfill the WP:SPA description (99% scientology edits). A little research and I ended up on the Shutterbug/ArbCom page. Cirt's reaction confirms what I said there. Shrampes (talk) 23:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- Note the edits to the article "High-fructose corn syrup", combined with the same POV and Scientology-focus as Highfructosecornsyrup (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 04:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
You are overdoing it, but I feel that there is nothing I can do to show you how wrong you are. Did the other editors get notified as well? Shrampes (talk) 23:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- Terryeo (talk · contribs) is already indef blocked. Wikipediatrix (talk · contribs) has been inactive for a while, but I posted a notification to the user's talk page. Cirt (talk) 02:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- "...inactive for a while"? Wikipediatrix last edit was just under a year ago, and had not previously edited for a few weeks. The only activity on her talkpage for the rest of the time, with one or two exceptions, is Cirt notifying her of AfD's and image removal regarding scientology related subjects. The other stale editors also stopped editing years ago. I see Shrampes has edited one cofs related subject (Dianistics) and also another - amongst many related subjects - that has a similarity to one of the suspected sockpuppet usernames... It appears to me that this fishing line is being stretched ever so thin to entangle one account that participated in a cofs related afd. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- I beg to differ. I think it highly implausible that another user that was also inactive and came back to editing after a while would share the same motivation on the Scientology-related articles, and also edit pages of the article "High-fructose corn syrup" (read: username of Highfructosecornsyrup (talk · contribs)), and be able to find the WP:AE page. Cirt (talk) 14:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Conclusions
- Suspected sock puppeteer
189.106.*.* (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · checkuser)
- Suspected sock puppets
