Informing suspected socks

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

Reporting socks manually or via Twinkle

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

Requesting CU

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

​—DoRD (talk)​

I've been talking with Okeyes (WMF)/Ironholds about this, having parts of the Wiki on a black list where the Echo notification system will not work. I mention this specifically because of SPI, where notification is often a problem. I'm assuming that it will get implemented and we will be back to non-notification in the future. I will address the other points, which are good ideas. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 14:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding (which could be flawed) is that the system sends a notification if it sees a linked name AND a signature in a single post. I would have to test, maybe with my own name, using TW and the manual interface at SPI to know more. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 00:10, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I also like WP:SPIT, for Sock Puppet Investigations Tutorial ;-) I think we could overpower the current "owner" of that one and steal it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 17:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

  Understood. Thanks for the explanation! Do you have to be so darned reasonable all the time? ;P Cheers, Dennis! Doc talk 02:39, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I save all my unreasonable thoughts for the wife ;-) Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 12:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

• I think I added that properly. You should feel free to edit here. The goal is to put this in WP: space, it isn't really "my" page. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 10:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I'm just lazy. --Rschen7754 10:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]