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]

• That makes sense - good advice as usual. Thanks for taking the time to have a look. I'll continue to be discriminating and use said templates sparingly. Cheers, Stalwart111 10:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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

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

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

If I think someone is a sock and I tell them that, and I'm wrong, I've pretty much destroyed any chance of further collaboration. If, on the other hand, I go through the CU process and find out I'm wrong, then I haven't burned down any bridges. That being said, I have confronted socks before as a way of preemptively shutting them down. That's a judgment call on my part, and it's not a decision I take lightly. When I'm at all unsure, discretion is by far the better path. Once a CU or admin has determined socking is likely, there really isn't anything the user can say or do to change the verdict: anything that could be said by an innocent user can be mouthed by a sockmaster. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 21:14, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Guuuuuuuulp! You want to be able to legitimately make accusations (possibly mistaken, even false) behind someone's back? You don't want them to be given the opportunity (some might say fundamental right) to stand up for themselves before they are (rightly or wrongly) blocked? To save your own face if you're wrong? To allow you to keep making allegations about the same person until, with the right administrator on duty perhaps, you get one to stick? No, your argument on that is deeply flawed. You have "confronted socks"? Were they suspected socks? Can you give us an example where that action "shut them down"? You seem content to "shut down" an innocent user ("there really isn't anything the user can say or do to change the verdict") rather than risk losing face if they challenge your mistaken allegation. Is that how it's supposed to work here? Knotweed (talk) 20:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why should time be wasted on pointless proposals? Please do some work on the encyclopedia rather than playing justice forum games. Johnuniq (talk) 00:30, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Second Johnuniq's sentiment. If you've been accused, or falsely so, confront that accusal directly. If you haven't, there's at least one article at Wikipedia which hasn't yet been promoted to featured status. Find that one, and get it there. --Jayron32 02:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Knotweed: Yes. Yes (no fundamental rights are at issue). Yes. Yes. Yes. Again, a distinction without a difference. Yes, but no need to. Yes. And yes. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 20:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The irony that the OP was CU blocked is not lost on me. If a "new user" with 30 edits complains about something as esoteric as SPI notification, I think it's pretty safe to just block them. Dennis - 2¢ 22:23, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• On the Project page, an editor has restored the recommendation for WP:TPO violations for AfD.

TPO violations are both improper and unnecessary for AfD.  It is improper advice to remove and hide comments and !votes from the middle of an AfD discussion, as this is a violation of the requirement "never change the meaning" of other editor's comments, which take place in the context of previous !votes.  If removal is really thought appropriate, it is necessary to leave a note that the text has been removed.

An exception is when there are no subsequent edits to the AfD, when removing the sock's edits do not affect subsequent edits.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:50, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The text that was removed was, "For AfDs, it is preferable not to remove the comment or !vote, unless there are no subsequent edits to the AfD."  Strikethrough font is preferred.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The scenario is that a sockpuppet returns to Wikipedia to sprinkle wisdom around the encyclopedia. Keeping their AfD comments will only encourage further abuse, and striking them exacerbates the problem by highlighting the attention-seeker. WP:DENY is a much better response. Johnuniq (talk) 03:51, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • When is the last time you struck a sock's edits on an AfD?  Or removed them?  For that matter, perhaps you can show some examples of your work with WP:DENY.

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

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

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

The fact that I'm specifying AfD is because that is where I know that there is a problem with the existing text.  If the other discussions are the same, then they have the same problem I am correcting, so can you work with me, instead of finding a problem that is fixable?  Unscintillating (talk) 00:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As always, I'm all ears, but the purpose of an essay isn't to change or redefine policy, it is to give guidance as to current practice and policy. I'm saying that it currently does that. If I'm mistaken and there is an improvement, perhaps discussing here first is best. Keep in mind, the goal of the essay isn't to be exhaustive or cover every situation, it is to be simple, easy to read and to give a relative novice an idea of how to handle problems. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:27, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would also mention that WP:TPO is a guideline, while WP:sock is a policy. Where there is disagreement, you generally refer to the instructions in the policy, not the guideline. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The policy I've been using for reference recently is WP:BLOCKEVASION, which is part of WP:Blocking policy.  Previously, I've used WP:Banning policy.  One of the problems at BLOCKEVASION is that it only uses the word "revert", and editors will say that strikethrough font is not a "revert".  But yes, I'm on board with policies, guidelines, then essays; except in this case, this essay could be used to update WP:TPG.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:49, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Striking through is tricky because it really is meant for when someone changes their mind, not to remove a !vote. Striking has always been controversial and my best guess is that there is no real hard consensus that striking sock votes is ok. Sometimes admin (even me) will strike a vote or whole discussions right after they block the sock, and that is considered acceptable because admin are accountable for the strike and the block equally, but removing is still better until it will cause confusing or remove worthwhile content in the replies. We could argue the nuances of policy all day, but the fact is, those details and exceptions don't belong in this essay. It isn't designed to change any policy and it will never be more than an educational essay designed to give editors a good, general understanding of how to deal with socks. The reason I created it was after seeing too many editors with a few thousands edits doing it wrong, so I wrote this so I could help educate them and stop problematic behavior like grave dancing and finger pointing. While it needs to be updated when policy changes, the scope and objective don't change. We don't talk about what to do at ANI or Arb because anyone reading this wouldn't be making those decisions, for example. K.I.S.S. principle. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:26, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Put shorter: This essay will never effect policy. This talk page isn't for discussing how policy should be. This talk page is for deciding what kind of advice we want to give users in the essay. That advice doesn't have to be complete, just useful and easy to understand. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I thanked Dennis Brown at 23:59, 4 December 2016 for his recent edit to the essay. Coincidentally, I also commented at WP:AN. The latter discussion shows that pursuing socks at closed AfDs does not have community support. I repeat my earlier comments about WP:DENY—making a fuss about socks is the worst possible response. Why should the community suffer the sock and suffer a campaign to tag socks when there is no reason to think that such tagging is helpful? Johnuniq (talk) 02:18, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]