ClueBot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 1 discussion to Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Archives/Archive15. (BOT) |
→Sju hav: Still not blocked |
||
Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
Why hasn't my CU request at [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sju hav]] from 28 September been handled when all other requests from before 4 October has been handled? Regards, [[User:Iselilja|Iselilja]] ([[User talk:Iselilja|talk]]) 18:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC) |
Why hasn't my CU request at [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sju hav]] from 28 September been handled when all other requests from before 4 October has been handled? Regards, [[User:Iselilja|Iselilja]] ([[User talk:Iselilja|talk]]) 18:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC) |
||
:There is no requirement that cases be handled in order. As a clerk I can speak from personal experience: we prefer to handle short and simple cases, and everything else is TL;DR. Now your case is not particularly verbose, so I'd just pin it down to bad luck. But I'll handle your case now. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]] [[User:King of Hearts|<font color="red">♥</font>]] [[User talk:King of Hearts|<font color="red">♦</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/King of Hearts|<font color="black">♣</font>]] ♠ 02:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC) |
:There is no requirement that cases be handled in order. As a clerk I can speak from personal experience: we prefer to handle short and simple cases, and everything else is TL;DR. Now your case is not particularly verbose, so I'd just pin it down to bad luck. But I'll handle your case now. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]] [[User:King of Hearts|<font color="red">♥</font>]] [[User talk:King of Hearts|<font color="red">♦</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/King of Hearts|<font color="black">♣</font>]] ♠ 02:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC) |
||
::Thanks for checking the request. Honestly though, I don't think this SPI board is working as good as I think it should. I reported Sju hav 28 September and 11 days after he is still happily editing; messing up articles, in particular the Peter Handke to which he now has made about 40 edits. (Handke's odds for winning Friday's Nobel Prize in literature is set to 12 to 1; so it's not a totally unimportant article). I understand many SPIs can be complicated and will naturally often take time. But with repeat offenders like Sju hav I don't think it's satisfactory to have to wait for weeks to see him blocked. With reasonably clear Ducks like Sju hav, I think the standard should be to have him blocked within a day, and preferably within an hour after he is reported. Is there a better way of handling this going forward, as I doubt the <strike>little scoundrel</strike> editor Sju hav has said his last words at Wikipeda? [[User:Iselilja|Iselilja]] ([[User talk:Iselilja|talk]]) 19:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
== Johngalea24 == |
== Johngalea24 == |
Revision as of 19:45, 8 October 2014
Inquiry
I recently communicated about possible sock with elockid but he seems to be busy with real life as he don't answer emails. He said its probably a duck but he wants second opinion he probably sent it to some of the CUs Did someone received the evidence?--Shrike (talk) 10:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
In progress I'll take care of this as I was already starting to look into the issue. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 16:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Procedural question
Is it worth filing a report if socks have already been blocked on other grounds (e.g. WP:CORPNAME)? I've never been entirely sure if I should be reporting blocked accounts as socks or not. --Drm310 (talk) 17:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- Good question. It comes down to whether or not you think that they may continue their behavior. If so, then recording the details can be useful and those who read the reports can be on the lookout in case they sock again.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 22:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC) - Even if the editor(s) is/are already blocked, if say it may be in Wikipedia's best interest to file the SPI in order to create a connection between the socks, in case more socking happens in the future. Having that information can help administrators in future cases. Steel1943 (talk) 23:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- Note that a user who is blocked for having a group username and subsequently creates another account may not be in violation of policy; creating a new account is one of the recommended ways to address the problem of an inappropriate username. It is only a problem if: 1) they had abused policy under the old name; or 2) they make multiple new accounts that violate WP:SOCK. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- But if it looks like a spambot, we lock dozens a day, and there's not much sense in keeping track of them. --Rschen7754 05:10, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
67 in one blow
This has got to be some sort of record, no?--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 23:08, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- -Whoa! Holy sockpuppets Batman! That is INSANE. Wgolf (talk) 23:10, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- And with that complete, I'm off to enjoy a Friday afternoon beverage.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 23:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- Ponyo, he's not known only as "Icehound2". You may as well designate who really is behind the socks. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 07:33, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- And with that complete, I'm off to enjoy a Friday afternoon beverage.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 23:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
SPI bot
It appears the SPI bot is down again. I've left a note for Amalthea.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 22:10, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- Mine is always up in my userspace. Feel free to just change it until Amalthea's is back. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 22:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- Can you update it? Yours appears to be from the 17th where Amalthea's was only out by a few hours.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 22:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
It's down again. The overview page was last updated on Sept. 29 (4-1/2 days ago). — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 04:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Sju hav
Why hasn't my CU request at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sju hav from 28 September been handled when all other requests from before 4 October has been handled? Regards, Iselilja (talk) 18:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- There is no requirement that cases be handled in order. As a clerk I can speak from personal experience: we prefer to handle short and simple cases, and everything else is TL;DR. Now your case is not particularly verbose, so I'd just pin it down to bad luck. But I'll handle your case now. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for checking the request. Honestly though, I don't think this SPI board is working as good as I think it should. I reported Sju hav 28 September and 11 days after he is still happily editing; messing up articles, in particular the Peter Handke to which he now has made about 40 edits. (Handke's odds for winning Friday's Nobel Prize in literature is set to 12 to 1; so it's not a totally unimportant article). I understand many SPIs can be complicated and will naturally often take time. But with repeat offenders like Sju hav I don't think it's satisfactory to have to wait for weeks to see him blocked. With reasonably clear Ducks like Sju hav, I think the standard should be to have him blocked within a day, and preferably within an hour after he is reported. Is there a better way of handling this going forward, as I doubt the
little scoundreleditor Sju hav has said his last words at Wikipeda? Iselilja (talk) 19:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for checking the request. Honestly though, I don't think this SPI board is working as good as I think it should. I reported Sju hav 28 September and 11 days after he is still happily editing; messing up articles, in particular the Peter Handke to which he now has made about 40 edits. (Handke's odds for winning Friday's Nobel Prize in literature is set to 12 to 1; so it's not a totally unimportant article). I understand many SPIs can be complicated and will naturally often take time. But with repeat offenders like Sju hav I don't think it's satisfactory to have to wait for weeks to see him blocked. With reasonably clear Ducks like Sju hav, I think the standard should be to have him blocked within a day, and preferably within an hour after he is reported. Is there a better way of handling this going forward, as I doubt the
Johngalea24
Wouldn't Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Johngalea24/Archive go under long term also? We keep on having these pages appear still and I have NO clue how many there are (I believe I've seen more not even connected to this) Wgolf (talk) 02:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- We don't move SPI's to long term abuse. However, it may be advisable to create a new LTA page for him. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- -Okay-which speaking of which I have put up a new report for him a few hours ago which oddly the page has yet to be deleted. (Which kept on getting the speedy deleted a few hours ago)-here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Johngalea24. Wgolf (talk) 03:15, 5 October 2014 (UTC)