Possible new norm for sock tagging
Though not formalized through policy, it is standard procedure to replace the entire user page contents of a blocked sockpuppet or sockmaster with the relevant tagging per WP:SOCKTAG. Simultaneously, we generally oppose any unnecessary modification of blocked users' user spaces through the similarly not-policy against gravedancing. I think that the current Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Administrators instructions might stand at odds with the norms established for other types of blocked editors. Please don't take this as me wanting to offer any sort of quarter to socks; quite the contrary, I think it will assist in rooting them out. User pages are often helpful in diagnosing potential socks and having them not completely barren bar the sock template might be useful for making faster assessments. I don't endorse retroactively unblanking old sock user pages, but think that we might benefit from not performing such blanking going forward. If anything, I'd like for this to be more of a voluntary cultural shift rather than a prescribed one. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:24, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
- The tags can be useful to find recent comparisons. Once someone hits LTA status we typically don’t tag per DENY unless it’s useful for maintaining a record of who someone was. If someone wants to look at the user page, it’s available in the history. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:33, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
- WP:GRAVEDANCING#What isn't gravedancing includes "Going through and undoing the edits of a user who was determined to have been a ban-evading sockpuppet at the time when the edits were made, per WP:BLOCKEVADE." Largoplazo (talk) 06:43, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
- I think about this in a different way, making sock-related information readily accessible to machines/applications (and people). If there is to be a cultural shift, I think it should be in the opposite direction, making the tagging mandatory unless there is a very good reason not to do it, and I'm not sure such a reason exists. Tagging adds important information by placing the account in a category while the user page is preserved and easily accessible in the revision history. The tagging and the categorization could be decoupled, but either way, I think categorization of socks should be mandatory. While incomplete and probably inaccurate to some extent, the sock related part of the category graph is the probably the most effective and efficient way we have to group and structure the sock population so that the relationship between accounts is readily accessible. I remember one project at Stanford for example (rather optimistically) relied entirely on the sock category graph. There is sock related information in other places like logs, SPI etc. but it is harder to reliably and efficiently extract relationships between sockmasters and their socks. If there is to be a cultural shift, I think the shift should be towards recognizing the significant impact of effectively unsanctionable people employing deception via sockpuppetry in Wikipedia and doing things that make it easier to identify and report them. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:14, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
- There seems to be some confusion over what I'm proposing: you can add a tag without blanking a page. Additionally, while checking the revision history is fine, it's slower to tab through and a bit more involved to link. Furthermore, it isn't consistent without practices. Sure, there's a carve-out in the essay GRAVEDIGGING, but it's inconsistent: why should LTAs be privileged without blanking or tagging? I'm encouraging tagging while also not blanking. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:29, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
Connecting temporary accounts to blocked accounts
Now that Wikipedia is utilizing temporary accounts instead of IPs, are we able to include them on SPI reports and are checkusers able publicly make the connections? McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 16:43, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- Checkusers cannot tie temporary accounts to permanent accounts based on checkuser evidence. For example, I cannot say "based on WP:CHECKUSER evidence, temporary account ~2026-xx-xxxx is
Confirmed to permanent account IAmAnLTA.". Of course, no such restriction applies to behavioural matches. Sometimes it's blatantly obvious that ~2026-xx-xxxx is actually IAmAnLTA and there's nothing stopping me, a checkuser, from saying so provided I'm not basing the match on technical evidence. --Yamla (talk) 16:55, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- Ahh I see it in the WP:CHECKUSER, I didn't realize there were others that had permissions to see IPs and not have to agree to the same NDA (so to speak). Thank you for answering. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 17:00, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- @Mcmatter: WP:TAIVDISCLOSE has additional info if you're interested.-- Ponyobons mots 17:14, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- Ahh I see it in the WP:CHECKUSER, I didn't realize there were others that had permissions to see IPs and not have to agree to the same NDA (so to speak). Thank you for answering. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 17:00, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
How
How do I open an investigation for User:MaastrichtRunner? A new account, edits only one article so far, all today, under ten edits, and discusses wp policy in edit summary as though the editor has earlier experience. ~2026-24112-43 (talk) 20:32, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
- This is explained at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. Note that you need to have a specific master account in mind. --Yamla (talk) 20:37, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
- This happens to have been discussed just last month. See /Archive_26#Unusual awareness of the project's work from new accounts. Bottom line: that alone doesn't justify an investigation. Largoplazo (talk) 20:50, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
- hi! Sorry. I've made on-off edits without registering for a while and decided to register today because I'm interested in NY-12, where I live. MaastrichtRunner (talk) 21:36, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
- Welcome (belatedly) to Wikipedia! In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 22:55, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
- hi! Sorry. I've made on-off edits without registering for a while and decided to register today because I'm interested in NY-12, where I live. MaastrichtRunner (talk) 21:36, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
Request
Can someone file the below SPI case -
Thesazh and Srikrishna99 both accounts were created in the same month July 2023 and Riya Kodali was created by Srikrishna99, but User:Thesazh claims on his user page that he created the article.
Harika2004 created Draft:Diamond Dacoit and submitted for AFC on June 16. Later, On June 18th, he himself moved it to mainspace skipping AFC.
Srikrishna99's last edit was on 23 November 2025. After 7 months (19 June 2026) his first contribution was creating Diamond Dacoit. Both Harika2004 & Srikrishna99 both creations looks similar. Thesazh is the oldest account. ~2026-36704-73 (talk) 16:57, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thesazh. It might help if you could provide more specific diffs. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:45, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
- It would be great if you could help with the diffs, if you have some time.
- Thankyou ~2026-36704-73 (talk) 19:55, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks to @Jeraxmoira, Thesazh is blocked for Undisclosed paid editing, He stated here that he "works in Telugu Cinema". Also Srikrishna99 stated in his userpage that he is "Film Critic and Journalist in Telugu Cinema".
- -- Im trying to add the above info, but i'm getting error. can someone add this in the comments please. ~2026-36704-73 (talk) 20:19, 24 June 2026 (UTC)