Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppetry/Notes for the suspect

This page was nominated for deletion on 4 January 2008. The result of the discussion was Keep as rewritten.

Would someone kindly provide a better explanation of the process here? Specifically, what is "CheckUser"? At the very least, a link would help. Rklawton 15:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser Just follow the directions there. MartinDK 15:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Links to additional resources would be a plus here. Explanations of 'checkuser' and 'sock puppet', a recommendation to first ask the user if they have more than one account, and a caution not to be too conspiracy-minded would humanize this process. Also, the terms 'evidence' and 'accuser' make this page sound like a court of law. Thanks, GChriss <always listening><c> 16:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A change in wording to make it a bit more professional sounding and accurate seems in order. The text in question: "If you are here, that means somebody has placed a socksuspect on your user page because that user thinks you are a sock puppet. You can do the following". I got to this page by reading about sock puppetry in general. I would also make the change myself, but this seems like something an administrator should do considering this is more of a Wikipedia policy page. Anynobody 06:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took the huge leaping chance of adding the word "probably": "If you are here, that probably means somebody has placed a {{Socksuspect}} on your user page".... If I get indefblocked for my presumption, Anynobody, I hope that you, for one, will remember me kindly. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 10:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have already forwarded my comments. Please do not upset me with this unsupported accusation anymore. Read again the Web of Science page. You will find academic criteria for assessment of academic poduction and may find anybody's publication record.

Explanation request[edit]

I have just had occasion to report a suspected sock, and followed the link here to see what advice the suspect is given. I see that item III reads:

If the accuser hasn't requested CheckUser for ten days, you are allowed to remove the notice from your page.

but I'm not sure either what this means, or what it implies for me (the accuser.) Does the advice mean that the suspect can wait ten days from now, and if I have not made a CheckUser request by the end of that period they can remove the notice from their page? Or does it mean that if I have made no request during the preceding ten days they can remove the notice immediately? Furthermore, on looking at the CheckUser link above, it says:

Checkuser is a last resort for difficult cases. Use other methods first.

This seems to imply that a CheckUser request will not normally be made, while the advice to suspects in III above gives the impression that accusations without a CheckUser request can be disregarded. Should I therefore make a CheckUser request only in the rarest of cases, or as a matter of routine whenever I have to report a suspected sock?

Forgive me if the correct procedure is well known and obvious to experienced editors. I've never had to use it before, which is probably why I'm finding it confusing. On the other hand, if it has confused me it's likely to confuse others in the same situation so maybe the advice/procedure could be a little clearer? Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 13:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Policy?[edit]

Is this policy? —Ashley Y 01:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I put a policy tag on this. It's a sub-page of a policy page, and it talks like policy. Remove it and discuss here if I'm wrong. —Ashley Y 20:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"You are not allowed to remove the notice..."[edit]

A provision of this guideline states that if an SSP page with evidence has been properly created, the "suspect" is not allowed to remove the "suspected of sockpuppetry" notice from his or her userpage for ten days. This has long struck me as problematic given that a fair number of SSP reports are rejected as unfounded, and a not insignificant number are frivolous or harassing. The "guilty until proven innocent" aspect of requiring a user to keep a template on his or her userpage is troubling. Moreover, this instruction does not have any enforcement mechanism, although come to think of it, that is probably a good thing.

Does having a policy that purports to forbid users from removing these notices serve a sufficient useful purpose that would outweigh these negatives? Newyorkbrad 21:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm troubled by this too. —Ashley Y 22:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This should be removed from the policy. I tried to change the directions recently ([1])so that everything relating to tagging user pages was removed--instead, the suspected master and puppets should get a courtesy notification on their user talk pages--but I guess I missed something. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, looking at the guideline more carefully, I don't think any of it serves a useful purpose. If the current directions at WP:SSP are followed, the {{socksuspect}} template shouldn't be used at all, so this document is telling you when you can remove a notice that shouldn't be there anyway. We need to get rid of this, and replace it with something that's actually helpful. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with removing this. This template's only possible function is to have everyone who interacts with the user join in the discussion. Sockpuppet complaints are probably best dealt with by uninvolved editors; having all the suspect's friends and enemies start yelling at each other helps nothing. -Amarkov moo! 19:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion that I expressed here was universal to all sockpuppet tags. Needless to say, I think it should be removed. Daniel 06:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Through a variety of links, I ended up at this page. First, I am surprised to find Wikipedia:Sock puppetry/Notes for the suspect - an official policy - listed as a sub page. It needs to be moved. Second, why is this even a policy? It is just instructions with no enforcement provision. It should be de policied. Third. It does bother me when I see a "Suspected sock" notice on someone's page and it turns out that the SSP report had no basis. Determining whether someone is a sock means grinding through their contributions, not receiving opinions about the person from the suspect's friends and enemies. -- Jreferee t/c 22:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The guy who initially made this sub page in April 2006 last posted in December 2006. User:Ashley Y, who is not an admin, made the page an official policy (see above). There also is a subpage Wikipedia:Sock puppetry/Notes for the accuser. If anything, these two sub pages should be subpages of Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets, not Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Newyorkbrad, please move the sub pages to some place more appropriate and revise as needed. -- Jreferee t/c 22:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since there seems to be consensus that there are problems with this page, I strongly suggest one of you fix it. —Ashley Y 22:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not policy[edit]

I have removed the policy tag, as there is clearly not consensus for this. —Ashley Y 22:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revisions[edit]

I've edited the page to remove the problematic language identified above, in the event that the page survives the current MfD. Further edits and improvements by others would also be in order. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should I withdraw the MfD? I do not object as long as it adheres to the spirit of its current form. R. Baley (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be interested in the opinion of the administrators on Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets on whether they think the page is useful. You might leave a note on the talkpage over there. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

left a note link. R. Baley (talk) 04:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I sometimes look at cases on Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets. I think it's useful for the accused editors to have somewhere to turn for advice on how to respond to SSP cases. I note, though, that often it takes longer than 10 days for an admin to look at a case, so step III in the current version of the page isn't accurate. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you should feel free to fix it up. But I thought that was a reference to a request for WP:RfCU rather than to administrator response on the SSP page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User versus Talk page[edit]

Just something I have noticed, but the Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets page says to notify the user on their talk page and not their user page (number 5 under reporting suspected sock puppets: "Notify the suspected users. Edit the user talk pages (not the user pages)") while these notes for the suspect mention removing the notice "from your user page". I do not think another editor should be editing a user's page at this point in the case. Proctor spock (talk) 03:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re-worded somewhat. R. Baley (talk) 04:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The intro line under "How to respond to suspicion of sock puppetry:" still needs re-wording; otherwise, it looks good. Proctor spock (talk) 06:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]