User talk:GregJackP/Archive 8

If you have a moment could you look at another picture on

Sorry. I looked at it, but really can't tell if it were Arab Legion 25 pounders or not. GregJackP Boomer! 18:55, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

If you have a moment could you look at another picture on

Hi, GJP. I have been reading the new article (congrats!) as time permits. Being a newer Wikipedia editor, question: Where do I post comments? Here? On the article's talk page? Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 22:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it's an old article. I created it in August 2010, it is just now appearing on the main page though. The best place to post comments is on the article talk page. Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 23:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all your work regarding this sockpuppet labeling contray to the WP:HSOCK policy! I have removed a few more of the IPs from the BullRangifer hitlist that have never had blocks and editted totally unrelated fields of articles. As I have attempted to bring forth previously, this basket is too big and used for lumping editors into a bad apple bunch for the kill. After reviewing the list more thoroughly I have found (again) that

• KBlott and a few IPs are clearly sockpuppets, since he/she was blocked and the IPs cleaned KBlott page dirt, at the right timing.
• Beatles and music article editors may or may not be IP hoppers or sockpuppets. (haven't researched any of that yet) but have absolutely no association with the KBlott bunch.
• Some IPs have editted Alternative Health type articles (like me) but do not have the mainstream medical technical knowledge level demonstrated by KBlott.

I am not sure any of this actually matters right now but I do see some violations of policy in a few editors. Interesting that none of the admins will get involved with enforcement. 174.118.141.197 (talk) 12:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I was attempting to remove some of the IPs on the BR hitlist, so discussed, and removing the banners from their user pages. I have avoided any of the ones stated as "Beatles", as I hadn't researched any of them, yet. Freshacconci came along and reverted hours of work, came to my talk page, made many interrogative accusations about me being a sockpuppet and attempted to warn me off giving links to some policy "Wiki Policies don't need to be followed if you don't feel like it???" or something. He made mention of the sockpuppet thing and used the WP:DUCK (I can't find anything else to use) mention without any real evidence, AFAIK. I guess I won't be here much longer. IPs must just must give these people nightmares, I guess. Well I got in about 10-12 edits this time. Thanks. Good luck. 174.118.141.197 (talk) 23:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

There are strong indications that these are IP socks which have been targeting K-pop articles. I am willing to open an SPI for them to determine the validity of the tags. But please do not mass revert them until this is determined by the SPI investigation. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

If there is evidence, then it needs to be presented.

WP:HSOCK clearly states that "Only blocked accounts should be tagged as Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets and only upon sufficient evidence that would stand up to scrutiny." The IPs that I have removed the tags from have neither been blocked, nor have they been involved in an SPI, nor has any evidence been presented to show that they have been involved in sockpuppetry. If you want me to hold off for a reasonable time to allow you to present your evidence to an SPI, I will, but the wholesale tagging of IPs without evidence is not appropriate. You need to let me know if that is your intent. Regards, GregJackP Boomer!

01:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I tagged them per strong

WP:DUCK. These IPs have been plaguing K-pop articles for a long time and need to be tagged. If I need to open an investigation I will, but these IPs don't have a named account to go along, so this is going to be an IP-only SPI, which is rather unusual, but if I have to do it I will. I have asked the opinion of Drmies who is also working on K-pop articles. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις}

01:47, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I saw that and replied there. I'm not trying to set things back, but if there is nothing at all listed anywhere, it's hard to justify the tags. At ANI an editor had massive hitlist based on "secret" evidence, and was threatening IP editors based on mistaken beliefs about policy. I'm just trying to clean up after that, but don't want to create problems for you. GregJackP Boomer! 01:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Greg. I never wanted to imply that you would set things back and never doubted your good faith, so my apologies if it came across that way. After all you have justified your actions and quoted the applicable policy. It goes without saying that I fully respect your position. I just want to know what is the best way forward other than to have to open multiple SPIs about IPs, but if need be I will proceed. I have asked a few admins I know are knowledgeable in this area, including Drmies and Bbb23. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:06, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I never thought that you were taking a pot-shot at me, so no problem there. Hopefully there's a way to address the IP socks without having to do a separate SPI for each - I understand what a pain that would be. My main issue has been the misuse of the process by the one editor at [WP:AN]] (not ANI, my mistake earlier). He was basically threatening IP users if their ISP used dynamic IPs, and appears to have run a couple of editors off. In any event, I won't touch any more of yours until we come to some sort of resolution on it. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 02:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Without having looked at my own talk page yet, I can say that I see only limited use for tagging IPs as socks. In some cases that can be useful, with long-term vandals who are known also by their physical location, but in all likelihood there's as much meating as there is socking in the K-pop business. Tagging them may help as an indicator of how prolific they are, but I think at this point that doesn't need much proof anymore. My two cents. Drmies (talk) 02:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Drmies. I can see your point. Your advice, coupled with the fact that Greg's approach is correct and policy compliant, and given that I am rather tired from this field, strongly indicate to me that I may have to let this go. I'll wait for Bbb23's advice and then I'll just let Greg know to go ahead and delete the tags. Thank you very much for the courtesy Greg. I really appreciate it. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Can you please hold off until the discussion is settled? I am in great distress as someone fighting random, slow, long term IP vandalism. The sock tag is the only thing I can justify giving someone a 4IM warning and accumulate evidence to ask for blocks on second offense. It seems to me that the policy of the sock tag should be changed instead of just following it. Or if you can advice me another way to fight vandals without frequently spending massive amount of time (which I don't have) writing up cases? HkCaGu (talk) 13:46, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't mind holding off, but there has to be some sort of evidence of socking to tag as a sock. The policy actually states that they have to have been blocked in order to tag them as a suspected sock. You can't tag them as a sock in order to sidestep the warning process, not unless they have actually socked and you can prove it. Part of the problem is that the sock tag is being misused. There is a discussion at AN and several other places (VPP, HSOCK, etc) on this right now. GregJackP Boomer! 13:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

But in most instances I encounter (massive and rapid airport vandalism), the sock tag IS the evidence (by cross-referencing edits and grouping IPs into sockmasters who are themselves IPs). How else would I identify the need and justify a 4IM? IP vandals who had earned blocks before (whether current or expired, as they will not return to the same IP) should be able to earn an immediate block without me spending massive amount of time writing cases or seeking a group of administrators' understanding. HkCaGu (talk) 14:15, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

No, a sock tag is not evidence: it is a tool, like a note in a notebook. (And Greg is correct: this is not the proper use of a tag.) But the better way to do this is to collect a list of IPs in user space and then build a case. Still, you can focus on the IPs all you want (this concerns unverified changes to airport articles?) but you won't get very far; the better way to go is to make a list of affected articles and ask for long-term semi-protection. Otherwise you will keep doing this until you (or your counterpart) dies. Make a list, and present it to a friendly admin or maybe at AN. Drmies (talk) 14:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

If the edits are not destructive to an article (I realize that is opinion, usually), why bother spending al the effort and time to track these IP editors?. Some of these obsessive people are just sock hunters for the sport of it, similar to a person hunting animals, just for the self-accomplishment and macho boost. That needs to be recognized and differentiated the same as IP editing and IP hopping need to be. When we are dealing with policy violations, of this nature, just for sport, it hurts the Wikipedia project by shunning potential contributors. 174.118.141.197 (talk) 14:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Note that I said "unverified changes"--I looked at half a dozen IPs and half a dozen edits. I'm not going to call it vandalism since I don't know whether it is or not. Whoever is thinking of protecting those articles should make the decision if such serious matters are worth it, if the edits are of such concern that locking articles is to the benefit of the project. So one thing that our airport sock hunter would have to do is build a case that this is in fact disruption.(I can argue that case for the K-pop articles since I know that subject matter a bit.) If that case cannot be made then it was a vain exercise to begin with, yes. Don't discredit the investment editors make until you know whether it's energy well spent, though I agree that some editors are invested far too much in things that don't matter so much. (I'm not talking about anyone in this current investigation, just to make that clear). Drmies (talk) 14:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

OK. My comments were apparently more general than the conversation here. That investigation would be interesting but right now I don't have the time. I already spent too much on defending my position to care about editing and quickly diminishing. I did state "some" and meant "not all" even though it may seem that way, as an IP editor sometimes. I also do not know what K-pop or anything about this airplane sock investigation so I should maybe just stay out, here. Thanks. 174.118.141.197 (talk) 17:15, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Raymond W. Godwin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Native American (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:03, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Your gross failures to exercise due diligence are going to end up damaging your reputation. You're seriously flunking "Sock Hunting 101" and "Dynamics of Edit Warring 101." You should know what "You (using many IPs) are guilty of violating 3RR by using multiple accounts" means. To assume bad faith against me is pretty sad. I did my extremely easy research and left proper warnings.

I should not have to explain this to you, but multiple IPs from the same place making the same disputed edits against multiple experienced editors in an edit war are all considered ONE person, and thus each edit made by the IPs counts as edits from that same person. Thus one person quickly violates 3rr. The warning was proper and your assumptions of bad faith are just that. This is very sad. This particular Bezeq International editor has a long history here, and it's often disruptive. I suspect your hatred of me will prevent you from ever apologizing. --

I'm not too worried about your opinions on "due diligence" on "sock hunting." First, there is no support in policy for your actions towards IP editors.

1. Use of a dynamic IP does not "automatically" put an editor in violation of the socking policy.
2. Use of "secret" evidence has been repeatedly repudiated on Wikipedia.
3. The abuse of sockpuppet accusations in relationship to certain contentious areas has been well documented.
4. Typically the accuser brings up the false accusation without the accused sock having met the requirements of socking.
5. False positives are prevalent in those false accusations.
6. This runs off editors, many of whom are productive, because they don't participate in the approved "groupthink."

Finally, this is being prepared for my use at RFC/U, if necessary, should you resume the bullying and harassment of IP editors. I have no hatred of you, but after noting that you don't think you have done anything wrong, I doubt that you will abide by your agreement to stop the harassment. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 11:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I will stand by my agreement. --

talk

) 15:40, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I have found one (or more) listed and flagged IP editors that have no edits or history but are also from a similar IP address range meaning they would be licensed by Rogers Cable in the same geographical area (Collingwood). It would seem these IP editors have been flagged in case of future usage and the only criteria used was ISP and geographic location. Is that prejudice based on imagination ("secret tells") or am I missing something? 174.118.141.197 (talk) 13:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know why I didn't remember this, because I know it well. There is a situation where an editor, IP or not, can have an empty contribution history. If their edits were on an article or talk page which has been deleted through an AfD, those edits disappear from their history. That can eliminate all trace of what they have done, and if it was disruptive, also be the "missing" explanation for their block. If they have also participated in the AfD, those comments will still appear and give a strong clue as to what they were up to. This may well be what you've encountered. Does that make sense?
Since these people may well have used several IPs, their disruption may have occurred mostly with one or more IPs, while the other IPs were still very clearly the same person, and thus they got tied together in the same category. I know that has happened quite often. Admins will block all the IPs on that basis alone. They are all considered disruptive socks. It is the person who is getting blocked. Since IPs are only blocked for a short time, this has little consequence, and since they may be editing from dynamic IPs (IOW not consciously changing IPs, and not knowing when it happens), they may not even know what has happened at their old IP user pages. No communication or warnings are reaching them. In such cases they may continue their disruption and edit warring, and then admins resort to range blocks. Occasionally this blocks their registered account(s) and blows their cover. --

talk

) 02:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Or it could be that you flagged them since they were editing from a dynamic IP, and thus, in your mind (but no one else's) automatically operating a "sock farm." The problem with that argument is that there is nothing in the block log for the IP, and no SPI for it. Oops. Policy states that you can't tag it without the account or IP having been blocked, and AfDs don't cause blocks to go away. GregJackP Boomer! 02:13, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

No secret tells, which BTW, only applied in certain situations, but many times. To illustrate, when someone with only three fingers on one hand and two on the other keeps waving at you from different windows in the same apartment, you can safely assume it's the same person. That's about how plain and obvious this particular "tell" was, and they did make the same types of edits in edit wars on the same articles, in opposition to numerous experienced editors. We do keep track of disruptive editors who have been blocked. They return, but often give away their true identity. When one with such an obvious tell then lies about not being the same person, I have been sadly amused at how blind they were to how easily identifiable they were.

We even had an Indian homeopath from the Karnataka region who kept returning with various IPs and registered accounts. They would all be blocked for flagrant sockpuppetry (by ANY definition). He would lie again and again that the disruptive edits were not made by him, and he'd get caught every time because he was so ignorant of how experienced sock hunters can recognize block evading editors. Needless to say he was blocked indefinitely.

So, getting back to those IPs with no contribution history, you'll have to ask the blocking admins, because I too have discovered blocked IPs with no edit history, and I could only discover them because an admin had blocked them. I've seen this many times. Only a few times have I tagged them so they'd show up on my watchlist when they actually did begin to edit. Admins are able to access information I can't, so ask them. I have no way of discovering an editor who has not edited or created an account.

Even with GregJackP's strict interpretation of an internally inconsistent and confusingly worded policy that goes against the way Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets has ALWAYS been used, including its obviously intended purpose (for "suspects"), my tagging them is okay because they were blocked IPs.

GregJackP, why haven't you addressed the problematic wording of the policy? Even you should be able to see that it makes no sense. That's why your campaign, using an edit summary based on YOUR interpretation of that policy, is rather disconcerting and ruins your credibility. What do you think of that wording? I have previously asked you to respond to that question, but you haven't. --

talk

) 15:40, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I haven't addressed the wording of the policy because on its face, there is nothing wrong with the policy. To tag someone (either an IP or a registered account), it has to have been blocked and there has to be evidence to that effect. If you have a blocked IP or user with no edit history, due to deleted edits that only admins can see, then only admins should be tagging the account as a sock. The fact that you label the policy as "inconsistent" does not make it so, any more than the ludicrous contention that editing from a dynamic IP automatically put one in violation of the socking policy.

The other fact was is that you were labeling IPs as socks regardless of any blocks or misconduct. Where I have removed tags, there have been no SPIs, no blocks, and no evidence listed. If they had any of the three, I left the tag in place.

Also, a number of admins have agreed with my interpretation of the policy, most recently Drmies.

Finally, this is not a talkpage for discussing policy or my actions. If you have something to say, say it on my talkpage, not here. I'll delete this talkpage in the next several days. GregJackP Boomer! 15:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not discussing whether there is anything "wrong with the policy." Don't you see that the wording is inconsistent with the name of the category? Why does this category exist? We already have other categories for blocked socks. This wording needs to be fixed. That's the issue I'm interested in, not whether the policy is right or not. With the present wording we can't even be sure what it really means. Nonsense cannot be consistently interpreted one way or the other, except by only choosing the possibility one likes and ignoring other possibilities. That ambiguity needs to be eliminated, and I don't really care whether it ends one way or the other. You should be interested in clearing this up, because, with this wording, all your edit summaries are like ice skating on very thin ice. --

talk

) 05:45, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

The wording does not need to be fixed, and you need to

drop the stick. GregJackP Boomer!

15:27, 28 September 2013 (UTC)