User talk:Elvey/169.230.155.123

wmflabs.org tools

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I'd like to understand why the wmflabs.org tools are giving the errors I noted. Can anyone confirm or understand (or investigate or fix the cause of) erroneous tools.wmflabs.org data? --Elvey^(t•c) 20:34, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those tools are maintained by User:Σ and User:Betacommand, respectively. The latter likely will be somewhat difficult to contact, but Σ was active earlier this month and will be best able to answer questions about that tool. You can contact them at User talk:Σ. Huon (talk) 22:24, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they'll notice the pings. --Elvey^(t•c) 00:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging User:Σ and User:Betacommand again. --Elvey^(t•c) 13:16, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What errors where?

@Σ: See the user subpage to this talk page: The editor interaction utility doesn't seem to work properly when one (or more) of the editors is an IP editor. Huon (talk) 02:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See User_talk:Σ/Archive/2015/December#erroneous_tools.wmflabs.org_data for details. →Σ σ ς. (Sigma) 05:54, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request action by an admin.

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

These are socks; evidence posted at User:Elvey/169.230.155.123.

1)To be placed at https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:73.162.132.47&action=submit :

{{sockpuppet|169.230.155.123|proven}}

2)To be placed at https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:169.230.155.123&action=submit :

{{IPsock|73.162.132.47|confirmed}}

3)To be placed at https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:169.230.155.132&action=submit :

{{IPsock|73.162.132.47}}

Firstly, branching off your private copy of WP:SPI is not a good idea. Rather, if you want to point out more suspected socks of an archived sockmaster, you should follow the instructions in the "How to open an investigation" and launch a new SPI.(="If A, then B.")

Secondly, these IPs are all stale and have not edited in ten days or so. Blocking them would serve no purpose. Huon (talk) 17:25, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason not to branch; I'm being prevented from keeping and threatened (by a blatantly unCIVIL admin) for placing additional relevant info on the SPI page. I've identified more socks, but if I open a new SPI, I expect I'll get grief because they haven't edited recently, so I don't see why I should do that; please clarify. Anyway, you act as if I asked for an admin to block them. I didn't. I asked for an admin to place those templates. Why not tag User talk:73.162.132.47, exactly? It's made hundreds of edits. --Elvey^(t•c) 05:57, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I said immediagely above, you should not un-archive the old discussion but follow the instructions in the "How to open an investigation" and launch a new SPI.(="Don't C; Do B.") There's a reason we have a centralized place for sockpuppetry discussions; that's much more useful for keeping track of them than opening them in user sub-pages all over the wiki. That said, the entire point of a sockpuppetry investigation is to get something done - usually, to stop the sockpuppetry from editing Wikipedia. Merely tagging inactive IPs - which likely will be reassigned and used by someone else the next time - doesn't seem to serve any purpose. Huon (talk) 00:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As to a reason to tag "inactive" IPs (a vague concept indeed!), here's one: It would be easier to ID if this is the same guy. It would be useful if the SPI page or its archive at least had one-click-away links one could use to check if any of the IPs, IP ranges or accounts had been used recently, no? They don't in this case, but they normally do. This user is getting special treatment by fellow whitewash advocates. :-( Even the VERY RECENTLY ACTIVE CONFIRMED sock Formerly 98 (see deleted contribs) hasn't been blocked. --Elvey^(t•c) 16:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Wow, really, you think you said that? I don't see that. I see you claiming that "If A, then B." = "Don't C; Do B." It's not. But it doesn't really matter. I don't dispute those points.)

What is policy is this: Editors who are not logged in must not actively try to deceive other editors, such as by directly saying that they do not have an account or by using the session for the inappropriate uses of alternate accounts listed earlier in this policy. This user has repeatedly failed to honor that policy. Why not tag the user's other named accounts, exactly?--Elvey^(t•c) 03:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, WT??? This is no not in line with policy!!!--Elvey^(t•c) 03:59, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]