Category talk:Sockpuppets of Lucifer2000
Tagging other Lucifer2000 sockpuppets
[edit]Hello @Elcobbola: sorry for the annoyance, as earlier I filed the declined Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Lucifer2000 SPI, but I tried to add Template:Sockpuppet to the other blocked accounts and I got an error about editing other users' pages. (Was able to do so in enwiki for some of the accounts and another regular editor already did that at eswiki) I already linked the category to en:Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Lucifer2000 and es:Categoría:Wikipedia:Títeres bloqueados de Lucifer2000 so that it will be easier for other editors in the future to spot this crosswiki sockpuppet activity as well and file the checkuser/SPI. I think it is important to have the growing collection here as this has been a situation for nearly a decade, but it is until now that it has been recollected and organized after the Meta glock. Could you or another administrator add the templates? Thanks! --Roqz (talk) 17:01, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Roqz, I don't know why you are not able to edit user pages; that may be a question for COM:VPT. I, however, do not consider assembling a collection to be a constructive use of time. Once a sock category contains a reasonable sampling of accounts sufficient for others to assess patterns, continuing additions well after discovery are subject to substantial diminishing returns and serve little useful purpose. In fact, such tagging can be seen by LTAs as a "trophy hunting" game (en.wiki, for example, commonly advises against tagging of new LTA accounts per w:WP:DENY) and takes volunteer time away from more meaningful activities. Although not a perfect analogy given the numbering, Category:Sockpuppets of Abdo Mitwally stopped populating at Abdo mitwally 88, and their latest is Abdomitwally 400. What would we truly gain by adding Abdo mitwally 207, Abdo mitwally 208, Abdo mitwally 209, Abdo mitwally 210, Abdo mitwally 211, etc.? You are certainly welcome to tag Lucifer2000 socks if you wish, but at this point it's really only busy work. Эlcobbola talk 15:22, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks Эlcobbola, I understand and agree that this is a waste of time, I was just hopefully thinking that doing so will made life easier for future editors even years from now. --Roqz (talk) 19:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)