Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations#Guidelines for patrolling admins (WP:SPI/AI) revisions

I have a question for the SPI community about the possibility of blanking a series of old IP userpages (not talk pages) that, in 2006 or so, were IPs used by some Sockpuppeters. These IPs all have been dormant for the past 15+ years and are no longer blocked. I was wondering if the template on these stating "this IP had been used by a sockpuppeter" could be removed now since it's been 15+ years and probable that the IP has changed/moved in these years, or if there would be any reason for keeping these old messages.

Some example IPs with these messages (but not limited to):

{{IPuser|130.17.62.181}}

{{IPuser|84.47.40.156}}

{{IPuser|66.233.19.91}}

{{IPuser|24.88.124.252}}

{{IPuser|207.67.146.81}}

My interest in these pages is that these messages each have two tracked unclosed syntax tag errors on them. If the SPI community is fine with these messages being removed, they would be blanked on the basis of the similar criteria originally used here for blanking (any) old IP talk pages:

• Have not received any messages in the last 5 years
• The IP is not under active blocks (including range blocks)
• There have been no edits from the IP in the last 5 years

I don't believe any of these templates with these errors were used past 2010, (or they were updated with the unclosed tag errors corrected), so effectively it would be "last 15 years" rather than "last 5 years" for the statements above.

I brought up this up at Linter first, and it was voiced that we should run this by the SPI community first and get your opinion. Zinnober9 (talk) 12:54, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:Looks like you already blanked the user pages you listed there, but yeah, definitely go ahead and blank those. We do not tag IP address user pages anymore, and we never should have done so in the first place. Some of those old pages seem quite problematic, e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:207.67.146.81&oldid=67177709], claiming that an IP is attached to an account "established by CheckUser", which would be a violation of the CheckUser policy. Mz7 (talk) 07:28, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

::Independently of this conversation, Inzo discovered the conversation at Linter not long after I posted this and stated similar sentiments that it is no longer done and to go ahead and remove, so I followed through based on their reply and based on my not seeing that as a thing anymore. I meant to come back here and deactivate this but got sidetracked. Thanks for further confirming this was a valid action. Cheers, Zinnober9 (talk) 16:51, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi,

As Phil has referenced the evidence for Thesazh and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:PhilKnight#Wikipedia%3ASockpuppet_investigations%2FSaishna96 Here]. I’m unable to add a second suspect to This Case. Requesting assistance from anyone who can add the second suspect. Thank you.

behavioural Evidence -

• CNMall41 moved the page Guard (2025 film) to draft space on 16 june at 3:38, user:Thesazh directly came and moved the page to mainspace at 8:34 — this was their first edit on 16 June. And also a direct COI.

• Thesazh userpage is very similar to user:Milli's Boy [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Milli%27s_Boy&diff=prev&oldid=1218210810 this] and user:Taffystone [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Taffystone&diff=prev&oldid=1281996277 this] socks of saishna96

49.205.252.89 (talk) 10:58, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

• After the block of IX1883, user Thesazh visited the SPI case page and pretended to have no connection to the case. Although the CheckUser report did not mention Thesazh by name, they appeared directly on the SPI case page shortly after IX1883 was blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:201:C410:3058:3126:D75D:E493:FAE8 (talk) 19:08, 20 June 2025 (UTC)