Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppetry/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Confusion about banning

The Banning section says that a site ban may imposed as a consequence of having "engaged in sockpuppetry on at least two occasions after an initial indefinite block that is active". This tells me that until that situation arises, a person with an account that was indefinitely blocked for malfeasance isn't considered site-banned—even though the person is not allowed, under any account or as an IP user, to edit any page on the project. But I thought that that condition was the definition of a site ban. I'm reading it as "If a person's account has been indefinitely blocked for misbehavior, that person is not permitted to edit any page on this project (except perhaps their talk page) under any account or as an IP user and, if they do, they will no longer be permitted to edit any page on this project under any account or as an IP user."

Can someone clarify the difference that I'm not seeing here? And perhaps add this clarification to both WP:Sockpuppetry and WP:Banning policy? Or else, if I'm right and there is no distinction, change the wording in both place to make it clear that the consequence of an indefinite site block for malfeasance is a site ban? Largoplazo (talk) 02:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

A normal indefinite block can be lifted at an admin's discretion while lifting a community ban requires consensus at WP:AN. Spicy (talk) 02:52, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, that clears it up for me. I see that the difference is real, but at a purely administrative level. From the point of view of a person who's been blocked or banned who doesn't seek to get the condition overturned, it's exactly the same thing. Either way, they aren't allowed to edit. Either way, they can edit until caught. It's only the appeal procedures that differ. Perhaps it would be useful to explain at least that explicitly. "Editors who are confirmed by a CheckUser to have engaged in sockpuppetry on at least two occasions after an initial indefinite block that is active, for any reason, are to be considered site banned by the Wikipedia community, a status that is much more challenging to appeal than a mere block." Largoplazo (talk) 03:11, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Backlog...

Is something going on that I have missed? I rarely file SPIs but I don't remember it taking this long...my CU Request/SPI has been on the docket since April 13th but I know there are other much older ones hanging around... Thx, Shearonink (talk) 18:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I have a non-CU behavioral request backlogged since the 12th. It's definitely looking like a challenge at the moment. Lol I'd take the sysop and dig in but I don't think anyone wants that. XD Simonm223 (talk) 18:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Multiple use of accounts

I am hoping to get some feedback on this SPI. I was told that use of multiple accounts is is not prohibited, only the abuse of multiple accounts. The accounts reported are "contribut[ing] to the same page or discussion in a way that suggests they are multiple people" which is a violation in my opinion. However, I was told that if they are being disruptive that this is an ANI issue. Just looking for clarification on 1) is using multiple accounts (undisclosed) to edit the page to avoid scrutiny a violation and 2) should this be an ANI issue or an SPI issue? CNMall41 (talk) 02:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Update to WP:FAMILY

I assume this is non-controversial, but I've been surprised by that before so noting it here first (and already discussed briefly off-wiki with some other functionaries), I'm going to add to the end of the first paragraph of WP:FAMILY:

Alternatively, a user could declare (in confidence) this connection by emailing the Arbitration Committee. See WP:AC § Contacting the Committee for contact details. If you take this option, a non-specific note on your user page to the effect of "I share an IP with another editor, please contact ArbCom for more information" might be a good idea. Also note that none of this is carte blanche to sock, nor does it guarantee that inquisitive editors (or even checkusers) won't make connections on their own. RoySmith (talk) 17:51, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

User:RoySmith, I dislike this addition, because it is not policy but advice, aka bloat. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:02, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe I suppose that's true, but then so is what was there before. This started when I was asked off-wiki by an editor who was sharing an IP what they should do to make sure they weren't accused of socking, and didn't want to publicly declare their relationship to the other editor. I knew about the "email arbcom" thing, but couldn't find where that was documented so I discussed it on the functionaries mailing list and this is what we came up with. I have no objection if you want to find a better place to put this information. RoySmith (talk) 00:26, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes. The whole section is advice for IP editors who want to avoid being accused of socking. It is not policy that IP editors should do any of this. The whole section amounts to advice for a concern. It’s fair advice, but not advice I would give.

I think it is far better advice to register an account. Emailing personal information to ArbCom, out of fear of discovery of that personal information, feels to me to be really bad advice. ArbCom email is a proven security risk. Email is a terrible security risk. If you have realised that you are sharing an IP with someone you know, and you don’t want this known, you should register and never edit with that IP address logged out again.

- SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:53, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll leave it to other funcs to chime in if they want, but you are correct that this is an imperfect process (and that's orthogonal to the question of whether this page is the right place for it to be documented). If there are two people on a single IP (as a real example, my wife and I) and for whatever reason a check gets done on that IP, they will look like socks to the checkuser who performed the check. The theory is that if there's a declaration on one or both user pages, that will alert the checkuser to not be so hasty with the sockhammer. Of course, there's no guarantee that the checkuser will read the user pages before blocking.

If the user(s) have registered their relationship with arbcom but not put any notification on their user pages at all, it's almost certain that the checkuser will have no clue, but at least if one or the other user appeals the block to arbcom, they'll have a record of the disclosure and the user will get unblocked. Far from perfect, but better than nothing.

BTW, T373764 covers a similar situation. If that were ever implemented, the same mechanism couldn't be used in these cases. It would be a far more useful process than emailing arbcom who then squirrels away the information someplace where it probably won't ever get looked at until it's too late. RoySmith (talk) 01:16, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

On further thought, I think it is broadly bad advice and should be removed. If a checkuser is prone to discover the connection, noting that they don’t discover by fishing but by there being a reason to look, then others too are prone to discover interesting edit patterns by the single IP, and if the others are to do anything, it is to publicly ask about the suspected connection. If the IP editors think they have some protection from public discovery by having sent an email, they are badly mistaken.

If two people would prefer to not be discovered as connected, they should register and never again edit logged out. They should each register an email address so that they can be asked privately should a checkuser or anyone else want to ask a question. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:53, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe to clarify, seems maybe unclear, this came up because 2 users with accounts live in the same residence/use the same wifi. I don't think anyone in that house was editing logged out.

n.b. I also dislike email and dislike email big list. --Jeremyb (talk) 17:10, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

As Joe says, if they are not tag-teaming articles and are editing in different spheres, there really shouldn't even be a need to check, let alone actually having the connection be made. Even making a disclosure to ArbCom does not prevent a pair of people from being connected if it's obvious to the point where a CU is looking at them in the first place. Primefac (talk) 19:20, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Editor interaction tool

I believe we have a tool for checking the editing overlap of two accounts, which anyone (not just checkusers) may use. It doesn't seem to be mentioned on this page.

Where is it, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:15, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Here you go. [1] Simonm223 (talk) 14:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I've added a link to the page, under "See also". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:33, 4 December 2024 (UTC)