Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2

What if two people use the same computer

I have one doubt. This may sound trivial, but in India, it is very common for more than one person use the same computer. How to differentiate that situation and a Sock Puppet. For example, if my wife browses Wikipedia and votes in few Rfa or AFD from this computer, how can I prove that it was another person who used my computer and not me. Another case is browsing centres - Many persons may be using the same computer (with same IP). How to prove that they are both different people.  Doctor Bruno  16:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

And coming to the next question. What if Mr.X uses one account in a computer at his home and another account in a computer at his office. How to prove that (with different IP).  Doctor Bruno  16:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind, but I merged the two threads you started. Also because the answers to your questions are connected: in many cases, it is about common sense. People start suspecting that different accounts or IPs may be under the control of the same individual due to a similar pattern of behavior. That's a critical factor in flagging a sockpuppet.
If an IP is from a place where computers are shared (e.g.: universities, AOL, lan houses, etc.), we usually tag the IP's talk page to let the community, and perhaps more critically, Admins responding to abusive behavior, know that the IP is shared, so that it will be dealt with taking this into account. Geographical location can also play a role in this: if people are editing from work, home and school, they're still going to be in the same area, and this, combined with other factors, can give us a positive identification. Redux 19:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry. I am not able to understand. May be I worded my questions wrongly. My questions was "how to prove that it is not a sock puppet" when two persons edit from the same computer and "how to prove that it is a sock puppet" when one persons edits with one username in his office and another username in his home  Doctor Bruno  20:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

That's where the common sense I mentioned comes into play, as well as that critical aspect of a similar behavior pattern. Supposing two different people edit Wikipedia from the same computer, say at a University's library: if they're doing completely different things, or just plain not doing anything wrong, most likely there will be no claims of illegal sockpuppetry, thus nothing to investigate. If someone were to say something, an experienced user (not just checkusers) would be able to determine that, although the edits could be coming from the same place, it is not the same person behind the IP.
In the other case you mentioned, again, two accounts would first be suspected of being socks of each other due to a similar behavior pattern, plus the fact that they would be behaving inappropriately. The fact that they could be editing from different IPs (home, office, school, etc) will not hide their geographical location (country, city), so a combination of factors will still lead to a positive identification. Has this been clearer? Redux 14:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Now, when two users are editing from the same computer, the IP will be same. Will they be accused of Sock Puppetry, when they edit the same articles. For example, me (a doctor) and my dad (an engineer) may edit different articles and our areas of interest will also vary. I will be more concerned with the latest film and sport personalities, while he will see the past generation. But when my wife edits from this computer, she being a doctor and of my age group may concentrate on the same issues. How to prove that it is in fact two persons and not sock puppets, when the IP evidence is against the persons  Doctor Bruno  15:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

In that scenario it might be an idea to preempt any ideas by either openly linking the two accounts via the userpages (User x is married to User y) or privatly (by email) leave the details in question with a checkuser of trust. Agathoclea 16:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It would also be a good idea, if the two sharing one computer are editing on the same articles, not to support each other in votes and reverts, as these actions are the things that really open up the sock puppet issues. This might seem unfair to those honest users in this predicament but unfortunately Wikipedia has to rely on IPs. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I know of at least 3 pairs of Wikipedians who live together, and there are probably a lot more. What you need to know first off is that checkuser is only run when there is strong evidence of disruptive behavior of some kind. So two people who are generally civil and well-behaved will never get checked. Likewise, two people who have different interests will likely never raise suspicions. If two users have similar strong interests and want to edit the same articles, it would be best to disclose the relationship on both user or user talk pages, and to make sure that only one of the account participates in any votes or consensus-gaining discussions. If it happens that two accounts are disruptive, and appear to be acting together, and are coming from the same IP, they will probably get treated as sockpuppets even if another relationship is declared, simply because we have no way of knowing. If you read the sockpuppet policy, two accounts that edit alike may be treated as sockpuppets even without technical evidence. Your best option is to declare the relationship up front and then behave yourselves. Thatcher131 23:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

So when two people are editing from the same computer, they have to vote only once in a AFD or RFA if they are voting for the same reason. On the other hand, can both vote, if one votes Support and the other Oppose. Please don't get angry with me regarding these questions. I am just trying to get some points regarding forming a comprehensive policy in future. As of now, few genuine users gets affected and few intelligent crooks (is this term an oxymoron !!) escape. Both these are not good for Wikipedia. I understand that the present policy is 90% correct. Why can't we make that 100%  Doctor Bruno  02:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

AFD is not a vote. Two people making the same arguement carry no more weight than one persom. So socks don't matter. However, RFA is a vote and therefore, socks are banned. Being 100% sure would be nice, if we had a way to do it. We don't, so it comes down to a judgement call. It's not perfect, but it's the best we have. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I doubt if you will be able to find a firm rule or 100% "correct" policy. It is a matter of discretion and judgement. Thatcher131 02:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

OK.. But what is wrong in moving from 90% (for example) to 95 %  Doctor Bruno  07:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

How do you suggest we do that? Regards, Ben Aveling 10:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

By making more clear and strict policies and leaving very less to "discretion". Discretion invariably leads to bias and broken hearts and wounded minds  Doctor Bruno  09:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Clearer rules lead to more loopholes. [ælfəks] 12:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

What if when many people using same computer of their company...?

Dear Dr: Brunoji, Ur doubt is very relevant. In India, it is very common for more than one person use the same computer. I and my husband are using same computer.In addition to that I'm working as a journalist in a notable Malayalam newspaper company. Hundreds of journalists are using the same IP address of the company's computer. My co-journalists are interested in wiki editing. Recently the it was imputed that we are sock puppet. Actually I was totally innocent. But how can I prove my innocence...?  Nileena joseph ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 19:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to sunset the archives

This was actually suggested to me by a banned user, but I think it might be a good idea anyway. The idea is to delete checkuser archive pages if there is no activity for 6 months. I think the idea has merit. Checkuser cases that have been inactive for more than 6 months are likely to be editors who have left altogether, editors who have cleaned up their act, or sockpuppeters who are too clever to get caught.

• For editors who have left, per WP:DENY, we are reducing the amount of recordkeeping we do on banned troublemakers.
• For current editors who have behaved themselves, how long should we keep the record of his former misdeeds?
• In the case of clever sockpuppeters, the server logs don't retain IP information for that long, so a 6 month old list of names is not helpful to the technical task of running a new check, if one becomes necessary. (Some cases contain IP numbers, but an argument can be made that those should not be retained for privacy reasons.)

So the proposal is that checkuser cases that have been inactive for at least 6 months should be deleted, except for editors under ongoing arbitration sanction, and editors who have been community-banned where the checkuser case provides backup for the ban.

(Also, and this is a much more minor consideration, the archive page is pretty long and the clerks had discussed splitting the archives by year; 2006, 2007 etc. If the cases sunset off the page, we can keep the archives on one page.) Thoughts? Thatcher131 20:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• I don't see a problem with this. Checkusers are always free to keep confidential records in any case. Mackensen (talk) 20:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

  Delete over oversight in this case, delete is still reviewable and will serve DENY whereas oversight might be like using a blowtorch in place of a match. -- Tawker 21:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't oversight at all, for the exact reason that deleted cases can be recovered if it's really important. Thatcher131 21:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:DCEATCTAITWP. I !vote to keep them, or else delete but leave the summaries at WP:RFCU/A, just with a red link. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 21:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this is just my belief that WP:DENY does less to deter vandals than it does to deter checkusers (I've always thought it should be called WP:MAKETHEJOBOFCHECKUSERSHARDER), but I think this is a bad idea. Many times the only records we have of what IP some notorious troublemaker was using are the RFCU archives; there's a case still on the page where the reason for denial is "We have no record of the user's IP." Sure, we can always undelete the page, but that assumes we'll remember it exists; it's not like we can just go to a list and say "Oh, yes, that was the name of the page!" I doubt the importance will be realized, though, until someone comes and says "By the way, do you think this is -Ril-/Cheesedreams?" and we say "Sorry, we deleted those records, please wait 1 year and 300 lost editors and we'll make a decision. Have a nice day, and do try to enjoy the trolling in the meantime." Essjay (Talk) 01:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Ouch. Thatcher131 01:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't intend the comment to be scathing, just sobering. To be clear, I don't think anyone wants to deliberately make the job of removing trolls and vandals from Wikipedia harder, but I do think the ultimate effects of some well-intentioned proposals are to do just that. (Hence "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.") Having run into the situation more times than I care to recall where we were unable to confirm a sockpuppeteer because of lack of records, I specifically set up the archiving scheme (any of the clerks remember about six months ago when we did that?) to maintain all records so we wouldn't have the problem in the future. I can think of one occasion in particular where the job of tracking an Internodeuser sockpuppet was made extremely difficult by poor recordkeeping, and had it not been for the tagged userpages (the main focus of deletion in the first round of WP:DENY purges) I would have never made the confirmation. That sort of thing happens all the time, and will only happen more as the site grows more popular. So, let me first apologize if I was harsh in my comments, but I ceratinly think there are some very large and very real consequences to deleting all the records we've worked so hard to preserve. To quote David Gerard, the proto-checkuser, "I've often wished I'd kept better records." Essjay (Talk) 02:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I would basically consider this a dead issue if either you or Mackensen objected, so that's all, folks! Thatcher131 02:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Please don't consider it dead because I objected; I'd much prefer it was because I made sense in what I said, rather than that I was completely off-base but said the magic word. Consensus should be key here. Essjay (Talk) 03:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Certain opinions should carry more weight, like the people who do the bulk of the checks, former arbitrators, bureaucrats, and ABCO users. Or in other words, the guys who own the sandbox :) . While I think there is some merit to the idea, I am happy to yield to superior wisdom, longer experience, and greater common sense, and humbly admit my mistake for the month. Thatcher131 04:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Formatting question

Hiya, I don't do a lot of RFCU checks, so need some help. I'm currently sorting through sockpuppetry checks at Wikipedia_talk:Naming conventions (television). I'm certain that some of the accounts are sockpuppets (only created a few weeks ago, very uncivil behavior, spend practically no Wikipedia time in other editing areas, etc.), but I'm not sure who exactly they're sockpuppets of, since there are many different voices in the discussion. Examples are: Yaksha (talk · contribs), Izzy Dot (talk · contribs), Youngster of Germany (talk · contribs). I can make a pretty educated guess that one or more of them are sockpuppets of Ned Scott (talk · contribs) who has a few similar behavior patterns to Izzy Dot, and another possible is admin Wknight94 (talk · contribs), who has admitted to using other accounts, but hasn't said who. I'll freely admit that I'm not entirely certain who's pulling the strings, so, how should I proceed with this? Should I just list all of the names together for the RFCU? I'm worried that if it's multiple people using multiple sockpuppets, it's just going to get all muddled. --Elonka 19:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)