Hi, I noticed you blocked them for block evasion. Did I understand it correctly that that account is a sockpuppet? I am not sure I know current rules, but doesn't it mean that the message should contain an explanation of who is a sockmaster? Is there any possibility of a mistake here, because that user seems to sincerely not understand what he was blocked for?--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 19:48, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you blocked them for block evasion. Did I understand it correctly that that account is a sockpuppet? I am not sure I know current rules, but doesn't it mean that the message should contain an explanation of who is a sockmaster? Is there any possibility of a mistake here, because that user seems to sincerely not understand what he was blocked for?--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 19:48, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
:Hi Paul, we have strong evidence that indicates this editor is abusively using multiple accounts. Unfortunately, "playing dumb" is one of the most common ways appeals by individuals found to have been engaging in sock puppetry -- perhaps second only to my brother or roommate did it "explanations". The account has been intentionally attempting to avoid detection by using proxies. Along with the fact that they began editing with an expert level understanding of Wikipedia and intensively edited everyday in a controversial area, engaged in edit wars, and other unexplained removal of large amounts of content. Additionally, their narrow interest in the Antisemitism in Poland conflict area led us to believe this person was not a new account. Despite having only 71 edits within four days, they targeted some of the most controversial articles in the topic area. Other behavioral evidence was also taken under consideration such as editing a collection of related articles with very low traffic or editing history. We have identified two potential blocked accounts, who have also both engaged in sock puppetry, where they had over 90% overlap in articles or more (including these out-of-the-way articles). It should be noted that these two blocked accounts are also suspected of being related. Following the block, the account went inactive for days. It was not coincidence that this account edited everyday, sometimes multiple times a day, and then abruptly ceased being active the moment it was blocked. It comes following additional other accounts having been recently blocked. I see also from today that another admin and checkuser has declined their block after having independently reached the same conclusion as other administrators and checkusers who routinely work in the area. The reason why we do not regularly detail all the ways in which we detect sock puppetry with certain cases is because it merely provides the individual which ways in which the avoid the same behaviour again as all we have accomplished is blocking one of their socks, not implement a permanent way to prevent them from continuing to evade their block. '''[[User:Mkdw|<span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw</span>]]''' [[User talk:Mkdw|<sup>''<span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk</span>''</sup>]] 20:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
:Hi Paul, we have strong evidence that indicates this editor is abusively using multiple accounts. Unfortunately, "playing dumb" is one of the most common ways appeals by individuals found to have been engaging in sock puppetry -- perhaps second only to my brother or roommate did it "explanations". The account has been intentionally attempting to avoid detection by using proxies. Along with the fact that they began editing with an expert level understanding of Wikipedia and intensively edited everyday in a controversial area, engaged in edit wars, and other unexplained removal of large amounts of content. Additionally, their narrow interest in the Antisemitism in Poland conflict area led us to believe this person was not a new account. Despite having only 71 edits within four days, they targeted some of the most controversial articles in the topic area. Other behavioral evidence was also taken under consideration such as editing a collection of related articles with very low traffic or editing history. We have identified two potential blocked accounts, who have also both engaged in sock puppetry, where they had over 90% overlap in articles or more (including these out-of-the-way articles). It should be noted that these two blocked accounts are also suspected of being related. Following the block, the account went inactive for days. It was not coincidence that this account edited everyday, sometimes multiple times a day, and then abruptly ceased being active the moment it was blocked. It comes following additional other accounts having been recently blocked. I see also from today that another admin and checkuser has declined their block after having independently reached the same conclusion as other administrators and checkusers who routinely work in the area. The reason why we do not regularly detail all the ways in which we detect sock puppetry with certain cases is because it merely provides the individual which ways in which the avoid the same behaviour again as all we have accomplished is blocking one of their socks, not implement a permanent way to prevent them from continuing to evade their block. '''[[User:Mkdw|<span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw</span>]]''' [[User talk:Mkdw|<sup>''<span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk</span>''</sup>]] 20:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
::Ok, understood. I myself was surprised to see that that new user demonstrated some skills that are the sign of an experienced user. I only didn't know it is possible to block a sock without knowing a master.--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 22:25, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Revision as of 22:26, 3 November 2019
Please sign (~~~~) before you save. Beware SineBot!
Your fair-mindedness and civility as an editor, administrator, and arbitrator are impressive and appreciated.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:12, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's the last weekend for Camp: Notes on Fashion, and we will have an intro talk to the exhibit by a guest from the Costume Institute, and participants will then be able to visit it on their own. Galleries will be open this evening until 9 pm.
12:30pm - 4:30 pm at Uris Center for Education, Metropolitan Museum of Art (81st Street entrance) at 1000 Fifth Avenue, Manhattan
(note this is just south of the main entrance)
Galleries will be open this evening until 9 pm, and some wiki-visitors may wish to take this opportunity to see Camp: Notes on Fashion together after the formal event.
Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends, colleagues and students! --Wikimedia New York City Team 19:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
Double bind
The concerns you express here seem reasonable.[1] You don't want to do nothing and make it look like we, as a community, don't take reasonable concerns seriously. But what if you desysop Fram and he gets the bit right back via RFA? Wouldn't that be even worse, from this standpoint?
Is there some third way that could avoid this? Maybe if you worked out some sort of probation or restrictions for Fram? That would show that you (or we as a community) have taken this seriously and isn't something that could be quickly voided with a new RFA. Avoiding a new RFA might also save us from fighting yet another round of this civil war. Haukur (talk) 19:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Haukurth. I tried to address a few of these similar concerns at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fram/Proposed decision#Comments by Tryptofish. It is possible that Fram could immediately request the tools back and the community would support their RFA. I suppose the circumstances would be very telling. I do not think anyone on the committee would be opposed to a hypothetical scenario where Fram made a genuine commitment to improving their general conduct and sought to become an admin again. In contrast, an opposite hypothetical scenario where Fram commits to not improving their general conduct or even backslides further and the community endorses their RFA would signal a wider problem. That is something I do not think ArbCom could change; at that point it would be a decision the whole community has to make for itself. In that (let's say) worst case hypothetical scenario, people may see that and anyone who has felt they have been the victim of harassment and abuse would bypass the community/ArbCom and keep going directly to the Wikimedia Foundation. If enough complaints are received, at a certain point the Foundation will be exposed to such a degree where they will have to intervene. A mandatory conduct and zero tolerance policy will be imposed from a liability standpoint. The community will be stripped of any involvement in harassment and abuse matters. If Fram being allowed to keep editing but without a certain permission (one which they can request back) is seen as unacceptable, then I expect losing self-governance will be intolerable for a huge portion of the community. Mkdwtalk 20:04, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes!
You were brilliant when you said the evidence from this case demonstrates Fram has not been compliant with ADMINCOND. It is possible this needs to be voted on in its own FOF. Could you please put forward such FOF? As the case stands now there's a remedy (desysop) that appears to contradict the FOF that you opposed, which said that Fram hasn't abused admin tools. Second, could you add a FOF that Fram was not unblocked to participate in the case, contrary to our usual customs. This is very important context that needs to be highlighted for future observers. Thank you. JehochmanTalk 14:18, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
thanks
Mkdw, thank you for your hard work. I can only imagine how difficult this has been for all of you, and I appreciate the time and energy you all spent on this. --valereee (talk) 13:50, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our monthly "WikiWednesday" evening salon (7-9pm) and knowledge-sharing workshop at Metropolitan New York Library Council in Midtown Manhattan. Is there a project you'd like to share? A question you'd like answered? A Wiki* skill you'd like to learn? Let us know by adding it to the agenda.
(note this month we will be meeting in Midtown Manhattan, not at Babycastles)
We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Wikimedia New York City Team ~~~~~
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
Hmmm
Does this ring a bell? Did you save CU information? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:08, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It may very well escalate to a point beyond ArbCom's purview
Hi Mkdw. I was following the discussion at User talk:Ritchie333 over the block that your fellow arbitrator PMC enacted. Like xeno, who commented here, I am concerned that what you said ("It may very well escalate to a point beyond ArbCom's purview") will have a large chilling effect. This is exactly the sort of thing that people who were concerned about the actions the WMF took in relation to Fram thought would happen (vague references to the WMF being used to justify actions being taken here). I am making a formal request for you (under WP:ADMINACCT) to explain what you meant by what you said there. Were you explicitly stating that you were taking these actions because the matter might get escalated to the Trust and Safety section of the Wikimedia Foundation? Carcharoth (talk) 13:44, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am saying if things continue to occur off-wiki then there is only so much we can do on the English Wikipedia and that is where our jurisdiction ends. When things occur off-wiki, it becomes much less clear whether the matter will still be allowed to be managed by ArbCom. It is my understanding that the situation has already been repeatedly reported to T&S by multiple editors in the community. It is not a matter of whether we would escalate it or not. We are obviously trying to resolve the matter locally using options available to us on the English Wikipedia, but the IBAN has not prevented Ritchie from continuing to discuss and criticize Praxidicae on off-wiki forums. Some editors are incorrectly distilling the situation to merely the removal of CSD tags or article improvement when the problem is more serious. I doubt anyone on the committee would have had a problem with a one off mistake had it not been for these other factors. ADMINACCT is about explaining the use of administrative tools and "unexplained actions". Mkdwtalk 07:04, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying that. It does make things a lot clearer (I asked because there was a chance you were referring not to the WMF but to civil authorities becoming involved, which is far more serious and indeed beyond ArbCom's purview). I specifically brought up the administrator policy because not all arbitrators (I don't count you among them) respond when asked to clarify their actions. Given the emphasis on ADMINCOND in recent arbitration decisions, when interacting with arbitrators it feels right to hold them to the same standards they are holding administrators to. If that is not the purpose of the policy, maybe there is a need for WP:ARBACCT? As an aside, it is amazing what you find when you dig around. While seeing if that redirect had ever existed, I found (via a redirect and a histmerge) this! If you look at the edit summaries here and here you will see that even though that was 4 years ago (I have no idea what prompted that essay back then), there have been concerns over the years about how accountable arbitrators are (and to answer the obvious question, yes, I will bring this up at the question pages for election candidates this year if I have the time to do that properly). I will courtesy ping Ched as he is active, but not KV as they are, um, banned (I must have missed that). I'm left feeling that going down that rabbit hole wasn't particularly productive, but I have been considering for a while if arbitrator accountability is properly incorporated in WP:ARBPOL. I see it is at WP:ARBCOND. A final question if you have time (I appreciate that it is a bit of a difficult question): as an arbitrator who is in the third of four years on the committee, do you think that in your time on ArbCom that the arbitration committee has collectively and as individuals abided by WP:ARBCOND? If not, could the other members of the committee have done more about it? Carcharoth (talk) 10:16, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the ping Carcharoth. I don't recall the exact reason for my "ARBACCT" essay, and I'm not even sure of the exact title or place (I can look if it's important). I do recall feeling very frustrated and perhaps even angry by the end of 2015/16, enough to turn in my admin bits and log out. I still edited as an IP (ce, typo, etc), but I digress. The only reason I returned was the horrendously poor judgment of T&S/WMF in the Fram matter. But since the head of T&S can't even hold the trust of his home wiki (he was deadmined on the German wiki) - it's hardly surprising that wp:fram happened. The more that happens off-wiki, the further down that slippery slope we fall. (see the recent Fram stuff, the recent choice of Arbcom to do the Eric Corbett ban off wiki, and the choice to IBAN Ritchie333 off-wiki). I don't know particulars in any of these cases because it all was done away from our eyes. Since my return a couple months ago, I'm trying very hard to stick to "content", but it's difficult when I see such poor judgment in places that should be the best we have to offer. As in my original essay that KV copied (I believe I gave it to him before I deleted it, or at least gave him permission), I fault the "body", not any individuals.
I will say this much though, and I believe Carcharoth has seen some of the info, there's compelling evidence off wiki (since we seem to enjoy going there so much), that there's been some very poor judgment shown by some very high ranking people in the WMF. IMO - if something happens OFF WIKI then it's none of our damn business. If editor A insulted editor B on Facebook or IRC - we have no right to say anything other than to notify the folks in charge of those venues. Of course we need to adhere to various legal issues, (child endangerment etc.). We have, if nothing else a moral obligation, to report such things. But one of two things happened in the Fram case
Something happened off wiki - in which case someone lied.
Nothing happened off wiki - in which case someone lied - and ALL OF IT could have and should have been posted on wiki for review.
The upper echelons of wiki started to use "privacy" as a crutch - and now we truly ARE handicapped in our administrative abilities. If the spotlight were shined on the little birds whispering by email to ... (whoever), then you'd likely see where the real problems are - and it's not pretty.
Case in point:
A CSD tag is posted on an article.
An editor doesn't delete the article, but rescues it by finding sources, removing copyvio, etc., etc., etc.
SOMEONE emails Arbcom that editor B has violated some IBAN enacted OFF WIKI
editor B is blocked (and do note, the 24 hour period, the 48 hour period, and the 72 hour period have all been skipped over in these block escalations. Which likely doesn't matter much as it appears to be a measured "chain of evidence" for banning someone. At least that's what it looks like to some folks)
That not only smells of entrapment, but it outright reeks some really nasty collusion. But I suppose I'm delving into things I'm not supposed to. I will add this however: If "admins" are supposed to be more WP:ACCT accountable than standard editors, than Arbs sure as hell should be even MOREWP:ARBACCT (that should NOT be a redlink) - they should be more accountable than even admins. Just IMO. Thanks for the opportunity to vent - and certainly nothing I've typed is in any way meant to lecture or demean you personally Mkdw. I apologize if it comes across that way. — Ched (talk) 11:19, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am currently traveling so it is difficult for my to adequately respond. I will note that the IBAN is only enforceable on wiki. ArbCom's jurisdiction is only on-wiki, which is why I pointed the possibility that when off-wiki complaints are received, it is often referred elsewhere. We obviously did not sanction Ritchie for continuing to discuss Praxidicae off-wiki, but we are taking it into consideration when the IBAN has been violated for the second time. Obviously, we sometimes need to take action on-wiki for off-wiki actions, such as in another case where death threats were being made off-wiki but there was no direct sanctionable on-wiki actions. So while it may appear like entrapment or collusion, especially for those who could not see the private evidence, it was a situation for which I believe the Arbitration Committee was expressly formed to handle. Otherwise, these matters could simply be referred to the community and where standard approaches like a 48 hour block would be issued as a second block for merely an on-wiki action. As for ARBCOND, as a committee I feel it has been adhered to within reasonable expectations. On an individual level, certainly not. We have in fact even removed someone on the committee for failing to do so. I know the last few months have been relatively unsatisfying and frustrating for many people, including myself. I appreciate you coming here without insults or personal attacks so we can have these productive conversations. Mkdwtalk 20:49, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that I see you replied. I'll read for comprehension in the next day or two. (maybe respond? .. IDK) — Ched (talk) 03:07, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mkdw, sorry for the delay. The "death threats" issues I agree 100% on, although I didn't mention that particular in "Of course we need to adhere to various legal issues, (child endangerment etc.)., but I do consider them all serious issues which need to be dealt with often by unconventional means. I also agree that the Arbitration Committee was formed to handle issues like we've both mentioned, but especially as "appearance" has become the hot topic of the day, I'm, not sure we agree on the "How" it was handled. I haven't seen any reason for the "privacy" of many of the recent problems, beyond personal preference. IMO, If someone feels uncomfortable in dealing with problems publicly, then maybe they should have thought about that before causing said problems to begin with. I could go into specifics here, but I doubt we'll see eye to eye on that. I wasn't really seeking to point any fingers at individuals, but I can respect how difficult ... umm ... the additional difficulties that needed to be dealt with in removing anyone from any position of power must have been. I personally try to avoid "personal attacks" and insults. I'm sure we all feel the urge when confronted at times, but I do try to exercise restraint. (not that I've always been successful, but I do try). I'm not really sure there's much more to say here. I likely wouldn't have even posted on your talk had I not been pinged (although I really do appreciate that). I am content in your responses here (even if we don't fully agree on some things), so unless there's something particular you'd like me to respond further to - I thank you for your time and reply. — Ched (talk) 18:19, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ched:see the recent Fram stuff, the recent choice of Arbcom to do the Eric Corbett ban off wiki, and the choice to IBAN Ritchie333 off-wiki – what do you mean by "off wiki" here? Both Eric Corbett and Ritchie were banned by motions posted publicly to the ARBCOM noticeboard. What more do you think we should have done on-wiki? (Honest question, I think we're all sensitive to the need to be as transparent as possible.) – Joe (talk) 06:42, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Joe:, noting that I've seen this, and I'll try to get back to you in 24 to 48 hours. — Ched (talk) 08:28, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Joe. I apologize for any ambiguity, but I basically meant making those decisions off-wiki rather than what used to be a typical "case request" where evidence is presented, then counter-points and various diffs are offered. I'm guessing any evidence and FoF was done by using the Arbcom mailing list? I've never been part of Arbcom's private decision making process, so I'm not sure how exactly it's done. My understanding is that in the Eric Corbett situation, even he was not allowed to see any evidence, so I'm really not able to specify how that was handled. IMO, I think there should have been a standard case presented in all 3 of my examples. (While the Fram situation came close to a case - the secrecy of the evidence made it difficult to judge the situation fairly, and present any counter-points such as any WP:CIR issues in claims of "harassment or hounding". We as a community have always said that extraordinary claims (especially in BLP matters) must be accompanied by supportive diffs and evidence. Note that I don't fault Arbcom in the creation of the Fram matter, but rather I decline to support any notion that the T&S group has ANY jurisdiction over standard matters of governance on en-wp. So we either had a situation of extraordinary circumstances requiring extraordinary evidence, or we didn't. In the Ritchie and Eric matters: no case, no evidence, no FoF, no nothing but a statement. In the Eric situation, we went from what was headed toward a declined case (or at best a deadlocked case), to a weekend ... ??? ... discussion via email that Arbcom would indeed pass judgment, but the case would be bypassed for some reason. I am very troubled by this increased use of "privacy" as a method of bypassing standard operating procedures.
Since none of these cases involved illegal activity, outing, or "off-wiki" (meaning on Facebook, Twitter, etc.) activity - the whole "privacy" issue appears to lose it's validity. I think if any person or collective (Arbcom) wish to adhere to a practice of "Transparency", then the actions need to match the words. Having a discussion between 5 or 10 people via some private email list, and then posting some sort of "motion passed" is hardly a model of transparency to most people.
I hope that explains my thinking when I said "off wiki", and offers my views on what can be done in order for Arbcom to appear more transparent. Thank you for your question and giving me an opportunity to explain what I meant. — Ched (talk) 06:19, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well we haven't done a full case with FoFs etc. on the mailing list or arbwiki in my term – maybe not ever. The Fram case was an extraordinary situation that will hopefully never be repeated. I think we did the best we could given there was never an option of a fully public case (that was the condition on which ArbCom was able to get T&S to relinquish it) and the guidelines for private cases were pretty much non-existent, but it's easy to see the problems with the result. It's less easy to see how these problems could be solved whilst still providing a safe way for targets of harassment to make reports. I hope the upcoming RfC will be able to make some progress on that.
With Eric Corbett, the case was actually accepted and was about to be opened when we found out about EC's sockpuppetry. The motion was essentially a CheckUser block placed by ArbCom. Obviously it's long-standing policy that CU evidence should not be discussed on-wiki, and the most you would see at e.g. an SPI is Confirmed, which is what the motion says. I've been recused on Ritchie since the beginning, so my insight is limited, but it was a relatively straightforward dispute that we thought could be resolved by motion, and neither party was keen on a public case.
Could we have moved some of our mailing discussions on-wiki? Maybe. But we couldn't openly discuss the T&S evidence in Fram's case, or the CU evidence in Eric's case, or the emails sent to us in confidence by Prax and Ritchie. We couldn't be as frank as we can be on the mailing list because we would have a hostile audience waiting to jump on mistakes or use disagreements between arbs to undermine the decision. I understand why people are uncomfortable when they hear about private discussions they're not party to, but in reality they happen all the time: editors talk by email, on lists, on IRC, on OTRS, at meet-ups. It shouldn't come as a surprise that ArbCom, the only enwiki institution expected to function as a collective body, does it too. Transparency can be valuable but shouldn't be pursued for its own sake. It should be subordinate to achieving our main job of resolving disputes with the minimum amount of disruption, so we can all get back to writing an encyclopaedia. Nine times out of ten, I don't think seeing our internal discussions would give any more "light" (as opposed to "heat") than seeing the list of arbs supporting and opposing. – Joe (talk) 10:59, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our monthly "WikiWednesday" evening salon (7-9pm) and knowledge-sharing workshop at Metropolitan New York Library Council in Midtown Manhattan. Is there a project you'd like to share? A question you'd like answered? A Wiki* skill you'd like to learn? Let us know by adding it to the agenda.
(note this month we will be meeting in Midtown Manhattan, not at Babycastles)
We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Wikimedia New York City Team 05:33, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
Out of interest
I spotted a comment you'd made on a community banned editor's page, marking an ARBCOM (and also a global) block had been placed in addition.
While I would imagine most editors to have picked up 3 out of 4 ways to be removed from editing Wikipedia probably don't find their way back, would they be required to individually appeal each one in turn, or do we have a combined appeal mechanism? Nosebagbear (talk) 19:14, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately each sanction from a different group would need to be appealed. In the case of someone with a globally locked account, they must appeal to the Stewards and WMF first. If someone has an ArbCom or CU block as well as a community block, sometimes the Arbitration Committee has decided to facilitate an appeal to the community if we feel there are no further CU or ArbCom related concerns. Mkdwtalk 21:17, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
--Rosiestep (talk) 22:58, 29 October 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]
Batbash
Hi, I noticed you blocked them for block evasion. Did I understand it correctly that that account is a sockpuppet? I am not sure I know current rules, but doesn't it mean that the message should contain an explanation of who is a sockmaster? Is there any possibility of a mistake here, because that user seems to sincerely not understand what he was blocked for?--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:48, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Paul, we have strong evidence that indicates this editor is abusively using multiple accounts. Unfortunately, "playing dumb" is one of the most common ways appeals by individuals found to have been engaging in sock puppetry -- perhaps second only to my brother or roommate did it "explanations". The account has been intentionally attempting to avoid detection by using proxies. Along with the fact that they began editing with an expert level understanding of Wikipedia and intensively edited everyday in a controversial area, engaged in edit wars, and other unexplained removal of large amounts of content. Additionally, their narrow interest in the Antisemitism in Poland conflict area led us to believe this person was not a new account. Despite having only 71 edits within four days, they targeted some of the most controversial articles in the topic area. Other behavioral evidence was also taken under consideration such as editing a collection of related articles with very low traffic or editing history. We have identified two potential blocked accounts, who have also both engaged in sock puppetry, where they had over 90% overlap in articles or more (including these out-of-the-way articles). It should be noted that these two blocked accounts are also suspected of being related. Following the block, the account went inactive for days. It was not coincidence that this account edited everyday, sometimes multiple times a day, and then abruptly ceased being active the moment it was blocked. It comes following additional other accounts having been recently blocked. I see also from today that another admin and checkuser has declined their block after having independently reached the same conclusion as other administrators and checkusers who routinely work in the area. The reason why we do not regularly detail all the ways in which we detect sock puppetry with certain cases is because it merely provides the individual which ways in which the avoid the same behaviour again as all we have accomplished is blocking one of their socks, not implement a permanent way to prevent them from continuing to evade their block. Mkdwtalk 20:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, understood. I myself was surprised to see that that new user demonstrated some skills that are the sign of an experienced user. I only didn't know it is possible to block a sock without knowing a master.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:25, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
