This is an old revision of this page, as edited by UninvitedCompany (talk | contribs) at 23:05, 20 November 2006 (reminder). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 23:05, 20 November 2006 by UninvitedCompany (talk | contribs) (reminder)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) Archives |
|---|
- ]
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 19:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- In one sense, you can't and it does not matter. There is no rule against using more than one account except in certain circumstances. (Voting, if one account is blocked, 3RR, probably some other cases.) So for most purposes, it doesn't matter to Misplaced Pages if you and your wife and hundreds of other journalists are using the same IP address or not. So long as all of your co-users are well behaved wikipedians, this is a non-issue for you. Regards, Ben Aveling 02:40, 18 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 21:43, 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)
- 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)
- 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
- I haven't said who because you didn't ask. You can find the one other account I have here. It is used (well, it will be used eventually) to whittle away at the list of Unwatched Pages which, similar to the Uncategorized Pages, only shows the first 1,000. You'll likely never see an edit from it unless I forget to logout. If you do, you'll notice the user ID doesn't hide it very well. You'll also notice the user ID's user page has a tag on it saying it's an alternate account. If you decide to proceed with an WP:RFCU against me, let me know and I'll be happy to hunt down any IP addresses I've used - there are probably 3 or 4 different regions and networks. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- And what is your opinion on the other obvious sockpuppets? Who do you think is pulling the strings? --Elonka 19:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- No idea. I've seen no evidence. I'd agree with your assertion on at least two of them but I've no evidence at all who could be the leader. You have some I assume? —Wknight94 (talk) 19:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- And what is your opinion on the other obvious sockpuppets? Who do you think is pulling the strings? --Elonka 19:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- Similar language patterns between Ned Scott and Izzy Dot (like using the term "stupid votes", and other types of similar profanity). Youngster of Germany is also clearly a sockuppet account that was created to nominate the Elsie Ivancich Dunin article for deletion, which got an immediate agreement from Ned Scott. As for Yaksha, an account which has now been used to accomplish hundreds of controversial page moves, and has a very narrow range of "other articles" editing history (for months about the only thing was the Hunter x Hunter articles), I'm not sure who the sockpuppeteer, if any, might be. I also have concerns about Ace Class Shadow (talk · contribs), which again has similar language patterns to Ned Scott (like a history of civility warnings), but it might just be a case of similar personality types. --Elonka 21:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- Seems a bit flimsy but I'm not an RFCU expert. I'm still waiting for any evidence which warrants my name being used here. Surely you wouldn't mention me by name here as a possible sock-whatever without something to back it up, right? That would be a lack of good faith to the point of being a personal attack, no doubt. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
- Similar language patterns between Ned Scott and Izzy Dot (like using the term "stupid votes", and other types of similar profanity). Youngster of Germany is also clearly a sockuppet account that was created to nominate the Elsie Ivancich Dunin article for deletion, which got an immediate agreement from Ned Scott. As for Yaksha, an account which has now been used to accomplish hundreds of controversial page moves, and has a very narrow range of "other articles" editing history (for months about the only thing was the Hunter x Hunter articles), I'm not sure who the sockpuppeteer, if any, might be. I also have concerns about Ace Class Shadow (talk · contribs), which again has similar language patterns to Ned Scott (like a history of civility warnings), but it might just be a case of similar personality types. --Elonka 21:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- The two main reasons that your name came up were (1) that you had clearly placed the "alt account" userbox on your main page, but without indicating who your alt account was; and (2) that you and Ned Scott clearly seemed to be working together, such as the day when the two of you were showing up at multiple pages in my watchlist (diffs at User_talk:Elonka#Stalking). I'd say that that in particular made for a reasonable suspicion on my part. Also, multiple attempts by me to try and contact you off-wiki, were rebuffed (though the offer still stands). For what it's worth, I'd like to work with you, not against you. I sincerely believe that we do have points of agreement, but that there have been some profound miscommunications which have led to mistrust from both sides. But I'm optimistic that if we could figure out how to talk, we could work through it. However, the on-wiki "public" communication process, I think hinders this. Which is why I'd like to have a real-time private chat with you via AIM or Google Talk or even in IRC, to see if we could reach a meeting of the minds. --Elonka 02:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
- You might want to read WP:SOCK more closely. Your (1) above is basically saying that my advertising of an alternate account is evidence that I am deceptively using an alternate account. I don't follow that, esp. when the creation of the one account is plain as day in my user creation log... Next, if me being curious about the various pages connected to you makes me a stalker, then I guess User:Danny from the Foundation is a stalker since he tried to have the article about you deleted and User:Jimbo Wales is a stalker for making this edit to the article about your mother. (If I admitted to living across the Tampa Bay from the Foundation - which I do - you could combine the two allegations above and say that I am a sockpuppet of a fellow stalker at the Foundation.) If this is all your method of initiating private conversations, you may want to hone your diplomacy skills a little. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
- The two main reasons that your name came up were (1) that you had clearly placed the "alt account" userbox on your main page, but without indicating who your alt account was; and (2) that you and Ned Scott clearly seemed to be working together, such as the day when the two of you were showing up at multiple pages in my watchlist (diffs at User_talk:Elonka#Stalking). I'd say that that in particular made for a reasonable suspicion on my part. Also, multiple attempts by me to try and contact you off-wiki, were rebuffed (though the offer still stands). For what it's worth, I'd like to work with you, not against you. I sincerely believe that we do have points of agreement, but that there have been some profound miscommunications which have led to mistrust from both sides. But I'm optimistic that if we could figure out how to talk, we could work through it. However, the on-wiki "public" communication process, I think hinders this. Which is why I'd like to have a real-time private chat with you via AIM or Google Talk or even in IRC, to see if we could reach a meeting of the minds. --Elonka 02:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
You have to be kidding me, right? Go ahead, make a request. I'll even support your request to do a checkuser on me. -- Ned Scott 04:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, and here's my current IP address 69.252.129.142. Comcast doesn't change it often, maybe once every four or five months. I'll see if I can find any other IPs in my records. -- Ned Scott 04:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
- There's also User:NedBot. -- Ned Scott 04:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Checkuser requests made through other means
The misunderstanding that checkuser-people can't initiate requests unless they are first listed here has become a perennial one. While there may be arguments for changing the way we do things, the policy is and has been that checkusers may make checks at their discretion as long as they follow the privacy policy and refrain from making checks without reason. Many checks are performed in the course of arbcom proceedings, as a result of informal requests, or in the course of dealing with problems reported to the foundation via email or phone. When this is done, there is no requirement that the check be logged here. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)