226:
371:
195:
339:
275:
257:
492:
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.
516:
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
495:
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
473:
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
416:
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
491:
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
456:
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
503:
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.
520:
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.
469:
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
457:"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.
560:
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.
403:
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
517:
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.
539:
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.
186:
353:
63:
474:
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.
17:
349:
98:
348:
on
Knowledge. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review
182:
178:
174:
170:
166:
162:
158:
551:
154:
150:
146:
142:
138:
134:
130:
126:
122:
104:
570:
194:
556:
As Joe says, if they are not tag-teaming articles and are editing in different spheres, there really shouldn't even be a
384:
530:
511:
486:
464:
447:
345:
425:
281:
262:
301:
412:
Alternatively, a user could declare (in confidence) this connection by emailing the
Arbitration Committee. See
44:
93:
237:
84:
117:
413:
547:
395:
357:
48:
243:
8:
526:
500:
482:
443:
285:
74:
566:
543:
508:
461:
422:
89:
70:
405:
397:
209:
536:
522:
478:
453:
439:
293:
205:
562:
505:
458:
431:
419:
297:
289:
210:
352:
before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to
207:
417:
editors (or even checkusers) won't make connections on their own.
438:
this addition, because it is not policy but advice, aka bloat.
344:
The project page associated with this talk page is an official
211:
338:
496:
get unblocked. Far from perfect, but better than nothing.
542:
n.b. I also dislike email and dislike email big list. --
274:
256:
39:
51:and anything related to its purposes and tasks.
381:the page to report suspected sock puppetry.
236:does not require a rating on Knowledge's
284:, a WikiProject dedicated to combating
14:
288:on Knowledge. You can help the CVU by
280:This page is within the scope of the
365:
333:
225:
223:
219:
26:
385:Knowledge:Sockpuppet investigations
242:It is of interest to the following
24:
383:Please instead create a report at
25:
594:
414:WP:AC § Contacting the Committee
369:
337:
310:Knowledge:Counter-Vandalism Unit
273:
255:
224:
193:
64:Click here to start a new topic.
316:Counter-Vandalism Unit articles
313:Template:Counter-Vandalism Unit
571:19:20, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
552:17:10, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
531:02:53, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
512:01:16, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
487:00:53, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
465:00:26, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
448:00:02, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
426:17:51, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
350:policy editing recommendations
13:
1:
296:. For more information go to
61:Put new text under old text.
294:undoing unconstructive edits
18:Knowledge talk:Sock puppetry
7:
290:watching the recent changes
69:New to Knowledge? Welcome!
10:
599:
268:
250:
99:Be welcoming to newcomers
33:Skip to table of contents
32:
354:keep cool when editing
307:Counter-Vandalism Unit
282:Counter-Vandalism Unit
263:Counter-Vandalism Unit
94:avoid personal attacks
302:cleaning up vandalism
187:Auto-archiving period
298:the CVU's home page
238:content assessment
105:dispute resolution
66:
391:
390:
364:
363:
332:
331:
328:
327:
324:
323:
218:
217:
85:Assume good faith
62:
38:
37:
16:(Redirected from
590:
373:
372:
366:
341:
334:
318:
317:
314:
311:
308:
277:
270:
269:
259:
252:
251:
229:
228:
227:
220:
212:
198:
197:
188:
40:
27:
21:
598:
597:
593:
592:
591:
589:
588:
587:
401:
382:
370:
315:
312:
309:
306:
305:
214:
213:
208:
185:
111:
110:
80:
47:for discussing
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
596:
586:
585:
584:
583:
582:
581:
580:
579:
578:
577:
576:
575:
574:
573:
540:
518:
497:
493:
475:
471:
400:
394:
389:
388:
376:
374:
362:
361:
342:
330:
329:
326:
325:
322:
321:
319:
278:
266:
265:
260:
248:
247:
241:
230:
216:
215:
206:
204:
203:
200:
199:
113:
112:
109:
108:
101:
96:
87:
81:
79:
78:
67:
58:
57:
54:
53:
52:
36:
35:
30:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
595:
572:
568:
564:
559:
555:
554:
553:
549:
545:
541:
538:
534:
533:
532:
528:
524:
519:
515:
514:
513:
510:
507:
502:
498:
494:
490:
489:
488:
484:
480:
476:
472:
468:
467:
466:
463:
460:
455:
451:
450:
449:
445:
441:
437:
433:
432:User:RoySmith
430:
429:
428:
427:
424:
421:
418:
415:
409:
407:
399:
393:
386:
380:
375:
368:
367:
359:
355:
351:
347:
343:
340:
336:
335:
320:
303:
299:
295:
291:
287:
283:
279:
276:
272:
271:
267:
264:
261:
258:
254:
253:
249:
245:
239:
235:
231:
222:
221:
202:
201:
196:
192:
184:
180:
176:
172:
168:
164:
160:
156:
152:
148:
144:
140:
136:
132:
128:
124:
121:
119:
115:
114:
106:
102:
100:
97:
95:
91:
88:
86:
83:
82:
76:
72:
71:Learn to edit
68:
65:
60:
59:
56:
55:
50:
46:
42:
41:
34:
31:
29:
28:
19:
557:
435:
411:
410:
402:
392:
378:
244:WikiProjects
234:project page
233:
190:
116:
49:Sockpuppetry
43:This is the
358:don't panic
396:Update to
537:SmokeyJoe
523:SmokeyJoe
479:SmokeyJoe
454:SmokeyJoe
440:SmokeyJoe
406:WP:FAMILY
398:WP:FAMILY
286:vandalism
107:if needed
90:Be polite
45:talk page
563:Primefac
506:RoySmith
459:RoySmith
420:RoySmith
377:This is
118:Archives
75:get help
544:Jeremyb
501:T373764
436:dislike
300:or see
191:60Â days
509:(talk)
462:(talk)
423:(talk)
356:, and
346:policy
240:scale.
499:BTW,
470:give.
232:This
103:Seek
567:talk
558:need
548:talk
527:talk
483:talk
444:talk
434:, I
292:and
92:and
379:not
569:)
550:)
529:)
485:)
477:-
446:)
408::
189::
183:16
181:,
179:15
177:,
175:14
173:,
171:13
169:,
167:12
165:,
163:11
161:,
159:10
157:,
153:,
149:,
145:,
141:,
137:,
133:,
129:,
125:,
73:;
565:(
546:(
535:@
525:(
481:(
452:@
442:(
387:.
360:.
304:.
246::
155:9
151:8
147:7
143:6
139:5
135:4
131:3
127:2
123:1
120::
77:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
