Wikidata:Requests for checkuser/Case/Vcldead

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

MarionvanRoosendaal[edit]

04 February 2024[edit]


Rationale, discussion and results[edit]

Reason: These multiple IDs are working on the same topic at the same time with their behavioral similarities. WT20 (talk) 17:51, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Results: The following groups are Confirmed to be the same among themselves and Likely to each other:

All blocked and tagged. Please move the case under Vcldead.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jasper Deng well, thank you move done. WT20 (talk) 05:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WT20, Jasper Deng: seems to be a misunderstanding here. user:Denengelse contacted me for help. He is a longtime contributor to the wikiverse who is in good standing. He organized an editathon at Baroeg (Q2255123) focused on the bands who played there over the years. The event had about 20 participants (not sock puppets) who you now all blocked. Please unblock and undo the fallout. Thank you, Multichill (talk) 11:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised that one editor having almost 300k edits doesn't trigger something like: "something's off here". Please revert all taken action. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 12:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jasper Deng: please unblock. Plus, it's the second time (this year only!) that you are blocking a group of newcomers taking part in an edit-a-thon, could you be more carefull? Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 13:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry, I have recreated the items deleted of Marsudan and Vcldead, that I deleted yesterday. Fralambert (talk) 13:10, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can wait for checkuser decision and then work on those items later I think there is some misunderstanding here. WT20 (talk) 13:16, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WT20: why wait? and what do you expect the checkuse to say? (that people in the same room share the same IP, we obviously already know that). Jasper Deng clearly made a mistake, it happens, we need to be more careful in the future ; but there is no reason to keep the block or the false accusation of sockpuppetry. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 14:37, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also would like to know why this request wasn't declined based on Wikidata:Alternate accounts and the following text at the top of this page: "Evidence is required. When you request a check, you must include a rationale that demonstrates (e.g., by including diffs) what the disruption to the project is, and why you believe the accounts are related.". Editing in a similar way by itself isn't disruptive and probably happens every day. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 15:28, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm already tell the same topic at the same time with their behavioral similarities WT20 (talk) 16:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if you are considering an account here but I am not referring to Denengelse this account here I am only asking for specific suspects and HR matches. WT20 (talk) 16:09, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could this be resolved? Even the organiser user:Denengelse of the edithaton is blocked now. Hannolans (talk) 11:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I gave Jasper the time to respond. He has been active on the English Wikipedia, but no edits (or response) here. I would also like the answer to Sjoerd's question: On what ground did you do this check user? Seems like a violation of Wikidata:CheckUser / meta:CheckUser policy. As I see no abuse at all, these blocks are without any basis. What I will do:

  • Unblock all accounts
  • Remove all the warnings
  • Restore all the deleted items

Multichill (talk) 19:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • A cursory examination of edits showed that this case had sound basis for checking, with many adding the same or similar labels, and in the absence of an edit-a-thon declaration it is not distinguishable from socking. Promotion of non-notable artists, or marginally notable artists, is a very common socking pattern here (see numerous cases filed by User:Lymantria and User:Trade) so the common denominator of creating new items on Dutch bands, and linking Facebook, in close temporal proximity, is enough evidence to check (remember, the standard of proof is definitely not "beyond any reasonable doubt", or even "preponderance of the evidence"–CU is explicitly for these difficult cases), with some of the accounts editing about the same bands. Per WD:AA it is not permissible to use multiple accounts without declaring them. @VIGNERON: Edit-a-thons that are not declared are bad practice and cannot be distinguished from undeclared multiple account use. It should be a policy requirement that all edit-a-thons be declared in advance. At this time I can approve unblocking, but only on condition that the edit-a-thon be declared explicitly. Not one account I saw declared participation in one. The entropy that exists on other wikis (edit summary, writing differences) does not exist here, which means it is very difficult to distinguish between an edit-a-thon and multiple account misuse. @Sjoerddebruin: Also, edit count alone does not exempt users from getting blocked in a socking case, because there are numerous cases of established editors found to be socking.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:44, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Jasper Deng: it's true that declaring that an account take part in an edit-a-thon is a good practice but not declaring it is not a bad practice in itself. Likewise, Denengelse having a high edit count is not a proof that it's not sockpuppetry but it's a clue that make a difference and allows to at least raise doubt and caution. At the very least, you could have wait more than 2 hours and left a message, a warning or a notification to Denengelse before jumping to conclusion. As you said, it can indeed be difficult to distinguish edit-a-thon and sockpuppetry ; I see this as the very reason to be a bit more cautious. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 10:01, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • @VIGNERON: That is not reasonable in most scenarios that lack any indication of an edit-a-thon. Hindsight is 20/20 (hindsight bias (Q1960297)). What would you have done in that situation? It is not reasonable to not block numerous sockfarms in case of the uncommon occurrence that they turn out to be an edit-a-thon. Like I said, because there's no technical or behavioral distinction, there's no difference in how to act. I also do not contact users asking to explain because I would have no way of doing so without compromising the privacy of the other accounts. Maybe I should do that more for experienced users, but we need to act on the best information available and if that information is solely consistent with sockfarms, then we need to treat it as such unless and until better information becomes available like here.--Jasper Deng (talk) 10:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • I kindly disagree. You are right in theory and I'm not saying that we shouldn't act when there is suspicion, but you are wrong in practice, we should act with care (which was obviously not the case here). Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 10:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • @VIGNERON: Care was exercised here because the actions taken were what was justified by the information at the time. "which was obviously not the case here" is a baseless accusation and must be retracted.--Jasper Deng (talk) 10:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Jasper Deng: sorry but wrongly blocking users with no warning and in 2 hours seems the opposite of care to me. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 11:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
              • @VIGNERON: At the time my decision was the correct one due to lack of better information. I took care to get that information and took care to parse it. Your hindsight bias is tiring as you still have not answered the question of what you would've done, other than posing a question that requires some compromise of privacy.--Jasper Deng (talk) 11:05, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
                • @Jasper Deng: first I'm not sure I would have accept the CU. I don't see a firm ground for that. And even if I would have accepted, I would have looked at all the edits (not just the last 90 days) and would have quickly seen that Denengelse was the oldest account with a goodstanding record (which would also tend to indicate it was not just a regular sockpuppetry). I would have post the results of the CU (like you did) but pinged Denengelse to warn him that multiple account are forbindden (maybe also a ping or a message on their talk page) and would have waited for an answer (especially as the accounts where not contributing anymore, there was no harm in waiting more than 2 hours). No compromise of privacy involved (or more exactly no more than where we are now in the end). Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 10:45, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
                  • @VIGNERON: To be frank, I'm not interested in arguing with you while you keep repeating the same arguments so this will be my last reply. I already explained why I accepted this request above. Established users do not get a pass when it comes to multiple account sanctions and had this proved not to be an edit-a-thon, the course of action would've been to keep them blocked until they understand. Blocking accounts doesn't just disable editing; it also prevents further account creation. At that point I'm not asking them to clarify in the way you originally intended above. Instead, it is a standard unblock process.--Jasper Deng (talk) 11:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I keep repeating this, but its really time we stop giving as much meaning to ip addresses as we have traditionally done. TheDJ (talk) 11:47, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There was more than just IP address data that lined up here. While CU isn't magic pixie dust, your opinion is uninformed and incorrect.--Jasper Deng (talk) 11:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New edit-a-thon planned: how do we prevent blocks & extra work for everyone?[edit]

Dear @VIGNERON:, @Jasper Deng:, @Multichill:, @Denengelse:, the organisers of the previous edit-a-thon mentioned here in the above section would like to organise another edit-a-thon on April 14. What can they do to prevent a new blockage of all participants? I read something about an edit-a-thon declaration, would e.e.g. a sentence on a user profile do? Thanks for sharing your thoughts! MichellevL (WMNL) (talk) 13:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One sentence on the organizer's user page about it would be enough. However I don't think there was consensus to require it in the first place.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:39, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Vcldead&oldid=2114189422"