Question about CU blocks

Hello, DoRD,

I was just reviewing the unblock requests of Operationendgame and Gristleking and I have a general question regarding CU blocks. I have lived most of my life in shared housing, sharing the same house/apartment, same internet connection with my family or housemates. For me, I never lived with another person who wanted to edit Wikipedia but if I did, would I face a block?

These situations of editors sharing housing seems very plausible to me given that I've lived in similar situations during my life and I'm not sure what reassurances an editor blocked for this reason can make that could lift their block. Or is it just impossible for two active editors to share an internet connection? I know it's okay according to policy but I'm talking about practice. It shouldn't be impossible for 2 editors to live together and both be active on Wikipedia because I know we have couples on Wikipedia who are both long time editors. Liz Read! Talk! 23:48, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Liz. I've seen similar situations to this quite a few times over the years I've been doing this work, and it's always a challenge to determine which is which. I agree that it's plausible that there could be multiple WP editors living together (or next door), but in this case I find it unlikely. According to Gristleking, there are four residents living together, and three of them are WP editors. The two accounts above have some crossover of their editing and Gristleking has quite a bit of crossover with the oldest account, including supporting that account at AfD. The technical data is quite conclusive as well. In addition, I've seen similar quirky behavior shared between the accounts.
Of course, it's perfectly acceptable for multiple editors to use the same internet connection in the same household, but they typically take the precaution of making some note of the shared IP and avoiding editing the same subjects. —DoRD (talk)​ 01:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the explanation, DoRD. This isn't the first time I've had questions about the checkuser system and checkuser blocks and since I don't know what is technically involved, it seems to come down to trusting the experience and good sense of checkusers to figure out what is going on. I tend to give editors the benefit of the doubt and I have to accept that checkusers have seen every sort of situation and complication and know deception when they see it.
I would just prefer that there is always some sort of way for blocked editors to appeal and start over because without a way to do this can lead to sockpuppetry. But I realize that giving frequent second chances is an approach that might require oversight that requires too much attention and time from a limited pool of admins. Thank you again for your thoughtful response.Liz Read! Talk! 01:43, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion/Mere Oblivion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I see you've struck Gristleking's vote on this page for voting previously. Please indicate where this user voted previously on this page and under what name. Thank you. BenjaminHomerBoyd (talk) 02:05, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, but at this time, I decline to name the other account. The account is not currently blocked. —DoRD (talk)​ 03:05, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask why not? Surely transparency is important here, for fairness. Otherwise, in theory, one could strike all disagreeable comments. Thank you for your consideration. BenjaminHomerBoyd (talk) 03:16, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment, I have nothing else to say regarding the matter. —DoRD (talk)​ 03:39, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is disconcerting. In all fairness, you must then unstrike that user's comment until you are willing and able to discuss the matter. BenjaminHomerBoyd (talk) 04:18, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am under no obligation to divulge private information to you, nor am I under any obligation to restore the invalid !vote which, coincidentally, aligns with your preferred outcome in the discussion. If the AfD closer has questions about my action, I will discuss it with them at that time. —DoRD (talk)​ 11:37, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
More