Tips for evading indefinite blocks

[Instant Noodle]

The truth is that generally, evading blocks is actually quite easy as long as you are not obsessive and fixated on a particular article or articles or adding or deleting a particular thing. It helps if you also take a few weeks or longer after being blocked before starting a new account..

Tips if you find yourself with an indef block:

1) Wait a few weeks
2) If you have more than one device avoid using the same combination of devices and IPs as your banned account (eg home wireless + your cell phone provider). Stick to one internet provider for your account if possible.
3) Avoid editing the same articles you edited previously, particularly if their low-volume articles with a handful of editors.
4) Avoid the same combination of editing interests, particularly if one of the interests is obscure.
5) If you really need to edit on two topics, you can take the risk of using more than one account but be careful to confine those accounts to their respective devices and to use different internet providers (eg one on your home pc and one on your phone but not using your home wireless). At the very least, make sure to use an internet provider with dynamic IPs and reset your modem when you switch between devices and wikipedia accounts.

Any other tips?

[MadManz]

Wait 90 days, after that point you can't be CheckUsered.

[Poetlister]

Try to avoid anything controversial. However, this is more easily said than done, as you never know what can suddenly become controversial, however cut and dried it may seem to be.

[Instant Noodle]

Wait 90 days, after that point you can't be CheckUsered.

Yes and no, the IP used when the account was created stays on record so best to wait 90 days and use a different IP (and preferably a different ISP) or at least reset your modem if you have a dynamic IP.

[Kumioko]

It also depends on the IP. In my case I have used a lot so they see ghosts of me everywhere. Same with Russavia, if anyone in Australia edits anything related to Aviation they assume its him.

[MadManz]

Wait 90 days, after that point you can't be CheckUsered.

Yes and no, the IP used when the account was created stays on record so best to wait 90 days and use a different IP (and preferably a different ISP) or at least reset your modem if you have a dynamic IP.

That isn't so easy for me, my modem's IP is 100% static and restarting it is a horrible idea.

[MadManz]

It also depends on the IP. In my case I have used a lot so they see ghosts of me everywhere. Same with Russavia, if anyone in Australia edits anything related to Aviation they assume its him.

Didn't Russavia practically block half of Australia either way?

[Kumioko]

Yep, he literally did.

[Poetlister]

Wait 90 days, after that point you can't be CheckUsered.

Yes and no, the IP used when the account was created stays on record

I've often heard that said, but it's not true. What is true is:

* Checkusers may keep records of their searches indefinitely, although they aren't supposed to.
* In theory, a developer can recover IPs at any time, but they'd only go to the trouble of getting a developer to do that in exceptional circumstances.

[Kumioko]

There is a secret/special Wiki where the Checkusers track information on SPI cases. So although the tool technically loses data after a period of time, data is often captured and saved, not always, but frequently.

[Ca$hBag]

Use the reset button on your modem to change your IP in case it's static.

[The Garbage Scow]

ZOMGWPBEANSSSSSSS

[The Garbage Scow]

There is a secret/special Wiki where the Checkusers track information on SPI cases. So although the tool technically loses data after a period of time, data is often captured and saved, not always, but frequently.

That's true. They keep all of the LTA stuff there.

[Ca$hBag]

There is a new feature though that you need to watch out for. From the administrators newsletter "When blocking anonymous users, a [[phab:T152462|cookie will be applied]] that reloads the block if the user changes their IP. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. This currently only [[mw:Autoblock#Tracking|occurs when hard-blocking accounts]]"

[Kumioko]

So all I need to do is delete cookies right?

[MadManz]

So all I need to do is delete cookies right?

It's not quite that simple

[Kumioko]

Maybe not, but probably not much more. Plus, a lot of corporate networks don't allow cookies, so by doing this, Wikipedia is going to lose a bunch more edits.

[Poetlister]

I suspect that under European law, foisting cookies like that on people would be illegal.

[AndyTheGrump]

I suspect that under European law, foisting cookies like that on people would be illegal.

The cookie policy actually includes one that "Helps us enforce autoblocks, a system used to prevent vandalism and disruption". https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Cookie_statement

Possibly enough to make it legal. Possibly not. Can't think why anyone with any sense would want to take it to court though, since the damages for 'not being able to edit Wikipedia for 24 hours after being blocked' would be minimal.

[Kumioko]

What I see happening is many of those 24 hour blocks are going to be perpetual, due to the high volume of editors being blocked on some networks.

I think if they really believe this will be an improvement they'll lift all the blocks on proxies and ranges. If they don't, then that is a nod that they themselves don't really believe this will help and it's just pandering to the news.

[Poetlister]

Possibly enough to make it legal. Possibly not. Can't think why anyone with any sense would want to take it to court though, since the damages for 'not being able to edit Wikipedia for 24 hours after being blocked' would be minimal.

Someone with deep pockets might do it just to get it on record that the WMF was acting illegally. it would be fun to get Jimbo in court to testify about it, and if he's forced to admit that he has no control over Wikipedia, that might embarrass him.

[MysteriousStranger]

There is a new feature though that you need to watch out for. From the administrators newsletter "When blocking anonymous users, a [[phab:T152462|cookie will be applied]] that reloads the block if the user changes their IP. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. This currently only [[mw:Autoblock#Tracking|occurs when hard-blocking accounts]]"

Not totally new. I noticed months ago that my phone was still blocked after resetting it to change the IP.

[Instant Noodle]

There is a new feature though that you need to watch out for. From the administrators newsletter "When blocking anonymous users, a [[phab:T152462|cookie will be applied]] that reloads the block if the user changes their IP. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. This currently only [[mw:Autoblock#Tracking|occurs when hard-blocking accounts]]"

Not totally new. I noticed months ago that my phone was still blocked after resetting it to change the IP.

I was able to get around that by clearing my data cache and erasing cookies from Wikipedia. If that doesn't work use the private browser option (Chrome for Androids has it).

[Beeblebrox]

The simplest way to avoid a block is to quietly return to editing without acting like an asshole.
If you can’t do that you’ll get blocked again whether anyone knows who you were before or not.

[Poetlister]

The simplest way to avoid a block is to quietly return to editing without acting like an asshole.
If you can’t do that you’ll get blocked again whether anyone knows who you were before or not.

Good advice, but if you have a particularly characteristic editing pattern, even if it might appear to be sensible and productive, your new incarnation may come under suspicion.

[Kumioko]

The simplest way to avoid a block is to quietly return to editing without acting like an asshole.
If you can’t do that you’ll get blocked again whether anyone knows who you were before or not.

Good advice, but if you have a particularly characteristic editing pattern, even if it might appear to be sensible and productive, your new incarnation may come under suspicion.

This is just nonsense. There are so many CU's running random checks if you live in any metro area or attend any major university or edit any article or topic you ever edited they are going to notice and you'll get blocked. This argument that Beeblebrox has is only applicable because he is an admin and the CU's ignore anything that associates to admins and some of the active editors.

[MadManz]

The simplest way to avoid a block is to quietly return to editing without acting like an asshole.
If you can’t do that you’ll get blocked again whether anyone knows who you were before or not.

Good advice, but if you have a particularly characteristic editing pattern, even if it might appear to be sensible and productive, your new incarnation may come under suspicion.

That's not enough, DoRD for example CheckUsers everything so even if you have a completely different editing pattern he'll still find and block you.

[Beeblebrox]

The simplest way to avoid a block is to quietly return to editing without acting like an asshole.
If you can’t do that you’ll get blocked again whether anyone knows who you were before or not.

Good advice, but if you have a particularly characteristic editing pattern, even if it might appear to be sensible and productive, your new incarnation may come under suspicion.

That's not enough, DoRD for example CheckUsers everything so even if you have a completely different editing pattern he'll still find and block you.

“Checkusers everything” seems like a bit of hyperbole given that this would be basically inpossible and extremely contrary to the privacy policy.

[Kumioko]

Everyone knows that many of the Checkusers randomly CU whatever they come across, frequently check new users, CU any new user that does anything that looks more advanced than a new user would do, whenever the mood suits them, etc. This of course violates the CU policy, but since only CU's know if one violates policy and tattling on each other would be a breach of "trust", nothing is done about it.

[tarantino]

That's not enough, DoRD for example CheckUsers everything so even if you have a completely different editing pattern he'll still find and block you.

They post statistics on checkuser usage. Bbb23 leads the pack by 20 lengths.

The top three for the last six months
Bbb23 1,976
Berean Hunter 444
DoRD 335

[MadManz]

That's not enough, DoRD for example CheckUsers everything so even if you have a completely different editing pattern he'll still find and block you.

They post statistics on checkuser usage. Bbb23 leads the pack by 20 lengths.

The top three for the last six months
Bbb23 1,976
Berean Hunter 444
DoRD 335

Bbb23 just checkusered me today in fact.

[Kumioko]

Given that there are no where near that many official requests for CU action I think one can very easily see that Bbb23 is just fishing, which is a violation. Sure they find some, but everyone knows that the CU tool is crap, prone to false positives and frequently associates legitimate good faith accounts to notorious sockmasters, often due to the sockmaster knowing as much about how the tool works as those that use it.

My sincere hope is that someone does something about this policy defying scoundrel but realistically we all know better.

[Poetlister]

Given that there are no where near that many official requests for CU action I think one can very easily see that Bbb23 is just fishing, which is a violation.

Come, come. WP:AGF!!

[Kumioko]

Given that there are no where near that many official requests for CU action I think one can very easily see that Bbb23 is just fishing, which is a violation.

Come, come. WP:AGF!!

AGF is something of a Unicorn on Wikipedia these days. Often spoken of, rarely seen, impossible to catch.

[karmafist]

Given that there are no where near that many official requests for CU action I think one can very easily see that Bbb23 is just fishing, which is a violation. Sure they find some, but everyone knows that the CU tool is crap, prone to false positives and frequently associates legitimate good faith accounts to notorious sockmasters, often due to the sockmaster knowing as much about how the tool works as those that use it.

My sincere hope is that someone does something about this policy defying scoundrel but realistically we all know better.

Since there's no transparency, they could just be making up checkuser searches and it wouldn't matter. I'm surprised Jimbo's minions haven't used it more to clamp down further on those opposing his efforts to extract as much as he can from Wikipedia.

[Kumioko]

Given that there are no where near that many official requests for CU action I think one can very easily see that Bbb23 is just fishing, which is a violation. Sure they find some, but everyone knows that the CU tool is crap, prone to false positives and frequently associates legitimate good faith accounts to notorious sockmasters, often due to the sockmaster knowing as much about how the tool works as those that use it.

My sincere hope is that someone does something about this policy defying scoundrel but realistically we all know better.

Since there's no transparency, they could just be making up checkuser searches and it wouldn't matter. I'm surprised Jimbo's minions haven't used it more to clamp down further on those opposing his efforts to extract as much as he can from Wikipedia.

I don't think they are making it up but what I do think is happening is when they want to block someone for some reason, they run the CU tool, see there are a dozen or so accounts using the same IP, etc. and then block them as a sock using some of the associated accounts for reference. Now if someone edits from home its not likely to turn up another account, but if they are editing from a high density area like a University or a city like NYC or DC, then there are likely multiple accounts for a lot of IPs and that gives them a lot of false positives.

[Poetlister]

That's one reason that so many libraries, Internet cafés and other public places get blocked.

[The Garbage Scow]

Given that there are no where near that many official requests for CU action I think one can very easily see that Bbb23 is just fishing, which is a violation. Sure they find some, but everyone knows that the CU tool is crap, prone to false positives and frequently associates legitimate good faith accounts to notorious sockmasters, often due to the sockmaster knowing as much about how the tool works as those that use it.

My sincere hope is that someone does something about this policy defying scoundrel but realistically we all know better.

Since there's no transparency, they could just be making up checkuser searches and it wouldn't matter. I'm surprised Jimbo's minions haven't used it more to clamp down further on those opposing his efforts to extract as much as he can from Wikipedia.

I don't think they are making it up but what I do think is happening is when they want to block someone for some reason, they run the CU tool, see there are a dozen or so accounts using the same IP, etc. and then block them as a sock using some of the associated accounts for reference. Now if someone edits from home its not likely to turn up another account, but if they are editing from a high density area like a University or a city like NYC or DC, then there are likely multiple accounts for a lot of IPs and that gives them a lot of false positives.

It's a bit more than that, they also look at your browser and OS info. I have a Firefox plugin that lets me change which OS and browser and even the browser version showing when I'm online. I can't remember the name of it offhand. But in the case of someone using a library or a school computer lab that has a bunch of the same computers with same browsers and OS, it's easier to just rangeblock. If a Checkuser us using their tool like this and assuming everyone who vandalizes from a school or library IP range are socks of the same person then they should have the tools taken away because that's idiotic.

[MadManz]

Given that there are no where near that many official requests for CU action I think one can very easily see that Bbb23 is just fishing, which is a violation. Sure they find some, but everyone knows that the CU tool is crap, prone to false positives and frequently associates legitimate good faith accounts to notorious sockmasters, often due to the sockmaster knowing as much about how the tool works as those that use it.

My sincere hope is that someone does something about this policy defying scoundrel but realistically we all know better.

Since there's no transparency, they could just be making up checkuser searches and it wouldn't matter. I'm surprised Jimbo's minions haven't used it more to clamp down further on those opposing his efforts to extract as much as he can from Wikipedia.

I don't think they are making it up but what I do think is happening is when they want to block someone for some reason, they run the CU tool, see there are a dozen or so accounts using the same IP, etc. and then block them as a sock using some of the associated accounts for reference. Now if someone edits from home its not likely to turn up another account, but if they are editing from a high density area like a University or a city like NYC or DC, then there are likely multiple accounts for a lot of IPs and that gives them a lot of false positives.

It's a bit more than that, they also look at your browser and OS info. I have a Firefox plugin that lets me change which OS and browser and even the browser version showing when I'm online. I can't remember the name of it offhand. But in the case of someone using a library or a school computer lab that has a bunch of the same computers with same browsers and OS, it's easier to just rangeblock. If a Checkuser us using their tool like this and assuming everyone who vandalizes from a school or library IP range are socks of the same person then they should have the tools taken away because that's idiotic.

While many libraries/schools/universities have a range of IPs, there's also a good deal that only have one IP or a small set of IPs making it sometimes completely useless to rangeblock people.

[Dysklyver]

* Checkusers may keep records of their searches indefinitely, although they aren't supposed to.

Checkusers or other nosey admins and users generally will email the results to each other or discuss it on one of the private IRC channels. Either way they simply need to look back to find the details they are looking for.

Despite the fact this legally protected personal data, noticeable breaches do frequently occur, such as when a non-admin user appears to have detailed knowledge of your device history. There is no feasible way that anyone could guess what kind of phone you have. This implies some problems with data security rather than anything else.

----

* In theory, a developer can recover IPs at any time, but they'd only go to the trouble of getting a developer to do that in exceptional circumstances.

The way the WMF has setup their dev access and data retention policies does effectivity remove this option. I believe it may not be possible on Wikipedia, even if technically feasible with a Mediawiki install.

----

There is a secret/special Wiki where the Checkusers track information on SPI cases. So although the tool technically loses data after a period of time, data is often captured and saved, not always, but frequently.

This wiki is remarkably interesting, it's basically a more detailed version of SPI. Although IP's and accounts are not always logged, much more is logged than you might think, and not all the data is technical data.

----

So all I need to do is delete cookies right?

Deleting cookies is essential when changing IP. Otherwise the cookie block comes into play. However it is advisable to also change your user-agent and clear your cache. You do all this before changing ip, and change ip with the browser closed. (Or at the least, all tabs with Wikimedia sites closed).


----

I suspect that under European law, foisting cookies like that on people would be illegal.

Under European law, many Wikipedia features are illegal, including but not limited to, their use of cookies without consent, their retention of IP data without consent, their publication of IP data without consent, their lack of a GDPR policy, their refusal to comply with requests made by users wishing their data removed from the site, Their use of unlicensed data controllers, and their refusal to abide by the right to be forgotten.

I somehow doubt they have noticed or care, discussions with prominent Wikimedians reveals they are stuck in the era when they were only bound by US law. No Wikimedia will act without say so from the WMF legal counsel. However the WMF are yet to hire a EU law specialist for this task.

The new EU copyright directive is only going to exacerbate this issue.

Can't think why anyone with any sense would want to take it to court though, since the damages for 'not being able to edit Wikipedia for 24 hours after being blocked' would be minimal.

The EU mandates a €20 million fine for any serious breach, with substantial fines even for minor infractions.

----

Good advice, but if you have a particularly characteristic editing pattern, even if it might appear to be sensible and productive, your new incarnation may come under suspicion.

I know this to be true, bear in mind there are hidden filters that detect high levels of edits and technical edits from new users. This makes it far easier for them to sift through the chaff than it might appear.

DoRD for example CheckUsers everything

Not everything, but certainly what the aforementioned filters flag as potentially interesting.

since only CU's know if one violates policy

etc

etc

The policy is actually very permissive, fishing is allowed when the account exhibits any behavior not matching that of a clueless newbie vandal.

----

[Kumioko]

Given that there are no where near that many official requests for CU action I think one can very easily see that Bbb23 is just fishing, which is a violation. Sure they find some, but everyone knows that the CU tool is crap, prone to false positives and frequently associates legitimate good faith accounts to notorious sockmasters, often due to the sockmaster knowing as much about how the tool works as those that use it.

My sincere hope is that someone does something about this policy defying scoundrel but realistically we all know better.

Since there's no transparency, they could just be making up checkuser searches and it wouldn't matter. I'm surprised Jimbo's minions haven't used it more to clamp down further on those opposing his efforts to extract as much as he can from Wikipedia.

I don't think they are making it up but what I do think is happening is when they want to block someone for some reason, they run the CU tool, see there are a dozen or so accounts using the same IP, etc. and then block them as a sock using some of the associated accounts for reference. Now if someone edits from home its not likely to turn up another account, but if they are editing from a high density area like a University or a city like NYC or DC, then there are likely multiple accounts for a lot of IPs and that gives them a lot of false positives.

It's a bit more than that, they also look at your browser and OS info. I have a Firefox plugin that lets me change which OS and browser and even the browser version showing when I'm online. I can't remember the name of it offhand. But in the case of someone using a library or a school computer lab that has a bunch of the same computers with same browsers and OS, it's easier to just rangeblock. If a Checkuser us using their tool like this and assuming everyone who vandalizes from a school or library IP range are socks of the same person then they should have the tools taken away because that's idiotic.

Oh sure, but how many people are running Windows 10 and Firefox, Chrome or Internet explorer? Probably a lot. So really those 2 criteria are next to useless IMO. If they were to use the MAC address then it would be far more accurate and although it can be spoofed, there are a lot less people who are able to do that.

@Dysklyver, so does Bbb23. He and DoRD routinely use their CU access to go on fishing expeditions to see what they find. It's interesting that this was exactly what the developers feared would happen when they were told to give the community access to the CU data and they were told, if it were to happen, it would be revoked from the user.

[Dysklyver]

@Kumioko.

I personally don't have experience with Bbb23, I suspect that CU have their pet subject areas. Indeed I have found that I can edit all sorts of things for a practically indefinite period, as long as I don't touch the drahma or anything related to Geography or the UK. But edit somewhere like say WP:RFA and *BOOM*, its gone, I suspect RFA is fully CU vetted. That said, my current RFA vote is fine, so maybe I am just being paranoid. But really I think it's just because my current IP does not match my normal prefix numbers, i.e they checked, but didn't notice.

No, what gets me irritated by the way the WMF operates CU is that:

a) They don't use an automated scoring system like ORES for the CU tool. This would be easy to implement, and would deal with the issue of fishing. No personal data need be visible, it would give a simple score on how likely users are to be the same person. The prototype for this (my prototype that is) only finds almost exact or exact matches, (same IP, or same range with matching useragent) so is not particularly useful for finding range-hopping hooligans with clue. But this could be tweaked, Cluebot NG has an AI brain, CUbot could have an AI brain too.

b) They don't licence their staff, nor take any steps to make sure data is correctly handled. There is no point in doing all the vetting for functionaries if they don't bother to properly complete the process by training them and registering them. The fact they don't means they are probably breaking the law in numerous jurisdictions.

In my view, it is generally viewed as acceptable that websites are moderated. As I am writing on a forum, they is no doubt a moderator here for example. The problem is that the moderators are not in any way defined on Wikipedia. The moderation role is partially spread between anyone that wants it (rollbackers, NPR, AFC), and the admin corp (+bits). In the CU corp there are a number of effectively "chief mods", but everyone pretends they are just normal editors. Why they promote this view is incomprehensible, everyone is aware that admins and functionaries have powers beyond that of a normal editor, and barring an obvious breach of their duty of care, they are beyond reproach.

Either they should practise what they preach or make it official.

The existing culture is quite reliant on the CU staff getting obsessive and chasing the trolls, this is really not healthy since they have a habit of acting like a bulldozer. They occasionally ban the wrong people (common), and chase editors off the project when they see minor infractions and have too much built up hostility.

[MadManz]

@Kumioko.

I personally don't have experience with Bbb23, I suspect that CU have their pet subject areas. Indeed I have found that I can edit all sorts of things for a practically indefinite period, as long as I don't touch the drahma or anything related to Geography or the UK. But edit somewhere like say WP:RFA and *BOOM*, its gone, I suspect RFA is fully CU vetted. That said, my current RFA vote is fine, so maybe I am just being paranoid. But really I think it's just because my current IP does not match my normal prefix numbers, i.e they checked, but didn't notice.

No, what gets me irritated by the way the WMF operates CU is that:

a) They don't use an automated scoring system like ORES for the CU tool. This would be easy to implement, and would deal with the issue of fishing. No personal data need be visible, it would give a simple score on how likely users are to be the same person. The prototype for this (my prototype that is) only finds almost exact or exact matches, (same IP, or same range with matching useragent) so is not particularly useful for finding range-hopping hooligans with clue. But this could be tweaked, Cluebot NG has an AI brain, CUbot could have an AI brain too.

b) They don't licence their staff, nor take any steps to make sure data is correctly handled. There is no point in doing all the vetting for functionaries if they don't bother to properly complete the process by training them and registering them. The fact they don't means they are probably breaking the law in numerous jurisdictions.

In my view, it is generally viewed as acceptable that websites are moderated. As I am writing on a forum, they is no doubt a moderator here for example. The problem is that the moderators are not in any way defined on Wikipedia. The moderation role is partially spread between anyone that wants it (rollbackers, NPR, AFC), and the admin corp (+bits). In the CU corp there are a number of effectively "chief mods", but everyone pretends they are just normal editors. Why they promote this view is incomprehensible, everyone is aware that admins and functionaries have powers beyond that of a normal editor, and barring an obvious breach of their duty of care, they are beyond reproach.

Either they should practise what they preach or make it official.

The existing culture is quite reliant on the CU staff getting obsessive and chasing the trolls, this is really not healthy since they have a habit of acting like a bulldozer. They occasionally ban the wrong people (common), and chase editors off the project when they see minor infractions and have too much built up hostility.

Damn, you have an account here too?

[Dysklyver]

Damn, you have an account here too?

This is still the #1 Wikipedia critique forum. Reddit is not impressive nor taking over, but is occasionally worth checking.

[MadManz]

Damn, you have an account here too?

This is still the #1 Wikipedia critique forum. Reddit is not impressive nor taking over, but is occasionally worth checking.

I just were surprised you were able to be found outside of WP considering you're a somewhat well known LTA and I've seen you at least once be reported to Steward requests/Global (globally locking accounts) over on Meta.

[danalaran2]

Yeah when someone leaves Wikipedia under a clout the Wikipedia gods tend to keep that person away from Wikipedia when that person returns. I tried to make my return to Wikipedia after a 2 year absence but i see my feud with Dave Craven had led to them doing everything to keep me away (even though i wasn't banned) I guess Giano and Cass have gotten into power positions on WP.

[MadManz]

Yeah when someone leaves Wikipedia under a clout the Wikipedia gods tend to keep that person away from Wikipedia when that person returns. I tried to make my return to Wikipedia after a 2 year absence but i see my feud with Dave Craven had led to them doing everything to keep me away (even though i wasn't banned) I guess Giano and Cass have gotten into power positions on WP.

Cass quit

[Dysklyver]

It occurs to me that I haven't mentioned the email. Don't use the same email address on multiple socks, this is something that can can be potentially extracted from the database. It's not clear when this is done, or even if it is. But it's there as an option for nosey devs. Additionally, not setting and confirming an email address is a red flag.

[mynameisnotdave]

this is something that can can be potentially extracted from the database. It's not clear when this is done, or even if it is. But it's there as an option for nosey devs.

I think, that unless there is evidence of this ever happening, we're going into conspiracy theory territory with that.

[Dysklyver]

this is something that can can be potentially extracted from the database. It's not clear when this is done, or even if it is. But it's there as an option for nosey devs.

I think, that unless there is evidence of this ever happening, we're going into conspiracy theory territory with that.

I could do it on my wiki (with some effort), and it is stated somewhere that the WMF can find a users email in exceptional circumstances. However there's no clear feature for this to be made easily available to users. So yes probably in the realm of unproven theory. Certainly it would need dev action to fish the data out of the database.

Of course it's much easier if you use https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:LookupUser, btut Wikimedia does not use that or anything like it.