Effectiveness of checkuser Options

[Peter Damian]

I'm working on a document that is a detailed and point by point comment on WMUK's submission to the charity commission, July and September 2011. Note this is not public yet, as 'dogbiscuit' got access to a copy privately via FOI. The document (which I strongly believe was written by our friend 'Fae') contains many misleading or downright inaccurate claims.

Section 13.3.8 of the submission says ""There is also “CheckUser” software that enables a small number of selected and vetted volunteers to establish, in many cases, whether two editors are from the same ISP, and often where that ISP is located. This information is mostly used to detect blocked editors who try to return under a different account name. "

My experience of checkuser is that it is almost completely ineffective as a control over determined, intelligent users, and that evaders are usually caught out by stupidity or carelessness, rather than by the software itself. Examples are the easily availability of dynamic IPs (such as my own service provider, who kindly change my IP daily), the availability of 'hot spots' (public wifi networks), internet cafes, use of proxies.

Any other ideas to contribute to this section? I would be particularly interested in narratives or stories from experienced evaders.

As always, my email is edward at logicmuseum.com.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[EricBarbour]

You guys need an example of checkuser crap? What about Brian McNeil?

Even after all that, he's STILL a Wikinews administrator and bureaucrat, even after they pulled his CU power on Wikinews after a major embarrassment. And yes, he's on that stupid GLAM project--along with Ashley Van Haeften.

Mafia. No other word fits.

[melloden]

You guys need an example of checkuser crap? What about Brian McNeil?

Even after all that, he's STILL a Wikinews administrator and bureaucrat, even after they pulled his CU power on Wikinews after a major embarrassment. And yes, he's on that stupid GLAM project--along with Ashley Van Haeften.

Mafia. No other word fits.

Wikinews is more of a mafia than Wikipedia. Anyone who criticized McNeil over the last scandal has now left, have you noticed?

[Kelly Martin]

Wikinews is more of a mafia than Wikipedia. Anyone who criticized McNeil over the last scandal has now left, have you noticed?

Many, perhaps most, of the smaller projects are essentially personal dictatorships, effectively run by one individual or a small clique of individuals who ruthlessly smash all dissent. We never hear about it though because most of these projects are in languages other than English, and in any case are so small as to be irrelevant.

I've heard recurring tales of repeated purges on the Serbian Wikipedia, in which editors whose viewpoints are not welcomed by the controlling clique are systematically banned. Editing contrary the house POV there is an instant permanent ban. The Hebrew Wikipedia is hopelessly biased in its coverage of Israel and all matters related to Islam (surprise, that) and has been known to enforce opinion orthodoxy on its editors as well. One Eastern European wiki was split into two parts, purportedly over orthographic and character set differences but in reality over politics (the orthographic division is very much an aspect of the political disagreement). There are doubtlessly more such stories out there, but they're largely untold simply because nobody cares about these small projects that much.

[Vigilant]

Wikinews is more of a mafia than Wikipedia. Anyone who criticized McNeil over the last scandal has now left, have you noticed?

Many, perhaps most, of the smaller projects are essentially personal dictatorships, effectively run by one individual or a small clique of individuals who ruthlessly smash all dissent. We never hear about it though because most of these projects are in languages other than English, and in any case are so small as to be irrelevant.

I've heard recurring tales of repeated purges on the Serbian Wikipedia, in which editors whose viewpoints are not welcomed by the controlling clique are systematically banned. Editing contrary the house POV there is an instant permanent ban. The Hebrew Wikipedia is hopelessly biased in its coverage of Israel and all matters related to Islam (surprise, that) and has been known to enforce opinion orthodoxy on its editors as well. One Eastern European wiki was split into two parts, purportedly over orthographic and character set differences but in reality over politics (the orthographic division is very much an aspect of the political disagreement). There are doubtlessly more such stories out there, but they're largely untold simply because nobody cares about these small projects that much.

What control/responsibility does the WMF have to these small wikis?

[Kelly Martin]

What control/responsibility does the WMF have to these small wikis?

Presumably the same it does to the large ones. Since nobody can agree as to what that is, either, it's hard to say.