Question about checkuser policy Options

[Herschelkrustofsky]

I am wondering why at WP:Requests for Checkuser, it advises editors not to request a Checkuser on yourself to "prove your innocence." Such requests are rarely accepted, please do not ask. There seems to be a "guilty until proven innocent" bias in the system, which enables POV-pushing admins to dispense with their opponents on the basis of flimsy allegations, and denies the defendants access to something which could be, in come cases, the equivalent of DNA evidence that would exonerate them.

[Piperdown]

I am wondering why at WP:Requests for Checkuser, it advises editors not to request a Checkuser on yourself to "prove your innocence" Such requests are rarely accepted, please do not ask. There seems to be a "guilty until proven innocent" bias in the system, which enables POV-pushing admins to dispense with their opponents on the basis of flimsy allegations, and denies the defendants access to something which could be, in come cases, the equivalent of DNA evidence that would exonerate them.

Indeed. Until a sistersoldieroftruth (Alison!) performed an unsolicitied CU on my WP account, and didn't lie about it as my previous Checkusers had, I was supposedly

a -- Sock, per MONGO
b -- Wordbomb, per SlimVirgin and Gary's Socks
c -- an Overstock employee per David Gerard.

Guilty until proven innocent after these assholes finally just couldn't stand all the exposure of their lies on the W-R for 4 months.

These people will do anything it takes to keep themselves "in power", and they can. With no accountability. The Cla68 arb case proved that once again.

This post has been edited by Piperdown: Sun 28th September 2008, 3:12pm

[Shalom]

I am wondering why at WP:Requests for Checkuser, it advises editors not to request a Checkuser on yourself to "prove your innocence." Such requests are rarely accepted, please do not ask. There seems to be a "guilty until proven innocent" bias in the system, which enables POV-pushing admins to dispense with their opponents on the basis of flimsy allegations, and denies the defendants access to something which could be, in come cases, the equivalent of DNA evidence that would exonerate them.

This is a fair question, and I hope the checkusers who read the forum answer it.

Most of the time, asking for a checkuser on yourself is disruptive if there is not a legitimate suspicion to begin with. However, if there is an illegitimate suspicion, the temptation to call foul is very, very strong. In my fourth RFA, after at least one person wondered if I might be socking, I filed an RFC of which one component was a request for checkuser on myself to prove my innocence. I went to WP:RFCU to file the request - something I had done many times before on other users while working at WP:SSP - then at the last moment I stopped and said to myself, this is a bad idea. So I didn't file a report on myself, but I almost did. I needed some way to respond to everyone and say forcefully that the baseless allegations against me were completely false.

I've seen other users under pressure make the same threat. There was an incident a few months ago when Realist2, RyRy5 and a few other young guys got in trouble for putting too many barnstars on their userpages and not actually editing the encyclopedia because they were teenagers or younger and didn't really get it. So Iridescent says on her talk page, or maybe on the admins' noticeboard and it was discussed on her talk page - anyway, I can find the link if anyone cares - that these young users had been caught sockpuppeting many times, and she was tempted to block the bunch of them. I'm sketchy on the details from memory, so please don't take my word from it, but anyway, one of these kids said, if you press the issue any further I'm going to request checkuser on myself to prove my innocence. It didn't come to that, but the reaction is completely understandable. Being accused of sockpuppetry by an administrator is not fun.

If there were a way to punish false accusations, it might prevent them from being made in the first place. If A accuses B of sockpuppeting, and B is innocent, nothing happens to A, even if A is an admin and blocks B. Now I wouldn't call for a desysopping for a single incident because everyone makes mistakes, but I do expect administrators to apologize and admit mistakes when they occur, and I've not seen that in every case.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

If there were a way to punish false accusations, it might prevent them from being made in the first place.

Indeed. Until a sistersoldieroftruth (Alison!) performed an unsolicitied CU on my WP account, and didn't lie about it as my previous Checkusers had

I'm sure that this has been raised before, but I know of at least two cases where I believe that Jayjg deliberately misprepresented Checkuser data to get politically undesirable (read:pro-LaRouche) editors banned. Shouldn't there be a appeals process where such cases could be examined by third parties (sistersoldieroftruth)?

[Shalom]

If there were a way to punish false accusations, it might prevent them from being made in the first place.

Indeed. Until a sistersoldieroftruth (Alison!) performed an unsolicitied CU on my WP account, and didn't lie about it as my previous Checkusers had

I'm sure that this has been raised before, but I know of at least two cases where I believe that Jayjg deliberately misprepresented Checkuser data to get politically undesirable (read:pro-LaRouche) editors banned. Shouldn't there be a appeals process where such cases could be examined by third parties (sistersoldieroftruth)?

In principle, the blocked editor is supposed to appeal to Arbcom for a check on the block. In practice, because the blocked editor can't make a public issue out of his predicament (he's blocked, after all), it's not clear that such appeals would meet with a timely response.

There have been cases that questionable or high-profile checkuser cases have been audited by three or more other checkusers. The Poetlister and JoshuaZ cases were reviewed by at least three CUs each, and probably more.

[Milton Roe]

If there were a way to punish false accusations, it might prevent them from being made in the first place. If A accuses B of sockpuppeting, and B is innocent, nothing happens to A, even if A is an admin and blocks B. Now I wouldn't call for a desysopping for a single incident because everyone makes mistakes, but I do expect administrators to apologize and admit mistakes when they occur, and I've not seen that in every case.

To say the least. I don't know that I've ever really seen it EVER. I mean, a really graceful apology for a bad block, complete with promise to change behavior so the same doesn't happen to somebody else.

It's ironic and perhaps hypocritical, but here I am, the guy complaining about the lack-of-slack and long memory of the computer, suggesting that every admin without exception should have not only an indef-block-log (which they have) but a log of how many blocks stuck, and why they didn't (admin reversed, somebody got a second chance after apologizing, or it was just a plain bad block that was reversed by somebody else). It's not the total number of indef blocks an admin does, but the % of ones that don't stick that should earn you a review.

And yes, the ability of any admin to singlehandedly make a block of more than a week without at least 3 others concuring, should be severely curtailed. And there should be a limit on how many times you get the same editor concur with you, or else we'll merely see a recurance of the 2-admin tag teams that we already see: one does theh indef-block, the other refuses the automatic unblock appeal, diff reason: "Disruptive and incivil behavior already noted by respected admin user:AssKissed."

This post has been edited by Milton Roe: Sun 28th September 2008, 5:08pm

[Shalom]

These are all valid points, and worthy of a response.

If there were a way to punish false accusations, it might prevent them from being made in the first place. If A accuses B of sockpuppeting, and B is innocent, nothing happens to A, even if A is an admin and blocks B. Now I wouldn't call for a desysopping for a single incident because everyone makes mistakes, but I do expect administrators to apologize and admit mistakes when they occur, and I've not seen that in every case.

To say the least. I don't know that I've ever really seen it EVER. I mean, a really graceful apology for a bad block, complete with promise to change behavior so the same doesn't happen to somebody else.

Durova apologized for blocking !!. That's the most infamous case, but in the full clarity of hindsight, I don't think what she did was so bad. Yes, she blocked an established user. 75 minutes later she unblocked, and later apologized, and even resigned the tools without forcing the issue. Almost a year later, she has established herself as a dedicated photo editor with multiple additions to the featured roster, and the foibles of adminship are long forgotten and forgiven. I remember Georgewilliamherbert said he would apologize to Mackan79 if he were convinced it was not WordBomb. I don't know if he actually did apologize, and I won't go looking for a diff, but I think he did. On the other side of the ledger, Dmcdevit never apologized to Gerry Lynch for blocking him as a sockpuppet of Poetguy. (That bad block was one factor to make me doubt the legitimacy of Dmcdevit's other checkuser-based claims - if he was wrong once, he could be wrong twice. Oh, and he was wrong about Tennis expert, Tennislover and Twister Twist being sockpuppets, too. I remember this stuff.) Raul654 hasn't apologized for blocking CreepyCrawly as a sockpuppet of Scibaby. David Gerard hasn't apologized for blocking Piperdown as a sockpuppet/meatpuppet of Overstock.com. Regarding the block of Arthana, we're not even at the stage of apologies - he's still blocked and will remain blocked forever unless some admin reads this and realizes that Arthana is not and never was a sockpuppet.

It's ironic and perhaps hypocritical, but here I am, the guy complaining about the lack-of-slack and long memory of the computer, suggesting that every admin without exception should have not only an indef-block-log (which they have) but a log of how many blocks stuck, and why they didn't (admin reversed, somebody got a second chance after apologizing, or it was just a plain bad block that was reversed by somebody else). It's not the total number of indef blocks an admin does, but the % of ones that don't stick that should earn you a review.

I don't think that should be built in to Mediawiki, but it might be possible to create a tool to check such information. Get all the users in the block log, and check those individual users' block log for unblocks. I think most admins' blocks stick as uncontroversial.

And yes, the ability of any admin to singlehandedly make a block of more than a week without at least 3 others concuring, should be severely curtailed. And there should be a limit on how many times you get the same editor concur with you, or else we'll merely see a recurance of the 2-admin tag teams that we already see: one does theh indef-block, the other refuses the automatic unblock appeal, diff reason: "Disruptive and incivil behavior already noted by respected admin user:AssKissed."

Of course it's necessary to indef-block vandal-only accounts without the overhead of asking three other admins to sign off. The problem is blocking established users. With editors like Matthew Hoffman, yes he was blocked as a sockpuppet when in fact he was innocent, but the unwritten rule, which I learned with Creepycrawly also, is that newbies don't get due process and can be blocked as socks without regard for the facts. It's the blocks of established users which really need to be checked and not have unblock requests declined automatically.

[thekohser]

...but I do expect administrators to apologize and admit mistakes when they occur, and I've not seen that in every case.

To say the least. I don't know that I've ever really seen it EVER. I mean, a really graceful apology for a bad block, complete with promise to change behavior so the same doesn't happen to somebody else.

Shankbone's not an admin, and there wasn't a block involved, but his horrid checkuser suspicions were proven wrong, and when it was suggested he apologize or make amends, his response was to laugh in the face of that suggestion.

[Shalom]

...but I do expect administrators to apologize and admit mistakes when they occur, and I've not seen that in every case.

To say the least. I don't know that I've ever really seen it EVER. I mean, a really graceful apology for a bad block, complete with promise to change behavior so the same doesn't happen to somebody else.

Shankbone's not an admin, and there wasn't a block involved, but his horrid checkuser suspicions were proven wrong, and when it was suggested he apologize or make amends, his response was to laugh in the face of that suggestion.

Shame on him.

[wikiwhistle]

Shankbone's not an admin, and there wasn't a block involved, but his horrid checkuser suspicions were proven wrong, and when it was suggested he apologize or make amends, his response was to laugh in the face of that suggestion.

Expect nothing less from DS.

[Sarcasticidealist]

I remember Georgewilliamherbert said he would apologize to Mackan79 if he were convinced it was not WordBomb. I don't know if he actually did apologize, and I won't go looking for a diff, but I think he did.

He did, and if memory serves it was quite graceful. I'm not sure he said anything meeting Milton's second criterion of "...complete with promise to change behavior so the same doesn't happen to somebody else", but then again what could he have said? "I'm not going to block people as self-confessed socks anymore unless they actually confess to being socks"?

Of course it's necessary to indef-block vandal-only accounts without the overhead of asking three other admins to sign off. The problem is blocking established users. With editors like Matthew Hoffman, yes he was blocked as a sockpuppet when in fact he was innocent, but the unwritten rule, which I learned with Creepycrawly also, is that newbies don't get due process and can be blocked as socks without regard for the facts. It's the blocks of established users which really need to be checked and not have unblock requests declined automatically.

Agree with this; it would be too cumbersome to require that kind of review of slam-dunk indef blocks (which is more or less the only kind I ever do), and that cumber would be exploited by knowledgeable trolls and vandals.

[Lar]

I am wondering why at WP:Requests for Checkuser, it advises editors not to request a Checkuser on yourself to "prove your innocence." Such requests are rarely accepted, please do not ask. There seems to be a "guilty until proven innocent" bias in the system, which enables POV-pushing admins to dispense with their opponents on the basis of flimsy allegations, and denies the defendants access to something which could be, in come cases, the equivalent of DNA evidence that would exonerate them.

I've always understood this advice as reminding one that you can't prove the negative. Negative results from a CU prove nothing. It's not magic pixie dust that reveals secrets, nor is it a crystal ball that can predict the future, nor are checkusers themselves infallible. Checkuser results are indicative, not absolute truth.

[Proabivouac]

I've always understood this advice as reminding one that you can't prove the negative. Negative results from a CU prove nothing. It's not magic pixie dust that reveals secrets, nor is it a crystal ball that can predict the future, nor are checkusers themselves infallible. Checkuser results are indicative, not absolute truth.

To tell you the truth, I found checkuser far more of a hindrance then an aid. It's a useful tool for those who have it, but for everyone else, it only means that even obvious sockpuppets get to stick around for at least a week due to the delays at RfCU, and clueless administrators are unwilling to block due to the existence of CU. Another effect is that people will declare themselves "cleared" by a negative CU result. You can repeat what you've just said until you are blue in the face, but that won't stop most commenters from taking a negative result seriously.

More recently over here, we found that the ability of moderators to see IPs supported the false conviction that Poetlister and socks were different people. I can only presume that without this ability, it would have been more obvious.

(Taking it further, if there were no avatars, random numbers instead of usernames, and people weren't allowed to discuss their life stories, it might have been caught in about twenty minutes…)

The worst part is that checkusers can't disclose the technical basis for their results, a critical social and political flaw. There's no problem in some mythical universe wherein everyone trusts the checkusers, but, as we've seen, it's very easy to mount a campaign falsely claiming checkuser incompetence, dishonesty or corruption, and there is no way for outsiders - i.e. almost everyone - to easily determine the truth.

[jch]

I've always understood this advice as reminding one that you can't prove the negative. Negative results from a CU prove nothing. It's not magic pixie dust that reveals secrets, nor is it a crystal ball that can predict the future, nor are checkusers themselves infallible. Checkuser results are indicative, not absolute truth.

To tell you the truth, I found checkuser far more of a hindrance then an aid. It's a useful tool for those who have it, but for everyone else, it only means that even obvious sockpuppets get to stick around for at least a week due to the delays at RfCU, and clueless administrators are unwilling to block due to the existence of CU. Another effect is that people will declare themselves "cleared" by a negative CU result. You can repeat what you've just said until you are blue in the face, but that won't stop most commenters from taking a negative result seriously.

More recently over here, we found that the ability of moderators to see IPs supported the false conviction that Poetlister and socks were different people. I can only presume that without this ability, it would have been more obvious.

(Taking it further, if there were no avatars, random numbers instead of usernames, and people weren't allowed to discuss their life stories, it might have been caught in about twenty minutes…)

The worst part is that checkusers can't disclose the technical basis for their results, a critical social and political flaw. There's no problem in some mythical universe wherein everyone trusts the checkusers, but, as we've seen, it's very easy to mount a campaign falsely claiming checkuser incompetence, dishonesty or corruption, and there is no way for outsiders - i.e. almost everyone - to easily determine the truth.

Pick checkusers that you trust, but don't like: Figure out who is technical enough to do the job, trusted by the greater community to do it, and whose every breath you want damned to hell.

Know anyone like that? I can think of a couple. Anyone who's been on WP longer than a year should be able to.

If you like the person, you'll fall prey to taking what they say at face value. If you don't like them, but trust that they're honest, you can review what they say critically without worrying about anything but your trust in their integrity and technical expertise.

Don't pick people you dislike due to political maneuvering, of course. Select individuals who you've been on the other side of a dispute with, but who has later backed you up simply because you were correct.

[Giggy]

I am wondering why at WP:Requests for Checkuser, it advises editors not to request a Checkuser on yourself to "prove your innocence." Such requests are rarely accepted, please do not ask. There seems to be a "guilty until proven innocent" bias in the system, which enables POV-pushing admins to dispense with their opponents on the basis of flimsy allegations, and denies the defendants access to something which could be, in come cases, the equivalent of DNA evidence that would exonerate them.

Yeah, based on what Lar was saying... one could easily play around with their IP address, use different computers, etc. (Poetlister and Guy around here never shared IP, ya know!), and then request a CU to prove their innocence. The hapless CU would be forced to say that based on evidence, the two accounts aren't the same person, which could easily mean sqaut.

[SirFozzie]

What I like with Allie is that every time someone's claimed that she was being political with the results she's announcing, is she invited another checkuser to review the information independently and to render their own verdict. (the incident with Mr. Lauder-Frost and one of the other folks come to mind... love the fact that Allie had been NICER on it then the other checkuser had.

That's what checkusers SHOULD do.

[jch]

So, making some assumptions:

• Wikipedia will continue to hide IPs instead of letting everyone see them.
• Checkusers will continue to be the only ones to see them.
• Arbcom will continue to appoint checkusers. (But assume that they're willing to listen to some well-reasoned arguments from here)
• The foundation privacy policy will still be in effect.

(or, more simply, that you can change community opinions and policy and give rational suggestions to arbcom)

What modifications would you make to checkuser policy there to make things even? Would making a "Requests for Checkuser Review" process help keep politics and petty grudges out of it?

[Gold heart]

So, making some assumptions:

• Wikipedia will continue to hide IPs instead of letting everyone see them.
• Checkusers will continue to be the only ones to see them.
• Arbcom will continue to appoint checkusers. (But assume that they're willing to listen to some well-reasoned arguments from here)
• The foundation privacy policy will still be in effect.

(or, more simply, that you can change community opinions and policy and give rational suggestions to arbcom)

What modifications would you make to checkuser policy there to make things even? Would making a "Requests for Checkuser Review" process help keep politics and petty grudges out of it?

Checkuser is a total fake. I have the evidence, times dates and miscarriages of justice etc. But I dare not mention them here. WR does not want to know. Pity!!!

[Somey]

Checkuser is a total fake. I have the evidence, times dates and miscarriages of justice etc. But I dare not mention them here. WR does not want to know. Pity!!!

You're saying we need "evidence" to be made aware of the fact that CheckUser is a total fake? I thought we all just assumed...?

Of course, if you have some evidence that doesn't involve Ireland in some way, I think we'd probably want to know about it.

Does it take you back to the kind of world
Hindsight calls "the good old days"?
Now there's no room in an Einstein world
For simple cause and effect...

Dublin, Dublin, home of pretty Colleens
Dublin, Dublin, nurse of such bitter dreams...

That's what my momma told me, when I was about knee-high.