Effectiveness of checkuser Options

[gomi]

Reasonably intelligent CUs ...

... wouldn't see an [IP] match ... as proof of anything, without very strong "behavioral" evidence to back it up ...

There is an unfortunate corollary of this, which is often overlooked. If a (over) zealous Checkuser finds "behavioural" evidence -- which is generally whatever they want it to be -- then they see IP matches where ever they want to see them. I have irrefutable evidence of this, not that it makes a whit of difference.

Checkuser is, in fact, the "magic fairy dust" its proponents claim it not to be, with one exception, the fairy dust of checkuser insulates the zealous admin from any argument about the behavioural evidence.

I've enjoyed probing cu's capability ... the only 'technical' similarity between the accounts was the password, everything else was different - computer, browser, isp or tor, location ... but the checkuser report matched the accounts with a 'likely, based on technical evidence'. I'm starting to suspect they lied. The accounts were obviously the same user, based on behavior, I made sure it was obvious.

So maybe "technical evidence" doesn't necessarily mean IP match? Maybe it can mean "shares a POV I don't like"?

I suppose that's possible on WP ...

WP is pretty much the only place it matters, no?

[SB_Johnny]

Reasonably intelligent CUs ...

... wouldn't see an [IP] match ... as proof of anything, without very strong "behavioral" evidence to back it up ...

There is an unfortunate corollary of this, which is often overlooked. If a (over) zealous Checkuser finds "behavioural" evidence -- which is generally whatever they want it to be -- then they see IP matches where ever they want to see them. I have irrefutable evidence of this, not that it makes a whit of difference.

No doubt you do, but it's much more fun when you share the evidence rather than just saying you have it.

I've enjoyed probing cu's capability ... the only 'technical' similarity between the accounts was the password, everything else was different - computer, browser, isp or tor, location ... but the checkuser report matched the accounts with a 'likely, based on technical evidence'. I'm starting to suspect they lied. The accounts were obviously the same user, based on behavior, I made sure it was obvious.

So maybe "technical evidence" doesn't necessarily mean IP match? Maybe it can mean "shares a POV I don't like"?

I suppose that's possible on WP ...

WP is pretty much the only place it matters, no?

It depends on whether we're talking about the theoretical effectiveness of CU or the actual effectiveness of CU on WP in particular. Smart and conscientious CUs don't bother using the tool in obvious cases, and use it to see if a theory can be disproved in the non-obvious cases. Even WP has at least one good one (our friend Allison, of course), but I know of one in particular that really is political-minded.

Anyway, hasn't the Review's scope extended to all of WMF's "projects" of late? Comparing and contrasting the non-WP CUs vs. the JimmyCOM CUs is actually informative if you know what you're looking for.

[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.

[EricBarbour]

There are doubtlessly more such stories out there, but they're largely untold simply because nobody cares about these small projects that much.

You got it. As far as I can tell, most of the language Wikipedias, nearly all of the Wiktionaries, and probably Wikisource are basically moribund.
Wikiversity is mostly a place for guys like Abd to argue about "governance"--they're still writing some content, but dunno about the quality of it.

And yet, the WMF keeps waving them around as if they "mattered" or somesuch.

And Wikinews?....all you can do is laugh at them.....it's genuinely disturbing that Google News still occasionally carries a Wikinews story, since no one ever reads them.....

(Here's another item to mull over: the Japanese Wiktionary supposedly died in 2005--because it was
controlled by two people, and they could never agree on anything. But that's not what they say
here. It's the "vandals", they claimed at the time. Yeah right.)

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Mon 2nd January 2012, 4:39am

[melloden]

There are doubtlessly more such stories out there, but they're largely untold simply because nobody cares about these small projects that much.

Sounds like a job for Gregory Kohs.

This post has been edited by melloden: Mon 2nd January 2012, 5:35am

[Fusion]

on the other projects they're elected according to how much they can be trusted. Sounds good and works fairly well

Cirt. I rest my case.