Checkuser abuse Options

[tarantino]

A provocative thread was recently initiated on wikitech-l by Florence Devouard. She chose this list because she was "tired of long trolls on other lists".

She's arguing for a separation of powers.

"I can not help thinking that the rather ugly atmosphere that
developped on enwiki is largely due to the very large and uncontrolled
use of the checkuser tool by a minority.
When one gives specific tools to a person, that's creates a power lever
which may be used to grab bits of power. Which is more or less what is
happening, much to the dismay of those who do not have that power."[1]

... in real life, the law is decided by some, the
judgement using legal information and past history is done by others,
and last the application of the judgement is applied by a third group.
For example, parliament, judges and cops.
Right now, it seems the community left in part the parliament in the
hands of the arbcom. The investigators are the checkusers. Judges are
arbcom. Arbcom are also checkusers, so investigation and judgement are
done by the same. Cops are the admins (for ban) or oversight (for clean
up). Arbcom is frequently playing the admin and oversight role.

In short, the principles of separation are very weakly implemented.
There ought to be a reason why most democracies decided to separate
those, don't you think ?[2]

She's decidedly butting heads with Jimbo's idea of using checkuser early, often and in secret.

In English Wikipedida, ArbCom is
a good place to go for this sort of thing.

However, having reviewed checkuser policy, I see absolutely nothing even
close to a policy violation here.

"Notification to the account that is checked is permitted but is not
mandatory. Similarly, notification of the check to the community is not
mandatory, but may be done subject to the provisions of the privacy policy."

I strongly support this element of the policy.

[Piperdown]

Checkuser should be, except for the IP's redacted, completely recorded and presented on-WP for all to see.

If someone is giving cause for CU, first they should be warned that it will occur - giving a chance for the target to contact the CU person(s) to either stop the behaviour leading to the CU being needed, or agreeing that a CU take place.

[thekohser]

Flo-Flo then adroitly asks,

Why is it a troll-fest on enwiki and not on dewiki ? What explains the difference ?

To which I answer with a question, "Over which language Wikipedia does Jimmy Wales hold special power?"

The fish rots from the head down, I've seen mentioned on this board.

Greg

[Jonny Cache]

Get a clue, folks.

Now, without a prescription, your very own Wikipedia Checkuser.

Jonny

[GlassBeadGame]

Checkuser should be, except for the IP's redacted, completely recorded and presented on-WP for all to see.

If someone is giving cause for CU, first they should be warned that it will occur - giving a chance for the target to contact the CU person(s) to either stop the behaviour leading to the CU being needed, or agreeing that a CU take place.

This would be a sensible and balanced approach.

[Jonny Cache]

In a related development —

Checkbook Abuse

Jonny

[Why-o-y]

I know there is checkuser abuse. To fill everyone in. I was blocked many times before for edit warring, and personal attacks that were true. Using "racist" in my edit summaries to a self proclaimed racist, who was eventually blocked my Jimbo (porno) Wales Himself! I also had sockpuppets harass me after that, although it wasn't' the same person. So, I wanted to start over so I would not be harassed, and hated that I had all these blocks (5). So I took over the account the friend of mine created while she was staying with me, since she was not going to use it anymore, and began to edit articles.

Now, this is after I was unblocked. I was not creating a user-name to evade a block nor did I use it to play good-cop/bad cop and did not use it to !vote, etc. Not two minutes after I posted with the new ID (not to any subject that I had before), I got an email from an admin who does not have check-user access. (I checked, lol)

At first I didn't know what was going on and was very paranoid after I got that email, as I didn't know the user ID my friend created and to what topics she posted to. Only after I received this email I asked her about it, and she told me, so I check the subjects she had edited before and they were not subjects I usually contribute to. Well, maybe one, but still. How in the hell did "they" know.

I wasn't a an abusive account before, I was editing "controversial" subjects, and got caught up in an edit-war, and also had a stalker of the white supremacist kind who followed me where-ever I posted. Not just on article space, but on other user talk pages that had nothing to do with my editing of these controversial subjects. I had swastikas posted to my user space, nasty sexual comment to my talk page, etc. ( I do not like wasting my time "reporting" IDs to AIV or ANI)

So, I know for sure there is abuse. And if I were "caught" creating another account seconds after I created it proves it. Although I like the person who e-mailed me that he knew I created another account, and warned me to use it wisely.

How did this happen, and why?

This post has been edited by Why-o-y: Fri 14th December 2007, 4:05am

[Rootology]

Not two minutes after I posted with the new ID (not to any subject that I had before), I got an email from an admin who does not have check-user access. (I checked, lol)

What admin? Care to post the email here?

[Moulton]

Florence Devouard is arguing for a separation of powers.

Those are the same issues I placed before ArbCom two weeks ago.

ArbCom declined to consider the issues.

So it goes.

[guy]

This would be a sensible and balanced approach.

It would be. But we are dealing with Wikipedia here.

[LamontStormstar]

I know there is checkuser abuse. To fill everyone in. I was blocked many times before for edit warring, and personal attacks that were true. Using "racist" in my edit summaries to a self proclaimed racist, who was eventually blocked my Jimbo (porno) Wales Himself! I also had sockpuppets harass me after that, although it wasn't' the same person. So, I wanted to start over so I would not be harassed, and hated that I had all these blocks (5). So I took over the account the friend of mine created while she was staying with me, since she was not going to use it anymore, and began to edit articles.

Now, this is after I was unblocked. I was not creating a user-name to evade a block nor did I use it to play good-cop/bad cop and did not use it to !vote, etc. Not two minutes after I posted with the new ID (not to any subject that I had before), I got an email from an admin who does not have check-user access. (I checked, lol)

At first I didn't know what was going on and was very paranoid after I got that email, as I didn't know the user ID my friend created and to what topics she posted to. Only after I received this email I asked her about it, and she told me, so I check the subjects she had edited before and they were not subjects I usually contribute to. Well, maybe one, but still. How in the hell did "they" know.

I wasn't a an abusive account before, I was editing "controversial" subjects, and got caught up in an edit-war, and also had a stalker of the white supremacist kind who followed me where-ever I posted. Not just on article space, but on other user talk pages that had nothing to do with my editing of these controversial subjects. I had swastikas posted to my user space, nasty sexual comment to my talk page, etc. ( I do not like wasting my time "reporting" IDs to AIV or ANI)

So, I know for sure there is abuse. And if I were "caught" creating another account seconds after I created it proves it. Although I like the person who e-mailed me that he knew I created another account, and warned me to use it wisely.

How did this happen, and why?

I only know of one person blocked by Jimbo Wales over a racism debate and that was Fourdee. I think Fourdee was unfairly banned.