Checkuser, someone must have been telling lies about Joseph K. Options

[Grep]

So what are the commonalities between the following

1. Delusional belief systems
2. Sock puppets
3. Cults
4. CheckUser

What these have in common is that: the intellectual basis of the processes is never displayed in public; the relationship with reality is one of control rather than reflection; they exist solely to perpetuate existing structures.

Let me focus on Checkuser. This is a secret process, apparently capable of providing incontrovertible and absolute truth, but which is so fragile that it cannot be exposed to public scrutiny for fear that it will be irreparably damaged.

Let us clear away the minor issue that Checkuser does not, and cannot, provide absolute certainty. Full stop. But then, this is not its true purpose.

So what is it all about? It is a process which declares its victim in advance to be irrefutably guilty. In other words, it is a blatant exercise of the power of the system. The arbitrariness of the process is part of its intimidatory value. Users who believe in its veracity will be impressed by the power, authority and superior knowledge of the admins. Users who know full well that it cannot do what it claims will understand that it represents the exercise of arbitrary power. Some may believe that the system is capable of improvement or reform: this is a category error. It is already superbly adapted to its true function.

A clear indication of the intrinsically corrupt nature of the process can be seen in the number of sock-puppet blocks which follow a mere assertion of checkuser evidence. It is clear, and intended to be clear, that these are punishment blocks against users who happen to fall foul of influential and well-connected admins.

There's not a lot of point in trying to establish the intrinsically unreliable nature of the underlying technical process. To do that we would need to assemble a statistically adequate sample of the four categories: sock-puppets who were found out by CU; sock-puppets who were not found out by CU; non-socks who were falsely accused by CU and non-socks who were acquitted by CU. This is after all impossible -- and has certainly never been attempted by those who trumpet, and possibly even believe, the infallibility of CU.

So let's attack it from the other end. There are three levels to CheckUser abuse: overstating CU results; premature or improper CU cases; and outright mis-statement of CU results (or even non-results). The first is technically ; the second is easy to see from the record; the third has certainly happened.

Are there any particularly well-documented and egregious cases that anyone would like to share?

[LessHorrid vanU]

(stuff)

There's not a lot of point in trying to establish the intrinsically unreliable nature of the underlying technical process...

(stuff)

... when most of the sockpuppets are so bloody obvious, that every time they make the same stupid excuses, the same claims of outrage, the same attacks upon the pov of the reporter and CU, the same threats of a hundred hidden accounts all waiting to carry on the fight, the off wiki campaigns, the slew of emails to all concerned parties, there is less reason to believe them and the very few innocents that are caught up by CU's mistakes have virtually no means by which AGF might be extended and the case reviewed.

Placing the blame on CU culture is ignoring the responsibility of the sockpuppets and their masters and their inept efforts at avoiding the consequences of being found out.

[Grep]

Placing the blame on CU culture is ignoring the responsibility of the sockpuppets and their masters and their inept efforts at avoiding the consequences of being found out.

"Blame" and "responsibility" for what exactly?

[sbrown]

As Ive just said elsewhere, checkusers dont just use IP checks they use whatever evidence or "evidence" they bloody feel like using.

[LessHorrid vanU]

Placing the blame on CU culture is ignoring the responsibility of the sockpuppets and their masters and their inept efforts at avoiding the consequences of being found out.

"Blame" and "responsibility" for what exactly?

Of having an inexact "science" or process regarded as being more than fairly accurate (although most CU's speak of probability rather than decisiveness).

For making it extremely difficult for any person who has been labelled an alternative account in error, of being able to make their representations to a neutral audience and overturning the finding - thus making the general readership more aware of the limitations of CU.

Simply; if CU has a RL hit rate of 4 in 5 determinations, the fact that in every 5 determinations 4 of them will make representations that there is an error, or malice, or some other explanation (even when with 2 of the three sock accounts caught it is obvious) that the one legit complainants requests for review are swamped by the stupid obvious idiot socks.

[thekohser]

I'm confused. Isn't this the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit?

What's this about "blocking" editors?

Seems to me, if the encyclopedia's stewards are trying to prevent people from editing, then there is a severe disconnect between the slogan and the practice.

Sort of reminds me of when Ford used to say "Quality is Job 1".

[Shalom]

I defend the checkuser process. That rare abuses have occurred is undeniable, but it is far better to have a functioning system to catch vandals and malicious sockpuppets than to wander in the proverbial darkness.

As with vandalism, I have seen the sockpuppet phenomenon from both sides: perpetrator and investigator. (I never double voted or tried to skew an argument, but I used sockpuppets to vandalize articles.) I have been checkusered several times by two different individuals. I know who they are, and I know when they did. In each case the checks were legitimate and produced correct results because I was not trying to conceal my IP address. I strongly suspect most individuals who get caught by checkuser are equally unsophisticated and make no special effort to evade the technical means of detection. Mantanmoreland and Grawp are exceptions, not typical examples. I strongly appreciate the discretion of the checkusers in not publicly revealing the nature of what they found, or even putting {{sockpuppet}} templates on my userpage. For privacy reasons, it is far better to handle such cases discreetly. If as a result of due discretion, some folks on WR wonder if checkusers may be abusing their tools under the community's radar, it is a price worth paying.

I trust all of the checkusers except for one to make the right decisions. (I decline to name which one I don't trust, but you may infer it by examining my previous history on this forum.) The fact that Poetlister was guilty after all confirmed that trust more than I had it beforehand.

[MBisanz]

I'm confused. Isn't this the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit?

What's this about "blocking" editors?

Seems to me, if the encyclopedia's stewards are trying to prevent people from editing, then there is a severe disconnect between the slogan and the practice.

Sort of reminds me of when Ford used to say "Quality is Job 1".

I really wish we had picked better names for positions when creating them. Things like CheckUser and Rollbacker are unique enough that people wouldn't confuse them with real life roles, but things like Steward (as Greg used above), Oversight, and Bureaucrat all create an unnecessary degree of confusion, especially when dealing with outsiders (I always end up explaining protection as "locking an article").

[Eva Destruction]

I really wish we had picked better names for positions when creating them. Things like CheckUser and Rollbacker are unique enough that people wouldn't confuse them with real life roles, but things like Steward (as Greg used above), Oversight, and Bureaucrat all create an unnecessary degree of confusion, especially when dealing with outsiders (I always end up explaining protection as "locking an article").

Reminds me of my all-time favorite bizarre Wikipedia policy proposal. The talk page is uniquely strange, too.

This post has been edited by Eva Destruction: Thu 23rd July 2009, 8:49pm

[Grep]

Well, I see the CU process as something like this.

The police in Ruritania are issued with magic guns. The silver bullets only kill bad people: good people are left unharmed -- at least, that what the police chief tells everyone. There's a strict rule -- he says -- that the police are only allowed to shoot people they actually see committing crimes. Ordinary citizens aren't allowed to see these magic bullets, because they wouldn't work if they were exposed to the daylight.

The police shoot a lot of people, and they always die. That just proves they were all guilty, of course. Some people rather think that the police don't always restrict themselves to shooting people they catch in a criminal act, indeed it seems that police occasionally just shoot people they have an argument with in the pub. But those people always die, and the bullets are magic, so they must have been guilty anyway. The more worldy-wise supporters of the system admit, in private, that "rare abuses have occurred is undeniable", but are sure that having more complicated rules and perhaps another committee will solve all the problems. After all, so many people are being killed,and hence guilty, that the country must be absolutely over-run with criminals, and its all the fault of those dead criminals and we can't afford to leave Ruritania unprotected.

A cynical observer suggests that the bullets are just plain bullets, and that Ruritania is a police state in which the police are allowed to execute anybody they dislike and get away with it, as a deliberate instrument of state control, and that the biggest threat to Ruritania is its own police force.

What do you think?

[Shalom]

Well, I see the CU process as something like this.

The police in Ruritania are issued with magic guns. The silver bullets only kill bad people: good people are left unharmed -- at least, that what the police chief tells everyone. There's a strict rule -- he says -- that the police are only allowed to shoot people they actually see committing crimes. Ordinary citizens aren't allowed to see these magic bullets, because they wouldn't work if they were exposed to the daylight.

The police shoot a lot of people, and they always die. That just proves they were all guilty, of course. Some people rather think that the police don't always restrict themselves to shooting people they catch in a criminal act, indeed it seems that police occasionally just shoot people they have an argument with in the pub. But those people always die, and the bullets are magic, so they must have been guilty anyway. The more worldy-wise supporters of the system admit, in private, that "rare abuses have occurred is undeniable", but are sure that having more complicated rules and perhaps another committee will solve all the problems. After all, so many people are being killed,and hence guilty, that the country must be absolutely over-run with criminals, and its all the fault of those dead criminals and we can't afford to leave Ruritania unprotected.

A cynical observer suggests that the bullets are just plain bullets, and that Ruritania is a police state in which the police are allowed to execute anybody they dislike and get away with it, as a deliberate instrument of state control, and that the biggest threat to Ruritania is its own police force.

What do you think?

I think your analogy fails to account for the fact that the violent action in checkusering is more akin to invading a citizen's house, say to check for illegal drugs, than to shoot the citizen. It is entirely conceivable, when the checkuser runs his application, that he will find nothing of interest, i.e. the suspect is innocent. In that case the checkuser does not need to fire his "bullet," and almost always he does not. The citizen will be understandably angry that the authorities searched his house, but in the end, the citizen lives and life moves forward.

To thekohser, I too have wondered about the legitimacy of calling Wikipedia the encyclopedia anyone can edit except for banned users. It would be correct to say that anyone can edit the site until they get banned. Look, Fenway Park is a stadium "anyone can visit" (assuming they show a legitimate ticket) to see the Red Sox play baseball. However, if a fan runs onto the field in the fourth inning to disrupt activities, that fan will be summarily arrested and banned from returning to Fenway Park for a long, long time. It's still basically true that anyone can visit Fenway Park. That idiotic fan had his chance and blew it. Furthermore, since stadium ticket agents don't typically check ID, and even if they do they might not know offhand who is banned, the perpetrator can reenter the stadium and nobody will be the wiser. Banned users can reenter Wikipedia under new accounts too if nobody is looking carefully for them.

[Newyorkbrad]

To thekohser, I too have wondered about the legitimacy of calling Wikipedia the encyclopedia anyone can edit except for banned users. It would be correct to say that anyone can edit the site until they get banned.

FWIW, compare my comment quoted in last month's Times.

[Shalom]

To thekohser, I too have wondered about the legitimacy of calling Wikipedia the encyclopedia anyone can edit except for banned users. It would be correct to say that anyone can edit the site until they get banned.

FWIW, compare my comment quoted in last month's Times.

Yes. For the benefit of readers, I give you Brad's quotation, as reported by the New York Times.

Wikipedia users elect the panel members, and Mr. Matetsky reports that he is the only active lawyer among them, though there are a few law students. He said, “It is considered ironic; I’m the gung-ho litigation attorney but often on the side of second chances and leniency.” He says he often is opposed to outright bans — he abstained on some of the sanctions in the Scientology case — because “to a user who is banned, Wikipedia is ‘the encyclopedia anyone can edit,’ except for you.”

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/08/technolo...net/08link.html

[EricBarbour]

I can't believe this Checkuser crap is still being debated.

It's stupid, and semi-useless. Yeah, it catches a whole lot of casual vandals and troublemakers. But it is useless against anyone who has the foresight to use a proxy server, or an open wireless router.

Grawp is still vandalizing, ya know---even after all these years, even with all the Checkusers in the world after him.

If I wanted to vandalize that pseudo-pedia, there are at least 8 businesses within one mile of my house with open-and-unmonitored wireless nodes that I could connect to, and raise hell, until that IP address was blocked. And go on to the next one.

I could do it while enjoying excellent beers and pub food. Or have lunch here. Or here. Or have a latte here.

[carbuncle]

On most websites, people pay little mind to the idea that someone may be looking at their IP address or browser information. Most don't think about it and don't care once they do. Of course on most sites, people aren't quite as interested in protecting the crumbs of their identities from fellow users...

[Kelly Martin]

Grawp is still vandalizing, ya know---even after all these years, even with all the Checkusers in the world after him.

"Grawp" is lots of different people using botnets; checkuser is virtually useless against someone armed with a botnet, especially if any of the compromised machines are using one of the many DSL providers that force clients to change IP frequently. Wikipedia has, to date, been quite reluctant to ban all SBC DSL customers in Texas, for example.

[Milton Roe]

Grawp is still vandalizing, ya know---even after all these years, even with all the Checkusers in the world after him.

"Grawp" is lots of different people using botnets; checkuser is virtually useless against someone armed with a botnet, especially if any of the compromised machines are using one of the many DSL providers that force clients to change IP frequently. Wikipedia has, to date, been quite reluctant to ban all SBC DSL customers in Texas, for example.

Hell, no. The Bushes and Matthew McConaughey need to fix their own bios from down there. Did you know McConaughey had a brief relationship with Janet Jackson (citation missing)? What would Wikipedia be without this essential info. So keep those data lines up.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

How much info does checkuser provide? I suspect IP, OS, Browser etc. Is it more or less?

I think one should be allowed to see/request one's own details as per under Data Protection Laws.

Placing the blame on CU culture is ignoring the responsibility of the sockpuppets and their masters and their inept efforts at avoiding the consequences of being found out.

Are you talking 'black hat' socks or 'white hat' socks (see above)?

I don't know. I have absolutely been accused and "Confirmed" of being other users/socks that I am absolutely not. Even ridiculously not if one was to take a second look.

Ditto, I have run some test using entirely different OSes, Browsers, networks and locations, and been "caught". I don't believe I was "caught" at all.

How can we assure the poor guys don't just get sick of all the crap and just "ban everyone"?
How can we remove the fatigue element and the 'pissed-off-ness-about-it-all-factor'?
Do we know these if these guys are sober ... stoned ... sleep deprived ... 14 ... ADHD ... are "affected" (like the TV stations say) by the topic you are editing on ... or just don't plain like you and 'your' NPOV? The latter was my accusation of Rlevse right at the beginning.

Certainly, I have had "indefinite bans" handed out like free lollipops at a pedophiles' convention for either 'no good reason at all' or quite clearly 'strategic reasons'.

In fact, my first "indefinite ban" was just for that ... the choice of my first real user account. I was not "indefinitely banned" by any due process, merely the name was 'disallowed' by 'indefinitely banning' it because it was a real name.

Once my trolling opponents found it, which involved committed cult members and Pro-Korean activists, they were then able to keep piling others on top of it until it became ridiculous.

Checkuser, and senior admins, were quite willing to play along turning a blind eye to the history and instead "hammer a few gophers" and ladle on new accusations

I think that was when I lost respect for them.

This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy: Fri 24th July 2009, 5:03pm

[Kelly Martin]

I think one should be allowed to see/request one's own details as per under Data Protection Laws.

None of the data collected by checkuser is subject to any data protection law applicable in Florida or California, as far as I know. The US has no general "data protection" laws the way most European countries do.

[sbrown]

The fact that Poetlister was guilty after all confirmed that trust more than I had it beforehand.

My point exactly. Poetlister wasnt caught by IP evidence.