Has any CheckUser ever been reprimanded for misusing it?

[Earthy Astringent]

i just looked, and was surprised to find out I have been CU'd a number of times. I won't say by who, but I can see that I've been CU'd in 2008 and 2010 for completely bullshit reasons, and twice more in 2013 when I was very briefly blocked for a bullshit reason and they were disproving the idea that I'd been compromised.

The two who CU'd me in '08 and '10 aren't CUs anymore.

How did you find this out?

[Beeblebrox]

i just looked, and was surprised to find out I have been CU'd a number of times. I won't say by who, but I can see that I've been CU'd in 2008 and 2010 for completely bullshit reasons, and twice more in 2013 when I was very briefly blocked for a bullshit reason and they were disproving the idea that I'd been compromised.

The two who CU'd me in '08 and '10 aren't CUs anymore.

How did you find this out?

You have to be a CU to view the logs, but once you are there's just a link when you open anyone's contrib page called "recent user checks" that allows you to see who has CU'd that user in the past.

[BURob13]

The software used to play those games read your MAC address. A browser can't.

Ah ok, thanks. So if someone installed the Wikipedia app, then in theory it could right?

That would get the Wikipedia app delisted from iTunes, probably. Apple is very against the capute of any device ID that persists after deleting the app, I believe.

[Disgruntled haddock]

Okay, we know that full CU logs can’t be made public, because logs of CUed accounts and IPs in short succession could functionally disclose a connection between them, contra policy. But why can’t a redacted version of the logs be made public, or at least made available to admins? My account is in good standing (no blocks or questionable behavior, 7 years of activity, 40k edits), and I can’t see why anyone would CU me. After Beeblebrox’s post, now I’m idly interested in knowing who’s CUed me and how many times without having to run for admin and then functionary.

[Beeblebrox]

Okay, we know that full CU logs can’t be made public, because logs of CUed accounts and IPs in short succession could functionally disclose a connection between them, contra policy. But why can’t a redacted version of the logs be made public, or at least made available to admins? My account is in good standing (no blocks or questionable behavior, 7 years of activity, 40k edits), and I can’t see why anyone would CU me. After Beeblebrox’s post, now I’m idly interested in knowing who’s CUed me and how many times without having to run for admin and then functionary.

I would assume that the answer is that the risk of exposing someone else's data is deemed to high. For example, one of the times I was CU'd they apparently thought I was a sock of a very specific person. So hypothetically I could look at what else that CU did on that same day and could make a reasonable guess that an IP they blocked was used by that person, who editied with what appears to be a real name. Now I know their name and their IP, and the general area where they live (maybe, geolocation not being the greatest tool ever). I don't think that's a risk the WMF is willing to take.

To be clear that is what we're dealing with here, global WMF policy not en.wp policy.

Interesting side note: Neutralhomer is once again trying to get Bbb23 in trouble for ....wait for it.... NOT being willing to checkuser every account NH wants checked. It's not working out too well for him. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... omerang%3F

[Kumioko]

Okay, we know that full CU logs can’t be made public, because logs of CUed accounts and IPs in short succession could functionally disclose a connection between them, contra policy. But why can’t a redacted version of the logs be made public, or at least made available to admins? My account is in good standing (no blocks or questionable behavior, 7 years of activity, 40k edits), and I can’t see why anyone would CU me. After Beeblebrox’s post, now I’m idly interested in knowing who’s CUed me and how many times without having to run for admin and then functionary.

I would assume that the answer is that the risk of exposing someone else's data is deemed to high. For example, one of the times I was CU'd they apparently thought I was a sock of a very specific person. So hypothetically I could look at what else that CU did on that same day and could make a reasonable guess that an IP they blocked was used by that person, who editied with what appears to be a real name. Now I know their name and their IP, and the general area where they live (maybe, geolocation not being the greatest tool ever). I don't think that's a risk the WMF is willing to take.

To be clear that is what we're dealing with here, global WMF policy not en.wp policy.

Interesting side note: Neutralhomer is once again trying to get Bbb23 in trouble for ....wait for it.... NOT being willing to checkuser every account NH wants checked. It's not working out too well for him. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... omerang%3F

Well the reality is no one really needs to ask Bbb23 to do a CU and SPI can largely be closed down as OBE because Bbb23 pretty much CU's everyone and everything every 90 days or so anyway. He virtually owns CU at this point and you would need to add up the CU actions of every other Checkuser and then triple it to even come close to his totals. So really, the question to ask is why isn't Bbb23 not CU'ing someone, the question that needs to be asked is why is he CU'ing every new user and every user that crosses his path.

I mean the Arbcom raked Alex over the coals and all but destroyed his on Wiki reputation for what they felt was a misuse of the CU and they let Bbb23 run roughshot all over the project CU'ing every thing that burps, farts or breaths! The Arbcom need to get off their collective asses and deal with Bbb23!

[MysteriousStranger]

It's kind of funny that what got Alex in trouble was CU'ing "no" votes on otherwise-snowball-y RFAs (if I'm not mistaken). I just had kind of come to believe that was standard procedure.

[Poetlister]

It's kind of funny that what got Alex in trouble was CU'ing "no" votes on otherwise-snowball-y RFAs (if I'm not mistaken). I just had kind of come to believe that was standard procedure.

Just because it's standard doesn't mean it's right or even consistent with the rules!

[Alex Shih]

Of course it was standard. Especially it was on a at-the-time failing RfA (you have to note the timestamps) on a extremely loud quack (you have to check the other forum here) where I made one block and immediately passed the case to another CU (that was going to check and make/and made the block) realizing that it had bigger implications. But facts don't really matter when it comes to persistent smearing of reputations, but that's okay

[Dysklyver]

I understand the issue was that Alex was one of the RfA nominators, and therefore involved in a way Checkusers generally aren't.

[LynnWysong]

I understand the issue was that Alex was one of the RfA nominators, and therefore involved in a way Checkusers generally aren't.

But, the outcome would have been the same regardless. Can you imagine a scenario in which both TGS and the sock would not have been blocked? It was an incredibly blatant and pernicious violation - using an alternate account to vote twice at an RfA. And TGS sooooo knew better. I mean, had he used the alternate account to vote, but then didn't vote in his own name, that's understandable, given the enemies one can make at RfA. I can see why the vote would still raise suspicion, and a quiet CU run, though, if you were to look at the alternate account's Nobody's Keeper (T-C-L) contribution history, but until TGS or another account picked up during the CU votes, best just to keep quiet about it.

Now if someone could point out that there were equally suspicious accounts that voted positive, and Alex did not look into those then yeah, you could argue that he was using the tools to skew the results of the RfA. But I would think that the RfA process is important enough to justify "fishing" or investigating any voter that smells fishy, but for which there is little or no substantive evidence to link them to another user and file an SPI. If nothing turns up, no harm no foul. If it does, however, I think for the sake of transparency an SPI should be filed with the explanation that the account was a suspicious voter at RfA, so the CU had already been run. TGS would probably have come up with an excuse that he forgot that he had already voted and then accidently voted in the alternate account's name, and at that point would have been told "too bad" because he was playing with fire by having an undisclosed alternate account.

[BURob13]

The protections editors should face when being CU'd cannot depend on the result of the CU, because those results aren't known until after a check is conducted. If the editor had not been a sock, what then?

No editor should have to fear whether someone they are in a dispute with will use the CheckUser tool to find out where they live.

[Vigilant]

The protections editors should face when being CU'd cannot depend on the result of the CU, because those results aren't known until after a check is conducted. If the editor had not been a sock, what then?

No editor should have to fear whether someone they are in a dispute with will use the CheckUser tool to find out where they live.

Yet it happens all the time.

Another example of why the WMF should hire full time employees to do this function and remove it from the hands of unaccountable volunteers.

[Poetlister]

The problem is the sheer scale of CU use on EN-WP. On smaller sites where there are very few checks, the checkusers can monitor each other, That's quite infeasible on the largest sites.

[LynnWysong]

The protections editors should face when being CU'd cannot depend on the result of the CU, because those results aren't known until after a check is conducted. If the editor had not been a sock, what then?

No editor should have to fear whether someone they are in a dispute with will use the CheckUser tool to find out where they live.

As someone who has never tried to hide my identity on WP, as far as I'm concerned I can be CU'd all anyone wants. My bigger concern is the integrity of the person interpreting the results of the CU. That's why, there should be complete transparency in the process, not an automatic block as was the case with TGS.

If someone is truly concerned that a privacy violation could be a threat to their security they should use a VPN. From what I can see it costs about $100 a year, so price should not be a deterrent. If it is, maybe you should be spending less time on WP and instead be out working at Seven Eleven to earn a few extra bucks.

If WP is trying to make users feel secure with rules about using the CU, it is failing miserably. Even if they hired objective employees to run CU's, If I was truly concerned I wouldn't rely on that to protect my security.

[Instant Noodle]

If someone is truly concerned that a privacy violation could be a threat to their security they should use a VPN. From what I can see it costs about $100 a year, so price should not be a deterrent. If it is, maybe you should be spending less time on WP and instead be out working at Seven Eleven to earn a few extra bucks.

VPNs are blocked when they are detected.

[LynnWysong]

If someone is truly concerned that a privacy violation could be a threat to their security they should use a VPN. From what I can see it costs about $100 a year, so price should not be a deterrent. If it is, maybe you should be spending less time on WP and instead be out working at Seven Eleven to earn a few extra bucks.

VPNs are blocked when they are detected.

I didn't think VPNs were, but IP proxy's are.

[LynnWysong]

We know WP has relevant policy related to CheckUser and how it is to be used, but most of us who have socked have been caught by "fishing" CUs at least a few times. Given that that's in direct violation of the rules, one would think there would be record of someone losing the tool or at least being reprimanded for abuse, misuse, unnecessary or inappropriate use, etc. Has it ever happened? If it isn't publicly viewable I can understand because sensitive info might be involved. But I'm curious if any sort of action against a CU on those grounds has ever happened at all...because if not, then all those rules don't mean diddly, and they know it.

In general, it bothers me when someone in authority doesn't have to answer to the community. One reason Wikipedia as a whole bothers me so.

I find it rather interesting that Mike V (T-C-L) stopped editing a couple months after he found that TheGracefulSlick (T-C-L) and ALongStay (T-C-L) were the same user. It never was clear why he ran the CU since no SPI had been opened.

[Dysklyver]

If someone is truly concerned that a privacy violation could be a threat to their security they should use a VPN. From what I can see it costs about $100 a year, so price should not be a deterrent. If it is, maybe you should be spending less time on WP and instead be out working at Seven Eleven to earn a few extra bucks.

VPNs are blocked when they are detected.

I didn't think VPNs were, but IP proxy's are.

Pretty sure they are treated in the same way.

[LynnWysong]

If someone is truly concerned that a privacy violation could be a threat to their security they should use a VPN. From what I can see it costs about $100 a year, so price should not be a deterrent. If it is, maybe you should be spending less time on WP and instead be out working at Seven Eleven to earn a few extra bucks.

VPNs are blocked when they are detected.

I didn't think VPNs were, but IP proxy's are.

Pretty sure they are treated in the same way.

I don't think so because of what was said in this SPI: "A lot of editors edit under VPNs, some due to paranoia, some because it's their choice." Now, I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong here, but I believe a VPN will always give a user the same IP, so it's not really used to enable a user to use multiple IPs as does an IP proxy, but is just used to maintain privacy; one cannot geolocate you through a VPN. Also, I think that if you have more than one person using the same VPN service they will have the same IP. That's why you need to disclose if you use a VPN.

Now, here's a question, and this goes back to TheGracefulSlick (T-C-L), and the 2016 incident with Mike V (T-C-L) I mentioned a couple posts back. If a user that had it in for you were to email you, and you were foolish enough to respond, they would be able to harvest your IP from the metadata of your email. Is there an IP Proxy service that can spoof that particular IP? Something I read indicates there could be, because the routing is focused only on the receiving IP, not the source.

[Poetlister]

They block anything that they think is an open proxy (and they often make mistakes on that score). I don't know if a VPN looks like an open proxy.

[Instant Noodle]

If someone is truly concerned that a privacy violation could be a threat to their security they should use a VPN. From what I can see it costs about $100 a year, so price should not be a deterrent. If it is, maybe you should be spending less time on WP and instead be out working at Seven Eleven to earn a few extra bucks.

VPNs are blocked when they are detected.

I didn't think VPNs were, but IP proxy's are.

Pretty sure they are treated in the same way.

I don't think so because of what was said in this SPI: "A lot of editors edit under VPNs, some due to paranoia, some because it's their choice." Now, I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong here, but I believe a VPN will always give a user the same IP, so it's not really used to enable a user to use multiple IPs as does an IP proxy, but is just used to maintain privacy; one cannot geolocate you through a VPN. Also, I think that if you have more than one person using the same VPN service they will have the same IP. That's why you need to disclose if you use a VPN.

Now, here's a question, and this goes back to TheGracefulSlick (T-C-L), and the 2016 incident with Mike V (T-C-L) I mentioned a couple posts back. If a user that had it in for you were to email you, and you were foolish enough to respond, they would be able to harvest your IP from the metadata of your email. Is there an IP Proxy service that can spoof that particular IP? Something I read indicates there could be, because the routing is focused only on the receiving IP, not the source.

I guess it depends on the VPN but most I'm aware of, and I'm talking about ones you pay for, don't reserve a single IP for a single user and allow any user to use multiple IPs (from different parts of the world) and have been banned as a result. I suppose some gold plated VPNs may offer a dedicated IP service but they'd be much more expensive.

[LynnWysong]

They block anything that they think is an open proxy (and they often make mistakes on that score). I don't know if a VPN looks like an open proxy.

I just checked my IP through https://www.ip-tracker.org/. One field of meta data is: "Proxy Checker Header." For my IP the input is: "Not Detected" So maybe if a "Proxy Checker Header" is detected it is blocked. I then checked the IP of a known VPN. There is no "Proxy Checker Header" meta data field, instead the name of the VPN pops up as the ISP.

[LynnWysong]

I guess it depends on the VPN but most I'm aware of, and I'm talking about ones you pay for, don't reserve a single IP for a single user and allow any user to use multiple IPs (from different parts of the world) and have been banned as a result. I suppose some gold plated VPNs may offer a dedicated IP service but they'd be much more expensive.

That was my point, they "don't reserve a single IP for a single user" which is why you need to disclose if you are using one. As far as being able to use multiple IPs, yes you probably are able to chose an IP that would geolocate you in another part of the world than where are if the situation warrants it. If someone is abusing that feature to sock on WP, yes, I can see the IPs being banned.

[Guido den Broeder]

There's a CU wiki where results are stored past the publicly promulgated date of expiration.

And sometimes these results get edited or fabricated in order to frame a user they don't like.

[BURob13]

There's a CU wiki where results are stored past the publicly promulgated date of expiration.

And sometimes these results get edited or fabricated in order to frame a user they don't like.

It takes balls to just say things outright that you verifiably have no knowledge about, since you've never had access to the CU wiki. This lie doesn't even make sense. If an individual corrupt CheckUser wanted to "frame" someone, they would quickly appeal, the block would be overturned, and the CU quickly found to have put false information on the CU wiki when ArbCom accessed the actual data to review the appeal. They'd be removed literally the first time they did this. At least make your conspiracy theories internally consistent.

[The Garbage Scow]

If someone is truly concerned that a privacy violation could be a threat to their security they should use a VPN. From what I can see it costs about $100 a year, so price should not be a deterrent. If it is, maybe you should be spending less time on WP and instead be out working at Seven Eleven to earn a few extra bucks.

VPNs are blocked when they are detected.

I didn't think VPNs were, but IP proxy's are.

Pretty sure they are treated in the same way.

They are.

[Beeblebrox]

The VPN/proxy thing bothers me. An increasing number of people use them to anonymize their identity, and WP treats them like criminals if the don't yet have 10,000 edits when their VPN/proxy is detected and blocked. But all admins get IP block exemption by default. Pretty sure I could edit even through Tor with no problem.

[Poetlister]

All admins and bots have a right called ipblock-exempt, "Bypass IP blocks, auto-blocks and range blocks". However, to use Tor you need a right called torunblocked, "Bypass automatic blocks of Tor exit nodes". This is only available to users in the ipblock-exempt group. Admins can add users to that group but are not automatically in it themselves.

[Guido den Broeder]

There's a CU wiki where results are stored past the publicly promulgated date of expiration.

And sometimes these results get edited or fabricated in order to frame a user they don't like.

It takes balls to just say things outright that you verifiably have no knowledge about, since you've never had access to the CU wiki. This lie doesn't even make sense. If an individual corrupt CheckUser wanted to "frame" someone, they would quickly appeal, the block would be overturned, and the CU quickly found to have put false information on the CU wiki when ArbCom accessed the actual data to review the appeal. They'd be removed literally the first time they did this. At least make your conspiracy theories internally consistent.

That presupposes a functional Arbcom which doesn't exist on most wiki's, if anywhere, the possibility to communicate with said Arbcom or in fact to appeal, which is typically rendered impossible in such cases, the fake data to be recent enough and the user to be aware of their existence.

In my case you seem to have missed though that on en:Wikipedia Arbcom did review my case, found the info in the CU wiki unconvincing, and unbanned me.

By the way, you do most certainly not know what I have knowledge about.

[Kumioko]

There's a CU wiki where results are stored past the publicly promulgated date of expiration.

And sometimes these results get edited or fabricated in order to frame a user they don't like.

It takes balls to just say things outright that you verifiably have no knowledge about, since you've never had access to the CU wiki. This lie doesn't even make sense. If an individual corrupt CheckUser wanted to "frame" someone, they would quickly appeal, the block would be overturned, and the CU quickly found to have put false information on the CU wiki when ArbCom accessed the actual data to review the appeal. They'd be removed literally the first time they did this. At least make your conspiracy theories internally consistent.

Talk about speaking about something you have no knowledge about. Regardless of who has access to the CU wiki or the data, I can tell you with 100%, absolutely certainty that quite a few innocent editors have been blocked and accused of being me, have appealed, and been denied because proof of not being Kumioko exceeded what is reasonable. I can also tell you that it's the exact same story for the Dog and Rapper vandal who has been doing a pretty good job of getting every T-mobile IP on the east coast blocked. Adding to that the volume of CU blocks performed by BBb23 without an SPI guarantee he is violating the rules and Arbcom hasn't done anything about it shows, without question, that what you are saying is nothing more than propagandist bullshit. You might be able to convince some people that you are doing something to improve Wikipedia but when the absolute worst and most blatant violators of the policy are ignored and you flout some edge case like Alex that is far less of a problem as proof you're doing your job all the Arbcom is doing is emphasizing how useless they are.

[BURob13]

All excellent points against an argument I didn't make. Incorrect CU blocks happen and are corrected on appeal. I've voted to overturn several during my tenure, often as a result of new information not available to the CU.

Guido made the claim that CheckUsers put false information on the CU wiki to trick other CUs into thinking two accounts are related when they're not. That's an absurd claim. There's no motivation for doing that, and even if there were, it would be very quickly caught. There's a very large difference between incorrect CU blocks carried out due to malice and incorrect CU blocks carried out due to mistakes. Does the latter happen? Absolutely. Does the former happen? Emphatically no.

[Kumioko]

All excellent points against an argument I didn't make. Incorrect CU blocks happen and are corrected on appeal. I've voted to overturn several during my tenure, often as a result of new information not available to the CU.

Guido made the claim that CheckUsers put false information on the CU wiki to trick other CUs into thinking two accounts are related when they're not. That's an absurd claim. There's no motivation for doing that, and even if there were, it would be very quickly caught. There's a very large difference between incorrect CU blocks carried out due to malice and incorrect CU blocks carried out due to mistakes. Does the latter happen? Absolutely. Does the former happen? Emphatically no.

I disagree, I believe they both do happen. Malice CU blocks should be rare, but to say they don't exist at all is also not reasonable or even possible.

[MysteriousStranger]

All excellent points against an argument I didn't make. Incorrect CU blocks happen and are corrected on appeal. I've voted to overturn several during my tenure, often as a result of new information not available to the CU.

Guido made the claim that CheckUsers put false information on the CU wiki to trick other CUs into thinking two accounts are related when they're not. That's an absurd claim. There's no motivation for doing that, and even if there were, it would be very quickly caught. There's a very large difference between incorrect CU blocks carried out due to malice and incorrect CU blocks carried out due to mistakes. Does the latter happen? Absolutely. Does the former happen? Emphatically no.

When I first socked (and for what it's worth, I've cut way back on doing so lately and am glad, because it isn't good for one's mental health), there were...I wanna say 2 accounts tagged as mine the very first time I was CheckUsered. I tried multiple tines to tell the admins that mistakes had been made and those two accounts were not mine. They didn't even address that claim, let alone look into it.

Three years later I began socking in a new city and under a new guise. Once again, other people on the network were CU blocked. I didn't even bother to appeal it this time because I knew they wouldn't listen.

I would probably feel guilty about these events except that, luckily, none of the innocent parties blocked seems to have been particularly active, established, or invested in their editing. But the absolute refusal of the higher-ups to even admit to the possibility of a false positive is disturbing. I hope it has changed, but I doubt it very much.

[Kumioko]

Personally I don't feel guilty at all about innocent accounts being blocked because of me for 2 reasons. First and most importantly my ban is completely unnecessary and shouldn't exist and 2 I am not the one doing the blocking. If the admins who are doing the blocking cared about improving the encyclopedia they would be more diligent and show more care than to mindlessly block accounts that usually are obviously not me.

[Guido den Broeder]

Guido made the claim that CheckUsers put false information on the CU wiki to trick other CUs into thinking two accounts are related when they're not. That's an absurd claim. There's no motivation for doing that, and even if there were, it would be very quickly caught. There's a very large difference between incorrect CU blocks carried out due to malice and incorrect CU blocks carried out due to mistakes. Does the latter happen? Absolutely. Does the former happen? Emphatically no.

A typical motivation on Wikipedia is jealousy, just like it is for bullies everywhere.

But how would it be caught, quickly even?

[Poetlister]

Does this CU wiki cover all WMF sites or only EN-WP? On small sites with no Arbcom, there are generally only a very few CUs, who do check each other. Cross-wiki issues are another story.

[BURob13]

Guido made the claim that CheckUsers put false information on the CU wiki to trick other CUs into thinking two accounts are related when they're not. That's an absurd claim. There's no motivation for doing that, and even if there were, it would be very quickly caught. There's a very large difference between incorrect CU blocks carried out due to malice and incorrect CU blocks carried out due to mistakes. Does the latter happen? Absolutely. Does the former happen? Emphatically no.

A typical motivation on Wikipedia is jealousy, just like it is for bullies everywhere.

But how would it be caught, quickly even?

If someone put false data on the CU wiki and then the editor timely appealed, ArbCom would review the actual data, compare to what was on the CU wiki, and have some very serious questions.

[Guido den Broeder]

Guido made the claim that CheckUsers put false information on the CU wiki to trick other CUs into thinking two accounts are related when they're not. That's an absurd claim. There's no motivation for doing that, and even if there were, it would be very quickly caught. There's a very large difference between incorrect CU blocks carried out due to malice and incorrect CU blocks carried out due to mistakes. Does the latter happen? Absolutely. Does the former happen? Emphatically no.

A typical motivation on Wikipedia is jealousy, just like it is for bullies everywhere.

But how would it be caught, quickly even?

If someone put false data on the CU wiki and then the editor timely appealed, ArbCom would review the actual data, compare to what was on the CU wiki, and have some very serious questions.

Possibly, but the editor wasn't allowed to appeal, and I didn't hear about it until later. Even so, I have reason to believe that serious questions have been asked.

[The Garbage Scow]

The VPN/proxy thing bothers me. An increasing number of people use them to anonymize their identity, and WP treats them like criminals if the don't yet have 10,000 edits when their VPN/proxy is detected and blocked. But all admins get IP block exemption by default. Pretty sure I could edit even through Tor with no problem.

I've brought that up here before. Its ridiculous in this day and age, to hard rangeblock people using a service commonly recommended for personal security.

[Pudeo]

I'm not saying it's necessarily misuse, but this February 6 Apollo the Logician SPI was hilarious. KingTintin was added as a suspected sockpuppet for unconvincing reasons, and was CU'd and found to be a completely unrelated sockpuppet of MroWikipedian (T-C-L) (who was really active in recent elections articles). Both accounts were indefinitely blocked and have a block message referencing to the Apollo the Logician SPI, despite not being him. It's like an "out of the ballpark" miss that still hits someone. Or is it just a convenience to avoid being seen as fishing?

[Poetlister]

I'm not saying it's necessarily misuse, but this February 6 Apollo the Logician SPI was hilarious. KingTintin was added as a suspected sockpuppet for unconvincing reasons, and was CU'd and found to be a completely unrelated sockpuppet of MroWikipedian (T-C-L) (who was really active in recent elections articles). Both accounts were indefinitely blocked and have a block message referencing to the Apollo the Logician SPI, despite not being him. It's like an "out of the ballpark" miss that still hits someone. Or is it just a convenience to avoid being seen as fishing?

It looks, and I haven't checked the claims, that KingTintin was being rather annoying and disruptive. That is generally regarded as grounds for a CU, though it probably shouldn't be. The obvious logic is that a CU may well show something and therefore allow tha blocking of an annoying editor.

[Kumioko]

I'm not saying it's necessarily misuse, but this February 6 Apollo the Logician SPI was hilarious. KingTintin was added as a suspected sockpuppet for unconvincing reasons, and was CU'd and found to be a completely unrelated sockpuppet of MroWikipedian (T-C-L) (who was really active in recent elections articles). Both accounts were indefinitely blocked and have a block message referencing to the Apollo the Logician SPI, despite not being him. It's like an "out of the ballpark" miss that still hits someone. Or is it just a convenience to avoid being seen as fishing?

It looks, and I haven't checked the claims, that KingTintin was being rather annoying and disruptive. That is generally regarded as grounds for a CU, though it probably shouldn't be. The obvious logic is that a CU may well show something and therefore allow tha blocking of an annoying editor.

Well it's been my experience that unless the CU wants to find a reason not to block, it's pretty easy for them to justify either as a match to some previous blocked editor or IP (and there are literally tens of thousands of them at this point) or as "behavioral match". The latter being more of a gut instinct but hard to argue if you aren't a CU and have access to the data.

[Poetlister]

Well it's been my experience that unless the CU wants to find a reason not to block, it's pretty easy for them to justify either as a match to some previous blocked editor or IP (and there are literally tens of thousands of them at this point) or as "behavioral match". The latter being more of a gut instinct but hard to argue if you aren't a CU and have access to the data.

Behavioural matches are surely based on edits, which are available to all and indeed are usually the reasons for requesting a SPI.

[Guido den Broeder]

Well it's been my experience that unless the CU wants to find a reason not to block, it's pretty easy for them to justify either as a match to some previous blocked editor or IP (and there are literally tens of thousands of them at this point) or as "behavioral match". The latter being more of a gut instinct but hard to argue if you aren't a CU and have access to the data.

Behavioural matches are surely based on edits, which are available to all and indeed are usually the reasons for requesting a SPI.

You are missing the point. 'Behavioural matches' are used to block editors as sockpuppets even when the CU fails to indicate a connection. These decisions are made by people who have no relevant expertise that would allow them to conclude to the existence of such a match.

[ArsenalFan]

Okay, we know that full CU logs can’t be made public, because logs of CUed accounts and IPs in short succession could functionally disclose a connection between them, contra policy. But why can’t a redacted version of the logs be made public, or at least made available to admins? My account is in good standing (no blocks or questionable behavior, 7 years of activity, 40k edits), and I can’t see why anyone would CU me. After Beeblebrox’s post, now I’m idly interested in knowing who’s CUed me and how many times without having to run for admin and then functionary.

I would assume that the answer is that the risk of exposing someone else's data is deemed to high. For example, one of the times I was CU'd they apparently thought I was a sock of a very specific person. So hypothetically I could look at what else that CU did on that same day and could make a reasonable guess that an IP they blocked was used by that person, who editied with what appears to be a real name. Now I know their name and their IP, and the general area where they live (maybe, geolocation not being the greatest tool ever). I don't think that's a risk the WMF is willing to take.

To be clear that is what we're dealing with here, global WMF policy not en.wp policy.

Interesting side note: Neutralhomer is once again trying to get Bbb23 in trouble for ....wait for it.... NOT being willing to checkuser every account NH wants checked. It's not working out too well for him. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... omerang%3F

Well the reality is no one really needs to ask Bbb23 to do a CU and SPI can largely be closed down as OBE because Bbb23 pretty much CU's everyone and everything every 90 days or so anyway. He virtually owns CU at this point and you would need to add up the CU actions of every other Checkuser and then triple it to even come close to his totals. So really, the question to ask is why isn't Bbb23 not CU'ing someone, the question that needs to be asked is why is he CU'ing every new user and every user that crosses his path.

I mean the Arbcom raked Alex over the coals and all but destroyed his on Wiki reputation for what they felt was a misuse of the CU and they let Bbb23 run roughshot all over the project CU'ing every thing that burps, farts or breaths! The Arbcom need to get off their collective asses and deal with Bbb23!

Yeah, he just blocked an account that was just reverting vandalism on his talk page. Someone needs to do something to Bbb23, 'cause all he does is bully innocent people.

[Poetlister]

You are missing the point. 'Behavioural matches' are used to block editors as sockpuppets even when the CU fails to indicate a connection. These decisions are made by people who have no relevant expertise that would allow them to conclude to the existence of such a match.

I am well aware of that. But Kumioko said "The latter being more of a gut instinct but hard to argue if you aren't a CU and have access to the data." This is false because anyone can review the bebavioural evidence themselves.

[Kumioko]

It's true everyone can see the edit history but oftentimes the CU's do factor in the CU as part of the justification even if it's stale. I know because they have done it to me or accounts they think are mine. Try creating a new account in the DC area and editing Medal of Honor recipients and find out how long before idiots like Bbb23 block them.

[Bezdomni]

i just looked, and was surprised to find out I have been CU'd a number of times. I won't say by who, but I can see that I've been CU'd in 2008 and 2010 for completely bullshit reasons[...]

Do you do such checkuser-checking for Anyuser?

I would not be entirely surprised to learn that I'd been checkusered for continuing to read en.wp with my universal login. That said, I haven't seen any bogus accusations of sockpuppetry since Geogene got into the Christmas-y spirit back in 2017: (§).

[Guido den Broeder]

You are missing the point. 'Behavioural matches' are used to block editors as sockpuppets even when the CU fails to indicate a connection. These decisions are made by people who have no relevant expertise that would allow them to conclude to the existence of such a match.

I am well aware of that. But Kumioko said "The latter being more of a gut instinct but hard to argue if you aren't a CU and have access to the data." This is false because anyone can review the bebavioural evidence themselves.

Not if that anyone is unaware of the existence of that evidence. These types of blocks are typically carried out behind the scenes. There are also very few anyones with the needed skills to begin with.