Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/2022 CUOS appointments/CU: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Questions for this candidate (Blablubbs): answer to question 4 |
|||
Line 25:
:#* The two issues are of course distinct in that proving them individually works very differently: CU shows IPs, but it can't reveal intent, and is accordingly not very useful for proving UPE. However, a huge chunk of moderately sophisticated UPE activity{{efn|By which I mean things like PR operations or individuals that offer black-hat Wikipedia "services" and consciously try to violate the TOU and exploit Wikipedia's open nature, as opposed to company interns who are asked to copy-paste their latest marketing brochure into the article about the company, small business owners who try to push an article about their one-man tyre repair operation into mainspace, and similar kinds of misguided-but-not-inherently-malicious actor.}} entails socking of one kind or another, be it through block evasion or concurrent use of multiple accounts. In those cases, the line softens: If, in the course of investigating an account for UPE, credible suspicions of illegitimate use of multiple accounts surface, it can still be appropriate to run a check and take action based on the results{{snd}}a caveat being that CU is often of limited usefulness in UPE cases because of proxy use, "decentralised" meatpuppetry, or difficult ranges. --[[User:Blablubbs|Blablubbs]] ([[User talk:Blablubbs|talk]]) 15:47, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
:#What is your take on blocking IPs and accounts using the {{tl|checkuserblock}}? A lot of these are often applied as indefs or large rangeblocks that often last years at a time and often deny large mobile IP ranges due to a vandalism. Should these be treated as arbcom decisions or [[WP:OFFICE|office actions]] where other administrators can't undo or should these be done by consensus? [[User:NYC Guru|NYC Guru]] ([[User talk:NYC Guru|talk]]) 11:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
:#* I think regulation-wise, the status quo is fine: CU blocks are blocks based primarily on CU data, and so they shouldn't be loosened by people who do not have access to that data. It is impossible, for example, for a non-CU to tell whether a hardblock of an IP that has never made anonymous edits is appropriate or excessive, because there is no way to tell what registered users on that IP are up to, and it would be an NDA violation to publicly disclose that information{{snd}}and so having anyone but a CU or arbcom review that block would seem somewhat pointless. This makes CU blocks ''somewhat'' similar to arbcom blocks and office actions in that the group of people who have enough information to review an appeal is limited, but since CU blocks may be overturned by any individual checkuser (and we have far more of those than we have arbs or [[m:Trust and Safety/Case Review Committee|case review committee members]]), appeals are substantially quicker and easier. Broad peer review is of course a good thing though, so I would err on the side of preferring "regular" admin actions over CU blocks whenever I believe that publicly available information is sufficient for any admin to make an informed decision about its appropriateness. I'm afraid I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "consensus" in your question above{{snd}}if you are referring to a system where any CU block has to be pre-approved (or immediately reviewed) on the checkuser mailing list (if memory serves, Oversight blocks are usually handled this way), then I would be inclined to oppose such a system on the grounds that CU blocks are very common, and requiring panel review of each and every one of them would likely take up an inordinate amount of people's time. --[[User:Blablubbs|Blablubbs]] ([[User talk:Blablubbs|talk]]) 16:50, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
{{notelist-talk}}
| |||