To add to Anne's comment. We also know that requests for checkuser can be
used to harass and troll. It is too often the response of someone who is
perturbed about being reported to escalate the dispute. Sometimes by
requesting sockpuppet investigations on the person who reported them.
Requests for checks can be done to out people who want to edit privately.
It is pretty easy to troll someone to the point that they respond with poor
conduct and then take them to dispute resolution and ask for check user on
them for one reason or another.
Sydney
Sydney Poore
User:FloNight
Wikipedian in Residence
at Cochrane Collaboration
On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Risker <risker.wp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 7 July 2014 11:12, Janine Starykowicz <jrstark(a)barntowire.com> wrote:
Risker wrote:
I also have a real problem with the idea of
anonymous reporting
What issues do you have with anonymous reporting? On my forum I have
reporting wide open to the world, no login/membership needed. Aside from
spambots that can find any link, mostly what I've seen is more biased
reporting: Posters will report transgressions by someone they don't like.
In most cases, it is a real transgression and something that needs cleaning
up. There are a few who narrowly interpret the rules (or make up their
own), but those are usually pretty obvious.
The only question on seeing obvious bias would be could it scale. You
might need a database of notes from prior decisions, or maybe a trial
period of watching other decisions for new adjudicators.
My problem with it is that it is quite frequently agenda-driven. It's
also creepy to think that we'd permit anonymous reporting and assessment to
hold identifiable users accountable on a broad scale. There may be a few
exceptions (paedophilia advocacy is the one pretty much at the top of my
list), but often that is as much to prevent unsupportable potentially
libelous accusations from being made publicly.
Many of our most seriously problematic
sockpuppeting accounts are people
who've been blocked for behavioural reasons -
and we waste a huge amount of
time trying to keep them off the site.
I definitely agree with this. Is there any way to track cellphone users?
Their variable IP addresses are as bad as the old AOL days.
It would be a major violation of the Wikimedia privacy policy to "track"
anyone without there being a legitimate and documentable belief that they
have violated the terms of use. Remember that any practice that can be
used against 'bad' users can also be turned against 'good' users -
because
bad and good is in the eye of the beholder. I think this is an area where
there is a massive split in the international community about its value and
appropriateness - particularly in Europe the personal privacy of users
takes precedence over just about everything else. It's relatively easy to
persuade an English Wikipedia checkuser to do a check provided there are
reasonable grounds, and we can do so without a formal public request and
discussion. On some other projects, the rules are extremely strict,
checking cannot be done absent a public request, and every check that is
done is documented publicly (that is "Checkuser A checked Account B for
sockpuppetry on DMY, result was xxxx" - private info not publicly posted).
This is very much a cultural thing.
Risker/Anne
Janine
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap