On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 8:06 PM, Dominic McDevitt-Parks
<mcdevitd(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
I think the idea that making the log of checks public
will necessarily be
a service to those subject to CheckUser is misguided. One of the best
reasons for keeping the logs private is not security through obscurity but
the prevention of unwarranted stigma and drama. Most checks (which aren't
just scanning a vandal or persistent sockpuppeteer's IP for other accounts)
are performed because there is some amount of uncertainty. Not all checks
are positive, and a negative result doesn't necessarily mean the check was
unwarranted. I think those who have been checked without a public request
deserve not to have suspicion cast on them by public logs if the check did
not produce evidence of guilt. At the same time, because even justified
checks will often upset the subject, the CheckUser deserves to be able to
act on valid suspicions without fear of retaliation. The community doesn't
need the discord that a public log would generate. That's not to say that
there should be no oversight, but that a public log is not the way to do it.
Dominic
The threat of stigma can be ameliorated by not making the logs public,
which was never suggested. A simple system notification of "The data you
provide to the Wikimedia web servers has been checked by a checkuser on
this project, see [[wp:checkuser]] for more information" would be enough.
En Pine's reply to my queries seems calibrated for someone who is
unfamiliar with SPI and checkuser work. I'm not - in fact I worked as a
clerk with checkusers at SPI for a long time and am quite familiar with the
process and its limitations. I know what's disclosed, approximately how
frequently checks are run, the general proportion of checks that are public
vs. all checks, etc. I still am not clear on how disclosing the fact of a
check helps socks avoid detection, and I still believe that it's worthwhile
for a transparent organization like Wikimedia to alert users when their
private information (information that is, as Risker has mentioned,
potentially personally identifying) has been disclosed to another
volunteer.
Nathan