[Foundation-l] Fwd: Jimbo's response re:Rampant CheckuserPrivacy Abuse

[White Cat]

I completely agree. Also I feel it is important to note the other reason for
this 'secrecy'. It is quite possible the 'cleared' person may very well be a
sockpuppet or a meatpuppet as checkuser process is foolable. Checkuser
should not be seen as an *Appeals Department Against Sock Puppet Accusations
* (ADASPA). The purpose of checkusers is to identify disruptive users who
want to avoid detection. Everyone else is innocent until proven otherwise.
So a checkuser isn't really clearing the person, instead just not
'incriminating'.

     - White Cat

On Dec 12, 2007 10:55 PM, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:

> Brian McNeil wrote:
> > I have CheckUser on the English Wikinews, and I am glad to say I have
> never
> > been pressured to carry out a check in secret. My opinion is that no
> > undocumented CheckUser should be performed.
>
> I disagree.  CheckUser should be used liberally with absolutely no
> implication that the user being checked is suspected of wrongdoing.
> Indeed, in many cases, the purpose of CheckUser is to *clear people*.
>
> A checkuser who has confirmed that nothing is going wrong, need not
> mention it.  This is just routine work.
>
> > Had this been done in secret then
> > all the average user would have seen in RC was a months long block on an
> IP
> > without knowing it had been verified to be a source of vandalism.
>
> That's about giving an appropriate justification for a block, as opposed
> to being about doing CheckUser quietly.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>