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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l