I think there needs to be a balance without going to either extreme. All checkuser actions are logged to my knowledge.
Idiots (I can call them that) who edit wikipedia only and only to cause disruption and mayhem are a problem. Even such people deserve the protection of the 'privacy policy' but they do not deserve having the 'edit' tool. It is possible to 'remove' the edit tool without compromising from the 'privacy policy'.
It is very easy to avoid detection if people just stay away from a wiki for a month and return later on just to cause clever disruption that will eventually pile up to an arbcom case. We had such people on various wikis and such people will always exist. Entire disruption from such people could be easily avoided if checkusers were more free in checking. So checkusers should not be banned from 'checking users' over suspicion. Disruptive people know how the limits of our radars' short range. We need checkusers' long-range radar to detect and remove them. A successful RFCu is often a license for block as a lot of evidence is necessary, and that's a good thing generally. Sometimes trolls, vandals and other pests edit in such a manner that an RFCu can't be compiled yet the sockpuppetary would be flashing obvious in a checkuser. I wouldn't *like* to be randomly checked. I would more than support such regular checks on RfAs and AfDs and etc. Lack of this is a problem and a serious one. If I am voting on an RfA, I would not mind and in fact encourage a routine check that would authenticate legitimacy of every vote.
We do need a more centralized system in storing checkuser data that's only available to checkusers. This isn't the first time this has been said. For example something like the OTRS where checkuser case numbers can be noted as the block reason and follow ups can be added to the case number. Unlike RFCu information that wont be given to the general public over rightful privacy concerns would be stored like IP data and etc.
Obviously checkusers *must not* release private info randomly. It is possible to say users A, B and C have been blocked for sockpuppetary without violating the Privacy policy.
In a nutshell privacy is an important thing but so is sanity. I do want to note that I am probably among the most paranoid people out there for my privacy and even I see the necessity of such checkuser checks.
If you are concerned of strangers such as checkusers seeing your 'IP' you ought to know that devs can see more than your 'IP'. Please do not tie or try to tie the hands of checkusers who are doing something meaningful and helpful. Any community ruled by paranoia is a dangerous one. Lets not be a paranoia driven crowd.
- White Cat
On Dec 12, 2007 9:49 PM, Brian McNeil brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org wrote:
Anthony wrote:
So are other communities immune from this problem, or has it just not hit them yet? Either way, I think input from those outside en.wp would be valuable. If you're immune from the problem, tell us how you got there. If it just hasn't hit you yet, let's work together to solve it before it does.
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.
A recent case we had to deal with on Wikinews was a repeat page move vandal. I had previously blocked the appropriate IP for a month. When similar vandalism recurred after the block was up my interest was in performing a CheckUser.
I could not quickly and adequately explain the situation to other people in IRC such that they made the request and I fulfilled it. Instead I - someone with the ability to perform the check - had to request either another Checkuser person carry out the check or state that they agreed there were grounds for checking and I should do so. The other Brian performed the check, and it turned out I was correct. 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.
I am strongly against CheckUser being performed in secret, sunlight is the best disinfectant and open and honest procedures will - in the long term - garner the various projects more respect.
Brian McNeil
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l