[Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

[Stephanie Daugherty]

On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 3:36 AM, David Richfield
<davidrichfield at gmail.com>wrote:

> So User:mfgaowener should get an automated mail saying "because you
> did a pagemove with edit summary "Haggggers!" you were checkusered.
> Please be more subtle in your vandalism next time."
>
> I trust the current checks and balances, and I don't think the system
> is getting significant levels of abuse.
>
> +1 on this. The methods that checkusers have are heavily constrained as it
is by privacy concerns, and they are very fragile. They only work
effectively within the tight privacy restrictions with a certain amount of
security through obscurity. For one, a checkuser needs to be able to
monitor a situation sometimes to be sure that they are casting a wide
enough net for a block to be effective. For another, the standard of
reasonable suspicion placed on the checkuser tool is high enough that with
enough practice, vandals would learn to be careful to never justify a
checkuser request within the privacy guidelines.

We're between a rock and a hard place, because to give the transparency
being asked for, we'd enter an arms race where we'd quickly have to relax
the checkuser standards to the point where it becomes "anything goes so
long as you don't disclose it".

-Stephanie