On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 9:27 AM, Mike.lifeguard <[email protected]> wrote: > Granted, you may argue that forcing requests to be made public would > force more stringent compliance with the standards, but you haven't even > shown that there is an issue in the first place; you have merely assumed > that it is so. Beginning an argument with a false premise is generally [snip]
Checkuser can cause harm in two primary ways: (1) The wrongful release of private information about an editor. (IP, Useragent, etc, or information derived from this private information "Mike is in Chicago"). (2) Besmirching the reputation of good users; generally causing drama. The written CU policy deals mostly with setting policy to prevent type 1 harm. For type 1 harm to happen it requires the checkuser both perform the check *and* blab about the results. For type 1 harm to be /meaningful/ the information had to be actually confidential: You can't really say you were harmed by a CU disclosing your IP if you'd been intermittently editing logged out with it for the past six months then logging back in and fixing your signatures. I think all checkusers take preventing type 1 harm seriously, even though it is usually trivial for a motivated non-checkuser to obtain an editor's IP, since the harm requires both a check and a disclosure and we have reasonable policy covering it I don't expect type 1 harm to be the most frequent problem. Type 2 harm is magnified by the uncertainty of checkuser: CU can't really vindicate with any confidence, _at best_ it can really only convict with a degree of confidence. It has been a common sport for some to accuse their enemies of sock-puppetry and clamouring for someone to CU them. When the CU comes back with the inevitable "nothing conclusive" that is used to sew additional doubt about the accused. Just the knowledge that someone saw fit to check is hurtful to a person and their credibility. So, conducting checks in private is the best tool we have for minimizing type 2 harm: If no one but the CU knows that a check was performed, no feelings are hurt, no credibility is smudged. If CUs aggressively "turn down" requests made out of anger, even while privately performing checks in the more suspicious cases, then drama is reduced. The privacy in the checking process does create more opportunities for type 1 harm, but as Mike mentions, I've not seen any evidence that type 1 harm has been much of an issue in practice. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
