I do see where folks are coming from. To the best of my knowledge, for the
past few years on English Wikipedia anyone who has asked the Audit
Subcommittee if they have been checked has been told the correct response,
and I think this is a good thing.
On the other hand, what's being proposed here is essentially providing
sockpuppeters or otherwise disruptive users (such as those under certain
types of sanctions) a how-to guide so they can avoid detection in the
future.
Risker
I'm inclined to agree with Risker here. Telling someone that a CU has been
performed on their account, at the time that a CU is performed, might alert
a disruptive user that some part of their recent activity has triggered the
attention of SPI. This information could be used to the advantage of the
disruptive user.
If someone believes that CU may have been used improperly, various groups
can investigate the use of CU.
John, you said in your original email, "See the Rich Farmbrough ArbCom case
where I suspect obvious fishing, where the CU'ed user was requesting
information and the CU claimed it would be a violation of the privacy policy
to release the time/reason/performer of the checkuser." Can you provide a
link to the relevant diffs? I would be interested in reading the diffs to
get a fuller understanding of what was said, particularly regarding the
Wikimedia-wide Privacy Policy.
Thanks,
Pine
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
