On 20/04/07, Info Control <infodmz(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I am (obviously) all for privacy, but my concern is
that at least once the
Foundation has been deceived quite heavily about the identity of at least
one Checkuser level person.
If you mean Essjay, no, he identified himself to the foundation.
If you mean something else ... look, say who you're talking about when
you talk about this stuff. Vagueness doesn't help this discussion.
Also, publishing some form of released information
would be of tremendous
assurance. Perhaps it ought to be disclosed then, when a person uses
Checkuser, if not who they ran it against? That would alleviate concerns
about the privacy of editors, and add a layer of public scrutiny and
accountability to the people with the ability to CU--if one person was (in
theory) farming for information vs. users, the patterns would be visibly
evident. "Why is such and such running so many CUs without documenting ANY
findings publically?" could then be reviewed by community oversight.
Because much of it doesn't require public documenting, or isn't appropriate.
Remember: WP:RFCU was invented to stop people bugging the checkers
personally; it's in no way a mandatory part of the checking process.
Quite the opposite.
I fail to comprehend why the usage of the tool in some
fashion shouldn't be
disclosed, if doing so does not put at risk any private editor data. The
actions *with* the tool, of the CU users themselves, obviously should not be
private any more than the standard Administrative logs are. If AdminX is
running multiple CU lookups per day, people should be entitled to know this.
I typically run multiple CU lookups a day. And now you know as much as
you did before.
- d.