On 20/04/07, Info Control infodmz@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.