If SlimVirgin is complaining about a check being run on Crum and herself then she really protesteth too much. The obsessive tag teaming of those two editors makes running a check a no brainer.
On 7/19/08, Josh Gordon user.jpgordon@gmail.com wrote:
Probably would only matter to the truly stupid abusers; it's not like the smart ones don't know how to evade detection anyway.
On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 4:40 PM, Carl Beckhorn cbeckhorn@fastmail.fm wrote:
On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 02:27:28PM -0700, Josh Gordon wrote:
A reason is logged, if it is provided. I'll admit I don't enter a reason for a lot of the cases that I process that involve, for example, Grawp socks.
I would be interested to know the opinions of active checkusers on whether reveaing to an abuser that some account had been checked might allow the abuser to evade detection later. That is the main concern I have about routinely revealing to a user that a check has been made.
- Carl
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l