On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
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
Can you explain how this is so? I did a fair amount of work at SPI as a clerk, and I'm not sure I understand how the mere fact that a check was performed is giving sockpuppeters a roadmap for how to avoid detection. If you mean they could test the CU net by running a bunch of socks on different strategies to see which get checked and which don't, that seems like a lot of work that a vanishingly small number of abusers would attempt... and also basically the same information as they would receive when those sock accounts are ultimately blocked or not blocked per CU.
~Nathan