On 4/20/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Yes and that's exactly why such things aren't published -- to protect your privacy.
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.
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.
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.