[Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

[En Pine]

>
> 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


I'm inclined to agree with Risker here. Telling someone that a CU has been 
performed on their account, at the time that a CU is performed, might alert 
a disruptive user that some part of their recent activity has triggered the 
attention of SPI. This information could be used to the advantage of the 
disruptive user.

If someone believes that CU may have been used improperly, various groups 
can investigate the use of CU.

John, you said in your original email, "See the Rich Farmbrough ArbCom case 
where I suspect obvious fishing, where the CU'ed user was requesting 
information and the CU claimed it would be a violation of the privacy policy 
to release the time/reason/performer of the checkuser." Can you provide a 
link to the relevant diffs? I would be interested in reading the diffs to 
get a fuller understanding of what was said, particularly regarding the 
Wikimedia-wide Privacy Policy.

Thanks,

Pine