This is something that has been bugging me for a while. When a user has been checkusered they should at least be notified of who preformed it and why it was preformed. I know this is not viable for every single CU

as many are for anons. But for those users who have been around for a period, (say autoconfirmed) they should be notified when they are CU'ed

any user should be able to request the CU logs pertaining to themselves (who CU'ed them, when, and why) at will. I have seen CU's refuse to

information to the accused. See the Rich Farmbrough ArbCom case where I suspect obvious fishing,

the CU'ed user was requesting information and the CU claimed it would be

violation of the privacy policy to release the time/reason/performer of

checkuser. This screams of obfuscation and the hiding of information. I know the ombudsman committee exists as a check and balance, however before

can be passed to them evidence of inappropriate action is needed. Ergo Catch-22 I know checkusers keep a private wiki https://checkuser.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page and I know according to

privacy policy we are supposed to purge our information regularly (on

CU logs exist for 90 days) however who oversees the regular removal of private information on the wiki? My proposal would be for all users who are at least auto confirmed to be notified and be able to request all CU logs regarding themselves at any point, and any mentions of themselves on the CU wiki should be

On 13 June 2012 19:18, John <phoenixoverride(a)gmail.com> wrote: and action and provide where be a the something our wiki retrievable. Perhaps some full disclosure should be made here John. You are a checkuser yourself, have access to the checkuser-L mailing list and the checkuser wiki, helped to set up the Audit Subcommittee on the English Wikipedia (which carries out reviews of checkuser/oversighter actions on request); you are also a member of the English Wikipedia functionaries mailing list because you are a former arbitrator, a checkuser and an oversighter on enwp. (so have access there to express your concerns or suggest changes in standards), It seems you are complaining about a specific case, and instead of talking things out about this specific case, you've decided to propose an entirely different checkusering standard. I'll point out in passing that half of the spambots blocked in recent weeks by checkusers were autoconfirmed on one or more projects, and even obvious vandals can hit the autoconfirmed threshold easily on most projects. Full disclosure on my part: I am also an Enwp checkuser and a member of the Arbitration Committee. Risker _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

PS I am not a former arb, do not have access to functionaries mailing

I do not have access nor have ever had access to any of the above

Oversight. I was just throwing out autoconfirmed as a line in the sand,

can adjust the line so that normal users can be notified while excluding spambots. One point could be say 50 edits and at least a month old

On 13 June 2012 19:18, John <phoenixoverride(a)gmail.com> wrote: > This is something that has been bugging me for a while. When a user has > been checkusered they should at least be notified of who preformed it

action and provide where > the CU'ed user was requesting information and the CU claimed it would

a the something our wiki > CU logs exist for 90 days) however who oversees the regular removal of > private information on the wiki? > > My proposal would be for all users who are at least auto confirmed to

retrievable. Perhaps some full disclosure should be made here John. You are a

yourself, have access to the checkuser-L mailing list and the checkuser wiki, helped to set up the Audit Subcommittee on the English Wikipedia (which carries out reviews of checkuser/oversighter actions on request); you are also a member of the English Wikipedia functionaries mailing list because you are a former arbitrator, a checkuser and an oversighter on enwp. (so have access there to express your concerns or suggest changes

standards), It seems you are complaining about a specific case, and instead of talking things out about this specific case, you've decided to propose an entirely different checkusering standard. I'll point out in passing that half of the spambots blocked in recent weeks by checkusers were autoconfirmed on one or more projects, and even obvious vandals can hit the autoconfirmed threshold easily on most projects. Full disclosure on my part: I am also an Enwp checkuser and a member of

Arbitration Committee. Risker _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Why shouldn't spambots and vandals be notified? Just have the software automatically email anyone that is CUed. Then the threshold is simply whether you have an email address attached to your account or not. This seems like a good idea. People have a right to know what is being

with their data. On Jun 14, 2012 12:35 AM, "Risker" <risker.wp(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 13 June 2012 19:18, John <phoenixoverride(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > This is something that has been bugging me for a while. When a user

and > > why it was preformed. I know this is not viable for every single CU > action > > as many are for anons. But for those users who have been around for a > > period, (say autoconfirmed) they should be notified when they are

> and > > any user should be able to request the CU logs pertaining to

be > a > > violation of the privacy policy to release the time/reason/performer

> the > > checkuser. > > > > This screams of obfuscation and the hiding of information. I know the > > ombudsman committee exists as a check and balance, however before > something > > can be passed to them evidence of inappropriate action is needed.

> > Catch-22 > > > > I know checkusers keep a private wiki > > https://checkuser.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page and I know according

> our > > privacy policy we are supposed to purge our information regularly (on > wiki > > CU logs exist for 90 days) however who oversees the regular removal

be > > notified and be able to request all CU logs regarding themselves at

checkuser > yourself, have access to the checkuser-L mailing list and the checkuser > wiki, helped to set up the Audit Subcommittee on the English Wikipedia > (which carries out reviews of checkuser/oversighter actions on

> you are also a member of the English Wikipedia functionaries mailing

in > standards), It seems you are complaining about a specific case, and > instead of talking things out about this specific case, you've decided

> propose an entirely different checkusering standard. I'll point out

> passing that half of the spambots blocked in recent weeks by checkusers > were autoconfirmed on one or more projects, and even obvious vandals

the _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

I dunno, John, you almost had me convinced until that email. I saw in

mail a reasonable comment from Risker based on long time precedent. As you may know, there are a number of checks and balances in place. First, the CUs watch each other. With a broad group, you can be assured they don't all always agree and there is healthy debate and dialogue. Second, enwp has an audit subcommittee that routinely audits the logs

a fine toothed comb. They are NOT all previous checkusers, to avoid the sort of groupthink that appears to concern you. Then, the WMF has an ombudsman commission, which also may audit with commission from the

Those people take their role very seriously. And last, anyone with

privacy concerns can contact the WMF: me, Maggie, anyone in the legal or community advocacy department. Is it an iron clad assurance of no misbehavior? Probably not, and we

continue to get better at it: but I will say that in 3 years of being pretty closely involved with that team, I'm impressed with how much they err on the side of protection of privacy. I have a window into their

and they have my respect. Best, PB ----------------------- Philippe Beaudette Director, Community Advocacy Wikimedia Foundation, Inc Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -----Original Message----- From: John <phoenixoverride(a)gmail.com> Sender: wikimedia-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 21:17:09 To: Wikimedia Mailing List<wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Reply-To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness Yet another attempt from a checkuser to make monitoring their actions and ensuring our privacy more difficult. On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 9:10 PM, Risker <risker.wp(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Each project has its own standards and thresholds for when checkusers

> be done, provided that they are within the limits of the privacy

> These standards vary widely. So, the correct place to discuss this is

> each project. > > Risker > > On 13 June 2012 21:02, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Why shouldn't spambots and vandals be notified? Just have the

> > automatically email anyone that is CUed. Then the threshold is simply > > whether you have an email address attached to your account or not. > > > > This seems like a good idea. People have a right to know what is

> done > > with their data. > > On Jun 14, 2012 12:35 AM, "Risker" <risker.wp(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On 13 June 2012 19:18, John <phoenixoverride(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > This is something that has been bugging me for a while. When a

> has > > > > been checkusered they should at least be notified of who

it > > and > > > > why it was preformed. I know this is not viable for every single

for a > > > > period, (say autoconfirmed) they should be notified when they are > CU'ed > > > and > > > > any user should be able to request the CU logs pertaining to > themselves > > > > (who CU'ed them, when, and why) at will. I have seen CU's refuse

fishing, would time/reason/performer the according (on > > > wiki > > > > CU logs exist for 90 days) however who oversees the regular

> of > > > > private information on the wiki? > > > > > > > > My proposal would be for all users who are at least auto

to > > be > > > > notified and be able to request all CU logs regarding themselves

checkuser Wikipedia > > > (which carries out reviews of checkuser/oversighter actions on > request); > > > you are also a member of the English Wikipedia functionaries

on changes > > in > > > standards), It seems you are complaining about a specific case,

decided > to > > > propose an entirely different checkusering standard. I'll point

checkusers > > > were autoconfirmed on one or more projects, and even obvious

> can > > > hit the autoconfirmed threshold easily on most projects. > > > > > > Full disclosure on my part: I am also an Enwp checkuser and a

of https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list > > Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe:

_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

So User:mfgaowener should get an automated mail saying "because you did a pagemove with edit summary "Haggggers!" you were checkusered. Please be more subtle in your vandalism next time." I trust the current checks and balances, and I don't think the system is getting significant levels of abuse. +1 on this. The methods that checkusers have are heavily constrained as

I am not asking for full disclosure, what I am asking is that established user have the right to be notified when and why they are being

The evidence checkusers get do not need to be disclosed, Its as simple

X performed a checkuser on you because Y at Z UTC that provides clarity and openness while keeping the information

use confidential. A note like that would provide vandals with very little information. And the second step of defining a threshold would eliminate most of the vandal checks. To me this screams of lets keep oversight of checkuser to a minimum.

now there is the ombudsman committee globally (to ask for review from

we need evidence, realistically only other checkusers can provide that) and on enwp there is the Audit Subcommittee, which 75% of are either

members (be defacto are granted CU ), former arbcom, or former CU. To me that really reeks of lack of independent oversight. Notifying an established user that they are subject to a CU doesnt harm the CU's

to do their job unless they themselves have something to hide. Its not

I am asking for CU's to release IP addresses/user-agents or anything else that could assist me in avoiding scrutiny.

On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 3:36 AM, David Richfield <davidrichfield(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote: it is by privacy concerns, and they are very fragile. They only work effectively within the tight privacy restrictions with a certain amount

security through obscurity. For one, a checkuser needs to be able to monitor a situation sometimes to be sure that they are casting a wide enough net for a block to be effective. For another, the standard of reasonable suspicion placed on the checkuser tool is high enough that

enough practice, vandals would learn to be careful to never justify a checkuser request within the privacy guidelines. We're between a rock and a hard place, because to give the transparency being asked for, we'd enter an arms race where we'd quickly have to relax the checkuser standards to the point where it becomes "anything goes so long as you don't disclose it". -Stephanie _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

I dunno, John, you almost had me convinced until that email. I saw in that mail a reasonable comment from Risker based on long time precedent. As you may know, there are a number of checks and balances in place. First, the CUs watch each other. With a broad group, you can be assured they don't all always agree and there is healthy debate and dialogue. Second, enwp has an audit subcommittee that routinely audits the logs with a fine toothed comb. They are NOT all previous checkusers, to avoid the sort of groupthink that appears to concern you. Then, the WMF has an ombudsman commission, which also may audit with commission from the Board. Those people take their role very seriously. And last, anyone with genuine privacy concerns can contact the WMF: me, Maggie, anyone in the legal or community advocacy department. Is it an iron clad assurance of no misbehavior? Probably not, and we will continue to get better at it: but I will say that in 3 years of being pretty closely involved with that team, I'm impressed with how much they err on the side of protection of privacy. I have a window into their world, and they have my respect. Best, PB ----------------------- Philippe Beaudette Director, Community Advocacy Wikimedia Foundation, Inc Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -----Original Message----- From: John <phoenixoverride(a)gmail.com> Sender: wikimedia-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 21:17:09 To: Wikimedia Mailing List<wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Reply-To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness Yet another attempt from a checkuser to make monitoring their actions and ensuring our privacy more difficult. On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 9:10 PM, Risker <risker.wp(a)gmail.com> wrote: it for a fishing, would time/reason/performer the according (on to checkuser Wikipedia on changes decided checkusers of https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l