[Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

[John]

PS I am not a former arb, do not have access to functionaries mailing list,
I do not have access nor have ever had access to any of the above including
Oversight. I was just throwing out autoconfirmed as a line in the sand, we
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 account?
The nature and required secrecy for such a open project is scary in this
regards.

John

On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 7:37 PM, John <phoenixoverride at gmail.com> wrote:

> I am not a checkuser, I do not have access to checkuser-l, the CU wiki, or
> any other private information. This goes far beyond the one case, I was
> just using it as a recent example
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 7:34 PM, Risker <risker.wp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 13 June 2012 19:18, John <phoenixoverride at 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
>> 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 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 to
>> provide
>> > information to the accused.
>> >
>> > 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.
>> >
>> > 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. Ergo
>> > Catch-22
>> >
>> > I know checkusers  keep a private wiki
>> > https://checkuser.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page and I know according to
>> 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 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
>> 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 at lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>>
>
>