I may be totally wrong as many details are missing here.
a) Lar is wrong. He should not have communicated CU findings with his wife. Policy is clear on that.
b) SlimVirgin, you are wrong when you think that there should be a *good*valid reason for a CU; a valid reason is sufficient. And of course, though it is not binding, a CU can have some courtesy of informing the subject of the check. But i do believe that the question of *"[people] who are checked are told whether and by whom, if they ask*" is less relevant than answering the question about the reason of the check itself. And we all know that sophisticated sockpuppetry comes more often from established accounts -- hope this is not defending the CU *team *but more a sign of emphasizing on the fact that there should be no exemptions for established accounts. Of course, fishing and general trawling aside.
I won't care about who is check usering me if I am not doing something wrong. So... c) what do parties want?
Fayssal F.
On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 18:04:15 -0500 SlimVirgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote: Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] SlimVirgin and CheckUser leaks To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: 4cc603b0807201604j7e1dbf4aq273a82fd5db26066@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On 7/20/08, Thatcher131 Wikipedia thatcher131@gmail.com wrote:
So I don't think one can come to the conclusion that "the checkusers" found no problem, we lacked key information to conduct a proper review. At the time I believe I suggested asking a subcommittee of checkusers from other wikis to be given access to all the information for a non-biased review, but it never happened. And to the best of my knowledge, no formal complaint has ever been made to the ombudsman commission.
Thatcher
No formal complaint was made to the commission because we were told they couldn't examine checkuser policy violations, as I said earlier. Therefore, this was never investigated properly -- and you do lack key information for that reason. What I found most disturbing were the slightly different versions of events that were produced for different audiences. Had it not been for that aspect, I'd have been willing to forget the whole thing.
I think your subcommittee of checkusers idea is a very good one. I wonder why it didn't happen.
However, working out how to prevent this kind of thing is what matters now, and the best way to do that is to ensure that people who are checked are told whether and by whom, if they ask.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Fayssal F. wrote:
<snip snip snip> So... c) what do parties want?
Fayssal F.
<snip>
This thread to end.
- -- Best, Jon
[User:NonvocalScream]
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 2:02 AM, Fayssal F. wrote:
I may be totally wrong as many details are missing here.
(Snip)
b) SlimVirgin, you are wrong when you think that there should be a *good*valid reason for a CU; a valid reason is sufficient. And of course, though it is not binding, a CU can have some courtesy of informing the subject of the check. But i do believe that the question of *"[people] who are checked are told whether and by whom, if they ask*" is less relevant than answering the question about the reason of the check itself. And we all know that sophisticated sockpuppetry comes more often from established accounts -- hope this is not defending the CU *team *but more a sign of emphasizing on the fact that there should be no exemptions for established accounts. Of course, fishing and general trawling aside.
I won't care about who is check usering me if I am not doing something wrong. So... c) what do parties want?
Fayssal F.
Fayssal's said it fairly accurately. Put bluntly, there are cases I have carried out a valid checkuser request, where I am not going to tell the subject, whether they ask or not. Why? Because with a number of sophisticated sockmasters, it would defeat the purpose of the check, if they could ask whether their account X was ever under investigation. There have been a number of cases where having to tell anyone on demand whether they have been checked, would defeat the purpose of detecting abuse of multiple accounts. It can also have a significant and almost always unwarranted disruptive impact to do so every bit as much as if admins had to tell every user, every time they looked at their deleted contributions (which are also non-public). The approach of privacy and CU policy is fairly clear -
1/ checkusers are expected to use their access responsibly, and to only use it when there is a reasonable concern that abuse may be taking place by an account, that the checkuser tool may help to investigate.
"Reasonable concern" I would take to mean that the behavior of an account, or something about it (eg time of creation, area of focus etc), suggests there might be abuse, and that a responsible administrator would reasonably wish to check the matter to reassure themselves there isn't (or identify it if there is).
2/ checkusers are expected to keep the information they obtain from this private, not to use the tool other than for its intended purpose of detecting, preventing and reducing abuse, having been given access to the tool, to use it fully for that purpose, /and/ (having used the tool in a case) they are expected to keep any results safely, and not use any findings other than for that intended purpose.
SlimVirgin and Lar (and others) may argue whether the Checkuser tool was or was not used with good cause, or whether or not the findings were improperly disclosed, or whether they were then used properly or not. That would be a genuine issue if there was a concern (SlimVirin says there is, Lar says there isn't). I am not involved in that discussion, I'm addressing the CU usage criteria only. In terms of Checkuser and Privacy policy, Fayssal is correct - a valid reason is sufficient. The enwiki norm is, I would expect to be able to go to anyone and ask for evidence or explanation that checkuser was being used for those intended purposes, and the results were not then misused in breach of those policies. Beyond that, checkuser is a tool, as much as access to deleted contributions is a tool. A checkuser with reasonable concerns over abuse, disruption, and breach of community norms, will refer to checkuser as much as any admin will refer to deleted contributions.
To sum up, the aim of this project is to write an encyclopedia. Checkuser is a tool that is used by a limited number of users to detect and prevent abuse of editorial process by a minority of "bad faith" users, whilst editors are writing content. If anyone looks at my checkuser logs, they will find each case has a full and thorough explanation, and is carried out solely to further that job, and the same is true for most checkusers.
My current thinking is this. Rather than going round in circles, may I tactfully suggest that Privacy policy, Checkuser policy, and the norms of the wiki on which these actions took place, are now taken as read. And suggest that the thread now moves forward from there into the areas where there could be policy breaches, if any.
FT2
On 7/20/08, Fayssal F. szvest@gmail.com wrote:
a) Lar is wrong. He should not have communicated CU findings with his wife. Policy is clear on that.
b) SlimVirgin, you are wrong when you think that there should be a *good*valid reason for a CU; a valid reason is sufficient.
I agree. But he had NO reason to check Crum once he discovered that Wiktumnus was an editor who is known to him. Once he knew that, there was no reason to proceed with the check of Crum. Lar was on a fishing trip.
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 10:08 AM, SlimVirgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
I agree. But he had NO reason to check Crum once he discovered that Wiktumnus was an editor who is known to him. Once he knew that, there was no reason to proceed with the check of Crum. Lar was on a fishing trip.
Lar might simply have wished to complete exonerating Crum in his own mind, in fact. Quite often I'll check everyone mentioned in a complaint even if already it looks like the accusations don't check out.
I also want to take issue with your allegation that Wikitumnus abandoned that account solely because (a) Lar checkusered it, or (b) because Lar told his wife about it. As I recall, a good part of it is that he realized that actions like that which aroused WR's suspicions were not a good idea if one wanted to keep one's previous identity a secret. Even without the checkuser, people were already wondering who Wikitumnus was and might be able to figure it out.
Lar is foolish, IMO, to contribute to WR; it's a shifting mess of crazy and often malice, and I feel that listening and engaging with paranoids and obsessives to that degree can affect one's thinking. On the other hand, I do not think he's doing so with any bad intent; I feel it has to do with a belief in engaging critics and listening impartially to all sides – noble intentions even if a bad idea in this case.
-Matt
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 3:44 PM, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 10:08 AM, SlimVirgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
I agree. But he had NO reason to check Crum once he discovered that Wiktumnus was an editor who is known to him. Once he knew that, there was no reason to proceed with the check of Crum. Lar was on a fishing trip.
Lar might simply have wished to complete exonerating Crum in his own mind, in fact. Quite often I'll check everyone mentioned in a complaint even if already it looks like the accusations don't check out.
I also want to take issue with your allegation that Wikitumnus abandoned that account solely because (a) Lar checkusered it, or (b) because Lar told his wife about it. As I recall, a good part of it is that he realized that actions like that which aroused WR's suspicions were not a good idea if one wanted to keep one's previous identity a secret. Even without the checkuser, people were already wondering who Wikitumnus was and might be able to figure it out.
Unless there's more to this than I'm aware of, the only person who raised any issue with this was myself, based initially on Tumnus' arrival within two minutes as a brand new user to delete a sock template in a way that didn't check out, followed by later editing that confirmed the issue. This was never to my knowledge raised on WR, and has nothing to do with it in any way.
However, Tumnus was clearly trying to hide that they had a previous relationship with Crum and/or SV, which under the circumstances is a violation of policy. Considering this I don't think it's surprising they would stop editing when this became apparent. For that matter I hope ArbCom recognizes that editors should not start new accounts to reinvolve themselves in these types of issues as if they were uninvolved.
The solution is for all editors to declare real names, one editor =1 name, with the exception that people editing on sensitive subjects or from repressive political regimes may optionally declare a pseudonym as their single (or additional) name, disclosing it to a suitable confidential body (analogous to checkuser). . We would thus immediately solve most problems with vandalism and COI, and all problems with sockpuppets, and greatly simply the detection of meatpuppetry. 'Everyone can edit, if they're honest about it' is not different from, but an interpretation of, 'everyone can edit.'
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 5:05 PM, Mackan79 mackan79@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 3:44 PM, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 10:08 AM, SlimVirgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
I agree. But he had NO reason to check Crum once he discovered that Wiktumnus was an editor who is known to him. Once he knew that, there was no reason to proceed with the check of Crum. Lar was on a fishing trip.
Lar might simply have wished to complete exonerating Crum in his own mind, in fact. Quite often I'll check everyone mentioned in a complaint even if already it looks like the accusations don't check out.
I also want to take issue with your allegation that Wikitumnus abandoned that account solely because (a) Lar checkusered it, or (b) because Lar told his wife about it. As I recall, a good part of it is that he realized that actions like that which aroused WR's suspicions were not a good idea if one wanted to keep one's previous identity a secret. Even without the checkuser, people were already wondering who Wikitumnus was and might be able to figure it out.
Unless there's more to this than I'm aware of, the only person who raised any issue with this was myself, based initially on Tumnus' arrival within two minutes as a brand new user to delete a sock template in a way that didn't check out, followed by later editing that confirmed the issue. This was never to my knowledge raised on WR, and has nothing to do with it in any way.
However, Tumnus was clearly trying to hide that they had a previous relationship with Crum and/or SV, which under the circumstances is a violation of policy. Considering this I don't think it's surprising they would stop editing when this became apparent. For that matter I hope ArbCom recognizes that editors should not start new accounts to reinvolve themselves in these types of issues as if they were uninvolved. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l