[Foundation-l] Expanding CheckUser permissions

List overview All Threads
Download

newer

older

[Foundation-l] Board elections

RE: [Foundation-l] Board elections

Angela

12 Apr 2005 12 Apr '05

3:42 a.m.

Requests have recently been made to the Board asking for verification that a user is sockpuppeting on one of the larger Wikipedias. At least two of the developers felt this was a matter for the Board or for an arbitration committee (although that Wikipedia doesn't have an arbcom), and were therefore not happy to give out details about the IP address of this user. Checking IPs is no longer a developer-only task since a new feature allows sockpuppet checks. [[Special:CheckUser]] allows a user with "checkuser" permissions to find all the IP addresses used by a particular logged in user, and to show all the contributions from a given IP address, including those made by logged in users. Currently the only people with the necessary permissions to use CheckUser are Tim Starling (who wrote the code for this) and David Gerard (who uses it on behalf of the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee). This data is only stored for one week, so edits made prior to that will not be shown via CheckUser. A log is kept of who has made which queries with the tool. This log is available to those with the checkuser permissions. I would personally like to see this feature be made available to more communities than just the English Wikipedia, but I am concerned about potential misuse of it, and the violation of privacy for users who have not been disruptive. I would appreciate any comments about this feature, and answers to the questions below, either here or on on Meta <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CheckUser>. Do you think this feature should be made more widely available? If so, who should be given access to it? Should it be limited to stewards, or to wikis with arbitration committees? Does the privacy policy <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Privacy_policy> need be adjusted to allow the use of this feature? Angela. -- Angela Beesley http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Angela

Show replies by date

Jack Lutz

12 Apr 12 Apr

4:10 a.m.

I think the log of CheckUser usage must be public; there is no otherwise no check on abuse.

David Gerard

12:24 p.m.

Jack Lutz (jack-lutz(a)comcast.net) [050412 14:10]:

...

I think the log of CheckUser usage must be public; there is no otherwise no check on abuse.

Unfortunately, that will give everyone a damn good idea of what people's IPs are. At present, all access show on the page, so Tim and I can see what each other have accessed. (He's used it precisely twice, to test it ;-) - d.

Tim Starling

12:39 p.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Expanding CheckUser permissions

David Gerard wrote:

...

Jack Lutz (jack-lutz(a)comcast.net) [050412 14:10]:

I think the log of CheckUser usage must be public; there is no otherwise no check on abuse.

I put the log in a flat file on NFS (/home/wikipedia/logs/checkuser.log), partly to make it easy for suspicious developers to check up on what the users have been doing with it. So it's not just two people overseeing each other. I'd prefer it if more people could view the log, but for privacy reasons we can't make it public at this stage. If there's sufficient demand, we could probably make partial logs available -- say, just the usernames but not the IP addresses. -- Tim Starling

David Gerard

3:29 p.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Expanding CheckUser permissions

Tim Starling (t.starling(a)physics.unimelb.edu.au) [050412 22:40]:

...

David Gerard wrote: > Jack Lutz (jack-lutz(a)comcast.net) [050412 14:10]:

...

>>I think the log of CheckUser usage must be public; there is no otherwise no >>check on abuse.

...

> Unfortunately, that will give everyone a damn good idea of what people's > IPs are. At present, all access show on the page, so Tim and I can see what > each other have accessed. (He's used it precisely twice, to test it ;-)

...

I can see the creatively antisocial trying to use that as a point against other editors they are in combat with. - d.

Anthere

17 Apr 17 Apr

5:25 p.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Expanding CheckUser permissions

David Gerard a écrit:

...

Tim Starling

(t.starling(a)physics.unimelb.edu.au) [050412 22:40]:

...

>>Unfortunately, that will give everyone a damn good idea of what people's >>IPs are. At present, all access show on the page, so Tim and I can

see what

...

each other have accessed. (He's used it precisely twice, to test it ;-)

I can see the creatively antisocial trying to use that as a point against other editors they are in combat with. - d.

I would not support any such list to be public. It seems to me that bringing public suspicion over someone is already a bit condemning him. This is not wikilove at all, and prone to further heat conflicts. Another solution could simply be to name two people ombudsmen over this topic. We should choose two people trusted by the community, BUT generally out of usual cabalistic discussions. Rather quiet and discreet people, not involved in current internal politics. These are most likely to be independant from those with the right to check the ips. Ant

David Gerard

5:59 p.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Expanding CheckUser permissions

Anthere (anthere9(a)yahoo.com) [050418 03:24]:

...

David Gerard a écrit: > Tim Starling

...

>>it. So it's not just two people overseeing each other. I'd prefer it if >>more people could view the log, but for privacy reasons we can't make it >>public at this stage. If there's sufficient demand, we could probably >>make partial logs available -- say, just the usernames but not the IP >>addresses.

...

> I can see the creatively antisocial trying to use that as a point against > other editors they are in combat with.

...

Precisely.

...

Another solution could simply be to name two people ombudsmen over this topic. We should choose two people trusted by the community, BUT generally out of usual cabalistic discussions. Rather quiet and discreet people, not involved in current internal politics. These are most likely to be independant from those with the right to check the ips.

That's a good idea! Add it to [[m:CheckUser]] ;-) Since the community hasn't added much that's solid or elegant in the way of guidelines for my non-dev use of the function, I plan to add outlines for my future use of the function to m:CheckUser and see who screams. Something along the lines of "any strong suspicion of sockpuppetry to violate ArbCom ban or restriction" as well as the current criterion I use, which is "well-founded suspicion of sockpuppetry in current ArbCom case" or similar. And see who screams and how loud. - d.

Walter van Kalken

7:32 p.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Expanding CheckUser permissions

...

This is difficult. It could only be implemented for the english pedia. As it would be impossible for say someone from the Japanese pedia to run for this as he/she would be unknown outside their own projects. This is also the reason why the vote for boardmembers will result most probably in two people from en.wikipedia being choosen. Waerth/Walter

Puddl Duk

6:55 p.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Expanding CheckUser permissions

...

Secrecy checked by more secrecy. This is going in the wrong direction. A user should be notified some way when they are targeted for investigated.

Anthere

7:42 p.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Expanding CheckUser permissions

Puddl Duk a écrit:

...

Secrecy checked by more secrecy. This is going in the wrong direction. A user should be notified some way when they are targeted for investigated.

I did not imply that the user should not know. I think he should probably. However, I do not think the other editors should know. In many countries, a person is considered not guilty until convinced of a crime. Now, we know better than that. Practically, when the police starts looking suspiciously to someone, the neighbours get suspicious as well.

Puddl Duk

7:51 p.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Expanding CheckUser permissions

On 4/17/05, Anthere <anthere9(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

...

Puddl Duk a écrit:

Secrecy checked by more secrecy. This is going in the wrong direction. A user should be notified some way when they are targeted for investigated.

I did not imply that the user should not know. I think he should probably.

Yes, I agree. My suggestion on http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CheckUser accounts for this.

...

However, I do not think the other editors should know. In many countries, a person is considered not guilty until convinced of a crime. Now, we know better than that. Practically, when the police starts looking suspiciously to someone, the neighbours get suspicious as well.

Also, with regards to Wikipedia, if editors don't know for sure that their account information is private then they are less likely to write honestly about government, politics, the company they work at, etc. Whereas if an editor knows they will receive notification when someone looks into their ip address, then they can have confidence in the transparency and accountability of our privacy policy.

Angela

28 Apr 28 Apr

3:13 p.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Expanding CheckUser permissions

As I mentioned on this list a couple of weeks ago, [[Special:CheckUser]] allows a user with "checkuser" permissions to check the IP address of a logged in user in order to investigate abuse or check for "sockpuppetting". Thanks to everyone who gave feedback on this at <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CheckUser> or on the mailing list. The majority of people commenting there thought the feature should be made more widely available. However, there was little agreement on who should be given access to the feature or to the logs. Currently, only David Gerard and Tim Starling have access to this feature. David pointed out that he barely uses it, and that its availability to the English Arbitration Committee has been controversial. He felt the issue is less "who should have access" than "what circumstances justify checking?". See [[meta:CheckUser]] for details on how David is currently using it. Tim starling suggested two guidelines on the mailing list; only research bad people and do not give away IP addresses unless it's necessary. There was general agreement on making CheckUser more widely available, but many thought this should only be done with restrictions, limits and/or penalties. There were mixed views on who should be given access to it, with suggestions including sysops, bureaucrats, bureaucrats of the larger wikis, stewards, or something between one and three elected users per project. Some felt people should use it only on their own project. There was no general agreement on whether it should be limited to stewards. The most contentious question was whether the user being checked should be notified about the check. Some people felt very strongly that they should, but there were also many arguments against doing this. See [[meta:CheckUser]] for full details. Some felt that, not only should the checked user be told, but that the logs should be public. Anthere suggested ombudsmen should be appointed to oversee the use of it. David Gerard added a question about which circumstances merit checking. Two people said that there must be reasonable cause for it. Guidelines such as requiring another user request it so it can't be used for personal reasons, and using it only as a last resort, were also suggested. One person felt the user that is checked has to approve. If anyone else would like to add to these comments, please do so at <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CheckUser> so that decisions can be made about how this feature should be used, and who should be able to use it. Thanks. Angela.

6952

days inactive

6968

days old

wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

11 comments

7 participants

tags (0)

participants (7)

Angela
Anthere
David Gerard
Jack Lutz
Puddl Duk
Tim Starling
Walter van Kalken