[Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

[Risker]

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