[Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

[John]

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
>