[Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

[Risker]

My apologies to you John - and also to John Vandenberg, whose name popped
up when I cursored over this.

Please do consider expressing a concern to the Audit Subcommittee with
respect to this case, or alternately to the Ombudsman.

Risker

On 13 June 2012 19:37, 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>