[Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

[Thomas Dalton]

Why shouldn't spambots and vandals be notified? Just have the software
automatically email anyone that is CUed. Then the threshold is simply
whether you have an email address attached to your account or not.

This seems like a good idea. People have a right to know what is being done
with their data.
On Jun 14, 2012 12:35 AM, "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
>