[Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

[John]

Yet another attempt from a checkuser to make monitoring their actions and
ensuring our privacy more difficult.

On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 9:10 PM, Risker <risker.wp at gmail.com> wrote:

> Each project has its own standards and thresholds for when checkusers may
> be done, provided that they are within the limits of the privacy policy.
> These standards vary widely.  So, the correct place to discuss this is on
> each project.
>
> Risker
>
> On 13 June 2012 21:02, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 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
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>