[Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

Thu Jun 14 01:24:41 UTC 2012

I dunno, John, you almost had me convinced until that email. I saw in that mail a reasonable comment from Risker based on long time precedent.

As you may know, there are a number of checks and balances in place. First, the CUs watch each other. With a broad group, you can be assured they don't all always agree and there is healthy debate and dialogue. Second, enwp has an audit subcommittee that routinely audits the logs with a fine toothed comb.  They are NOT all previous checkusers, to avoid the sort of groupthink that appears to concern you. Then, the WMF has an ombudsman commission, which also may audit with commission from the Board. Those people take their role very seriously. And last, anyone with genuine privacy concerns can contact the WMF:  me, Maggie, anyone in the legal or community advocacy department. 

Is it an iron clad assurance of no misbehavior?  Probably not, and we will continue to get better at it: but I will say that in 3 years of being pretty closely involved with that team, I'm impressed with how much they err on the side of protection of privacy. I have a window into their world, and they have my respect. 

Best, PB
-----------------------
Philippe Beaudette
Director, Community Advocacy
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc 

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: John <phoenixoverride at gmail.com>
Sender: wikimedia-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 21:17:09 
To: Wikimedia Mailing List<wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
Reply-To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

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
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l