[Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

Birgitte_sb at yahoo.com Birgitte_sb at yahoo.com
Fri Jun 15 00:00:02 UTC 2012 

No  that is not a fair characterization. Risker explained that these things are handled by each project, not hide her true intentions toward your campaign, but because it ii the way things are.  And it is not at all particular to CU issues. What really "reeks of obfuscation" is using words and phrasing that requires native level English skills to campaign for a policy that you wish to impose on the Tosk Albanian, and all other, projects.

Self-governing communities work for the most part.  Which is more than can be said about the alternatives, and there are ghost wikis all over the Internet to prove the point.

BirgitteSB


On Jun 13, 2012, at 8:30 PM, John <phoenixoverride at gmail.com> wrote:

> Risker comment was basically "lets not set a global accountability and
> ability to get CU related logs of our self on a global level, instead take
> it to each project and fight it out there" to me that reeks of obfuscation.
> Realistically this should be a global policy, just like our privacy policy
> is. Why shouldnt users know when they have been checkusered and why?
> 
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 9:24 PM, Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation <
> pbeaudette at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> 
>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

More information about the Wikimedia-l mailing list