Re: [Wikimedia-l] Watchlist email notifications enabled on all wikis
Automatically adjusting the email frequency might be a worthwhile feature to strive for: If an editor hasn't logged in within the past 30 days, revert to monthly digest, that way we don't drive editors away with the email frequency. -Stephanie On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 7:07 PM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 8:51 AM, Victor Vasiliev vasi...@gmail.com wrote: Please, do not enable this feature by default. A lot of people do not like 10 emails/day in their mailbox, and I have such amount of watchlisted edits even in smaller projects like Meta. A daily digest would be cool. https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30187 -- John Vandenberg ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 3:36 AM, David Richfield davidrichfi...@gmail.comwrote: So User:mfgaowener should get an automated mail saying because you did a pagemove with edit summary Haers! you were checkusered. Please be more subtle in your vandalism next time. I trust the current checks and balances, and I don't think the system is getting significant levels of abuse. +1 on this. The methods that checkusers have are heavily constrained as it is by privacy concerns, and they are very fragile. They only work effectively within the tight privacy restrictions with a certain amount of security through obscurity. For one, a checkuser needs to be able to monitor a situation sometimes to be sure that they are casting a wide enough net for a block to be effective. For another, the standard of reasonable suspicion placed on the checkuser tool is high enough that with enough practice, vandals would learn to be careful to never justify a checkuser request within the privacy guidelines. We're between a rock and a hard place, because to give the transparency being asked for, we'd enter an arms race where we'd quickly have to relax the checkuser standards to the point where it becomes anything goes so long as you don't disclose it. -Stephanie ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 4:52 AM, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoeks...@gmail.com wrote: Two points that might help bring people on different sides of the issue closer together. 1. How about notifying people that they have been check-usered 2 months after the fact? By that time I hope all investigations are complete, and is the risk of tipping off the nefarious should be over. That's an interesting concept, and I'd think this would be the only way to notify users without compromising the effectiveness of the tool, but I still have serious reservations about disclosure here for reasons previously cited and below. Also, there are conceivably complex abuse cases where an investigation would take longer than 2 months, particularly in the sort of cases that eventually end up before en.wiki's arbcom. 2. Though the strategies of when to checkuser and how to interpret the results are private, the workings of CheckUser are not. It is free software, and its useage described at http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:CheckUser I would imagine any tech-savy user with malicioius intent will check how CheckUser can be used to detect their malicious editing, and what means they have to avoid detection. Notifying someone they have been checkusered does not give them any information they didn't have already, apart from being under investigation. The privacy rules surrounding it are very much public as well. That makes the effectiveness of checkuser as a tool very much dependent on carelessness or ignorance of person targeted, things we want to preserve as much as possible lest checkuser stop being effective or massive relaxation of privacy policies become necessary to preserve its effectiveness. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness
Am I correct to summorise here than that CU works because people don't know it doesn't? Almost. It works because people don't know how, don't care how, or don't think they are attracting enough attention to avoid being targeted. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
