Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

2012-06-16 Thread ENWP Pine
I do hear and understand the argument here, but it is somewhat problematic to have to have the argument if we do this, we'll be handing over information to sockpuppeteers we don't want them to have, and we can't tell you what that information is, because otherwise we'll be handing over

Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

2012-06-15 Thread En Pine
Hi Nathan, For a moment, let's suppose that there is a global policy that all CU checks must be disclosed to the person being checked, with the information disclosed in private email, and only consisting of the date of the check and the user who performed the check. What benefit does this

Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

2012-06-15 Thread Martijn Hoekstra
Listwikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Reply-To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 8:06 PM, Dominic McDevitt-Parks mcdev...@gmail.comwrote: I think the idea that making the log of checks public will necessarily

Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

2012-06-15 Thread Stephanie Daugherty
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

2012-06-15 Thread Martijn Hoekstra
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Stephanie Daugherty sdaughe...@gmail.com wrote: 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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

2012-06-15 Thread Stephanie Daugherty
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

2012-06-15 Thread Nathan
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 2:22 AM, En Pine deyntest...@hotmail.com wrote: Hi Nathan, For a moment, let's suppose that there is a global policy that all CU checks must be disclosed to the person being checked, with the information disclosed in private email, and only consisting of the date of

Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

2012-06-15 Thread James Forrester
On 15 June 2012 04:55, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: Supposedly, the data only survives 3 months. If data is being retained much longer than this for investigations that go on for months on the checkuser wiki, that's concerning. We have well-known trolls and repeat vandals who have been

Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

2012-06-15 Thread ENWP Pine
Hi Nathan, For a moment, let's suppose that there is a global policy that all CU checks must be disclosed to the person being checked, with the information disclosed in private email, and only consisting of the date of the check and the user who performed the check. What benefit does this

Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

2012-06-15 Thread Martijn Hoekstra
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 9:51 PM, ENWP Pine deyntest...@hotmail.com wrote: Hi Nathan, For a moment, let's suppose that there is a global policy that all CU checks must be disclosed to the person being checked, with the information disclosed in private email, and only consisting of the date

Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

2012-06-14 Thread David Richfield
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. --

Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

2012-06-14 Thread Stephanie Daugherty
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

2012-06-14 Thread John
I am not asking for full disclosure, what I am asking is that established user have the right to be notified when and why they are being checkusered. The evidence checkusers get do not need to be disclosed, Its as simple as: X performed a checkuser on you because Y at Z UTC that provides

Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

2012-06-14 Thread Nathan
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 4:07 PM, John phoenixoverr...@gmail.com wrote: I am not asking for full disclosure, what I am asking is that established user have the right to be notified when and why they are being checkusered. The evidence checkusers get do not need to be disclosed, Its as simple

Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

2012-06-14 Thread Risker
On 14 June 2012 16:36, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 4:07 PM, John phoenixoverr...@gmail.com wrote: I am not asking for full disclosure, what I am asking is that established user have the right to be notified when and why they are being checkusered. The evidence

Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

2012-06-14 Thread Sydney Poore
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 4:07 PM, John phoenixoverr...@gmail.com wrote: I am not asking for full disclosure, what I am asking is that established user have the right to be notified when and why they are being checkusered. The evidence checkusers get do not need to be disclosed, Its as simple

Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

2012-06-14 Thread Nathan
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: I do see where folks are coming from. To the best of my knowledge, for the past few years on English Wikipedia anyone who has asked the Audit Subcommittee if they have been checked has been told the correct response, and I

Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

2012-06-14 Thread En Pine
I do see where folks are coming from. To the best of my knowledge, for the past few years on English Wikipedia anyone who has asked the Audit Subcommittee if they have been checked has been told the correct response, and I think this is a good thing. On the other hand, what's being proposed

Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

2012-06-14 Thread John
Wow I am utterly in shock, while trying to dig up the diff that En Pine requested I get this comment from a checkuser *Checkusers are accountable to your representatives on the AUSC, to the Foundation's ombudsmen, and to one another—not to you.* -User:AGK when a user was looking into

Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

2012-06-14 Thread En Pine
Nathan, I’d like to respond to all three of your recent comments. Can you explain how this is so? I did a fair amount of work at SPI as a clerk, and I'm not sure I understand how the mere fact that a check was performed is giving sockpuppeters a roadmap for how to avoid detection. If you

Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

2012-06-14 Thread Dominic McDevitt-Parks
I think the idea that making the log of checks public will be a service to those subject to CheckUser is misguided. One of the best reasons for keeping the logs private is not security through obscurity but the prevention of unwarranted stigma and drama. Most checks (which aren't just scanning

Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

2012-06-14 Thread Birgitte_sb
: [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...@gmail.com wrote: Each project has its own standards and thresholds for when checkusers may

Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

2012-06-14 Thread Birgitte_sb
Listwikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Reply-To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

2012-06-14 Thread Dominic McDevitt-Parks
I think the idea that making the log of checks public will necessarily be a service to those subject to CheckUser is misguided. One of the best reasons for keeping the logs private is not security through obscurity but the prevention of unwarranted stigma and drama. Most checks (which aren't

Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

2012-06-14 Thread Nathan
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 8:06 PM, Dominic McDevitt-Parks mcdev...@gmail.comwrote: I think the idea that making the log of checks public will necessarily be a service to those subject to CheckUser is misguided. One of the best reasons for keeping the logs private is not security through

Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

2012-06-14 Thread David Goodman
The request--at least the original request here-- was not that they be made public. The request was that they be disclosed to the person being checkusered,. There is thus no stigmatization or drama. That it might upset the subject to tell him the truth is paternalism. On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at

[Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

2012-06-13 Thread John
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,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

2012-06-13 Thread Risker
On 13 June 2012 19:18, John phoenixoverr...@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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

2012-06-13 Thread John
I am not a checkuser, I do not have access to checkuser-l, the CU wiki, or any other private information. This goes far beyond the one case, I was just using it as a recent example On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 7:34 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: On 13 June 2012 19:18, John

Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

2012-06-13 Thread Risker
My apologies to you John - and also to John Vandenberg, whose name popped up when I cursored over this. Please do consider expressing a concern to the Audit Subcommittee with respect to this case, or alternately to the Ombudsman. Risker On 13 June 2012 19:37, John phoenixoverr...@gmail.com

Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

2012-06-13 Thread Nathan
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 8:34 PM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 7:42 PM, John phoenixoverr...@gmail.com wrote: PS I am not a former arb, do not have access to functionaries mailing list, I do not have access nor have ever had access to any of the above

Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

2012-06-13 Thread 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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

2012-06-13 Thread Risker
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

2012-06-13 Thread 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...@gmail.com wrote: Each project has its own standards and thresholds for when checkusers may be done, provided that they are within the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

2012-06-13 Thread Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation
@lists.wikimedia.org Reply-To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

2012-06-13 Thread John
-Original Message- From: John phoenixoverr...@gmail.com Sender: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 21:17:09 To: Wikimedia Mailing Listwikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Reply-To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

2012-06-13 Thread Nathan
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 9:24 PM, Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation pbeaude...@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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

2012-06-13 Thread James Alexander
: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 21:17:09 To: Wikimedia Mailing Listwikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Reply-To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness Yet another attempt from a checkuser to make monitoring their actions and ensuring our privacy

Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

2012-06-13 Thread John
@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...@gmail.com wrote: Each project has its own standards