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 informatio
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 9:51 PM, ENWP Pine 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 the
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 hav
On 15 June 2012 04:55, Nathan 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 coming back
to th
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 2:22 AM, En Pine 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 the check
> and the
>
>
> 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-
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Stephanie Daugherty
wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 4:52 AM, Martijn Hoekstra > 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
>> month
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 4:52 AM, Martijn Hoekstra 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
..@lists.wikimedia.org
> Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 22:10:33
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Reply-To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness
>
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 8:06 PM, Dominic McDevitt-Parks
> wrote:
>
>> I think the idea that making th
Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 8:06 PM, Dominic McDevitt-Parks
wrote:
> 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 keepin
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 have
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 8:06
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 8:06 PM, Dominic McDevitt-Parks
wrote:
> 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 prev
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 ju
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc
>>
>>
>> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: John
>> Sender: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 21:17:09
>> To: Wikimedia Mailin
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
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
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
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 possible
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 5:35 PM, En Pine wrote:
>
> I'm inclined to agree with Risker here. Telling someone that a CU has been
> performed on their account, at the time that a CU is performed, might alert
> a disruptive user that some part of their recent activity has triggered the
> attention of
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 here
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Risker 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 think this is a g
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 4:07 PM, John 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 as:
>
> X performed a ch
On 14 June 2012 16:36, Nathan wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 4:07 PM, John 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
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 4:07 PM, John 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 as:
>
> X performed a ch
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 clarity
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 3:36 AM, David Richfield
wrote:
> 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
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.
t; > and they have my respect.
> > >
> > > Best, PB
> > > ---
> > > Philippe Beaudette
> > > Director, Community Advocacy
> > > Wikimedia Foundation, Inc
> > >
> > >
> > > Sent from my Verizo
--
> > Philippe Beaudette
> > Director, Community Advocacy
> > Wikimedia Foundation, Inc
> >
> >
> > Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: John
> > Sender: wikimedia-l-boun...@lis
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
hilippe Beaudette
> Director, Community Advocacy
> Wikimedia Foundation, Inc
>
>
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
>
> -Original Message-
> From: John
> Sender: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
> Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 21:17:09
> To: Wikimed
iling List
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 wrote:
> Each project has its own standards and thresholds for when checkusers
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 wrote:
> Each project has its own standards and thresholds for when checkusers may
> be done, provided that they are within the limits of the pri
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 wrote:
> Why sho
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 dat
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 8:34 PM, Samuel Klein wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 7:42 PM, John 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
> including
> > Oversight. I was just throwi
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 7:42 PM, John 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 including
> Oversight. I was just throwing out autoconfirmed as a line in the sand, we
> can adjust the lin
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 including
Oversight. I was just throwing out autoconfirmed as a line in the sand, we
can adjust the line so that normal users can be notified while excluding
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 wrote:
> I am not a checkuser
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 wrote:
> On 13 June 2012 19:18, John wrote:
>
> > This is something that h
On 13 June 2012 19:18, John 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 th
42 matches
Mail list logo
