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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
--
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
@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
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
: 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
@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
32 matches
Mail list logo
