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 <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 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@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