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 <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 13 June 2012 19:18, John <[email protected]> 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 > > [email protected] > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
