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 spambots. One point could be say 50 edits and at least a month old account? The nature and required secrecy for such a open project is scary in this regards.
John On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 7:37 PM, 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
