Risker comment was basically "lets not set a global accountability and ability to get CU related logs of our self on a global level, instead take it to each project and fight it out there" to me that reeks of obfuscation. Realistically this should be a global policy, just like our privacy policy is. Why shouldnt users know when they have been checkusered and why?
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 9:24 PM, Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation < [email protected]> 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 checks and balances in place. > First, the CUs watch each other. With a broad group, you can be assured > they don't all always agree and there is healthy debate and dialogue. > Second, enwp has an audit subcommittee that routinely audits the logs with > a fine toothed comb. They are NOT all previous checkusers, to avoid the > sort of groupthink that appears to concern you. Then, the WMF has an > ombudsman commission, which also may audit with commission from the Board. > Those people take their role very seriously. And last, anyone with genuine > privacy concerns can contact the WMF: me, Maggie, anyone in the legal or > community advocacy department. > > Is it an iron clad assurance of no misbehavior? Probably not, and we will > continue 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 my respect. > > Best, PB > ----------------------- > Philippe Beaudette > Director, Community Advocacy > Wikimedia Foundation, Inc > > > Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry > > -----Original Message----- > From: John <[email protected]> > Sender: [email protected] > Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 21:17:09 > To: Wikimedia Mailing List<[email protected]> > Reply-To: Wikimedia Mailing List <[email protected]> > 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 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > 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 data. > > > On Jun 14, 2012 12:35 AM, "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 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
