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 the check
> and the user who performed the check. What benefit does this have to the
> user who was checked? This information doesn't make the user more secure,
> it doesn't make the user's information more private, and there are no
> actions that the user is asked to take. Perhaps there is a benefit, but I
> am having difficulty thinking of what that benefit would be. I can think of
> how this information would benefit a dishonest user, but not how it would
> benefit an honest user. If there is a valuable benefit that an honest user
> receives from this information, what is it?
> Thanks,
> Pine
Pine: As you have said, checkuser oversight comes from AUSC, ArbCom and the
ombudspeople. These groups typically respond to requests and complaints
(well, the ombuds commission typically doesn't respond at all). But you
only know to make a request or complaint if you know you've been CU'd. So
notifying people that they have been CU'd would allow them to follow up
with the oversight bodies. My guess is most would choose not to, but at
least some might have a reason to. It's also plain that even if there is no
recourse, people will want to know if their identifying information has
been disclosed.

Neil: The difference between the FBI and checkusers is clear: checkusers
are volunteers. They are elected on some projects, appointed on others, and
the process can often be murky or poorly attended. The "background check"
as such for checkusers is minimal. People with an intention to abuse the
system have become checkusers in the past.

Martijn: A delay makes sense. Two months seems like a long time, but two
weeks or a week might be reasonable.

Stephanie: 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.

Wikimedia-l mailing list
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Reply via email to