On 03/08/2014, Richard Farmbrough <rich...@farmbrough.co.uk> wrote: > I have to say that there is an unnecessary lack of transparency which seems > to get worse. In or around May 2012 I emailed the audit committee on EN:WP > to ask about checkuser run on my account and got a polite and informative > reply. In or around May 2014 an identically worded query got a polite > refusal. ...
Thanks for sharing this Richard. This compares with my experience only ten days ago on Commons asking for basic transparency for CUs that may have been run against me <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Requests_for_checkuser#Transparency> - I have yet to receive any information. As mentioned there, Wikimania will justifiably be absorbing many active volunteers' positive energies in the coming week, including mine, as I'll be wearing a red shirt too; so I will be taking this up again for the benefit of Commons contributors only after the conference. Perhaps we should compare notes at that time so that we take similar actions to help capture a wider community consensus for what is required in terms of transparency when CU rights are exercised on our main projects. PS Wikipedians may not have noticed my question to all AUSC candidates about this, there were pretty positive noises in favour of improved transparency. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Audit_Subcommittee/2014_appointments Fae -- fae...@gmail.com http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae Despite rumour to the contrary I am a Wikipedian http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fae _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
