Options

[Wikitaka]

It remains a mystery how this top secret tool is used. The users involved have access to the IPs of all WP users, no matter how constructive they are or how high the level of suspicion is. A wiki/mailing list only visible to CUs also exists. where personal information about innocent users is stored and discussed.

The appointment procedure is also highly confidential, but from what I know the ArbCom will make a "public" announcement, which is coordinated to be published when the users the ArbCom "want" accept an "invite".

Reviewers, I invite you to investigate the truth behind the CU process, how "fair" the appointment procedure is and the way the CIA of Wikipedia secretly discuss (and almost certainly harass) WP users. This is a real big, bad, "dark area" of WP.

[jayvdb]

It remains a mystery how this top secret tool is used. The users involved have access to the IPs of all WP users, no matter how constructive they are or how high the level of suspicion is. A wiki/mailing list only visible to CUs also exists. where personal information about innocent users is stored and discussed.

The appointment procedure is also highly confidential, but from what I know the ArbCom will make a "public" announcement, which is coordinated to be published when the users the ArbCom "want" accept an "invite".

Reviewers, I invite you to investigate the truth behind the CU process, how "fair" the appointment procedure is and the way the CIA of Wikipedia secretly discuss (and almost certainly harass) WP users. This is a real big, bad, "dark area" of WP.

In recent years (since 2009) Arbcom starts the process by widely advertising that they are seeking additional Oversighters and Checkusers. I could give a long spiel justifying the selection process, but that is missing the more important point. Since 2009 OS and CU are subjected to centralised community scrutiny before appointment, and there is an audit committee which reviews how these tools are being used. If you have a problem with how the tools are being used, go talk to them.

Checkusers do not have unfettered access to all IPs of all users. They dont watch Wikipedia like the Matrix. They need to explicitly request a small sample of this information, and that request is logged, and they are only permitted to request the data when it helps identity a problem.

The checkuser-l mailing list is almost exclusively used for coordination between projects to prevent cross wiki spammers and vandals. I have to say 'almost' as there is the occasional thread which isn't, but those threads are stomped on quickly. It is very rare (once a year, or longer) that an 'innocent' user is mentioned on checkuser-l.

The real juicy stuff happens on the functionaries-en mailing list. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) However, for comparison, it is less juicy than the arbcom-l mailing list. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yecch.gif)

I'll be happy to answer any questions you might have.

[Ottava]

It is also apparent that CUs like to hold onto clear evidence that users are sock puppeting and disrupting even after they said over IRC that they were going to deal with the user. There is no way to force them to do their job, so they wield power by denying enforcement.

[iii]

I'll be happy to answer any questions you might have.

It is well-known that checkuser data has an expiration date written into the software that the tool uses. Of course, this does not prevent an individual with checkuser access from storing information privately.

Is there a permanent repository of checkuser information stored on the arbcom wiki? If so, how many years back is the information stored and who determines what information is stored and what is removed?

[Ottava]

I'll be happy to answer any questions you might have.

It is well-known that checkuser data has an expiration date written into the software that the tool uses. Of course, this does not prevent an individual with checkuser access from storing information privately.

Is there a permanent repository of checkuser information stored on the arbcom wiki? If so, how many years back is the information stored and who determines what information is stored and what is removed?

The en CU list and the global CU list has checkuser information (which is why it was bad that Poetlister snuck his way onto it). Many Stewards keep private lists too. Just an fyi.

[Proabivouac]

There is no way to force them to do their job, so they wield power by denying enforcement.

That's generally true of all wikirules, isn't it?

[Silver seren]

There's the Checkuser Wiki, where checkuser info is apparently stored for upwards of 1-2 years, perhaps longer, considering some of the info that has been pulled out of nowhere in CU cases.

[iii]

There's the Checkuser Wiki, where checkuser info is apparently stored for upwards of 1-2 years, perhaps longer, considering some of the info that has been pulled out of nowhere in CU cases.

URL?

[Bottled_Spider]

I've always thought that Checkuser is the Wikipedia equivalent of Monty Python and the Holy Grail's Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch. Lots of incantations and undeserved reverence, one little flash, a mediocre bang, and some slightly rabid rabbit somewhere snuffs it.

This post has been edited by Bottled_Spider:

[Silver seren]

There's the Checkuser Wiki, where checkuser info is apparently stored for upwards of 1-2 years, perhaps longer, considering some of the info that has been pulled out of nowhere in CU cases.

URL?

Just see Philippe's comment on it here.

[iii]

There's the Checkuser Wiki, where checkuser info is apparently stored for upwards of 1-2 years, perhaps longer, considering some of the info that has been pulled out of nowhere in CU cases.

URL?

Just see Philippe's comment on it here.

I'd seen that before, I was just hoping someone may have told you where to point your browser to find it.

The obvious URLs, based upon the one used for the arbcom wiki, did not work, nor is there any documentation of this on the relevant meta page.

[Mooby]

checkuser.wikimedia.org perhaps?

Pretty sure it doesn't allow a "guest" login, tho.

-Mooby

[iii]

checkuser.wikimedia.org perhaps?

Pretty sure it doesn't allow a "guest" login, tho.

-Mooby

Good on! I'll get right on that "guest" login. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

[culeaker]

The en CU list and the global CU list has checkuser information

There has been no "global CU list" (if you mean log) for many years. The EN:WP CU log is only viewable by EN:WP checkusers and stewards. Anyway, it does not contain the results of checks, only the fact that they have been done.

If you mean e-mails, then as Jayvdb has already noted, the cross-wiki list hardly ever has anything interesting on it. Anyway, most of it is easily deducible by comparing block logs on several wikis.

The problem with EN:WP is that the volume of checks, and the fact that checkusers do not share them much, makes it difficult to vet each other. On a small wiki, where maybe there is no more than one a week, I expect that there is usually pretty thorough vetting.

[Ottava]

The en CU list and the global CU list has checkuser information

There has been no "global CU list" (if you mean log) for many years.

"List" refers to the cu-l list, and there is a global one with an archive. I've emailed it before and I sent evidence, along with many other people. Anyone with CU access would have known that.

[jayvdb]

I'll be happy to answer any questions you might have.

It is well-known that checkuser data has an expiration date written into the software that the tool uses. Of course, this does not prevent an individual with checkuser access from storing information privately.

Is there a permanent repository of checkuser information stored on the arbcom wiki? If so, how many years back is the information stored and who determines what information is stored and what is removed?

Arbitrators don't often dump CU data onto the arbcom wiki. The arbcom wiki has pages about some users, which serve as either working notes (e.g. during ban appeals) or institutional memory (i.e. long term problems). Many of those pages were migrated to the checkuser wiki because they were about users that are 'global' problems. These pages sometimes contain CU information, but it is usually be same information that is already recorded on the public sockpuppet investigation and RFCU pages.

Old unneeded arbcom pages are deleted periodically, but there isn't any purging operation so the information is still in the database and can be retrieved if arbitrators know the name of the deleted page.

[mbz1]

I'll be happy to answer any questions you might have.

It is well-known that checkuser data has an expiration date written into the software that the tool uses. Of course, this does not prevent an individual with checkuser access from storing information privately.

Is there a permanent repository of checkuser information stored on the arbcom wiki? If so, how many years back is the information stored and who determines what information is stored and what is removed?

Arbitrators don't often dump CU data onto the arbcom wiki. The arbcom wiki has pages about some users, which serve as either working notes (e.g. during ban appeals) or institutional memory (i.e. long term problems). Many of those pages were migrated to the checkuser wiki because they were about users that are 'global' problems. These pages sometimes contain CU information, but it is usually be same information that is already recorded on the public sockpuppet investigation and RFCU pages.

Old unneeded arbcom pages are deleted periodically, but there isn't any purging operation so the information is still in the database and can be retrieved if arbitrators know the name of the deleted page.

How often CU, and members of arbcom, in particular lie about their findings? I am asking because risker disabled my email and in my block log lied about the reason she did it. I have never abused email privilege, I hardly used it at all, not that I abused any other privilege either. (On the other hand is ability to edit wikipedia is a privilege at all?)

This post has been edited by mbz1:

[jayvdb]

I'll be happy to answer any questions you might have.

It is well-known that checkuser data has an expiration date written into the software that the tool uses. Of course, this does not prevent an individual with checkuser access from storing information privately.

Is there a permanent repository of checkuser information stored on the arbcom wiki? If so, how many years back is the information stored and who determines what information is stored and what is removed?

Arbitrators don't often dump CU data onto the arbcom wiki. The arbcom wiki has pages about some users, which serve as either working notes (e.g. during ban appeals) or institutional memory (i.e. long term problems). Many of those pages were migrated to the checkuser wiki because they were about users that are 'global' problems. These pages sometimes contain CU information, but it is usually be same information that is already recorded on the public sockpuppet investigation and RFCU pages.

Old unneeded arbcom pages are deleted periodically, but there isn't any purging operation so the information is still in the database and can be retrieved if arbitrators know the name of the deleted page.

How often CU, and members of arbcom, in particular lie about their findings? I am asking because risker disabled my email and in my block log lied about the reason she did it. I have never abused email privilege, I hardly used it at all, not that I abused any other privilege either. (On the other hand is ability to edit wikipedia is a privilege at all?)

Risker's reason for disabling your use of email was "Email used to further dispute." Are you suggesting that you didn't use email to further the dispute?

[Proabivouac]

How often CU, and members of arbcom, in particular lie about their findings? I am asking because risker disabled my email and in my block log lied about the reason she did it.

So now if you want to email someone, you have to figure out who they are. Most administrators are thrilled to find emails from banned users in their real name inbox.

Would you like Risker's contact information?

On the other hand is ability to edit wikipedia is a privilege at all?

Would it be a privilege if you allowed me to clean your house, fix your plumbing or retile your floor? The only way it might be a privilege is if I were stealing vicodin from your medicine cabinet; e.g. paid editing or, more commonly, the the fulfillment of a psychological addiction.

This post has been edited by Proabivouac:

[mbz1]

Risker's reason for disabling your use of email was "Email used to further dispute." Are you suggesting that you didn't use email to further the dispute?

Yes, it is exactly what I am suggesting. I have never ever used my email function to feature dispute. Never.
The last email concerning dispute resolution was sent to Gwen Gale on January 29, 2012, which means more than a month before I got reblocked by govcom. Here's the text of my email:

Hi Gwen

I'd like to talk to you via email please in the hope that we would be able to get a dispute resolution that is satisfactory for both of us.

I understand you have concerns about giving me your email address.

I assure you these concerns are groundless.

If you agree to email me, all feature emails between us could be CC to anybody at your choice, and of course I will never disclose your email to anybody, and stop emailing to you as soon as you say you do not want to talk to me.

After all you could create a special gmail or yahoo account only for our email exchange.

People should talk to each other to understand each other and to resolve differences, should they not?

--
This e-mail was sent by user "Mbz1" on the English Wikipedia to user "Gwen Gale". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents.

The sender has not been given the recipient's e-mail address, nor any information about his/her e-mail account; and the recipient has no obligation to reply to this e-mail or take any other action that might disclose his/her identity. If you respond, the sender will know your e-mail address. For further information on privacy, security, and replying, as well as abuse and removal from emailing, see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Email>.

It was never responded.

BTW removing my talk page access was also unwarranted. I posted there emails I got from govcom. I did not know it was prohibited because sandstein posted my email to it, and nobody told it anything. OK, let's say it is prohibited, then warn me. Why to remove my talk page access.

Only a very sick sadists could have done to an editor who edited under her real name what was done to me.

This post has been edited by mbz1: