On 8/13/07, Matthew Brown <morven(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 8/13/07, K P <kpbotany(a)gmail.com> wrote:
But that's the out, only breaches of
checkuser that breach "privacy
policy is a violation of privacy policy." So, if a checkuser stumbles
upon some information about you, that isn't covered by privacy policy,
and WHILE NOT RUNNING A CHECK USER ON YOU, there's never going to be
an invasion of privacy policy.
Just as in the case where a non-checkuser discovers personal
information about you while not running a checkuser. I'm not sure
why you think checkusers should be barred from learning certain things
NOT through the extra tools given. The special rules governing the
use of checkuser govern only the use of the tool and the information
obtained that way. Otherwise, the user is treated the same as a
regular user or admin.
So, nicely offering to share results about
someone to others with
check user status on this list serve is not a violation of privacy
policy.
Checkusers are allowed to share information with other checkusers.
Non-checkusers can give us information. I cannot, however, reveal
information obtained through checkuser, by myself or another, outside
of policy.
It's an outrageous and childish abuse of
powers. Checkuser isn't a
game or a private toy, and Wikipedia should NOT consider people's
privacy a toy that certain "trusted" folks are given the power to play
with.
I personally do not treat it as a game or a private toy.
However, your right to privacy on Wikipedia is not absolute.
Especially, if you sockpuppet then that information can be revealed,
and if you vandalize wikipedia information about you may be used to
block your vandalism and track it.
-Matt
Actually, as to your last, no! If you use the same IP as a
sockpuppet, information about you that is NOT available to anyone else
on Wikipedia in any other way except checkuser, is now open to be
revealed as long as you are not being checked or accused of
sockpuppetry, and as long as the information is not strictly covered
by the privacy policy for check user, which ONLY covers those who have
been checked.
And enough checkuser have used it that way, have bandied it about like
it's some private source of extraneous information about editors, that
to say you personally don't treat it as a private toy or game is moot.
If anyone is treating it this way, with impunity, it is a joke. And
it is precisely the type of joke privacy policy that gets Wikipedia
headlines for the inability to see what is obviously wrong and staring
you in the face.
Either Wikipedia considers users privacy important or it doesn't.
And, in this case it doesn't. I've never been the subject of a
checkuser request, but if any information not strictly heald in
privacy about me is revealed, that's too damned bad, because there is
no privacy when it comes to checkuser.
It's not secure, it's not private, checkusers share information in a
cavalier manner with other checkers just for curiosity. People
trusted with it, as a group, showed no outrage at this, and still
don't--it's going to bite Wikipedia hard, not having a privacy policy
to protect users from people entrusted with the ability to invade
their privacy.
Access to something like checkuser should be strictly limited, and
100% confined to what it is designed for. There should be no, "hey
anyone who's curious, I can send you what I found out," no sudden
revelations of Tors in RfAs, no debate about just where, if anywhere,
people can go when incidental information about them is revealed,
nothing that can be obtained ONLY through checkuser should ever be
shared or revealed to another user for any reason not EXPLICITLY
ALLOWED.
People think you can share a secret with one person. You can't. And
Wikipedia is playing fast and loose with people's private information
via its stunningly careless and childish checkuser privileges and
policies. Either there is some privacy, or not. And, I'm not talking
about sock puppets.
KP