On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 2:29 PM, wikien-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
Charlotte Webb wrote:
On 7/19/08, SlimVirgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
No, in fact only privacy policy breaches can be brought to the Ombudsman committee. There is no process, as I understand it, for dealing with checkuser misuse...
Sucks, doesn't it?
?C.W.
This is incorrect. Checkuser misuse can be brought to the ombudsman.
Best, Jon
[User:NonvocalScream]
[Sigh] Let's try this again. The privacy policy covers *release* of non-public information. Complaints that someone peeped when they shouldn't have do not involve the privacy policy so long as the information is never released. After lengthy discussion on the checkuser mailing list, the current ombudsman commission came to the conclusion that they did not have jurisdiction over complaints that did not involve actual release of information. In part, this is due to their inability to properly assess different community standards of privacy; the privacy expectations on some wikis are much stricter than others, due to cultural differences. The ombudsman commission is a Foundation-level body and deals with the Privacy Policy as it applies to all wikis. Since the privacy policy discusses *release* of information as opposed to just checking, the ombudsman commission have decided to interpret their mandate in this narrow way.
Certainly, abuse of checkuser is possible; it is possible that checkuser is abused for political reasons, to gain leverage in content disputes, or for any other nefarious reason you can think of. On enwiki, since arbcom grants checkuser, arbcom has jurisdiction (*and I think a responsibility) to investigate complaints of misuse. Certainly Arbcom censured Jayjg for his checkuser-related disclosures involving CharlotteWeb, even though the case did not involve the ombudsman (because the disclosure that she used Tor did not disclose any private information such as her real IP address or location).
The dispute between Lar and SlimVirgin has aspects of both, but as far as I know, neither the ombudsman commission nor arbcom has actually received a formal complaint.
Thatcher
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Thatcher131 Wikipedia wrote:
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 2:29 PM, wikien-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
Charlotte Webb wrote:
On 7/19/08, SlimVirgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
No, in fact only privacy policy breaches can be brought to the Ombudsman committee. There is no process, as I understand it, for dealing with checkuser misuse...
Sucks, doesn't it?
?C.W.
This is incorrect. Checkuser misuse can be brought to the ombudsman.
Best, Jon
[User:NonvocalScream]
[Sigh] Let's try this again. The privacy policy covers *release* of non-public information. Complaints that someone peeped when they shouldn't have do not involve the privacy policy so long as the information is never released. After lengthy discussion on the checkuser mailing list, the current ombudsman commission came to the conclusion that they did not have jurisdiction over complaints that did not involve actual release of information. In part, this is due to their inability to properly assess different community standards of privacy; the privacy expectations on some wikis are much stricter than others, due to cultural differences. The ombudsman commission is a Foundation-level body and deals with the Privacy Policy as it applies to all wikis. Since the privacy policy discusses *release* of information as opposed to just checking, the ombudsman commission have decided to interpret their mandate in this narrow way.
Certainly, abuse of checkuser is possible; it is possible that checkuser is abused for political reasons, to gain leverage in content disputes, or for any other nefarious reason you can think of. On enwiki, since arbcom grants checkuser, arbcom has jurisdiction (*and I think a responsibility) to investigate complaints of misuse. Certainly Arbcom censured Jayjg for his checkuser-related disclosures involving CharlotteWeb, even though the case did not involve the ombudsman (because the disclosure that she used Tor did not disclose any private information such as her real IP address or location).
The dispute between Lar and SlimVirgin has aspects of both, but as far as I know, neither the ombudsman commission nor arbcom has actually received a formal complaint.
Thatcher
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Oh no... totally agree here. I am being vague when I say misuse. Any complain can be brought, I want to say the ombudsman will receive complaints on cu misuse. However, whether they act, no act, or can act is a decision for after the complaint.
There are others venues as well, local arbcom comes to mind.
I'm not saying there was any abuse. I have not spoken an opinion on that yet.
- -- Best, Jon
[User:NonvocalScream]