Since this whole dust storm about TOR nodes and open proxies refuses to pass, maybe there's a business opportunity here for some tech-minded individual.
Seems like all it would take to solve this dilemma is an encrypted proxy that delivers the decryption code(s) to the WMF developers. So the editor gets privacy from User:JoeSchmoe but Wikipedians with a certain level of permissions could determine the point of origin.
Something like that would come in very handy for the editors from mainland China, and a couple of smaller countries that firewall access.
Sell advertising to cover costs or run it as a public service. If this were effective at scaling the Great Firewall I think some people would donate toward the endeavor. That'd mean seeking 501(c)3 tax status if it's based in the States (which is not so hard to get: open a dedicated bank account and file some forms).
AB, if you're really serious then how about taking this ball and running with it?
-Durova
Seems like all it would take to solve this dilemma is an encrypted proxy that delivers the decryption code(s) to the WMF developers. So the editor gets privacy from User:JoeSchmoe but Wikipedians with a certain level of permissions could determine the point of origin.
Logging in does exactly that. It hides your IP address from anyone without the checkuser bit.
Something like that would come in very handy for the editors from mainland China, and a couple of smaller countries that firewall access.
That's not a matter of hiding your identity, it's a matter of hiding the identity of the site you are viewing. Anonymous proxies/TOR do both, but they are different things.
On 8/13/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Seems like all it would take to solve this dilemma is an encrypted proxy that delivers the decryption code(s) to the WMF developers. So the editor gets privacy from User:JoeSchmoe but Wikipedians with a certain level of permissions could determine the point of origin.
Logging in does exactly that. It hides your IP address from anyone without the checkuser bit.
Something like that would come in very handy for the editors from mainland China, and a couple of smaller countries that firewall access.
That's not a matter of hiding your identity, it's a matter of hiding the identity of the site you are viewing. Anonymous proxies/TOR do both, but they are different things.
Except this list has pretty much established to me that checkuser is used to satisfy curiosity, to find out who is using Tors, and other political reasons, so, logging in isn't any level of security, when it isn't strictly used for its purposes.
KP
On 8/13/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/13/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Seems like all it would take to solve this dilemma is an encrypted proxy that delivers the decryption code(s) to the WMF developers. So the editor gets privacy from User:JoeSchmoe but Wikipedians with a certain level of permissions could determine the point of origin.
Logging in does exactly that. It hides your IP address from anyone without the checkuser bit.
Something like that would come in very handy for the editors from mainland China, and a couple of smaller countries that firewall access.
That's not a matter of hiding your identity, it's a matter of hiding the identity of the site you are viewing. Anonymous proxies/TOR do both, but they are different things.
Except this list has pretty much established to me that checkuser is used to satisfy curiosity, to find out who is using Tors, and other political reasons, so, logging in isn't any level of security, when it isn't strictly used for its purposes.
Exactly. Some of the people with checkuser can't be trusted. Answer me this: has AB ever been checkusered? Have I?
The last time I alluded to people with checkuser abusing their power I was told privately to contact the privacy ombudsman. But recent discussion on foundation-l has concluded that the privacy ombudsman has no power over inappropriate use of checkuser, because inappropriate use of checkuser is not a violation of the privacy policy.
Exactly. Some of the people with checkuser can't be trusted. Answer me this: has AB ever been checkusered? Have I?
I'm sure there is at least one checkuser you trust. Ask them.
The last time I alluded to people with checkuser abusing their power I was told privately to contact the privacy ombudsman. But recent discussion on foundation-l has concluded that the privacy ombudsman has no power over inappropriate use of checkuser, because inappropriate use of checkuser is not a violation of the privacy policy.
Try ArbCom, then (yes, they are much the same people, but I still think you would get somewhere - assuming you have more than just a gut feeling).
On 8/13/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Exactly. Some of the people with checkuser can't be trusted. Answer me this: has AB ever been checkusered? Have I?
I'm sure there is at least one checkuser you trust. Ask them.
I've just asked every one of them that's on this list.
The last time I alluded to people with checkuser abusing their power I was told privately to contact the privacy ombudsman. But recent discussion on foundation-l has concluded that the privacy ombudsman has no power over inappropriate use of checkuser, because inappropriate use of checkuser is not a violation of the privacy policy.
Try ArbCom, then (yes, they are much the same people, but I still think you would get somewhere - assuming you have more than just a gut feeling).
No thanks. I'm not interested in having my name permanently libeled in *that* forum (again).
On 8/13/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
I've just asked every one of them that's on this list.
People tend to respond better to asking personally.
-Matt
On 8/13/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/13/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
I've just asked every one of them that's on this list.
People tend to respond better to asking personally.
Have I ever been the subject of a checkuser, Matthew?
On 8/13/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Have I ever been the subject of a checkuser, Matthew?
I cannot recall your username, so I cannot check whether any checkusers have ever been run on it.
However, we do not generally reveal publicly that checkusers have been run. I will, however, check to see if use was appropriate.
-Matt
On 8/13/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/13/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Have I ever been the subject of a checkuser, Matthew?
I cannot recall your username, so I cannot check whether any checkusers have ever been run on it.
However, we do not generally reveal publicly that checkusers have been run. I will, however, check to see if use was appropriate.
I'll save you the trouble. I know of at least one instance that I was checkusered and it was not appropriate. I found this out because someone emailed me privately telling me the private information which was determined by the checkuser.
On 8/13/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
I'll save you the trouble. I know of at least one instance that I was checkusered and it was not appropriate. I found this out because someone emailed me privately telling me the private information which was determined by the checkuser.
That's interesting. So another one of the checkusers provided you with that information?
On 8/13/07, Josh Gordon user.jpgordon@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/13/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
I'll save you the trouble. I know of at least one instance that I was checkusered and it was not appropriate. I found this out because someone emailed me privately telling me the private information which was determined by the checkuser.
That's interesting. So another one of the checkusers provided you with that information?
It was a while ago, and I'm not sure if the user who told me was a checkuser or not. I'll try to go back and find the actual email and see.
On 8/13/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
I'll save you the trouble. I know of at least one instance that I was checkusered and it was not appropriate. I found this out because someone emailed me privately telling me the private information which was determined by the checkuser.
I could find no such. However, I am not sure that our checkuser logs go back to the earliest uses of that tool, and can't guarantee that they do.
-Matt
On 8/13/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
However, we do not generally reveal publicly that checkusers have been run. I will, however, check to see if use was appropriate.
Assuming you meant User:Anthony, there has been no inappropriate use of checkuser. The same applies to User:Armedblowfish.
-Matt
On 13/08/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 8/13/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Try ArbCom, then (yes, they are much the same people, but I still think you would get somewhere - assuming you have more than just a gut feeling).
No thanks. I'm not interested in having my name permanently libeled in *that* forum (again).
Your chances of finding the relief you seek in this forum are approximately zero. But this entirely fits with wikien-l's role in the greater scheme of en:wp, so I'm sure that won't stop you any more than it does anyone else.
- d.
On 8/13/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 13/08/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 8/13/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Try ArbCom, then (yes, they are much the same people, but I still think you would get somewhere - assuming you have more than just a gut feeling).
No thanks. I'm not interested in having my name permanently libeled in *that* forum (again).
Your chances of finding the relief you seek in this forum are approximately zero. But this entirely fits with wikien-l's role in the greater scheme of en:wp, so I'm sure that won't stop you any more than it does anyone else.
What relief do you presume that I seek? I participate on this mailing list mainly for education, not for relief.
On 13/08/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
What relief do you presume that I seek? I participate on this mailing list mainly for education, not for relief.
You appeared to be registering a complaint (for which you would presumably be seeking relief). It's entirely unclear what your educational purpose was.
- d.
On 8/13/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 13/08/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
What relief do you presume that I seek? I participate on this mailing list mainly for education, not for relief.
You appeared to be registering a complaint (for which you would presumably be seeking relief). It's entirely unclear what your educational purpose was.
If I was going to register a complaint I would have been a lot more clear about the details of what happened. The fact is I don't even know all the details myself (though I do know more than I'm releasing publically), and in fact it is this lack of details which I think is one of the biggest problems with the checkuser policy, and to get back on topic, why I find it particularly important to use Tor.
That checkusers have the ability to spy on Wikipedians and checkuser policy forbids other checkusers from revealing the fact that they did so is a major problem with Wikipedia.
On 13/08/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
That checkusers have the ability to spy on Wikipedians and checkuser policy forbids other checkusers from revealing the fact that they did so is a major problem with Wikipedia.
Has it stopped you editing productively?
- d.
On 8/13/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 13/08/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
That checkusers have the ability to spy on Wikipedians and checkuser policy forbids other checkusers from revealing the fact that they did so is a major problem with Wikipedia.
Has it stopped you editing productively?
It absolutely has cut down my productive editing drastically. Around the time checkuser came out I started editing solely using TOR, so as not to reveal my IP address. I even made a script which searches all the tor exit nodes to find one that isn't blocked by Wikipedia. But nowadays I rarely bother with this, and most of the tor exit nodes are now blocked. I set up a TCP tunnel through my friends house which is where I make my edits while at home. My edits are way down from the pre-checkuser days, and this is due largely to the introduction of the checkuser tool and the lack of good policies against abusing it.
On 8/13/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 8/13/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 13/08/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
That checkusers have the ability to spy on Wikipedians and checkuser policy forbids other checkusers from revealing the fact that they did so is a major problem with Wikipedia.
Has it stopped you editing productively?
It absolutely has cut down my productive editing drastically. Around the time checkuser came out I started editing solely using TOR, so as not to reveal my IP address. I even made a script which searches all the tor exit nodes to find one that isn't blocked by Wikipedia. But nowadays I rarely bother with this, and most of the tor exit nodes are now blocked. I set up a TCP tunnel through my friends house which is where I make my edits while at home. My edits are way down from the pre-checkuser days, and this is due largely to the introduction of the checkuser tool and the lack of good policies against abusing it.
You have a right to use extra privacy technology if you want, but...
Why?
The worst that could happen from someone looking at my IP addresses is that they could determine from outside what tech companies I've consulted at over the last few years.
My own company's IP addresses are public, and I publish valid contact info in WHOIS.
I don't exactly shy away from hot button topics on-wiki.
And in 20 years on the Internet, I've only had one incident where I was bothered in real life from something that started online.
Everyone has their own comfort levels for privacy, but ... seriously... why so much effort for Wikipedia usage?
Consider this scenario:
An editor creates a sockpuppet account to have discussion on a hot topic. The editor does not want this discussion associated with the main account. Checkusers are run, and the two accounts are reconciled.
Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not implying this occurs, it is a plausible scenario.
Regards,
Navou -
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of George Herbert Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 3:58 PM To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A modest proposal
On 8/13/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 8/13/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 13/08/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
That checkusers have the ability to spy on Wikipedians and checkuser policy forbids other checkusers from revealing the fact that they did so is a major problem with Wikipedia.
Has it stopped you editing productively?
It absolutely has cut down my productive editing drastically. Around the time checkuser came out I started editing solely using TOR, so as not to reveal my IP address. I even made a script which searches all the tor exit nodes to find one that isn't blocked by Wikipedia. But nowadays I rarely bother with this, and most of the tor exit nodes are now blocked. I set up a TCP tunnel through my friends house which is where I make my edits while at home. My edits are way down from the pre-checkuser days, and this is due largely to the introduction of the checkuser tool and the lack of good policies against abusing it.
You have a right to use extra privacy technology if you want, but...
Why?
The worst that could happen from someone looking at my IP addresses is that they could determine from outside what tech companies I've consulted at over the last few years.
My own company's IP addresses are public, and I publish valid contact info in WHOIS.
I don't exactly shy away from hot button topics on-wiki.
And in 20 years on the Internet, I've only had one incident where I was bothered in real life from something that started online.
Everyone has their own comfort levels for privacy, but ... seriously... why so much effort for Wikipedia usage?
On 13/08/07, NavouWiki navouwiki@gmail.com wrote:
An editor creates a sockpuppet account to have discussion on a hot topic. The editor does not want this discussion associated with the main account. Checkusers are run, and the two accounts are reconciled.
In fact, it's hard to spot such a case - it looks very similar to two editors who happen to share an IP, and that would be the usual case.
Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not implying this occurs, it is a plausible scenario.
There's been one arbitration case about this that I recall, and the editor's cover was blown, but only in the final ruling (because arbcom restrictions are per person, not per account).
- d.
It does occur, that is the point. This is how CheckUser is useful.
On 8/13/07, NavouWiki navouwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Consider this scenario:
An editor creates a sockpuppet account to have discussion on a hot topic. The editor does not want this discussion associated with the main account. Checkusers are run, and the two accounts are reconciled.
Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not implying this occurs, it is a plausible scenario.
Regards,
Navou
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of George Herbert Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 3:58 PM To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A modest proposal
On 8/13/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 8/13/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 13/08/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
That checkusers have the ability to spy on Wikipedians and checkuser policy forbids other checkusers from revealing the fact that they
did
so is a major problem with Wikipedia.
Has it stopped you editing productively?
It absolutely has cut down my productive editing drastically. Around the time checkuser came out I started editing solely using TOR, so as not to reveal my IP address. I even made a script which searches all the tor exit nodes to find one that isn't blocked by Wikipedia. But nowadays I rarely bother with this, and most of the tor exit nodes are now blocked. I set up a TCP tunnel through my friends house which is where I make my edits while at home. My edits are way down from the pre-checkuser days, and this is due largely to the introduction of the checkuser tool and the lack of good policies against abusing it.
You have a right to use extra privacy technology if you want, but...
Why?
The worst that could happen from someone looking at my IP addresses is that they could determine from outside what tech companies I've consulted at over the last few years.
My own company's IP addresses are public, and I publish valid contact info in WHOIS.
I don't exactly shy away from hot button topics on-wiki.
And in 20 years on the Internet, I've only had one incident where I was bothered in real life from something that started online.
Everyone has their own comfort levels for privacy, but ... seriously... why so much effort for Wikipedia usage?
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I would say, this is a valid use of a sockpuppet, no?
Navou
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Casey Brown Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 4:10 PM To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A modest proposal
It does occur, that is the point. This is how CheckUser is useful.
On 8/13/07, NavouWiki navouwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Consider this scenario:
An editor creates a sockpuppet account to have discussion on a hot topic. The editor does not want this discussion associated with the main account. Checkusers are run, and the two accounts are reconciled.
Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not implying this occurs, it is a plausible scenario.
Regards,
Navou
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of George Herbert Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 3:58 PM To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A modest proposal
On 8/13/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 8/13/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 13/08/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
That checkusers have the ability to spy on Wikipedians and checkuser policy forbids other checkusers from revealing the fact that they
did
so is a major problem with Wikipedia.
Has it stopped you editing productively?
It absolutely has cut down my productive editing drastically. Around the time checkuser came out I started editing solely using TOR, so as not to reveal my IP address. I even made a script which searches all the tor exit nodes to find one that isn't blocked by Wikipedia. But nowadays I rarely bother with this, and most of the tor exit nodes are now blocked. I set up a TCP tunnel through my friends house which is where I make my edits while at home. My edits are way down from the pre-checkuser days, and this is due largely to the introduction of the checkuser tool and the lack of good policies against abusing it.
You have a right to use extra privacy technology if you want, but...
Why?
The worst that could happen from someone looking at my IP addresses is that they could determine from outside what tech companies I've consulted at over the last few years.
My own company's IP addresses are public, and I publish valid contact info in WHOIS.
I don't exactly shy away from hot button topics on-wiki.
And in 20 years on the Internet, I've only had one incident where I was bothered in real life from something that started online.
Everyone has their own comfort levels for privacy, but ... seriously... why so much effort for Wikipedia usage?
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 8/13/07, NavouWiki navouwiki@gmail.com wrote:
I would say, this is a valid use of a sockpuppet, no?
Any use that isn't otherwise breaking WP policy is a valid use. We really don't care what you do with multiple accounts as long as none of them are abusive or used to multi-vote on things or support each other in arguments.
If you are living your life right, your socks shouldn't have anything to fear.
But if you're living your life right, why do you need a sock?
On 8/13/07, NavouWiki navouwiki@gmail.com wrote:
I would say, this is a valid use of a sockpuppet, no?
It may be more of a "meatpuppet" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meatpuppet, but whatever. (Meatpuppets may even just be a special type of sock puppets :-P).
On 13/08/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/13/07, NavouWiki navouwiki@gmail.com wrote:
I would say, this is a valid use of a sockpuppet, no?
Any use that isn't otherwise breaking WP policy is a valid use. We really don't care what you do with multiple accounts as long as none of them are abusive or used to multi-vote on things or support each other in arguments. If you are living your life right, your socks shouldn't have anything to fear. But if you're living your life right, why do you need a sock?
The canonical example is if you wanted to edit on socially-disapproved topics (e.g. bestiality, paedophilia) without having mud slung at your main account by people on the level of Wikipedia Review.
- d.
Yes, that is why we allow these types of socks to a certain extent.
On 8/13/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 13/08/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/13/07, NavouWiki navouwiki@gmail.com wrote:
I would say, this is a valid use of a sockpuppet, no?
Any use that isn't otherwise breaking WP policy is a valid use. We really don't care what you do with multiple accounts as long as none of them are abusive or used to multi-vote on things or support each other in arguments. If you are living your life right, your socks shouldn't have anything to
fear.
But if you're living your life right, why do you need a sock?
The canonical example is if you wanted to edit on socially-disapproved topics (e.g. bestiality, paedophilia) without having mud slung at your main account by people on the level of Wikipedia Review.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Yes, this is one of many possible examples of a valid sockpuppet (read: not meatpuppet). Just to emphasize the hypervigilance our checkusers must practice with regards to the data.
Navou
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of David Gerard Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 4:28 PM To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A modest proposal
On 13/08/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/13/07, NavouWiki navouwiki@gmail.com wrote:
I would say, this is a valid use of a sockpuppet, no?
Any use that isn't otherwise breaking WP policy is a valid use. We really don't care what you do with multiple accounts as long as none of them are abusive or used to multi-vote on things or support each other in arguments. If you are living your life right, your socks shouldn't have anything to
fear.
But if you're living your life right, why do you need a sock?
The canonical example is if you wanted to edit on socially-disapproved topics (e.g. bestiality, paedophilia) without having mud slung at your main account by people on the level of Wikipedia Review.
- d.
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Yes, I used the wrong word... hmmm, it seems to have slipped my mind, but I could have sworn there was a specific word for what we are discussing.
On 8/13/07, NavouWiki navouwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, this is one of many possible examples of a valid sockpuppet (read: not meatpuppet). Just to emphasize the hypervigilance our checkusers must practice with regards to the data.
Navou
On 8/13/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 13/08/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/13/07, NavouWiki navouwiki@gmail.com wrote:
I would say, this is a valid use of a sockpuppet, no?
Any use that isn't otherwise breaking WP policy is a valid use. We really don't care what you do with multiple accounts as long as none of them are abusive or used to multi-vote on things or support each other in arguments. If you are living your life right, your socks shouldn't have anything to fear. But if you're living your life right, why do you need a sock?
The canonical example is if you wanted to edit on socially-disapproved topics (e.g. bestiality, paedophilia) without having mud slung at your main account by people on the level of Wikipedia Review.
Perhaps. I kept Squeak from nuking the NAMBLA article a couple of weeks ago, and as far as I know didn't end up with a WR article out of it.
I feel more icky touching the topic at all than worried about what people think for my having done so.
On 8/13/07, NavouWiki navouwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Consider this scenario:
An editor creates a sockpuppet account to have discussion on a hot topic. The editor does not want this discussion associated with the main account. Checkusers are run, and the two accounts are reconciled.
Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not implying this occurs, it is a plausible scenario.
That's a valid reason to want to create a second account, and a scenario under which it might accidentally be exposed.
However, the policy is that CU data should not be used or released unless there's some sort of abuse by the account.
If an editor creates a sock for a particular discussion, and doesn't behave abusively during that discussion, even a positive ID between the editor and the sock by an unrelated CU should result in data which the CU user shouldn't use anywhere.
I think everyone would agree that outing a non-abusive sock account which was accidentally discovered in a CU, or on purpose discovered outside CU usage policy, would be a policy violation and result in review of CU privileges.
If you create the sock to abuse... you deserve to get discovered, and the policy allows people to do that.
I just live my life in a way that "discovery" of what I do online wouldn't be a shock to anyone I care about. I've socked in non-WP things before (in the early 1990s, popping up on IRC with a female nick was a great way to get hackers to tell you what they were doing...). I don't see any reason to for WP. There's nothing wrong with people having opinions on controversial topics. I don't agree that pseudonyms either facilitate the discussion or are in the long term useful for people discussing them.
I dont' impose my opinions on others, and I'm ok with WP having the additional protections, but a lot of the time I think people feel that they must hide behind privacy barriers that are really only useful or helpful in your mind. Ultimately, you will be better off not trying to hide. Ultimately, the project will be better off if hiding becomes the exception rather than the rule.
I'd rather people came to see that on their own and just modified their own behavior by choice than try to impose that on anyone, but I think ultimately that's a long term direction of benefit to both the Foundation and most of the individuals participating in the projects.
On 8/13/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/13/07, NavouWiki navouwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Consider this scenario:
An editor creates a sockpuppet account to have discussion on a hot topic. The editor does not want this discussion associated with the main account. Checkusers are run, and the two accounts are reconciled.
Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not implying this occurs, it is a plausible scenario.
That's a valid reason to want to create a second account, and a scenario under which it might accidentally be exposed.
However, the policy is that CU data should not be used or released unless there's some sort of abuse by the account.
If an editor creates a sock for a particular discussion, and doesn't behave abusively during that discussion, even a positive ID between the editor and the sock by an unrelated CU should result in data which the CU user shouldn't use anywhere.
OK, but how is that even possible. If neither the main account nor the sockpuppet are breaking policy, then a CU wouldn't reveal a correlation in the first place. (I guess it's possible if a completely different user happened to have used the same IP address, but otherwise?)
The event you mentioned in paranthesis is actually pretty common and is probably what would have created that problem.
On 8/13/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 8/13/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/13/07, NavouWiki navouwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Consider this scenario:
An editor creates a sockpuppet account to have discussion on a hot
topic.
The editor does not want this discussion associated with the main
account.
Checkusers are run, and the two accounts are reconciled.
Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not implying this occurs, it is a plausible scenario.
That's a valid reason to want to create a second account, and a scenario under which it might accidentally be exposed.
However, the policy is that CU data should not be used or released unless there's some sort of abuse by the account.
If an editor creates a sock for a particular discussion, and doesn't behave abusively during that discussion, even a positive ID between the editor and the sock by an unrelated CU should result in data which the CU user shouldn't use anywhere.
OK, but how is that even possible. If neither the main account nor the sockpuppet are breaking policy, then a CU wouldn't reveal a correlation in the first place. (I guess it's possible if a completely different user happened to have used the same IP address, but otherwise?)
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 8/13/07, Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com wrote:
The event you mentioned in paranthesis is actually pretty common and is probably what would have created that problem.
OK, but barring that event (say the person had a static IP), there's pretty much a consensus that a checkuser who found out such information and never revealed it had broken checkuser policy (but not privacy policy), right?
On 8/13/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 8/13/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/13/07, NavouWiki navouwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Consider this scenario:
An editor creates a sockpuppet account to have discussion on a hot
topic.
The editor does not want this discussion associated with the main
account.
Checkusers are run, and the two accounts are reconciled.
Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not implying this occurs, it is a plausible scenario.
That's a valid reason to want to create a second account, and a scenario under which it might accidentally be exposed.
However, the policy is that CU data should not be used or released unless there's some sort of abuse by the account.
If an editor creates a sock for a particular discussion, and doesn't behave abusively during that discussion, even a positive ID between the editor and the sock by an unrelated CU should result in data which the CU user shouldn't use anywhere.
OK, but how is that even possible. If neither the main account nor the sockpuppet are breaking policy, then a CU wouldn't reveal a correlation in the first place. (I guess it's possible if a completely different user happened to have used the same IP address, but otherwise?)
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Casey Brown Cbrown1023
Note: This e-mail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to this address will probably get lost. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 13/08/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 8/13/07, Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com wrote:
OK, but how is that even possible. If neither the main account nor the sockpuppet are breaking policy, then a CU wouldn't reveal a correlation in the first place. (I guess it's possible if a completely different user happened to have used the same IP address, but otherwise?)
The event you mentioned in paranthesis is actually pretty common and is probably what would have created that problem.
OK, but barring that event (say the person had a static IP), there's pretty much a consensus that a checkuser who found out such information and never revealed it had broken checkuser policy (but not privacy policy), right?
I suspect it's the sort of thing that would make the other checkers wonder what the hell they thought they were playing at. Do you have a specific example in mind? In real life, carefully-worded theoreticals are much harder to talk about than actual examples.
- d.
On 8/13/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 13/08/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
OK, but barring that event (say the person had a static IP), there's pretty much a consensus that a checkuser who found out such information and never revealed it had broken checkuser policy (but not privacy policy), right?
I suspect it's the sort of thing that would make the other checkers wonder what the hell they thought they were playing at. Do you have a specific example in mind? In real life, carefully-worded theoreticals are much harder to talk about than actual examples.
I'll simplify the question, then. Are checkusers allowed to checkuser a user that isn't clearly violating policy? Is doing so a violation of the checkuser policy? Is it a violation of the privacy policy?
On 8/13/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 8/13/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 13/08/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
OK, but barring that event (say the person had a static IP), there's pretty much a consensus that a checkuser who found out such information and never revealed it had broken checkuser policy (but not privacy policy), right?
I suspect it's the sort of thing that would make the other checkers wonder what the hell they thought they were playing at. Do you have a specific example in mind? In real life, carefully-worded theoreticals are much harder to talk about than actual examples.
I'll simplify the question, then. Are checkusers allowed to checkuser a user that isn't clearly violating policy? Is doing so a violation of the checkuser policy?
"The tool is to be used to fight vandalism, to check for sockpuppet abuse, and to limit disruption of the project. It must be used only to prevent damage to one or several of Wikimedia projects." is how the the checkuser policy is formulated. As long as it fits into that statement (which is not very constricting), it is not a violation of the privacy policy. If a CheckUser believes you to be disrupting the project, vandalising, or abusing multiple accounts, (s)he can do a check as they see fit.
Is it a violation of the privacy policy?
No, the privacy policy is only talking about *releasing* this information to the public or other users (in the "Policy on release of data derived from page logs" section). The privacy policy does not explicitly state when a CheckUser can be run, just that it may be run and that it is allowed under the privacy policy. The CheckUser policy (which I replied to above) is where you would look for that.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 13/08/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 8/13/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 13/08/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
OK, but barring that event (say the person had a static IP), there's pretty much a consensus that a checkuser who found out such information and never revealed it had broken checkuser policy (but not privacy policy), right?
I suspect it's the sort of thing that would make the other checkers wonder what the hell they thought they were playing at. Do you have a specific example in mind? In real life, carefully-worded theoreticals are much harder to talk about than actual examples.
I'll simplify the question, then. Are checkusers allowed to checkuser a user that isn't clearly violating policy? Is doing so a violation of the checkuser policy? Is it a violation of the privacy policy?
Yes (though it depends what "clearly" is), possibly to probably and no.
- d.
On 13/08/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
OK, but how is that even possible. If neither the main account nor the sockpuppet are breaking policy, then a CU wouldn't reveal a correlation in the first place. (I guess it's possible if a completely different user happened to have used the same IP address, but otherwise?)
And in general, the editing pattern of two separate people on an IP looks like the editing pattern of one editor keeping their accounts thoroughly separate, and I generally presume it to be the former case.
- d.
On 8/13/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 13/08/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
OK, but how is that even possible. If neither the main account nor the sockpuppet are breaking policy, then a CU wouldn't reveal a correlation in the first place. (I guess it's possible if a completely different user happened to have used the same IP address, but otherwise?)
And in general, the editing pattern of two separate people on an IP looks like the editing pattern of one editor keeping their accounts thoroughly separate, and I generally presume it to be the former case.
I have had CU on non-Wikipedia Mediawikis, but I can't speak for Wikipedia here specifically, but...
If you leave a trail of evidence somehow connecting the accounts (log into one, edit and comment as if you were the other then change it back, etc) then someone may spot it.
If you really truly keep them separate, the only trail there is if there are two and only two accounts which ever used that IP address.
In which case, if they're not-abusive, there's little likelyhood that anyone ever CUs the address.
As I understand how it's used on Wikipedia (again, I'm not a Checkuser here, so I may be talking out of my ass), in most cases the confirmation is a combination of common IP origin and behavioral.
As was pointed out elsewhere, without a behavioral link, there's very little that a single IP in common necessarily tells you about two people. Even a "home" ISP IP address could have unrelated people using it (I have a friend with a multi-thousand-user home system in Santa Cruz, California ...).
If there's both a behavioral correllation and an IP in common, or nearby IP range in common...
Again: If you're living your life right, you have little to fear from CU.
I have absolutely no problem with you discussing this even though you aren't an English Wikipedia CheckUser, at least you know how the extension works. :)
On 8/13/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/13/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 13/08/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
OK, but how is that even possible. If neither the main account nor the sockpuppet are breaking policy, then a CU wouldn't reveal a correlation in the first place. (I guess it's possible if a completely different user happened to have used the same IP address, but otherwise?)
And in general, the editing pattern of two separate people on an IP looks like the editing pattern of one editor keeping their accounts thoroughly separate, and I generally presume it to be the former case.
I have had CU on non-Wikipedia Mediawikis, but I can't speak for Wikipedia here specifically, but...
If you leave a trail of evidence somehow connecting the accounts (log into one, edit and comment as if you were the other then change it back, etc) then someone may spot it.
If you really truly keep them separate, the only trail there is if there are two and only two accounts which ever used that IP address.
In which case, if they're not-abusive, there's little likelyhood that anyone ever CUs the address.
As I understand how it's used on Wikipedia (again, I'm not a Checkuser here, so I may be talking out of my ass), in most cases the confirmation is a combination of common IP origin and behavioral.
As was pointed out elsewhere, without a behavioral link, there's very little that a single IP in common necessarily tells you about two people. Even a "home" ISP IP address could have unrelated people using it (I have a friend with a multi-thousand-user home system in Santa Cruz, California ...).
If there's both a behavioral correllation and an IP in common, or nearby IP range in common...
Again: If you're living your life right, you have little to fear from CU.
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 13/08/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
As I understand how it's used on Wikipedia (again, I'm not a Checkuser here, so I may be talking out of my ass), in most cases the confirmation is a combination of common IP origin and behavioral.
Yes. This is what I mean by "checkuser is not magic wiki pixie dust." It usually only serves to confirm an already-known problem.
(Then of course you have long-term vandals and trolls who you learn to spot by pattern ...)
- d.
I agree with George. River always talks about that. Come to think of it, what is an IP address? All it does is identify you to the other computer. *Whenever* you go on-line, or visit a website, you share your IP address. Most websites don't even have a privacy policy, and this information is available easily to the webmaster.
And all this crap about someone checking you when they didn't start by checking you is crap, that's how the tool is designed and that is how it is used. If a Vandal has done lots of bad stuff, I can do a few things like check his IPs, get all the edits that were made from that IP (logged-in or not), or get all the usernames that a certain IP used.
It annoys me that a lot of the people who are commenting in this thread have no idea what the extension looks like, let alone does.
On 8/13/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/13/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 8/13/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 13/08/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
That checkusers have the ability to spy on Wikipedians and checkuser policy forbids other checkusers from revealing the fact that they
did
so is a major problem with Wikipedia.
Has it stopped you editing productively?
It absolutely has cut down my productive editing drastically. Around the time checkuser came out I started editing solely using TOR, so as not to reveal my IP address. I even made a script which searches all the tor exit nodes to find one that isn't blocked by Wikipedia. But nowadays I rarely bother with this, and most of the tor exit nodes are now blocked. I set up a TCP tunnel through my friends house which is where I make my edits while at home. My edits are way down from the pre-checkuser days, and this is due largely to the introduction of the checkuser tool and the lack of good policies against abusing it.
You have a right to use extra privacy technology if you want, but...
Why?
The worst that could happen from someone looking at my IP addresses is that they could determine from outside what tech companies I've consulted at over the last few years.
My own company's IP addresses are public, and I publish valid contact info in WHOIS.
I don't exactly shy away from hot button topics on-wiki.
And in 20 years on the Internet, I've only had one incident where I was bothered in real life from something that started online.
Everyone has their own comfort levels for privacy, but ... seriously... why so much effort for Wikipedia usage?
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 13/08/07, Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com wrote:
It annoys me that a lot of the people who are commenting in this thread have no idea what the extension looks like, let alone does.
It does MAGIC! With PIXIE DUST! And gives your CREDIT CARD DETAILS to PAEDOPHILES!
Or something.
I suspect a lot of the complaints come from people *because* they don't understand, and fear magic that might exact a social penalty. They object to rules they don't understand. Which is a reasonable objection on the face of it, but not a workable one when the lack of understanding is because they haven't learnt enough about the tool itself.
- d.
On 8/13/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 13/08/07, Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com wrote:
It annoys me that a lot of the people who are commenting in this thread
have
no idea what the extension looks like, let alone does.
It does MAGIC! With PIXIE DUST! And gives your CREDIT CARD DETAILS to PAEDOPHILES!
Or something.
lmao
I suspect a lot of the complaints come from people *because* they
don't understand, and fear magic that might exact a social penalty. They object to rules they don't understand. Which is a reasonable objection on the face of it, but not a workable one when the lack of understanding is because they haven't learnt enough about the tool itself.
I guess I have to agree. But, anyone who hasn't, please read http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CheckUser http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy and http://mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:CheckUser before contributing more to the discussion. :-)
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 13/08/07, Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/13/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I suspect a lot of the complaints come from people *because* they
don't understand, and fear magic that might exact a social penalty. They object to rules they don't understand. Which is a reasonable objection on the face of it, but not a workable one when the lack of understanding is because they haven't learnt enough about the tool itself.
I guess I have to agree. But, anyone who hasn't, please read http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CheckUser http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy and http://mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:CheckUser before contributing more to the discussion. :-)
The CharlotteWebb arbcom case ended up without taking Jayjg out to be shot, but did ask him to be just a little more sensitive in his timing and mindfulness of social consequences. That's why I'd like to hear the expectations stated in a usable form.
- d.
Perhaps we should set-up a wiki-page? That's always clearer. :)
On 8/13/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 13/08/07, Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/13/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I suspect a lot of the complaints come from people *because* they
don't understand, and fear magic that might exact a social penalty. They object to rules they don't understand. Which is a reasonable objection on the face of it, but not a workable one when the lack of understanding is because they haven't learnt enough about the tool itself.
I guess I have to agree. But, anyone who hasn't, please read http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CheckUser http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy and http://mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:CheckUser before contributing more
to
the discussion. :-)
The CharlotteWebb arbcom case ended up without taking Jayjg out to be shot, but did ask him to be just a little more sensitive in his timing and mindfulness of social consequences. That's why I'd like to hear the expectations stated in a usable form.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 8/13/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
You have a right to use extra privacy technology if you want, but...
Why?
There are a lot of reasons, some of which I'm not going to reveal. But I've seen some really bad behavior from people who held their allegiance to Wikipedia, when I was running a fork of the site. On that fork site, when it was editable, I had people reveal what they thought to be my address and birthdate, I was called a spammer (which stems from an incident many years ago when a spammer decided to use the domain name inbox.org as the fake From: address, a problem which I still have to this day but nowadays people know how easy it is to fake From: addresses), and I even received death threats (just silly stuff related to the spammer accusations, which I never really took seriously, but it's still disturbing). I have no reason to believe Wikipedia *admins* were involved in the death threats, but I do have reason to believe the release of what they thought to be my address and birthdate were from Wikipedia admins (and the address was actually correct, except for the fact that it was an old address of an apartment where I no longer lived). And I also have reason to believe that a lot of just plain old vandalism to that site was performed by Wikipedia admins.
And in 20 years on the Internet, I've only had one incident where I was bothered in real life from something that started online.
I can think of only one incident which might qualify under that description, but might not, and I'm not comfortable revealing the details publicly. Like I said, the death threats were in all likelihood not at all serious, and I wouldn't call them being "bothered in real life".
Oh yeah, and I once had my wife ask me if I was a Wikipedia Troll, after doing a google search on my name. But I wouldn't count that, frankly the question didn't bother me (gave me a chance to explain myself), and it really has nothing to do with my IP address.
Everyone has their own comfort levels for privacy, but ... seriously... why so much effort for Wikipedia usage?
Answered above, to the extent I'm currently dumb enough to reveal an answer :)
Anthony
Off topic
Oh yeah, and I once had my wife ask me if I was a Wikipedia Troll, after doing a google search on my name. But I wouldn't count that, frankly the question didn't bother me (gave me a chance to explain myself), and it really has nothing to do with my IP address.
<humor>I feel a little sad because a google search of my en.User:Navou turns up.... nothing.</humor>
Navou
On 13/08/07, NavouWiki navouwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Oh yeah, and I once had my wife ask me if I was a Wikipedia Troll, after doing a google search on my name. But I wouldn't count that, frankly the question didn't bother me (gave me a chance to explain myself), and it really has nothing to do with my IP address.
<humor>I feel a little sad because a google search of my en.User:Navou turns up.... nothing.</humor>
A friend of mine stumbled across Wikitruth a while back, and kept calling me a "baby-eating GodKing" for months...
On 8/13/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Try ArbCom, then (yes, they are much the same people, but I still think you would get somewhere - assuming you have more than just a gut feeling).
I personally will investigate any complaint over checkuser on en.wikipedia that I feel has merit.
Yes, I know those last five words are an "out" - however, I'm not going to waste my time or promise that I'll do so.
-Matt
On 8/13/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Exactly. Some of the people with checkuser can't be trusted. Answer me this: has AB ever been checkusered? Have I?
I'm sure there is at least one checkuser you trust. Ask them.
A trustworthy checkuser should not answer that question in most cases, unfortunately.
-Matt
On 8/13/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
The last time I alluded to people with checkuser abusing their power I was told privately to contact the privacy ombudsman. But recent discussion on foundation-l has concluded that the privacy ombudsman has no power over inappropriate use of checkuser, because inappropriate use of checkuser is not a violation of the privacy policy.
I'd disagree; inappropriate use of checkuser in a way that breaches the privacy policy is a violation of the privacy policy. However, many uses of checkuser that might be questioned are not breaches of the privacy policy as currently formulated.
-Matt
On 8/13/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/13/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
The last time I alluded to people with checkuser abusing their power I was told privately to contact the privacy ombudsman. But recent discussion on foundation-l has concluded that the privacy ombudsman has no power over inappropriate use of checkuser, because inappropriate use of checkuser is not a violation of the privacy policy.
I'd disagree; inappropriate use of checkuser in a way that breaches the privacy policy is a violation of the privacy policy. However, many uses of checkuser that might be questioned are not breaches of the privacy policy as currently formulated.
-Matt
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.
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.
It's a load of shit constituted by people who should never trusted with ensuring anyone's privacy, but it's not a violation of privacy 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.
No good can come of this abuse--it's going to become an ugly scandal one day, as long as those with checkuser power keep treating it as a special little toy they have, and as long as Wikipedia has no privacy policy that protects users from information revealed incidently in check user cases.
KP
On 8/13/07, K P kpbotany@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
On 8/13/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/13/07, K P kpbotany@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
On 8/13/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
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.
I'm a little confused by the above, but I'll answer it to the best of my understanding. The privacy policy covers all information revealed by checkuser, whether or not the user is the initial subject of the search.
Information may be revealed through checkuser about individuals not the subject of the search, which is unavoidable. However, this does not mean it will be released.
There is some potential, of course, for confusion between different people using the same IP. However, as David said above, I assume good faith sharing of an IP unless the accounts work together.
I don't personally see what your issue is with checkusers sharing information. They can all find out the same information through the tool in any event.
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.
Um, what? If information is not private about you then it is not private; there's no such thing as semi-private.
It's not secure, it's not private, checkusers share information in a cavalier manner with other checkers just for curiosity.
I personally think it quite important that the checkusers know what the others are doing. Why do you disagree?
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,
There is no debate. If you feel that the checkuser has violated the Foundation's privacy policy, complain to the privacy ombudsman. If you feel that the checkuser has breached checkuser policy in ways not covered by the Foundation's privacy policy, complain to the Arbcom if it was on the English wikipedia.
If you think that checkuser policy should be changed, there are ways to promote change as well.
-Matt
On 8/13/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/13/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
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.
I'm a little confused by the above, but I'll answer it to the best of my understanding. The privacy policy covers all information revealed by checkuser, whether or not the user is the initial subject of the search.
Information may be revealed through checkuser about individuals not the subject of the search, which is unavoidable. However, this does not mean it will be released.
There is some potential, of course, for confusion between different people using the same IP. However, as David said above, I assume good faith sharing of an IP unless the accounts work together.
I don't personally see what your issue is with checkusers sharing information. They can all find out the same information through the tool in any event.
...and through the logs.
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.
Um, what? If information is not private about you then it is not private; there's no such thing as semi-private.
There are also quite a few things not shown to the CheckUser that your computer sends to the webpage whenever you visit the site, such as your browser.
It's not secure, it's not private, checkusers share information in a
cavalier manner with other checkers just for curiosity.
I personally think it quite important that the checkusers know what the others are doing. Why do you disagree?
This is one of the pivotal points made in the CheckUser policy, there is always two or more CheckUser on a given wiki so that they can check up on each other to make sure that no one is violating policies are acting naughty.
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,
There is no debate. If you feel that the checkuser has violated the Foundation's privacy policy, complain to the privacy ombudsman. If you feel that the checkuser has breached checkuser policy in ways not covered by the Foundation's privacy policy, complain to the Arbcom if it was on the English wikipedia.
If you think that checkuser policy should be changed, there are ways to promote change as well.
...and that promotion is not done on this mailing list. :-)
-Matt
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 13/08/07, Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/13/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
If you think that checkuser policy should be changed, there are ways to promote change as well.
...and that promotion is not done on this mailing list. :-)
This wouldn't be a bad place to start. It would make this thread worth having at least.
- d.
Well, it's not a bad place to start, but it would need Foundation-wide approval and discussion, I know quite a few people who would be very put-out if we say "it needs be changed" or "well, we discussed on the English Wikipedia mailing list..." and now the CheckUser policy needs to be changed. This would need to be discussed on meta or on Foundation-l.
On 8/13/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 13/08/07, Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/13/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
If you think that checkuser policy should be changed, there are ways to promote change as well.
...and that promotion is not done on this mailing list. :-)
This wouldn't be a bad place to start. It would make this thread worth having at least.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 13/08/07, Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com wrote:
Well, it's not a bad place to start, but it would need Foundation-wide approval and discussion, I know quite a few people who would be very put-out if we say "it needs be changed" or "well, we discussed on the English Wikipedia mailing list..." and now the CheckUser policy needs to be changed. This would need to be discussed on meta or on Foundation-l.
An argument made here would need to be (a) persuasive (b) obviously and elegantly the right thing to do, to be a useful contribution to the discussion.
Anthony, K P, I'm looking at you.
- d.
On 8/13/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 13/08/07, Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com wrote:
Well, it's not a bad place to start, but it would need Foundation-wide approval and discussion, I know quite a few people who would be very put-out if we say "it needs be changed" or "well, we discussed on the English Wikipedia mailing list..." and now the CheckUser policy needs to be changed. This would need to be discussed on meta or on Foundation-l.
An argument made here would need to be (a) persuasive (b) obviously and elegantly the right thing to do, to be a useful contribution to the discussion.
Anthony, K P, I'm looking at you.
Don't look at me for persuasive, I'm as unpersuasive as they get. My only hope as far as persuasion is that I can offer some bit of knowledge to someone who is persuasive, and even that's probably a longshot.
On 8/13/07, Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com wrote:
Well, it's not a bad place to start, but it would need Foundation-wide approval and discussion, I know quite a few people who would be very put-out if we say "it needs be changed" or "well, we discussed on the English Wikipedia mailing list..." and now the CheckUser policy needs to be changed. This would need to be discussed on meta or on Foundation-l.
I believe en.wikipedia can adopt CheckUser policies in addition to project-wide ones.
-Matt
They really shouldn't be too different. En-wiki can do a few things others can't, but I'm not sure a policy on Meta is one of them.
On 8/13/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/13/07, Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com wrote:
Well, it's not a bad place to start, but it would need Foundation-wide approval and discussion, I know quite a few people who would be very
put-out
if we say "it needs be changed" or "well, we discussed on the English Wikipedia mailing list..." and now the CheckUser policy needs to be changed. This would need to be discussed on meta or on Foundation-l.
I believe en.wikipedia can adopt CheckUser policies in addition to project-wide ones.
-Matt
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 8/13/07, Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com wrote:
They really shouldn't be too different. En-wiki can do a few things others can't, but I'm not sure a policy on Meta is one of them.
The way I see it, the policy on Meta is the minimum requirement. Enwiki can adopt a tighter standard, but not a looser one.
-Matt
Well, yes, but I don't think that's what they were talking about. :-) Or maybe it was and I am just becoming senile.
On 8/13/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/13/07, Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com wrote:
They really shouldn't be too different. En-wiki can do a few things
others
can't, but I'm not sure a policy on Meta is one of them.
The way I see it, the policy on Meta is the minimum requirement. Enwiki can adopt a tighter standard, but not a looser one.
-Matt
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l