[Foundation-l] Ombudsman Commission: Verification of checkuser results

List overview All Threads
Download

newer

older

Re: [Foundation-l] spamming of the...

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Brand...

Nathan Carter

2 Jul 2007 2 Jul '07

9:22 a.m.

Show replies by date

Dmcdevit

2 Jul 2 Jul

10:25 a.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] Ombudsman Commission: Verification of checkuser results

Nathan Carter wrote:

...

Hi, As most of you should be aware I am currently a member of the Ombudsman Commission (see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ombudsman_commission) One of my current complaints involves a user who disputes the results of a CU, as I do not have checkuser access on enwiki how would I go about verifying the results? Regards, Nathan Carter (Cartman02au) _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

I doubt most people are aware that that commission exists, actually, but, as a checkuser myself, I would ask you 1) Why you are going about verifying disputed results? The Ombudsman Commission exists to investigate *privacy violations,* not as oversight on interpretation of checkuser results for a project with 17 local checkusers, any of which can double check a disputed result if need be. Has there been a privacy violation? 2) The Ombudsman Commission has an en.wp checkuser as one of its members. Why are you asking here instead of asking him? 3) If it is the case that you are investigating a disputed result, which strikes me as odd, is there some special cause for concern? Have you talked to the checkuser involved yet? Dominic

Anders Wegge Jakobsen

8:58 p.m.

Dmcdevit <dmcdevit(a)cox.net> writes:

...

Nathan Carter wrote:

I doubt most people are aware that that commission exists, actually, but, as a checkuser myself, I would ask you 1) Why you are going about verifying disputed results?

Quoting <http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Ombudsperson_checkuser>: "The ombudsman will take charge of investigating cases of privacy policy breach *or checkuser abuse* for the board in an official manner." (My emphasis) There are more issues than just privacy issues at stake. -- // Wegge <http://geowiki.wegge.dk/wiki/Forside> - Alt om geocaching Bruger du den gratis spamfighther ser jeg kun dine indlæg *EN* gang.

Dmcdevit

9:39 p.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] Ombudsman Commission: Verification of checkuser results

Anders Wegge Jakobsen wrote:

...

I think you are misreading that if you think it extends to double-checking disputed checkuser interpretations when no privacy violation is alleged, on a project with more than a dozen native checkusers fully capable of doing that themselves. Someone from the Board can correct me if I'm wrong, but the idea is that the Commission investigates privacy violations (in general) by anyone--presumably stewards, oversight users, developers, OTRS volunteers, arbitrators, or anyone else who may have privileged information-- and, (specifically) abuses of checkuser related to privacy violations. This is clear if you read the whole document, which solely concerns itself with the privacy policy, and is intended to resolve "complaints related to abuse of its privacy policy, associated to checkuser activity or not." Has the Ombudsman commission always been taking these sorts of complaints in the last year, instead of directing them to the local community? I am still confused as to why, if so, the en.wp checkuser on the Commission cannot give you the information you need. Dominic

Nathan Carter

10:25 p.m.

On 7/3/07, Dmcdevit <dmcdevit(a)cox.net> wrote:

...

Has the Ombudsman commission always been taking these sorts of complaints in the last year, instead of directing them to the local community? I am still confused as to why, if so, the en.wp checkuser on the Commission cannot give you the information you need.

Your opposition to the Ombudsman Commission is duly noted. No it has not. In this case there are special circumstances which warrant verification. Regards, Nathan Carter.

Nathan Carter

10:19 p.m.

On 7/2/07, Dmcdevit <dmcdevit(a)cox.net> wrote:

...

I doubt most people are aware that that commission exists, actually but, as a checkuser myself, I would ask you 1) Why you are going about verifying disputed results? The Ombudsman Commission exists to investigate *privacy violations,* not as oversight on interpretation of checkuser results for a project with 17 local checkusers, any of which can double check a disputed result if need be. Has there been a privacy violation?

There has been a *possible* privacy violation. The Ombudsman Commission according to meta can investigate "cases of such policy breach or CheckUser abuse for the board in an official manner". Pretty much, I need to know why the IP of a user was published without their consent. One has been editing anonymously while another hasn't. 2) The Ombudsman Commission has an en.wp checkuser as one of

...

its members. Why are you asking here instead of asking him?

Because the user you are referring to has not replied. 3) If it is

...

the case that you are investigating a disputed result, which strikes me as odd, is there some special cause for concern? Have you talked to the checkuser involved yet?

Of course I have, as I have in the past. Cheers, Nathan Carter.

Dmcdevit

10:39 p.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] Ombudsman Commission: Verification of checkuser results

Nathan Carter wrote:

...

Sensitive information cannot be discussed here though. Why not take this to the checkuser mailing list, or find an English Wikipedia checkuser who you can confer with privately? This isn't accomplishing anything.

...

the case that you are investigating a disputed result, which strikes me as odd, is there some special cause for concern? Have you talked to the checkuser involved yet?

Of course I have, as I have in the past.

I think you will find that that has not been the experience of all subjects of your investigations. Dominic

Nathan Carter

3 Jul 3 Jul

12:54 a.m.

On 7/3/07, Dmcdevit <dmcdevit(a)cox.net> wrote:

...

Nathan Carter wrote:

There has been a *possible* privacy violation. The Ombudsman Commission according to meta can investigate "cases of such policy breach or

CheckUser

abuse for the board in an official manner". Pretty much, I need to know

why

the IP of a user was published without their consent. One has been

editing

anonymously while another hasn't.

No details have been given. I was seeking advice from members of the board and the community at large.

teun spaans

2 Jul 2 Jul

10:58 a.m.

ask the details and motivation from the person who did the cu? ask the details from another cu authorized person? On 7/2/07, Nathan Carter <cartmanau(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)

4 p.m.

Is it intentional that this thread is going to the entire Foundation mailing list, or was it inadverently sent to the wrong list? Newyorkbrad On 7/2/07, teun spaans <teun.spaans(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

ask the details and motivation from the person who did the cu? ask the details from another cu authorized person? On 7/2/07, Nathan Carter <cartmanau(a)gmail.com> wrote:

CU, as I do not have checkuser access on enwiki how would I go about verifying the results? Regards, Nathan Carter (Cartman02au) _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Aphaia

4:49 p.m.

I think it is within the topic, since Ombudsmen are appointed by the Board, thus the by the Foundation iirc. On 7/3/07, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) <newyorkbrad(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Is it intentional that this thread is going to the entire Foundation mailing list, or was it inadverently sent to the wrong list? Newyorkbrad On 7/2/07, teun spaans <teun.spaans(a)gmail.com> wrote:

ask the details and motivation from the person who did the cu? ask the details from another cu authorized person? On 7/2/07, Nathan Carter <cartmanau(a)gmail.com> wrote:

_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

-- KIZU Naoko Wikiquote: http://wikiquote.org * habent enim emolumentum in labore suo *

Nathan Carter

10:21 p.m.

On 7/3/07, Aphaia <aphaia(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

I think it is within the topic, since Ombudsmen are appointed by the Board, thus the by the Foundation iirc.

The intention was to get the advice of interested parties.

Dmcdevit

6:53 p.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] Ombudsman Commission: Verification of checkuser results

Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) wrote:

...

Is it intentional that this thread is going to the entire Foundation mailing list, or was it inadverently sent to the wrong list? Newyorkbrad

I wonder also why it is not at checkuser-l, where all English Wikipedia checkusers are subscribed, and where we could perhaps discuss details more freely. Dominic

6142

days inactive

6143

days old

wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

12 comments

6 participants

tags (0)

participants (6)

Anders Wegge Jakobsen
Aphaia
Dmcdevit
Nathan Carter
Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)
teun spaans