(2nd try, hope it isn't a duplicate)
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: dee dee strategicdesign2001@yahoo.com Date: Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 5:06 PM Subject: Have you dealt with this yet? If so,how? To: foundation-l-owner@lists.wikimedia.org
Four brief points: 1: I think the primary issue here is the appearance that
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CHECKUSER
gives to the community and the public of a completely transparent and open Checkuser request process when the discussions have shown that,as Thatcher131said,
"The vast majority of checks are run following talk page, email or IRC requests to the checkusers. WP:RFCU is a backup;.."
or as JzG|Guy said at
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%2...
"The vast majority of checkuser requests are, and always have been, performed quietly and without a request at RFCU."
At the very,very least there should be an acknowledgement at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CHECKUSER
that there is also a parallel "back channel"(Guy's phraseology) method of requesting and processing CHECKUSER activity which is not transparent to the general Wikipedia community nor the public.
2: In addition, this section of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CHECKUSER
"Privacy violation?
* If you feel that a checkuser has led to a violation of the Wikimedia Foundation privacy policy regarding yourself, please refer the case to the Ombudsman commission."
is something I find to be quite Orwellian. How can someone report a privacy violation if they do not know that checkuser has been used on them?
3: A third aspect is that it seems these "private" Checkuser checks are being used frivolously on brand new Users to effect 1 second blocks for "scrutiny" reasons and the Checkuser usage is being so poorly documented that sometimes no one even knows who used the tool as shown here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive...
Therefore, there should also be full disclosure to all new Users that Checkuser could be used without their knowledge on the basis of suspicion at any time after they open a Wikipedia account.
4: I also think User Risker's comments about the privacy aspect have merit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%2...
--- On Tue, 12/11/07, dee dee strategicdesign2001@yahoo.com wrote:
From: dee dee strategicdesign2001@yahoo.com Subject: Re: Jimbo's response re:Rampant Checkuser Privacy Abuse To: foundation-l-owner@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Tuesday, December 11, 2007, 9:06 PM Four brief points: 1: I think the primary issue here is the appearance that
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CHECKUSER
gives to the community and the public of a completely transparent and open Checkuser request process when the discussions have shown that,as Thatcher131said,
"The vast majority of checks are run following talk page, email or IRC requests to the checkusers. WP:RFCU is a backup;.."
or as JzG|Guy said at
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%2...
"The vast majority of checkuser requests are, and always have been, performed quietly and without a request at RFCU."
At the very,very least there should be an acknowledgement at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CHECKUSER
that there is also a parallel "back channel"(Guy's phraseology) method of requesting and processing CHECKUSER activity which is not transparent to the general Wikipedia community nor the public.
2: In addition, this section of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CHECKUSER
"Privacy violation?
* If you feel that a checkuser has led to a violationof the Wikimedia Foundation privacy policy regarding yourself, please refer the case to the Ombudsman commission."
is something I find to be quite Orwellian. How can someone report a privacy violation if they do not know that checkuser has been used on them?
3: A third aspect is that it seems these "private" Checkuser checks are being used frivolously on brand new Users to effect 1 second blocks for "scrutiny" reasons and the Checkuser usage is being so poorly documented that sometimes no one even knows who used the tool as shown here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive...
Therefore, there should also be full disclosure to all new Users that Checkuser could be used without their knowledge on the basis of suspicion at any time after they open a Wikipedia account.
4: I also think User Risker's comments about the privacy aspect have merit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%2...
dee dee
Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote: In English Wikipedida, ArbCom is a good place to go for this sort of thing.
However, having reviewed checkuser policy, I see absolutely nothing even close to a policy violation here.
"Notification to the account that is checked is permitted but is not mandatory. Similarly, notification of the check to the community is not mandatory, but may be done subject to the provisions of the privacy policy."
I strongly support this element of the policy.
Cary Bass wrote:
dee dee wrote:
Hi, I think the Stewards have authority in this
matter. The Ombudsman
Commission seems to accept these clandestine
Checkuser requests but I
doubt the Stewards will. I hope you will forward
my message to them so
they can decide for themselves.
Hi again, dee dee.
Being a steward myself, I responded to you in that
capacity. I'm sorry
my signature didn't indicate such, but I'll
mention it again.
You seem to be mistaken about the function of
stewards. Why don't you
read the relevant page on meta, here:
The stewards have no authority over the checkusers or
checkuser policy.
There is no steward committee, only a mailing list
where the stewards
can share their thoughts, actions, etc.
Where there is a local policy in place, the stewards
have no authority
over local policy.
Where there is a function policy in place (like
checkuser), the stewards
have no authority over that function policy.
Short of suggestion you address it to the local Arbcom
or the Checkuser
Ombudsman Commission, there is nothing any steward on
this list can do
for you.
foundation-l-owner@lists.wikimedia.org wrote: Due to a large amount of spam, emails from non-members of this list are now automatically rejected. If you have a valuable contribution to the list but would rather not subscribe to it, please sent an email to foundation-l-owner@lists.wikimedia.org and we will forward your post to the list. Please be aware that all messages to this list are archived and viewable for the public. If you have a confidential communication to make, please rather email info@wikimedia.org
Thank you.
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 12:58:36 -0800 (PST) From: dee dee strategicdesign2001@yahoo.com Subject: Rampant Checkuser Privacy Abuse To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
In regards to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CHECKUSER
''''Privacy violation? If you feel that a checkuser has led to a violation of the Wikimedia Foundation privacy policy regarding yourself, please refer the case to the Ombudsman commission.''''
Please note that so-called "private" uses of checkuser are occurring and tolerated as seen here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#False_B...
How can someone report a privacy violation if they do not know that checkuser has been used?
Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now.
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
This is more of an en.WP issue not a foundation one. En.WP can change local policy to require that checkuser requests are logged on-wiki if that is what the community wants. Various wikis have different policies regarding these issues. I don't see why we should debate en.WP's particular version of policy here.
Brigitte SB
--- On Sun, 11/23/08, Foundation-l list admin foundation-l-owner@lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
From: Foundation-l list admin foundation-l-owner@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Have you dealt with this yet? If so,how? To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Sunday, November 23, 2008, 11:06 AM (2nd try, hope it isn't a duplicate)
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: dee dee strategicdesign2001@yahoo.com Date: Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 5:06 PM Subject: Have you dealt with this yet? If so,how? To: foundation-l-owner@lists.wikimedia.org
Four brief points: 1: I think the primary issue here is the appearance that
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CHECKUSER
gives to the community and the public of a completely transparent and open Checkuser request process when the discussions have shown that,as Thatcher131said,
"The vast majority of checks are run following talk page, email or IRC requests to the checkusers. WP:RFCU is a backup;.."
or as JzG|Guy said at
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%2...
"The vast majority of checkuser requests are, and always have been, performed quietly and without a request at RFCU."
At the very,very least there should be an acknowledgement at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CHECKUSER
that there is also a parallel "back channel"(Guy's phraseology) method of requesting and processing CHECKUSER activity which is not transparent to the general Wikipedia community nor the public.
2: In addition, this section of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CHECKUSER
"Privacy violation?
- If you feel that a checkuser has led to a violation of
the Wikimedia Foundation privacy policy regarding yourself, please refer the case to the Ombudsman commission."
is something I find to be quite Orwellian. How can someone report a privacy violation if they do not know that checkuser has been used on them?
3: A third aspect is that it seems these "private" Checkuser checks are being used frivolously on brand new Users to effect 1 second blocks for "scrutiny" reasons and the Checkuser usage is being so poorly documented that sometimes no one even knows who used the tool as shown here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive...
Therefore, there should also be full disclosure to all new Users that Checkuser could be used without their knowledge on the basis of suspicion at any time after they open a Wikipedia account.
4: I also think User Risker's comments about the privacy aspect have merit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%2...
--- On Tue, 12/11/07, dee dee strategicdesign2001@yahoo.com wrote:
From: dee dee strategicdesign2001@yahoo.com Subject: Re: Jimbo's response re:Rampant Checkuser
Privacy Abuse
To: foundation-l-owner@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Tuesday, December 11, 2007, 9:06 PM Four brief points: 1: I think the primary issue here is the appearance
that
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CHECKUSER
gives to the community and the public of a completely transparent and open Checkuser request process when
the
discussions have shown that,as Thatcher131said,
"The vast majority of checks are run following
talk
page, email or IRC requests to the checkusers. WP:RFCU
is a
backup;.."
or as JzG|Guy said at
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%2...
"The vast majority of checkuser requests are, and always have been, performed quietly and without a
request at
RFCU."
At the very,very least there should be an
acknowledgement
at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CHECKUSER
that there is also a parallel "back channel"(Guy's phraseology) method of
requesting
and processing CHECKUSER activity which is not
transparent
to the general Wikipedia community nor the public.
2: In addition, this section of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CHECKUSER
"Privacy violation?
* If you feel that a checkuser has led to aviolation
of the Wikimedia Foundation privacy policy regarding yourself, please refer the case to the Ombudsman commission."
is something I find to be quite Orwellian. How can
someone
report a privacy violation if they do not know that checkuser has been used on them?
3: A third aspect is that it seems these "private" Checkuser checks are being used frivolously on brand new Users to effect 1 second
blocks for
"scrutiny" reasons and the Checkuser usage
is
being so poorly documented that sometimes no one even
knows
who used the tool as shown here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive...
Therefore, there should also be full disclosure to all
new
Users that Checkuser could be used without their
knowledge
on the basis of suspicion at any time after they open
a
Wikipedia account.
4: I also think User Risker's comments about the privacy aspect have merit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%2...
dee dee
Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote: In English Wikipedida, ArbCom is a good place to go for this
sort of
thing.
However, having reviewed checkuser policy, I see
absolutely
nothing even close to a policy violation here.
"Notification to the account that is checked is permitted but is not mandatory. Similarly, notification of the check to the community is not mandatory, but may be done subject to the provisions
of the
privacy policy."
I strongly support this element of the policy.
Cary Bass wrote:
dee dee wrote:
Hi, I think the Stewards have authority in
this
matter. The Ombudsman
Commission seems to accept these clandestine
Checkuser requests but I
doubt the Stewards will. I hope you will
forward
my message to them so
they can decide for themselves.
Hi again, dee dee.
Being a steward myself, I responded to you in
that
capacity. I'm sorry
my signature didn't indicate such, but
I'll
mention it again.
You seem to be mistaken about the function of
stewards. Why don't you
read the relevant page on meta, here:
The stewards have no authority over the
checkusers or
checkuser policy.
There is no steward committee, only a mailing
list
where the stewards
can share their thoughts, actions, etc.
Where there is a local policy in place, the
stewards
have no authority
over local policy.
Where there is a function policy in place (like
checkuser), the stewards
have no authority over that function policy.
Short of suggestion you address it to the local
Arbcom
or the Checkuser
Ombudsman Commission, there is nothing any
steward on
this list can do
for you.
foundation-l-owner@lists.wikimedia.org wrote: Due to a large amount of spam, emails from non-members of this
list
are now automatically rejected. If you have a valuable contribution to the list but would rather not subscribe to it, please
sent
an email to foundation-l-owner@lists.wikimedia.org and we will
forward
your post to the list. Please be aware that all messages to this
list
are archived and viewable for the public. If you have a confidential communication to make, please rather email info@wikimedia.org
Thank you.
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 12:58:36 -0800 (PST) From: dee dee strategicdesign2001@yahoo.com Subject: Rampant Checkuser Privacy Abuse To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
In regards to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CHECKUSER
''''Privacy violation? If you feel that a checkuser has led to a violation of
the
Wikimedia Foundation privacy policy regarding
yourself,
please refer the case to the Ombudsman commission.''''
Please note that so-called "private" uses of checkuser are occurring and tolerated as seen here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#False_B...
How can someone report a privacy violation if they do
not
know that checkuser has been used?
Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you
with
Yahoo Mobile. Try it now.
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
-- Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Foundation-l list admin wrote:
(2nd try, hope it isn't a duplicate)
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: dee dee strategicdesign2001@yahoo.com Date: Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 5:06 PM Subject: Have you dealt with this yet? If so,how? To: foundation-l-owner@lists.wikimedia.org
2: In addition, this section of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CHECKUSER
"Privacy violation?
- If you feel that a checkuser has led to a violation of the
Wikimedia Foundation privacy policy regarding yourself, please refer the case to the Ombudsman commission."
is something I find to be quite Orwellian. How can someone report a privacy violation if they do not know that checkuser has been used on them?
Based on my reading of the privacy policy[1], specifically: "When using a pseudonym, your IP address will not be available to the public except in cases of abuse, including vandalism of a wiki page by you or by another user with the same IP address. In all cases, your IP address will be stored on the wiki servers and can be seen by Wikimedia's server administrators and by users who have been granted "CheckUser" access. Your IP address, and its connection to any usernames that share it may be released under certain circumstances (see below)."
a checkuser using the checkuser tool, on its own, cannot be a privacy policy violation, it cannot become one until they release some or all of the data to people who would not normally have access to it.
It may be a violation of the Checkuser policy[2], as it says "There must be a valid reason to check a user." but the checkuser policy seems to agree with my interpretation of the privacy policy: "On Wikimedia projects, privacy policy considerations are of tremendous importance. Unless someone is violating policy with their actions (e.g. massive bot vandalism or spam) and revealing information about them is necessary to stop the disruption, it is a violation of the privacy policy to reveal their IP, whereabouts, or other information sufficient to identify them, unless they have already revealed this information themselves on the project."
Nowhere does it says its a violation of the privacy policy simply to do the check.
[1] http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy [2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CheckUser
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org