[Foundation-l] Fwd: Have you dealt with this yet? If so,how? - Wikimedia-l

23 Nov 2008

(2nd try, hope it isn't a duplicate)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: dee dee &lt;strategicdesign2001(a)yahoo.com&gt;
Date: Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 5:06 PM
Subject: Have you dealt with this yet? If so,how?
To: foundation-l-owner(a)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%…

"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/Archiv…

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%…

--- On Tue, 12/11/07, dee dee &lt;strategicdesign2001(a)yahoo.com&gt; wrote:

...
  From: dee dee &lt;strategicdesign2001(a)yahoo.com&gt;
 Subject: Re: Jimbo's response re:Rampant Checkuser Privacy Abuse
 To: foundation-l-owner(a)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%…

 "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/Archiv…

 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%…

 dee dee

 Jimmy Wales &lt;jwales(a)wikia.com&gt; 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(a)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(a)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(a)wikimedia.org

 Thank you.

 Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 12:58:36 -0800 (PST)
 From: dee dee &lt;strategicdesign2001(a)yahoo.com&gt;
 Subject: Rampant Checkuser Privacy Abuse
 To: foundation-l(a)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_…

 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(a)gmail.com