---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: dee dee strategicdesign2001@yahoo.com Date: Dec 12, 2007 3:06 AM Subject: Re: Jimbo's response re:Rampant Checkuser Privacy Abuse 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...
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.
Hoi, Why is this exclusively en.wikipedia issue discussed on Foundation-l ??? Thanks, GerardM
On Dec 12, 2007 5:37 PM, Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com wrote:
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: dee dee strategicdesign2001@yahoo.com Date: Dec 12, 2007 3:06 AM Subject: Re: Jimbo's response re:Rampant Checkuser Privacy Abuse 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...
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.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2007/12/12, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, Why is this exclusively en.wikipedia issue discussed on Foundation-l ??? Thanks, GerardM
I think the examples are just from en-wikipedia - but the problem is about all Wikimedia projects.
--- Tomasz Ganicz polimerek@gmail.com wrote:
2007/12/12, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, Why is this exclusively en.wikipedia issue
discussed on Foundation-l ???
Thanks, GerardM
I think the examples are just from en-wikipedia - but the problem is about all Wikimedia projects.
What other projects are having such problems? Considering only a small number of projects have local checkusers and some of those have strong requirements for transparency, I would be very surprised to find this to be a WMF-wide issue. IIRC fr.WP doesn't even allow local checkusers to join checkuser-l because of the lack of transparency of that mailing list.
I doubt this is inherently a checkuser problem anyways. It is just another symptom of the larger dysfunction of the en.WP community.
Birgitte SB
____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
On Dec 12, 2007 2:16 PM, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Tomasz Ganicz polimerek@gmail.com wrote:
2007/12/12, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, Why is this exclusively en.wikipedia issue
discussed on Foundation-l ???
Thanks, GerardM
I think the examples are just from en-wikipedia - but the problem is about all Wikimedia projects.
What other projects are having such problems? Considering only a small number of projects have local checkusers and some of those have strong requirements for transparency, I would be very surprised to find this to be a WMF-wide issue. IIRC fr.WP doesn't even allow local checkusers to join checkuser-l because of the lack of transparency of that mailing list.
I doubt this is inherently a checkuser problem anyways. It is just another symptom of the larger dysfunction of the en.WP community.
Birgitte SB
So are other communities immune from this problem, or has it just not hit them yet? Either way, I think input from those outside en.wp would be valuable. If you're immune from the problem, tell us how you got there. If it just hasn't hit you yet, let's work together to solve it before it does.
Anthony wrote:
So are other communities immune from this problem, or has it just not hit them yet? Either way, I think input from those outside en.wp would be valuable. If you're immune from the problem, tell us how you got there. If it just hasn't hit you yet, let's work together to solve it before it does.
I have CheckUser on the English Wikinews, and I am glad to say I have never been pressured to carry out a check in secret. My opinion is that no undocumented CheckUser should be performed.
A recent case we had to deal with on Wikinews was a repeat page move vandal. I had previously blocked the appropriate IP for a month. When similar vandalism recurred after the block was up my interest was in performing a CheckUser.
I could not quickly and adequately explain the situation to other people in IRC such that they made the request and I fulfilled it. Instead I - someone with the ability to perform the check - had to request either another Checkuser person carry out the check or state that they agreed there were grounds for checking and I should do so. The other Brian performed the check, and it turned out I was correct. Had this been done in secret then all the average user would have seen in RC was a months long block on an IP without knowing it had been verified to be a source of vandalism.
I am strongly against CheckUser being performed in secret, sunlight is the best disinfectant and open and honest procedures will - in the long term - garner the various projects more respect.
Brian McNeil
I think there needs to be a balance without going to either extreme. All checkuser actions are logged to my knowledge.
Idiots (I can call them that) who edit wikipedia only and only to cause disruption and mayhem are a problem. Even such people deserve the protection of the 'privacy policy' but they do not deserve having the 'edit' tool. It is possible to 'remove' the edit tool without compromising from the 'privacy policy'.
It is very easy to avoid detection if people just stay away from a wiki for a month and return later on just to cause clever disruption that will eventually pile up to an arbcom case. We had such people on various wikis and such people will always exist. Entire disruption from such people could be easily avoided if checkusers were more free in checking. So checkusers should not be banned from 'checking users' over suspicion. Disruptive people know how the limits of our radars' short range. We need checkusers' long-range radar to detect and remove them. A successful RFCu is often a license for block as a lot of evidence is necessary, and that's a good thing generally. Sometimes trolls, vandals and other pests edit in such a manner that an RFCu can't be compiled yet the sockpuppetary would be flashing obvious in a checkuser. I wouldn't *like* to be randomly checked. I would more than support such regular checks on RfAs and AfDs and etc. Lack of this is a problem and a serious one. If I am voting on an RfA, I would not mind and in fact encourage a routine check that would authenticate legitimacy of every vote.
We do need a more centralized system in storing checkuser data that's only available to checkusers. This isn't the first time this has been said. For example something like the OTRS where checkuser case numbers can be noted as the block reason and follow ups can be added to the case number. Unlike RFCu information that wont be given to the general public over rightful privacy concerns would be stored like IP data and etc.
Obviously checkusers *must not* release private info randomly. It is possible to say users A, B and C have been blocked for sockpuppetary without violating the Privacy policy.
In a nutshell privacy is an important thing but so is sanity. I do want to note that I am probably among the most paranoid people out there for my privacy and even I see the necessity of such checkuser checks.
If you are concerned of strangers such as checkusers seeing your 'IP' you ought to know that devs can see more than your 'IP'. Please do not tie or try to tie the hands of checkusers who are doing something meaningful and helpful. Any community ruled by paranoia is a dangerous one. Lets not be a paranoia driven crowd.
- White Cat
On Dec 12, 2007 9:49 PM, Brian McNeil brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org wrote:
Anthony wrote:
So are other communities immune from this problem, or has it just not hit them yet? Either way, I think input from those outside en.wp would be valuable. If you're immune from the problem, tell us how you got there. If it just hasn't hit you yet, let's work together to solve it before it does.
I have CheckUser on the English Wikinews, and I am glad to say I have never been pressured to carry out a check in secret. My opinion is that no undocumented CheckUser should be performed.
A recent case we had to deal with on Wikinews was a repeat page move vandal. I had previously blocked the appropriate IP for a month. When similar vandalism recurred after the block was up my interest was in performing a CheckUser.
I could not quickly and adequately explain the situation to other people in IRC such that they made the request and I fulfilled it. Instead I - someone with the ability to perform the check - had to request either another Checkuser person carry out the check or state that they agreed there were grounds for checking and I should do so. The other Brian performed the check, and it turned out I was correct. Had this been done in secret then all the average user would have seen in RC was a months long block on an IP without knowing it had been verified to be a source of vandalism.
I am strongly against CheckUser being performed in secret, sunlight is the best disinfectant and open and honest procedures will - in the long term - garner the various projects more respect.
Brian McNeil
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Brian McNeil wrote:
I have CheckUser on the English Wikinews, and I am glad to say I have never been pressured to carry out a check in secret. My opinion is that no undocumented CheckUser should be performed.
I disagree. CheckUser should be used liberally with absolutely no implication that the user being checked is suspected of wrongdoing. Indeed, in many cases, the purpose of CheckUser is to *clear people*.
A checkuser who has confirmed that nothing is going wrong, need not mention it. This is just routine work.
Had this been done in secret then all the average user would have seen in RC was a months long block on an IP without knowing it had been verified to be a source of vandalism.
That's about giving an appropriate justification for a block, as opposed to being about doing CheckUser quietly.
I may be completely wrong and imagining things, but I could swear I remember seeing somewhere that checkuser is not to be used to "clear ones good name" or to establish non-sockpuppetry. It may have changed. Am I on crack?
-Dan On Dec 12, 2007, at 3:55 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
Indeed, in many cases, the purpose of CheckUser is to *clear people*.
On Dec 12, 2007 4:01 PM, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
I may be completely wrong and imagining things, but I could swear I remember seeing somewhere that checkuser is not to be used to "clear ones good name" or to establish non-sockpuppetry. It may have changed. Am I on crack?
That's from WP:RFCU on en:; but all it actually says is that *requests* for a checkuser to clear one's *own* name aren't accepted.
Kirill
Fair enough, thanks for the correction.
-Dan On Dec 12, 2007, at 4:12 PM, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
On Dec 12, 2007 4:01 PM, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
I may be completely wrong and imagining things, but I could swear I remember seeing somewhere that checkuser is not to be used to "clear ones good name" or to establish non-sockpuppetry. It may have changed. Am I on crack?
That's from WP:RFCU on en:; but all it actually says is that *requests* for a checkuser to clear one's *own* name aren't accepted.
Kirill _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2007/12/12, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com:
Brian McNeil wrote:
I have CheckUser on the English Wikinews, and I am glad to say I have never been pressured to carry out a check in secret. My opinion is that no undocumented CheckUser should be performed.
I disagree. CheckUser should be used liberally with absolutely no implication that the user being checked is suspected of wrongdoing. Indeed, in many cases, the purpose of CheckUser is to *clear people*.
A checkuser who has confirmed that nothing is going wrong, need not mention it. This is just routine work.
Is the above your private opinion or normal checkuser practice on en-wp?
greetings, elian
On Dec 12, 2007 3:32 PM, elisabeth bauer eflebeth@googlemail.com wrote:
Is the above your private opinion or normal checkuser practice on en-wp?
greetings, elian
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Me sees this keep going back to what enwp checkusers do, waht enwp practices are, what enwp policies say, waht enwp reqeusts are about...
I completely agree. Also I feel it is important to note the other reason for this 'secrecy'. It is quite possible the 'cleared' person may very well be a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet as checkuser process is foolable. Checkuser should not be seen as an *Appeals Department Against Sock Puppet Accusations * (ADASPA). The purpose of checkusers is to identify disruptive users who want to avoid detection. Everyone else is innocent until proven otherwise. So a checkuser isn't really clearing the person, instead just not 'incriminating'.
- White Cat
On Dec 12, 2007 10:55 PM, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Brian McNeil wrote:
I have CheckUser on the English Wikinews, and I am glad to say I have
never
been pressured to carry out a check in secret. My opinion is that no undocumented CheckUser should be performed.
I disagree. CheckUser should be used liberally with absolutely no implication that the user being checked is suspected of wrongdoing. Indeed, in many cases, the purpose of CheckUser is to *clear people*.
A checkuser who has confirmed that nothing is going wrong, need not mention it. This is just routine work.
Had this been done in secret then all the average user would have seen in RC was a months long block on an
IP
without knowing it had been verified to be a source of vandalism.
That's about giving an appropriate justification for a block, as opposed to being about doing CheckUser quietly.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Brian McNeil wrote:
Anthony wrote:
So are other communities immune from this problem, or has it just not hit them yet? Either way, I think input from those outside en.wp would be valuable. If you're immune from the problem, tell us how you got there. If it just hasn't hit you yet, let's work together to solve it before it does.
I have CheckUser on the English Wikinews, and I am glad to say I have never been pressured to carry out a check in secret. My opinion is that no undocumented CheckUser should be performed.
A recent case we had to deal with on Wikinews was a repeat page move vandal. I had previously blocked the appropriate IP for a month. When similar vandalism recurred after the block was up my interest was in performing a CheckUser.
I could not quickly and adequately explain the situation to other people in IRC such that they made the request and I fulfilled it. Instead I - someone with the ability to perform the check - had to request either another Checkuser person carry out the check or state that they agreed there were grounds for checking and I should do so. The other Brian performed the check, and it turned out I was correct. Had this been done in secret then all the average user would have seen in RC was a months long block on an IP without knowing it had been verified to be a source of vandalism.
I am strongly against CheckUser being performed in secret, sunlight is the best disinfectant and open and honest procedures will - in the long term - garner the various projects more respect.
Brian McNeil
I tend to agree with you Brian.
Ant
I am strongly against CheckUser being performed in secret, sunlight is the best disinfectant and open and honest procedures will - in the long term - garner the various projects more respect.
I guess I'm not certain what you mean here by "secret". Each project has at least 2 CUs to double-check each other, and all CU checks are recorded in the log for all CUs to see. In that sense, there is no such thing as total secrecy, although the argument could be made (against good faith) that the CUs were in collusion, or that they were forming some sort of "cabal" or whatever.
Consider the case where there are suspicions about an established user, a CU checks it out, and nothing is uncovered. Do you say to that person: "Hey some people around here suspected that you are a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet, or a vandal, or whatever, and we got your IP records to test that theory, and it turns out that you aren't". And then, if the person doesn't storm off in a huff immediately, he could respond "well maybe the guy who accused me of it is actually a sockpuppet himself! check him!" While this is a hypothetical, it's not too far-fetched. If you tell people that they were suspected of wrongdoing and that their privacy was violated because of those suspicions, it is going to make people very angry.
CUs do need to be worried about privacy, and they need to know when NOT to divulge certain information. Sometimes, that means knowing when to keep your CU activities quite from the general public. Everything is in the log, little things don't explode into big emotional disasters, and everybody stays happy.
--Andrew Whitworth
On Dec 12, 2007 5:44 PM, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com wrote:
I am strongly against CheckUser being performed in secret, sunlight is the best disinfectant and open and honest procedures will - in the long term - garner the various projects more respect.
I guess I'm not certain what you mean here by "secret". [snip]
I assumed that "secret" meant with no information that a check was run being posted on-wiki (i.e. running one based upon private correspondence and without a note that one was run or a formal request that it was done being put on the public website), but I could be wrong.
--Andrew Whitworth
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
--- Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Dec 12, 2007 2:16 PM, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Tomasz Ganicz polimerek@gmail.com wrote:
2007/12/12, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, Why is this exclusively en.wikipedia issue
discussed on Foundation-l ???
Thanks, GerardM
I think the examples are just from en-wikipedia
but the problem is about all Wikimedia projects.
What other projects are having such problems? Considering only a small number of projects have
local
checkusers and some of those have strong
requirements
for transparency, I would be very surprised to
find
this to be a WMF-wide issue. IIRC fr.WP doesn't
even
allow local checkusers to join checkuser-l because
of
the lack of transparency of that mailing list.
I doubt this is inherently a checkuser problem anyways. It is just another symptom of the larger dysfunction of the en.WP community.
Birgitte SB
So are other communities immune from this problem, or has it just not hit them yet? Either way, I think input from those outside en.wp would be valuable. If you're immune from the problem, tell us how you got there. If it just hasn't hit you yet, let's work together to solve it before it does.
You propose that all WMF communities are either A) immune to en.WP's problems and obligated to advise en.WP about why this is so on foundation-l, or B) destined to eventually have similar problems as en.WP in the future and therefore discussing en.WP's issue is really discussing an issue for all these projects as well. If that were valid no en.WP problem would be considered off-topic here. However it is not valid; en.WP has an entire list for discussing en.WP issues which would be much more appropriate place for this topic. A pointer to a thread there asking for outside opinions would be an appropriate way to solicit advice from other communities.
Birgitte SB
____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Hoi, There is a stigma on being check-usered. When the trusted check user people have a clue that something is wrong and silently investigate an issue they only need to say something when there IS an issue. Nobody needs to know who was investigated why. Only when it is found that a specific person is sock puppeting, it needs to be told that a person was found to be found with his/her hand in the cookie jar.
When the community is informed about real issues then there is no need to discuss if certain people need to be checkusered. People can ASK if something is investigated but when there is no reply unless someone DID investigate and DID find an issue, you will not give the "satisfaction" to the paranoia of some. Thanks, GerardM
On Dec 12, 2007 8:34 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Dec 12, 2007 2:16 PM, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Tomasz Ganicz polimerek@gmail.com wrote:
2007/12/12, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, Why is this exclusively en.wikipedia issue
discussed on Foundation-l ???
Thanks, GerardM
I think the examples are just from en-wikipedia - but the problem is about all Wikimedia projects.
What other projects are having such problems? Considering only a small number of projects have local checkusers and some of those have strong requirements for transparency, I would be very surprised to find this to be a WMF-wide issue. IIRC fr.WP doesn't even allow local checkusers to join checkuser-l because of the lack of transparency of that mailing list.
I doubt this is inherently a checkuser problem anyways. It is just another symptom of the larger dysfunction of the en.WP community.
Birgitte SB
So are other communities immune from this problem, or has it just not hit them yet? Either way, I think input from those outside en.wp would be valuable. If you're immune from the problem, tell us how you got there. If it just hasn't hit you yet, let's work together to solve it before it does.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 12/12/2007, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
IIRC fr.WP doesn't even allow local checkusers to join checkuser-l because of the lack of transparency of that mailing list.
Birgitte SB
Nope, I used to have access to this ml :)
On Dec 12, 2007 6:32 PM, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Why is this exclusively en.wikipedia issue discussed on Foundation-l ???
I don't know, but apparently this user wanted to write to foundation-l and who am I to question the intents of others ;-)
This said, feel free to shift the discussion to another list.
Michael
Hoi,
Because checkuser use, and abuse, is a foundation-level issue.
Also, note that it comes (on some level) from Jimmy.
Thanks, DanielR On Dec 12, 2007, at 12:32 PM, GerardM wrote:
Hoi, Why is this exclusively en.wikipedia issue discussed on Foundation- l ??? Thanks, GerardM
On Dec 12, 2007 5:37 PM, Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com wrote:
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: dee dee strategicdesign2001@yahoo.com Date: Dec 12, 2007 3:06 AM Subject: Re: Jimbo's response re:Rampant Checkuser Privacy Abuse 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...
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.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org