---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: dee dee <strategicdesign2001(a)yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 4:14 PM
Subject: Have you dealt with this yet? If so,how?
To: foundation-l-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org
I think the overall project ( Wikimedia Foundation) may have substantial
responsibility and negative exposure in this matter whether the En.WP
"community" or even Mr. Wales has a problem with it or not. Exposure
in the areas of privacy expectations and rules as well as misrepresentation (the
conflict between the stated checkuser protocol and the actual more secretive
protocol). Therefore, you have a responsibility for Wikimedia which requires
your involvement in addressing this protocol on EnWP which, according to the
En.WP "community" itself, -see below-, is casual,arbitrary and
publicly misleading.
So I think the very least the Foundation should do is have your
(Wikimedia's) legal department look at the
situation.
--- On Sun, 11/23/08, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb(a)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Have you dealt with this yet? If so,how?
To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
<foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Cc: strategicdesign2001(a)yahoo.com
Date: Sunday, November 23, 2008, 12:54 PM
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(a)lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
> From:
Foundation-l list admin
<foundation-l-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Have you dealt with
this
yet? If so,how?
To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
<foundation-l(a)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(a)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(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
<strategicdesign2001(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> From: dee dee
<strategicdesign2001(a)yahoo.com>
> 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:
>
> 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:
> dee dee
> Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)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(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
<strategicdesign2001(a)yahoo.com>
> 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
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
--
Michael Bimmler
mbimmler(a)gmail.com