[Foundation-l] new checkuser policy

[SJ]

On 4/20/06, Robert Scott Horning <robert_horning at netzero.net> wrote:
> Anthere wrote:
>
> >You may find a new version of the checkuser access policy here
> >
> >http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:CheckUser_Policy#Access_.28new_version.29
< <
> >Warning : the idea is not that all checkusers be selected by wikipedias
> >and later imposed on other projects. The idea is rather that generally,
> >a person widely supported in one project to do a job... is some one we
> >generally trust to do the job properly anywhere.
> >
> >So, if wikicommons wants to appoints 5 checkusers from 5 different
> >languages, all those 5 may serve on various other projects. The one
> >requirement to keep though : always at least 2 checkusers per project.
>
> I am not all that pleased with having to deal with "outsiders" in order
> to obtain this critical information, although having it is better than
> not having it.

There is no requirement to deal with outsiders.  The idea is that, if
the local project does not have enough users to nominate their own
checkuser, they may vote to have a dedicated checkuser that has been
nominated by another project.

> Perhaps because this was buried under all of the previous comments, but
> it really hasn't been answered at least to my satisfaction.  Under what
> reasonable criteria is being applied that would allow somebody to become
> a bureaucrat on a project that would not also mean they are trusted
> enough to have checkuser status as well?

Bureaucrat actions can be undone.  Revelations of supposedly-private
information cannot.  If Wikimedia changes its privacy policy to say
"your IP may be publicized at any time," then this wouldn't be a big
deal. Currently, the privacy policy is different.  It says "Where the
user has been vandalising articles or persistently behaving in a
disruptive way, data may be released to assist in the targeting of IP
blocks, or to assist in the formulation of a complaint to relevant
Internet Service Providers" -- so if you have not been vandalizing or
disruptive, presumably your IP information will remain private.

I would gladly see a privacy policy change that clarifies that not
only developers have access to such information, and that changes
"Where the user has been" to "Where the user has been suspected of".

++SJ