[Foundation-l] check user...

wiki_tomos at inter7.jp wiki_tomos at inter7.jp
Sun Apr 1 08:56:31 UTC 2007

I think Samuel Klein suggested that the difference, though conceivable 
in theory, may be like between 20cents and 10cents. I have to agree 
that it might be the case. (I don't have a good idea). 

I am not very informed about the amount of checkuser abuse or 
legal consequences of the abuses. For one thing, check user 
log is not open to the public (which I think has its own 
merits). I know one checkuser was demoted on Japanese Wikipedia, 
and no public explanation was given on that. 

Legal consequences may include, though I am not a lawyer and this 
involves my own uneducated speculation, improperly giving an IP address 
to an outsiderwho in tern sues the wikipedian; improperly filing a 
complaint to an objectionable Wikipedian's ISP and get his 
service contract terminated; improperly filing a complaint to an 
objectional wikipedian's workplace or a school and get him punished 

I have no idea if these things have happened or how likely those 
turn of events are. I wish someone with proper access and legal knowledge 
have thought about this...

By the way, just to answer another point Samuel raised - 
my understanding (okay, speculation, I should say) is that the 
Wikimedia Foundation does not have to monitor outside contractors' 
privacy compliance as much as its own (volunteer) staffs'. 

Well, I am not sure how much help this was, but that all I can 
say so far..



Stephen Bain <stephen.bain at gmail.com>: 

>I'll give the IANAL disclaimer right up top here.
>On 4/1/07, Samuel Klein <meta.sj at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I don't know how much risk there really is here, or what kinds of case
>> studies in the rest of the real world represent parallels that might shed
>> light on the question.  This all seems rather hypothetical...
>The main issue is that CheckUser is governed by Foundation policy.
>Regular editing has legal consequences, of course, but the
>consequences can be borne only by the editor, and not by the
>So the issue with CheckUser is the Foundation's legal exposure.
>Whatever it may be, it is likely lessened if CheckUsers are not
>Stephen Bain
>stephen.bain at gmail.com

More information about the foundation-l mailing list