[Foundation-l] Fwd: Jimbo's response re:Rampant Checkuser Privacy Abuse

[Michael Bimmler]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: dee dee <strategicdesign2001 at yahoo.com>
Date: Dec 12, 2007 3:06 AM
Subject: Re: Jimbo's response re:Rampant Checkuser Privacy Abuse
To: foundation-l-owner at 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%29&diff=175094292&oldid=175081431

"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/Archive113#False_Block

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%29&diff=175145692&oldid=175131016

dee dee


Jimmy Wales <jwales at 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 at 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 at 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 at wikimedia.org

Thank you.

Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 12:58:36 -0800 (PST)
From: dee dee <strategicdesign2001 at yahoo.com>
Subject: Rampant Checkuser Privacy Abuse
To: foundation-l at 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_Block

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.