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

Wed Dec 12 18:27:40 UTC 2007

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 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> ---------- 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.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l