[Foundation-l] checkuser

[Dmcdevit]

oscar van dillen wrote:
> On 7/30/07, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
>   
>> On 7/29/07, Florence Devouard <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>     
>>> Greetings,
>>>
>>> I got several requests about this, so this mail is mostly to get the
>>> ball rolling. Nothing urgent !
>>>
>>> Checkuser ombudsmen have been appointed now a year ago by the board.
>>> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Ombudsperson_checkuser
>>>
>>> I guess it is time for a renewal and little feedback on this, and more
>>> generally, on checkusers.
>>>       
>> Is there currently a similar role for the oversight (hiding revisions)
>> feature? If not, I believe it should be created alongside the next
>> update to the policy.
>> --
>> Toward Peace, Love & Progress:
>> Erik
>>     
>
>
> good idea! yet while we are at it, may i please i suggest to consider having
> just ONE such body for ALL onwiki privacy-sensitive matters.
> one [[Privacy_Ombudsman_Commission]] or whatever it will be called.
> imho one will do, i fail to see why we would need a separate one for each
> software-function.
>   
If you read the resolution, you'll see that that is what the Ombudsman 
Commission is. Oversight users could conceivably use the access to 
divulge previously oversighted sensitive material, which would be a 
privacy matter (note that this does not appear to be a violation of our 
privacy policy as written, and I think it should be, along with similar 
breaches by those with developer and OTRS access). The Ombudsman 
Commission are already the ones to contact about that, though in 
practice most of their complaints will come from CheckUser. For 
non-privacy misuses of oversight (like removing something that shouldn't 
have been), local projects can deal with it adequately enough, I think, 
just like adminisrator abuse, and as should be the case for non-privacy 
CheckUser misuse.

Dominic