[Foundation-l] checkuser

[Casey Brown]

I agree that the Ombudsman committee are supposed to hear all privacy policy
violations, and that this includes things other than CheckUser.  The only
thing is, most of these disputes arise from a CheckUser, which is the most
public item on our list of possible privacy policy violations.

Casey Brown
Cbrown1023

-----Original Message-----
From: foundation-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:foundation-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Dmcdevit
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2007 7:10 AM
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] checkuser

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

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l