[Foundation-l] Fwd: Have you dealt with this yet? If so,how?

Sun Nov 23 17:06:32 UTC 2008

(2nd try, hope it isn't a duplicate)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: dee dee <strategicdesign2001 at yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 5:06 PM
Subject: Have you dealt with this yet? If so,how?
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

--- On Tue, 12/11/07, dee dee <strategicdesign2001 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> From: dee dee <strategicdesign2001 at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: Jimbo's response re:Rampant Checkuser Privacy Abuse
> To: foundation-l-owner at lists.wikimedia.org
> Date: Tuesday, December 11, 2007, 9:06 PM
> 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.

-- 
Michael Bimmler
mbimmler at gmail.com