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

Sun Nov 23 17:54:04 UTC 2008

This is more of an en.WP issue not a foundation one.  En.WP can change local policy to require that checkuser requests are logged on-wiki if that is what the community wants.  Various wikis have different policies regarding these issues.  I don't see why we should debate en.WP's particular version of policy here. 

Brigitte SB

--- On Sun, 11/23/08, Foundation-l list admin <foundation-l-owner at lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:

> From: Foundation-l list admin <foundation-l-owner at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Have you dealt with this yet? If so,how?
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Date: Sunday, November 23, 2008, 11:06 AM
> (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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l