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

Thu Nov 27 15:21:32 UTC 2008

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: dee dee <strategicdesign2001 at yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 4:14 PM
Subject: Have you dealt with this yet? If so,how?
To: foundation-l-owner at lists.wikimedia.org

I think the overall project ( Wikimedia Foundation) may have substantial
responsibility and negative exposure in this matter whether the En.WP
"community" or even Mr. Wales has a problem with it or not. Exposure
in the areas of privacy expectations and rules as well as misrepresentation (the
conflict between the stated checkuser protocol and the actual more secretive
protocol). Therefore, you have a responsibility for Wikimedia which requires
your involvement in addressing this protocol on EnWP which, according to the
En.WP "community" itself, -see below-, is casual,arbitrary and
publicly misleading.

So I think the very least the Foundation should do is have your
(Wikimedia's) legal department look at the
 situation.

--- On Sun, 11/23/08, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb at yahoo.com> wrote:

> From: Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Have you dealt with this yet? If so,how?
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
<foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Cc: strategicdesign2001 at yahoo.com
> Date: Sunday, November 23, 2008, 12:54 PM
> 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

-- 
Michael Bimmler
mbimmler at gmail.com