[WikiEN-l] Checkuser for fun, for profit, for mild curiosity, for sharing, for whatever

[K P]

On 8/13/07, Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org> wrote:
> On 8/13/07, K P <kpbotany at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 8/13/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Seems like all it would take to solve this dilemma is an encrypted proxy
> > > > that delivers the decryption code(s) to the WMF developers.  So the editor
> > > > gets privacy from User:JoeSchmoe but Wikipedians with a certain level of
> > > > permissions could determine the point of origin.
> > >
> > > Logging in does exactly that. It hides your IP address from anyone
> > > without the checkuser bit.
> > >
> > > > Something like that would come in very handy for the editors from mainland
> > > > China, and a couple of smaller countries that firewall access.
> > >
> > > That's not a matter of hiding your identity, it's a matter of hiding
> > > the identity of the site you are viewing. Anonymous proxies/TOR do
> > > both, but they are different things.
> > >
> > Except this list has pretty much established to me that checkuser is
> > used to satisfy curiosity, to find out who is using Tors, and other
> > political reasons, so, logging in isn't any level of security, when it
> > isn't strictly used for its purposes.
> >
> Exactly.  Some of the people with checkuser can't be trusted.  Answer
> me this: has AB ever been checkusered?  Have I?
>
> The last time I alluded to people with checkuser abusing their power I
> was told privately to contact the privacy ombudsman.  But recent
> discussion on foundation-l has concluded that the privacy ombudsman
> has no power over inappropriate use of checkuser, because
> inappropriate use of checkuser is not a violation of the privacy
> policy.
>
Yes, it appears from reading that that is correct.

Abusing check user privileges to satisfy curioisity, as offered
recently on this list, and to gain information about who is using Tor
accounts, then publish that usage is not an abuse, or an actionable
abuse by the ombudsman, because the ombudsman is strictly limited to
assisting those users whose privacy has been abused, when they were
the subject of a checkuser.

And clearly ArbCom doesn't want to do anything serious about those
with checkuser privileges abusing it, as indicated by their silly
response to the Charlotte Webbe incident.

So, anything that isn't strictly covered by the limited scope of
privacy concerns and handled by the ombusdmans is fair game for
exposure on Wikipedia, except you might be admonished to not be a
drama king about it.  But you can still use your checkuser privileges
however you want, unconstrained by the intentions behind it.

So, we have users given immense power to violate the personal space of
other users, and we have no control over their use and abuse of that
power.

And, you don't even have to personally abuse your own checkuser power,
as shown by the recent e-mail where a user offered up his check user
results to others who e-mailed him, so they wouldn't personally have
to sully themselves by snooping--unbelievable.

So, are there privacy issues on Wikipedia? Damn straight, when huge
powers to invade others' privacy are given without restraints.  It
makes me wish I were savvy enough to use a Tor exit node.

KP