On 8/13/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/13/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
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.
I'd disagree; inappropriate use of checkuser in a way that breaches the privacy policy is a violation of the privacy policy. However, many uses of checkuser that might be questioned are not breaches of the privacy policy as currently formulated.
-Matt
But that's the out, only breaches of checkuser that breach "privacy policy is a violation of privacy policy." So, if a checkuser stumbles upon some information about you, that isn't covered by privacy policy, and WHILE NOT RUNNING A CHECK USER ON YOU, there's never going to be an invasion of privacy policy.
So, nicely offering to share results about someone to others with check user status on this list serve is not a violation of privacy policy.
It's a load of shit constituted by people who should never trusted with ensuring anyone's privacy, but it's not a violation of privacy policy.
It's an outrageous and childish abuse of powers. Checkuser isn't a game or a private toy, and Wikipedia should NOT consider people's privacy a toy that certain "trusted" folks are given the power to play with.
No good can come of this abuse--it's going to become an ugly scandal one day, as long as those with checkuser power keep treating it as a special little toy they have, and as long as Wikipedia has no privacy policy that protects users from information revealed incidently in check user cases.
KP