On 8/13/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/13/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
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.
Just as in the case where a non-checkuser discovers personal information about you while not running a checkuser. I'm not sure why you think checkusers should be barred from learning certain things NOT through the extra tools given. The special rules governing the use of checkuser govern only the use of the tool and the information obtained that way. Otherwise, the user is treated the same as a regular user or admin.
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.
Checkusers are allowed to share information with other checkusers. Non-checkusers can give us information. I cannot, however, reveal information obtained through checkuser, by myself or another, outside of 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.
I personally do not treat it as a game or a private toy.
However, your right to privacy on Wikipedia is not absolute. Especially, if you sockpuppet then that information can be revealed, and if you vandalize wikipedia information about you may be used to block your vandalism and track it.
-Matt
Actually, as to your last, no! If you use the same IP as a sockpuppet, information about you that is NOT available to anyone else on Wikipedia in any other way except checkuser, is now open to be revealed as long as you are not being checked or accused of sockpuppetry, and as long as the information is not strictly covered by the privacy policy for check user, which ONLY covers those who have been checked.
And enough checkuser have used it that way, have bandied it about like it's some private source of extraneous information about editors, that to say you personally don't treat it as a private toy or game is moot. If anyone is treating it this way, with impunity, it is a joke. And it is precisely the type of joke privacy policy that gets Wikipedia headlines for the inability to see what is obviously wrong and staring you in the face.
Either Wikipedia considers users privacy important or it doesn't. And, in this case it doesn't. I've never been the subject of a checkuser request, but if any information not strictly heald in privacy about me is revealed, that's too damned bad, because there is no privacy when it comes to checkuser.
It's not secure, it's not private, checkusers share information in a cavalier manner with other checkers just for curiosity. People trusted with it, as a group, showed no outrage at this, and still don't--it's going to bite Wikipedia hard, not having a privacy policy to protect users from people entrusted with the ability to invade their privacy.
Access to something like checkuser should be strictly limited, and 100% confined to what it is designed for. There should be no, "hey anyone who's curious, I can send you what I found out," no sudden revelations of Tors in RfAs, no debate about just where, if anywhere, people can go when incidental information about them is revealed, nothing that can be obtained ONLY through checkuser should ever be shared or revealed to another user for any reason not EXPLICITLY ALLOWED.
People think you can share a secret with one person. You can't. And Wikipedia is playing fast and loose with people's private information via its stunningly careless and childish checkuser privileges and policies. Either there is some privacy, or not. And, I'm not talking about sock puppets.
KP