[Foundation-l] checkuser

[Nathan Carter]

On 7/29/07, Nathan Carter <cartmanau at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/29/07, Florence Devouard <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > Greetings,
> >
> > I got several requests about this, so this mail is mostly to get the
> > ball rolling. Nothing urgent !
> >
> > Checkuser ombudsmen have been appointed now a year ago by the board.
> > http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Ombudsperson_checkuser
> >
> > I guess it is time for a renewal and little feedback on this, and more
> > generally, on checkusers.
> >
> > So, please reflect on the following points if appropriate
> >
> > 1. is there any change to the checkuser policy that you might wish to
> > suggest ? If so, please comment here:
> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Checkuser (talk page)
>
>
> I believe that the current Checkuser policy is adequate and explains
> rights and responsibilities well.
>
> >3. are they inactive checkusers ? If so, according to policy, they
> >should be removed. Can someone make a summary of activity, in the same
> >way that stewards activity perhaps ?
> We should be reviewing inactive Checkusers periodically
>
> >4. is there any change to the privacy policy that you might wish to
> >suggest ? If so, http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy
> >(talk page)
> Same as the Checkuser policy
>
> >5. is there any change to suggest about the ombudsmen committee role ?
> >Clarifications ? If so, please here:
> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ombudsman_committee (talk page).
> I would like to request some clarification on our role as I am sure the
> community at large wishes. Going by the number of complaints I feel that it
> has only been recently  that users have become aware of the ombudsman
> committee, that said there is confusion over what it does. Do we only
> investigate privacy issues or Checkuser policy violations as well? My
> interpretation is that we are certainly empowered to deal with the first but
> the second is unclear. At the moment I deal with the second as more of an
> educatory role, liasing between CUs and the user involved.
>

I should note that while Checkuser abuse was included in the board's
resolution, there seems to be a slight disagreeance about this both within
the community and among ombudsman members. It is thought that the
interpretation extends to cover only those cases where privacy was breached
when using the CU tools.

 >6. last year, ombudsmen committee was appointed by the board. Maybe this
> >year, we can do it differently, and have the community approve/vote
> >people and Foundation "sanctify" the community choice ? If so, how would
> >you suggest doing that ? Similar that steward election ? Or is there
> >another preferred solution ?
> I am happy either way for this...
>
> Cheers,
> Nathan Carter (Cartman02au)
> Ombudsmen committee member
>