[Foundation-l] checkuser

[Florence Devouard]

Nathan Carter 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.
> 
>> 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


As a reminder, current text of the resolution


The ombudsman commission will offer a sympathetic ear to those reporting 
an abuse of the Wikimedia Foundation privacy policy on any of Wikimedia 
project.
The ombudsman will take charge of investigating cases of privacy policy 
breach or checkuser abuse for the board in an official manner. He will 
mediate between the complainant and the respondant (checkuser, arbcom 
member, bureaucrat or sysop). When legally necessary, the ombudsman will 
assist the legal commmittee or the legal officer or the executive 
director to handle the case.
When the case is litigious, the ombudsman will be in charge to educate 
checkusers or others about the Foundation privacy policy.
When the privacy policy has been breached, the commission should report 
to the Executive Director and recommand a course of action (such as 
removal of checkuser status).
Additionaly, the commission might have a sort of "overview" over the way 
the checkuser system works and should offer suggestions of suitable 
modifications of policies or recommandations of software changes.
An Ombudsman's Investigation shall be conducted in a manner determined 
by the Ombudsman and which will be fair and impartial .

I am not convinced it is entirely clear if the role is limited to 
investigating abuse related to "privacy policy" or if it also includes 
abuse related to misuse of the tool (eg, deciding to investigate a case 
without ground).

ant