[Foundation-l] Re: checkUser live

Tue Nov 8 17:04:38 UTC 2005

Chris Jenkinson wrote:

> Anthere wrote:
> 
>> I guess that most points you are raising do not really belong to the 
>> checkuser policy proper, but to the privacy policy.
>>
>> More particular, these points are visible here : 
>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Privacy_policy#Policy_on_release_of_data_derived_from_page_logs 
> 
> 
> 
> That is exactly the same text as the text I was questioning - it's just 
> as vague.

It is just as vague, because it is a copy of what the privacy policy 
says... :)

And yes, I agree, this is vague ----> to be discussed on the talk page.

(note : I did not write the privacy policy. Could Soufron or one of our 
legal persons help here ?)

>>> What does "If the user has said they're from somewhere and the IP 
>>> confirms it, it's not releasing private information to confirm it if 
>>> needed." mean?
>>
>>
>> Well... I live in Clermont Ferrand and published this information 
>> myself. If for some reasons a check is done on my user:Anthere, I can 
>> not complain that it be publicly revealed that the user:Anthere ips 
>> are leading to Clermont Ferrand...
> 
> 
> What happens if someone claims they are from somewhere (for example 
> France), yet the IP address of the user suggests they are from somewhere 
> else (for example Japan)?

Then I suppose it should be publicly said that the ip does not seem to 
sign a presence in France, but rather in Japan. If the person is 
suspected to be a sock puppet of someone in Japan, it may leads to high 
suspicions of sockpuppetry, both because of the common country and 
because of the lie. But the ip number should not be published.

Note that in case of pure mass vandalism, when range ips blocks are 
necessary, this will be nevertheless visible.

>>> What does "generally" in "Revealing the country is generally not 
>>> personally identifiable (e.g. "User:Querulous is coming in from the 
>>> UK, User:Sockpuppet is coming in from Canada")." mean?
>>
>>
>> The problem with releasing data is to allow others to identify a 
>> "person". If my ip is fixed and if I edit under another name, such as 
>> user:antfish, the check will reveal that user:anthere and user:antfish 
>> are editing from the same ip... which could lead to high suspicion 
>> that both are the same editor.
>>
>> Versus, if it is revealed that user:antfish is an editor with an ip in 
>> France... well, we are only 60 millions or so. This will not publicly 
>> prove I am user:Antfish.
> 
> 
> I don't think you've defined "generally" there.

No. I suggest you ask to the original author of that sentence. I think 
it is David. Otherwise, perhaps Datrio, I did not check.

>>> I'm still not happy with the idea that access to personal information 
>>> can be given to people on the say-so that they will behave. Yes, the 
>>> people who this will be given to are going to be some of the most 
>>> trustworthy Wikipedians there are, but this is *personal 
>>> information*. We should have some kind of legal agreement in place so 
>>> there are no excuses.
>>
>>
>> Difficult to do as I understood...
>> Amongst things we could do for example, is to require an editor with 
>> this type of access to provide his real name (privately) and a valid 
>> email. And have him confirm by email that he read the privacy policy. 
>> Would that be an idea ? Yes ? No ?
> 
> 
> How is signing an agreement difficult? You get sent the agreement via 
> email, print it off, sign it, scan it and email it back. Or, print it 
> off and fax/post it back.
> 
> Chris

I remember there was some discussions on this proposal somewhere, but I 
can't find it anymore :-( At least, not on meta.

Perhaps those who commented at that time could repeat their arguments to 
Chris ?

Personnaly, I have no specific opinion either direction.

Ant