[Foundation-l] Stewards are ignoring requests for CheckUser information?

Sun Apr 16 07:30:59 UTC 2006

Many Chinese editors, including me, have the same concern as what
Essjay said, and that is why we currently do not have any checkusers
local to zhwiki
(http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Checkuser). People worry
about the possibility that the IP addresses of registered users may be
leaked to evil hands or regimes (the currently ruling Chinese
Communist Party is exercising more and more control over Internet for
its own interests); if that happened, both the individuals and the
Foundation would suffer; although the chance is low, one incident
would be enough. Currently, we give our trust to the few users
appointed by the Foundation, so I think that any new procedures for
cross-project checkusers need to put this worry in consideration. (The
Chinese community continue to debate whether we really need local
checkusers and what more stringent selecting criteria and monitoring
procedures for local checkusers should be adopted.)

roc (zh:User:R.O.C)
--

2006/4/15, Essjay <essjaywiki at gmail.com>:
> I don't know that the issue that concerns me is the same that concerns
> the Foundation, but I know what scares the hell out of me about
> Checkuser is this:
>
> We have users from all over the world. Not all of them live in countries
> where their safety is guaranteed; there are, most assuredly, editors
> from regimes where if their personal information was discovered, they
> could be imprisoned and perhaps even killed. That terrifies me, because
> I don't want anybody dying over Wikipedia, nor do I want them to end up
> in prison. If checkuser falls into the wrong hands (I'm no conspiracy
> theorist, but I don't think it's too hard to imagine foreign governments
> wanting to hunt down our contributors; after all, at least two have
> blocked us flat out already), the result could literally be a matter of
> life and death. *Life and death.*
>
> Some people have advocated granting checkuser liberally, and I disagree
> strongly with that; I'm not even particularly comfortable with the idea
> of it being election-based at all, although I trust the Board, and I
> don't believe they would have allowed for local elections if they
> weren't convinced it was safe. I do think, however, that it should be
> kept to as few users as possible, whether that means having guest
> checkusers as Kelly & I have advocated, or whether it means some  other
> system. I for one am certainly willing to perform checks for other
> projects (indeed, I offered to do so for Wikisource), and I am sure that
> some of the others would as well (Kelly has already stated her
> willingness to do so).
>
> As I said, I can't say that the dire scenario I laid out above is what
> the Board has in the back of their minds when thinking about checkuser,
> but I certainly know it is what is in mine. I really don't want to turn
> on CNN some morning and see "[Insert country here] dissident
> assassinated after link to Wikipedia discovered."
>
> Essjay
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay
> Wikipedia:The Free Encyclopedia
> http://www.wikipedia.org/
>
>
>
> Robert Scott Horning wrote:
> > Anthere wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Hi
> >>
> >> Let me try to address your various points the best I can.
> >>
> >> Robert Scott Horning wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> Anthere wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> The reason for the 25 votes limit comes from two reasons
> >>>> * A community with less than 25 users is unlikely to really need
> >>>> frequent checkusers, because it is a project with reduced activity. So,
> >>>> it can not be a heavy load for stewards.
> >>>> * A community with less than 25 users has a rather serious risk to have
> >>>> a rather little known editor become a checkuser, rather than a trusted
> >>>> oldbie. If we start handing out status just as we do for sysop status on
> >>>> small projects, I think there will be abuse. I say this from my
> >>>> experience, as I had to unsysop several sysops on small projects (the
> >>>> guys did not know our basic rules, behaved like dictators with the
> >>>> handful of editors, put advertisements on the main page, controlled povs
> >>>> etc...).
> >>>>
> >>>> I am perplex that the en.wikibooks does not have a big enough base of
> >>>> editors to vote on a check user...
> >>>> I am quite lazy, so I will not go to the stats page to check. But can
> >>>> you roughly say how many active editors per month the project currently
> >>>> has ? How many very active editors per month ?
> >>>>
> >>>> ant
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> Since the stats page hasn't been updated since November of last year, it
> >>> is completely useless to even gague what the current activity is on any
> >>> Wikimedia project.  I can only use the current activity on the Wikibooks
> >>> staff lounge to even remotely gague what the current user activity level
> >>> is, but I would guess it is pretty close to about 20 user at the
> >>> absolute top.  Really stretching it perhaps we can get to 25 total at
> >>> the most.
> >>>
> >>> And as for advertising this, I guess we could put it in bold 40 point
> >>> type on the project main page with a link to a special page only for
> >>> this kind of request.  I think that is way over the top and something
> >>> that is not needed in this situation.  The advertising was more than
> >>> adequate, it is just that this is a very unreasonable request.
> >>>
> >>> As for a "community with less than 25 users unlikely needing frequent
> >>> checkuser scans", I think this is mistaken totally what is going on.
> >>> en.wikibooks has numerous links from within Wikipedia, and is being
> >>> hammered by vandals that have moved on from Wikipedia, indeed with
> >>> excellent training on how to be a vandal on Wikipedia, and taking on
> >>> other projects as well that don't have quite the same pool of
> >>> administrators.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> I see.
> >> Perhaps the number 25 was too high then. That would tend to suggest this.
> >> But again, let me explain why we put a minimum limit. We have some small
> >> projects with a number of editors of less than 5. What usually happens
> >> is that the most active one simply ask sysop status (and even sometimes
> >> bureaucrat status) on meta because their project *need* a sysop. Which
> >> means the status is given without any community voting whatsoever.
> >> Sometimes, when it is a new language in particular, the editor has been
> >> on our projects only for a couple of days and have no idea of our basic
> >> rules of operating whatsoever (npov in particular).
> >> More than once, we had problems later on. And it was not always easy for
> >> the very small growing community to have a black sheep unsysoped.
> >>
> >> What I think should NOT be allowed to happen, ever, is that the new
> >> wikiquote project in maori be created, and a total stranger be given
> >> sysop, bureaucrat and checkuser status so that he can start the
> >> community. In short, I think that only editors known by a significant
> >> number of other editors should ever be given checkuser access. Hence the
> >> 25 votes. Which may be too high a value.
> >>
> >>
> >> So, option 1 : decreasing the number of votes requirements.
> >>
> >> Now, there are other options we could follow.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > I would suggest that the standards for becoming a bureaucrat should be
> > much higher for brand new projects in this case, and this is perhaps
> > something that needs to be established on a Wikimedia-wide policy as
> > well and not just on a project by project basis.  The point about
> > becoming a bureaucrat is that they have the ability to create other
> > administrators and are presumed to be users trusted enough that they not
> > only have full editorial control over a project to do all of the
> > administrator functions, but they also have the ability to create more
> > administrators.  The charges of a cabal in some cases are justified when
> > you grant bureaucratship to somebody when there is no other means of
> > oversight about what they are doing, and they in turn grant adminship to
> > others with their same point of view but refuse to grant it to others
> > that have a different point of view, and for that reason alone.  This
> > has happened on some of the smaller projects, especially in languages
> > that Foundation board members don't speak fluently and can't monitor
> > directly.
> >
> >
> >>> As for handing out checkuser status to people who are not trusted
> >>> oldies, that is totally rediculous as well.  There are admins and
> >>> bureaucrats on en.wikibooks who are also admins on other projects,
> >>> including meta, wikinews, and even en.wikipedia.  Active ones at that.
> >>> I see absolutely no reason why the standards for giving somebody
> >>> bureaucrat status when you can't also give them checkuser status.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> I do not know what are the standards for giving bureaucrat status.
> >> I think they are not the same at all depending on projects.
> >>
> >> I see a **major** reason for the standards for giving bureaucrat status
> >> to be different from the standards for giving checkuser status.
> >>
> >> The standards for giving bureaucrat status are different in each project
> >> and each language. On one project, it will be a vote by all editors of a
> >> project. On another project, it will be a vote by administrators only.
> >> On another project, it might even be a vote by other bureaucrats. Or it
> >> might be no vote at all (just ask on meta). It may be 80% support. It
> >> may be 66%. There are no standards.
> >>
> >> But if the bureaucrat makes a mess, it is a technical/community issue.
> >> Only the projects can be damaged (which is bad enough). So, it is the
> >> community business to define its own rules.
> >>
> >> If a checkuser makes a mess, the Foundation itself may be concerned. We
> >> might have problems with an editor for release of private data. So, the
> >> Foundation has a right to have a say in WHO is granted this access.
> >> Hence the policy being *more* standard.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > I'm not really understanding this point of view here.  Under what area
> > is the Foundation directly threatened when this release of private data
> > occurs?  It is still a technical/community issue with the checkuser
> > data, and people with checkuser rights can still only do the scan only
> > on registered users for their individual project.  This might be a much
> > bigger concern if they had access to the general Wikimedia user
> > database, such as is being proposed with the common login project.  In
> > this situation where somebody with checkuser rights could access the
> > data on not just the users for their individual project but for anybody
> > on any Wikimedia project, you are correct that the standards should be
> > much higher.... indeed IMHO higher than perhaps even becoming a steward.
> >  That is not the situation right now, from my understanding.
> >
> > If I take the presumption that the current process of becoming a
> > registered user is still going to continue for some time, and somebody
> > with local checkuser status can only do a checkuser scan on that much
> > smaller group of users, I fail to see where the Foundation is really
> > going to be hurt if they get out of control.  The privacy policy is that
> > reasonable steps are going to happen to protect private data, but you
> > should be aware that if you log onto any website, including Amazon.com,
> > Google, CNN, Microsoft, BBC, or whatever including hackerz.com, that
> > your IP address is going to be logged together with whatever activity
> > that you do on that website.  And that information may be released to
> > interested government agencies.  All the Foundation is promising is that
> > some sort of due process is going to happen before that information is
> > released, like a supeona, and that the information may also be used
> > internally for the protection of the project, such as performing
> > checkuser scans.
> >
> > Indeed the current privacy policy doesn't even do that.  It is really
> > just a disclaimer that the data is going to be logged, and that if you
> > don't like it, you shouldn't be logging into any Wikimedia server.
> >  There are some "policies" that go into more depth about how some of
> > this data is protected, but this is more for how the Foundation is going
> > to respond to outside groups that insist on obtaining this information,
> > including not only legal proceedings but also marketing consultants and
> > outside businesses who want to do data mining on the access logs.  I
> > think it is a prudent policy in this regard.
> >
> > One thing to keep in mind is that the "personally identifying data"
> > isn't protected that well for editors.  Every editor has all of their
> > edit information logged, and not only is it logged but the information
> > is actually published in a very public area for all people to see.
> >  Indeed for most editors, the information is not only logged, but logged
> > according to IP address as well.  Only for those who have bothered to
> > become a registered user is the information partially protected, and it
> > is only on this very limited set of circumstances that the checkuser
> > policy even starts to apply.  And for many others (including myself),
> > not only by handle but it is logged by their actual legal name.  BTW,
> > this is a conscious decision I made when I created my account, knowing
> > the legal implications.
> >
> > Furthermore, somebody with checkuser privileges still don't have access
> > to the the full access logs.  Having checkuser status, I can't see what
> > pages another user has been looking at or reading.  All I can do is just
> > see what pages they have been editing, which doesn't require checkuser
> > status... or even any kind of special status on Wikimedia projects, and
> > if they happen to be a registered user, and if they happened to have
> > done something that looks suspicious, all I get to find out with the
> > increased privilege of the checkuser policy is just a list of IP
> > addresses that they have logged in the local project under.  Or just the
> > last IP address depending on the technical side and how far this should
> > go.  No other identifying information is given.  I can't get the e-mail
> > address of the person, nor can I get any of the information on
> > [[Special:Preferences]], including perhaps even mundane but identifying
> > information like what time zone they live in or what their language
> > preference is.
> >
> > In short, I fail to see where the liability is to the Foundation is
> > under even the most egregious of abuses, and even that can be dealt with
> > mostly by technical limitation, including perhaps a system that limits
> > somebody with checkuser privileges to only a limited number of checkuser
> > scans per day or some other limiting factor to keep major abuses from
> > happening.  I'm also pointing out that smaller projects are going to
> > have proportionally much smaller numbers of users and their ability to
> > damage all of the Wikimedia projects is going to also be proportionally
> > less.  Using your example of the Maori Wikibooks user request to become
> > admin, bureaucrat, and checkuser... all they are going to do is find the
> > IP addresses of the five or six people who even bothered to register on
> > that local project.  Is that really a problem?
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>