[Foundation-l] Fwd: Jimbo's response re:Rampant Checkuser Privacy Abuse

Wed Dec 12 17:32:54 UTC 2007

Hoi,
Why is this exclusively en.wikipedia issue discussed on Foundation-l ???
Thanks,
     GerardM

On Dec 12, 2007 5:37 PM, Michael Bimmler <mbimmler at gmail.com> wrote:

> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: dee dee <strategicdesign2001 at yahoo.com>
> Date: Dec 12, 2007 3:06 AM
> Subject: Re: Jimbo's response re:Rampant Checkuser Privacy Abuse
> To: foundation-l-owner at lists.wikimedia.org
>
>
> Four brief points:
> 1: I think the primary issue here is the appearance that
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CHECKUSER
>
> gives to the community and the public of a completely transparent and
> open Checkuser request process when the discussions have shown that,as
> Thatcher131said,
>
> "The vast majority of checks are run following talk page, email or IRC
> requests to the checkusers. WP:RFCU is a backup;.."
>
> or as JzG|Guy said at
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29&diff=175094292&oldid=175081431
>
> "The vast majority of checkuser requests are, and always have been,
> performed quietly and without a request at RFCU."
>
> At the very,very least there should be an acknowledgement at
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CHECKUSER
>
> that there is also a parallel "back channel"(Guy's phraseology) method
> of requesting and processing CHECKUSER activity which is not
> transparent to the general Wikipedia community nor the public.
>
> 2: In addition, this section of
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CHECKUSER
>
> "Privacy violation?
>
>    * If you feel that a checkuser has led to a violation of the
> Wikimedia Foundation privacy policy regarding yourself, please refer
> the case to the Ombudsman commission."
>
> is something I find to be quite Orwellian. How can someone report a
> privacy violation if they do not know that checkuser has been used on
> them?
>
> 3: A third aspect is that it seems these "private" Checkuser checks
> are being used frivolously on brand new Users to effect 1 second
> blocks for "scrutiny" reasons and the Checkuser usage is being so
> poorly documented that sometimes no one even knows who used the tool
> as shown here:
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive113#False_Block
>
> Therefore, there should also be full disclosure to all new Users that
> Checkuser could be used without their knowledge on the basis of
> suspicion at any time after  they open a Wikipedia account.
>
> 4: I also think User Risker's comments about the privacy aspect have
> merit:
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29&diff=175145692&oldid=175131016
>
> dee dee
>
>
> Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote: In English Wikipedida, ArbCom is
> a good place to go for this sort of thing.
>
> However, having reviewed checkuser policy, I see absolutely nothing even
> close to a policy violation here.
>
> "Notification to the account that is checked is permitted but is not
> mandatory. Similarly, notification of the check to the community is not
> mandatory, but may be done subject to the provisions of the privacy
> policy."
>
> I strongly support this element of the policy.
>
>
>
> Cary Bass wrote:
> > dee dee wrote:
> >> Hi, I think the Stewards have authority in this matter. The Ombudsman
> >> Commission seems to accept these clandestine Checkuser requests but I
> >> doubt the Stewards will. I hope you will forward my message to them so
> >> they can decide for themselves.
> >>
> > Hi again, dee dee.
> >
> > Being a steward myself, I responded to you in that capacity. I'm sorry
> > my signature didn't indicate such, but I'll mention it again.
> >
> > You seem to be mistaken about the function of stewards. Why don't you
> > read the relevant page on meta, here:
> >
> >
> > The stewards have no authority over the checkusers or checkuser policy.
> > There is no steward committee, only a mailing list where the stewards
> > can share their thoughts, actions, etc.
> >
> > Where there is a local policy in place, the stewards have no authority
> > over local policy.
> >
> > Where there is a function policy in place (like checkuser), the stewards
> > have no authority over that function policy.
> >
> > Short of suggestion you address it to the local Arbcom or the Checkuser
> > Ombudsman Commission, there is nothing any steward on this list can do
> > for you.
> >
>
> foundation-l-owner at lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
>  Due to a large amount of spam, emails from non-members of this list
> are now automatically rejected. If you have a valuable contribution to
> the list but would rather not subscribe to it, please sent an email to
> foundation-l-owner at lists.wikimedia.org and we will forward your post
> to the list. Please be aware that all messages to this list are
> archived and viewable for the public. If you have a confidential
> communication to make, please rather email info at wikimedia.org
>
> Thank you.
>
> Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 12:58:36 -0800 (PST)
> From: dee dee <strategicdesign2001 at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Rampant Checkuser Privacy Abuse
> To: foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>
>  In regards to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CHECKUSER
>
> ''''Privacy violation?
> If you feel that a checkuser has led to a violation of the Wikimedia
> Foundation privacy policy regarding yourself, please refer the case to
> the Ombudsman commission.''''
>
> Please note that so-called "private" uses of checkuser are occurring
> and tolerated as seen here:
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#False_Block
>
> How can someone report a privacy violation if they do not know that
> checkuser has been used?
>
>
>
>  ________________________________
> Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try
> it now.
>
>
>
>  ________________________________
> Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>