[Foundation-l] checkuser

Sun Jul 29 02:52:21 UTC 2007

On Jul 28, 2007, at 8:15 PM, Gwern Branwen wrote:

> On  0, Dan Rosenthal <swatjester at gmail.com> scribbled:
>>
>> On Jul 28, 2007, at 7:13 PM, elisabeth bauer wrote:
>>
>>> 2007/7/29, Florence Devouard <Anthere9 at yahoo.com>:
>>>> 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
>>>
>>> I'd like to add one point:
>>> Could the ombudsmen please provide a report on the mailing list
>>> (without going into private details of course) how many cases they
>>> have handled, what have been the issues and how they have been
>>> resolved?
>>>
>>> greetings,
>>> elian
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I can't see why that would be necessary. Considering the ombudsman
>> commission is there to investigate breaches of privacy policy,
>> including potentionally litigious instances (as taken from the
>> resolution), I don't see what's necessary out of that for the public
>> to be aware of. I don't see much information would be available to be
>> given about the cases individually due to privacy concerns: what
>> little information would be left is what...how many cases there are?
>
> Trust but verify, Reagan famously said.
>
> How on earth could anyone possibly assess how the ombudsmen have  
> done without them reporting? (Granting that as you say the  
> individual cases are hardly likely to report both because it'd be a  
> biased and otherwise untrustworthy sample of cases and because of  
> privacy problems for themselves.)
>
> We need clear reports for the wider community to see and judge,  
> otherwise ombudsmen are the independent watchdog that don't bark.  
> It's fine to say trust them, that respected community members are  
> no doubt keeping track of what they are doing or not doing - but  
> the judgements of such persons are not necessarily that of the  
> community; I believe Jayg recently illustrated this principle quite  
> adequately.
>
> --
> gwern
> hrt srt hostages munitions weapons TNT rdx amfo hmtd
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Gwern: thing is though, I don't believe it's for the community to  
judge ombudsmen, especially given the incomplete information the  
community will have due to privacy issues. As to who's role it will  
be to judge them I don't know...Mike's, the office's, the board's,  
some other independent committee etc. Someone who is allowed to have  
access to such information, and therefore can make an informed  
decision about the ombudsmen's handling of cases, rather than  
incomplete decisions based on partial information.

-Dan Rosenthal