Mailing List Archive: Fwd: Have you dealt with this yet? If so,how?

Fwd: Have you dealt with this yet? If so,how?

Nov 23, 2008, 9:06 AM

Post #1 of 7 (812 views)

(2nd try, hope it isn't a duplicate)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: dee dee <strategicdesign2001@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 5:06 PM
Subject: Have you dealt with this yet? If so,how?
To: foundation-l-owner@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

--- On Tue, 12/11/07, dee dee <strategicdesign2001@yahoo.com> wrote:

> From: dee dee <strategicdesign2001@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: Jimbo's response re:Rampant Checkuser Privacy Abuse
> To: foundation-l-owner@lists.wikimedia.org
> Date: Tuesday, December 11, 2007, 9:06 PM
> 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@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@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@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@wikimedia.org
>
> Thank you.
>
> Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 12:58:36 -0800 (PST)
> From: dee dee <strategicdesign2001@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Rampant Checkuser Privacy Abuse
> To: foundation-l@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.

--
Michael Bimmler
mbimmler@gmail.com

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Fwd: Have you dealt with this yet? If so,how? [ In reply to ]

foundation-l-owner at lists

Nov 23, 2008, 9:03 AM

Post #2 of 7 (786 views)

Permalink

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: dee dee <strategicdesign2001@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 5:06 PM
Subject: Have you dealt with this yet? If so,how?
To: foundation-l-owner@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

--- On Tue, 12/11/07, dee dee <strategicdesign2001@yahoo.com> wrote:

> From: dee dee <strategicdesign2001@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: Jimbo's response re:Rampant Checkuser Privacy Abuse
> To: foundation-l-owner@lists.wikimedia.org
> Date: Tuesday, December 11, 2007, 9:06 PM
> 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@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@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@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@wikimedia.org
>
> Thank you.
>
> Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 12:58:36 -0800 (PST)
> From: dee dee <strategicdesign2001@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Rampant Checkuser Privacy Abuse
> To: foundation-l@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.

--
Michael Bimmler
mbimmler@gmail.com

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Fwd: Have you dealt with this yet? If so,how? [ In reply to ]

foundation-l-owner at lists

Nov 23, 2008, 9:03 AM

Post #3 of 7 (787 views)

Permalink

Re: Fwd: Have you dealt with this yet? If so,how? [ In reply to ]

birgitte_sb at yahoo

Nov 23, 2008, 9:54 AM

Post #4 of 7 (793 views)

Permalink

This is more of an en.WP issue not a foundation one. En.WP can change local policy to require that checkuser requests are logged on-wiki if that is what the community wants. Various wikis have different policies regarding these issues. I don't see why we should debate en.WP's particular version of policy here.

Brigitte SB

--- On Sun, 11/23/08, Foundation-l list admin <foundation-l-owner@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:

> From: Foundation-l list admin <foundation-l-owner@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Have you dealt with this yet? If so,how?
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Date: Sunday, November 23, 2008, 11:06 AM
> (2nd try, hope it isn't a duplicate)
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: dee dee <strategicdesign2001@yahoo.com>
> Date: Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 5:06 PM
> Subject: Have you dealt with this yet? If so,how?
> To: foundation-l-owner@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
>
> --- On Tue, 12/11/07, dee dee
> <strategicdesign2001@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > From: dee dee <strategicdesign2001@yahoo.com>
> > Subject: Re: Jimbo's response re:Rampant Checkuser
> Privacy Abuse
> > To: foundation-l-owner@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Date: Tuesday, December 11, 2007, 9:06 PM
> > 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@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@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@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@wikimedia.org
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> > Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 12:58:36 -0800 (PST)
> > From: dee dee <strategicdesign2001@yahoo.com>
> > Subject: Rampant Checkuser Privacy Abuse
> > To: foundation-l@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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Michael Bimmler
> mbimmler@gmail.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: Fwd: Have you dealt with this yet? If so,how? [ In reply to ]

mrzmanwiki at gmail

Nov 23, 2008, 10:38 AM

Post #5 of 7 (795 views)

Permalink

Foundation-l list admin wrote:
> (2nd try, hope it isn't a duplicate)
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: dee dee <strategicdesign2001@yahoo.com>
> Date: Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 5:06 PM
> Subject: Have you dealt with this yet? If so,how?
> To: foundation-l-owner@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> 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?
>

Based on my reading of the privacy policy[1], specifically:
"When using a pseudonym, your IP address will not be available to the
public except in cases of abuse, including vandalism of a wiki page by
you or by another user with the same IP address. In all cases, your IP
address will be stored on the wiki servers and can be seen by
Wikimedia's server administrators and by users who have been granted
"CheckUser" access. Your IP address, and its connection to any usernames
that share it may be released under certain circumstances (see below)."

a checkuser using the checkuser tool, on its own, cannot be a privacy
policy violation, it cannot become one until they release some or all of
the data to people who would not normally have access to it.

It may be a violation of the Checkuser policy[2], as it says "There must
be a valid reason to check a user." but the checkuser policy seems to
agree with my interpretation of the privacy policy:
"On Wikimedia projects, privacy policy considerations are of tremendous
importance. Unless someone is violating policy with their actions (e.g.
massive bot vandalism or spam) and revealing information about them is
necessary to stop the disruption, it is a violation of the privacy
policy to reveal their IP, whereabouts, or other information sufficient
to identify them, unless they have already revealed this information
themselves on the project."

Nowhere does it says its a violation of the privacy policy simply to do
the check.

[1] <http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy>
[2] <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CheckUser>

--
Alex (wikipedia:en:User:Mr.Z-man)

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Fwd: Have you dealt with this yet? If so,how? [ In reply to ]

foundation-l-owner at lists

Nov 27, 2008, 7:21 AM

Post #6 of 7 (752 views)

Permalink

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: dee dee <strategicdesign2001@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 4:14 PM
Subject: Have you dealt with this yet? If so,how?
To: foundation-l-owner@lists.wikimedia.org

I think the overall project ( Wikimedia Foundation) may have substantial
responsibility and negative exposure in this matter whether the En.WP
"community" or even Mr. Wales has a problem with it or not. Exposure
in the areas of privacy expectations and rules as well as misrepresentation (the
conflict between the stated checkuser protocol and the actual more secretive
protocol). Therefore, you have a responsibility for Wikimedia which requires
your involvement in addressing this protocol on EnWP which, according to the
En.WP "community" itself, -see below-, is casual,arbitrary and
publicly misleading.

So I think the very least the Foundation should do is have your
(Wikimedia's) legal department look at the
situation.

--- On Sun, 11/23/08, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb@yahoo.com> wrote:

> From: Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Have you dealt with this yet? If so,how?
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
<foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Cc: strategicdesign2001@yahoo.com
> Date: Sunday, November 23, 2008, 12:54 PM
> This is more of an en.WP issue not a foundation one. En.WP
> can change local policy to require that checkuser requests
> are logged on-wiki if that is what the community wants.
> Various wikis have different policies regarding these
> issues. I don't see why we should debate en.WP's
> particular version of policy here.
>
> Brigitte SB
>
> --- On Sun, 11/23/08, Foundation-l list admin
> <foundation-l-owner@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> > From:
Foundation-l list admin
> <foundation-l-owner@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > Subject: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Have you dealt with this
> yet? If so,how?
> > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
> <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > Date: Sunday, November 23, 2008, 11:06 AM
> > (2nd try, hope it isn't a duplicate)
> >
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: dee dee <strategicdesign2001@yahoo.com>
> > Date: Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 5:06 PM
> > Subject: Have you dealt with this yet? If so,how?
> > To: foundation-l-owner@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
> >
> > --- On Tue, 12/11/07, dee dee
> > <strategicdesign2001@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > From: dee dee
> <strategicdesign2001@yahoo.com>
> > > Subject: Re: Jimbo's response re:Rampant
> Checkuser
> > Privacy Abuse
> > > To: foundation-l-owner@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Date: Tuesday, December 11, 2007, 9:06 PM
> > > 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@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@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@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@wikimedia.org
> > >
> > > Thank you.
> > >
> > > Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 12:58:36 -0800 (PST)
> > > From: dee dee
> <strategicdesign2001@yahoo.com>
> > > Subject: Rampant Checkuser Privacy Abuse
> > > To: foundation-l@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.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Michael Bimmler
> > mbimmler@gmail.com
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe:
> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

--
Michael Bimmler
mbimmler@gmail.com

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l