Mailing List Archive

Anthere wrote:

>You may find a new version of the checkuser access policy here
>
>http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:CheckUser_Policy#Access_.28new_version.29
>
>the main differences are
>* it takes into account the fact some local communities with arbcom do
>not necessarily want to delegate appointement of checkusers to their arbcom
>* any local project may choose at least 2 people amongst the already
>approved checkusers, with localized requirement (the local community
>choose itself percentage of support, minimum number of votes etc...)
>
>Which would allow to make Essjay and Karynn checkuser on en.wikibooks if
>the en.wikibooks is happy with this.
>
>Warning : the idea is not that all checkusers be selected by wikipedias
>and later imposed on other projects. The idea is rather that generally,
>a person widely supported in one project to do a job... is some one we
>generally trust to do the job properly anywhere.
>
>So, if wikicommons wants to appoints 5 checkusers from 5 different
>languages, all those 5 may serve on various other projects. The one
>requirement to keep though : always at least 2 checkusers per project.
>
>Opinion ? Please comment on the meta page. Trolls not welcome. I do not
>have the time this week :-)
>
>
>ant
>
>
>
I am not all that pleased with having to deal with "outsiders" in order
to obtain this critical information, although having it is better than
not having it. I am really curious as to the reasons why Essjay and
Karynn are any better candidates for checkuser status on en.wikibooks
than the current two candidates on the request for checkuser status, and
all I can say is that they enjoy somewhat better relationships with the
Foundation board. That seems hardly a reasonable policy.

It does indeed seem as though Wikibooks is being requested to get
permission from Wikipedia, and all of the checkusers are selected by
Wikipedias because they happen to, at the moment, be the big boys on the
block, and that Wikipedia wants to have editorial control over all other
Wikimedia projects of similar languages. Or this is a crack in the door
for this to happen.

Perhaps because this was buried under all of the previous comments, but
it really hasn't been answered at least to my satisfaction. Under what
reasonable criteria is being applied that would allow somebody to become
a bureaucrat on a project that would not also mean they are trusted
enough to have checkuser status as well? This is a critical question in
the sense that the current approach isn't really scalable if you assume
that the board have personal knowledge of each person with checkuser
privileges. It also strongly favors very large projects, and sets up a
preceedence that all new administrator-like functions will only be
allowed for very large projects, because of the sensitive nature of some
of the information they are dealing with.

I don't mind this approach if you are trying to suggest that people with
checkuser privileges is more of a social experiment by the Wikimedia
Foundation and that the whole issue of even allowing checkuser scans is
still something that is being Beta tested to see if it is effective and
worth the effort. The official policy should state it in that manner,
and suggest that it is only going to be tested on Wikipedias first.
That removes the ambiguity of the issue and makes it clear what is
happening. By only giving this to very trusted users known personally
to the Foundation, the Foundation can then gague its effectiveness and
keep watch on a much smaller group of users. But a beta test also
implies that it will only be available for a limited time before it is
expanded to other areas or simply removed altogether.

And getting back to the original point of this thread, the Stewards who
supposedly have at least the option of having checkuser status, and are
allowed to act in the capacity of performing administrative actions
where existing policies on individual projects are lacking these
policies due to their size, are ignoring checkuser requests. If Essjay
and Karynn have the trust and support for this widespread and cross
project assistance, perhaps they should simply be made stewards as well.
And to the point at hand, en.wikibooks is in English, which from what
I've seen of the list of stewards is one of the languages of every
current steward. That these checkuser scans aren't being performed is
more of a condemnation of all of the stewards, or a very serious
misunderstanding of what their role is as backup administrators to
smaller projects.

--
Robert Scott Horning


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 4/20/06, Robert Scott Horning <robert_horning@netzero.net> wrote:
> I am not all that pleased with having to deal with "outsiders" in order
> to obtain this critical information, although having it is better than
> not having it. I am really curious as to the reasons why Essjay and
> Karynn are any better candidates for checkuser status on en.wikibooks
> than the current two candidates on the request for checkuser status, and
> all I can say is that they enjoy somewhat better relationships with the
> Foundation board. That seems hardly a reasonable policy.

I don't know the current candidates on en.wikibooks that well, and
while I don't have any reason to believe that there's anything wrong
with them, I also don't have any reason to believe that they can be
trusted at the level that should be expected and required of those
with CheckUser privileges. CheckUser is a position that carries very
hefty responsibilities; the Foundation has good cause to restrict the
number of people with this privilege. Frankly I think *all*
CheckUsers need to be approved by the Foundation because it's the
Foundation that will be on the hook for a misuse of the information
that CheckUsers have access to. So the fact that Essjay and I are
well known to the Foundation makes us more appealing to the
Foundation, not specifically because we have done most of our work on
Wikipedia (although this is true for me and to a lesser extent for
Essjay, who has more meta experience than I do) but because we have
become known to the Foundation as reliable, trustworthy individuals.

> It does indeed seem as though Wikibooks is being requested to get
> permission from Wikipedia, and all of the checkusers are selected by
> Wikipedias because they happen to, at the moment, be the big boys on the
> block, and that Wikipedia wants to have editorial control over all other
> Wikimedia projects of similar languages. Or this is a crack in the door
> for this to happen.

CheckUser rights really does not give one any input in editorial
policy, and I think you can rest assured that neither I nor Essjay
have no interest in trying to alter the editorial policy of
en.wikibooks (at least not now; it's possible that after a time of
interacting with the project one of us might have an idea, but that
would be the case anyway).

> Perhaps because this was buried under all of the previous comments, but
> it really hasn't been answered at least to my satisfaction. Under what
> reasonable criteria is being applied that would allow somebody to become
> a bureaucrat on a project that would not also mean they are trusted
> enough to have checkuser status as well?

There's a big difference between bureaucrat and checkuser. CheckUsers
have access to personal, private information about other editors,
information which is protected by law in some nations (e.g. the
European Union) and the inappropriate disclosure of which could easily
cause grave harm to someone. Bureaucrats just get to decide who has
access to the special buttons on a given project. The worst damage a
bureaucrat can do is mistakenly promote someone who ought not have
been promoted, resulting in annoying damage to a particular project
and some degree of frustration for its editors and readers. The worst
damage a checkuser can do is publicly announce the IP address of a
political dissident editing from a country where political dissidence
is punishable by death. Misuse of CheckUser power can easily lead to
the loss of jobs and potentially even of freedom or of lives. I hope
you now understand how the gravity of the responsibility of a
CheckUser is that much greater than that of a bureaucrat, and why the
screening process for bureaucrats is inadequate for determining who
should be trusted with checkuser rights.

> And getting back to the original point of this thread, the Stewards who
> supposedly have at least the option of having checkuser status, and are
> allowed to act in the capacity of performing administrative actions
> where existing policies on individual projects are lacking these
> policies due to their size, are ignoring checkuser requests. If Essjay
> and Karynn have the trust and support for this widespread and cross
> project assistance, perhaps they should simply be made stewards as well.
> And to the point at hand, en.wikibooks is in English, which from what
> I've seen of the list of stewards is one of the languages of every
> current steward. That these checkuser scans aren't being performed is
> more of a condemnation of all of the stewards, or a very serious
> misunderstanding of what their role is as backup administrators to
> smaller projects.

Relatively few stewards are in a position to perform checkusers; the
position requires both technical competency and a high degree of trust
and responsibility. That most stewards (who presumably have the trust
and responsibility, even if not the technical competency) are
unwilling to perform them is likely because they don't know how to or
even that they can as much as that they aren't bothering.

As to the possibility of being named a steward myself: I am
considering a run for steward in the next elections, which I believe
are expected to be in January, 2007. If asked to serve in that
capacity now or in the future, I would probably accept. I do not wish
to shortcut the existing process, however; I am not very active in
meta and I am likely not well known there, and I certainly do not wish
to presumptuously claim that it is desirable that I be appointed a
steward now or in the future. I believe that Essjay would be a fine
candidate and will support him should he run for steward or if there
is otherwise a discussion as to whether he should be so appointed.

Kelly
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Kelly Martin wrote:

>On 4/20/06, Robert Scott Horning <robert_horning@netzero.net> wrote:
>
>
>>I am not all that pleased with having to deal with "outsiders" in order
>>to obtain this critical information, although having it is better than
>>not having it. I am really curious as to the reasons why Essjay and
>>Karynn are any better candidates for checkuser status on en.wikibooks
>>than the current two candidates on the request for checkuser status, and
>>all I can say is that they enjoy somewhat better relationships with the
>>Foundation board. That seems hardly a reasonable policy.
>>
>>
>
>I don't know the current candidates on en.wikibooks that well, and
>while I don't have any reason to believe that there's anything wrong
>with them, I also don't have any reason to believe that they can be
>trusted at the level that should be expected and required of those
>with CheckUser privileges. CheckUser is a position that carries very
>hefty responsibilities; the Foundation has good cause to restrict the
>number of people with this privilege. Frankly I think *all*
>CheckUsers need to be approved by the Foundation because it's the
>Foundation that will be on the hook for a misuse of the information
>that CheckUsers have access to. So the fact that Essjay and I are
>well known to the Foundation makes us more appealing to the
>Foundation, not specifically because we have done most of our work on
>Wikipedia (although this is true for me and to a lesser extent for
>Essjay, who has more meta experience than I do) but because we have
>become known to the Foundation as reliable, trustworthy individuals.
>
>
So why doesn't the existing policy simply say this? If the individuals
have to be so trusted that they need formal approval of not only the
project, but also the Foundation board itself, then it should be stated
as such. This is not currently the policy. As far as you not trusting
these users, that is because you have not interacted with them and had a
chance to see their editing and administrative styles, and more of a
matter that they are not as active on en.wikipedia to your tastes. From
my perspective, the Wikibooks candidates are as trustworthy as any
Wikimedia user can possibly be without getting into cabal accusations or
political arguments, and would very likely have recieved the checkuser
status a long time ago if they had instead been working on Wikipedia
instead of Wikibooks. They are solid and very active Wikimedia users.

>>Perhaps because this was buried under all of the previous comments, but
>>it really hasn't been answered at least to my satisfaction. Under what
>>reasonable criteria is being applied that would allow somebody to become
>>a bureaucrat on a project that would not also mean they are trusted
>>enough to have checkuser status as well?
>>
>>
>
>There's a big difference between bureaucrat and checkuser. CheckUsers
>have access to personal, private information about other editors,
>information which is protected by law in some nations (e.g. the
>European Union) and the inappropriate disclosure of which could easily
>cause grave harm to someone. Bureaucrats just get to decide who has
>access to the special buttons on a given project. The worst damage a
>bureaucrat can do is mistakenly promote someone who ought not have
>been promoted, resulting in annoying damage to a particular project
>and some degree of frustration for its editors and readers. The worst
>damage a checkuser can do is publicly announce the IP address of a
>political dissident editing from a country where political dissidence
>is punishable by death. Misuse of CheckUser power can easily lead to
>the loss of jobs and potentially even of freedom or of lives. I hope
>you now understand how the gravity of the responsibility of a
>CheckUser is that much greater than that of a bureaucrat, and why the
>screening process for bureaucrats is inadequate for determining who
>should be trusted with checkuser rights.
>
>
On this I guess we have to agree to disagree on this point. I
completely disagree that checkuser disclosure of IP addresses is going
to cause any real problem at all, and is making a mountain out of a
molehill to prevent some very minor and difficult to accomplish abuse at
the risk of denying a very powerful tool to local projects... powerful
in the sense of identifying blatant abuse and stoping vandals from
destroying a project. And pointing out that IP addresses are also used
anyway and even publicly disclosed for most Wikimedia users as well (the
unregistered users). I won't rehash any of my previous arguments to
respond further, but any attempt to not disclose this information if
futile anyway for somebody who might lose their job or recieve capital
punishment for something they write on a Wikimedia project, and the
Foundation would be compelled to disclose that IP address anyway, by the
standards of the checkuser policy as written. This policy will never
save even a single life, just at most give them a few more months of
life at best due to legal manuvering with the Wikimedia Foundation
instead being sent through the mud as harboring political dissidants or
even people plotting to overthrow governments, such as perhaps some
al-Queida operatives planning on blowing up the Empire State Building in
New York City. Is that the kind of press that the Foundation wants in
terms of who is being protected by this policy?

>>And getting back to the original point of this thread, the Stewards who
>>supposedly have at least the option of having checkuser status, and are
>>allowed to act in the capacity of performing administrative actions
>>where existing policies on individual projects are lacking these
>>policies due to their size, are ignoring checkuser requests. If Essjay
>>and Karynn have the trust and support for this widespread and cross
>>project assistance, perhaps they should simply be made stewards as well.
>> And to the point at hand, en.wikibooks is in English, which from what
>>I've seen of the list of stewards is one of the languages of every
>>current steward. That these checkuser scans aren't being performed is
>>more of a condemnation of all of the stewards, or a very serious
>>misunderstanding of what their role is as backup administrators to
>>smaller projects.
>>
>>
>
>Relatively few stewards are in a position to perform checkusers; the
>position requires both technical competency and a high degree of trust
>and responsibility. That most stewards (who presumably have the trust
>and responsibility, even if not the technical competency) are
>unwilling to perform them is likely because they don't know how to or
>even that they can as much as that they aren't bothering.
>
>Kelly
>
>
I guess I'm confused at the duties of stewards then. Most of what they
do is "promote" users to become admins or sysops, and now grant
checkuser status as well based on a whole variety of standards, many of
which even contradict currently the checkuser policy on Meta. This by
itself does require a certain level of technical competency, and I fail
to see how comparing two different IP addresses from two users is really
all that much more difficult of a technical task. This is not operating
system assembly-level driver writing we are talking about, just looking
up an IP address or two and comparing numbers. As far as letting
stewards know they can do this, I hope this is a wake-up call to let
them know that this is something that is needed, in terms of being able
to help smaller projects on a task they simply can't do for themselves.
If the level of trust is so high but the amount of work so great,
perhaps a recruiting drive to get more stewards should occur.

--
Robert Scott Horning



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

<snip>
Robert Scott Horning wrote:
I fail to see how comparing two different IP addresses from two users is really all that much more difficult of a technical task.
</snip>

You've quite obviously never used checkuser; there is much more to it than simply comparing IP addresses. You need to be able to recognize dynamic and/or shared IPs, be able to detect and scan open proxies, determine if and how IP ranges shift, identify and interpret the registration attached to the IP address, and quite a bit more. If detecting sockpuppets only required comparing two lists together, it could be done by a script or a trained monkey. Karynn and I are far more than trained monkeys, thank you.

Essjay

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay
Wikipedia:The Free Encyclopedia
http://www.wikipedia.org/



Robert Scott Horning wrote:
> Kelly Martin wrote:
>
>
>> On 4/20/06, Robert Scott Horning <robert_horning@netzero.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> I am not all that pleased with having to deal with "outsiders" in order
>>> to obtain this critical information, although having it is better than
>>> not having it. I am really curious as to the reasons why Essjay and
>>> Karynn are any better candidates for checkuser status on en.wikibooks
>>> than the current two candidates on the request for checkuser status, and
>>> all I can say is that they enjoy somewhat better relationships with the
>>> Foundation board. That seems hardly a reasonable policy.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> I don't know the current candidates on en.wikibooks that well, and
>> while I don't have any reason to believe that there's anything wrong
>> with them, I also don't have any reason to believe that they can be
>> trusted at the level that should be expected and required of those
>> with CheckUser privileges. CheckUser is a position that carries very
>> hefty responsibilities; the Foundation has good cause to restrict the
>> number of people with this privilege. Frankly I think *all*
>> CheckUsers need to be approved by the Foundation because it's the
>> Foundation that will be on the hook for a misuse of the information
>> that CheckUsers have access to. So the fact that Essjay and I are
>> well known to the Foundation makes us more appealing to the
>> Foundation, not specifically because we have done most of our work on
>> Wikipedia (although this is true for me and to a lesser extent for
>> Essjay, who has more meta experience than I do) but because we have
>> become known to the Foundation as reliable, trustworthy individuals.
>>
>>
>>
> So why doesn't the existing policy simply say this? If the individuals
> have to be so trusted that they need formal approval of not only the
> project, but also the Foundation board itself, then it should be stated
> as such. This is not currently the policy. As far as you not trusting
> these users, that is because you have not interacted with them and had a
> chance to see their editing and administrative styles, and more of a
> matter that they are not as active on en.wikipedia to your tastes. From
> my perspective, the Wikibooks candidates are as trustworthy as any
> Wikimedia user can possibly be without getting into cabal accusations or
> political arguments, and would very likely have recieved the checkuser
> status a long time ago if they had instead been working on Wikipedia
> instead of Wikibooks. They are solid and very active Wikimedia users.
>
>
>>> Perhaps because this was buried under all of the previous comments, but
>>> it really hasn't been answered at least to my satisfaction. Under what
>>> reasonable criteria is being applied that would allow somebody to become
>>> a bureaucrat on a project that would not also mean they are trusted
>>> enough to have checkuser status as well?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> There's a big difference between bureaucrat and checkuser. CheckUsers
>> have access to personal, private information about other editors,
>> information which is protected by law in some nations (e.g. the
>> European Union) and the inappropriate disclosure of which could easily
>> cause grave harm to someone. Bureaucrats just get to decide who has
>> access to the special buttons on a given project. The worst damage a
>> bureaucrat can do is mistakenly promote someone who ought not have
>> been promoted, resulting in annoying damage to a particular project
>> and some degree of frustration for its editors and readers. The worst
>> damage a checkuser can do is publicly announce the IP address of a
>> political dissident editing from a country where political dissidence
>> is punishable by death. Misuse of CheckUser power can easily lead to
>> the loss of jobs and potentially even of freedom or of lives. I hope
>> you now understand how the gravity of the responsibility of a
>> CheckUser is that much greater than that of a bureaucrat, and why the
>> screening process for bureaucrats is inadequate for determining who
>> should be trusted with checkuser rights.
>>
>>
>>
> On this I guess we have to agree to disagree on this point. I
> completely disagree that checkuser disclosure of IP addresses is going
> to cause any real problem at all, and is making a mountain out of a
> molehill to prevent some very minor and difficult to accomplish abuse at
> the risk of denying a very powerful tool to local projects... powerful
> in the sense of identifying blatant abuse and stoping vandals from
> destroying a project. And pointing out that IP addresses are also used
> anyway and even publicly disclosed for most Wikimedia users as well (the
> unregistered users). I won't rehash any of my previous arguments to
> respond further, but any attempt to not disclose this information if
> futile anyway for somebody who might lose their job or recieve capital
> punishment for something they write on a Wikimedia project, and the
> Foundation would be compelled to disclose that IP address anyway, by the
> standards of the checkuser policy as written. This policy will never
> save even a single life, just at most give them a few more months of
> life at best due to legal manuvering with the Wikimedia Foundation
> instead being sent through the mud as harboring political dissidants or
> even people plotting to overthrow governments, such as perhaps some
> al-Queida operatives planning on blowing up the Empire State Building in
> New York City. Is that the kind of press that the Foundation wants in
> terms of who is being protected by this policy?
>
>
>>> And getting back to the original point of this thread, the Stewards who
>>> supposedly have at least the option of having checkuser status, and are
>>> allowed to act in the capacity of performing administrative actions
>>> where existing policies on individual projects are lacking these
>>> policies due to their size, are ignoring checkuser requests. If Essjay
>>> and Karynn have the trust and support for this widespread and cross
>>> project assistance, perhaps they should simply be made stewards as well.
>>> And to the point at hand, en.wikibooks is in English, which from what
>>> I've seen of the list of stewards is one of the languages of every
>>> current steward. That these checkuser scans aren't being performed is
>>> more of a condemnation of all of the stewards, or a very serious
>>> misunderstanding of what their role is as backup administrators to
>>> smaller projects.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Relatively few stewards are in a position to perform checkusers; the
>> position requires both technical competency and a high degree of trust
>> and responsibility. That most stewards (who presumably have the trust
>> and responsibility, even if not the technical competency) are
>> unwilling to perform them is likely because they don't know how to or
>> even that they can as much as that they aren't bothering.
>>
>> Kelly
>>
>>
>>
> I guess I'm confused at the duties of stewards then. Most of what they
> do is "promote" users to become admins or sysops, and now grant
> checkuser status as well based on a whole variety of standards, many of
> which even contradict currently the checkuser policy on Meta. This by
> itself does require a certain level of technical competency, and I fail
> to see how comparing two different IP addresses from two users is really
> all that much more difficult of a technical task. This is not operating
> system assembly-level driver writing we are talking about, just looking
> up an IP address or two and comparing numbers. As far as letting
> stewards know they can do this, I hope this is a wake-up call to let
> them know that this is something that is needed, in terms of being able
> to help smaller projects on a task they simply can't do for themselves.
> If the level of trust is so high but the amount of work so great,
> perhaps a recruiting drive to get more stewards should occur.
>
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 4/20/06, Robert Scott Horning <robert_horning@netzero.net> wrote:

> So why doesn't the existing policy simply say this? If the individuals
> have to be so trusted that they need formal approval of not only the
> project, but also the Foundation board itself, then it should be stated
> as such. This is not currently the policy.

Indeed. Perhaps it should be. Perhaps it will someday. That's not
my call; I'm not a member of the Board.

> As far as you not trusting
> these users, that is because you have not interacted with them and had a
> chance to see their editing and administrative styles, and more of a
> matter that they are not as active on en.wikipedia to your tastes.

I thank you to not put words in my mouth. I don't trust them because
I've not interacted with them. It's got nothing to do with whether or
not they've been active on en.wikipedia, except for the coincidence
that someone who is active on en.wikipedia is more likely to have
interacted with me. It's not that I distrust them either; it's just
that none of these people has been introduced to me by a trusted
introducer, and so by default I don't grant a lot of trust.

> From
> my perspective, the Wikibooks candidates are as trustworthy as any
> Wikimedia user can possibly be without getting into cabal accusations or
> political arguments, and would very likely have recieved the checkuser
> status a long time ago if they had instead been working on Wikipedia
> instead of Wikibooks. They are solid and very active Wikimedia users.

I'm not challenging that. And if the Foundation has cause to trust
your evaluation of them (something which I cannot speak to, but the
Foundation presumably can), then that should be good enough.

> I guess I'm confused at the duties of stewards then. Most of what they
> do is "promote" users to become admins or sysops, and now grant
> checkuser status as well based on a whole variety of standards, many of
> which even contradict currently the checkuser policy on Meta. This by
> itself does require a certain level of technical competency, and I fail
> to see how comparing two different IP addresses from two users is really
> all that much more difficult of a technical task. This is not operating
> system assembly-level driver writing we are talking about, just looking
> up an IP address or two and comparing numbers.

This, combined with the comments about policy I did not copy, lead me
to seriously question whether you are qualified to be granted
checkuser rights. Using checkuser requires a thorough understanding
of the general geography of the Internet, a large battery of tools
(whois, google, nmap, etc.), and often painstakingly detailed
detective work. It's not mechanical; if it were we wouldn't need
checkusers, but could just automate the process.

Kelly
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 4/20/06, Robert Scott Horning <robert_horning@netzero.net> wrote:
> Anthere wrote:
>
> >You may find a new version of the checkuser access policy here
> >
> >http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:CheckUser_Policy#Access_.28new_version.29
< <
> >Warning : the idea is not that all checkusers be selected by wikipedias
> >and later imposed on other projects. The idea is rather that generally,
> >a person widely supported in one project to do a job... is some one we
> >generally trust to do the job properly anywhere.
> >
> >So, if wikicommons wants to appoints 5 checkusers from 5 different
> >languages, all those 5 may serve on various other projects. The one
> >requirement to keep though : always at least 2 checkusers per project.
>
> I am not all that pleased with having to deal with "outsiders" in order
> to obtain this critical information, although having it is better than
> not having it.

There is no requirement to deal with outsiders. The idea is that, if
the local project does not have enough users to nominate their own
checkuser, they may vote to have a dedicated checkuser that has been
nominated by another project.

> Perhaps because this was buried under all of the previous comments, but
> it really hasn't been answered at least to my satisfaction. Under what
> reasonable criteria is being applied that would allow somebody to become
> a bureaucrat on a project that would not also mean they are trusted
> enough to have checkuser status as well?

Bureaucrat actions can be undone. Revelations of supposedly-private
information cannot. If Wikimedia changes its privacy policy to say
"your IP may be publicized at any time," then this wouldn't be a big
deal. Currently, the privacy policy is different. It says "Where the
user has been vandalising articles or persistently behaving in a
disruptive way, data may be released to assist in the targeting of IP
blocks, or to assist in the formulation of a complaint to relevant
Internet Service Providers" -- so if you have not been vandalizing or
disruptive, presumably your IP information will remain private.

I would gladly see a privacy policy change that clarifies that not
only developers have access to such information, and that changes
"Where the user has been" to "Where the user has been suspected of".

++SJ
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l