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