---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: dee dee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 4:14 PM Subject: Have you dealt with this yet? If so,how? To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Birgitte SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Have you dealt with this yet? If so,how? > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <[email protected]> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 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 > <[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 -- Michael Bimmler [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
