Slim, Privacy Advocate, protecting your IP and address and mine? Options

[gomi]

Slimey has taken another tilt at the Checkuser windmill with a recent foundation-l reply regarding the new Wikimedia Board-approved privacy policy.

Jimbo takes the view that checkusers may be conducted more or less at
random, for no reason, and the checkusers follow that lead. In other words, the Foundation's checkuser policy is being openly flouted.

... We've been told we have no right to know whether we've been checked. Attempts to introduce such a rule have led to the checkusers saying they will not follow it. And when we do find out that we've been checked, the only concern of the checkusers is to find out who told us, and to punish that person.

Ever the sweetheart, David Gerard heckles her:

it must surely be conspiracy, not that you're actually wrong and forum-shopping.

Slimey then gets all legal on their ass:

I don't know how or whether the Data Protection Act would apply, but I think if members of the UK group were involved in retaining checkuser information (and I have no idea whether they are), it would kick in ... I mentioned it only as an example. ... The courts do find a way to hold people and groups responsible for the damage and distress they cause, so the best thing is to avoid the damage ahead of time by making sure the checkuser and privacy policies are strictly enforced.

Someone then accuses her of skating too close to WP:NLT! Can a Slim-ban be far off? Wow, sounds like she may be a Wikipedia Review member soon!

[Somey]

Well, that's what too much exposure to Dave Gerard will do to a person...

I can't imagine they'll actually ban her. Obviously there are lots of people who'd like to see her admin rights taken away though, and speaking only for myself, this is the first time since I've been observing the Slimphenomenon that I've actually gotten the feeling it could actually happen. It's an interesting dilemma for her, actually - if she resigned her adminship voluntarily, it would probably ensure that there wouldn't be any further sanctions beyond that... But she almost certainly wouldn't pass another RfA for a long time, and given that the chances she'll retain her admin rights are probably better than 50 percent, she's probably better off sticking to her guns.

I don't think I'd ever even considered the possibility that she'd want to start an account here, but of course she doesn't have to call herself "SlimVirgin" or even "Slimmy," and everyone is welcome to register as long as we can reasonably verify that they're not spamming, socking or impersonating someone.

OTOH, we have considered, at great length, the issue of what we might have to take down if she were ever to admit that she really is who we've been saying she is, and who she's been saying she isn't.

[gomi]

if she resigned her adminship voluntarily, it would probably ensure that there wouldn't be any further sanctions beyond that...

The funny thing, of course, is that Slim has barely used her admin tools lately. She's deleted and restored a few articles and protected a page or two, but she has only abusively blocked a handful of times in the last year! I think that she largely acts through proxies now, such as Crum375 and (of course) the seemingly unassailable sphincter Jayjg. Even those ranks seem to be thinning, with JoshuaZ de-sysopped and Crum375 on the ropes.

She appears to be running out of friends ....

[Carruthers]

if she resigned her adminship voluntarily, it would probably ensure that there wouldn't be any further sanctions beyond that...

The funny thing, of course, is that Slim has barely used her admin tools lately. She's deleted and restored a few articles and protected a page or two, but she has only abusively blocked a handful of times in the last year! I think that she largely acts through proxies now, such as Crum375 and (of course) the seemingly unassailable sphincter Jayjg. Even those ranks seem to be thinning, with JoshuaZ de-sysopped and Crum375 on the ropes.

She appears to be running out of friends ....

Well, there is that mysterious arbcom case between her and Lar, which seems to be getting on her nerves...and then there's the other arbcom extravaganza which seems to be all hinging on the first Arbcom...and since nobody seems to know what's going to happen, including (probably) SV herself, it does tend to make a person a bit testy at times....or so I imagine....

[Yehudi]

My understanding is that some WP checkusers believe they can run as many checks as they like without good reason. That would horrify checkusers on most other projects.

[Kelly Martin]

My understanding is that some WP checkusers believe they can run as many checks as they like without good reason. That would horrify checkusers on most other projects.

When I was a guest checkuser on Wiktionary, all RfA candidates were subject to an automatic checkuser. There is no consensus as to when it is appropriate to run checkuser, and the privacy policy SlimVirgin spends so much time mewling about does not in any way address that issue. All the privacy policy says is that a checkuser may not disclose what he or she discovers except as consistent with the privacy policy. SlimVirgin, for all her cowardly braying, has no evidence that anyone has disclosed anything about her, but that doesn't make for very good whine, now, does it?

[wikiwhistle]

My understanding is that some WP checkusers believe they can run as many checks as they like without good reason. That would horrify checkusers on most other projects.

When I was a guest checkuser on Wiktionary, all RfA candidates were subject to an automatic checkuser. There is no consensus as to when it is appropriate to run checkuser,

Yes I think people still know if they stand for RfA on en.wiki, any recent socks they have will come to light.

[Gold heart]

My understanding is that some WP checkusers believe they can run as many checks as they like without good reason. That would horrify checkusers on most other projects.

When I was a guest checkuser on Wiktionary, all RfA candidates were subject to an automatic checkuser. There is no consensus as to when it is appropriate to run checkuser,

Yes I think people still know if they stand for RfA on en.wiki, any recent socks they have will come to light.

Checkuser can be run at the whim of the checkuser, or their buddies. There is no protocol established as to its proper use, or abuse. Also I have seen an editor indefinitely blocked by checkuser from evidence that was clearly wrong, and privy to just me, but enough of that. Checkuser and its use is a wiki-joke, and should be re-assessed.

[Cla68]

The obvious thing here is that if you don't have anything to hide, then you don't care if you get checkusered or not. So, if SV is so concerned about trying to keep her and her friends from being checkusered, what do they have to hide?

[One]

Checkuser can be run at the whim of the checkuser, or their buddies. There is no protocol established as to its proper use, or abuse. Also I have seen an editor indefinitely blocked by checkuser from evidence that was clearly wrong, and privy to just me, but enough of that. Checkuser and its use is a wiki-joke, and should be re-assessed.

I agree, but the solution will probably be having more checkusers conducting more checks--being better able to check each other, and having more eyes of potential socks. The iron-clad expectation of privacy is very weird to me.

[dogbiscuit]

So, if SV is so concerned about trying to keep her and her friends from being checkusered, what do they have to hide?

Paranoia?

[Kelly Martin]

I agree, but the solution will probably be having more checkusers conducting more checks--being better able to check each other, and having more eyes of potential socks. The iron-clad expectation of privacy is very weird to me.

Indeed, it's the bolded part that I don't understand. Of course, I edited Wikipedia under my own name (except toward the end, where I used a few anonymous socks), and so perhaps I lack an appreciation for the need that some people feel for privacy in this regard, but frankly if you're in a situation where other people finding out about your hobby would somehow endanger you, perhaps you need to find a different hobby.

Then again, I'm a ham radio operator; our addresses are published by the government in a easily-searchable database for the whole world to see. Can't get much more transparent of a hobby than that.

[Gold heart]

Checkuser can be run at the whim of the checkuser, or their buddies. There is no protocol established as to its proper use, or abuse. Also I have seen an editor indefinitely blocked by checkuser from evidence that was clearly wrong, and privy to just me, but enough of that. Checkuser and its use is a wiki-joke, and should be re-assessed.

I agree, but the solution will probably be having more checkusers conducting more checks--being better able to check each other, and having more eyes of potential socks. The iron-clad expectation of privacy is very weird to me.

".....being better able to check each other", is the important factor that's essentially missing. There appears to be no appeal against a checkuser decision. An editor can only appeal to other admins, and those admins always uphold the checkuser result. Like the courts, there could be at least a two tier system, with the higher tier for appeals. At the head of all that, an ombudsman to oversee the proper protocols. I have seen abuses/misuses at first hand, and checkuser can be very much abused, no doubt.

This post has been edited by Gold heart:

[CrazyGameOfPoker]

The obvious thing here is that if you don't have anything to hide, then you don't care if you get checkusered or not. So, if SV is so concerned about trying to keep her and her friends from being checkusered, what do they have to hide?

I don't agree with that line of reasoning, at all. That's the sort of reasoning that was used to explain warantless wiretaps on American citizens by the government. Just because someone doesn't have anything to hide does not mean that they need to silently comply with the policy. Now WP is slightly different, because they're isn't a 4th Amendment to point to, but at the same time, but that reasoning is really bad.

[Kelly Martin]

I have seen abuses/misuses at first hand, and checkuser can be very much abused, no doubt.

I'm not so convinced of that. People with checkuser may act abusively, but in most cases that's not "abuse of checkuser", it's just abuse by someone who has checkuser rights.

The real problems that come out of the use of the checkuser tool are:

• The data generated by the checkuser tool is misinterpreted by the checkuser, and those misinterpretations are then relied upon in good faith by the checkuser or by others
• Information obtained by the use of checkuser which is of no relevance to administering the encyclopedia project, but which is relevant for other purposes (including without exclusion wikipolitics, media attention, or personal curiosity) acted upon by the checkuser in a manner inconsistent with reasonable administration of the encyclopedia project, or disclosed to other persons who then act upon it in a manner inconsistent with reasonable administration of the encyclopedia project
• Individuals are threatened with being checkusered in an attempt to force them to alter the nature of their participation in the encyclopedia project

The first is misuse, and will occur and will sometimes cause significant ill will, especially when good faith actors have been unknowingly influenced by someone acting in bad faith (e.g. the Poetlister incident). The second is abuse; not only is it invasive of reasonable expectations of privacy, but it is abuse of the trust placed in checkusers not to use the tool to ends other than those intended when it was granted. Jayjg's bombshelling of CharlotteWebb is a good example of this.

Let's be clear that the first is not "abuse". Checkusers will make mistakes; mistakes only become abuse when not rectified in a reasonable manner and a reasonable timeframe, or when they are repeated so many times as to establish a pattern of incompetence. It is the inappropriate release of information obtained by checkuser that is abusive, and checkusers who do this should be defrocked with due haste.

However, the key to all of this is that the focus has to not be on when checkuser itself is used; it has to be on how the information derived from checkuser data is disseminated and acted upon. It seems that very few people understand how checkuser actually works. Deriving useful information from checkuser data may require running the checkuser tool on seemingly uninvolved individuals, and placing restrictions on doing this will almost certainly hamper the ability of checkusers to use the tool as an aid to effective administration of the encyclopedia project.

There is too much drama around checkuser, a problem that has no easy solution since Wikipedia is filled to overflowing with those who love drama and those who use drama as a tool. It may be that turning it off for a time is the best solution, although I rather doubt that.

[Moulton]

The obvious thing here is that if you don't have anything to hide, then you don't care if you get checkusered or not. So, if SV is so concerned about trying to keep her and her friends from being checkusered, what do they have to hide?

Paranoia?

Be afraid. Be very afraid...

Wikimedia Foundation Privacy Policy

Draft of June 19, 2008

Disclaimer

The Wikimedia Foundation believes that maintaining and preserving the privacy of user data is an important value. This Privacy Policy, together with other policies, resolutions, and actions by the Foundation, represents a committed effort to safeguard the security of the limited user information that is collected and retained on our servers. Nevertheless, the Foundation cannot guarantee that user information will remain private. We acknowledge that, in spite of our committed effort to protect private user information, determined individuals may still develop data-mining and other methods to uncover such information and disclose it. For this reason, the Foundation can make no guarantee against unauthorized access to information provided in the course of participating in Foundation Projects or related communities.

[DevilYouKnow]

The obvious thing here is that if you don't have anything to hide, then you don't care if you get checkusered or not. So, if SV is so concerned about trying to keep her and her friends from being checkusered, what do they have to hide?

Agreed. Methinks that Slim doth protest too much.

[dogbiscuit]

The really bizarre thing, when you think about it, is that in terms of privacy, SlimVirgin has lost it anyway. She has developed this online character which is her. She appears to have no significant interests outside of Wikipedia based on her online activities (if she is just one person). Everything comes back to What SlimVirgin does as that character.

Her real life is of no interest - and she appears to have little conflict of interest between her online anonymous world and her private interests (for example, being an animal rights conflicted editor is not made any worse by any particular real life activities as far as I can see, and Pan-Am 103 is stale news). However, in terms of Wikipedia, she will not be able to escape the legacy of her nom-de-plume. Whatever control she once sought is lost, and the name is destroyed as a credible force in Wikipedia.

If she now wants to be anonymous again, she would have to throw aside her interests and relationships on Wikipedia, and start again entirely from scratch. Any knowledge of her new identity being related to the old one would simply destroy her new persona's credibility. Perhaps she is angling for some big fix to Wikipedia to ensure the ability to sock with impunity.

[Proabivouac]

[*]Information obtained by the use of checkuser which is of no relevance to administering the encyclopedia project, but which is relevant for other purposes (including without exclusion wikipolitics, media attention, or personal curiosity) acted upon by the checkuser in a manner inconsistent with reasonable administration of the encyclopedia project, or disclosed to other persons who then act upon it in a manner inconsistent with reasonable administration of the encyclopedia project

…It is the inappropriate release of information obtained by checkuser that is abusive, and checkusers who do this should be defrocked with due haste.

However, the key to all of this is that the focus has to not be on when checkuser itself is used; it has to be on how the information derived from checkuser data is disseminated and acted upon.

Of course this will be in some examples entirely opaque.

Let's suppose I'm trying to identify someone in the leadership. I might like a checkuser to help me verify or debunk a proposed equivalence. Unless I then publish the IP data, which would be as unnecessary for me as it would be for the checkusers, there would be no evidence of abuse besides the log that a checkuser was performed.
.
When you have checkusers participating on WR, and equivalences of high-profile Wikipedia participants being proposed over here, it's not an unreasonable concern. I'm not saying it should our concern…I myself am very interested to discover the identities of some of the people running this project, and if a checkuser wants to help me do so, great, your confidence is assured.

But it's not too difficult for me to put myself in the shoes of someone who would fear the checkusers for this reason, supposing this is the reason, especially if I had a poor relationship with the Checkusers on WP. Paranoia here is the natural byproduct of the existence of undiscoverable intrigue.

[Yehudi]

Checkuser is very unreliable when you have several people all editing from the same office, school, library or Internet cafe. I know that I have shared IPs with someone on WP. Were I checkusered at random, or on David Gerard's whim, I might thus get blocked for sockpuppetry.