Mailing List Archive: Wikipedia: Foundation

Note regarding status of privacy policy

1 2 3

View All

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

geniice at gmail

Aug 9, 2008, 5:16 PM

Post #26 of 57 (731 views)
Permalink

Re: Note regarding status of privacy policy [In reply to]

2008/8/10 Dan Rosenthal <swatjester[at]gmail.com>:
> If you cannot share the trust that en wp has placed in its checkusers
> via a duly elected arbcom you can either vote against that body at
> election time or contribute elsewhere. But on en wp mistrusting entire
> groups is a no no per WP:AGF.

Not at all. There are a number of options if you don't trust
checkusers. If you don't trust them to report honestly you can ignore
them. If you don't trust them not to abuse their powers when it comes
to you you can arrange things so that their powers are largely useless
in your case (have say BT or AOL as you ISP). If you don't trust them
not to damage wikipedia you have more of a problem.

--
geni

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

majorly.wiki at googlemail

Aug 9, 2008, 5:33 PM

Post #27 of 57 (730 views)
Permalink

Re: Note regarding status of privacy policy [In reply to]

2008/8/10 Dan Rosenthal <swatjester[at]gmail.com>

> If you cannot share the trust that en wp has placed in its checkusers
> via a duly elected arbcom you can either vote against that body at
> election time or contribute elsewhere. But on en wp mistrusting entire
> groups is a no no per WP:AGF.
>
> Btw this is not a foundation l issue and I'm scared to say I agree
> with both of gerardm's posts.
>
> Dan
> Sent from my iPhone
>

"Enwp" meaning a community from 2005, that no longer exists.

There's no way they can be voted against, until their three year term ends.
Even then, they don't lose the extra privs granted to them.

I don't see why the whole group would be not trusted. There are a few "bad
eggs", but the rest are fine.

To sum up, are you basically saying we can't do anything about the issues
raised, and we should leave if we don't like it? That's a very bad attitude.

--
Al Tally
(User:Majorly)
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

thomas.dalton at gmail

Aug 9, 2008, 6:41 PM

Post #28 of 57 (727 views)
Permalink

Re: Note regarding status of privacy policy [In reply to]

> There's no way they can be voted against, until their three year term ends.
> Even then, they don't lose the extra privs granted to them.

They don't lose the checkuser bit, but they do lose their seat on the
committee that handles complaints about checkusers, which is the
important thing.

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

majorly.wiki at googlemail

Aug 9, 2008, 6:46 PM

Post #29 of 57 (727 views)
Permalink

Re: Note regarding status of privacy policy [In reply to]

2008/8/10 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton[at]gmail.com>

> > There's no way they can be voted against, until their three year term
> ends.
> > Even then, they don't lose the extra privs granted to them.
>
> They don't lose the checkuser bit, but they do lose their seat on the
> committee that handles complaints about checkusers, which is the
> important thing.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

Hmm, not really. Right, they lose the right to vote in cases. But they keep
everything else; including checkuser/oversight rights, access to the arbcom
list, a voice in discussion of checkuser candidates (I'm sure people are
familiar with the leak about my own request, if not pm me), and they also
request things on "behalf of arbcom" - two users to do this were Dmcdevit
and Raul654.

They may not be *on* the arbcom, but they're still considered as members
until they actually properly quit.

--
Al Tally
(User:Majorly)
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

thomas.dalton at gmail

Aug 9, 2008, 7:09 PM

Post #30 of 57 (729 views)
Permalink

Re: Note regarding status of privacy policy [In reply to]

> they also
> request things on "behalf of arbcom" - two users to do this were Dmcdevit
> and Raul654.

Really? That doesn't seem on to me. Even if it's following a
discussion on the arbcom mailing list, the request should still be
made by someone that's actually on the committee.

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

majorly.wiki at googlemail

Aug 9, 2008, 7:20 PM

Post #31 of 57 (734 views)
Permalink

Re: Note regarding status of privacy policy [In reply to]

2008/8/10 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton[at]gmail.com>

> > they also
> > request things on "behalf of arbcom" - two users to do this were Dmcdevit
> > and Raul654.
>
> Really? That doesn't seem on to me. Even if it's following a
> discussion on the arbcom mailing list, the request should still be
> made by someone that's actually on the committee.
>

Indeed... not that us mere peons have any say in the matter though.

--
Al Tally
(User:Majorly)
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

wikipedia at verizon

Aug 9, 2008, 7:22 PM

Post #32 of 57 (729 views)
Permalink

Re: Note regarding status of privacy policy [In reply to]

Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> they also
>> request things on "behalf of arbcom" - two users to do this were Dmcdevit
>> and Raul654.
>>
> Really? That doesn't seem on to me. Even if it's following a
> discussion on the arbcom mailing list, the request should still be
> made by someone that's actually on the committee.
>
Can we please move discussions that are purely about the arbitration
process on the English Wikipedia elsewhere? On the off chance that
there's somewhere in this thread is a point that warrants actually
modifying the privacy policy (which is supposed to be what the thread is
about), it's not really fair for us to expect Mike Godwin to sort
through so much irrelevancy to find it.

--Michael Snow

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

slimvirgin at gmail

Aug 9, 2008, 8:15 PM

Post #33 of 57 (730 views)
Permalink

Re: Note regarding status of privacy policy [In reply to]

On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 6:06 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton[at]gmail.com> wrote:
>> Of the recent case regarding Lar, I've been told all evidence must be
>> submitted by this Sunday, then the case will be closed. But I don't
>> have time to hunt for diffs right now, because I have family coming to
>> stay until the end of the month. They know this -- they also know this
>> is a holiday season -- but they want it closed by Sunday nevertheless,
>> for reasons they're unable to explain. So nothing will be resolved.
>
> Have you tried politely requesting an extension? That you have family
> staying seems to be an excellent reason for needing some more time and
> I really can't see ArbCom saying no.

Yes, I requested an extension until the end of August, and was told
(very rudely) by Charles Matthews that no extension would be given.

> I've had my own problems with
> ArbCom (I was recently desysoped and was appalled at the bad practices
> and judgement shown), but they are usually pretty reasonable when it
> comes to real life commitments.

I've always found that too, but for some reason they want to get rid
of this case as soon as possible.

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

slimvirgin at gmail

Aug 9, 2008, 8:22 PM

Post #34 of 57 (729 views)
Permalink

Re: Note regarding status of privacy policy [In reply to]

On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 7:10 PM, Anthony <wikimail[at]inbox.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 5:11 PM, Sue Gardner <sgardner[at]wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
>> Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>> > Hoi,
>> > When someone accepts the function to checkuser, he accepts a role that is
>> > clearly with the community. Calling such a person a "third party" is in
>> my
>> > opinion wrong. The person doing the check user has accepted the rules
>> that
>> > allows for executing this function.
>> > Thanks,
>> > GerardM
>>
>> This is an extremely important point. As you can imagine, it was
>> challenging for Mike to construct a policy that made it clear that there
>> are roles in the projects such as checkuser which are inside the
>> community (and therefore, as per Gerard, not considered 'external'), and
>> yet whose behaviour is not controlled/controllable by the Foundation.
>>
>> It's an unusual situation, and we tried to be extremely clear, here:
>>
>
> There's a good reason it's unusual. It's a recipe for disaster. Did you
> know that Kelly Martin (alleged "attack site" proprietor) has printed copies
> of checkuser results sitting around the house? The privacy policy might
> explain how thing are done, but that doesn't mean it's a sane thing to do.

Kelly Martin e-mailed me recently to tell me that, contrary to her
statement at the time to the Ombudsman, she retained my IP address
when she checked me. I have no idea why she decided to tell me now.
But it's definitely another issue that I've not seen anyone discuss --
the extent to which private databases are being retained, and how
legislation covers its handling in different countries. In the UK, for
example, the Data Protection Act may require that the information be
handed over on request, and that the UK chapter (insofar as it's a
separate organization) take steps to ensure that it's not used in a
way that causes damage or distress.

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

thomas.dalton at gmail

Aug 9, 2008, 8:32 PM

Post #35 of 57 (728 views)
Permalink

Re: Note regarding status of privacy policy [In reply to]

> In the UK, for
> example, the Data Protection Act may require that the information be
> handed over on request, and that the UK chapter (insofar as it's a
> separate organization) take steps to ensure that it's not used in a
> way that causes damage or distress.

What does the UK chapter have to do with it? It *is* a separate
organisation and is in no way involved with checkuser results...

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

slimvirgin at gmail

Aug 9, 2008, 8:46 PM

Post #36 of 57 (731 views)
Permalink

Re: Note regarding status of privacy policy [In reply to]

On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 10:32 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton[at]gmail.com> wrote:
>> In the UK, for
>> example, the Data Protection Act may require that the information be
>> handed over on request, and that the UK chapter (insofar as it's a
>> separate organization) take steps to ensure that it's not used in a
>> way that causes damage or distress.
>
> What does the UK chapter have to do with it? It *is* a separate
> organisation and is in no way involved with checkuser results...

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 if
a request were made under the Act. I mentioned it only as an example.

I'm reminded of the animal liberation movement here. They set up
so-called "leaderless resistance" groups, because they don't want to
belong to an organization that can be sued or have its assets
confiscated, but they also don't want to act as lone wolves.
Similarly, the checkusers don't want to be part of the Foundation (or
the Foundation doesn't want them), but they also don't want to be
regarded as third parties under the privacy policy.

The legal sleight of hand hasn't worked with animal liberationists and
I don't see how it can work here either. 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.

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

thomas.dalton at gmail

Aug 9, 2008, 9:24 PM

Post #37 of 57 (726 views)
Permalink

Re: Note regarding status of privacy policy [In reply to]

2008/8/10 SlimVirgin <slimvirgin[at]gmail.com>:
> On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 10:32 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton[at]gmail.com> wrote:
>>> In the UK, for
>>> example, the Data Protection Act may require that the information be
>>> handed over on request, and that the UK chapter (insofar as it's a
>>> separate organization) take steps to ensure that it's not used in a
>>> way that causes damage or distress.
>>
>> What does the UK chapter have to do with it? It *is* a separate
>> organisation and is in no way involved with checkuser results...
>
> 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 if
> a request were made under the Act. I mentioned it only as an example.

Just because they happen to be members of a given UK company doesn't
make that company involved in their actions. They might be members of
Royal Society for the Protection of Birds as well, does that make the
RSPB liable for their actions as checkusers on the English Wikipedia?

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

cimonavaro at gmail

Aug 9, 2008, 9:36 PM

Post #38 of 57 (729 views)
Permalink

Re: Note regarding status of privacy policy [In reply to]

SlimVirgin wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 10:32 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton[at]gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> In the UK, for
>>> example, the Data Protection Act may require that the information be
>>> handed over on request, and that the UK chapter (insofar as it's a
>>> separate organization) take steps to ensure that it's not used in a
>>> way that causes damage or distress.
>>>
>> What does the UK chapter have to do with it? It *is* a separate
>> organisation and is in no way involved with checkuser results...
>>
>
> 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 if
> a request were made under the Act. I mentioned it only as an example.
>
> I'm reminded of the animal liberation movement here. They set up
> so-called "leaderless resistance" groups, because they don't want to
> belong to an organization that can be sued or have its assets
> confiscated, but they also don't want to act as lone wolves.
> Similarly, the checkusers don't want to be part of the Foundation (or
> the Foundation doesn't want them), but they also don't want to be
> regarded as third parties under the privacy policy.
>
>

Firstly; if it were the case taht you are seriously
reminded by animal liberationists in the context
of wikimedia, you are really really strange. They
are a single cause movement. We are most most
definitely not.

> The legal sleight of hand hasn't worked with animal liberationists and
> I don't see how it can work here either. 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.
>
>

This is not even a proverbial (builders will know what part
of the human integument I am talking about) apart from
threatening in a legal fashion on the mailing list to
accomplish a result. Please desist. I ask in the nicest
possible way.

Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen

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

thepmaccount at gmail

Aug 9, 2008, 10:06 PM

Post #39 of 57 (729 views)
Permalink

Re: Note regarding status of privacy policy [In reply to]

hmmm.... can't quite agree with you, Jussi.

I share some of Slim's concerns on this one, though I write more as a
reprobate whose multiple accounts were detected late last year - also the
comparison with the animal rights movement's attempts to decentralise made
sense to me - it seemed like an apt analogy.

Does it really matter if people are checkusered regularly, with a liberally
low bar, and the information garnered from such checks is shared between
friends and colleagues equally liberally?

Maybe, maybe not - but I think that's kinda the status quo, and I think
people deserve the right to question it without being poo pooed - especially
when it's not really reflected by what's written on the tin at the policy
pages.

On the other hand - I see this thread's purpose was intended to be a review
of the new draft of the privacy policy. I think it's an improvement - I
think the key issues relate to the ways it's implemented - I would like to
assume for example that some rigour is applied to the assessment of external
legal claims before IP data is handed over.

best,

Peter
PM.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

swatjester at gmail

Aug 9, 2008, 10:26 PM

Post #40 of 57 (721 views)
Permalink

Re: Note regarding status of privacy policy [In reply to]

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> SlimVirgin wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 10:32 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton[at]gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> In the UK, for
>>>> example, the Data Protection Act may require that the information be
>>>> handed over on request, and that the UK chapter (insofar as it's a
>>>> separate organization) take steps to ensure that it's not used in a
>>>> way that causes damage or distress.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> What does the UK chapter have to do with it? It *is* a separate
>>> organisation and is in no way involved with checkuser results...
>>>
>>>
>> 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 if
>> a request were made under the Act. I mentioned it only as an example.
>>
>>
<snip>
>> The legal sleight of hand hasn't worked with animal liberationists and
>> I don't see how it can work here either. 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.
>>
>>
>>
>
> This is not even a proverbial (builders will know what part
> of the human integument I am talking about) apart from
> threatening in a legal fashion on the mailing list to
> accomplish a result. Please desist. I ask in the nicest
> possible way.
>
>
> Yours,
>
> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
>
>
>
I agree with Jussi-Ville. These combined statements read very much like
a veiled legal threat aimed at David Gerard. At the very least it's
fearmongering by analogy.

ps. Sorry for the brevity or abbreviations in any previous emails today,
they were written on my phone at 85 mph on the highway on the 13 hour
drive from South Florida to D.C.

-Dan
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

cimonavaro at gmail

Aug 9, 2008, 10:34 PM

Post #41 of 57 (722 views)
Permalink

Re: Note regarding status of privacy policy [In reply to]

private musings wrote:
> hmmm.... can't quite agree with you, Jussi.
>
> I share some of Slim's concerns on this one, though I write more as a
> reprobate whose multiple accounts were detected late last year - also the
> comparison with the animal rights movement's attempts to decentralise made
> sense to me - it seemed like an apt analogy.
>
Well, it just isn't.

I find it quite laughable that anyone would assume that
a checkuser would be somehow "free as a bird" to do what
they wish in terms of their technical widgets, with no
connexion to the foundation at all. Even suggesting that
is tantamount to FUD in the third degree to my mind.

> Does it really matter if people are checkusered regularly, with a liberally
> low bar, and the information garnered from such checks is shared between
> friends and colleagues equally liberally?
>
> Maybe, maybe not - but I think that's kinda the status quo, and I think
> people deserve the right to question it without being poo pooed - especially
> when it's not really reflected by what's written on the tin at the policy
> pages.
>
> On the other hand - I see this thread's purpose was intended to be a review
> of the new draft of the privacy policy. I think it's an improvement - I
> think the key issues relate to the ways it's implemented - I would like to
> assume for example that some rigour is applied to the assessment of external
> legal claims before IP data is handed over.
>
> best,
>
> Peter
> PM.
>

Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen

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

scream at datascreamer

Aug 9, 2008, 10:44 PM

Post #42 of 57 (719 views)
Permalink

Re: Note regarding status of privacy policy [In reply to]

> ps. Sorry for the brevity or abbreviations in any previous emails today,
> they were written on my phone at 85 mph on the highway on the 13 hour
> drive from South Florida to D.C.
>
> -Dan

And by that you mean, you were safely using the hands free voice activated
composing tool :)

(no sig on this on, private keys not with me at the moment)

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

gerard.meijssen at gmail

Aug 9, 2008, 11:39 PM

Post #43 of 57 (721 views)
Permalink

Re: Note regarding status of privacy policy [In reply to]

Hoi,
It has been said and confirmed, that people who have the bits to check user
on a project, are beholden to the rules of that community. There is no
formal or other connection to the foundation or the organisation. It is
really nice that you consider this fact fud but that does not make it so.

Please read back on this thread to find the relevant bits.
Thanks,
GerardM

On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 7:34 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro[at]gmail.com
> wrote:

> private musings wrote:
> > hmmm.... can't quite agree with you, Jussi.
> >
> > I share some of Slim's concerns on this one, though I write more as a
> > reprobate whose multiple accounts were detected late last year - also the
> > comparison with the animal rights movement's attempts to decentralise
> made
> > sense to me - it seemed like an apt analogy.
> >
> Well, it just isn't.
>
> I find it quite laughable that anyone would assume that
> a checkuser would be somehow "free as a bird" to do what
> they wish in terms of their technical widgets, with no
> connexion to the foundation at all. Even suggesting that
> is tantamount to FUD in the third degree to my mind.
>
> > Does it really matter if people are checkusered regularly, with a
> liberally
> > low bar, and the information garnered from such checks is shared between
> > friends and colleagues equally liberally?
> >
> > Maybe, maybe not - but I think that's kinda the status quo, and I think
> > people deserve the right to question it without being poo pooed -
> especially
> > when it's not really reflected by what's written on the tin at the policy
> > pages.
> >
> > On the other hand - I see this thread's purpose was intended to be a
> review
> > of the new draft of the privacy policy. I think it's an improvement - I
> > think the key issues relate to the ways it's implemented - I would like
> to
> > assume for example that some rigour is applied to the assessment of
> external
> > legal claims before IP data is handed over.
> >
> > best,
> >
> > Peter
> > PM.
> >
>
>
> Yours,
>
> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

toddmallen at gmail

Aug 9, 2008, 11:47 PM

Post #44 of 57 (725 views)
Permalink

Re: Note regarding status of privacy policy [In reply to]

On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 12:09 PM, Gerard Meijssen
<gerard.meijssen[at]gmail.com> wrote:
> Hoi,
> An e-mail address is not universal nor is it compulsory to have one and as a
> consequence it is not the solution that you think it is.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 8:02 PM, Todd Allen <toddmallen[at]gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 11:58 AM, Gerard Meijssen
>> <gerard.meijssen[at]gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Hoi,
>> > So you are checked. You have to appreciate that by your own words, there
>> > must be a reasonable suspicion. You even insist that it is published that
>> > you have been checked. This means that it is now generally known that you
>> > are under a reasonable suspicion... How nice, that you are now known to
>> have
>> > a tarnished reputation...
>> >
>> > Actually when you are checked, and it is not published that you were
>> > checked, you are much better off. When everyone can demand checking
>> because
>> > THEY are suspicious, publication of check results will only increase the
>> > amount of vigilantism. Really, you are much better off when trusted
>> people
>> > do their checking and keep their confidences.
>> > Thanks,
>> > GerardM
>> >
>> > On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 7:46 PM, Todd Allen <toddmallen[at]gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 11:16 AM, Jon <scream[at]datascreamer.com> wrote:
>> >> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> >> > Hash: SHA1
>> >> >
>> >> > SlimVirgin wrote:
>> >> >> On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 10:46 AM, elisabeth bauer
>> >> >> <eflebeth[at]googlemail.com> wrote:
>> >> >>> 2008/8/8 Michael Snow <wikipedia[at]verizon.net>:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>> The board intends to vote on this version, but before we do, I
>> wanted
>> >> to
>> >> >>>> provide one last opportunity for your feedback.
>> >> >>> While the policy deals at length with who has access it is very
>> silent
>> >> >>> about when all these persons are allowed to access my data and
>> >> >>> actually access my data. The only thing somehow related to this was
>> >> >>> "As a general principle, the access to, and retention of, personally
>> >> >>> identifiable data in all projects should be minimal and should be
>> used
>> >> >>> only internally to serve the well-being of the projects." which is
>> >> >>> somehow a bit vague. Who defines what is well-being? How is this
>> >> >>> controlled? Who does guarantee that a nosy checkuser doesn't just
>> look
>> >> >>> up my user information, revealing my employer, the wikipedia user
>> >> >>> name of my boyfriend and other friends just for fun? How would I
>> even
>> >> >>> know?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Elian, this is exactly the situation we have on the English
>> Wikipedia.
>> >> >> 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 can't complain to the Ombudsman commission because
>> >> >> they only deal with violations of the privacy policy, not the
>> >> >> checkuser policy. 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. It really is a very bad
>> >> >> situation for the Foundation, one that's bound to lead to trouble
>> >> >> sooner or later.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Sarah
>> >> >>
>> >> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> >> foundation-l mailing list
>> >> >> foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
>> >> >> Unsubscribe:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>> >> >
>> >> > I personally don't mind being checked. Whenever, by whomever, so long
>> >> > as the results are not disclosed. (disclosure, not checking, is
>> governed
>> >> > by the privacy policy.
>> >> >
>> >> > - --
>> >> > Best,
>> >> > Jon
>> >> >
>> >> > [User:NonvocalScream]
>> >> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> >> > Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
>> >> > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>> >> >
>> >> > iEYEARECAAYFAkid0QcACgkQ6+ro8Pm1AtVy0QCeMQHlFaTDaQxNSNcE8CMzzknY
>> >> > hBwAoK05fUsbUBc4gXcWkZsfEazCNvA/
>> >> > =GMaV
>> >> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> >> >
>> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >> > foundation-l mailing list
>> >> > foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
>> >> > Unsubscribe:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> I do believe that checking is covered as well. And if it's not, it
>> >> needs to be. Checks should only be conducted at least upon reasonable
>> >> suspicion.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> foundation-l mailing list
>> >> foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
>> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>> >>
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > foundation-l mailing list
>> > foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>> >
>>
>> If I have a "Contact me" email address, I can be easily notified that
>> I have been checked without "tarnishing my reputation", and I can
>> choose to make that as public or nonpublic as I like. "You have been
>> checkusered" by email would result in no tarnishment of a public
>> reputation while properly notifying the target. Granted, in some
>> circumstances, suppression of notification may be appropriate, but
>> such suppression should be logged and justified.
>>
>> --
>> Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

(A later response, I don't have a similar talent for writing on the
freeway.) I know that not everyone has an email address set, the
privacy policy itself acknowledges that in its notification clause.
However, we could very easily set this up the same way ("if you are
willing to set an email, you will receive such notifications, if you
choose not to do so, well, you don't, too bad!") It's still better
than the current setup, in which you have no way to know at all unless
the checkuser decides to say so, and in practice, most active and
regular editors do choose to set an email address. Checkuser is quite
a sensitive function, as it reveals private data, so I don't think it
would hurt to have accountability ("what were your reasonable
suspicions about Userxyz that led you to run a checkuser?")

--
Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.

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

gerard.meijssen at gmail

Aug 10, 2008, 12:00 AM

Post #45 of 57 (721 views)
Permalink

Re: Note regarding status of privacy policy [In reply to]

Hoi,
I would argue that there is hardly any benefit in providing what you call
acountability. When there is a user that is considered to be a sock puppet,
there is a group of people who can be considered to be the likely primary
user. There is no benefit in being informed about this. You can be offended
that you are considered as such. You get a lot of extra handling that is
just ballast.

When however it is clear that information about check user activity becomes
available to people that should not have this information, a completely
different situation occurs. This is a clear situation where people with the
check user bits are demonstratively shown to be not trust worthy. Such
people should lose their priviledges as a consequence. There is no excuse.

When you do not inform people at all about check user activity, you will not
find the checked people informing about this either.
Thanks,
GerardM

On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 8:47 AM, Todd Allen <toddmallen[at]gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 12:09 PM, Gerard Meijssen
> <gerard.meijssen[at]gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hoi,
> > An e-mail address is not universal nor is it compulsory to have one and
> as a
> > consequence it is not the solution that you think it is.
> > Thanks,
> > GerardM
> >
> > On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 8:02 PM, Todd Allen <toddmallen[at]gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 11:58 AM, Gerard Meijssen
> >> <gerard.meijssen[at]gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Hoi,
> >> > So you are checked. You have to appreciate that by your own words,
> there
> >> > must be a reasonable suspicion. You even insist that it is published
> that
> >> > you have been checked. This means that it is now generally known that
> you
> >> > are under a reasonable suspicion... How nice, that you are now known
> to
> >> have
> >> > a tarnished reputation...
> >> >
> >> > Actually when you are checked, and it is not published that you were
> >> > checked, you are much better off. When everyone can demand checking
> >> because
> >> > THEY are suspicious, publication of check results will only increase
> the
> >> > amount of vigilantism. Really, you are much better off when trusted
> >> people
> >> > do their checking and keep their confidences.
> >> > Thanks,
> >> > GerardM
> >> >
> >> > On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 7:46 PM, Todd Allen <toddmallen[at]gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 11:16 AM, Jon <scream[at]datascreamer.com>
> wrote:
> >> >> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >> >> > Hash: SHA1
> >> >> >
> >> >> > SlimVirgin wrote:
> >> >> >> On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 10:46 AM, elisabeth bauer
> >> >> >> <eflebeth[at]googlemail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >>> 2008/8/8 Michael Snow <wikipedia[at]verizon.net>:
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>> The board intends to vote on this version, but before we do, I
> >> wanted
> >> >> to
> >> >> >>>> provide one last opportunity for your feedback.
> >> >> >>> While the policy deals at length with who has access it is very
> >> silent
> >> >> >>> about when all these persons are allowed to access my data and
> >> >> >>> actually access my data. The only thing somehow related to this
> was
> >> >> >>> "As a general principle, the access to, and retention of,
> personally
> >> >> >>> identifiable data in all projects should be minimal and should be
> >> used
> >> >> >>> only internally to serve the well-being of the projects." which
> is
> >> >> >>> somehow a bit vague. Who defines what is well-being? How is this
> >> >> >>> controlled? Who does guarantee that a nosy checkuser doesn't just
> >> look
> >> >> >>> up my user information, revealing my employer, the wikipedia
> user
> >> >> >>> name of my boyfriend and other friends just for fun? How would I
> >> even
> >> >> >>> know?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Elian, this is exactly the situation we have on the English
> >> Wikipedia.
> >> >> >> 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 can't complain to the Ombudsman commission
> because
> >> >> >> they only deal with violations of the privacy policy, not the
> >> >> >> checkuser policy. 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. It really is a very
> bad
> >> >> >> situation for the Foundation, one that's bound to lead to trouble
> >> >> >> sooner or later.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Sarah
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> >> foundation-l mailing list
> >> >> >> foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
> >> >> >> Unsubscribe:
> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I personally don't mind being checked. Whenever, by whomever, so
> long
> >> >> > as the results are not disclosed. (disclosure, not checking, is
> >> governed
> >> >> > by the privacy policy.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > - --
> >> >> > Best,
> >> >> > Jon
> >> >> >
> >> >> > [User:NonvocalScream]
> >> >> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >> >> > Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
> >> >> > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> >> >> >
> >> >> > iEYEARECAAYFAkid0QcACgkQ6+ro8Pm1AtVy0QCeMQHlFaTDaQxNSNcE8CMzzknY
> >> >> > hBwAoK05fUsbUBc4gXcWkZsfEazCNvA/
> >> >> > =GMaV
> >> >> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >> >> >
> >> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> >> > foundation-l mailing list
> >> >> > foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
> >> >> > Unsubscribe:
> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> I do believe that checking is covered as well. And if it's not, it
> >> >> needs to be. Checks should only be conducted at least upon reasonable
> >> >> suspicion.
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.
> >> >>
> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> foundation-l mailing list
> >> >> foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
> >> >> Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >> >>
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > foundation-l mailing list
> >> > foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
> >> > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >> >
> >>
> >> If I have a "Contact me" email address, I can be easily notified that
> >> I have been checked without "tarnishing my reputation", and I can
> >> choose to make that as public or nonpublic as I like. "You have been
> >> checkusered" by email would result in no tarnishment of a public
> >> reputation while properly notifying the target. Granted, in some
> >> circumstances, suppression of notification may be appropriate, but
> >> such suppression should be logged and justified.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> foundation-l mailing list
> >> foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
> (A later response, I don't have a similar talent for writing on the
> freeway.) I know that not everyone has an email address set, the
> privacy policy itself acknowledges that in its notification clause.
> However, we could very easily set this up the same way ("if you are
> willing to set an email, you will receive such notifications, if you
> choose not to do so, well, you don't, too bad!") It's still better
> than the current setup, in which you have no way to know at all unless
> the checkuser decides to say so, and in practice, most active and
> regular editors do choose to set an email address. Checkuser is quite
> a sensitive function, as it reveals private data, so I don't think it
> would hurt to have accountability ("what were your reasonable
> suspicions about Userxyz that led you to run a checkuser?")
>
> --
> Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

cimonavaro at gmail

Aug 10, 2008, 12:17 AM

Post #46 of 57 (721 views)
Permalink

Re: Note regarding status of privacy policy [In reply to]

Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> Hoi,
> It has been said and confirmed, that people who have the bits to check user
> on a project, are beholden to the rules of that community. There is no
> formal or other connection to the foundation or the organisation. It is
> really nice that you consider this fact fud but that does not make it so.
>
> Please read back on this thread to find the relevant bits.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
>

You are just restating what I myself said, and purporting to
disagree with me. That just doesn't make sense.

Doing as the customs of the community are, is the strongest
possible connection I can imagine. Legal shackles are only
necessary if there is an expectation that that connection can
be broken.

Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen

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

gerard.meijssen at gmail

Aug 10, 2008, 3:18 AM

Post #47 of 57 (697 views)
Permalink

Re: Note regarding status of privacy policy [In reply to]

Hoi,
You are using terminology that makes what you say absolutely not the same.
It is explicitly said that a person with check user rights has these rights
as a member of a community. You express that this same person is part of the
Foundation. This is not what gives him the ability to wield the specialised
tools to gain private information. So I disagree we say the same thing; you
are overly broad and wrong as a consequence.

Now you may have meant to say this, and in your later reply there are
indications that you do, but the opposite was obvious to me and consequently
my reaction. I think we agree that check user is a right given by a
community, not the Foundation.
Thanks,
GerardM

On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 9:17 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro[at]gmail.com
> wrote:

> Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> > Hoi,
> > It has been said and confirmed, that people who have the bits to check
> user
> > on a project, are beholden to the rules of that community. There is no
> > formal or other connection to the foundation or the organisation. It is
> > really nice that you consider this fact fud but that does not make it so.
> >
> > Please read back on this thread to find the relevant bits.
> > Thanks,
> > GerardM
> >
> >
>
> You are just restating what I myself said, and purporting to
> disagree with me. That just doesn't make sense.
>
> Doing as the customs of the community are, is the strongest
> possible connection I can imagine. Legal shackles are only
> necessary if there is an expectation that that connection can
> be broken.
>
>
> Yours,
>
> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

cimonavaro at gmail

Aug 10, 2008, 5:19 AM

Post #48 of 57 (671 views)
Permalink

Re: Note regarding status of privacy policy [In reply to]

Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> Hoi,
> You are using terminology that makes what you say absolutely not the same.
> It is explicitly said that a person with check user rights has these rights
> as a member of a community. You express that this same person is part of the
> Foundation. This is not what gives him the ability to wield the specialised
> tools to gain private information. So I disagree we say the same thing; you
> are overly broad and wrong as a consequence.
>
> Now you may have meant to say this, and in your later reply there are
> indications that you do, but the opposite was obvious to me and consequently
> my reaction. I think we agree that check user is a right given by a
> community, not the Foundation.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
>

I don't tend to phrase things in a way that could be
parsed as an offfensive way, and I definitely don't
want you to read this that way, if you are able...

But, jesus!!

I fail at wordś here, in not being able to even compass
what your problem is. Come on, my god, whatever people
do, there has to be a point where people just say, yes, you
just went past the pale...

Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen

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

innocentkiller at gmail

Aug 10, 2008, 6:17 AM

Post #49 of 57 (677 views)
Permalink

Re: Note regarding status of privacy policy [In reply to]

On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 1:26 AM, Dan Rosenthal <swatjester[at]gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree with Jussi-Ville. These combined statements read very much like
> a veiled legal threat aimed at David Gerard. At the very least it's
> fearmongering by analogy.
>
> ps. Sorry for the brevity or abbreviations in any previous emails today,
> they were written on my phone at 85 mph on the highway on the 13 hour
> drive from South Florida to D.C.
>
> -Dan
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

I don't know about the whole length of 95 (it's been some time since
I've taken 95 down to Florida), but at least in Virginia, the speed
limit on I-95 is 65. Speeding _and_ texting Dan? Shame on you :-)

-Chad

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

swatjester at gmail

Aug 10, 2008, 7:38 AM

Post #50 of 57 (663 views)
Permalink

Re: Note regarding status of privacy policy [In reply to]

Chad wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 1:26 AM, Dan Rosenthal <swatjester[at]gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I agree with Jussi-Ville. These combined statements read very much like
>> a veiled legal threat aimed at David Gerard. At the very least it's
>> fearmongering by analogy.
>>
>> ps. Sorry for the brevity or abbreviations in any previous emails today,
>> they were written on my phone at 85 mph on the highway on the 13 hour
>> drive from South Florida to D.C.
>>
>> -Dan
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>
> I don't know about the whole length of 95 (it's been some time since
> I've taken 95 down to Florida), but at least in Virginia, the speed
> limit on I-95 is 65. Speeding _and_ texting Dan? Shame on you :-)
>
> -Chad
>
>
>
Oh my battery died on the phone WAY before Virginia. My emails were I
think around Jacksonville, FL; Hilton Head, SC; and Rocky Mount, NC. On
an interesting note, I was able to read the Wikipedia article on Aphasia
as I was passing through Jacksonville, meaning Wikimedia projects as an
iPhone app are certainly workable. I did a search in the app store, and
found several projects that access Wikipedia for things, but mainly as
geo-locators to find articles related to your nearby coordinates from
the GPS. None of them were actually a dedicated Wikimedia reader
interface -- iPhone users still have to load up safari and get the
actual webpage. It would be very nice to see something that is a
dedicated Wikimedia reader, it will show you the article very quickly,
and then have a place where you can click to view images (separately, so
they don't slow down the text loading).

But this is all getting off topic for the original point.

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

1 2 3

View All

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact lists@gossamer-threads.com