On 8/13/07, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/13/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
So I raise questions about checkusers violating people's privacy, and you respond to it by violating my privacy, and the matter is suddenly closed?
As far as I can tell, at this point, what you're actually doing is trying to argue that our projects should tie their own hands so that disruptive users, like yourself, can continue disrupting the project without risk of their actions being attributed back to them.
Oh please, stop blaming the victim. I'm not a disruptive user, and you yourself didn't have any problem with the honest mistake I made until today when I question your actions (something which I did without mentioning your name until you did so yourself).
If you actually think I've violated your privacy then I invite you to take it up with the foundation. Otherwise, I expect an apology for your libelous allegations about my conduct.
Hmm, let's see: "The tool [checkuser] is to be used to fight vandalism, to check for sockpuppet abuse, and to limit disruption of the project. It must be used only to prevent damage to one or several of Wikimedia projects.
The tool should not be used for political control; to apply pressure on editors; or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to check a user. Note that alternative accounts are not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of the policies (for example, to double-vote or to increase the apparent support for any given position)."
So, that's one policy you violated.
"It is the policy of Wikimedia that personally identifiable data collected in the server logs, or through records in the database via the CheckUser feature, may be released by the system administrators or users with CheckUser access, in the following situations:
1. In response to a valid subpoena or other compulsory request from law enforcement 2. With permission of the affected user 3. To the chair of Wikimedia Foundation, his/her legal counsel, or his/her designee, when necessary for investigation of abuse complaints. 4. Where the information pertains to page views generated by a spider or bot and its dissemination is necessary to illustrate or resolve technical issues. 5. 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 6. Where it is reasonably necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the public.
Wikimedia policy does not permit public distribution of such information under any circumstances, except as described above."
And there's a second policy you violated.
If you think I've libeled you, then I invite you take it up with a court of law. I'm not interested in playing with the Foundation's circus courts.