On 8/13/07, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 8/13/07, Anthony <wikimail(a)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.