On 13/08/07, K P <kpbotany(a)gmail.com> wrote: On a wiki, everyone is Jimbo. I think there'd be a fun old time running the finicky gaffer-tape-and-string wonders of MySQL without anyone having access to the database. But as I said, I look forward to your solution. No, it's that I'm not even going to attempt to address a complaint of malfeasance of such ridiculous vagueness. Shit or get off the pot. Your logic has floored me. I look forward to your proposed rewrite of [[m:CheckUser]] then. - d.

On 13/08/07, NavouWiki <navouwiki(a)gmail.com> wrote: State your complaint or quit whining. "Your complaint is too vague to answer. Link please." "See, that you don't remember it proves the validity of my complaint!" "wtf?" - d.

On 8/13/07, K P <kpbotany(a)gmail.com> wrote: That's how it's been, CheckUsers have a mailing list for that reason. It's not pixie dust, the results need interpretation and sometimes that needs to be provided by other more knowledgable people. Without knowing to *whom* they were sharing this information, we can't really yell at them. If a CheckUser shares information with another CheckUser, that's fine, especially since they all have access to the log. -- Casey Brown Cbrown1023 --- Note: This e-mail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to this address will probably get lost.

On 13/08/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86(a)comcast.net> wrote: checkuser-l is for discussing results one doesn't understand or suggesting others run a check one considers one shouldn't. Where's the privacy violation? Please show your working when answering. - d.

David, the whole thing really is nonsense. I'm not sure why we are wasting our time. On 8/13/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: -- Casey Brown Cbrown1023 --- Note: This e-mail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to this address will probably get lost.

Yup, which is why I asked in the other thread for them to read the Privacy policy (on wikimediafoundation), the CheckUser policy (on meta), and the Extension:CheckUser (on MediaWiki) before commenting more. On 8/13/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: -- Casey Brown Cbrown1023 --- Note: This e-mail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to this address will probably get lost.

On 13/08/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86(a)comcast.net> wrote: I'm addressing this to the complainants :-) There's clearly an expectations failure - there's something users expect which the privacy policy or other checkuser policies don't account for. It would be good to allow for expectations without abandoning the tool (which just isn't going to happen). So I'm asking what those expectations are, with as much detail as possible. Then we can work on something which doesn't piss people off. - d.

On 8/13/07, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote: You may say that you expect it, but by visiting any page on Wikimedia site, you are agreeing to the privacy policy http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy and also the resolutions of the Wikimedia Board of Trustees and its relevant policies. The CheckUser policy explicitly states that "Notification to the account that is checked is permitted but is not mandatory." But, even if this were fixed I still doubt I'd feel comfortable with That in itself is, maybe unfortunately, probably not going to happen. It shouldn't matter whether or not a user is a sockpuppet This may be one of the most understandable things you've ever said, but this isn't the place to bring it up. There is an official policy against sockpuppetry, and that won't be broken here. If you really need to Wtf? You are upset becasue we are checking your *IP address* and instead you wish for us to find out your exact identity?! _______________________________________________ -- Casey Brown Cbrown1023 --- Note: This e-mail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to this address will probably get lost.

On 13/08/07, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote: You don't get that, any more than you get to object to a sysadmin looking through the logs of a server they are charged with administering. Checkuser is essentially a sysadmin function. (But then, you know this, having read the manual.) What do you gain from knowing, if the information is not revealed? Assume that the tool will continue to be used as it is unless you can *convince* lots of people otherwise. It's not a matter of a vote, it's a matter of persuasion. Can you make a fair shot at that? - d.

On 8/13/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: Or any more than I get to object to (or even know about) a warrantless search of my phone records when George W Bush decides to go on a terrorist hunt. (But I know that, having read the lawsuits.)

On 8/13/07, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote: Anthony, When you were caught using a sock the folks who investigated the sock decided to extend you an assumption of good faith and took your claim, that you didn't intend the negative outcome which followed from, at face value. Your actions were not publicly disclosed in that case, even though only your reputation would have been hurt and not your privacy. I think it is sad that you are, apparently, so unwilling to extend trust to others even after benefiting from it yourself. I assume you know what they say about people who live in glass houses? Wiki(p|m)edia isn't an anonymity service and becoming one would not further our mission. It's believed by some that the limited level of anonymity we already provide is counter to our mission as well as the public good, although I don't personally share that view. No realizable improvements would likely satisfy the desires of those who want better privacy enough to say something. What these people should want is a level of privacy which can only be provide by special tools (like TOR), and may not really be possible in open editable system because it is so easy to leak personally identifiable information. I do, however, support the arguments you've made about increasing our friendliness towards outside anonymity services. We should do that to the greatest extents which are possible without damaging our ability to further our primary activities.

On 8/13/07, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote: Anthony. You created a sock which was an apparent impersonation of a outside institution which was in some way associated with the WMF or some members of the WMF board. Creating impersonation accounts is a violation of EnWP policy. You should have known better. You used that account to create an article on the institution. Doing so created the appearance of a violation of our conflict of interest guidelines. At least within our community, doing cast the origination in a falsely negative light ... as you should be well aware, much of our community frowns on self-edits. You should have known better. As a direct result of your actions Wikimedia received unfair public criticism. It was claimed that Wikimedia looks the other way when it comes to COI edits from possible sponsors. You should have seen that coming. I asked a Enwiki checkuser to see if there we had any useful data on the impersonator account, and the checkuser discovered that the person who created the account was you. If you think that checkuering a blocked impersonator account is a violation of your privacy you are more out of touch with reality than I previously expected. No doubt, no one thinks you are important enough to bother checkusering you... it's just as easy to checkuser the disruptive account you make. I see that you don't disclose your actions in your post, is it because you are not so confident that it wouldn't hurt your reputation or is it because you've created disruptive sock accounts so many times that you couldn't tell which one I was taking about in your prior message? I suggest you be more careful with your words, because it's really starting to sound like you're complaining because you're not able to avoid the risk of being caught when you create a disruptive account. Rather than simply throw you to the dogs over this, I asked the CU to take no further action at the time. I contacted you directly and asked what you were up to. You gave what I felt was a half-assed excuse, but since we all make idiotic mistakes from time to time I left it at that. As far as I can recall I only ever told a few foundation folks, since they had to clean up the mess you made. It was my view that we needed no further response towards you in order to avoid continued disruptive behavior from you of that sort. After seeing your ranting, complaint, and defence of your disruptive actions I now believe my prior conclusion was made in error.

He's a checkuser on Commons. On 8/13/07, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote: -- Casey Brown Cbrown1023 --- Note: This e-mail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to this address will probably get lost.

Two separate projects. Separate, no? Navou -----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Anthony Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 7:18 PM To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Checkuser for fun, for profit, for mild curiosity, for sharing, for whatever On 8/13/07, Casey Brown <cbrown1023.ml(a)gmail.com> wrote: So does that mean he has direct access to checkuser information on en.wikipedia, or does it mean that it's acceptable to tell him information about checkuser results from en.wikipedia, or neither? _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

On 8/13/07, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote: Currently, the checkusers are on one private email list and it is considered acceptable to do so. If this causes problems, perhaps it should be revisited. -Matt

On 14/08/07, Casey Brown <cbrown1023.ml(a)gmail.com> wrote: The checkuser log is global AFAIK, meaning all checkusers can view it. -- Alex (Majorly)

On 8/13/07, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote: Strictly speaking, no. Although sometimes early results are obvious from the list of accounts which are subsequently checkusered.

On 8/13/07, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote: Well, as my name was never checkusered (at least not in as long as the logs go back), that's not the case in this situation.

On 8/13/07, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> 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?

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

Was it ever really doing any good? :) On 8/13/07, George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com> wrote: -- Casey Brown Cbrown1023 --- Note: This e-mail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to this address will probably get lost.

On 8/13/07, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote: Whoa whoa whoa. You were questioning *my* actions, come again? Exactly what action of mine were you questioning in this thread? I await with baited breath your explanation of this one. It's sure to be a doozey. Your policy argument makes no sense to me: Someone other than me checkusered an impersonation account and shared the results with me as part of an investigation into that account that I was conducting, doing so was perfectly fine with policy. I've still not posted the identity of the impersonator account, although there is nothing stopping me from doing so. I did not do so previously because I hoped you action was more stupidity than intentional disruption, and would mend your trollish ways. Now I continue to not disclose it because no one has asked and the process of of people searching for it and unearthing more disruptive accounts would be beneficial. If you think it's a violation of your privacy to non-specifically describe to others how you caused harm using a sock account, I'm just going to have to invite you to pound sand. We have checkuser precisely to catch harmful behavior, and if you don't like that then we should remind you that nothing is making you edit the site. If you don't impersonate or disrupt it's unlikely that anyone would checkuser you, but if you don't edit at all then people have no ability to do so. de minimis non curat lex While the negative statements you made about me were untrue, should have been known to you to be untrue, and certainly appear to have been made as part of malicious attack on my character... No harm to me can come of it, because so little credibility is granted to your rantings. No court would care, nor should it. My request for an apology was a request to conform with a community standard of civility, not an offer to begin litigation. You would have heard about litigation from me via a process server, not a mailing list server. :)

Sorry list I meant this to be private. On 8/14/07, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote:

<humor> I am still amused. He shall continue. </humor> Navou -----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gregory Maxwell Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 8:56 PM To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Checkuser for fun, for profit, for mild curiosity, for sharing, for whatever On 8/13/07, Anthony &lt;wikimail(a)inbox.org&gt; wrote: Is there a purpose to the continued speculation after I already posted exactly what happened? Or do we just all enjoy being played by this disruptive troll? _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

It is completely up to ArbCom. ArbCom can remove all the users with checkuser or they can make tons more, it's their decision. On 8/13/07, Stephen Park &lt;stephenpark15(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: -- Casey Brown Cbrown1023 --- Note: This e-mail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to this address will probably get lost.