I don't think so. We do not have access to non-public data. There are messages posted everywhere that this is just a mailing list and that they should not share any private information. Casey Brown Cbrown1023 -----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of George Herbert Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 9:21 PM To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List; Requests from blocked users Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] WMF resolution on access to non-public datapassed On 4/30/07, Kat Walsh <kat(a)mindspillage.org> wrote: Clarification query: Does this apply to the unblock-en-l volunteer staff as well? Thank you. -- -george william herbert george.herbert(a)gmail.com _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 5/1/07, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher(a)gmail.com> wrote: /me expects Cary announces the way to identify. A next question. Some of us faxed a copy of passports once to the Foundation office for another purpose. Is it sufficient for the Office, if they are told "hey you have already gotten it" or they would like us to send them it again? -- KIZU Naoko Wikiquote: http://wikiquote.org * habent enim emolumentum in labore suo *

shi zhao schreef: Is it not so that in some country's, like the USA, that is impossible? No identity cards, no national database of birth registration, change of address, change of sex, marital status, dead. I believe wives even change there name there when the marry. I do not see how you could possibly be sure about the identity of anybody in a country like that. -- Contact: walter AT wikizine DOT org Wikizine.org - news for and about the Wikimedia community

On 02/05/07, Mohamed Magdy <mohamed.m.k(a)gmail.com> wrote: Fairly obviously, this isn't going to be forgery proof. Its power would be as an arse-covering measure in case a volunteer with private info turns evil or crazy. That is, the Foundation has the identity info supplied by the volunteer, and if they lied then the volunteer is the liar. - d.

<snip> ...and thus the foundation cannot be held responsible... Ah, so that (resolution) is for the legal issues? $alnokta

On 01/05/07, FloNight &lt;sydney.poore(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: That's a really awful reason that makes no sense. It's like keeping tall people tall. - d.

afaik Shi is a He ;-) On 5/1/07, teun spaans &lt;teun.spaans(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: -- DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of the Wikimedia Foundation nor of its Board of Trustees.

you mean, while we evidently trust them to use the tools as trusted members of our community, we still cannot not trust them to *not* send in something illegal such as a forged identity? best, oscar On 5/1/07, shi zhao &lt;shizhao(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: -- DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of the Wikimedia Foundation nor of its Board of Trustees.

oscar van dillen wrote: I'm just responding to the question as I interpreted it..no more no less... but in my opinion..we should always assume good faith...that those spending this *crazy* time on the projects have nice reason and want to make it better...and after all..what harm could anyone do that is not revertible? <snip> )alnokta

On 5/2/07, Sean Whitton &lt;sean(a)silentflame.com&gt; wrote: Yes but not a total degree. I feel need to add that both parents and minors can cancel the deed of minors if the parents give no explicit consent retrospective, even after the minor reached adulthood. It would be an idea to ask their parents a consent in a paper, but I don't know if WMF can handle enourmous paperwork currently in addition to all confirmation process of other people. -- KIZU Naoko Wikiquote: http://wikiquote.org * habent enim emolumentum in labore suo *

On 5/1/07, Florence Devouard &lt;Anthere9(a)yahoo.com&gt; wrote: Under US parliamentary law, an "abstension" is a deliberate refusal to vote: it means that the member is present in the chamber but actively refused to cast a vote in the ballot. Merely failing to vote due to being absent or unavailable is not an abstension. There is a significant distinction, and your use of the incorrect term may have confused some readers in the thread. It would have been more appropriate to report the result as "six members in favor, one member not voting". Kelly

On 5/1/07, Kelly Martin &lt;kelly.lynn.martin(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: The UK english commons use is somewhat different however which is why Frank Maguire was said to have abstained in person. So using the word "abstain" to mean "abstain in person" would risk confusing UK readers. Really there is no ideal wording. -- geni

Hoi, The way I read the resolution is that the WMF will know who you are, somewhere in a safe or something. This means that only when there is a requirement to get into contact with you on a named basis you will be addressed in this way. This should also be the extend to which someone needs to be identified by his / her name. Thanks, GerardM On 5/1/07, sannse &lt;sannse(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

One person from Wikimedia has already accidentally used my real name in a public mailing list (although iirc he spelt it wrong). And a private wiki with that name on my user page was found to be accidentally open to all to view. And that's with me being "paranoid". And as just one example of a reason: I am open on-line about being a gay woman. I'm not quite that open in the 3D world. For me my real name being linked with "sannse" would be a mild embarrassment that may damage my relationship with a few aunts and uncles. For some a revelation like that could be /very/ dangerous in many ways. That's just one reason off the top of my head. But really, that's not the point for me... my name is none of your damn business. It's no harm if you go rummaging though my underwear drawer, but I'm not going to allow that either. -- sannse

On 5/1/07, Thomas Dalton &lt;thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Yes I think most people are missing this point. The identities won't be made public, they won't be posted on wiki, they will be privately archived. The Foundation will be the only one having the information.

David Gerard wrote: This calls for a lawyer to be the one in charge of handling such information. ant

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Sorry, can't let this go by unanswered. My statements are historical and have no bearing on what is presently being done, as I have nothing to do with the Foundation anymore. But: 1) Information obtained by the Foundation is subject to the privacy policy adopted by the board. Always. 2) What happens if...? I don't understand your question. If there is a security breach, etc., it's a big problem, like it would be for any company or organization. 3) Will the Foundation fight? That depends, but the clearest answer you will get is, there is no guarantee of security, only the best anyone can offer. Any other statement is hogwash. If your identity is so secret that you can't let it be shared, then don't share it. That is your decision, and no one elses. For example, I appreciate what sannse is saying, and I hold her in very high regard, but I think her opposition to the policy is misguided. People *do* already know who she is. The point is that the Foundation cannot risk letting people no Foundation person has shaken hands with, spoken to on the phone, etc., from having the capacity to expose confidential information. One word: Essjay. In practice, persons who are the object of investigation by a third party usually know someone is after them. The standard practice supported by EFF and other free speech organizations, and encouraged under Florida law, is to advise the individual of the subpoena to allow them the opportunity to file a motion to quash the subpoena and to seek to intervene to limit or supply conditions for the discovery. There is never a guarantee the information can *never* be turned over. Under most normal situations, however, it won't be. 4) Bogus suits are bogus suits, and run afoul of state and federal rules. In Florida, you don't get that discovery automatically. 5) What legal relationship do you think changes? Brad Patrick Matthew Brown wrote:

Another, maybe not *that* important, question might be: Will the foundation be willing to remove the information out of the records if the person resigns from the positions? Not that I care a very lot about it, but I am somehow curious anyway :) Lodewijk 2007/5/1, Matthew Brown &lt;morven(a)gmail.com&gt;om>:

On 5/1/07, Brad Patrick &lt;bradp.wmf(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: <snip> While appreciating that Brad doesn't speak for the Foundation, and noting that I don't disagree with the proposed policy and am happy to provide my ID to the WMF, etc.... I do find this statement about someone that "no Foundation person has shaken hands with..." curious in light of the actual resolution. There is, as SJ hints at, a big difference between being personally trustworthy -- online or off -- and having your identity confirmed. To take myself as an example: I've met in person, shaken hands with and spoken on the phone to many of the Foundation people; and I have a position of trust (OTRS) that comes under this resolution. In short: I hope I'm considered personally trustworthy, or at least personally known. That doesn't mean any of you necessarily know my exact age, or my middle name, or the fact that I really do have a California driver's license, or where I live, or that I really work at a university, or any of the other specific details that a positive ID could provide. Furthermore, if none of you had ever met or interacted with me, any number of government IDs couldn't confirm that I'm a trustworthy and competent person, that I'm not going to take all the personal information I've ever come in contact with and share it far and wide on teh interweb, etc. -- all they could confirm is those morally anonymous personal details. It clearly takes some combination of the two -- positive ID and personal knowledge of someone's work -- to obtain what it seems like the policy is getting at, that is, knowing that volunteers with access to sensitive information must be both mature and over the age of consent, trustworthy and truthful in their identity, respectful of both Foundation policies and personal privacy rights, and possessed of good common and moral sense. As I said, I'm all in favor of this goal. So far, volunteers for trusted positions have them mainly because other people think they're trustworthy from onwiki interactions. The resolution seems like it is filling in the gap of also getting a positive ID for people, so that as Kat says the Foundation can "ensure that volunteers can be held accountable for their own actions." It would be nice to clarify though if this in the only purpose or if there is a larger assumption being made about what these positive IDs will achieve. cheers, phoebe

Brad Patrick wrote: Has anyone ever (and I do mean *ever*) seriously asserted that Essjay in any way abused oversight, CheckUser, or OTRS access? That seems to me a serious misrepresentation of what was essentially a PR mishap for the WMF. If your point is only that he was a pseudonymous user with access to confidential information, then your one word might as well have been "Dmcdevit," or dozens of people here: <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CheckUser#Current_users_with_access>. But crying "Essjay" is sensationalizing the issue, and kicking the man while he's down for no discernible reason. Dominic

On 01/05/07, sannse &lt;sannse(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Surely if your full details are known to Kat, and she is happy and confident in them, we can reasonably say you are identified to the foundation? The Foundation, or one of its agents, has privately and directly verified your identity; it would, I assume, be satisfied with that. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

On 5/1/07, sannse &lt;sannse(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: I still don't understand what your problem is with the policy. You say your name is none of our business. That's fine, but then my IP address is none of your business. Anthony

Just seems to be excessive paranoia Sannse. I guess you have your reasons, but I can't imagine any legitimate ones for not wanting your information out there. Even with the crap I had to go through with Brandt's minions it comes out better for all. Giving any sort of power (even adminship) to somebody who the community does not know by name has always seemed wacky. Have we gotten an answer about unblock-l volunteers? I create accounts, see passwords, locations, frequently names and phone numbers there. Seems like that should be verified somehow. On 5/1/07, sannse &lt;sannse(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: -- -Brock

On Tue, 1 May 2007, sannse wrote: This last comment is an important point. I also think that this is an unfortunate policy. 1) The utility of sharing real names, and being a certain age, is overstated. Require competence, maturity, and reputation; not the paper assurance of age and Real identity. 2) Just ask people to share their real name, don't twist their arm. They will tell you when they don't want to share, rather than fooling you. 3) If you really want to confirm that 'honest people are honest' and make community members jump through hoops, set that bar higher (leave out, for instance, basic OTRS access & checkuser) SJ

Ray Saintonge wrote: Uh ? When at school, I remember learning that either we should write "can not" or "can't" ? Is not that so ?

Florence Devouard wrote: Don't believe everything that you learned in school. :-) Perhaps grammatical "inaccuracy" would have been a better choice than "error". In most cases "can not" and "cannot" are indeed interchangeable, and in most circumstances and spoken speech it doesn't matter. Both Fowler and the Oxford consider the two forms acceptable, with the one word form becoming more common. Perhaps years of reading tax laws affects the way I read "legal" writing. I often ask myself whether there is a plausibly unexpected way of reading a passage. Thus with the clause in question "Modifications to the bylaws or articles of incorporation can (not be made) with consent resolutions." it reads differently with the parentheses put there to indicate a different emphasis. In French the distinction would be between "ne peut pas faire" and "peut ne pas faire". In speech pauses are phonemic. Thus we have the title of the Lynn Truss book "Eats shoots and leaves" to distinguish it from "Eats, shoots and leaves" In that case a comma distingusishes the two readings which in spoken speech would be distinguished by a pause. Negative constructions are notorious for ambiguities. Consider the alternative clause: "[No] modifications to the bylaws or [to the] articles of incorporation [shall] ^ be made [by] consent resolution^. (Changes in brackets, omissions marked by carets) Such a phrasing may also avoid some of the ambiguities. "Can't" is a contraction, and as such is not generally acceptable in formal writing, but it does have the benefit of being unambiguous in the contest we are considering. English auxilliary verbs can present a big challenge since English is a more syntactic language. Sorry if this seems like a good language rant. Ec

Anthony wrote: "There" can be defined by the Foundation. Perhaps it can be wherever the secretary happens to be since it's normally the secretary that keeps track of the books and records of the company. Ec

Mohamed Magdy wrote: Let me clarify. The resolution was drafted by Mindspillage on the 16 th of march. We had a board meeting on the 11th of march. The resolution was on the agenda of that meeting. Which means board members knew that the resolution would be voted upon that day. Two board members motionned it to vote (Jan-Bart and Kat). Then, on the 11th of april, 3 members voted: Jan-Bart, Kat and myself (unsufficient quorum for it to be passed). Michael approved it on the 16th and Oscar on the 19th. Technically, that means the quorum was reached on the 16th and the resolution was passed on the 16th. It was copied on the Foundation site on the 25th, which means that Jimbo could have added his vote until the 25th practically. But did not. When I copy the resolutions, what I usually do is to mention something like "4 approval, 1 against, 1 abstain, 1 vote missing". I now realise that Erik is not using the same system... So, I will go through all the resolutions to clarify and mention somewhere the exact terminology and what it means. In this case, the abstain means "no vote expressed" ant

Andrew Gray wrote: ;) pardon me then..sorry... i guess i was in sort of a robot mode, find consent in the paragraph then its age of consent.. but wouldn't adding 'age of majority' to the resolution's text be clearer? #alnokta