[Foundation-l] checkuser

[Joshua Brady]

I can't speak for the list admins, but that's how most mailman lists
generally are setup.

-Josh


On 7/28/07, Dan Rosenthal <swatjester at gmail.com> wrote:
> Off topic, but why does my email appear to be coming from the bounces
> address with "on Behalf of Dan Rosenthal" in the title? Is something
> broken on my end?
>
> -Dan
> On Jul 28, 2007, at 8:33 PM, Casey Brown wrote:
>
> > How many cases there were...
> > What were the accusations... (nothing specific i.e. what sort of
> > abuse)
> > Where they all solved... (how fast?)
> > What were the threats...
> >
> > There are many other possible questions as well.  It is best to see
> > what the
> > Ombudsman themselves share.
> >
> > Casey Brown
> > Cbrown1023
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: foundation-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org
> > [mailto:foundation-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Dan
> > Rosenthal
> > Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2007 7:47 PM
> > To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] checkuser
> >
> >
> > On Jul 28, 2007, at 7:13 PM, elisabeth bauer wrote:
> >
> >> 2007/7/29, Florence Devouard <Anthere9 at yahoo.com>:
> >>> Greetings,
> >>>
> >>> I got several requests about this, so this mail is mostly to get the
> >>> ball rolling. Nothing urgent !
> >>>
> >>> Checkuser ombudsmen have been appointed now a year ago by the board.
> >>> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/
> >>> Resolution:Ombudsperson_checkuser
> >>>
> >>> I guess it is time for a renewal and little feedback on this, and
> >>> more
> >>> generally, on checkusers.
> >>>
> >>> So, please reflect on the following points if appropriate
> >>
> >> I'd like to add one point:
> >> Could the ombudsmen please provide a report on the mailing list
> >> (without going into private details of course) how many cases they
> >> have handled, what have been the issues and how they have been
> >> resolved?
> >>
> >> greetings,
> >> elian
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> foundation-l mailing list
> >> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> >> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> > I can't see why that would be necessary. Considering the ombudsman
> > commission is there to investigate breaches of privacy policy,
> > including potentionally litigious instances (as taken from the
> > resolution), I don't see what's necessary out of that for the public
> > to be aware of. I don't see much information would be available to be
> > given about the cases individually due to privacy concerns: what
> > little information would be left is what...how many cases there are?
> >
> > -Dan Rosenthal
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>