[Foundation-l] checkuser

[Dan Rosenthal]

On Jul 28, 2007, at 9:43 PM, Joshua Brady wrote:

> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l



Weird cause see yours shows up like this:
> On 7/28/07, Dan Rosenthal <swatjester at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Off topic, but...

But the other one showed up like this:

>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: foundation-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org
>>> [mailto:foundation-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Dan
>>> Rosenthal

It's just strange, I've never seen that before on any of the lists.

-Dan