On 6/15/07, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Aside from all the other responses in this thread to this rather bizarre
e-mail, I am frankly baffled as to what "political ends" I might be
pursuing
in this case. I don't recall "CharlotteWebb" ever expressing a political
POV
on anything, and, in fact, I don't recall ever interacting with him/her.
By political, being it's RFA, it's clearly Wiki-politics. No offense, but
Sarah has already played a role in sinking two RFAs via a contentious
imaginary policy (attack sites). She torpedoed the admin career of both
Cla68 and Gracenotes. Seeing the other half of the Dynamic Duo suddenly
asking a question with private, priviledged information is distressing.
Was it appropriate for you to make that public disclosure?
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy
"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."
I would venture it merits an investigation of your usage of the tool and
priviledged information. No offense.
Regards,
Joe
http://www.joeszilagyi.com