On 6/15/07, jayjg jayjg99@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