From User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 14:51:39 2009
From: User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 08:51:39 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] Wording of David Gerard motion
In-Reply-To: <deea21830911300546v43923e39n8c77d5c59a59d42d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <16032ea0911300112o5fac8654h64dd6e32af9469b8@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911300238x2e08db6cmd034149b2507fcb7@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911300546v43923e39n8c77d5c59a59d42d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8ec76cd10911300651v25c94756l1a8fcaab7d4ecd02@mail.gmail.com>
Thanks, John.
I have no problem with more precisely describing how David Gerard's conduct
was improper, but I'm surprised and demoralized that a WMF official believes
that it was acceptable, whereas we're supposedly acting out of a grudge. In
my view, this was a more clear-cut decision than many we've made this year
(including JayJG and Raul654), yet this is the only one where anyone from
the foundation has intervened.
Frank
----------
From marc at uberbox.org Mon Nov 30 15:05:04 2009
From: marc at uberbox.org (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 10:05:04 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Wording of David Gerard motion
In-Reply-To: <8ec76cd10911300651v25c94756l1a8fcaab7d4ecd02@mail.gmail.com>
References: <16032ea0911300112o5fac8654h64dd6e32af9469b8@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911300238x2e08db6cmd034149b2507fcb7@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911300546v43923e39n8c77d5c59a59d42d@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd10911300651v25c94756l1a8fcaab7d4ecd02@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B13DF20.7070604@uberbox.org>
Cool Hand Luke wrote:
> Thanks, John.
>
> I have no problem with more precisely describing how David Gerard's
> conduct was improper, but I'm surprised and demoralized that a WMF
> official believes that it was acceptable, whereas we're supposedly
> acting out of a grudge. In my view, this was a more clear-cut decision
> than many we've made this year (including JayJG and Raul654), yet this
> is the only one where anyone from the foundation has intervened.
I have requested intervention from Jimmy and Cary. I found those
accusations to be unacceptable, and that even with a disclaimer that he
is not wearing his counselor hat, they are damaging and prejudicial
coming from Mike.
And I know others have expressed those concerns to be privately.
We might be doomed to suffer this from the WR crowd, but we do not have
to accept being mistreated thusly by a foundation officer.
-- Coren / Marc
-----------
From sydney.poore at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 15:09:02 2009
From: sydney.poore at gmail.com (FloNight)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 10:09:02 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your
recent blog post
In-Reply-To: <16032ea0911300707w1036e271udc21e28a3fc10b81@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b12d208.1067f10a.54e1.ffffcb58@mx.google.com>
<7d0f4c330911291856u1f7fd1edsdd6ba17abe050b9a@mail.gmail.com>
<4B13352B.70908@uberbox.org> <4B13AF70.3090704@uberbox.org>
<7d0f4c330911300422v5d07f4d1p53a99dffad335e4c@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911300517o7d5dbc5fwf73cb5c98b9509e5@mail.gmail.com>
<7d0f4c330911300539hb2f2e19i6d616871fd68ca1e@mail.gmail.com>
<16032ea0911300558r38680c5fr5e3d62643e7818b2@mail.gmail.com>
<7d0f4c330911300612t64eee07eyb6c89d8ace4796@mail.gmail.com>
<16032ea0911300707w1036e271udc21e28a3fc10b81@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <16032ea0911300709n49e2f650i5c66e47869b0076c@mail.gmail.com>
--------- Forwarded message ----------
From: FloNight <sydney.poore at gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:07 AM
Subject: Re: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent blog post
To: mnemonic at gmail.com
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:12 AM, Mike Godwin <mnemonic at gmail.com> wrote:
> FloNight writes:
>
> In this situation David definitively linked the name of a real person to a
>> checkuser investigation which means that the person must be an user. There
>> was no supporting evidence for the claim. So, either David misremembered
>> that there was no evidence, or David decided to make a public accusation
>> without evidence. Either way, David was careless in the way that he outed
>> this person in a definitive way.
>>
>
> How do you reconcile this statement with FT2's statement here:
>
>
> "It should also be noted DBuckner publicly self disclosed his identity
> on-wiki 2 months before the RFC (see link here and probably other places).
> <
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...les&oldid=24992> 9690#Farewell_from_American_linguist<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=249929690#Farewell_from_American_linguist>>"
> ?
>
> David did this with no regard to the harm that could come to the person
>> by making this link. And when approached by the person, he revealed their
>> private correspondence and mocked them.
>>
>
> I'm not sure what you're referring to here, but this seems far afield from
> a checkuser issue.
>
>
>> When approached by ArbCom about our concern, rather than address the
>> actual issue, David attempted to take the discussion off topic and turn it
>> into a grudge match.
>>
>
> Is it possible that David interpreted this approach -- was it from ArbCom
> as a whole or just a particular member? -- as representing an
> already-existing "grudge"?
>
> Look, I understand that you may be impatient with people who are impatient
> with ArbCom, but so what? Impatience and irritation are not themselves sins.
>
>
>> I do not consider any of this conduct appropriate for someone with special
>> permissions.
>>
>
> Can you point me to an objectively stated standard that makes clear that
> this conduct is "inappropriate"? Because in the absence of such a standard
> it is hard for me not to interpret this statement as an expression of
> personal feeling rather than as application of neutral principles.
>
>
>> I support making the wording of the announcement better reflect the
>> Committee's actual concerns if the wording is not clear. And if David
>> contacts the Committee then I'll have my final decision reflect his input.
>>
>
> I think David probably should contact the Committee, but I hope his doing
> so is seen as an opportunity for constructive dialog rather than simply an
> excuse to reaffirm what strikes me as a one-sided decision arrived at
> without equitable process.
>
>
> --Mike
>
I was addressing David linking Landeryou name to a sock ring when as far as
I can tell there was no definitive evidence that Landeryou was involved.
I'm sorry if my formating did not make that clear.
ArbCom is elected by the Community to evaluated these situations and make a
decision about whether an user is acting within policy. We evaluate the
information and vote.
David himself has participated in and supported the authority of the
Arbitration Committee to make behind the scene decisions about selecting and
removing people from special permissions.
If you review my voting record over the past 3 years, you will see that my
approach is consistent.
Unpleasant reactions to ruling is all in a days work around this place.
Votes to separate users from their tools always gets a strong reaction from
the wikifriends of the user.
Votes to ban users have resulted in trolling and harassment.
Not pleasant to experience but someone has to do it.
Sydney
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 15:23:06 2009
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 10:23:06 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard - potential amendment to motion - HIGH
PRIORITY
Message-ID: <c52819d30911300723p654c1842p453fcf8598a886ac@mail.gmail.com>
My thoughts on the current situation:
1. I take it, despite the criticism of the substance of our decision on
Functionaries-l, that we stand by the decision that David Gerard should no
longer be a Checkuser or Oversighter.
2. The concerns expressed over the preamble to our motion, specifically the
reference to "unwarranted dissemination of private data acquired using
privileged rights," were completely predictable. I had some qualms about
this wording on Saturday night, and when I saw David's response yesterday
morning, it was obvious that this would become an issue and that there
should be some focus on the wording.
3. I didn't have a chance to make this point yesterday morning, because the
decision that David's response was insufficient and we would go ahead and
publish the motion was made while I was either sleep or away from my
computer. Hindsight is 20:20 but in the absence of an immediate emergency
it would have been better to allow a little bit more time and achieve a
greater degree of consensus among us before making this decision. It is a
scientifically proven fact that I provide little if any useful input to this
list when I'm asleep, and I believe this goes equally for most of the other
arbitrators. Enough said on that.
4. Whether David's indecorous Tweet and blog post involved "dissemination
of private information" is a matter of how broadly or narrowly one
interprets that phrase. On the one hand, his writings could certainly (and
were certainly) read as stating or at least implying that he was relying on
information he obtained in his status as a Wikipedia functionary with
advanced access. On the other hand, there was no dissemination of IP
addresses or the like which is how some people seem to be narrowly
interpreting the phrase "private information."
5. There is no NEED to decide, for purpose of a motion removing David's
Checkuser and Oversight status, whether he "disseminated private
information" or whether his overstepping is best described in other ways.
By avoiding reference to dissemination of private data, we also avoid the
question of whether this issue falls within ArbCom's bailiwick in the first
instance or whether it was more the responsibility of either AUSC or the
Ombudsmen.
6. It is not clear to me whether David is asking us (or anyone) to
reconsider his Checkusership/Oversightship/Functionaryship, or merely to
have the allegation regarding access to private information withdrawn. I do
not know whether it would be worthwhile to clarify this.
7. It is not clear to me whether Mike Godwin has been in communication with
David on any of these issues. I do not know whether it would be worthwhile
to clarify this.
8. I think it is desirable that we remove the reference to dissemination of
private information obtained through privileged access from our formal
motion. This can be done most easily simply by making a neutral reference
to the events in question, without characterizing them. I offer a draft of
a motion below.
9. If we adopt a modification of the motion, we would need to consider
whether to provide an on-wiki explanation for the change. My current
thinking is no, but we can discuss this.
10. We should also consider whether to add some sort of thank you for the
service that David has provided to Wikipedia outside the problematic
aspects.
Newyorkbrad
DRAFT MOTION FOR DISCUSSION
The Arbitration Committee's motion of November 28-29, 2009 concerning David
Gerard is amended by deleting the words "and for unwarranted dissemination
of private data acquired using privileged rights" and substituting the words
"including the events of November 27, 2009"
----------
From User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 15:35:01 2009
From: User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 09:35:01 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard - potential amendment to motion - HIGH
PRIORITY
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30911300723p654c1842p453fcf8598a886ac@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30911300723p654c1842p453fcf8598a886ac@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8ec76cd10911300735t7beabf14pc36012b6dbeebb82@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:23 AM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) <
newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:
> My thoughts on the current situation:
>
> 1. I take it, despite the criticism of the substance of our decision on
> Functionaries-l, that we stand by the decision that David Gerard should no
> longer be a Checkuser or Oversighter.
>
> 2. The concerns expressed over the preamble to our motion, specifically
> the reference to "unwarranted dissemination of private data acquired using
> privileged rights," were completely predictable. I had some qualms about
> this wording on Saturday night, and when I saw David's response yesterday
> morning, it was obvious that this would become an issue and that there
> should be some focus on the wording.
>
> 3. I didn't have a chance to make this point yesterday morning, because
> the decision that David's response was insufficient and we would go ahead
> and publish the motion was made while I was either sleep or away from my
> computer. Hindsight is 20:20 but in the absence of an immediate emergency
> it would have been better to allow a little bit more time and achieve a
> greater degree of consensus among us before making this decision. It is a
> scientifically proven fact that I provide little if any useful input to this
> list when I'm asleep, and I believe this goes equally for most of the other
> arbitrators. Enough said on that.
>
> 4. Whether David's indecorous Tweet and blog post involved "dissemination
> of private information" is a matter of how broadly or narrowly one
> interprets that phrase. On the one hand, his writings could certainly (and
> were certainly) read as stating or at least implying that he was relying on
> information he obtained in his status as a Wikipedia functionary with
> advanced access. On the other hand, there was no dissemination of IP
> addresses or the like which is how some people seem to be narrowly
> interpreting the phrase "private information."
>
> 5. There is no NEED to decide, for purpose of a motion removing David's
> Checkuser and Oversight status, whether he "disseminated private
> information" or whether his overstepping is best described in other ways.
> By avoiding reference to dissemination of private data, we also avoid the
> question of whether this issue falls within ArbCom's bailiwick in the first
> instance or whether it was more the responsibility of either AUSC or the
> Ombudsmen.
>
> 6. It is not clear to me whether David is asking us (or anyone) to
> reconsider his Checkusership/Oversightship/Functionaryship, or merely to
> have the allegation regarding access to private information withdrawn. I do
> not know whether it would be worthwhile to clarify this.
>
> 7. It is not clear to me whether Mike Godwin has been in communication
> with David on any of these issues. I do not know whether it would be
> worthwhile to clarify this.
>
> 8. I think it is desirable that we remove the reference to dissemination
> of private information obtained through privileged access from our formal
> motion. This can be done most easily simply by making a neutral reference
> to the events in question, without characterizing them. I offer a draft of
> a motion below.
>
> 9. If we adopt a modification of the motion, we would need to consider
> whether to provide an on-wiki explanation for the change. My current
> thinking is no, but we can discuss this.
>
> 10. We should also consider whether to add some sort of thank you for the
> service that David has provided to Wikipedia outside the problematic
> aspects.
>
> Newyorkbrad
>
> DRAFT MOTION FOR DISCUSSION
>
> The Arbitration Committee's motion of November 28-29, 2009 concerning David
> Gerard is amended by deleting the words "and for unwarranted dissemination
> of private data acquired using privileged rights" and substituting the words
> "including the events of November 27, 2009"
>
>
I do not have access to the ArbCom wiki, if this will be voted there, but I
*SUPPORT *the change and hope that we can pass it in an expedited manner.
Most functionaries do not appear to disagree that Gerard's post was bad
judgment, and I would rather hang the decision on that than split hairs
about the Platonic meaning of private information.
Frank
----------
From stephen.bain at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 15:37:41 2009
From: stephen.bain at gmail.com (Stephen Bain)
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 02:37:41 +1100
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard - potential amendment to motion - HIGH
PRIORITY
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30911300723p654c1842p453fcf8598a886ac@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30911300723p654c1842p453fcf8598a886ac@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f30e42de0911300737l64b6aae3ibf91c7bd835dfa41@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 2:23 AM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)
<newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 4.? Whether David's indecorous Tweet and blog?post involved "dissemination
> of private information" is a matter of how broadly or narrowly one
> interprets that phrase.? On the one hand, his?writings could certainly (and
> were?certainly) read as stating or at least implying that he was relying on
> information he?obtained in his status as a Wikipedia functionary with
> advanced access.? On the other hand, there was no dissemination of IP
> addresses or the like which is how some people seem to be narrowly
> interpreting the phrase "private information."
Substitute "misuse" for "dissemination". The incident can be fairly
characterised as the use of data obtained by the CheckUser tool for
the purpose of attacking/criticising/etc Landeryou, a use case not
contemplated by the CheckUser policy. It is not necessary for
CheckUser data to be published for it to be misused.
--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 16:28:59 2009
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 11:28:59 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard - potential amendment to motion - HIGH
PRIORITY
In-Reply-To: <f30e42de0911300737l64b6aae3ibf91c7bd835dfa41@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30911300723p654c1842p453fcf8598a886ac@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0911300737l64b6aae3ibf91c7bd835dfa41@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c52819d30911300828o770d5517mfbeb68868ac9a411@mail.gmail.com>
He'll still argue endlessly about the wording; I prefer my reformulation
which eliminates the issue entirely, while leaving the most recent basis for
our action clear.
Newyorkbrad
----------
From roger.davies.wiki at googlemail.com Mon Nov 30 16:35:17 2009
From: roger.davies.wiki at googlemail.com (Roger Davies)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 16:35:17 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard - potential amendment to motion - HIGH
PRIORITY
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30911300828o770d5517mfbeb68868ac9a411@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30911300723p654c1842p453fcf8598a886ac@mail.gmail.com> <f30e42de0911300737l64b6aae3ibf91c7bd835dfa41@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911300828o770d5517mfbeb68868ac9a411@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B13F445.3080106@gmail.com>
I agree with Brad here.
Roger
Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) wrote:
> He'll still argue endlessly about the wording; I prefer my
> reformulation which eliminates the issue entirely, while leaving the
> most recent basis for our action clear.
>
> Newyorkbrad
-----------
From stephen.bain at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 16:37:46 2009
From: stephen.bain at gmail.com (Stephen Bain)
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 03:37:46 +1100
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard - potential amendment to motion - HIGH
PRIORITY
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30911300828o770d5517mfbeb68868ac9a411@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30911300723p654c1842p453fcf8598a886ac@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0911300737l64b6aae3ibf91c7bd835dfa41@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911300828o770d5517mfbeb68868ac9a411@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f30e42de0911300837r76c34f4arb37fa61d0b6b7ee7@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 3:28 AM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)
<newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:
> He'll still argue endlessly about the wording; I prefer my reformulation
> which eliminates the issue entirely, while leaving the most recent basis for
> our action clear.
Your modification would be my second choice. I will say that re your
point #9, removing a section would be more likely to prompt calls for
further explanation than would clarifying the existing motion by using
more precise language.
--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com
----------
From risker.wp at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 17:16:41 2009
From: risker.wp at gmail.com (Risker)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 12:16:41 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard - potential amendment to motion - HIGH
PRIORITY
In-Reply-To: <f30e42de0911300837r76c34f4arb37fa61d0b6b7ee7@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30911300723p654c1842p453fcf8598a886ac@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0911300737l64b6aae3ibf91c7bd835dfa41@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911300828o770d5517mfbeb68868ac9a411@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0911300837r76c34f4arb37fa61d0b6b7ee7@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <eb45e7c0911300916i13b4ec3fi1b0dfd7689af8699@mail.gmail.com>
I am fine with NYB's proposed rewording. Like CHL, I do not have access to
the arbcom wiki so please include me in support. Let us take our time with
this, though; we can only do this once. Please note that there has been no
significant concern about this expressed onwiki; if anything, the response
has been positive. We should be cognizant of the opinion of the community
we represent as well, and shouldn't allow ourselves to be pulled into
unnecessary drama.
I also have no doubt whatsoever that David is getting full copies of all of
the emails to Functionaries-L; whether or not they are going out through
Mike or someone else is irrelevant, and we should keep this firmly in
mind.
The AUSC issue is a red herring; the AUSC reports to us, and we make
decisions based on their reports.
I too would have preferred a bit more talking before activating the motion;
however, what is done is done and this was an unequivocal vote to remove
David from these positions. I looked over his posts to functionaries-L and
found little useful criticism of the committee, some helpful historical or
technical information, a fair amount of drama mongering, and plenty of
pushes for us to get rid of vested contributors (yes, the irony!). I cannot
help wondering if it simply hasn't sunk in to some of the longterm vested
contributors that, bluntly, they are a significant part of the problem that
this iteration of the committee was elected to address.
Somewhat out of context, but brought a smile to my face: This post to
functionaries-L by David back in February: "And really. If checkusers
aren't trusted not to tell, they shouldn't be checkusers."
link<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/private/functionaries-en/2009-February/000873.html>
---------
From marc at uberbox.org Mon Nov 30 17:17:50 2009
From: marc at uberbox.org (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 12:17:50 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard - potential amendment to motion - HIGH
PRIORITY
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30911300723p654c1842p453fcf8598a886ac@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30911300723p654c1842p453fcf8598a886ac@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B13FE3E.1080100@uberbox.org>
Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) wrote:
> The Arbitration Committee's motion of November 28-29, 2009 concerning
> David Gerard is amended by deleting the words "and for unwarranted
> dissemination of private data acquired using privileged rights" and
> substituting the words "including the events of November 27, 2009"
I will support the motion, but I will comment on-wiki to the effect that
the Nov 27 event is viewed by members of the committee as misuse, but
that the opinions on whether, and how much, it constitutes dissemination
are more nuanced and that they were not pivotal in passing the motion
and thus reference to that aspect is best left off.
-- Coren / Marc
----------
From risker.wp at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 17:23:43 2009
From: risker.wp at gmail.com (Risker)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 12:23:43 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard - potential amendment to motion - HIGH
PRIORITY
In-Reply-To: <4B13FE3E.1080100@uberbox.org>
References: <c52819d30911300723p654c1842p453fcf8598a886ac@mail.gmail.com>
<4B13FE3E.1080100@uberbox.org>
Message-ID: <eb45e7c0911300923r6a1791d8l67eca1946d380859@mail.gmail.com>
Keep in mind that the issue we are hearing from Mike isn't about the
"dissemination" vs "misuse" one....it is about the use of the term "private
data".
A
----------
From sydney.poore at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 17:16:10 2009
From: sydney.poore at gmail.com (FloNight)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 12:16:10 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard - potential amendment to motion - HIGH
PRIORITY
In-Reply-To: <f30e42de0911300737l64b6aae3ibf91c7bd835dfa41@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30911300723p654c1842p453fcf8598a886ac@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0911300737l64b6aae3ibf91c7bd835dfa41@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <16032ea0911300916h367f31fbwf66fd20f793613e6@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:37 AM, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain at gmail.com>wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 2:23 AM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)
> <newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > 4. Whether David's indecorous Tweet and blog post involved
> "dissemination
> > of private information" is a matter of how broadly or narrowly one
> > interprets that phrase. On the one hand, his writings could certainly
> (and
> > were certainly) read as stating or at least implying that he was relying
> on
> > information he obtained in his status as a Wikipedia functionary with
> > advanced access. On the other hand, there was no dissemination of IP
> > addresses or the like which is how some people seem to be narrowly
> > interpreting the phrase "private information."
>
> Substitute "misuse" for "dissemination". The incident can be fairly
> characterised as the use of data obtained by the CheckUser tool for
> the purpose of attacking/criticising/etc Landeryou, a use case not
> contemplated by the CheckUser policy. It is not necessary for
> CheckUser data to be published for it to be misused.
>
> --
> Stephen Bain
> stephen.bain at gmail.com
I'm okay with Brad's wording.
My preference would be to tweak the wording so it still includes a concern
about naming a user. But I'm unclear as to what wording to use and I'm not
going to be around the rest of the day to work it out.
So, either approach is fine with me.
Sydney
----------
From marc at uberbox.org Mon Nov 30 17:25:49 2009
From: marc at uberbox.org (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 12:25:49 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard - potential amendment to motion - HIGH
PRIORITY
In-Reply-To: <eb45e7c0911300923r6a1791d8l67eca1946d380859@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30911300723p654c1842p453fcf8598a886ac@mail.gmail.com>
<4B13FE3E.1080100@uberbox.org>
<eb45e7c0911300923r6a1791d8l67eca1946d380859@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B14001D.6010609@uberbox.org>
Risker wrote:
> Keep in mind that the issue we are hearing from Mike isn't about the
> "dissemination" vs "misuse" one....it is about the use of the term
> "private data".
Yes, and I still believe he's completely wrong.
-- Coren / Marc
----------
From risker.wp at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 17:34:23 2009
From: risker.wp at gmail.com (Risker)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 12:34:23 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard - potential amendment to motion - HIGH
PRIORITY
In-Reply-To: <4B14001D.6010609@uberbox.org>
References: <c52819d30911300723p654c1842p453fcf8598a886ac@mail.gmail.com>
<4B13FE3E.1080100@uberbox.org>
<eb45e7c0911300923r6a1791d8l67eca1946d380859@mail.gmail.com>
<4B14001D.6010609@uberbox.org>
Message-ID: <eb45e7c0911300934w3f609ce1wf0879a7a761b94d3@mail.gmail.com>
2009/11/30 Marc A. Pelletier <marc at uberbox.org>
> Risker wrote:
> > Keep in mind that the issue we are hearing from Mike isn't about the
> > "dissemination" vs "misuse" one....it is about the use of the term
> > "private data".
>
>
> Yes, and I still believe he's completely wrong.
>
>
>
For the record, so do I. I work with privacy legislation on a daily basis in
my workplace, and that would have been considered a breach here. Mind you,
we have a proper definition, not a vague concept.
Anne
----------
From: dgerard at gmail.com (David Gerard)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 21:30:09 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] A letter to arbcom over recent concerns
Message-ID: <fbad4e140911301330p64903beco3957446114632d69@mail.gmail.com>
We have a problem. But I'm willing to work towards a solution with
you, and I hope you're willing too. I've been in discussion with Mike
Godwin about how to resolve all this (and he is forwarding this to
functionaries-en for me).
I fully admit that I'm an acerbic pain in the arse, and have spent
most of this year on functionaries-en haranguing the 2009 arbcom about
what I think are its failings.
I understand that my tone as well as my substance has irritated some
of you - I hoped, however, that the criticisms would spur serious
thinking about what I perceive to be problems. I regret having
conveyed instead the impression that I can't work with you at all.
This will certainly be something we need much ongoing discussion of,
hopefully productive. I've stayed on the functionaries list because
it's important to the project and informs my ongoing volunteer work
for the Foundation.
So, I think we all agree that I could be a better, more diplomatic
collaborator, and I'm willing to try to do that.
There is, however, one thing that needs immediate resolution. Members
of the Arbitration Committee have issued the following
characterization of my use of checkuser and oversight powers:
"for unwarranted dissemination of private data acquired using
privileged rights."
This phrase is explicitly used as a reason for withdrawal of
"checkuser and oversight rights".
Apart from other disagreements with the 2009 Arbitration Committee
over the course of this year, this statement is not merely untrue, but
seriously defamatory. The clear implication is a violation of
checkuser privacy. As I work as a Unix systems administrator, this is
seriously problematic to my professional standing.
This is not merely hypothetical; thirty hours later, it's already
being taken as the case by Wikipedia Review, who are also discussing
in this thread how to spread it far and wide:
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=27610&st=20And respected user Thatcher clearly took that as the implication on
Wikipedia itself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...rd#David_GerardYou can see there's a problem there. There's actually no evidence to
support the obvious implication of your words. I have never disclosed
private information derived from checkuser or oversight powers, nor
would I.
I'm afraid I must require that the claim be withdrawn, and that those
who signed the motion state so on the wiki - an appropriate statement
such as this: "We accept that there is no evidence that David Gerard
has at any stage violated the privacy policy with regard to checkuser
or oversight in any manner. We did not at any stage intend any such
inference to be drawn, and withdraw any such implication unreservedly"
- would undo some of the damage to my reputation, and I'd regard it as
proof on your part of a good-faith belief in our potential to work
constructively together in the future.
You could add in a separate paragraph "We continue to have concerns as
to his suitability for holding the rights due to other concerns over
the year" or something like that - something that shows it's not a
violation of privacy, as it's being taken.
It's obviously fairly important to nip this in the bud sooner rather
than later, before more damage is done. This is in circulation now, as
a statement endorsed by Wikipedia's highest most authoritative body -
whose decisions are the subject of widespread tech site and tabloid
pages and have hit mainstream international new media. It'll be taken
seriously by any employer or reader to mean just what it seems to say,
as it was taken on Wikipedia.
This is quite a separate issue from any other disagreement with the
Arbitration Committee, which other issues may be discussed separately.
Again, I am willing to listen to other kinds of complaints, and can
certainly concede at the outset that there may be merit to the other
complaints. However, I hope you understand that I absolutely cannot
compromise on the above defamatory claim being withdrawn unreservedly,
because my professional career and livelihood will be affected if it's
left.
I've hardly used checkuser or oversight in the last several months,
except to deal with the latest Andrew Morrow flareup (and you'll need
people on the case for that), so that's not actually a worry.
However, I do want to keep working with you, in the future if not
immediately, and would like to open discussion toward that.
- d.
----------
From jayvdb at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 21:51:03 2009
From: jayvdb at gmail.com (John Vandenberg)
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 08:51:03 +1100
Subject: [arbcom-l] A letter to arbcom over recent concerns
In-Reply-To: <fbad4e140911301330p64903beco3957446114632d69@mail.gmail.com>
References: <fbad4e140911301330p64903beco3957446114632d69@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <deea21830911301351n55dee8fai9e8184f609ae9aa8@mail.gmail.com>
the only clarification that I think it important is that he didnt
break the letter of the privacy policy.
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 8:30 AM, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> We have a problem. But I'm willing to work towards a solution with
> you, and I hope you're willing too. I've been in discussion with Mike
> Godwin about how to resolve all this (and he is forwarding this to
> functionaries-en for me).
>
> I fully admit that I'm an acerbic pain in the arse, and have spent
> most of this year on functionaries-en haranguing the 2009 arbcom about
> what I think are its failings.
>
> I understand that my tone as well as my substance has irritated some
> of you - I hoped, however, that the criticisms would spur serious
> thinking about what I perceive to be problems. I regret having
> conveyed instead the impression that I can't work with you at all.
>
> This will certainly be something we need much ongoing discussion of,
> hopefully productive. I've stayed on the functionaries list because
> it's important to the project and informs my ongoing volunteer work
> for the Foundation.
>
> So, I think we all agree that I could be a better, more diplomatic
> collaborator, and I'm willing to try to do that.
>
> There is, however, ?one thing that needs immediate resolution. Members
> of the Arbitration Committee have issued the following
> characterization of my use of checkuser and oversight powers:
>
> ?"for unwarranted dissemination of private data acquired using
> privileged rights."
>
> This phrase is explicitly used as a reason for withdrawal of
> "checkuser and oversight rights".
>
> Apart from other disagreements with the 2009 Arbitration Committee
> over the course of this year, this statement is not merely untrue, but
> seriously defamatory. The clear implication is a violation of
> checkuser privacy. As I work as a Unix systems administrator, this is
> seriously problematic to my professional standing.
>
> This is not merely hypothetical; thirty hours later, it's already
> being taken as the case by Wikipedia Review, who are also discussing
> in this thread how to spread it far and wide:
>
>
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=27610&st=20>
> And respected user Thatcher clearly took that as the implication on
> Wikipedia itself:
>
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...rd#David_Gerard>
> You can see there's a problem there. There's actually no evidence to
> support the obvious implication of your words. I have never disclosed
> private information derived from checkuser or oversight powers, nor
> would I.
>
> I'm afraid I must require that the claim be withdrawn, and that those
> who signed the motion state so on the wiki - an appropriate statement
> such as this: "We accept that there is no evidence that David Gerard
> has at any stage violated the privacy policy with regard to checkuser
> or oversight in any manner. We did not at any stage intend any such
> inference to be drawn, and withdraw any such implication unreservedly"
> - would undo some of the damage to my reputation, and I'd regard it as
> proof on your part of a good-faith belief in our potential to work
> constructively together in the future.
>
> You could add in a separate paragraph "We continue to have concerns as
> to his suitability for holding the rights due to other concerns over
> the year" or something like that - something that shows it's not a
> violation of privacy, as it's being taken.
>
> It's obviously fairly important to nip this in the bud sooner rather
> than later, before more damage is done. This is in circulation now, as
> a statement endorsed by Wikipedia's highest most authoritative body -
> whose decisions are the subject of widespread tech site and tabloid
> pages and have hit mainstream international new media. It'll be taken
> seriously by any employer or reader to mean just what it seems to say,
> as it was taken on Wikipedia.
>
> This is quite a separate issue from any other disagreement with the
> Arbitration Committee, which other issues may be discussed separately.
> Again, I am willing to listen to other kinds of complaints, and can
> certainly concede at the outset that there may be merit to the other
> complaints. ?However, I hope you understand that I absolutely cannot
> compromise on the above defamatory claim being withdrawn unreservedly,
> because my professional career and livelihood will be affected if it's
> left.
>
> I've hardly used checkuser or oversight in the last several months,
> except to deal with the latest Andrew Morrow flareup (and you'll need
> people on the case for that), so that's not actually a worry.
>
> However, I do want to keep working with you, in the future if not
> immediately, and would like to open discussion toward that.
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> arbcom-l mailing list
> arbcom-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l>
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 22:08:44 2009
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:08:44 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard - potential amendment to motion - HIGH
PRIORITY
In-Reply-To: <eb45e7c0911300934w3f609ce1wf0879a7a761b94d3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30911300723p654c1842p453fcf8598a886ac@mail.gmail.com>
<4B13FE3E.1080100@uberbox.org>
<eb45e7c0911300923r6a1791d8l67eca1946d380859@mail.gmail.com>
<4B14001D.6010609@uberbox.org>
<eb45e7c0911300934w3f609ce1wf0879a7a761b94d3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c52819d30911301408q6f0bd5d4t2c39cc54292c7e8f@mail.gmail.com>
This has sat for some hours now, and everyone will have seen David's e-mail
demanding that we make an on-wiki statement that goes significantly farther
beyond what I've posted here. I am not at all happy with how this is going,
and frankly, I think that I am going to be a lot louder from now on about
making sure that these types of announcements do not get posted on wiki
until there is more time for people to review them in light of the most
current developments than this one had. In any event, thoughts at this
point, please?
Newyorkbrad
-----------
From User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 22:18:54 2009
From: User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 16:18:54 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard - potential amendment to motion - HIGH
PRIORITY
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30911301408q6f0bd5d4t2c39cc54292c7e8f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30911300723p654c1842p453fcf8598a886ac@mail.gmail.com>
<4B13FE3E.1080100@uberbox.org>
<eb45e7c0911300923r6a1791d8l67eca1946d380859@mail.gmail.com>
<4B14001D.6010609@uberbox.org>
<eb45e7c0911300934w3f609ce1wf0879a7a761b94d3@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911301408q6f0bd5d4t2c39cc54292c7e8f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8ec76cd10911301418u50943bcds6255328dd1046a99@mail.gmail.com>
I dunno if anything was posted on the ArbCom wiki, but there are now seven
supports, a majority, if we include Stephen's as a "second choice," although
Risker cautions for more time in order to get it right.
Frank
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) <
newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:
> This has sat for some hours now, and everyone will have seen David's e-mail
> demanding that we make an on-wiki statement that goes significantly farther
> beyond what I've posted here. I am not at all happy with how this is going,
> and frankly, I think that I am going to be a lot louder from now on about
> making sure that these types of announcements do not get posted on wiki
> until there is more time for people to review them in light of the most
> current developments than this one had. In any event, thoughts at this
> point, please?
>
> Newyorkbrad
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 22:20:07 2009
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:20:07 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard - potential amendment to motion - HIGH
PRIORITY
In-Reply-To: <8ec76cd10911301418u50943bcds6255328dd1046a99@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30911300723p654c1842p453fcf8598a886ac@mail.gmail.com>
<4B13FE3E.1080100@uberbox.org>
<eb45e7c0911300923r6a1791d8l67eca1946d380859@mail.gmail.com>
<4B14001D.6010609@uberbox.org>
<eb45e7c0911300934w3f609ce1wf0879a7a761b94d3@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911301408q6f0bd5d4t2c39cc54292c7e8f@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd10911301418u50943bcds6255328dd1046a99@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c52819d30911301420x1091f473jbd67a1d997a588ed@mail.gmail.com>
David Gerard I'm sure at this point would say that this is not good enough.
But I don't know whether there is anything a majority would support at this
point that would be good enough for him.
Newyorkbrad
----------
From wizardmanwiki at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 22:24:41 2009
From: wizardmanwiki at gmail.com (Wizardman)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:24:41 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard - potential amendment to motion - HIGH
PRIORITY
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30911301420x1091f473jbd67a1d997a588ed@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30911300723p654c1842p453fcf8598a886ac@mail.gmail.com>
<4B13FE3E.1080100@uberbox.org>
<eb45e7c0911300923r6a1791d8l67eca1946d380859@mail.gmail.com>
<4B14001D.6010609@uberbox.org>
<eb45e7c0911300934w3f609ce1wf0879a7a761b94d3@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911301408q6f0bd5d4t2c39cc54292c7e8f@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd10911301418u50943bcds6255328dd1046a99@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911301420x1091f473jbd67a1d997a588ed@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ef59f700911301424l2259317exbf86f4d89f12ab40@mail.gmail.com>
It looks fine to me; it's about all we can do. If he's not happy with it, oh
well.
~W
----------
From User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 22:32:07 2009
From: User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 16:32:07 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard - potential amendment to motion - HIGH
PRIORITY
In-Reply-To: <ef59f700911301424l2259317exbf86f4d89f12ab40@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30911300723p654c1842p453fcf8598a886ac@mail.gmail.com>
<4B13FE3E.1080100@uberbox.org>
<eb45e7c0911300923r6a1791d8l67eca1946d380859@mail.gmail.com>
<4B14001D.6010609@uberbox.org>
<eb45e7c0911300934w3f609ce1wf0879a7a761b94d3@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911301408q6f0bd5d4t2c39cc54292c7e8f@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd10911301418u50943bcds6255328dd1046a99@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911301420x1091f473jbd67a1d997a588ed@mail.gmail.com>
<ef59f700911301424l2259317exbf86f4d89f12ab40@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8ec76cd10911301432i5db35989p7c0b84aa4c6b68dc@mail.gmail.com>
That's eight. Should we just drop it in with a note that ArbCom wishes to
revise the original rationale and apologizes for any confusion?
I would be willing to go a bit farther, but not as far as David Gerard
demands. However, it's clear that even this revision is a stretch for some
of us. I think this is as good as we'll get in the near term, and would
like to replace the text ASAP.
Frank
----------
From jayvdb at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 22:32:11 2009
From: jayvdb at gmail.com (John Vandenberg)
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 09:32:11 +1100
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard - potential amendment to motion - HIGH
PRIORITY
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30911300723p654c1842p453fcf8598a886ac@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30911300723p654c1842p453fcf8598a886ac@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <deea21830911301432h551ae3cu9cda1dda2435fb24@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 2:23 AM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)
<newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:
>...
>
> DRAFT MOTION FOR DISCUSSION
>
> The Arbitration Committee's motion of November 28-29, 2009 concerning David
> Gerard is amended by deleting the words "and for unwarranted dissemination
> of private data acquired using privileged rights" and substituting the words
> "including the events of November 27, 2009"
I can support this in principle, however the tweet is dated November 26, 2009.
I would much prefer that amend it to be more explicit and factual,
mentioning the tweet and the blog post.
How will this be implemented? Are we going to post the text of this
motion as-is, and then amend the prior text?
--
John Vandenberg
-----------
From jayvdb at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 22:36:04 2009
From: jayvdb at gmail.com (John Vandenberg)
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 09:36:04 +1100
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard - potential amendment to motion - HIGH
PRIORITY
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30911301420x1091f473jbd67a1d997a588ed@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30911300723p654c1842p453fcf8598a886ac@mail.gmail.com>
<4B13FE3E.1080100@uberbox.org>
<eb45e7c0911300923r6a1791d8l67eca1946d380859@mail.gmail.com>
<4B14001D.6010609@uberbox.org>
<eb45e7c0911300934w3f609ce1wf0879a7a761b94d3@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911301408q6f0bd5d4t2c39cc54292c7e8f@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd10911301418u50943bcds6255328dd1046a99@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911301420x1091f473jbd67a1d997a588ed@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <deea21830911301436m3c1e103ax90573a11eaf51cb1@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 9:20 AM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)
<newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:
> David Gerard I'm sure at this point would say that this is not good enough.
> But I don't know whether there is anything a majority would support at this
> point that would be good enough for him.
We should not be pandaing to his desires here. This alteration should
be merely to avoid escalation _while_ he mounts an appeal.
He has not provided any evidence that our wording was incorrect.
--
John Vandenberg
----------
From jayvdb at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 22:56:08 2009
From: jayvdb at gmail.com (John Vandenberg)
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 09:56:08 +1100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Andrew Landeryou emails threads
In-Reply-To: <deea21830911300648y6d7f41edweb9aef4aebe5a696@mail.gmail.com>
References: <deea21830911300648y6d7f41edweb9aef4aebe5a696@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <deea21830911301456g52211d25h91d5f832b79c0c78@mail.gmail.com>
Wikipedia Review has found a post by David Gerard from 18:03, 21 March
2006 (UTC) where he states
"In addition, I'm now trying to work out what (if any) account Andrew
Landeryou is using."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...and_sockpuppetsOn Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 1:48 AM, John Vandenberg <jayvdb at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Mike & Jimmy,
>
> Attached are the three relevant threads.
>
> Jimmy, you can also read them here:
>
>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/private...ary/001480.html>
>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/private...rch/003022.html>
>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/private...rch/003125.html>
> --
> John Vandenberg
>
----------
From marc at uberbox.org Mon Nov 30 23:38:25 2009
From: marc at uberbox.org (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:38:25 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] A letter to arbcom over recent concerns
In-Reply-To: <deea21830911301351n55dee8fai9e8184f609ae9aa8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <fbad4e140911301330p64903beco3957446114632d69@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911301351n55dee8fai9e8184f609ae9aa8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B145771.4020008@uberbox.org>
John Vandenberg wrote:
> the only clarification that I think it important is that he didnt
> break the letter of the privacy policy.
>
He did, but I am willing to downplay the part this had in the decision.
-- Coren / Marc
-----------
From marc at uberbox.org Mon Nov 30 23:41:13 2009
From: marc at uberbox.org (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:41:13 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] A letter to arbcom over recent concerns
In-Reply-To: <fbad4e140911301330p64903beco3957446114632d69@mail.gmail.com>
References: <fbad4e140911301330p64903beco3957446114632d69@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B145819.2080208@uberbox.org>
Hello David,
This is to acknowledge that your email has been received, and that the
matter is under discussion by the Committee.
-- Coren / Marc
------------
From jayvdb at gmail.com Tue Dec 1 00:49:59 2009
From: jayvdb at gmail.com (John Vandenberg)
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 11:49:59 +1100
Subject: [arbcom-l] A letter to arbcom over recent concerns
In-Reply-To: <4B145771.4020008@uberbox.org>
References: <fbad4e140911301330p64903beco3957446114632d69@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911301351n55dee8fai9e8184f609ae9aa8@mail.gmail.com>
<4B145771.4020008@uberbox.org>
Message-ID: <deea21830911301649m2e55540ev8762860d7eb2d0f1@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 10:38 AM, Marc A. Pelletier <marc at uberbox.org> wrote:
> John Vandenberg wrote:
>> the only clarification that I think it important is that he didnt
>> break the letter of the privacy policy.
>>
>
> He did, but I am willing to downplay the part this had in the decision.
Err ... what I mean is that he didn't release actual CU data, and it
is worth clarifying that.
He said (offwiki) that a real world person "has some history on
wikipedia" and used his role as a checkuser of this history to
underscore that he is right. He does not publicly say what the "some
history" is. However we know David's own involvement within this
"some history".
The privacy policy talks about the actual data which is personally
identifiable, as opposed to the real world accusations of persons
without release of any private data. Combine that with his vague
comment, and it is not clear to me that he broke the letter of the
policy, and not worth trying to fight that battle when the WMF is
actively opposing us and unwilling to see that the tweet is
unacceptable use/release of information obtained with checkuser.
----
General Scope
This policy covers personally identifiable information collected or
stored by the Foundation on its servers in relation to the Projects
and their communities.
...
Release: Policy on Release of Data
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, or through other non-publicly-available
methods, may be released by Wikimedia volunteers or staff, in any of
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. 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 vandalizing articles or persistently
behaving in a disruptive way, data may be released to a service
provider, carrier, or other third-party entity 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.
Except as described above, Wikimedia policy does not permit
distribution of personally identifiable information under any
circumstances.
<http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy>
----
Obviously "3" and "6" do not apply in this case, and I think that
arbitrators are taking extreme exception to 3.5 year old checkuser
information being used without any benefit for the project.
--
John Vandenberg
----------
From User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com Tue Dec 1 01:22:41 2009
From: User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 19:22:41 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard - potential amendment to motion - HIGH
PRIORITY
In-Reply-To: <deea21830911301436m3c1e103ax90573a11eaf51cb1@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30911300723p654c1842p453fcf8598a886ac@mail.gmail.com>
<4B13FE3E.1080100@uberbox.org>
<eb45e7c0911300923r6a1791d8l67eca1946d380859@mail.gmail.com>
<4B14001D.6010609@uberbox.org>
<eb45e7c0911300934w3f609ce1wf0879a7a761b94d3@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911301408q6f0bd5d4t2c39cc54292c7e8f@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd10911301418u50943bcds6255328dd1046a99@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911301420x1091f473jbd67a1d997a588ed@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911301436m3c1e103ax90573a11eaf51cb1@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8ec76cd10911301722n236eb153x452501914890ad2b@mail.gmail.com>
OK, well I'm home now and see there is not a parallel discussion on the
ArbCom wiki. Would prefer to put this up ASAP.
Unless someone tells me not to, I plan to change the text in one hour and
add a footnote after the clause. Below, the footnote would explain:
1. Revision approved by supporting arbitrators: Cool Hand Luke, Coren,
FloNight, John Vandenberg, Newyorkbrad, Risker, Roger Davies, Stephen Bain,
Wizardman
For the Arbitration Committee, ~~~~
I don't want to keep the original text up for any period after we've revised
it. This is a wiki. If they care what it said before, they can go through
the history.
Frank
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Tue Dec 1 01:38:55 2009
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 20:38:55 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard - potential amendment to motion - HIGH
PRIORITY
In-Reply-To: <8ec76cd10911301722n236eb153x452501914890ad2b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30911300723p654c1842p453fcf8598a886ac@mail.gmail.com>
<4B13FE3E.1080100@uberbox.org>
<eb45e7c0911300923r6a1791d8l67eca1946d380859@mail.gmail.com>
<4B14001D.6010609@uberbox.org>
<eb45e7c0911300934w3f609ce1wf0879a7a761b94d3@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911301408q6f0bd5d4t2c39cc54292c7e8f@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd10911301418u50943bcds6255328dd1046a99@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911301420x1091f473jbd67a1d997a588ed@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911301436m3c1e103ax90573a11eaf51cb1@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd10911301722n236eb153x452501914890ad2b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c52819d30911301738o49de098co7fcd800e7126041f@mail.gmail.com>
In the revision, change "November 27" to "November 26-27" per John V.
It might be best to publish the new motion as I wrote it, in addition
to revising the text, to make clear that we are deleting the original
allegation. (That's not a statement it was right or wrong, but tha