| Revision as of 00:00, 27 June 2007 editQuadell (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users107,341 edits ←Created page with 'Greetings. This case promises to produce a great deal of verbiage. It might help to reduce this if we could see, clearly, what the scope of this case is. One of the...' | Revision as of 00:08, 27 June 2007 edit undoSlimVirgin (talk | contribs)172,064 edits agreedNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| Greetings. This case promises to produce a great deal of verbiage. It might help to reduce this if we could see, clearly, what the scope of this case is. One of the accepting ArbCom members said "Ombudsman action is limited to breach of the Foundation's privacy policy, which appears to have not occurred, and requires the affected user to complain. Checkuser policy outside of the Foundation's privacy policy is under the purview of the arbcom." I would assume this means that discussion of whether or how the Foundations privacy policy was breeched would not be helpful, right? It would seem to me that the Foundation's privacy policy is outside the scope of this case (except as a finding of fact, perhaps). Am I correct in this? Are there other aspects which this case explicitly does/does not cover? For example, one could comment on CharlotteWebb's behavior, advocating censure. Is this covered by the case? A statement by the ArbCom of the limits of this case's scope could help reduce much metaphorical ink from being needlessly wasted in these pages. All the best, – ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 00:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC) | Greetings. This case promises to produce a great deal of verbiage. It might help to reduce this if we could see, clearly, what the scope of this case is. One of the accepting ArbCom members said "Ombudsman action is limited to breach of the Foundation's privacy policy, which appears to have not occurred, and requires the affected user to complain. Checkuser policy outside of the Foundation's privacy policy is under the purview of the arbcom." I would assume this means that discussion of whether or how the Foundations privacy policy was breeched would not be helpful, right? It would seem to me that the Foundation's privacy policy is outside the scope of this case (except as a finding of fact, perhaps). Am I correct in this? Are there other aspects which this case explicitly does/does not cover? For example, one could comment on CharlotteWebb's behavior, advocating censure. Is this covered by the case? A statement by the ArbCom of the limits of this case's scope could help reduce much metaphorical ink from being needlessly wasted in these pages. All the best, – ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 00:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :I agree that would be helpful. The privacy policy wasn't breached, because no identifying information was revealed; in fact, all that was revealed is that the person behind the account had gone to certain lengths to prevent identifying information from becoming known. Nothing was known about the person behind the account before the RfA, and nothing is known about that person now. In any event, the privacy policy does allow the ISP and the country of origin to be revealed, so revealing that Tor was being used would be covered by that. It's therefore unclear to me what this case is about. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 00:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 00:08, 27 June 2007
Greetings. This case promises to produce a great deal of verbiage. It might help to reduce this if we could see, clearly, what the scope of this case is. One of the accepting ArbCom members said "Ombudsman action is limited to breach of the Foundation's privacy policy, which appears to have not occurred, and requires the affected user to complain. Checkuser policy outside of the Foundation's privacy policy is under the purview of the arbcom." I would assume this means that discussion of whether or how the Foundations privacy policy was breeched would not be helpful, right? It would seem to me that the Foundation's privacy policy is outside the scope of this case (except as a finding of fact, perhaps). Am I correct in this? Are there other aspects which this case explicitly does/does not cover? For example, one could comment on CharlotteWebb's behavior, advocating censure. Is this covered by the case? A statement by the ArbCom of the limits of this case's scope could help reduce much metaphorical ink from being needlessly wasted in these pages. All the best, – Quadell 00:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that would be helpful. The privacy policy wasn't breached, because no identifying information was revealed; in fact, all that was revealed is that the person behind the account had gone to certain lengths to prevent identifying information from becoming known. Nothing was known about the person behind the account before the RfA, and nothing is known about that person now. In any event, the privacy policy does allow the ISP and the country of origin to be revealed, so revealing that Tor was being used would be covered by that. It's therefore unclear to me what this case is about. SlimVirgin 00:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)