Very strange response, Oliver. I guess I'll take it one step at a time. 

1) Well into the email I certainly "critiqued" Philippe for shredding the 
identification documents, but it is a step too far to say I "attacked" him.

2) That he (and you) goes by his real name is a rightful aspect of his WMF (a 
public charity) employment. Yes, I strive to protect my online privacy and 
speak here from an obvious nickname or pseudonym. While I limit my statements 
to what I think is reasonable, I don't think I'm obligated to disclose my 
identity as he must. I also have never sought the ability to block others or to 
access their IP etc. information on Wikipedia, which would be a good argument 
that I identify.

3) Am I in the grip of a "paranoid fantasy" that Philippe Beaudette "controls 
the WMF's board of trustees?" No, I spoke only of the one matter. But okay, in 
that specific matter I gave him credit for forcing the board to change the 
access-to-private-information policy. While drawing pay, he flouted and defied 
the prior WMF policy. It's a matter of record that WMF Legal's Michelle Paulson 
was alarmed by this and brought it to the attention of the board, which then 
strongly impliedly endorsed Beaudette's actions by changing the policy. I dunno 
if he could similarly move the board on policy he's not intimately involved 
with implementing, I'd say not. 

Okay, then.

Trillium Corsage

12.04.2015, 17:20, "Oliver Keyes" <>:
> Have you considered that you might get a better response to your messages
> if you - and this is just an idea drawn of idle whimsy, here - not spend
> quite so much of them on an extended trip off the reservation in order to
> attack and critique someone under their real name in public while hiding
> any identification of who you are? While we're discussing privacy, here.
> Seriously: you've spent a lot of this email indulging in the paranoid
> fantasy that Philippe controls the board (he doesn't. One way you can tell
> is that they don't wear sweaters literally everywhere :p).
> If we're asking questions we've already seemingly made our minds up about,
> and prefacing them with lots of grumping, let me get in on this - exactly
> what response do you expect? How do you think your claim of a Philippe
> Occupied Government enhances the utility of your message and the value a
> reader takes from it?
> On Sunday, 12 April 2015, Trillium Corsage <> wrote:
>>  I'm writing to get an answer (from anybody at the WMF) on the status of
>>  the WMF's policy access to private (i.e. IP, Browser, etc.) information.
>>  Each day thousands of people edit Wikipedia and deserve to know what
>>  measures, if any, are taken to avoid divulging to the wrong sort of people
>>  this sensitive information about them.
>>  On 25 April last year, the board of trustees approved, in a non-public and
>>  scantily-documented meeting, a policy that accords Checkuser and Oversight
>>  and other statuses to "community" members appointed by a community process
>>  with essentially a mere two requirements: provide an email address, and
>>  assert that you are 18 or over. Name, address, NOT required. Is this truly
>>  an adequate way to protect the privacy interests of all those that edit
>>  Wikipedia? Well, I don't think so, but my purpose right now is to try to
>>  eliminate the ambiguity of what is actually occurring at this time.
>>  One source of this ambiguity is the edit of the WMF's James Alexander (
>>  on 6 June, in which he wrote: "This policy has been replaced by a new
>>  [[m:Access to non public information policy|Access to non public
>>  information policy]], which was approved by the Board of Trustees on 25
>>  April 2014. However, this policy remains in force until the new processes
>>  mandated by the new policy are put into place. A future announcement will
>>  be made to those affected before the new policy goes in effect." It's now
>>  the future (and after nine months, quite so), so what is the policy?
>>  The old policy mandated that those seeking the accesses fax or secure
>>  email a from of identification. Casual and rank-and-file Wikipedia editors
>>  were repetitively told that the checkusers and oversighters etc. were
>>  "identified to the WMF." This was incredibly misleading because the
>>  practice of Philippe Beaudette was to shred and otherwise destroy the
>>  identifications after marking the noticeboard. It is apparent to any
>>  plain-spoken individual, I think, that you can't tell people that those
>>  granted these accesses are "identified to the WMF" when you have shredded
>>  the documents and all that is left (except in Mr. Beaudette's memory) is a
>>  checkmark by a username on a noticeboard. It wasn't a semantic dodge
>>  predicated on the definition of "identified," rather it was in my opinion a
>>  smoke-screen. Mr. Beaudette felt loyalty to the privacy of the
>>  administrators, and evidently none to the common editors whose IPs and so
>>  forth he was exposing to them.
>>  The immediately above is not necessarily a criticism of the old policy,
>>  which taken at face value strongly implies that the WMF keeps the
>>  identifications on file, on a secure computer, or in a physical safe. It's
>>  rather that Mr. Beaudette operated for years in open defiance of the
>>  policy. To his credit though, apparently he impelled the Board to rewrite
>>  the policy in a manner corresponding to his actions.
>>  BUT MY QUESTION NOW is: "What is the status of the policy?" For example
>>  English Wikipedia just got three new checkusers: Bbb23, Callanecc, and Mike
>>  V. What information were they required to provide? Proper documents, or
>>  merely an email address and assertion that they are over 18?
>>  Trillium Corsage
>>  _______________________________________________
>>  Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>  Unsubscribe:,
>>  < <javascript:;>
>>  ?subject=unsubscribe>
> --
> Sent from my mobile computing device of Lovecraftian complexity and horror.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> Unsubscribe:, 
> <>

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

Reply via email to