New subject: SlimVirgin and CheckUser leaks

20 Jul 2008

On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 11:16 AM,  < nawrich(a)gmail.com > wrote:
...

 So here is a breakdown of Sarah's complaint, let me know if I've got this
 right:

 * A checkuser checked two accounts, and she disagrees with the basis for
 that check
 * The fact that her account was also checked is, to her, not relevant
 * One account was an established editor editing under a different name
 * The established editor then stopped editing for fear of the accounts being
 connected
 * The only disclosure of information was to the checkusers wife (hard to
 criticise, I think)
 * A review by other checkusers and an Ombudsman found no problem with the
 checks 
The incident was discussed on checkuser-L when SlimVirgin made a
complaint to Anthere that was naturally one-sided.  The names of the
accounts were never spoken openly, although a few people probably
guessed.  And Jayjg (mostly) acted as a proxy for Slim, Crum and
Wikitumnus, who are not subscribed to the list. (I don't mean "proxy"
in a bad way, I mean he represented their views on a mailing list that
they can not subscribe to.)  Therefore the debate mainly consisted of
Jayjg arguing there was no good reason for the check and Lar saying
there was.  SlimVirgin's view that Mackan79 made a politically
motivated request for the purposes of digging up dirt, and Mackan79's
list of suspicious diffs, were simply never discussed, because the
actual user names were never used but were referred to by code names.

So I don't think one can come to the conclusion that "the checkusers"
found no problem, we lacked key information to conduct a proper
review.  At the time I believe I suggested asking a subcommittee of
checkusers from other wikis to be given access to all the information
for a non-biased review, but it never happened.  And to the best of my
knowledge, no formal complaint has ever been made to the ombudsman
commission.

Thatcher

Re: [WikiEN-l] SlimVirgin and CheckUser leaks