[WikiEN-l] SlimVirgin and CheckUser leaks

[Mackan79]

On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 8:27 PM, Charles Fulton <mackensen at gmail.com> wrote:

> No, that's not quite the case, and you've been told that before. I'll
> repeat it again for the benefit of a wider audience.
>
> Lar came to me because he was understandably disturbed by some of his
> findings and wanted my opinion before taking matters public. I
> counseled Lar to do nothing because I had stumbled into the
> 'situation' several months previously, but did not feel that I could
> disclose to Lar the full specifics until I had discussed the matter
> with the other people involved. I will not, yet, name names, but they
> included a member of the Arbitration Committee and another Checkuser.
> I grant that I didn't see any particular urgency in the matter.
>
> I took this precaution because I felt that two administrators on the
> English Wikipedia would rather that the nature of their editing
> practices remain private. If this was not the case then I apologize
> for showing any delicacy: I should have told Lar to go ahead and
> publish his findings, to hell with responsible behavior.
>
> I recognize this is all very vague. Like every other checkuser I'm
> rather constrained in what I may and may not say. I will not, however,
> permit this kind of abuse to go unanswered.
>
> Charles (Mackensen)
>
> On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 6:44 PM, SlimVirgin <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 7/20/08, Nathan <nawrich at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>  * A review by other checkusers and an Ombudsman found no problem with
> the
> >>  checks
> >
> > That isn't correct. Mackensen, one of the Ombudsmen, supported Lar
> > from the very beginning, to the point (according to Lar) of advising
> > Lar not to tell me about the check -- though Mackensen told me that
> > wasn't quite true. If it is true, he should not be an Ombudsman.
> >
> > The other Ombudsman would, I feel, have been willing to investigate
> > had a formal complaint been made. None was.
> >
> > Several of the other checkusers were uncomfortable with the check, but
> > again I believe they needed a formal complaint to move forward.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

One point that seems to be overlooked here is that a returning user really
should not be blanking sock templates from the page of a previous friend,
which is how SV has characterized the relationship.  A recognized user,
fine, but not a returning user.  The fact that Tumnus arrived within one
minute of the template being added, then reverted three times in quick
succession before returning to Crum375's user page, also indicates the user
was attempting to hide what they were doing.  That is a violation of the
sockpuppetry policy, whether or not the CUs were willing to overlook it in
the case.

I also remain unclear how SV could state that Lar said an initial inquiry
was sent by me.  Did Lar say this to you, SV?  I told Lar that I trusted his
discretion, but I would be surprised if he said this to you or Wikitumnus.

Other than that, I see another round of inaccurate allegations which SV has
attempted to lump onto another unrelated event. Likewise when pointed out I
see that none of these misstatements are recognized.  If SV won't, I hope
ArbCom does consider this continuing approach in the current case.