If you haven't seen Lar deny anything then you haven't read his emails
to this list. I encourage you to do so before sending any more mail
here.
If you continue to make accusations which I know to be false, but the
proof cannot be revealed, then you place me in an extremely awkward
position, as you've already placed several other users.
I don't claim to be privy to your correspondence with Anthere, but the
matter didn't end there as you well know, because I believe you were
occasionally copied on emails. I'll have to check my archives to be
certain.
You know, you're right. The matter was not taken officially to the
Commission, and Lar in his summary indicated that he believed it had.
I suspect this is because two of three ombudsmen (at least) already
commented, privately, at length. It is true, however, that no official
complaint has been made, by you or anyone else, ever. Why you have not
done so baffles me, but I think you're obliged to make a formal
complaint, either to Arbcom or to the Commission, or hold your peace.
I will of course recuse if you choose the latter. I would emphasize
that this in no way detracts from the remainder of Lar's statement.
Neutrality doesn't mean I'm obliged to give equal weight to an
inaccurate summary of events.
Now, you say I'm wrong in my summary of your position. What then? What
is it that you want?
Charles
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 8:05 AM, SlimVirgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/21/08, Charles Fulton <mackensen(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Oh good, we're on to Kelly Martin. I think
that about concludes the
usefulness of this thread.
For onlookers, there's a good deal not being said here because,
contrary to Slim's insinuations, I actually do give a damn about
people's privacy, and their reputations.
Now, you'll have to direct me to this ANI thread, because I don't
recall if specifically.
During this discussion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incide…
you posted after Lar's very partial account, saying that it was
accurate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_notic…
But he claimed, inter alia, that the matter had been taken to the
Ombudsman Commission, when you knew that it had not been.
I've been referring directly to a private
conversation which I had with Lar dated March 11. At no time did Lar
mention his wife. I should note that Lar specifically denies the
allegation you've made, and claims to have private correspondence to
prove it.
I don't know which allegation he denies. I have not seen him deny anything.
If you gained the impression from ANI that the
Commission
had officially looked into the matter then I regret that you gained
that impression. We've not, as you've never lodged a formal complaint
of any kind. In the course of your unofficial complaint to
checkuser-l, of course, two of the three commissioners developed
fairly vocal views on the question so frankly if you ever do lodge a
complaint it'll come down to Hei ber's say so.
I did not complaint to checkuser-l. I wrote to Anthere to ask about
extending the authority of the Ombudsman to checkuser policy
violations. What makes you suddenly think that you know the contents
of my private e-mails to Anthere?
I'll copy my letter to her below, so that you can see how wrong you
are (as well as David and Thatcher).
Look, we can go round and round on this. If I was half the
unscrupulous hack you've implied I would have published my private
correspondence to this thread, but my personal vindication doesn't
matter as much (yet) as the trust placed in me by various parties to
not disclose certain things without their consent.
Is that "yet" supposed to be a threat? You clearly have no idea how
inappropriate your behavior is from someone who is supposed to be a
neutral party in a position of responsibility. Do you think that
anyone reading this thread is going to trust you in future if they
have a problem with a checkuser, and with Lar in particular?
Your position, if I understand it correctly (and I have no doubt that
I'll be told that I do not), is that I am obligated to tell you when a
checkuser whom you do not trust performs a checkuser on your account
(or, rather, related accounts).
I have said no such thing. Charles, please read what people actually write.
My e-mail to Anthere:
From: SlimVirgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com>
Date: Mar 18, 2008 1:34 AM
Subject: Question about checkuser/privacy policies
To: Anthere <anthere(a)wikimedia.org>
Hi Florence,
I have a question about something we talked about briefly last year.
We're continuing to find examples of checkusers who are getting IPs
for established editors and admins out of apparent curiosity, rather
than for any of the reasons listed in the checkuser policy. It's
causing quite a bit of distress among some users.
However, because the Ombudsmen are told by the Foundation only to
investigate privacy policy violations, there's nothing anyone can do
about the misuse of checkuser short of a full ArbCom hearing.
I can't remember what the reason was for restricting the Ombudsmen in
this way, but I wanted to ask whether you'd have any objections to the
scope being extended, provided the Ombudsmen themselves agree. As it's
a Foundation issue, who else do you think would need to be consulted?
Sarah
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 7:17 AM, SlimVirgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/21/08, Charles Fulton
<mackensen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
You can interpret it however you like. I'm
sitting here staring at the
conversation from March. Given that I told Lar to *do nothing* while I
consulted with two other people, you could argue that I told him not
to tell you, but I effectively told him to tell no one else as well ...
I found myself in a bit of pickle, not the least
because of the significant, pre-existing gap of trust between users.
The lack of trust in certain checkusers is the main problem here. When
Kelly Martin was given checkuser, I guessed that she would eventually
use it on me, because she doesn't like me, and she appeared not to
care about the rules. And sure enough, she did. When Alison and Lar
were given it and started posting regularly to Wikipedia Review, I
guessed that one or both would checkuser me at some point, and sure
enough, one of them did.
It would be good if ArbCom or the Ombudsman commission would see to it
that admins do not use checkuser for no reason against people they
don't like. It would be good if you would ensure that people who are
regular posters to Wikipedia Review refrain from using the tool
against editors who are attacked, cyberstalked, and defamed there.
But this is so obvious, and such common sense, that the very fact that
I'm having to suggest it shows how hopeless the situation is.
The primary role of the ombudsman is to review the release of private
data. Given that no such release had occurred or appeared to be
pending, I was not acting in that role.
You posted on AN/I that Lar had not told anyone about the check, yet
you knew he had told his wife, another Wikipedian, and had done so
without Wikitumnus's consent (which WT would not have given). You have
aided Lar in this from the very beginning, and have done your best to
help him cover his tracks. You even gave the impression on AN/I that
the Ombudsman Commission had looked into this, which it did not.
The point, Charles, which seems to escape you, is that people on the
Ombudsman commission are meant to be neutral and disinterested, so
that editors trust them. If you care about that lack of trust, I hope
you'll give your place to someone else.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SlimVirgin
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l