[WikiEN-l] SlimVirgin and CheckUser leaks

[Florence Devouard]

I'm thinking of a policy that says anyone who asks whether they've
been checkusered must be told whether, why, and by whom, if they make
the request within six months of the check. The request must come from
the e-mail address the editor has added to their Wikipedia
preferences. They may only ask whether that particular account has
been checked. They need not be told the results of the check, in case
that inadvertently implicates someone else, though they may be told it
if no one else is involved.

We could build in a grandfather clause so that this doesn't apply
retroactively. That would protect current checkusers who had performed
checks without knowing the information might become public.

Thatcher131 Wikipedia wrote:
>> On 7/19/08, David Katz <dkatz2001 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> It certainly doesn't appear that SV was given this information so that she
>>>  could block or report the person on whom the CheckUser was run. Instead, it
>>>  appears that she was told so she could tip off the person.
>> You've misunderstood what happened. I was told -- told, not "tipped
>> off" -- about the checkuser because I was one of the people Lar
>> checked. That is allowed under the policy.
>>
>>
> 
> There are two issues here that I would like to comment on.
> 
> First, on the issue of notification.  My personal approach is that if
> someone asks me, "Have I been checkusered," I will answer yes or no.
> I will not identify the checkuser, because I can not speak for why
> that checkuser ran the check, but I will offer to notify the checkuser
> that the editor in question would like to discuss the matter.  Then it
> is up to the checkuser who ran the check to decide whether or not to
> respond.  I think it would be pretty discourteous to the other
> checkuser to say directly, "Yes, you were checked by Smith" because
> that gets the editor angry at Smith without giving Smith a chance to
> explain the reason or context.

Regardless of the current issue at stake, I like James approach on top 
of Sarah's one. It is at the same time very respectful to the person 
asking for information, but also very respectful of the checkuser.

I think it is fair that a user could ask if he was checkusered and if he 
was, to be informed when he was.
However, the user should not get the name of the checkuser who did the 
check, but this latter should receive a notification of the request. I 
also think he should be given the freedom to answer or not.

This is possibly the best way to recognise and support both checkuser 
and checkusered and cut down on personal drama.

  Ant