On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 7:25 AM, Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Are you able to specify which policy or statement
entitles you to the
information you request? I can find no basis for it in the privacy policy,
the Meta checkuser policy or the checkuser page on Commons. Can you also
outline for your audience what harm you believe you have suffered?
Regarding policy, Russavia is claiming that the CU results were given
to someone who wasnt a CU on Commons. In my experience sometimes that
happens in cross-wiki investigations, but it should not be given to
someone who isnt a CU anywhere, and it would be a very clear violation
of CU policy for it to have been given to someone who wasnt WMF
identified. It would be good if Russavia could clarify, and/or the OC
could confirm, that the person who received the CU data was WMF
identified at least.
I am guessing that Russavia has yet to hear how the CU on his account
complies with the CU policy. There must be a valid reason to check a
user. Was there a serious concern that Russavia was using alternative
accounts in a prohibited manner? Was he vandalising? Hmm.
CU's performing unwarranted CU investigations on users harms the
entire project. This is especially true of regular contributors, as
their CU data often provides a lot of information about their daily
lives, and may 'reveal' real life connections with other contributors,
sometimes very explicitly and other times it is vaguely and
unwarranted suspicions are formed and rumours spread.
Here's why I ask the second question: Following
your breadcrumbs led me to
only one CU, but I was puzzled to discover this comment from you on this
users talk page "let me say thank you from myself and the rest of the
community for all the great work you've done on this project over the
years." Puzzled because it was left several weeks after you say you filed a
formal complaint.
Russavia said something nice to someone in 2013 on their retirement,
and raised a formal complaint about an unknown CU's action in 2014.
How are these related??
That a well respected CU has retired isnt a good reason for the OC to
not investigate a complaint, especially if that CU data was passed
around. It may make the investigation less fruitful, and it is a good
reason for the outcome to be measured against the good done by the
volunteer when they were active. Mistakes happen. Usually apologies
follow, and that is the end of it, or maybe some lessons learnt bring
about improvements to the system.
--
John Vandenberg