> On 7/19/08, David Katz <dkatz2001(a)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.
Second, with respect to SlimVirgin and Lar. Lar pretty much has his
hands tied. It would certainly be a breach of the privacy policy to
discuss the results of the check, and it would be an ethical violation
(if not a privacy violation) to discuss the reason for the check. So
his hands are tied; SlimVirgin can slag off on him publicly and he
can't defend himself. That's pretty low, and this is maybe the third
time it has happened. (Once before on checkuser-L and once at
[[Wikipedia talk:Checkuser]].) So I think it would be best for all
concerned, if Slim believes that Lar is not trustworthy, that she make
a formal request to Arbcom to consider the matter, and then keep it
off the wiki.
Thatcher