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@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/20/08, Nathan nawrich@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@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l