On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 11:16 AM, < nawrich@gmail.com > wrote:
So here is a breakdown of Sarah's complaint, let me know if I've got this right:
- A checkuser checked two accounts, and she disagrees with the basis for
that check
- The fact that her account was also checked is, to her, not relevant
- One account was an established editor editing under a different name
- The established editor then stopped editing for fear of the accounts being
connected
- The only disclosure of information was to the checkusers wife (hard to
criticise, I think)
- A review by other checkusers and an Ombudsman found no problem with the
checks
The incident was discussed on checkuser-L when SlimVirgin made a complaint to Anthere that was naturally one-sided. The names of the accounts were never spoken openly, although a few people probably guessed. And Jayjg (mostly) acted as a proxy for Slim, Crum and Wikitumnus, who are not subscribed to the list. (I don't mean "proxy" in a bad way, I mean he represented their views on a mailing list that they can not subscribe to.) Therefore the debate mainly consisted of Jayjg arguing there was no good reason for the check and Lar saying there was. SlimVirgin's view that Mackan79 made a politically motivated request for the purposes of digging up dirt, and Mackan79's list of suspicious diffs, were simply never discussed, because the actual user names were never used but were referred to by code names.
So I don't think one can come to the conclusion that "the checkusers" found no problem, we lacked key information to conduct a proper review. At the time I believe I suggested asking a subcommittee of checkusers from other wikis to be given access to all the information for a non-biased review, but it never happened. And to the best of my knowledge, no formal complaint has ever been made to the ombudsman commission.
Thatcher