Within reasonable limits, all checkusers are probably best considered
mutually trustworthy. Each project has separate checkusers but all fall
under the WMF's management, and checkuser is a WMF provided capability. The
notion of a divide isn't useful. If a checkuser can't be trusted, they can't
be trusted on any project. The aim of checkuser and its reason for being
provided is solely to safeguard WMF projects. That sounds like what was
being done here.
FT2.
-----Original Message-----
From: wikien-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of NavouWiki
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 1:25 AM
To: 'English Wikipedia'
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Checkuser for fun, for profit, for mild curiosity,
for sharing, for whatever
Two separate projects. Separate, no?
Navou
-----Original Message-----
From: wikien-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Anthony
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 7:18 PM
To: English Wikipedia
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Checkuser for fun, for profit, for mild curiosity,
for sharing, for whatever
On 8/13/07, Casey Brown <cbrown1023.ml(a)gmail.com> wrote:
He's a checkuser on Commons.
So does that mean he has direct access to checkuser information on
en.wikipedia, or does it mean that it's acceptable to tell him
information about checkuser results from en.wikipedia, or neither?
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l