On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 1:06 PM, David Katz dkatz2001@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Inciden...
"Well, perhaps other people ought to learn about it. And I wouldn't bank on our mutual friend not being as pissed off about it as I am. Please don't assume anything. SlimVirgin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SlimVirgin talk| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SlimVirginedits< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/SlimVirgin%3E05:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)"
Josh, someone doesn't usually refer to themselves as "our mutual friend".
On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 4:00 PM, Josh Gordon user.jpgordon@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe I'm not reading well. From where do you get the idea it was run on anyone other than her?
Ah, I see. So there was an offsite request (not uncommon, I process those frequently) to checkuser SlimVirgin and some other editor; a checkuser decided it was a justified request and ran the check; and another checkuser told SlimVirgin she'd been the target of a checkuser along with another editor.
So what?
SlimVirgin might have grounds for complaint if the tool was used improperly; I don't know one way or another. But nobody has grounds to complain that she was told that she was the target of a checkuser. Whether she has the right to know who requested the checkuser is a fuzzier question; I wouldn't mind if there was a policy that a person may ask and automatically be told if and why she was checked. I'll generally not reveal the "why" information myself, especially if a check comes up without any useful information; it would just exacerbate drama.