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
Checkusers, Ombudsmen and ArbCom (according to Sarah) have no issue with Lar or his work in this case. She won't bother filing a request because she's confident it will be rejected. There doesn't seem to be much, if any, support for the basis of her complaint even outside of the three groups noted above.
So what is the issue? Clearly there is no underlying problem - Sarah is upset that an editor who was hiding his/her identity decided to "wind down" because he was revealed to a checkuser. There is no absolute right to privacy from the Foundation or its representatives - you should assume that if there is reasonable suspicion, in the eyes of a checkuser, your IP information can and will be reviewed by that checkuser and any others CUs asked to assist. Simple mechanism for preventing this is to not edit.
Now that Sarah has laid out her whole case, Lar has responded and Mackan has given his evidence that led Lar to run the check I think most people will agree that there is no issue the community can address at the core of *this* dispute.
Nathan