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
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 12:31 PM, Thatcher131 Wikipedia < thatcher131@gmail.com> wrote:
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
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
One of the questions here seems to be whether any discussion of alternate account usage by an "identifiable" account implicates the privacy policy. If I understand correctly, CUs can discuss potential alternate accounts under the CU policy without generally falling under the privacy policy. If one of the suggestions here is that this changes for any editor who can be identified, I think that's incorrect. Under the Privacy Policy, I believe this is because all it protects is specifically the data collected "in" the data logs. Similarly, the CU policy under "Privacy Policy" exempts situations where users "have already revealed this information themselves on the project."
I can only speculate whether this applies; on the other hand it might show problem with trying to resolve this kind of issue publicly where we can't know the full information and where Lar can't respond.
On 7/20/08, Thatcher131 Wikipedia thatcher131@gmail.com wrote:
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
No formal complaint was made to the commission because we were told they couldn't examine checkuser policy violations, as I said earlier. Therefore, this was never investigated properly -- and you do lack key information for that reason. What I found most disturbing were the slightly different versions of events that were produced for different audiences. Had it not been for that aspect, I'd have been willing to forget the whole thing.
I think your subcommittee of checkusers idea is a very good one. I wonder why it didn't happen.
However, working out how to prevent this kind of thing is what matters now, and the best way to do that is to ensure that people who are checked are told whether and by whom, if they ask.
2008/7/21 SlimVirgin slimvirgin@gmail.com:
However, working out how to prevent this kind of thing is what matters now, and the best way to do that is to ensure that people who are checked are told whether and by whom, if they ask.
*What* "sort of thing"?
What is the actual damage you are claiming to have suffered?
This is entirely unclear. So far this entire thread appears to be you forum-shopping your conflicts with Lar.
- d.
On 7/20/08, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2008/7/21 SlimVirgin slimvirgin@gmail.com:
However, working out how to prevent this kind of thing is what matters now, and the best way to do that is to ensure that people who are checked are told whether and by whom, if they ask.
*What* "sort of thing"?
What is the actual damage you are claiming to have suffered?
This is entirely unclear. So far this entire thread appears to be you forum-shopping your conflicts with Lar.
David, you need to learn to disagree with people politely.
The actual damage is that Wiktumnus had to give up his account. Crum felt increasingly less like continuing to edit, as did I. And Lar now feels he can check whomsoever he wants to check, whenever he wants to do it, for bad reasons and for none.
If that's the new rule, fine. Let's add it to the checkuser policy -- namely that no grounds whatsoever are needed for checks. But if we're not willing or able to change the policy, let's try to stick to it.
It's because checkusers take the view that they must defend other checkusers come what may, at least in public, that these misuses continue.
2008/7/21 SlimVirgin slimvirgin@gmail.com:
David, you need to learn to disagree with people politely.
This is the latest place you've forum-shopped this vendetta to. Lar has been investigated from several directions in this affair, some instigated by you personally (when you sent Anthere to checkuser-l with information that turned out to be incomplete in many respects) and been cleared in all of them. So excuse me if I'm somewhat terse and want to get to the damn point.
If that's the new rule, fine. Let's add it to the checkuser policy -- namely that no grounds whatsoever are needed for checks. But if we're not willing or able to change the policy, let's try to stick to it.
That's not what it says or means, and this has been said to you by several people and groups of people from several directions.
It's because checkusers take the view that they must defend other checkusers come what may, at least in public, that these misuses continue.
Or you could be wrong, of course.
- d.
On 7/20/08, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2008/7/21 SlimVirgin slimvirgin@gmail.com:
David, you need to learn to disagree with people politely.
This is the latest place you've forum-shopped this vendetta to. Lar has been investigated from several directions in this affair, some instigated by you personally (when you sent Anthere to checkuser-l with information that turned out to be incomplete in many respects) and been cleared in all of them. So excuse me if I'm somewhat terse and want to get to the damn point.
Stop being so rude, please. It is not a "vendetta," and it has not been forum-shopped at all. I didn't write to Anthere about itl. I wrote to her to ask what we needed to do to have checkuser policy violations covered by the Ombudsman.
If that's the new rule, fine. Let's add it to the checkuser policy -- namely that no grounds whatsoever are needed for checks. But if we're not willing or able to change the policy, let's try to stick to it.
That's not what it says or means, and this has been said to you by several people and groups of people from several directions.
That's now what what says or means?
It's because checkusers take the view that they must defend other checkusers come what may, at least in public, that these misuses continue.
Or you could be wrong, of course.
But I'm not wrong. Just take a look at your own aggression.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
2008/7/20 Thatcher131 Wikipedia thatcher131@gmail.com:
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, [...]
Is anyone surprised that this name came into the discussion?
Ah, well, I can now stop reading the discussion with a clear conscience, filing it under "yet more SlimVirgin/Jayjg drama". Thanks, Thatcher131.