I suppose it depends on the circumstances. Hard to say more in public.
Thatcher
Jpgordon wrote
In what way is it an ethical violation to reveal the reason for a check?
On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 7:17 PM, Thatcher131 Wikipedia < thatcher131 at gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/19/08, David Katz <dkatz2001 at gmail.com> wrote:
It certainly doesn't appear that SV was given this information so that
she
could block or report the person on whom the CheckUser was run.
Instead, it
appears that she was told so she could tip off the person.
You've misunderstood what happened. I was told -- told, not "tipped off" -- about the checkuser because I was one of the people Lar checked. That is allowed under the policy.
SlimVirgin has abusively sockpuppeted before - as Sweet Blue Water if my memory is correct - a sock which she tag teamed with on articles and used to vote twice in some instances. I don't think she's in a position to get self righteous that anyone would think she might be sockpuppeting again, particularly as she's never apologized or explained the SWB sock.
David
On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 10:45 PM, Thatcher131 Wikipedia < thatcher131@gmail.com> wrote:
I suppose it depends on the circumstances. Hard to say more in public.
Thatcher
Jpgordon wrote
In what way is it an ethical violation to reveal the reason for a check?
On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 7:17 PM, Thatcher131 Wikipedia < thatcher131 at gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/19/08, David Katz <dkatz2001 at gmail.com> wrote:
It certainly doesn't appear that SV was given this information so that
she
could block or report the person on whom the CheckUser was run.
Instead, it
appears that she was told so she could tip off the person.
You've misunderstood what happened. I was told -- told, not "tipped off" -- about the checkuser because I was one of the people Lar checked. That is allowed under the policy.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 11:49 PM, < jayjg99@gmail.com > wrote:
Second, with respect to SlimVirgin and Lar. Lar pretty much has his hands tied. It would certainly be a breach of the privacy policy to discuss the results of the check, and it would be an ethical violation (if not a privacy violation) to discuss the reason for the check. So his hands are tied; SlimVirgin can slag off on him publicly and he can't defend himself. That's pretty low, and this is maybe the third time it has happened. (Once before on checkuser-L and once at [[Wikipedia talk:Checkuser]].) So I think it would be best for all concerned, if Slim believes that Lar is not trustworthy, that she make a formal request to Arbcom to consider the matter, and then keep it off the wiki.
You left out the issue of Lar informing his wife, another Wikipedia editor, of the results of the checks.
There are many other things I left out as well, and this is certainly not the forum to discuss the matter.
I'm pretty sure the on-wiki thread had been allowed to die out until it was resurrected here. I think the best thing for all concerned is to stop talking about this on the public mailing list. The affected parties have two routes of complaint open to them, and it's really time to file a formal complaint or to drop the matter.
Thatcher