Forwarded to the list per request.
The message pertains to her initial inquiry of November 2008:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-November/047414.html
-- Ral315
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: dee dee <strategicdesign2001(a)yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 12:25 PM
Subject: Re: Have you dealt with this Systemic Secretive Checkuser Abuse
yet? If so, how?
To: Ryan Lomonaco <wiki.ral315(a)gmail.com>
Cc: foundation-l-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Ryan,
It is 2 simple but important issues: the supportive details are all included
in this email.
Here is the current and past practice in a nutshell as expressed by one of
the former Regular contributors:
"* The vast majority of checkuser requests are, and always have been,
performed quietly and without a request at RFCU. Frivolous requests are
routinely rejected through these back-channels, and no more information is
given than would be given at RFCU. Why is this a problem? <b>[[User
Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 18:14, 1
December 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%…
Issue 1: The official and public description of CheckUser lays out a
transparent process for justifying when and how it may be used. In practice,
it is often used in secret and quick "back door" process. First issue is
the misrepresentation to the public and all contributors as to how and when
Checkuser may be used.
Issue 2: Whether it is ethical or democratic to be using this "back channel"
process.
I suppose another issue is why it has been so difficult to get the
Foundation to address the matter.
Dee Dee
** <http://www.flickr.com/gift/>