[WikiEN-l] SlimVirgin and CheckUser leaks

[Josh Gordon]

On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 2:10 PM, SlimVirgin <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 7/19/08, Josh Gordon <user.jpgordon at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 1:50 PM, SlimVirgin <slimvirgin at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >  > There are editors who have argued that it should be mandatory, a view
> >  > I'm increasingly coming around to myself.
> >  >
> >
> >
> > I think I'm beginning to agree with you myself. But then, it wouldn't be
> >  right to publicly do this, and I'd venture that the vast majority of
> >  checkuser subjects have no legitimate email address to tell privately.
>
> I'm thinking of a policy that says anyone who asks whether they've
> been checkusered must be told whether, why, and by whom, if they make
> the request within six months of the check. The request must come from
> the e-mail address the editor has added to their Wikipedia
> preferences. They may only ask whether that particular account has
> been checked. They need not be told the results of the check, in case
> that inadvertently implicates someone else, though they may be told it
> if no one else is involved.
>
> We could build in a grandfather clause so that this doesn't apply
> retroactively. That would protect current checkusers who had performed
> checks without knowing the information might become public.
>

I'd support that. The "why" doesn't have to include the identity of the
person who requested the check. I don't have any particular reason to think
that checkusers have any right to expect that their activities will not be
reported to the targets of the checks, but I guess such a clause would be
drama reducing.




-- 
--jpgordon ∇∆∇∆