[WikiEN-l] SlimVirgin and CheckUser leaks

[Fayssal F.]

I may be totally wrong as many details are missing here.

a) Lar is wrong. He should not have communicated CU findings with his wife.
Policy is clear on that.

b) SlimVirgin, you are wrong when you think that there should be a
*good*valid reason for a CU; a valid reason is sufficient. And of
course, though
it is not binding, a CU can have some courtesy of informing the subject of
the check. But i do believe that the question of *"[people] who are checked
are told whether and by whom, if they ask*"  is less relevant than answering
the question about the reason of the check itself. And we all know that
sophisticated sockpuppetry comes more often from established accounts --
hope this is not defending the CU *team *but more a sign of emphasizing on
the fact that there should be no exemptions for established accounts. Of
course, fishing and general trawling aside.

I won't care about who is check usering me if I am not doing something
wrong. So... c) what do parties want?

Fayssal F.

On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 18:04:15 -0500 SlimVirgin <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] SlimVirgin and CheckUser leaks
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
Message-ID:
       <4cc603b0807201604j7e1dbf4aq273a82fd5db26066 at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On 7/20/08, Thatcher131 Wikipedia <thatcher131 at 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.