[WikiEN-l] SlimVirgin and CheckUser leaks

[Charles Fulton]

Oh good, we're on to Kelly Martin. I think that about concludes the
usefulness of this thread.

For onlookers, there's a good deal not being said here because,
contrary to Slim's insinuations, I actually do give a damn about
people's privacy, and their reputations.

Now, you'll have to direct me to this ANI thread, because I don't
recall if specifically. I've been referring directly to a private
conversation which I had with Lar dated March 11. At no time did Lar
mention his wife. I should note that Lar specifically denies the
allegation you've made, and claims to have private correspondence to
prove it. If you gained the impression from ANI that the Commission
had officially looked into the matter then I regret that you gained
that impression. We've not, as you've never lodged a formal complaint
of any kind. In the course of your unofficial complaint to
checkuser-l, of course, two of the three commissioners developed
fairly vocal views on the question so frankly if you ever do lodge a
complaint it'll come down to Hei ber's say so.

Look, we can go round and round on this. If I was half the
unscrupulous hack you've implied I would have published my private
correspondence to this thread, but my personal vindication doesn't
matter as much (yet) as the trust placed in me by various parties to
not disclose certain things without their consent.

Your position, if I understand it correctly (and I have no doubt that
I'll be told that I do not), is that I am obligated to tell you when a
checkuser whom you do not trust performs a checkuser on your account
(or, rather, related accounts). This doesn't scan. At all. Not the
least because I trust Lar and Alison and consider them honorable,
trustworthy people, and I've been shown no cause to believe otherwise.
As an Ombudsman it would be perverse for me to start disclosing random
bits of the CU log without good cause and outside my official duties.

I concur, of course, that an Ombudsman should be neutral, but that
doesn't require me to stay silent as what's left of my name is dragged
through the mud. I'll remind you, for the umpteenth time, that all the
people you're acting are open about their real identities.

Best,

Charles

On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 7:17 AM, SlimVirgin <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/21/08, Charles Fulton <mackensen at gmail.com> wrote:
>> You can interpret it however you like. I'm sitting here staring at the
>>  conversation from March. Given that I told Lar to *do nothing* while I
>>  consulted with two other people, you could argue that I told him not
>>  to tell you, but I effectively told him to tell no one else as well ...
>> I found myself in a bit of pickle, not the least
>>  because of the significant, pre-existing gap of trust between users.
>
> The lack of trust in certain checkusers is the main problem here. When
> Kelly Martin was given checkuser, I guessed that she would eventually
> use it on me, because she doesn't like me, and she appeared not to
> care about the rules. And sure enough, she did. When Alison and Lar
> were given it and started posting regularly to Wikipedia Review, I
> guessed that one or both would checkuser me at some point, and sure
> enough, one of them did.
>
> It would be good if ArbCom or the Ombudsman commission would see to it
> that admins do not use checkuser for no reason against people they
> don't like. It would be good if you would ensure that people who are
> regular posters to Wikipedia Review refrain from using the tool
> against editors who are attacked, cyberstalked, and defamed there.
>
> But this is so obvious, and such common sense, that the very fact that
> I'm having to suggest it shows how hopeless the situation is.
>>
>>  The primary role of the ombudsman is to review the release of private
>>  data. Given that no such release had occurred or appeared to be
>>  pending, I was not acting in that role.
>
> You posted on AN/I that Lar had not told anyone about the check, yet
> you knew he had told his wife, another Wikipedian, and had done so
> without Wikitumnus's consent (which WT would not have given). You have
> aided Lar in this from the very beginning, and have done your best to
> help him cover his tracks. You even gave the impression on AN/I that
> the Ombudsman Commission had looked into this, which it did not.
>
> The point, Charles, which seems to escape you, is that people on the
> Ombudsman commission are meant to be neutral and disinterested, so
> that editors trust them. If you care about that lack of trust, I hope
> you'll give your place to someone else.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>