[WikiEN-l] SlimVirgin and CheckUser leaks

Mon Jul 21 12:23:17 UTC 2008

If you haven't seen Lar deny anything then you haven't read his emails
to this list. I encourage you to do so before sending any more mail
here.

If you continue to make accusations which I know to be false, but the
proof cannot be revealed, then you place me in an extremely awkward
position, as you've already placed several other users.

I don't claim to be privy to your correspondence with Anthere, but the
matter didn't end there as you well know, because I believe you were
occasionally copied on emails. I'll have to check my archives to be
certain.

You know, you're right. The matter was not taken officially to the
Commission, and Lar in his summary indicated that he believed it had.
I suspect this is because two of three ombudsmen (at least) already
commented, privately, at length. It is true, however, that no official
complaint has been made, by you or anyone else, ever. Why you have not
done so baffles me, but I think you're obliged to make a formal
complaint, either to Arbcom or to the Commission, or hold your peace.
I will of course recuse if you choose the latter. I would emphasize
that this in no way detracts from the remainder of Lar's statement.
Neutrality doesn't mean I'm obliged to give equal weight to an
inaccurate summary of events.

Now, you say I'm wrong in my summary of your position. What then? What
is it that you want?

Charles

On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 8:05 AM, SlimVirgin <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/21/08, Charles Fulton <mackensen at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> During this discussion
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents/Tony_Sidaway
> you posted after Lar's very partial account, saying that it was
> accurate. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=226225757
> But he claimed, inter alia, that the matter had been taken to the
> Ombudsman Commission, when you knew that it had not been.
>
>> 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.
>
> I don't know which allegation he denies. I have not seen him deny anything.
>
>>  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.
>
> I did not complaint to checkuser-l. I wrote to Anthere to ask about
> extending the authority of the Ombudsman to checkuser policy
> violations. What makes you suddenly think that you know the contents
> of my private e-mails to Anthere?
>
> I'll copy my letter to her below, so that you can see how wrong you
> are (as well as David and Thatcher).
>>
>>  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.
>
> Is that "yet" supposed to be a threat? You clearly have no idea how
> inappropriate your behavior is from someone who is supposed to be a
> neutral party in a position of responsibility. Do you think that
> anyone reading this thread is going to trust you in future if they
> have a problem with a checkuser, and with Lar in particular?
>>
>>  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).
>
> I have said no such thing. Charles, please read what people actually write.
>
> My e-mail to Anthere:
>
> From: SlimVirgin <slimvirgin at gmail.com>
> Date: Mar 18, 2008 1:34 AM
> Subject: Question about checkuser/privacy policies
> To: Anthere <anthere at wikimedia.org>
>
>
> Hi Florence,
>
>  I have a question about something we talked about briefly last year.
>
>  We're continuing to find examples of checkusers who are getting IPs
>  for established editors and admins out of apparent curiosity, rather
>  than for any of the reasons listed in the checkuser policy. It's
>  causing quite a bit of distress among some users.
>
>  However, because the Ombudsmen are told by the Foundation only to
>  investigate privacy policy violations, there's nothing anyone can do
>  about the misuse of checkuser short of a full ArbCom hearing.
>
>  I can't remember what the reason was for restricting the Ombudsmen in
>  this way, but I wanted to ask whether you'd have any objections to the
>  scope being extended, provided the Ombudsmen themselves agree. As it's
>  a Foundation issue, who else do you think would need to be consulted?
>
>  Sarah
>
>>
>>  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
>>  >
>>
>>  _______________________________________________
>>  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
>>
>
>
> --
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SlimVirgin
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>