[WikiEN-l] SlimVirgin and CheckUser leaks

[Nathan]

Which is an obvious backdoor route to having the issue examined, with
Anthere as advocate.

This thread is getting a bit ridiculous - you (Sarah) say Mackensen lied at
the AN/I thread, he asks for you to point it out and it turns out you're
referring to Lar's comment. You're asked how you know Lar revealed something
to his wife, and you say Wikitumnus told you and Lar *might* have told him.
You state categorically that Wikitumnus had no prior connection to Lar's
wife, but when he makes it clear you're wrong you have no response.

You say the problem is abuse of checkuser by Lar; then you say its that
checkuser abuse isn't covered by the Ombudsmen - but when directed to
ArbCom, you can't be bothered to file a complaint;  then the problem is the
lack of trust in certain checkusers, as well as abuse by Kelly Martin (and
aspersions on Alison as well, for good measure). David raises the
possibility that you might be wrong, since no one so far in this thread or
elsewhere appears to agree with your interpretation of events, but his
aggressiveness is proof that you're right?

The fact is your claims here change with each new restatement, and the only
thing you seem to have accomplished is to malign various trusted individuals
without any evidence of wrongdoing. If there is a true, underlying injury
here (i.e. some damage that you or anyone has received from the actions of a
checkuser) then you should file a complaint to ArbCom or the Ombudsmen.
WikiEn-l can't adjudicate the problem for you, we can't change the checkuser
policy from this list, and no one seems to see things from your perspective
- so either do something meaningful, or drop it.

Nathan

(cc'd Anthere because she's been mentioned a few times in this discussion)


>
> 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
>
>
>