[WikiEN-l] SlimVirgin and CheckUser leaks

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

Florence Devouard wrote:
> 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.
>   
Just out of curiosity, what kind of checkuser is one where
"no one else is involved"?

It just does not make sense to me, please explain.


> 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.
>
> Thatcher131 Wikipedia wrote:
>   
>>> On 7/19/08, David Katz <dkatz2001 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>       
>>>> It certainly doesn't appear that SV was given this information so that she
>>>>  could block or report the person on whom the CheckUser was run. Instead, it
>>>>  appears that she was told so she could tip off the person.
>>>>         
>>> You've misunderstood what happened. I was told -- told, not "tipped
>>> off" -- about the checkuser because I was one of the people Lar
>>> checked. That is allowed under the policy.
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>> There are two issues here that I would like to comment on.
>>
>> First, on the issue of notification.  My personal approach is that if
>> someone asks me, "Have I been checkusered," I will answer yes or no.
>> I will not identify the checkuser, because I can not speak for why
>> that checkuser ran the check, but I will offer to notify the checkuser
>> that the editor in question would like to discuss the matter.  Then it
>> is up to the checkuser who ran the check to decide whether or not to
>> respond.  I think it would be pretty discourteous to the other
>> checkuser to say directly, "Yes, you were checked by Smith" because
>> that gets the editor angry at Smith without giving Smith a chance to
>> explain the reason or context.
>>     
>
> Regardless of the current issue at stake, I like James approach on top 
> of Sarah's one. It is at the same time very respectful to the person 
> asking for information, but also very respectful of the checkuser.
>
> I think it is fair that a user could ask if he was checkusered and if he 
> was, to be informed when he was.
> However, the user should not get the name of the checkuser who did the 
> check, but this latter should receive a notification of the request. I 
> also think he should be given the freedom to answer or not.
>   

Let me just get this clear, you are suggesting that the
checkuser could voluntarily let the person making a
query about whether they had been checked, know
that it was just this particular checkuser who was on
the job on the given day? Or if the checkuser wanted
to not be identified, that would be okay too?





> This is possibly the best way to recognise and support both checkuser 
> and checkusered and cut down on personal drama.
>   

This sounds a very hopeful note, though I suspect mildly
unwarrantedly optimistic in its tone.

Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen