On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 5:41 PM, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 2 August 2014 06:25, John Mark Vandenberg
<jayvdb(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 7:25 AM, Nathan
<nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Are you able to specify which policy or statement
entitles you to the
information you request? I can find no basis for it in the privacy
policy,
the Meta checkuser policy or the checkuser page
on Commons. Can you also
outline for your audience what harm you believe you have suffered?
Regarding policy, Russavia is claiming that the CU results were given
to someone who wasnt a CU on Commons. In my experience sometimes that
happens in cross-wiki investigations, but it should not be given to
someone who isnt a CU anywhere, and it would be a very clear violation
of CU policy for it to have been given to someone who wasnt WMF
identified. It would be good if Russavia could clarify, and/or the OC
could confirm, that the person who received the CU data was WMF
identified at least.
I am guessing that Russavia has yet to hear how the CU on his account
complies with the CU policy. There must be a valid reason to check a
user. Was there a serious concern that Russavia was using alternative
accounts in a prohibited manner? Was he vandalising? Hmm.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Russavia/…
By May 2014 there were certainly suspicions on en.wikipedia that Russavia
was socking.
I'm guessing you mean June 2014, as the only earlier investigation was
April 2013, which was a royal mess.
I havent reviewed all of the socks listed from June onwards, and
havent compiled a timeline of Russavia's banned/unbanned/blocked/etc
status on English Wikipedia to compare against the rulebook, but from
a quick scan those accounts appear to have been doing good work, and
not misusing multiple accounts.
It would be fairly understandable if the relevant
authorities
on en tried to gather further information. If Russavia has a problem with
this he is free not to use sockpupets on the English Wikipedia.
But why is that relevant to a checkuser on Commons that is stated to
have occurred 12 months earlier?
--
John Vandenberg