On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 10:17 PM, Thatcher131 Wikipedia
>> On 7/19/08, David Katz
>>> It certainly doesn't appear that SV was given this information so that
>>> could block or report the person on whom the CheckUser was run.
>>> 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.
> Second, with respect to SlimVirgin and Lar. Lar pretty much has his
> discuss the results of the check, and it would be an ethical violation
> (if not a privacy violation) to discuss the reason for the check. So
> his hands are tied; SlimVirgin can slag off on him publicly and he
> can't defend himself. That's pretty low, and this is maybe the third
> time it has happened. (Once before on checkuser-L and once at
> [[Wikipedia talk:Checkuser]].) So I think it would be best for all
> concerned, if Slim believes that Lar is not trustworthy, that she make
> a formal request to Arbcom to consider the matter, and then keep it
> off the wiki.
You left out the issue of Lar informing his wife, another Wikipedia
editor, of the results of the checks.
WikiEN-l mailing list
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: