Home
Reading
Searching
Subscribe
Sponsors
Statistics
Posting
Contact
Spam
Lists
Links
About
Hosting
Filtering
Features Download
Marketing
Archives
FAQ
Blog
 
Gmane

From: jayjg <jayjg99-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w <at> public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: SlimVirgin and CheckUser leaks
Newsgroups: gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.english
Date: Sunday 20th July 2008 03:24:35 UTC (over 10 years ago)
On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 10:17 PM, Thatcher131 Wikipedia
 wrote:
>> On 7/19/08, David Katz
 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.
>
> Second, with respect to SlimVirgin and Lar.  Lar pretty much has his
> hands tied.  It would certainly be a breach of the privacy policy to
> 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
[email protected]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
 
CD: 4ms