[Foundation-l] Note regarding status of privacy policy

Sat Aug 9 22:22:38 UTC 2008

On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 5:08 PM, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2008/8/9 SlimVirgin <slimvirgin at gmail.com>:
>
>> There is a body that is full of other checkusers, who instantly take
>> the side of their colleague, so there really is no point in
>> complaining to it. What we need is a truly independent body run by the
>> Foundation, answering only to the Foundation and not to people's
>> mates.
>
>
> Because it must surely be conspiracy, not that you're actually wrong
> and forum-shopping.

Your attitude is an example of the problem. When someone has a
complaint about checkuser use, they are insulted and ridiculed by
ArbCom members, moaned about by other checkusers, and ignored by the
Ombudsman commission. Then attacked on this list for "forum shopping"
if they dare to mention it here.

Of the recent case regarding Lar, I've been told all evidence must be
submitted by this Sunday, then the case will be closed. But I don't
have time to hunt for diffs right now, because I have family coming to
stay until the end of the month. They know this -- they also know this
is a holiday season -- but they want it closed by Sunday nevertheless,
for reasons they're unable to explain. So nothing will be resolved.

What puzzles me is why people like you argue against enforcing the
checkuser policy. If you want to get rid of it -- and if it's so
patently absurd that only lunatics and conspiracy theorists like me
would ever want to enforce it -- why not argue for its removal? There
is simply no point in having a policy that assures editors reasons are
needed for checks, when in fact no reason is ever needed, and Jimbo
supports that, while the Ombudsmen won't look at it, the ArbCom won't
act, the checkuser list won't self-police, and when the issue is
raised here, it's "forum shopping" and time for more abuse from David
Gerard.

With the current gulf between policy and practice, we are lying to
users, pure and simple.