SlimVirgin's melt down on the WikiEN-l, too much BS for even David Gerard Options

[Pumpkin Muffins]

Looks like Slimmy is getting dressed down on WikiEN-l:
-----------------------------

<<Slimmy>> There was no reason at all to check the first account(s) that Lar checked.
<David Gerard> ... Please detail why you feel you are immune to checkuser.
-----------------------------

<<<Slimmy>>> Both the first and second editor were affected by this. The first abandoned the checked accounts because Lar is not trusted.
<<Luna>> Lar is not trusted? Why not? By whom? ...
<David Gerard>Indeed. Casual slander is not a robust method of policy formation.
-----------------------------

<David Katz>SlimVirgin has abusively sockpuppeted before - as Sweet Blue Water if my memory is correct - a sock which she tag teamed with on articles and used to vote twice in some instances. I don't think she's in a position to get self righteous that anyone would think she might be sockpuppeting again, particularly as she's never apologized or explained the SWB sock.
----------------------------

And for the grand finale, from Larry himself;

Sarah:

I've been mostly staying out of addressing your allegations because I rather
hoped that, given the amount of discussion and investigation there was about
the whole thing, that this matter had been settled some time ago. I also
refrained from giving detail in order to preserve the privacy of all
involved as much as possible. I intend to hew to that and not give detail
here either. However I just cannot allow this canard of yours to stand
without correction.

> There was no reason at all to check the first account(s) that
> Lar checked. If you know some of the details of the case, and
> I assume you do (though I also know you don't know all of
> them), you'll know that he had no grounds *whatsoever* to
> perform the first check,

Patently false, and repeating it won't make it true. There was a very good
reason for the initial check. I performed the initial check based on my
judgement that a good and valid request for a check had been presented to
me. An ombudsman reviewed the request I was given and agreed with me that I
had good reason to run the check. You conveniently fail to mention that.

> or the second

As every good checkuser does, I follow checks where they lead. And when they
lead to surprising results, as this one did, I don't go public without close
consultation with my colleagues. Which is what happened in this case. After
consultation, there was no need to make the results public or act further on
them, and every good reason to not do so. You conveniently fail to mention
that as well.

> but it was assumed and hoped that both checks might lead to me.

You assume too much, I think. Unless of course your real reason for raising
this is to try to damage my reputation in order to win unrelated disputes, a
tactic that I think will increasingly fail you going forward, as more people
realise you do so.

> He performed the check upon the private request of a troublemaker who has
been harassing me for over a year.

I think you overplay the harassment card sometimes. This is one of those
times.

Others have advised you that this matter is settled. Let it be. Stop trying
to smear people.

Larry Pieniazek

[Milton Roe]

[quote name='Pumpkin Muffins' date='Sat 19th July 2008, 9:50pm' post='115168']
Looks like Slimmy is getting dressed down on WikiEN-l:
-----------------------------

<<Slimmy>> There was no reason at all to check the first account(s) that Lar checked.
<David Gerard> ... Please detail why you feel you are immune to checkuser.
-----------------------------


All of which suggests this question: what is checkuser most "like" in law enforcement? Is checkuser like a cop looking at registration stickers on auto license plates of random people going past? Checking speeds of people going past? Or just radaring people who look like they're going too fast? Or is it more like shining a flashlight in the backseat only of people you've pulled over for other reasons (however small)? Is it like a breath alcohol analyzer? Or is it more like (say) a searchwarrant or wiretap?

Seems to me there are some people outraged here over checkuser being used without a judge signing off on it, as though they view it as being like a wiretap or warrant (nevermind acid comments on recent US law in dealing with "terrorism"). however, I think what these people forgot is that Checkusers ARE the equivalent of such judges on WP, if any there be. That's the point of making only a few people checkusers. Wikipedia has no mechanism for one sysop or group of sysops preventing "abuse" of search functions by another, by pre-approving them so that there is a two-party sign-off. If they wanted that, they should have set up such a system. Looks like they forgot (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sad.gif) In that case, sooooo sorry, but that's what you-all asked for. Slimey, you never complained about the system when you were the one gaming it.

Slimey might (or might not) be "comforted" to know that the real world of search-warrants actually looks frighteningly like Wikipedia, albeit with a few nods toward the pretense of independent oversight. In point of fact, there are certain judges in any system who will sign just about any warrant request put before them, few or not questions asked. The cops know who these judges are. So, any warrant anybody wants to serve, usually gets served. The process for real vetting of these things happens much later at the trial, and a judge may throw out results of a search he/she doesn't like. Victims of property-damaging fruitless searches MIGHT (after much hassle) recover some small monetary compensation for repairs, but otherwise it's just assumed by the courts that cops and judges act on good faith. AGF, mo-fo. The judge signing off on the "bad" warrant is essentially never penalized (it hardly matters how screwy or badly framed, or in error, or free of good faith it is) nor are the cops penalized (except for having their case weakened by loss of evidence). So, search warrants are almost universally abused in the event, even in societies with due process and oversight on using them. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

So, get used to it. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear from legal scrutiny, eh? So say conservatives (and whoever is in power). (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

This post has been edited by Milton Roe:

[GlassBeadGame]

All of which suggests this question: what is checkuser most "like" in law enforcement? Is checkuser like a cop looking at registration stickers on auto license plates of random people going past? Checking speeds of people going past? Or just radaring people who look like they're going too fast? Or is it more like shining a flashlight in the backseat only of people you've pulled over for other reasons (however small)? Is it like a breath alcohol analyzer? Or is it more like (say) a searchwarrant or wiretap?

The fact that Checkuser is governed by WMF's Privacy Policy and not a mere "community" rule ought to make it subject to something analogous to a warrant. Although you are correct that warrant requests are approved with little scrutiny by some judges, and cops do judge shop, they are still subject to review by other judges and remedies can be given to those subjected to wrongly granted warrants.

Perhaps SlimVirgin realizes that and it explains why she goes about trying to manufacture her own little "war on terror" to weaken the protection afforded by the Privacy Policy.