Slim, Privacy Advocate, protecting your IP and address and mine? Options

[gomi]

Slimey has taken another tilt at the Checkuser windmill with a recent foundation-l reply regarding the new Wikimedia Board-approved privacy policy.

Jimbo takes the view that checkusers may be conducted more or less at
random, for no reason, and the checkusers follow that lead. In other words, the Foundation's checkuser policy is being openly flouted.

... We've been told we have no right to know whether we've been checked. Attempts to introduce such a rule have led to the checkusers saying they will not follow it. And when we do find out that we've been checked, the only concern of the checkusers is to find out who told us, and to punish that person.

Ever the sweetheart, David Gerard heckles her:

it must surely be conspiracy, not that you're actually wrong and forum-shopping.

Slimey then gets all legal on their ass:

I don't know how or whether the Data Protection Act would apply, but I think if members of the UK group were involved in retaining checkuser information (and I have no idea whether they are), it would kick in ... I mentioned it only as an example. ... The courts do find a way to hold people and groups responsible for the damage and distress they cause, so the best thing is to avoid the damage ahead of time by making sure the checkuser and privacy policies are strictly enforced.

Someone then accuses her of skating too close to WP:NLT! Can a Slim-ban be far off? Wow, sounds like she may be a Wikipedia Review member soon!

[Yehudi]

My understanding is that some WP checkusers believe they can run as many checks as they like without good reason. That would horrify checkusers on most other projects.

[Kelly Martin]

My understanding is that some WP checkusers believe they can run as many checks as they like without good reason. That would horrify checkusers on most other projects.

When I was a guest checkuser on Wiktionary, all RfA candidates were subject to an automatic checkuser. There is no consensus as to when it is appropriate to run checkuser, and the privacy policy SlimVirgin spends so much time mewling about does not in any way address that issue. All the privacy policy says is that a checkuser may not disclose what he or she discovers except as consistent with the privacy policy. SlimVirgin, for all her cowardly braying, has no evidence that anyone has disclosed anything about her, but that doesn't make for very good whine, now, does it?

[wikiwhistle]

My understanding is that some WP checkusers believe they can run as many checks as they like without good reason. That would horrify checkusers on most other projects.

When I was a guest checkuser on Wiktionary, all RfA candidates were subject to an automatic checkuser. There is no consensus as to when it is appropriate to run checkuser,

Yes I think people still know if they stand for RfA on en.wiki, any recent socks they have will come to light.

[Gold heart]

My understanding is that some WP checkusers believe they can run as many checks as they like without good reason. That would horrify checkusers on most other projects.

When I was a guest checkuser on Wiktionary, all RfA candidates were subject to an automatic checkuser. There is no consensus as to when it is appropriate to run checkuser,

Yes I think people still know if they stand for RfA on en.wiki, any recent socks they have will come to light.

Checkuser can be run at the whim of the checkuser, or their buddies. There is no protocol established as to its proper use, or abuse. Also I have seen an editor indefinitely blocked by checkuser from evidence that was clearly wrong, and privy to just me, but enough of that. Checkuser and its use is a wiki-joke, and should be re-assessed.

[One]

Checkuser can be run at the whim of the checkuser, or their buddies. There is no protocol established as to its proper use, or abuse. Also I have seen an editor indefinitely blocked by checkuser from evidence that was clearly wrong, and privy to just me, but enough of that. Checkuser and its use is a wiki-joke, and should be re-assessed.

I agree, but the solution will probably be having more checkusers conducting more checks--being better able to check each other, and having more eyes of potential socks. The iron-clad expectation of privacy is very weird to me.