On 21/04/07, Conrad Dunkerson <conrad.dunkerson(a)att.net> wrote:
* David Gerard wrote:
> This appears to be putting the cart before the
horse, i.e. making
> detection of violations easier at the expense of causing violations.
The only way that statement makes any kind of sense to
me would be if you
were assuming that checkuser logs would be made public. That's obviously a
bad idea. However, there would obviously be no breach of privacy in
allowing users to see checkuser requests run on THEMSELVES. That would
make 'detection of violations easier' without 'causing violations'.
Hmm, possibly. I'm trying to work out a way of doing this that
wouldn't involve "and after you run the check, edit these five pages."
It's got to be automatic in the tool.
However, as a matter of general principle - humans are
both fallible and
suspicious. Any power which is entrusted to humans is guaranteed to be
abused from time to time... and any power which is wielded in secret is
guaranteed to arose suspicion. IMO those are immutable facts of human
nature. So why have a system which serves to perpetuate both?
Yes, I do see your point ... I'm wondering what the actual current
need is. Checkusers do look at each other's logs and there's the
ombudsmans, who can look at the logs as they wish.
> I'm unaware of the kerfuffle you're
speaking of. Details?
Best not to drag old conflicts back out into the
present. I'll send you
the details privately.
(looking at private mail) I vaguely recall that one, OK.
- d.