On 21/04/07, Conrad Dunkerson <conrad.dunkerson(a)att.net> wrote:
I agree. The checkuser policy has always said that
access will be removed
"if checks are done routinely on editors without a serious motive to do so
(links and proofs of bad behavior should be provided)"... yet given that
people often don't know when they've been checked this seems meaningless.
How would such a thing, which the foundation itself describes as abuse
requiring removal of access, ever be uncovered? Is there someone going
through the checkuser logs and reviewing each to verify that it was valid?
I doubt it and would hope not as it would be a tremendous waste of time
better spent elsewhere.
This appears to be putting the cart before the horse, i.e. making
detection of violations easier at the expense of causing violations.
If it's no shame to show up in a CheckUser log, why are people
shitting themselves at the idea?
There has been at least one past kerfluffle about an
unjustified check
amongst the very small circle of users who DO have access to the checkuser
logs. If everyone had access to see they they, and ONLY they, had been
checkusered we'd obviously get alot more complaints... but what if some of
them are valid?
I'm unaware of the kerfuffle you're speaking of. Details?
- d.