* 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'.
If it's no shame to show up in a CheckUser log, why are people shitting themselves at the idea?
Strawman. I know for certain that there have been checkuser requests run on my account and I'm not 'shitting myself' about it. I've been posting to online forums under my real name for decades and have a list of IP addresses I've used in the past right on my user page... so there aren't exactly alot of 'privacy' matters which anyone could 'reveal' about me which aren't publicly accessible in the first place.
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?
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.