On 21/04/07, Conrad Dunkerson conrad.dunkerson@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.