On 8/13/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 13/08/07, Marc Riddell
<michaeldavid86(a)comcast.net> wrote:
> Please show your working when answering.
I don't even know what this means
I'm addressing this to the complainants :-)
There's clearly an expectations failure - there's something users
expect which the privacy policy or other checkuser policies don't
account for.
It would be good to allow for expectations without abandoning the tool
(which just isn't going to happen).
So I'm asking what those expectations are, with as much detail as
possible. Then we can work on something which doesn't piss people off.
One thing I expect is to know when checkuser is run against me. I
expect to know about this before it happens, and I expect a chance to
argue against it happening.
But, even if this were fixed I still doubt I'd feel comfortable with
the system. I think I'd have to vote for abandoning the tool
completely. It shouldn't matter whether or not a user is a sockpuppet
of another user. Either their argument has merit or it doesn't.
Either they're breaking policy or they aren't. If you really need to
stop sockpuppetry, then what you need is for the user to verify
his/her identity, not to check IP addresses.