On 8/13/07, Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/13/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 8/13/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 13/08/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@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.
You may say that you expect it, but by visiting any page on Wikimedia site, you are agreeing to the privacy policy http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy and also the resolutions of the Wikimedia Board of Trustees and its relevant policies.
I'd disagree with your statement that I "am agreeing" to anything simply by visiting a page, however I do realize that checkuser exists and that I have no legal recourse against it. This is why I often see a problem in a Wikipedia article and choose not to fix it.
The CheckUser policy explicitly states that "Notification to the account that is checked is permitted but is not mandatory."
Yep. I thought what David was asking was what we think the policy should say, not what it does say.
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.
This may be one of the most understandable things you've ever said, but this isn't the place to bring it up. There is an official policy against sockpuppetry, and that won't be broken here.
The policy about sockpuppetry only pertains to very limited cases where there is no violation of other policies. Basically, so long as you don't vote or become an admin, and don't violate any policies, you can have as many sockpuppets as you want.
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.
Wtf? You are upset becasue we are checking your *IP address* and instead you wish for us to find out your exact identity?!
A) anyone who does the slightest bit of investigation can easily find out my "exact identity". B) You don't really need to know if I'm a sockpuppet of anyone, because I'm not an admin and I don't participate in voting. (well, I rarely participate in voting nowadays, I'll gladly stop doing so if it's a problem, though).