On 8/13/07, Casey Brown <cbrown1023.ml(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 8/13/07, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote:
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.
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).