On 7/20/08, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2008/7/21 SlimVirgin slimvirgin@gmail.com:
However, working out how to prevent this kind of thing is what matters now, and the best way to do that is to ensure that people who are checked are told whether and by whom, if they ask.
*What* "sort of thing"?
What is the actual damage you are claiming to have suffered?
This is entirely unclear. So far this entire thread appears to be you forum-shopping your conflicts with Lar.
David, you need to learn to disagree with people politely.
The actual damage is that Wiktumnus had to give up his account. Crum felt increasingly less like continuing to edit, as did I. And Lar now feels he can check whomsoever he wants to check, whenever he wants to do it, for bad reasons and for none.
If that's the new rule, fine. Let's add it to the checkuser policy -- namely that no grounds whatsoever are needed for checks. But if we're not willing or able to change the policy, let's try to stick to it.
It's because checkusers take the view that they must defend other checkusers come what may, at least in public, that these misuses continue.