On 8/13/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 13/08/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 8/13/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
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 don't get that, any more than you get to object to a sysadmin looking through the logs of a server they are charged with administering. Checkuser is essentially a sysadmin function. (But then, you know this, having read the manual.)
What do you gain from knowing, if the information is not revealed?
What I gain by knowing when I am checkusered and for what reason, is the ability to make an informed decision whether or not to continue participating on the site.
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.
Assume that the tool will continue to be used as it is unless you can *convince* lots of people otherwise. It's not a matter of a vote, it's a matter of persuasion. Can you make a fair shot at that?
I really have no idea how the tool is currently being used, as I don't have access to the logs. I know of a few instances where it was used improperly, but I have no idea how common this is.