On 8/13/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 13/08/07, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org>
wrote:
On 8/13/07, David Gerard
<dgerard(a)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.