The more I think about it, the more I wonder if we did not make entirely a mistake (me definitly included) History of checkuser (please take a seat and have a tea, it will be long) 1) originally, Brion took care of ip checking upon requests. He did the checks apparently only when he knew the one asking (=trusted). It was done directly in the database (so, required developer status and meant no log of checks) 2) when requests became more numerous, Tim Starling and perhaps others started to help 3) came a moment when not only requests were too numerous (and developers probably tired of doing this), but on top, some editors had the developer status only to make ip checks (I understood it was the case of Taw at least). There was apparently a will to clean up who had access, and to limit it to those who were *really* developing At this point, it was largely admitted that the job was the one of a developer. A *technical* job. Though I know at least one person had access to the db last summer or fall to do this and is not to my knowledge a developer (Elian, can you confirm this ?) 4) Tim developped the tool. Apparently, the first to have access to it were Taw and David. Both developers. All was fine. 5) This is the moment where it slipped. First David started saying that more people would be needed for the english wikipedia checks. Requests generally came from the arbcom quite naturally. Without the tool, the arbcom would have asked Brion or Tim to do the checks. With the tool, it was quite a natural direction.... to request access for the arbcom members. And here was the first mistake ! On top, other languages (who were previously asking Brion or Tim, and had no more developers available to do this at that moment) started asking for access. And what was insisted upon was the "confidentiality" side, much more than the "technicality" side. Second mistake. But quite clearly.... the technical consideration is just as important than the confidentiality consideration. I plead guilty for part of this. I also think the arbcom of last summer has a responsability in this, since it was asking for the arbcom to have access, regardless of technical ability of its members. And for what is worth, I think Jimbo also has a responsability in this, since he himself decided all english arbcom members would have access. Then, there was a third mistake I think (it is not an accusation, just an analysis). It was to make a tool dividing projects and languages. Originally, we had a common set of volunteers to help us all. And this was good. I am pretty sure some people did not know Brion intimately enough to *trust* him, but they were told he was fine by people they trusted, and they went to ask him with no fear. And Jimbo had no fear either. Now, people have checkuser status only on one project/one language. Just as if Brion had help ip checking on the french wiktionary, whilst Tim was dedicated to the english wikipedia and Taw to the polish wikibooks. It makes NO sense whatsoever. The *only* unigue advantage of the current system is to understand the language of the project the checkuser make the job. And as a result of this mix-up... because of the need to "trust" the checkuser, we have zizanie (does that exist in english ?). We have internal fight and rancor). The small languages are complaining they are left aside The non-wikipedia projects are complaining they are left aside The stewards are complaining they do not have the technical ability to do this And the checkusers with the technical ability... pretty much offer to help anyone who needs help. What that suggest me is this We should not have checkusers with the tool access on a one project/one language, but a POOL of COMMON checkusers. Those should all have good technical abilities. Those would have access everywhere. They would be listed on meta with their language ability. The biggest projects would be used to always ask to their favorites. The small languages will try to find the one with a basic knowledge of their language if they wish. But all in all, checkusers should be a common good, just as our developers right now are (and, hell, just as your board members are). Ant