[WikiEN-l] Checkuser for fun, for profit, for mild curiosity, for sharing, for whatever

[Anthony]

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