Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Fvw

Fvw
[ Vote here] (14/2/1) ending 22:14, 25 October 2005 (UTC) I'd like access to Checkuser to handle our persistent vandals, pretty much exactly per the rationale above (odd coincidence that). --fvw *  22:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Support Oppose
 * 1) This is a needed tool for those of us who do heavy RC patrolling. -- (drini's page| &#x260E; ) 22:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Trrustworthy guy.  Martin  22:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support -Greg Asche (talk) 22:25, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Support &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 23:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Support cmon he deserved it a long time ago Ryan Norton T 23:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Strong support. Great user, trustworthy. Andre ( talk ) 23:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Strong Support, we all know Fvw is trustworthy, and not one to abuse privacy. R  e  dwolf24  (talk&mdash;How's my driving?) 23:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Support I trust fvw not to violate any user's privacy. Still, I do agree that a formal acceptance of privacy policy and guidelines for presentation of findings would be beneficial. Carbonite | Talk 23:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Support per above. &laquo;&raquo; Who ? &iquest; ? meta  23:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Strong Support Very Trustworty --JAranda'' | watz sup 23:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. -Splash talk 00:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Strong support. Great editor. &alpha;&gamma;&delta;&epsilon;&epsilon; (&epsilon; &tau; c) 00:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Enthusiastic support! Trustworthy and dedicated admin. Kirill Lokshin 00:17, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) One of the most active vandalslayers and generally knowledgeable and trustworthy. Can't think of a better candidate (besides me of course). Dmcdevit·t 00:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Shanes 00:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Strongest Oppose Possible Untill Terms Herein Fufilled Sadly, while I support the policy, and feel that the individual requesting such access is more than competent and trustworthy to use it, I intend to vote oppose untill any given requester submits in their nomination their own personal privacy policy, and agrees to abide by the Privacy_policy as an individual. I would also ask that a template for results be created, and that individuals granted the rights to checkuser agree to release results only in this template. I would also insist that the punishment for violating the PP or the standard template be immediate revokation of all adminstrative and other rights without recourse or possibility of any future recovery.Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 22:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong oppose per Hipocrite. Nothing personal, the policy just doesn't satisfy me. It's been thrown together and approved far too quickly for something that could have much more substantial off-Wiki consequences than, well, any other policy or technical power I can think of. At bare minimum, there needs to be a globally accessible log of all uses of checkuser, as well as a policy for dealing with abuse. I like the "personal privacy policy" idea as well. N (t/c) 23:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Per above and will add: I see absolutely no reason to make this a seperate vote. Roll this into the admin position or (I'd suggest) the bureaucrat position at minimum. All this does is create two-tier admins: "those which can check and those which can't check." And then, of course, a series of glob-on votes "I want to check too!" Why do we need the waste of time? We seperate admins and bureaucrats for instance. And bureaucrats and stewards. Why shouldn't we leave this power higher up the food chain? Admins are supposed to be ordinary users. I think this is a bad idea and will oppose though I have no problem with the user. Marskell 00:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) I am strongly opposing all Requests for Checkuser until we set up and agree to a policy detailing checks and balances. [ [[User:Zzyzx11|Zzyzx11]] (Talk) 01:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose all nominations until checks/balances/transparency of process are detailed and privacy policy is clarified. --Tabor 02:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Extremely strong oppose. Blank Verse  &empty;  21:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) I thoroughly trust fvw, but I don't really understand the legal ramifications of making this information available to a select group of users. I prefer to err on the side of conservativeness on this issue at the moment until I understand it better. Who is ultimately responsible for the potential use or misuse of this information? I'm concerned about the apparent anonymity of who might be using the information. I'd like to understand better how on Wikipedia we plan to set up a system of transparency to use this information effectively. --HappyCamper 23:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments
 * What sort of experience do you have with the sort of IP checking being discussed here? --Carnildo 00:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)