Wikipedia talk:CheckUser policy

Having administrators being elected to use checkuser seems like another level of hierarchy. Would this be a permanent position? Could people have it recinded? Secretlondon 00:46, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Personally, I would be okay with all admins having this power, but I know some people are really opposed to that, so I don't see what is wrong with having votes on granting this. And yes, I think it should be able to be recinded, and doing so should be easiesr than getting adminship and other things removed, given howas this power gives someone alot of access to private information. -Greg Asche (talk) 01:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Bah. Humbug. We'd be better served by having email confirmation of new accounts. CheckUser is a bag on the side of a bag, and we don't need to create more of a constituency for it than it already has. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 02:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I agree with David Gerard's suggestion that this sort of function should naturally be attached to the bureacrat position (and, if necessary, we can reconfirm all the buracrats to make sure the community trusts them with this new power) &rarr;Raul654 20:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)