</p><noscript>
</noscript>
5,988
pages
ALL POSTSNew CheckUsers 
<p>Hey everyone,
</p><p>Many of us admins have been talking about the need to modify our current CheckUser group. We've come up with something we think will work better, and we'd like to see what you guys think. First of all, Danielboone6702 has decided to give up his CheckUser rights, due to his semi-inactivity and how few times he actually used it. In his place, we're nominating both BusyCityGuy and Obi the LEGO Fan. I will keep my rights, giving us a total of three CheckUsers. If you have any other candidates for this position, feel free to nominate them here. But please keep in mind that we do require them to be administrators. If you don't have any nominations to make, then please just leave your vote here!
</p><p>If you haven't heard of CheckUser before, or would like to learn more about it, you should check out the Help:CheckUser page. </p><noscript></noscript>
</p><noscript></noscript>
(Edited by Drew1200)
0
<div class="quote">Agent Spy wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>RePeat wrote: </p> <div class="quote">ShermanTheMythran wrote:
I hate to resurrect myself from the dead to say something about this, but I see a lot of disapproval for BCG, and from what I can see that this is at least in part do to my accidental promotion (hence why I'm saying anything at all). I retained my moderator privileges not because he gave them to me, but because the administrators approved of the action after the fact. He has no undue sway or authority, and to anyone who has not come to know him as I have (a relationship which long predates LMBW), I firmly believe you'd find him as trustworthy and honorable as any. And in his defense, I don't think the fact that you don't know him well truly means he cannot be trusted with the responsibility altogether.</div>
<p>I don't want him to not be check user because of Administrator power abuse (even if it was accidental). I don't want him to be check user because I don't want my IP added to the already-detailed text doc he has dedicated to me on his computer already. Not to mention the seventy other users here.</p><noscript>
</noscript>
</div>First off, CheckUsers are NOT PERMITTED to randomly check user's IPs. The only time they can check IPs is if they have a <i>very</i> strong suspicion that the user is a dupe or the maker of a dupe. Secondly, don't you think it's a bit paranoid to think he has a detailed text doc dedicated to you? 
</div>
<p>
Yes I know, I was highly exaggerating.</p><noscript></noscript> But still, BCG is always very suspicious of everyone. Surely you know this.
<p>It's paranoid alright, but he's told me himself he keeps docs on every user on here. No lie, that's what he told me.
</p>
<div class="quote"> <p>RePeat wrote: </p> <div class="quote">ShermanTheMythran wrote:
I hate to resurrect myself from the dead to say something about this, but I see a lot of disapproval for BCG, and from what I can see that this is at least in part do to my accidental promotion (hence why I'm saying anything at all). I retained my moderator privileges not because he gave them to me, but because the administrators approved of the action after the fact. He has no undue sway or authority, and to anyone who has not come to know him as I have (a relationship which long predates LMBW), I firmly believe you'd find him as trustworthy and honorable as any. And in his defense, I don't think the fact that you don't know him well truly means he cannot be trusted with the responsibility altogether.</div>
<p>I don't want him to not be check user because of Administrator power abuse (even if it was accidental). I don't want him to be check user because I don't want my IP added to the already-detailed text doc he has dedicated to me on his computer already. Not to mention the seventy other users here.
</p><noscript></noscript>
</div>First off, CheckUsers are NOT PERMITTED to randomly check user's IPs. The only time they can check IPs is if they have a <i>very</i> strong suspicion that the user is a dupe or the maker of a dupe. Secondly, don't you think it's a bit paranoid to think he has a detailed text doc dedicated to you? </div>
<p>Yes I know, I was highly exaggerating.
</p><noscript></noscript> But still, BCG is always very suspicious of everyone. Surely you know this.
<p>It's paranoid alright, but he's told me himself he keeps docs on every user on here. No lie, that's what he told me.
</p>
(Edited by RePeat)
0
<div class="quote">
<p>Agent Spy wrote:
</p>
<div class="quote">
<p>RePeat wrote:
</p>
<div class="quote">ShermanTheMythran wrote:
I hate to resurrect myself from the dead to say something about this, but I see a lot of disapproval for BCG, and from what I can see that this is at least in part do to my accidental promotion (hence why I'm saying anything at all). I retained my moderator privileges not because he gave them to me, but because the administrators approved of the action after the fact. He has no undue sway or authority, and to anyone who has not come to know him as I have (a relationship which long predates LMBW), I firmly believe you'd find him as trustworthy and honorable as any. And in his defense, I don't think the fact that you don't know him well truly means he cannot be trusted with the responsibility altogether.</div> <p>
I don't want him to not be check user because of Administrator power abuse (even if it was accidental). I don't want him to be check user because I don't want my IP added to the already-detailed text doc he has dedicated to me on his computer already. Not to mention the seventy other users here.</p><noscript></noscript>
</div>First off, CheckUsers are NOT PERMITTED to randomly check user's IPs. The only time they can check IPs is if they have a <i>very</i> strong suspicion that the user is a dupe or the maker of a dupe. Secondly, don't you think it's a bit paranoid to think he has a detailed text doc dedicated to you?
</div>
<p>He does that stuff, jsyk...
</p>
I hate to resurrect myself from the dead to say something about this, but I see a lot of disapproval for BCG, and from what I can see that this is at least in part do to my accidental promotion (hence why I'm saying anything at all). I retained my moderator privileges not because he gave them to me, but because the administrators approved of the action after the fact. He has no undue sway or authority, and to anyone who has not come to know him as I have (a relationship which long predates LMBW), I firmly believe you'd find him as trustworthy and honorable as any. And in his defense, I don't think the fact that you don't know him well truly means he cannot be trusted with the responsibility altogether.</div> <p>
I don't want him to not be check user because of Administrator power abuse (even if it was accidental). I don't want him to be check user because I don't want my IP added to the already-detailed text doc he has dedicated to me on his computer already. Not to mention the seventy other users here.
</p><noscript></noscript>
</div>First off, CheckUsers are NOT PERMITTED to randomly check user's IPs. The only time they can check IPs is if they have a <i>very</i> strong suspicion that the user is a dupe or the maker of a dupe. Secondly, don't you think it's a bit paranoid to think he has a detailed text doc dedicated to you?
</div>
<p>He does that stuff, jsyk...
</p>
(Edited by Randomized)
<p>Okay everyone, I have an announcement to make. Rio asked me to post here saying that he is not interested in CheckUser rights. His iPod is not letting him comment at this time, but you can confirm it with him on chat.
</p>
(Edited by Obi the LEGO Fan)
0
<div class="quote">
<p>RePeat wrote:
</p>
<div class="quote">ShermanTheMythran wrote:
I hate to resurrect myself from the dead to say something about this, but I see a lot of disapproval for BCG, and from what I can see that this is at least in part do to my accidental promotion (hence why I'm saying anything at all). I retained my moderator privileges not because he gave them to me, but because the administrators approved of the action after the fact. He has no undue sway or authority, and to anyone who has not come to know him as I have (a relationship which long predates LMBW), I firmly believe you'd find him as trustworthy and honorable as any. And in his defense, I don't think the fact that you don't know him well truly means he cannot be trusted with the responsibility altogether.</div> <p>
I don't want him to not be check user because of Administrator power abuse (even if it was accidental). I don't want him to be check user because I don't want my IP added to the already-detailed text doc he has dedicated to me on his computer already. Not to mention the seventy other users here.</p><noscript></noscript>
</div>
<p>JSYK, if he wanted your IP, he could have obtained it long ago. IPs are about as easy to find as your username. </p><noscript></noscript> If you're concerned about privacy, then CheckUser should be the least of those concerns. Not only do we have very specific guidelines on how it is to be used, we have a log to make sure that no one is checking anyone that they shouldn't be. Honestly, the only way you would get CheckUser'd, is if you created a duplicate account. Considering that your reputation is already established, I don't see the account RePeat ever getting a CheckUser run. But if you were to create another account, that account could get it. (hint: don't create a dupe )
I hate to resurrect myself from the dead to say something about this, but I see a lot of disapproval for BCG, and from what I can see that this is at least in part do to my accidental promotion (hence why I'm saying anything at all). I retained my moderator privileges not because he gave them to me, but because the administrators approved of the action after the fact. He has no undue sway or authority, and to anyone who has not come to know him as I have (a relationship which long predates LMBW), I firmly believe you'd find him as trustworthy and honorable as any. And in his defense, I don't think the fact that you don't know him well truly means he cannot be trusted with the responsibility altogether.</div> <p>
I don't want him to not be check user because of Administrator power abuse (even if it was accidental). I don't want him to be check user because I don't want my IP added to the already-detailed text doc he has dedicated to me on his computer already. Not to mention the seventy other users here.
</p><noscript></noscript>
</div>
<p>JSYK, if he wanted your IP, he could have obtained it long ago. IPs are about as easy to find as your username. </p><noscript></noscript> If you're concerned about privacy, then CheckUser should be the least of those concerns. Not only do we have very specific guidelines on how it is to be used, we have a log to make sure that no one is checking anyone that they shouldn't be. Honestly, the only way you would get CheckUser'd, is if you created a duplicate account. Considering that your reputation is already established, I don't see the account RePeat ever getting a CheckUser run. But if you were to create another account, that account could get it. (hint: don't create a dupe )
(Edited by Drew1200)
0
<p>I am perfectly fine with Obi being a CU, and I did have my doubts about BCG but since I found out there is a log of all CU activity, I now support him. I think he can be trusted just so long as he has Drew and Obi to be accountable to. </p><noscript></noscript>
</p><noscript></noscript>
(Edited by Nxtstep101)
0
<p>Yesterday Obi told me that CheckUser is a serious thing not to be joked about. And now Drew tell us that it's no big deal at all. If IPs are 'as easy to find as your username,' why do we even need CheckUsers?
</p><p>But anyways, to be a proper obedient little user, not question authority, and answer what I was asked, I'm fine with Obi taking this position, though I'm not so sure about BCG. Not that I don't trust my Big Brother Best Friend Forever (yeah right, it's really because I'm sure he'd have no problem finding out whatever he wanted), but couldn't we pick someone a teeny tiny bit more active? But then, maybe that's not a problem, because I've not heard of anyone's IP being checked in all my time here, but if it never happens why do we need CheckUsers anyways? I should stop thinking if I only go in circles. </p><noscript></noscript>
</p><noscript></noscript>
(Edited by Katuvis)
0
<p>...I approve both, Drew can't be the only guy who can check for dupes. </p><noscript></noscript>
</p><noscript></noscript>
(Edited by Alemas2005)
<div class="quote">
<p>Katuchim wrote:
Yesterday Obi told me that CheckUser is a serious thing not to be joked about. And now Drew tell us that it's no big deal at all. If IPs are 'as easy to find as your username,' why do we even need CheckUsers?
</p><p>But anyways, to be a proper obedient little user, not question authority, and answer what I was asked, I'm fine with Obi taking this position, though I'm not so sure about BCG. Not that I don't trust my Big Brother Best Friend Forever (yeah right, it's really because I'm sure he'd have no problem finding out whatever he wanted), but couldn't we pick someone a teeny tiny bit more active? But then, maybe that's not a problem, because I've not heard of anyone's IP being checked in all my time here, but if it never happens why do we need CheckUsers anyways? I should stop thinking if I only go in circles. </p><noscript></noscript>
</div>
<p>Let me explain what I meant by that. CheckUser <i>is</i> a serious right, because it gives the administrators who are given CU the potential access to a lot of private information. Only trustworthy administrators should be given CU rights. I was also making that statement in the context of joke blogs. A joke blog supporting someone jokingly for CheckUser would not be a good thing.
</p><p>What Drew means is that there is not a major privacy concern to the users because of the CheckUsers. In fact, there is no privacy concern if you do not make any duplicates. CheckUsers have a lot of accountability, because they are being watched by other CheckUsers and Wikia Staff. That is the main reason we are asking for two more CheckUsers, for the increased accountability. If any of the CheckUsers were to abuse their rights and look at information without justification, they would lose their CU rights. So basically, Drew's point is, don't be worried about privacy unless you make duplicates and disrupt the wiki.
</p><p>Also, just to say, IPs are not as easy to find as your username. Drew was exaggerating to make a point.
</p>
</p><noscript></noscript>
</div>
<p>Let me explain what I meant by that. CheckUser <i>is</i> a serious right, because it gives the administrators who are given CU the potential access to a lot of private information. Only trustworthy administrators should be given CU rights. I was also making that statement in the context of joke blogs. A joke blog supporting someone jokingly for CheckUser would not be a good thing.
</p><p>What Drew means is that there is not a major privacy concern to the users because of the CheckUsers. In fact, there is no privacy concern if you do not make any duplicates. CheckUsers have a lot of accountability, because they are being watched by other CheckUsers and Wikia Staff. That is the main reason we are asking for two more CheckUsers, for the increased accountability. If any of the CheckUsers were to abuse their rights and look at information without justification, they would lose their CU rights. So basically, Drew's point is, don't be worried about privacy unless you make duplicates and disrupt the wiki.
</p><p>Also, just to say, IPs are not as easy to find as your username. Drew was exaggerating to make a point.
</p>
(Edited by Obi the LEGO Fan)
0
<div class="quote">
<p>Katuchim wrote:
Yesterday Obi told me that CheckUser is a serious thing not to be joked about. And now Drew tell us that it's no big deal at all. If IPs are 'as easy to find as your username,' why do we even need CheckUsers?
</p><p>But anyways, to be a proper obedient little user, not question authority, and answer what I was asked, I'm fine with Obi taking this position, though I'm not so sure about BCG. Not that I don't trust my Big Brother Best Friend Forever (yeah right, it's really because I'm sure he'd have no problem finding out whatever he wanted), but couldn't we pick someone a teeny tiny bit more active? But then, maybe that's not a problem, because I've not heard of anyone's IP being checked in all my time here, but if it never happens why do we need CheckUsers anyways? I should stop thinking if I only go in circles. </p><noscript></noscript>
</div>
<p>I apologize, I didn't mean to downplay the seriousness of CheckUser. It's a very serious tool, and does offer the ability to invade privacy if misused. However, in order to invade that privacy, the IP has to be research further than the details provided by the CheckUser tool. Even then, the amount of privacy lost is minimal. The person attempting to invade your privacy would be able to find out what state you live in, at best.
</p><p>My point in the previous post was simply that if someone as respected as BCG wants to collect information on random people, then even if he were to hypothetically abuse CheckUser, he would not be given any more information than he would have already collected. Also, like Obi said, I was exaggerating my comment on usernames. It takes a fair amount of knowledge and skill to be able to obtain an IP address, while anyone can go and find your username. My point there was that it's not very difficult to get an IP if you have the knowledge to do so.
</p><p>With all of that being said, CheckUser is a very important tool. It allows for you to view a ton of details related to IP addresses. You can find all the edits or accounts used by an IP, among other less notable things. Without, it would be nearly impossible for us to be aware of dupes, allowing for a massive amount of potential conflict.
</p><p>In response to your last couple of sentences, CheckUser is actually used quite often. I don't believe that I have ever CheckUser'd someone's main account, with a couple of exceptions with users who were notorious for creating dupes. CheckUser is almost always run on newer accounts, which meet one of the requirements described by our CheckUser policy. It's definitely an essential tool to any wiki with duplicate accounts, and this wiki is meets that requirement easily.
</p>
</p><noscript></noscript>
</div>
<p>I apologize, I didn't mean to downplay the seriousness of CheckUser. It's a very serious tool, and does offer the ability to invade privacy if misused. However, in order to invade that privacy, the IP has to be research further than the details provided by the CheckUser tool. Even then, the amount of privacy lost is minimal. The person attempting to invade your privacy would be able to find out what state you live in, at best.
</p><p>My point in the previous post was simply that if someone as respected as BCG wants to collect information on random people, then even if he were to hypothetically abuse CheckUser, he would not be given any more information than he would have already collected. Also, like Obi said, I was exaggerating my comment on usernames. It takes a fair amount of knowledge and skill to be able to obtain an IP address, while anyone can go and find your username. My point there was that it's not very difficult to get an IP if you have the knowledge to do so.
</p><p>With all of that being said, CheckUser is a very important tool. It allows for you to view a ton of details related to IP addresses. You can find all the edits or accounts used by an IP, among other less notable things. Without, it would be nearly impossible for us to be aware of dupes, allowing for a massive amount of potential conflict.
</p><p>In response to your last couple of sentences, CheckUser is actually used quite often. I don't believe that I have ever CheckUser'd someone's main account, with a couple of exceptions with users who were notorious for creating dupes. CheckUser is almost always run on newer accounts, which meet one of the requirements described by our CheckUser policy. It's definitely an essential tool to any wiki with duplicate accounts, and this wiki is meets that requirement easily.
</p>
(Edited by Drew1200)
YOLO
(Edited by Roseann Shadowflame)