Hi Anthere
Checks should be done only on accounts doing abusive
edits to Wikipedia
(vandalism, insults, spam, defaming etc...)
If checks are done without any relevant reasons related to abuse, then
those checks are abusive and the person with the checkuser access should
(will) lose it.
Just like admins wrongfully blocking accounts are also supposed to
have their admin status revoked? Please realize that the two actions
have very different worst cases.
Blocking: Worst case: You do not get to write in Wikipedia for a while.
IP Checking: Worst case: Someone who doesn't like you get your ip
checked, calls your ISP and talks with a clueless receptionist who
reveals your real life name. That person then publishes your name
somewhere. Your boss who happens to also be a Wikipedia user finds out
about it and fires you because s/he think your political stuff you've
written on Wikipedia suck. So some brat on WIkipedia cost you your
employment.
You don't even need to be an ArbCom member to do that. Let's say a
veteran editor like Ed Poor asks for an ip check. Will an ArbCom
member oblige? Yes, because Ed Poor is trusted. So your only job is to
convince Ed Poor to ask for an ip check. For more details:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_hacking With the checkuser tool it
becomes so much easier.
If you have ever met a political refugee, you know that they often are
very careful not to talk politics with persons they don't know.
Especially not with strangers from their own home country. The reason
is that they fear secret agents from their home country. Often this
fear is unfounded paranoia (there aren't THAT many secret agents in
the world), sometimes it is not. Their worst case checkuser scenario
is even worse than the worst case scenario I described two paragraphs
above.
That's why I hate the checkuser shit - (mis)uses of the tool can have
very detrimental real-life effects on real-life persons. Something
that nothing other on the silly text game Wikipedia can have.
--
mvh Björn