QUOTE(Guido den Broeder @ Sat 9th July 2011, 6:40am)
I have already explained to Abd at Meta why the IP address has to be protected.
As an example, Abigor was caught red-handed while he was creating attack accounts on a computer in a public library. The IP of the library will of course not be revealed to him.
Cheers,
Guido
But, as usual, he just adds more Walls of Text on the same issue.
That's Guido. Totally ignorant, combined with great personal confidence in the errors of others. The IP of a library won't be revealed to me? I can go there and get it immediately, if I get on a computer. Trivial.
Abigor was caught red-handed as described? That's certainly not clear from the checkuser evidence revealed. What was said was that the device used was rather unusual, and that IP information plus the user agent information, nailed that there was a login of Abigor's bot account, Dirt Diver, and the creation of an account at meta with a highly offensive username, that attacked another user, ostensibly one with whom Abigor had conflict, from the same unusual device.
My guess is that the device was a mobile phone, an unusual one. The IP would be a mobile service provider, explaining the earlier comments about public access, but it would be the user agent that would nail it.
Abigor has accepted being blocked, he knows he screwed up, entirely aside from this vandal account thing. He's strongly proclaiming his innocence on the vandalism charge, but, hey, the checkuser evidence looks solid. What gives?
Well, perhaps he is lying. But there is at least one another possible scenario, and it certainly can't be ruled out. Someone got Abigor's password to the toolserver account. They used this to create a login there, which created data for checkuser identifying the device used. Had this been a public library, as Guido implies, the identification would not have been so crisp, though, depending on details, it could still be pretty strong. On the other hand, this scenario still works if it access was through a public library. Perhaps with a handheld device, creating the unique user agent.
Then they created the offensive account on meta. The goal was to nail Abigor to the wall. It worked.
Now, this is what Abigor asked for, which Guido opposed as contrary to privacy policy, in which he has a sudden interest.
Abigor had requested the checkuser information, and was told, no, contrary to privacy policy. But privacy policy does explicitly allow release of checkuser information
if the user consents.Abigor is then told that, no, what if he isn't the user? But the checkusers claimed that the identification was crystal clear, unmistakeable!
Guido (and others) are claiming that the privacy policy prohibits the release of the anonymous vandal's information, which is preposterous. Release of information like that may actually be legally required, if Abigor makes a binding request. He's suffered a major loss of reputation, through charges that he made the edit. If he was the user, releasing the information to him is clearly allowed, and, I'd claim, could be legally required.
What's totally maddening is that they are then saying, no, if he wasn't the user, releasing the private information would be prohibited. Catch-22.
You are guilty as sin, but if you aren't guilty, we aren't going to release the information on which your guilt was determined, because it would then harm the other user. The person who used access to completely trash your reputation, and this could affect career, quite possibly. Cool, eh?
I understand why Guido is opposed, it's simply because he hates Abigor, who did, after all, abuse him. What's more puzzling is apparently sensible meta users who are also arguing for keeping the checkuser information private, to the extent of getting pissed off because the questions are even being asked.
Abigor's Meltdown
Ottava Abigor's Meltdown 
