jayjg wrote:
On 6/23/06, Mark Ryan ultrablue@gmail.com wrote:
If User X is doing 95% of the oversight revision deletions, I'd like to know about it.
Hmm. For a while there someone was doing 95% of the CheckUsers, because they were willing to put in the hundreds of hours of volunteer time required to do it. Is that suspicious in some way?
Yes. I would find it suspicious, at any rate. And then I (or someone else, actually, since I haven't paid much attention to CheckUser stuff) would go around asking "hey, how come User X is doing 95% of the CheckUser stuff?" and get various answers from various people amounting to "because it's a big hassle to do and he's the only one willing to volunteer the time." That would allay my suspicions.
The fact that suspicions are raised is not necessarily a slight on the person under suspicion, IMO. It's good to be able to get these things out in the open and _confirm_ that nothing untoward is going on.
This is different to the CheckUser logs because this has content implications, not privacy implications.
Are content implications more serious than privacy implications?
Wikipedia's goal is to produce content. Protecting the privacy of its users is only a means to that end - an important means, IMO, but not the _most_ important. Otherwise why allow CheckUser to be used at all?