On 23/06/06, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
I'm looking for someone who will state what they believe the likelihood of this happening, and what the practical consequences might be.
I guess deletion/selective undeletion in itself has GFDL consequences. But then again, there is a log given for deletions by admins.
I'm not under any "mistaken delusions". :-) Nevertheless, the community has shown significant support for many of the members, particularly in the recent elections. Of course, every member elected also got oppose votes, so distrust (at least by the opposers) is inevitable.
How were the developers elected, and what made you trust them?
The developers were not elected (and neither, technically, was the ArbCom either). Brion is an employee of Wikimedia, and therefore is subject to actual legal duties relating to the carrying out of his functions. Tim Starling I have known for over 3 years and has always displayed the utmost integrity, particularly when dealing with situations involving the removal of sensitive information from the 'pedia.
But that is beside the point. It still hasn't been explained why the Arbitrators were selected as the main repositories of these powers. Does the removal of revisions crop up frequently in arbitrations undertaken by the ArbCom? Or has the ArbCom somehow morphed into something more than an Arbitration Committee, to be some sort of Content Management Committee?
The Concise Oxford English Dictionary defines 'arbitrator' as "an independent person or body officially appointed to settle a dispute".
Also, [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee]] says nothing about the ArbCom having any role beyond resolving disputes.
Are content implications more serious than privacy implications?
No. I'm saying the opposite. The reason the CheckUser logs are private is because of the significant privacy implications involved in accessing our server data. Only those Officially appointed by the Wikimedia Foundation should be able to access such data/logs.
On the other hand, the question of revision content is not immediately related to the questions of privacy laws.