On 6/23/06, Mark Ryan ultrablue@gmail.com wrote:
On 23/06/06, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
How would it violate GFDL, and what would the "worrying" consequences be?
I said it was "potentially GFDL-violating". Surely you, as a member of the ArbCom, know of the attribution requirements of the GFDL. Carnildo pointed out an example of one such situation earlier in this thread.
I'm looking for someone who will state what they believe the likelihood of this happening, and what the practical consequences might be.
And I'm a little concerned that you don't seem to think violation on our part of the GFDL would be worrying in itself.
I'm a little concerned that you are trying to turn this into a discussion about me, rather than a discussion about the practical consequences of using the "Oversight" capability.
Of what benefit would that information be, and to whom? What would the subsequent action be, some editor saying "why did Jimbo remove that revision on June 23"? He's already said why, Personal Information. This suggestion would just turn the log into a fishing expedition for distrustful editors.
I see what you mean about the fishing trip. But I still feel a listing of these actions would be beneficial purely for the statistics it would show.
I think you are under the mistaken delusion that members of the ArbCom are automatically trusted by the community. I know less than the half the people given this oversight power, and of those, I trust even fewer.
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.
These people (including yourself) have been given access to what was effectively a developer-only action, and are asking the rest of us to "just trust you" that you'll all make sure you're all doing the right thing. That doesn't cut the mustard with me. I trust the developers I used to get to do this manually far more than most of the people now afforded this power.
How were the developers elected, and what made you trust them?
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?
This is different to the CheckUser logs because this has content implications, not privacy implications.
Are content implications more serious than privacy implications?
Jay.