Uhm, is it just me, or is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Checkuser_reque... very, very bad idea? I think it's fairly obvious why it probably wasn't so bright to make that an open, free-for-all page. Especially if the community's not going to have any say and it'll just be the Arbs appointing Checkusers, then what exactly is the use of that page? The arbs could have easily just approached people and announce it. This will probably degenerate into a farce - I already see at least one name on there who hasn't even been contributing very long to this project, and isn't an admin.
NSLE
On 3/29/07, NSLE (Wikipedia) nsle.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Uhm, is it just me, or is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Checkuser_reque... very, very bad idea? I think it's fairly obvious why it probably wasn't so bright to make that an open, free-for-all page. Especially if the community's not going to have any say and it'll just be the Arbs appointing Checkusers, then what exactly is the use of that page? The arbs could have easily just approached people and announce it. This will probably degenerate into a farce - I already see at least one name on there who hasn't even been contributing very long to this project, and isn't an admin.
NSLE
Because the usal people to recriut are busy so it is time to bring in people from outside that group.
On 3/29/07, NSLE (Wikipedia) nsle.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Checkuser_reque...
First, let's fix this link... http://tinyurl.com/yq72lb
What I want to know is why they don't just open up checkuser to more admins? Anybody who is trusted with tools that allow him to make pages go away (including the main page) and keep anybody they want from editing would not be trusted with checkuser. Or is it a matter of the technical knowledge needed to properly interpret checkuser results?
Then again, admins have, or should have, enough knowledge about networking to know what IP ranges to block to get rid of a troublesome troll+socks but minimize the effect on innocent editors.
On 3/30/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
What I want to know is why they don't just open up checkuser to more admins? Anybody who is trusted with tools that allow him to make pages go away (including the main page) and keep anybody they want from editing would not be trusted with checkuser. Or is it a matter of the technical knowledge needed to properly interpret checkuser results?
CheckUser involves access to sensitive, confidential information, and involves a drastically higher level of trust than is required of an admin. Page protection and deletion are reversible actions, the release of private information is not.
Note that appointment by the ArbCom is the proper method for granting CheckUser access on a project with an ArbCom:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CheckUser_policy
On 3/30/07, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/30/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
What I want to know is why they don't just open up checkuser to more admins? Anybody who is trusted with tools that allow him to make pages go away (including the main page) and keep anybody they want from editing would not be trusted with checkuser. Or is it a matter of the technical knowledge needed to properly interpret checkuser results?
CheckUser involves access to sensitive, confidential information, and involves a drastically higher level of trust than is required of an admin. Page protection and deletion are reversible actions, the release of private information is not.
So if this involves sensitive information, then how exactly is anyone who isn't as trusted as an admin going to be trustworthy enough to get these rights. Not every admin is going to be suitable, but I can't think of any non-admin for the job either.
Mgm
On 3/30/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/30/07, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/30/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
What I want to know is why they don't just open up checkuser to more admins? Anybody who is trusted with tools that allow him to make pages go away (including the main page) and keep anybody they want from editing would not be trusted with checkuser. Or is it a matter of the technical knowledge needed to properly interpret checkuser results?
CheckUser involves access to sensitive, confidential information, and involves a drastically higher level of trust than is required of an admin. Page protection and deletion are reversible actions, the release of private information is not.
So if this involves sensitive information, then how exactly is anyone who isn't as trusted as an admin going to be trustworthy enough to get these rights. Not every admin is going to be suitable, but I can't think of any non-admin for the job either.
"I wouldn't trust Editor X as an admin, I think they will delete too much."
Editor X is an IP expert.
Just a little example...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
- From the technical aspect, we do not require admins to know everything an admin could ever have use for. There are many admins who wouldn't go within 50 feet of a range-block, but may be experts at copyright violation deletions or mediawiki modifications.
en: xaosflux
- ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ron Ritzman" ritzman@gmail.com To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 8:40 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] CheckUser access requests? Huh?
What I want to know is why they don't just open up checkuser to more admins? Anybody who is trusted with tools that allow him to make pages go away (including the main page) and keep anybody they want from editing would not be trusted with checkuser. Or is it a matter of the technical knowledge needed to properly interpret checkuser results?
Then again, admins have, or should have, enough knowledge about networking to know what IP ranges to block to get rid of a troublesome troll+socks but minimize the effect on innocent editors.
I don't think I'd be breaking any confidence to inform you all that not all the arbitration committee knew that that page was going to be put up - it had been discussed in a cursory fashion but no notice was given that it was going to be implemented - and many of us are unhappy with that page in its present form.
-Matt