Perhaps Wikipedia should have some new policies to deal with vote stacking?? I could do checkuser if anyone wants, I'm a network admin so could probably learn it fairly quickly.
It would take the workload off admins/current checkusers.
Craig
--- robchur@gmail.com wrote:
From: "Rob Church" robchur@gmail.com To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] We need a policy against vote-stacking Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 13:50:06 +0100
On 5/5/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
(interesting question: if we delete material, do we still own the copyright to it? Is it still released under GFDL?)
As Geni pointed out, we never owned the copyright. And yes, the material is still GFDL. It's just that by deleting it, we reject it.
Rob Church _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 5/5/06, Craig Whitford craigwhitford1@emailaccount.com wrote:
Perhaps Wikipedia should have some new policies to deal with vote stacking?? I could do checkuser if anyone wants, I'm a network admin so could probably learn it >fairly quickly.
We already have enough policies for dealing with the abuse of sockpupets.
It would take the workload off admins/current checkusers.
Craig
People tend to be slightly paranoid about giving people acess to checkuser.
-- geni
On 05/05/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/5/06, Craig Whitford craigwhitford1@emailaccount.com wrote:
Perhaps Wikipedia should have some new policies to deal with vote stacking?? I could do checkuser if anyone wants, I'm a network admin so could probably learn it >fairly quickly.
We already have enough policies for dealing with the abuse of sockpupets.
It would take the workload off admins/current checkusers.
Craig
People tend to be slightly paranoid about giving people acess to checkuser.
It's not paranoia, it's common sense. While there are all sorts of arguments about whether or not an IP address is private information or how useful it is to a would-be attacker or whoever, the fact remains that the Foundation is obliged to retain this information as it agrees to in the current policies.
Granting access to utilities which make this sort of information available is going to be done under strict controls because of the sheer nature of it.
A certain level of competence *is* required to use the tool, and misinterpreting the information could lead to someone being banned from Wikipedia for a long period of time, or an indefinite time. While I've no wish to cast dispersion on the offer or the qualifications behind it, one has to see that it is a matter of trust and common sense; this is the reason our CheckUsers are all users who have demonstrated common sense, competence, and good faith over time.
Rob Church
On 5/5/06, Rob Church robchur@gmail.com wrote:
It's not paranoia, it's common sense.
Just because people are paranoid does mean they are not out to get you. I'm at uni. I would rather certian people to get hold of my IP. -- geni