This may have been discussed before. If so, apologies.
Why not make the checkuser function available to all admins? There are constant allegations of sockpuppetry, and I'm sure there are plenty of cases of ballot-stuffing or fake-consensus-building which go unnoticed because someone's suspicions weren't enough to both a developer with. Having the function available to all admins would cut down on a lot of this underhandedness.
If there is a problem concerning privacy, such as making IP addresses available (I'm not sure exactly what the checkuser funcion shows), when couldn't it be modified to only show which users have been created by the same IP (i.e., put in a name, and it shows you the other users)
If there is a problem concerning privacy for legitamate uses of alternate accounts, such as keeping edits separate or not wanting to be stalked by another user, then I'm sure it couldn't be too hard to modify the code to show only those sockpuppets that have edited the same page. Even if we accept that there are legitamate uses for alternate accounts, such accounts ought never to edit the same page.
Any thoughts?
Sam
-- Asbestos http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Asbestos
On 12/20/05, Sam Fentress (Asbestos) asbestos999@gmail.com wrote:
This may have been discussed before. If so, apologies.
Why not make the checkuser function available to all admins? There are constant allegations of sockpuppetry, and I'm sure there are plenty of cases of ballot-stuffing or fake-consensus-building which go unnoticed because someone's suspicions weren't enough to both a developer with. Having the function available to all admins would cut down on a lot of this underhandedness.
If there is a problem concerning privacy, such as making IP addresses available (I'm not sure exactly what the checkuser funcion shows), when couldn't it be modified to only show which users have been created by the same IP (i.e., put in a name, and it shows you the other users)
If there is a problem concerning privacy for legitamate uses of alternate accounts, such as keeping edits separate or not wanting to be stalked by another user, then I'm sure it couldn't be too hard to modify the code to show only those sockpuppets that have edited the same page. Even if we accept that there are legitamate uses for alternate accounts, such accounts ought never to edit the same page.
Any thoughts?
Sam
Cheackuser is pretty useless if you can't see IPs (are they the same person or are they from the same uni for example). We have a lot of admins. Frankly better safe than sorry.
Here is the full list of admins: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Listusers&group=sysop&...
How much do you really know about these people?
-- geni
On 20/12/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Here is the full list of admins: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Listusers&group=sysop&...
How much do you really know about these people?
743! Goodness, admin growth is fast - I remember noticing the milestone of 500 back in July...
-- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
I believe that giving CheckUser access to all admins would now qualify adminship as a "big deal." I'm not sure if I would even want that responsibility: misuse of the feature would be very easy to many.
And what would we do if abuse did happen, such as the public posting of certain users' IP addresses? I don't think that a ArbCom decision could properly punish such an individual. There are much many "real world" consequences to the revelation of this type of information. De-sysopping just wouldn't cut it, and neither would a year ban.
Yes, there would be some additional benefits to giving a greater access to the CheckUser privileges. But I don't think the costs outweigh the benefits, at least not right now.
-- Ben Emmel Wikipedia - User:Bratsche bratsche1@gmail.com "A fool sees not the same tree that a wise man sees." -- William Blake
On 12/21/05, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 20/12/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Here is the full list of admins: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Listusers&group=sysop&...
How much do you really know about these people?
743! Goodness, admin growth is fast - I remember noticing the milestone of 500 back in July...
It's gone up to 744 since you posted!
-- Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com
On 12/20/05, Sam Fentress (Asbestos) asbestos999@gmail.com wrote:
This may have been discussed before. If so, apologies.
Why not make the checkuser function available to all admins? There are constant allegations of sockpuppetry, and I'm sure there are plenty of cases of ballot-stuffing or fake-consensus-building which go unnoticed because someone's suspicions weren't enough to both a developer with. Having the function available to all admins would cut down on a lot of this underhandedness.
Do you really trust all admins that much?
If there is a problem concerning privacy, such as making IP addresses available (I'm not sure exactly what the checkuser funcion shows), when couldn't it be modified to only show which users have been created by the same IP (i.e., put in a name, and it shows you the other users)
I use CheckUser on a regular basis, and to be honest this would be insufficient to make effective use of the CheckUser tool.
We have six editors with CheckUser rights on en (not including stewards and developers); if more are needed the Arbitration Committee may choose to extend CheckUser rights to additional parties. Until such time as the ArbCom is convinced of the need, it'll stay at six.
Kelly
--- Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:
Do you really trust all admins that much?
Certainly not. And I must say dont trust most Arbcom members all that much either.
If there is a problem concerning privacy, such as
making IP addresses
available
I use CheckUser on a regular basis, and to be honest
this would be
insufficient to make effective use of the CheckUser
tool.
The point is to have some openness to the process. Which users are these priveleged elite checking up on? Thats what the public should know, provided any specifically private data (like IP addresses) is removed -- which is trivial to do.
We have six editors with CheckUser rights on en (not
including stewards and developers); if more are needed the
Arbitration Committee may choose to extend CheckUser
rights to additional parties. Until such time as the ArbCom is convinced >of the need, it'll stay at six.
Thats sounds reasonable, but just for the record, when exactly was the Arbcom empowered to grant this access to specific users, and did this change follow the normal protocol (ie. a decree)?
-Stevertigo
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com