Look, I'm happy with the board appointing trusted people to use checkuser. I don't mind if this is delegated to arbcom.
But I'm not happy at all about having a RFA-style beauty contest for people to use checkuser. Nope. This isn't how we do things associated with privacy.
On 10/19/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
Look, I'm happy with the board appointing trusted people to use checkuser. I don't mind if this is delegated to arbcom.
But I'm not happy at all about having a RFA-style beauty contest for people to use checkuser. Nope. This isn't how we do things associated with privacy.
The notion that consensus *alone* can determine who is entitled to checkuser rights is laughable. The effectiveness of RFA in culling inappropriate candidates from admin rights lately has been quite poor; I dread to think what the results would be of letting checkuser get handed out this way
No, sorry, this simply won't do.
Kelly
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Kelly Martin wrote:
The notion that consensus *alone* can determine who is entitled to checkuser rights is laughable. The effectiveness of RFA in culling inappropriate candidates from admin rights lately has been quite poor; I dread to think what the results would be of letting checkuser get handed out this way
Can you give examples of RFA promoting bad admins lately? I don't just mean people you opposed, of course; but people who went on to misbehave. I genuinely don't know.
Ryan
On 10/19/05, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
Can you give examples of RFA promoting bad admins lately? I don't just mean people you opposed, of course; but people who went on to misbehave. I genuinely don't know.
Ryan, I can think of three, and I don't mean people who I disagree with for some reason, but who are in my view fundamentally unsuited, two of whom went on to misbehave. It wouldn't be right to name them, but it's worrying, and I feel I've noticed more of it lately. Voters seem to think they need a reason to oppose someone, but not a reason to elect them: the "no big deal" attitude.
I agree with everyone who's spoken out against IP addresses being accessed on the basis of elections.
Sarah
On 10/19/05, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
Can you give examples of RFA promoting bad admins lately? I don't just mean people you opposed, of course; but people who went on to misbehave. I genuinely don't know.
I rarely ever vote in RfAs, so these aren't just people I've opposed; rather, they're people whose conduct as administrators has been brought to my attention either in my role as an Arbitrator or in my prior role as an unofficial mediator and generally as the sort of person people go to for advice about problematic situations. Like SlimVirgin, I'm not going to name names publicly.
Kelly
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Look, I'm happy with the board appointing trusted people to use checkuser. I don't mind if this is delegated to arbcom.
But I'm not happy at all about having a RFA-style beauty contest for people to use checkuser. Nope. This isn't how we do things associated with privacy.
Never mind that it's not how we do it, it's also probably illegal to do it under European Union law.
Chris
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Look, I'm happy with the board appointing trusted people to use checkuser. I don't mind if this is delegated to arbcom.
But I'm not happy at all about having a RFA-style beauty contest for people to use checkuser. Nope. This isn't how we do things associated with privacy.
Absolutely. This whole matter of electing people is bizarre, beginning with putting sysop condidates through an election. That alone does not bring out the best people. Voting there can be no different than on AfD. Some way of evaluating how a person gets along with others would be appreciated.
Ec
On 10/19/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Absolutely. This whole matter of electing people is bizarre, beginning with putting sysop condidates through an election. That alone does not bring out the best people. Voting there can be no different than on AfD. Some way of evaluating how a person gets along with others would be appreciated.
Ec
Can't find an SI unit for measureing how well people get along with others (there is that EQ thing but I don't think that is too relivant).
-- geni
On 10/19/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Can't find an SI unit for measureing how well people get along with others
The rodneyking is I believe the standard unit in the US.
Looking at [[List of strange units of measurement]], the only one I can find that's even remotly close is the "herm", but unfortunatly that's a) rather sexist, and b) only works when measuring womes ability to get along with others. Also, c) it's rather sexist.
--gkhan
On 10/19/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/19/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Can't find an SI unit for measureing how well people get along with others
The rodneyking is I believe the standard unit in the US. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l