Ray Saintonge wrote:
Erik Moeller wrote:
On 11/10/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Essentially I agree. It all comes down to mature judgement, and who is capable of exercising it. We have a lot of people who can too easily jump to conclusions.
Yes. One question is whether we want every language and project community to develop its own policy on these matters, or whether this is an area where it makes sense to have a single policy that is localized. This goes for checkuser and oversight as well. Perhaps an in-between solution makes sense, where the WMF requires that local policies identify and propose a group that consists of the most trusted users before granting these privileges on a language/project level.
I can't address the technical requirements for someone with checkuser capacity, but technical competence is only one side of the coin. Good judgement, trust and common sense are just as important. The ideal checkuser is effective in both respects.
Rule making on the wiki tends to be chaotic at best, to the point where the best way to develop a rule can be to make a rule and hope that nobody notices. No-one can keep up with the process, or be certain of the circumstances when a rule was adopted. Proposing changes can be an intimidating process.
I would llike to propose a Rules Committee on the following bases.
You know that if something never happens, there must be a committee behind it. Isn't that how the saying goes? :)
<snip>
3. Although membership at this stage would be relatively open,
</snip>
I have to disagree with the initial openness. We have too many process wonks who would jump at the chance, and we'll end up only being allowed to edit every second thursday when it's a prime number of days from the vernal equinox of Triton...