On 6/21/06, James Hare <messedrocker(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
>Methinks it's a quest to be ready in case it actually happens. To express it
>as an irritating buzzword, "proactive."
Arnomane criticized
So data security is very important and it should be
made clear to all
ckeckusers but creating yet another ombudsman creates IMHO more
avoidable
meta-work (= work that does not improve a wikipedia
article).
IMHO "CheckUser-abuse" is mainly an en.wikipedia problem and should be
adressed there locally in the main line.
Arnomane
And Robert also questionned
If the abuse hasn't happened, where is the move to create such a
position in the first place? A quest for political power?
-- Robert Scott Horning
Will that create more meta work ?
No. It will delegate meta work or move meta work to another person. I am
currently doing the job.
Is it a quest for political power ?
No. Given that *I* suggested this position, I can clarify that I am not
seeking more power.
Is it a quest to be ready in case it actually happens ?
It is not a quest. I sure hope abuse will *never* happen. But better to
be ready when it actually happens. And better that I drop doing the job
rather than doing it poorly.
Last point. I asked the board his opinion about the whole issue. Angela
suggested that we could update the privacy policy, which was pretty old
stuff since it did not take into account the checkuser tool ;-)
A new version was still pending. It is now adopted.
ant
Also Anthere trying to offload work (currently she
investigates all
allegations of checkuser abuse herself).
Kelly