On 6/21/06, James Hare <messedrocker(a)gmail.com>
>Methinks it's a quest to be ready in case it actually happens. To express it
>as an irritating buzzword, "proactive."
So data security is very important and it should be
made clear to all
ckeckusers but creating yet another ombudsman creates IMHO more
meta-work (= work that does not improve a wikipedia
IMHO "CheckUser-abuse" is mainly an en.wikipedia problem and should be
adressed there locally in the main line.
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
stuff since it did not take into account the checkuser tool ;-)
A new version was still pending. It is now adopted.
Also Anthere trying to offload work (currently she
allegations of checkuser abuse herself).