If you cannot share the trust that en wp has placed in its checkusers via a duly elected arbcom you can either vote against that body at election time or contribute elsewhere. But on en wp mistrusting entire groups is a no no per WP:AGF.
Btw this is not a foundation l issue and I'm scared to say I agree with both of gerardm's posts.
Dan Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 9, 2008, at 6:29 PM, SlimVirgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 5:19 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
There is a body that is full of other checkusers, who instantly take the side of their colleague, so there really is no point in complaining to it. What we need is a truly independent body run by the Foundation, answering only to the Foundation and not to people's mates.
It's normal for appeals to go to people with the same powers as the person that made the original decision, it doesn't really work otherwise. When you think a judge has made a mistake you appeal to a higher court where the matter will be considered by other judges. ArbCom is a group of checkusers, whereas the original decision was made by a single checkuser, that's why the appeal is worthwhile. It's much easier for one person to make a mistake than for a majority of a group to make that mistake.
Self-policing works where people have integrity and are willing to criticize their friends. In reality, it's too much to ask of many people, and there's no need to ask it. It would be a simple matter for the Foundation to find a couple of mature, truly independent-minded volunteers (who couldn't care a stuff about being liked by the other checkusers) to act as a checkuser oversight panel. The very existence of such a panel would instantly reduce checkuser misuse.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l