I think that, for the sort of cases outlined below, CheckUser could be
used perhaps if the user themselves specifically said it would be OK.
Mark
On 28/04/05, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Tony Sidaway said:
Angela said:
If anyone else would like to add to these
comments, please do so at
<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CheckUser> so that decisions can be
made about how this feature should be used, and who should be able to
use it.
Thanks. I've outlined my thoughts in a section titled (appropriately)
"At discretion of arbcom, subject to veto".
..or would if I could!
I get a maintenance lock right now.
Here's the text:
At discretion of arbcom, subject to veto
All the gubbins seems to me to be a symptom of our understandable
suspicion about abuse of this feature. The best solution to me seems to be
to place this feature at the discretion of the arbitration apparatus of
each individual Wiki, subject to veto, separately, by the board and Jimbo.
Power to flip the appropriate bits to grant or revoke the ability to use
this feature should continue to reside with whoever has it now, who as de
facto custodian of user privacy would have an absolute veto. Arbcom should
also be responsible for ensuring that the feature is used only according
to its instructions. The log of all accesses of this feature (when used
and by whom) should be public if possible. Further information should not
be made available but should be available by a report run by the
developers on request of arbcom. User:Tony Sidaway 15:30, 28 Apr 2005
(UTC)
Hoi,
Some big projects have an arbitration committee some do not. On the
Dutch wikipedia a user who vehemently denied he used a particular sock
puppet, but who had a history of using sock puppets was banned because
he was not believed and, because the nl:wikipedia was denied to have the
CheckUser tool used in a timely fashion. The user is banned and will
propably not be back for some time because of it.
Blanket policies that expect that an arbitration committee exists are
stupid when there is no such thing. Denying the use of the tool results
result in a situation does hurt a project. When a user is openly accused
of using specific sock puppets, and when this user openly denies this
accusation, NOT using the tool denies this user a proper investigation
and as a result may be convicted because of an honest belief that he is
guilty as charged. It would have been much better if the tool had proven
either that the user is propably guilty or that it is inconclusive.
Without some "public" people who can be asked to perform this
investigation, you discriminate against the smaller projects. This does
result in situations that are worse than the perceived invasion of
privacy. People can be and are judged to use sock puppets with or
without the aditional proof that CheckUser supplies. If this is what we
want than by all means restrict it to arbitration commissions.
Thanks,
GerardM
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
--
SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
POSSIT MATERIARI
ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE