But right now, we do NOT have this log. And people are ASKING for the check user status to go live !
I would really like to know who thought voting for checkuser was a good idea and why.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
But right now, we do NOT have this log. And people are ASKING for the check user status to go live !
I would really like to know who thought voting for checkuser was a good idea and why.
- d.
At that point, I must add a couple of information for my fellow wikipedians.
Currently, only two projects have been granted checkuser status for at least one editor.
The polish wikipedia has Taw with checkuser status.
The english wikipedia has David.
How did that happen ? (correct me I am wrong on a detail) Initially, the developers were doing that job upon request (I myself asked twice for information in three years if I remember, to Tim or to Brion). When the requests started being too numerous, Tim made the checkUser tool, in order to hand out to the community the role of doing checks, rather than to let it to the developers.
Two people were given access. David, probably per agreement with Tim and support from Jimbo. Taw, because he had developer access, but his only activity (if I understood well) was to check on users.
Then, requests went on pouring on the developers, who answered there was a tool now to do this. So, editors asked to have access or asked for other people to do the job for them.
This is when the policy started to be discussed.
Recently, the english arbcom has complained that David was no more sufficient to do the job himself and more people should have access; that the policy making was too slow being made, and that the fact it was not established yet on all projects should not slow down access for the english wikipedia.
There were two main outcome * first, I tried to speed up the policy making process * second, Jimbo, made the decision of who should have check user access on the english wikipedia about a week ago.
So, to answer David question, I think there are roughly three main options
First option : people get checkuser access on an automatic basis, through another status (for example, all bureaucrats automatically get the tool).
Second option : people get checkuser access through an approval system (with a community vote or an arbitrator vote)
Third option : the monarchy system. Tim (as suggested by David) or Jimbo (as recently done for the english wikipedia) decide who has check user access.
My feelings The first option is out of question (it was discussed in length in talk pages) The third option requires either that Tim accepts the job (and I somehow doubt he will) and/or that Jimbo acts like a monarch on all projects. The Foundation frankly needs Jimbo for certain things for which he is much more necessary than nominating checkuser for all projects as he is currently doing for the english wikipedia. Besides, the non-english projects are generally not used to Jimbo acting like a monarch on such decisions and I doubt they would really feel happy with him taking such decisions.
That lets the second option... I think any large community can be fully trusted to give that status to good people who will not abuse it.
Anthere wrote:
So, to answer David question, I think there are roughly three main options
First option : people get checkuser access on an automatic basis, through another status (for example, all bureaucrats automatically get the tool).
Second option : people get checkuser access through an approval system (with a community vote or an arbitrator vote)
Third option : the monarchy system. Tim (as suggested by David) or Jimbo (as recently done for the english wikipedia) decide who has check user access.
Surely the enforcement of the Foundation's privacy policy is the responsibility of the Foundation, and thus access to personal information (such as IP addresses) should be given out upon approval by the Board, rather than by some kind of election system?
Chris
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Chris Jenkinson wrote:
Anthere wrote:
So, to answer David question, I think there are roughly three main options
First option : people get checkuser access on an automatic basis, through another status (for example, all bureaucrats automatically get the tool).
Second option : people get checkuser access through an approval system (with a community vote or an arbitrator vote)
Third option : the monarchy system. Tim (as suggested by David) or Jimbo (as recently done for the english wikipedia) decide who has check user access.
Surely the enforcement of the Foundation's privacy policy is the responsibility of the Foundation, and thus access to personal information (such as IP addresses) should be given out upon approval by the Board, rather than by some kind of election system?
I was just thinking that. The people who currently have checkuser status were granted it by the developers, who currently already have that capability. The developers were effectively approved to do (whatever) by the board; hence, the board decides who is allowed access to the checkuser function.
A general community vote is a *bad idea*. "Power to the people" sounds good in theory, but the reality is that "the people" cannot be trusted.
We have a board; we might as well use them.
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
Alphax wrote:
I was just thinking that. The people who currently have checkuser status were granted it by the developers, who currently already have that capability. The developers were effectively approved to do (whatever) by the board; hence, the board decides who is allowed access to the checkuser function.
The board does not approve developers. Developers approve themselves.
The majority of users with checkuser access are stewards. Stewards have been approved by the community, neither by developers, nor by the board, nor by Jimbo.
Ant
Anthere wrote:
Alphax wrote:
I was just thinking that. The people who currently have checkuser status were granted it by the developers, who currently already have that capability. The developers were effectively approved to do (whatever) by the board; hence, the board decides who is allowed access to the checkuser function.
The board does not approve developers. Developers approve themselves.
The majority of users with checkuser access are stewards. Stewards have been approved by the community, neither by developers, nor by the board, nor by Jimbo.
Errrrrmmmm there is one thing that is oversighted in this discussion. Stewards can actually grant themselve or anyone else checkuser rights. There is no developer needed for that. From having used it two or three times, I know it is not just Taw and David Gerard using it.
Waerth/Walter
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Walter van Kalken wrote:
Anthere wrote:
Alphax wrote:
I was just thinking that. The people who currently have checkuser status were granted it by the developers, who currently already have that capability. The developers were effectively approved to do (whatever) by the board; hence, the board decides who is allowed access to the checkuser function.
The board does not approve developers. Developers approve themselves.
The majority of users with checkuser access are stewards. Stewards have been approved by the community, neither by developers, nor by the board, nor by Jimbo.
Errrrrmmmm there is one thing that is oversighted in this discussion. Stewards can actually grant themselve or anyone else checkuser rights. There is no developer needed for that. From having used it two or three times, I know it is not just Taw and David Gerard using it.
Given that stewards are likely to be active across a number of communities (ie. various languages and projects), wouldn't it be a better idea that the stewards decide who gets checkuser?
- -- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Chris Jenkinson wrote:
Anthere wrote:
So, to answer David question, I think there are roughly three main options
First option : people get checkuser access on an automatic basis, through another status (for example, all bureaucrats automatically get the tool).
Second option : people get checkuser access through an approval system (with a community vote or an arbitrator vote)
Third option : the monarchy system. Tim (as suggested by David) or Jimbo (as recently done for the english wikipedia) decide who has check user access.
Surely the enforcement of the Foundation's privacy policy is the responsibility of the Foundation, and thus access to personal information (such as IP addresses) should be given out upon approval by the Board, rather than by some kind of election system?
Chris
I dunno about other board members, but in truth, I do not know ... say... the hebrew community... and I do not think it would be very secure that I approve an editor to have this access if I do not know him at all. Same for Jimbo.
Ant
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org