[cc to wikitech-l]
Anthere wrote:
>David Gerard wrote:
>>Anthere 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.
>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.
I don't know about Taw, but that's about right for me. Also
(presumably) because I'd been through some detailed investigations
with Tim so he had some idea of how well I understood what the process
involves. He also refers people to me, so he can get on with things
like the software and the servers.
>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.
> [...]
>Second option : people get checkuser access through an approval system
>(with a community vote or an arbitrator vote)
> [...]
>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.
Voting for access to the user database access still seems a
fundamentally defective idea, precisely analogous to voting for root
or voting for CVS access. What do the devs with access think?
It also notably doesn't solve some of the bad examples you gave
before, e.g. the Wikipedia where they wanted to routinely use it on
all votes.
I am entirely unconvinced this is a less worse idea than no access at all.
- d.