On Dec 12, 2007 9:30 AM, Florence Devouard <Anthere9(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
Anthony wrote:
On Dec 12, 2007 8:59 AM, Florence Devouard
<Anthere9(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
Or on the contrary, limiting the use of the tool
by reducing number of
people with access, strengthening the rules, and applying the rules
strictly (in short, in case of abuse, removing access rather than simply
whining).
In the limit of this idea, only giving access to WMF employees, and
only then giving them access from within the office.
yes, but very unpractical due to language limitations
Hmm, I don't see how language would be an issue. Aren't
communications between admins and checkusers generally very simple?
User X is User Y. User Z is from Germany. User A and User B are
using the same ISP. User C is using a Tor proxy.
Or dividing strategy (which seems a good idea anyway),
to flatten the
roles and responsabilities (eg, a checkuser can not be oversight; an
arbcom member can not be steward; or even a checkuser can not be arbcom)
I doubt that would help, as you can't stop people in the different
roles from talking to each other.
true... but look, in real life, the law is decided by some, the
judgement using legal information and past history is done by others,
and last the application of the judgement is applied by a third group.
For example, parliament, judges and cops.
Right now, it seems the community left in part the parliament in the
hands of the arbcom. The investigators are the checkusers. Judges are
arbcom. Arbcom are also checkusers, so investigation and judgement are
done by the same. Cops are the admins (for ban) or oversight (for clean
up). Arbcom is frequently playing the admin and oversight role.
In short, the principles of separation are very weakly implemented.
There ought to be a reason why most democracies decided to separate
those, don't you think ?
Well, it is commonly pointed out that "Wikipedia is not a democracy".
I guess I like where you're going, but until there is some mechanism
in place to encourage everyone to follow a consistent set of rules I
don't think separating roles is going to help. Arb com currently
makes its own rules and essentially chooses its own jurisdiction.
Just taking away their checkuser wouldn't stop them from doing
investigations. You'd have to make a rule against arb com doing
investigations, and then find a way to enforce it.