Anthere wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
Anthere wrote:
- on a project with no arbcom, the community will have to vote for its
editors with checkuser access. A limit of votes number has been set on purpose. I recommand avoiding using sockpuppet for voting. A wiki community with 10 editors and 30 voters is likely to be frowned upon.
And next, we'll be voting for root, database access and CVS access. Get your votes in now! Brion, Tim or Lir for Mediawiki lead? It's a hot contest!
I think it should be possible to discuss without using fallacious arguments David. There is no comparison between a checkuser access and a root access.
There is, really: neither is a voting matter. I raised this before, but you appear to regard the objection as (to quote you) "no real opposition". Not to mention Tim's quote when voting for checkuser was floated: "Users would vote themselves root if they could."
What I said was that users need: - the technical knowledge to know what they're seeing (which a network admin was one example of); - the trustworthiness that they won't break the privacy policy
The main problem I see here is that it seems you consider that check user access should only be given to sysadmins. I do not think the majority of editors would agree with you.
Please don't misrepresent my words. I said that was not what I thought and I meant that was not what I thought. You therefore have no justification to say that that's what I said or meant. I ask you to retract it.
I see your argumentation aiming only at restricting the use of this tool to a very limited number of editors, approved by Jimbo or Tim. Right now, Jimbo has approved the access to a half dozen english editors, none of whom are actually sysadmins. What is your feeling toward these nominations ?
As you FULLY KNOW BECAUSE I CC'D YOU ON THE EMAIL IN QUESTION, I am fine with all of those.
Why are you pretending I am saying things I didn't or not saying things I did?
But I would like to know why you have not made any comments this week while I have indicated a week ago that unless there was opposition, this policy would go live this week.
After you complained on arbcom-l of people not commenting, I went and checked that I had in fact commented ... and had already pointed out the ridiculousness of voting on the matter.
As Chris Jenkinson said:
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?
Indeed. Anthere, I originally understood this was your position.
- d.