[Foundation-l] Stewards are ignoring requests for CheckUser information?

[Anthere]

Hi

Let me try to address your various points the best I can.

Robert Scott Horning wrote:
> Anthere wrote:
> 
> 
>>The reason for the 25 votes limit comes from two reasons
>>* A community with less than 25 users is unlikely to really need 
>>frequent checkusers, because it is a project with reduced activity. So, 
>>it can not be a heavy load for stewards.
>>* A community with less than 25 users has a rather serious risk to have 
>>a rather little known editor become a checkuser, rather than a trusted 
>>oldbie. If we start handing out status just as we do for sysop status on 
>>small projects, I think there will be abuse. I say this from my 
>>experience, as I had to unsysop several sysops on small projects (the 
>>guys did not know our basic rules, behaved like dictators with the 
>>handful of editors, put advertisements on the main page, controlled povs 
>>etc...).
>>
>>I am perplex that the en.wikibooks does not have a big enough base of 
>>editors to vote on a check user...
>>I am quite lazy, so I will not go to the stats page to check. But can 
>>you roughly say how many active editors per month the project currently 
>>has ? How many very active editors per month ?
>>
>>ant
>> 
>>
> 
> Since the stats page hasn't been updated since November of last year, it 
> is completely useless to even gague what the current activity is on any 
> Wikimedia project.  I can only use the current activity on the Wikibooks 
> staff lounge to even remotely gague what the current user activity level 
> is, but I would guess it is pretty close to about 20 user at the 
> absolute top.  Really stretching it perhaps we can get to 25 total at 
> the most.
> 
> And as for advertising this, I guess we could put it in bold 40 point 
> type on the project main page with a link to a special page only for 
> this kind of request.  I think that is way over the top and something 
> that is not needed in this situation.  The advertising was more than 
> adequate, it is just that this is a very unreasonable request.
> 
> As for a "community with less than 25 users unlikely needing frequent 
> checkuser scans", I think this is mistaken totally what is going on. 
>  en.wikibooks has numerous links from within Wikipedia, and is being 
> hammered by vandals that have moved on from Wikipedia, indeed with 
> excellent training on how to be a vandal on Wikipedia, and taking on 
> other projects as well that don't have quite the same pool of 
> administrators.

I see.
Perhaps the number 25 was too high then. That would tend to suggest this.
But again, let me explain why we put a minimum limit. We have some small 
projects with a number of editors of less than 5. What usually happens 
is that the most active one simply ask sysop status (and even sometimes 
bureaucrat status) on meta because their project *need* a sysop. Which 
means the status is given without any community voting whatsoever.
Sometimes, when it is a new language in particular, the editor has been 
on our projects only for a couple of days and have no idea of our basic 
rules of operating whatsoever (npov in particular).
More than once, we had problems later on. And it was not always easy for 
the very small growing community to have a black sheep unsysoped.

What I think should NOT be allowed to happen, ever, is that the new 
wikiquote project in maori be created, and a total stranger be given 
sysop, bureaucrat and checkuser status so that he can start the 
community. In short, I think that only editors known by a significant 
number of other editors should ever be given checkuser access. Hence the 
25 votes. Which may be too high a value.


So, option 1 : decreasing the number of votes requirements.

Now, there are other options we could follow.


> As for handing out checkuser status to people who are not trusted 
> oldies, that is totally rediculous as well.  There are admins and 
> bureaucrats on en.wikibooks who are also admins on other projects, 
> including meta, wikinews, and even en.wikipedia.  Active ones at that. 
>  I see absolutely no reason why the standards for giving somebody 
> bureaucrat status when you can't also give them checkuser status.

I do not know what are the standards for giving bureaucrat status.
I think they are not the same at all depending on projects.

I see a **major** reason for the standards for giving bureaucrat status 
to be different from the standards for giving checkuser status.

The standards for giving bureaucrat status are different in each project 
and each language. On one project, it will be a vote by all editors of a 
project. On another project, it will be a vote by administrators only. 
On another project, it might even be a vote by other bureaucrats. Or it 
might be no vote at all (just ask on meta). It may be 80% support. It 
may be 66%. There are no standards.

But if the bureaucrat makes a mess, it is a technical/community issue. 
Only the projects can be damaged (which is bad enough). So, it is the 
community business to define its own rules.

If a checkuser makes a mess, the Foundation itself may be concerned. We 
might have problems with an editor for release of private data. So, the 
Foundation has a right to have a say in WHO is granted this access. 
Hence the policy being *more* standard.

Note as well that other access similarly are granted by a limited number 
of people, according to internal rules which are not the community 
business. I typically will mention developer status, with shell access; 
Only a few developers will grant it to you, according to their own 
rules. And the Foundation can kick you off.


> Furthermore, what abuse could possibly happen with somebody having 
> checkuser scans?  Really, at the most extreme?  With bureacrat status I 
> could give admin status to a whole team of 'bots that would then in 
> tandem go through and systematically delete every page on a project and 
> block every user.  Talk about damage to a project.  With checkuser 
> privileges, all you have access to is just the IP address of each user. 
>  So the absolute worst damage is that they publish on an external 
> website (making it harder for the board to go after that user) all of 
> the IP addresses of every user.  Which is worse?  Really, think about it.

I really think about it.
I agree that practically, the projects are more important.
*However*, I was elected on the board of the Foundation, which means 
that *I* must think as well of the protection of the organisation 
itself. If the Foundation is sued for lack of respect of privacy, I am 
concerned. You might be indirectly concerned if less money goes to the 
servers due to legal requirements (trial costs).

So, yes, you are correct. For 99,99% of you, the projects are more 
important.

> More to the point, show me a single user that has been given checkuser 
> rights on any local project besides a Wikipedia and meta.  This would be 
> a contrary example to prove me wrong.  If not, why not?  Because 
> checkuser rights are not needed except on Wikipedia?

Well, technically, because no requests were done on meta to turn on the 
status :-)

Here is option 2, which I hesitate to offer, but will nevertheless.
CheckUser might be related to a language rather than a project. Which 
means that all current checkusers on the en.wiki, could be granted 
checkuser on any other en speaking project automatically, or on their 
request.
Potential pit : en.wikibooks might be unhappy about an unknown person 
from en.wiki having checkuser on its project.
Note : it is a bit complex for stewards to do.



Option 3 (also controversial) :
If en.wikibooks holds a vote to grant checkuser status to some of its 
editors, make it possible that any english editor of any project can vote.
Potential pit : en.wikibooks might not be happy that an unknown person 
from en.wiki comes voting on en.wikibooks while he is not an editor there.
Note : the Foundation does not care if you do this. It is internal business.


Option 4
What about a global community approval (todo on meta) for a collection 
of people who could do checkuser on absolutely any project and 
absolutely any language. Those would NOT be stewards. Only checkusers.



Option 5
Same than option 4, but for language only. For example, 10 english 
speaking editors would be checkusers on en.wiki, en. wikibooks, 
en.wikiquote etc... And a set would have checkuser on commons.

What else ?

Ant