[Foundation-l] Stewards are ignoring requests for CheckUser information?
Anthere
Anthere9 at yahoo.com
Sat Apr 15 01:34:56 UTC 2006
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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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?
I am waiting for your feedback on the various options I have proposed;
Even if none please you, please be kind to comment on them.
meanwhile, in case there is an urgent need on wikibooks, I propose to
have Karynn be a temporary checkuser on en:wikibooks whilst a solution
is found out. She is an experienced checkuser and she has agreed ! (and
it is free of charge !)
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/User:Kelly_Martin. See her as the Brion
Vibber of the old days (he carried on our requests when necessary).
ant
More information about the foundation-l
mailing list