[Foundation-l] CheckUser (thoughts)

[Essjay]

Kelly Martin wrote:
> On 4/22/06, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>   
>> And the checkusers with the technical ability... pretty much offer to
>> help anyone who needs help.
>>     
>
> I can't speak for all 59 people who have CheckUser access, but I must
> state that I don't "help any one who needs help".  The culture on
> enwiki regarding CheckUser is to be pretty stingy about its use, and
> we don't use it without demonstrated good cause.  I think we reject
> about 90% of requests.
>
> I am much more likely to accept a request if it comes from someone I
> know to be reliable.  Note that this does not mean all admins, as I
> don't know all admins to be reliable.  Anybody else has to convince me
> that there is a basis for suspicion.
>
>   
I agree here; we tend to be careful with what requests we run. I think, 
however, that Anthere was referring to some of our recent comments, 
rather than our proclivity to run particular requests; that is, Kelly & 
I have been saying "We'd be happy to do checks for other wikis if we had 
access to do them," and Anthere's comment is in relation to this, that 
we are willing to help any other project that needs us if given access.
>> We should not have checkusers with the tool access on a one project/one
>> language, but a POOL of COMMON checkusers. Those should all have good
>> technical abilities. Those would have access everywhere. They would be
>> listed on meta with their language ability. The biggest projects would
>> be used to always ask to their favorites. The small languages will try
>> to find the one with a basic knowledge of their language if they wish.
>>     
>
> I think this is fundamentally a good idea, although I also think that
> the appointment of CheckUsers should come down from the Foundation,
> not up from member wikis; at the very least, every appointment should
> must also be approved by the Foundation or by some body set up by the
> Foundation for that purpose.  
I don't have a problem with requests coming from Arbitration Committees; 
I think that qualifies as a "body set up by the Foundation" and the 
current policy would qualify AC's as "for that purpose." I don't think 
the Board has the time to handle all requests; as I understand it, they 
don't even oversee the creation of new developers, but rather leave that 
to the existing root-level developers en banc.
> And the Foundation absolutely must be in
> possession of identifying information for each and every CheckUser:
> real name, location, email address, preferably other means of contact.
>   
Obviously, something I'd disagree with, being rather committed to not 
ending up with my personal information on an attack site (as happened to 
a good friend of mine from Wikipedia this past week), nor do I want my 
wiki contributions to end up on my employer's desk (as also happened to 
my friend, and is the reason he is no longer a Wikipedian).  If it comes 
down to having to submit to losing my career or keep working on this 
project, as much as I love Wikimedia, and as dedicated as I am to it, 
I'm afraid I'll have to go. I just can't afford to lose everything I've 
spent my life obtaining in order to chase sockpuppets, nor, considering 
some of the mentally unstable individuals we attract, do I wish to put 
my life and the lives of people I love in danger. As long as I can help 
this project without having to put my life or career in jeopardy, I'm 
more than willing to do it, but the day I have to say "My life's work 
and indeed my life itself is less important than Wikipedia" is the day I 
need to get out of it entirely. I'd venture to guess that there are a 
significant number of other users who feel the same way.

Essjay

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay
Wikipedia:The Free Encyclopedia
http://www.wikipedia.org/