[Wikipedia-l] Re: Expanding CheckUser permissions

[Mark Williamson]

I think that, for the sort of cases outlined below, CheckUser could be
used perhaps if the user themselves specifically said it would be OK.

Mark

On 28/04/05, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Tony Sidaway wrote:
> 
> >Tony Sidaway said:
> >
> >
> >>Angela said:
> >>
> >>
> >>>If anyone else would like to add to these comments, please do so at
> >>><http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CheckUser> so that decisions can be
> >>>made about how this feature should be used, and who should be able to
> >>>use it.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Thanks.  I've outlined my thoughts in a section titled (appropriately)
> >>"At discretion of arbcom, subject to veto".
> >>
> >>
> >
> >..or would if I could!
> >
> >I get a maintenance lock right now.
> >
> >Here's the text:
> >
> >
> >At discretion of arbcom, subject to veto
> >
> >
> >All the gubbins seems to me to be a symptom of our understandable
> >suspicion about abuse of this feature. The best solution to me seems to be
> >to place this feature at the discretion of the arbitration apparatus of
> >each individual Wiki, subject to veto, separately, by the board and Jimbo.
> >Power to flip the appropriate bits to grant or revoke the ability to use
> >this feature should continue to reside with whoever has it now, who as de
> >facto custodian of user privacy would have an absolute veto. Arbcom should
> >also be responsible for ensuring that the feature is used only according
> >to its instructions. The log of all accesses of this feature (when used
> >and by whom) should be public if possible. Further information should not
> >be made available but should be available by a report run by the
> >developers on request of arbcom. User:Tony Sidaway 15:30, 28 Apr 2005
> >(UTC)
> >
> Hoi,
> Some big projects have an arbitration committee some do not. On the
> Dutch wikipedia a user who vehemently denied he used a particular sock
> puppet, but who had a history of using sock puppets was banned because
> he was not believed and, because the nl:wikipedia was denied to have the
> CheckUser tool used in a timely fashion. The user is banned and will
> propably not be back for some time because of it.
> 
> Blanket policies that expect that an arbitration committee exists are
> stupid when there is no such thing. Denying the use of the tool results
> result in a situation does hurt a project. When a user is openly accused
> of using specific sock puppets, and when this user openly denies this
> accusation, NOT using the tool denies this user a proper investigation
> and as a result may be convicted because of an honest belief that he is
> guilty as charged. It would have been much better if the tool had proven
> either that the user is propably guilty or that it is inconclusive.
> 
> Without some "public" people who can be asked to perform this
> investigation, you discriminate against the smaller projects. This does
> result in situations that are worse than the perceived invasion of
> privacy. People can be and are judged to use sock puppets with or
> without the aditional proof that CheckUser supplies. If this is what we
> want than by all means restrict it to  arbitration commissions.
> 
> Thanks,
>     GerardM
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> 


-- 
SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
POSSIT MATERIARI
ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE