On 6/23/06, Mark Ryan <ultrablue(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 23/06/06, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote:
How would it violate GFDL, and what would the
"worrying" consequences be?
I said it was "potentially GFDL-violating". Surely you, as a member of
the ArbCom, know of the attribution requirements of the GFDL. Carnildo
pointed out an example of one such situation earlier in this thread.
I'm looking for someone who will state what they believe the
likelihood of this happening, and what the practical consequences
might be.
And I'm a little concerned that you don't seem
to think violation on
our part of the GFDL would be worrying in itself.
I'm a little concerned that you are trying to turn this into a
discussion about me, rather than a discussion about the practical
consequences of using the "Oversight" capability.
Of what
benefit would that information be, and to whom? What would
the subsequent action be, some editor saying "why did Jimbo remove
that revision on June 23"? He's already said why, Personal
Information. This suggestion would just turn the log into a fishing
expedition for distrustful editors.
I see what you mean about the fishing trip. But I still feel a listing
of these actions would be beneficial purely for the statistics it
would show.
I think you are under the mistaken delusion that members of the ArbCom
are automatically trusted by the community. I know less than the half
the people given this oversight power, and of those, I trust even
fewer.
I'm not under any "mistaken delusions". :-) Nevertheless, the
community has shown significant support for many of the members,
particularly in the recent elections. Of course, every member elected
also got oppose votes, so distrust (at least by the opposers) is
inevitable.
These people (including yourself) have been given
access to
what was effectively a developer-only action, and are asking the rest
of us to "just trust you" that you'll all make sure you're all doing
the right thing. That doesn't cut the mustard with me. I trust the
developers I used to get to do this manually far more than most of the
people now afforded this power.
How were the developers elected, and what made you trust them?
If User X is doing 95% of the
oversight revision deletions, I'd like to know about it.
Hmm. For a while there someone was doing 95% of the CheckUsers,
because they were willing to put in the hundreds of hours of volunteer
time required to do it. Is that suspicious in some way?
This is different to the CheckUser logs because this
has content
implications, not privacy implications.
Are content implications more serious than privacy implications?
Jay.