[WikiEN-l] Re: new CheckUser proposal up

Thu Oct 13 18:26:15 UTC 2005

David Gerard wrote:

> Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> 
>>On 10/13/05, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>>* Remember that a small number of the developers (those who have
>>>access to the database) already have this power and use it. They
>>>control the horizontal, they control the vertical, they see all and
>>>know all — because they have to have complete control in order to
>>>administer a top-50 website. But they respect the privacy policy,
>>>because that's what you do as a sysadmin. The proposal is to extend
>>>access to just one power, so as to avoid a bottleneck of too few
>>>people for the job.
> 
> 
>>Do you really think there are people at other top-50 websites with unlogged
>>and unfettered access to this sort of information?
>>If so, do you think they had to go through any background checks, and sign
>>a non-disclosure agreement?
>>It certainly *is* possible to set up a system so that *no single person*
>>can "see all and know all". I would hope all the other top-50 websites have
>>set up such a system.
> 
> 
> 
> You can either try to Taylorise the process of trusting people, or you
> can get in people you trust. Sysadmins *could* do any destructive
> thing they want. But they pretty much *don't*. I wonder why that is.

Most of them do not do anything wrong because anything they do can be 
easily seen by ANYONE (sysops and non sysops).
And aside from deleting an image, everything they do can be reverted.

If they block, someone else can unblock
If they delete a page, someone else can undelete
If they protect a page, someone else can unprotect

Reversion of an admin action is actually done pretty frequently.

Also, some sysops make mistakes, but how many were ever unsysoped for 
their errors ? Hardly any on the english wikipedia.

They pretty much do not do anything destructive, because they are 
intelligent people who know not to do bad things AND because others can 
revert what they do. So there can not be any destruction.

And this is why, nothing being definitive, few are punished. I am quite 
sure that if their action were final, there will be more punishment.

What a check user can do can hardly be checked by anyone. And definitly 
not by the common user, who have no idea of what is going on. So, how 
could he complain ? Note that this is in favor of having more check user 
editors.

Also, a check user can do destructing things, that no other check user 
can restore. He can publish ips of an editor. And once the information 
is known, nothing can be done to have people magically forgot the 
information. It is OUT.

Note that anything a steward can do is visible by anyone as well (on 
meta log), and can be reverted by anyone as well.

This is NOT the case of check user right now.

> Usually it works that the sysadmins have the access they need to keep
> stuff working. Around here, where all day every day is a "WTF?!"
> moment, the present process seems to work. I'm sure you can outline
> many reasons why the present way of doing things is utterly broken and
> can't possibly work in theory, never mind that it does in practice.
> 
> You don't actually know much about systems administration in practice, do you?

Actually, Karynn suggested all checkuser rightsholders should sign a NDA 
with the Foundation. It could be a good idea...;

Anthere

> - d.
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l