[Foundation-l] Note regarding status of privacy policy

Sat Aug 9 22:29:26 UTC 2008

On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 5:19 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
>> There is a body that is full of other checkusers, who instantly take
>> the side of their colleague, so there really is no point in
>> complaining to it. What we need is a truly independent body run by the
>> Foundation, answering only to the Foundation and not to people's
>> mates.
>
> It's normal for appeals to go to people with the same powers as the
> person that made the original decision, it doesn't really work
> otherwise. When you think a judge has made a mistake you appeal to a
> higher court where the matter will be considered by other judges.
> ArbCom is a group of checkusers, whereas the original decision was
> made by a single checkuser, that's why the appeal is worthwhile. It's
> much easier for one person to make a mistake than for a majority of a
> group to make that mistake.

Self-policing works where people have integrity and are willing to
criticize their friends. In reality, it's too much to ask of many
people, and there's no need to ask it. It would be a simple matter for
the Foundation to find a couple of mature, truly independent-minded
volunteers (who couldn't care a stuff about being liked by the other
checkusers) to act as a checkuser oversight panel. The very existence
of such a panel would instantly reduce checkuser misuse.