Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/August 2009 election/CheckUser/VirtualSteve: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
VirtualSteve (talk | contribs) →VirtualSteve: response to questions by IPv6 |
|||
Line 54:
*''Questions from [[User:Are you ready for IPv6?|Are you ready for IPv6?]] ([[User talk:Are you ready for IPv6?|talk]]) 02:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)'': (1) I have noticed that the checkuser position generally has a very low percentage of female-born people on it. Oversight and bureaucrat historically have been higher than checkuser, although right now I can't spot any female-born people on oversight either. Of course I obviously can't tell the gender of everyone on the list as if they don't hint it in their usernames, userpages, or are internet famous, then I don't know. However most of them are obviously men and it's been like that since Wikipedia began. Do you think there should be a higher percentage of female-born people on checkuser or do you think it's merely representative of high percentage of males on wikipedia as a whole? (2) As a checkuser, what will you do in cases where someone is internet famous and they're impersonated. For instance, internet personality "Chris-chan" is very internet famous and there's always people impersonating him. On Wikipedia this happened a few months back where someone impersonated his wikipedia account to do bad edits, then the impersonator account was checkusered, and they found more bad users on the related IP and then they declared Chris-chan's account as a sockpuppet even though they were on unrelated ranges and only linked by activity because someone impersonated him. Then there was no investigation done to determine if the impersonator account was him or not. Chris-chan in particular has a lot of people impersonating him--such as this one guy with a beard on youtube--and so it's a good example of an internet celebrity that gets impersonated a lot. What will you do as checkuser to make sure people impersonating internet famous people don't get mixed up with the real people? (3) Do you think the new checkuser nomination of public voting is better than the old system or not, and why?
:An interesting set of 3 later multi-questions IPv6. I have provided brief(ish) answers, numbered in the order you provided them as follows:
#I honestly don't know the percentage of women versus men across the range of editor accounts on Wikipedia but I do know that the process of being nominated for election requires an expression of interest through ArbCom. I'd welcome more women (and indeed more of any wiki-minority group) to any position such as administrator, checkuser, oversight etc because '''I have a view that diversity creates and supports strength'''. From that perspective we may in fact just need more women to understand that they can nominate for these types of positions and then allow the community to consider their nomination - not on the basis of their social; gender; ethnic etc classification but on whether the meet the trust/skills/behaviour requirements for the position being sought.
#'''If''' I am supported for the position of checkuser I will generally deal with all requests firstly by determining if the requests meets the pemission requirements ''to examine user IP information and other server log data under certain circumstances, for the purposes of protecting Wikipedia against actual and potential disruption and abuse''. In other words whether the request relates to a "famous" person or not the first question is whether named and IP accounts are disrupting and abusing wikipedia - if yes then the tool provides assistance in determining if two or more editors are editing from the same computer or IP range etc. Of course it is possible to make a mistake in linking two editors but there are plenty of actions available to review each and every action by a checkuser and the subsequent actions taken by fellow administrators.
#I don't have a particular view either way as to how checkusers should be chosen. I've always been a team player and so the current process, which has been discussed and agreed to is the relevant current process at this time. Like many other processes that seek support and oppose comments from the community the current process has its benefits and problems '''but I respect the right of editors to post their !vote''' - and whilst personally I sometimes see votes in one or the other column that on face value appear perplexing - I work overall from the perspective that my fellow nominees and I can only put our hand up and offer to support the community. I've done that and as I deal with checkuser type functions daily in the two real-life web-sites that I monitor - now to my mind the major question should be ''is VirtualSteve trusted enough by the community to be given this tool?'' I think I am but heck the world is full of people with different views and that's fine with me, and if this is the process chosen to determine those view then that's fine with me too. Thanks again.
:--[[User:VirtualSteve|<strong>VirtualSteve</strong>]] <sup>[[User_talk:VirtualSteve|need admin support?]]</sup> 03:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
==== Votes in support of VirtualSteve ====
# <!-- do not make comments after your votes -->
| |||