Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/August 2009 election/CheckUser/VirtualSteve: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 03:50, 2 August 2009

Revision as of 03:59, 2 August 2009

Line 57:

#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 now 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 viewviews then that's fine with me too. Thanks again.

:--[[User:VirtualSteve|<strong>VirtualSteve</strong>]] ^{[[User_talk:VirtualSteve|need admin support?]]} 03:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

==== Votes in support of VirtualSteve ====

# <!-- do not make comments after your votes -->