The more I think about it, the more I wonder if we did not make entirely
a mistake (me definitly included)
History of checkuser (please take a seat and have a tea, it will be long)
1) originally, Brion took care of ip checking upon requests. He did the
checks apparently only when he knew the one asking (=trusted). It was
done directly in the database (so, required developer status and meant
no log of checks)
2) when requests became more numerous, Tim Starling and perhaps others
started to help
3) came a moment when not only requests were too numerous (and
developers probably tired of doing this), but on top, some editors had
the developer status only to make ip checks (I understood it was the
case of Taw at least). There was apparently a will to clean up who had
access, and to limit it to those who were *really* developing
At this point, it was largely admitted that the job was the one of a
developer. A *technical* job. Though I know at least one person had
access to the db last summer or fall to do this and is not to my
knowledge a developer (Elian, can you confirm this ?)
4) Tim developped the tool. Apparently, the first to have access to it
were Taw and David. Both developers. All was fine.
5) This is the moment where it slipped.
First David started saying that more people would be needed for the
english wikipedia checks. Requests generally came from the arbcom quite
naturally. Without the tool, the arbcom would have asked Brion or Tim to
do the checks. With the tool, it was quite a natural direction.... to
request access for the arbcom members. And here was the first mistake !
On top, other languages (who were previously asking Brion or Tim, and
had no more developers available to do this at that moment) started
asking for access. And what was insisted upon was the "confidentiality"
side, much more than the "technicality" side. Second mistake.
But quite clearly.... the technical consideration is just as important
than the confidentiality consideration.
I plead guilty for part of this. I also think the arbcom of last summer
has a responsability in this, since it was asking for the arbcom to have
access, regardless of technical ability of its members. And for what is
worth, I think Jimbo also has a responsability in this, since he himself
decided all english arbcom members would have access.
Then, there was a third mistake I think (it is not an accusation, just
an analysis). It was to make a tool dividing projects and languages.
Originally, we had a common set of volunteers to help us all. And this
was good. I am pretty sure some people did not know Brion intimately
enough to *trust* him, but they were told he was fine by people they
trusted, and they went to ask him with no fear. And Jimbo had no fear
either.
Now, people have checkuser status only on one project/one language. Just
as if Brion had help ip checking on the french wiktionary, whilst Tim
was dedicated to the english wikipedia and Taw to the polish wikibooks.
It makes NO sense whatsoever. The *only* unigue advantage of the current
system is to understand the language of the project the checkuser make
the job.
And as a result of this mix-up... because of the need to "trust" the
checkuser, we have zizanie (does that exist in english ?). We have
internal fight and rancor).
The small languages are complaining they are left aside
The non-wikipedia projects are complaining they are left aside
The stewards are complaining they do not have the technical ability to
do this
And the checkusers with the technical ability... pretty much offer to
help anyone who needs help.
What that suggest me is this
We should not have checkusers with the tool access on a one project/one
language, but a POOL of COMMON checkusers. Those should all have good
technical abilities. Those would have access everywhere. They would be
listed on meta with their language ability. The biggest projects would
be used to always ask to their favorites. The small languages will try
to find the one with a basic knowledge of their language if they wish.
But all in all, checkusers should be a common good, just as our
developers right now are (and, hell, just as your board members are).
Ant