[Foundation-l] CheckUser questions

[Aphaia]

Hello,
Danny's mail brought rrelevant questions rather than comments to me
which I've held since last night after a communication on JA WP Pump.

On 11/9/05, daniwo59 at aol.com <daniwo59 at aol.com> wrote:
> Although I have not been following this discussion, I was asked this  evening
> to grant 5 arbitrators on the English Wikipedia CheckUser powers.

Although I don't know not all those five closely, personally I have no
opposition to any of them, however,  frankly I was a bit surprised by
so many people requested (I found it first on meta), because I
understood only two people could be granted it on a local project.

As for the number of checkuser priviledge holders, I understood as the
below: if a project is large but lacks its own arbcom, two users (and
not one, nor more than two) can given the checkuser right. Yesterday
an editor said "more than two: would be given it Perhaps I was wrong.
Or not. If any explanation is given, this guy (or girl) will be very
appreciated.

Let me continue a talk on assumption; if more than two may granted on
a project, it isn't worthy for a surprise that five people request for
checkuser priviledge. Otherwise, a question arises; a big project with
arbcom can have more than two checkuser granted editors. a rather
small but still big project without arbcom (like Ja or De) can be with
two such users. It seems to me somehow strange.

For your information, few months ago JA WP had a discussion about
checkuser request. Then we argued how many checkuser group editors
would be needed; a certain opinion said three would be the best mainly
due to availability and frequency of such investigation.
So "two' or "more than two" is not a petty thing to that community.

> While the request was made, I think it is sage for us to let it sit there
> for some time to see if there are any valid protests to giving it to these
> individuals. Usually, steward requests can remain for several days until someone
> acts upon them, and I don't see why this should be any different.

One interesting point to me, the request submitted Raul mentioned to
Jimbo's participation to the discussion about request. I have no
argument about it; it is simply nice for such participation and
approval. On the other hand, such participation couldn't be expected
on most projects couldn't. It means in most cases the Board and
Foundation has to rely on  their credibilitygiven by a community -
another question arises here to me, wheter "70%-80% approval with more
than 20-30 supports" is truly acceptable (Not personally, just a
question).

A relevant thing: a sysop election on a big project can gather
sometimes over 50 or close to 100 support vote (like vote on elian
last year) - I am not sure if the current criteria is enough for some
meta-project with 10,000+ registered users. If everyone is happy, no
problem.

> I also wonder whether they should be given the power on a permanent or a
> need-to-know basis. That is, should they always have this ability, or should
> they only be given it when a case requires invesigation, and then have it
> removed? Personally, I favor the latter option. I do not think anybody needs to  be
> able to do this in all instances.

Sounds wise. One concern is time expirinng and steward availability.
In some circumstances investigation should be done within a day or
hours (like emergent request for desysoping). If stewards don't care
to be bothered with frequent on-time basis requests, it would be
prudent. On the other hand, if they are so trusted, it would be
unlikly problematic to give them permenent right.

--
Aphaea@*.wikipedia.org
email: Aphaia @ gmail (dot) com