[Foundation-l] Stewards are ignoring requests for CheckUser information?

[Kelly Martin]

On 4/14/06, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Option 4
> What about a global community approval (todo on meta) for a collection
> of people who could do checkuser on absolutely any project and
> absolutely any language. Those would NOT be stewards. Only checkusers.
>
>
>
> Option 5
> Same than option 4, but for language only. For example, 10 english
> speaking editors would be checkusers on en.wiki, en. wikibooks,
> en.wikiquote etc... And a set would have checkuser on commons.

I think both of these has merit.  I've previously indicated that I
would be willing to serve as a "guest checkuser" on any project where
I can either read the language used (en or de) or where someone
trustworthy is available to collaborate with me (e.g. a local
bureaucrat or a steward with the appropriate language experience). 
Checkuser requires both (a) technical knowledge of how to use it to
get useful results and (b) trustworthiness not to misuse the tool or
the results.  Most of the checkuser policy is catholic; local policy
doesn't come all that much into play, and the checkuser can coordinate
with local admins and bureaucrats to resolve questions as to whether,
e.g., a local policy violation has occured.

I think option 5 is probably best insofar as translation issues become
problematic.  However, there are a number of wikis (the gaggle of
wikis for the Eastern European languages) that probably need a
checkuser and may not be likely to produce one sufficiently
trustworthy to meet the Foundation's requirements.

Also, I suspect Brad (based on my conversation with him) would prefer
that we avoid proliferating the number of checkusers; using pooled
checkusers across projects as much as practical is likely a better
solution than having lots of local checkusers, from that standpoint.

Kelly