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

[Essjay]

I agree with Kelly entirely. Additionally, I'm willing to serve in the 
same capacity; I don't have the length of tenure with checkuser that 
Kelly does, but I have been quite active in using it for en.wikipedia, 
and am certainly willing to do so elsewhere as needed.

Essjay

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay
Wikipedia:The Free Encyclopedia
http://www.wikipedia.org/



Kelly Martin wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>