[Foundation-l] new checkuser policy

[Kelly Martin]

On 4/20/06, Robert Scott Horning <robert_horning at netzero.net> wrote:
> I am not all that pleased with having to deal with "outsiders" in order
> to obtain this critical information, although having it is better than
> not having it.  I am really curious as to the reasons why Essjay and
> Karynn are any better candidates for checkuser status on en.wikibooks
> than the current two candidates on the request for checkuser status, and
> all I can say is that they enjoy somewhat better relationships with the
> Foundation board.  That seems hardly a reasonable policy.

I don't know the current candidates on en.wikibooks that well, and
while I don't have any reason to believe that there's anything wrong
with them, I also don't have any reason to believe that they can be
trusted at the level that should be expected and required of those
with CheckUser privileges. CheckUser is a position that carries very
hefty responsibilities; the Foundation has good cause to restrict the
number of people with this privilege.  Frankly I think *all*
CheckUsers need to be approved by the Foundation because it's the
Foundation that will be on the hook for a misuse of the information
that CheckUsers have access to.  So the fact that Essjay and I are
well known to the Foundation makes us more appealing to the
Foundation, not specifically because we have done most of our work on
Wikipedia (although this is true for me and to a lesser extent for
Essjay, who has more meta experience than I do) but because we have
become known to the Foundation as reliable, trustworthy individuals.

> It does indeed seem as though Wikibooks is being requested to get
> permission from Wikipedia, and all of the checkusers are selected by
> Wikipedias because they happen to, at the moment, be the big boys on the
> block, and that Wikipedia wants to have editorial control over all other
> Wikimedia projects of similar languages.  Or this is a crack in the door
> for this to happen.

CheckUser rights really does not give one any input in editorial
policy, and I think you can rest assured that neither I nor Essjay
have no interest in trying to alter the editorial policy of
en.wikibooks (at least not now; it's possible that after a time of
interacting with the project one of us might have an idea, but that
would be the case anyway).

> Perhaps because this was buried under all of the previous comments, but
> it really hasn't been answered at least to my satisfaction.  Under what
> reasonable criteria is being applied that would allow somebody to become
> a bureaucrat on a project that would not also mean they are trusted
> enough to have checkuser status as well?

There's a big difference between bureaucrat and checkuser.  CheckUsers
have access to personal, private information about other editors,
information which is protected by law in some nations (e.g. the
European Union) and the inappropriate disclosure of which could easily
cause grave harm to someone.  Bureaucrats just get to decide who has
access to the special buttons on a given project.  The worst damage a
bureaucrat can do is mistakenly promote someone who ought not have
been promoted, resulting in annoying damage to a particular project
and some degree of frustration for its editors and readers.  The worst
damage a checkuser can do is publicly announce the IP address of a
political dissident editing from a country where political dissidence
is punishable by death.  Misuse of CheckUser power can easily lead to
the loss of jobs and potentially even of freedom or of lives.  I hope
you now understand how the gravity of the responsibility of a
CheckUser is that much greater than that of a bureaucrat, and why the
screening process for bureaucrats is inadequate for determining who
should be trusted with checkuser rights.

> And getting back to the original point of this thread, the Stewards who
> supposedly have at least the option of having checkuser status, and are
> allowed to act in the capacity of performing administrative actions
> where existing policies on individual projects are lacking these
> policies due to their size, are ignoring checkuser requests.  If Essjay
> and Karynn have the trust and support for this widespread and cross
> project assistance, perhaps they should simply be made stewards as well.
>  And to the point at hand, en.wikibooks is in English, which from what
> I've seen of the list of stewards is one of the languages of every
> current steward.  That these checkuser scans aren't being performed is
> more of a condemnation of all of the stewards, or a very serious
> misunderstanding of what their role is as backup administrators to
> smaller projects.

Relatively few stewards are in a position to perform checkusers; the
position requires both technical competency and a high degree of trust
and responsibility.  That most stewards (who presumably have the trust
and responsibility, even if not the technical competency) are
unwilling to perform them is likely because they don't know how to or
even that they can as much as that they aren't bothering.

As to the possibility of being named a steward myself: I am
considering a run for steward in the next elections, which I believe
are expected to be in January, 2007.  If asked to serve in that
capacity now or in the future, I would probably accept.  I do not wish
to shortcut the existing process, however; I am not very active in
meta and I am likely not well known there, and I certainly do not wish
to presumptuously claim that it is desirable that I be appointed a
steward now or in the future.  I believe that Essjay would be a fine
candidate and will support him should he run for steward or if there
is otherwise a discussion as to whether he should be so appointed.

Kelly