[Foundation-l] (no subject)

[Mike.lifeguard]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

> Issue 1: The official and public description of CheckUser lays out a
> transparent process for justifying when and how it may be used. In practice,
> it is often used in secret  and quick "back door" process. First issue is
> the misrepresentation to the public and all contributors as to how and when
>  Checkuser may be used.

The same standards outlined on the CheckUser Policy page apply to all
checks - whether requested in public, requested in private, or done by a
CheckUser without any request at all. If those standards are not being
met (which is a fact one would have to investigate) then it is a problem
with the standards not being met - not the request process or lack
thereof. So, you should begin by showing that there is actually a
problem here before you take it as fact.

Granted, you may argue that forcing requests to be made public would
force more stringent compliance with the standards, but you haven't even
shown that there is an issue in the first place; you have merely assumed
that it is so. Beginning an argument with a false premise is generally
not going to leave you in a good position to win. If you were going to
argue that public requests would curb abuse then you would first have to
show that
1) there is abuse; and
2) that abuse arises from private requests or checks done with no
request at all; and
3) that making all requests public would curb that abuse; and
4) that making all requests public would not have other adverse effects
outweighing the benefits.

The additional question of whether the CheckUser policy page should
mention these facts is an interesting one. I rather suspect you are
referring to the page on English Wikipedia, which I haven't read in well
over 1.5 years, I would imagine. If you think their page is inadequate,
feel free to fix it or post to the talk page such that others can help
you fix it. For the page on Meta with which I am quite familiar: there
is no assertion about any request process, and it would be inappropriate
for it to do so.

> Issue 2: Whether it is ethical or democratic to be using this "back channel"
> process.

You haven't shown that there is a real issue with running checks that
aren't requested in public. Therefore, your second issue simply arises
from false premises.

You are a long way from proving your point, but I would encourage you to
make that request on the talk page of the CheckUser policy page on
English Wikipedia so it can be pointed out that while there is a public
request process, most requests are made in private, or done of a
CheckUser's own volition. That is true, and it may be a worthwhile piece
of information - though I can think of reasons the enwiki CUs may not
want it included. If the public request process isn't necessary then
they may be innundated with requests in private. The public process
serves as a filter to keep away spurious requests. By not advertising
it, private requests tend to be more reliable since it would be people
"in the know" who would make those requests.

But again: ask on the talk page. It is a wiki after all.

- -Mike
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkrm9VkACgkQst0AR/DaKHtgyACgkwfepAMZuqRr3TdoDrhxaMlj
RGIAnj3LQq7ZPiumJeXqfe2mwzYkKVaT
=sdwK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----