[WikiEN-l] Assume bad faith, for banned users.

[Ray Saintonge]

Wily D wrote:
> I'm not sure that anyone's suggesting abuse is *routine*. I will
> suggest it's most likely "fairly" to "quite" scarce, although I cannot
> verify this myself.  All that you or I know is that it can and has
> happened, and almost certainly will in the future at some point or
> another.  Reviewing the list I don't see any indication that anyone
> believes it's "routine".  Did I miss something?
I think that's fair comment, and I also recognize that much of the 
Checkuser activity must go on behind the scenes.  The fact that most of 
the usage is not transparent magnifies the importance of the incidents 
of abuse.  If the checkusers are seen as too defensive of these 
occasional abuses the general population draws the conclusion that where 
there's smoke there's fire.

Even if the checkuser was right it is often better _not_ to defend the 
action.  The perception of justice is as important as the justice 
itself, and in an essentially secret process the perception is all the 
public has.  There is a need to fairly address public perceptions with 
credence and without drama; there is no need to be seen as always right. 

The effect may be that the occasional bad guy gets away.  That's not a 
problem.  If they really are as bad as you believe them to be, they will 
not disappoint you by failing to provide future opportunities.

Ec