About why is not clear if the “health checks” works, one recent case (which still not clear if is blocked or not here) of money used to influence opinion (including near elections for moderators):
Context for the link: in Latin America, the idea of using money over meritocracy to be kept in power is considered immoral to even crime (as defined by laws). For example, NGOs registered here cannot even put exceptions to it on board elections for what is defined in law. And also, there is no such thing as lobbying as socially acceptable, to a point is often explicitly a crime (which is why “lobbying” is a strong word when translated). Even the concept lobbying in Portuguese Wikipedia is described as negative, diverging from the more neutral etymology, than it’s version in in English Wikipedia.
With this context said: like complained on the recent thread about Conflict of Interests by moderators in this forum, my request for full recall of first wave of LATAM was because they (in LATAM, to not be confused in Brazil; not even same persons) been insistently trying everywhere offer money of HOTUSI and even used this forum to this (which was the complain).
Did the forums governances took action against use of money influence to buy votes, even after continuous request about? Still without anwser.
What happened is 3/4 of LATAM moderators decided to not run again (without giving much details) after massive complaining. However, the fact that moderators are allowed to use their own forum to make money influence (aka make themselves announcements to money) for organizations they’re in still not resolved. So, to answer the question about “health checks”, no, they seem to not work, even with evidence, and the fact moderators didn’t run again does not fix the trust above then. That’s it.
Like I said previously: it makes sense to leave time to the local Brazilian community to get an electoral commission to allow neutrality. This time of the year here is even complicated to give time to moderators from the old forum. This would avoid first-wave moderators themselves regulating the voting by lack of alternatives, which even ask readers to justify why no, even if the results in the end could be the same. And the reason to my strong “no” is that the translation of your suggestions in my region would means tolerate corruption and, by the words you use, also lobby against, become corrupt. To give an idea of how bad is this process, both Spanish and Portuguese have special terms for elections of this type