Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/February 2009 election/CheckUser/Lucasbfr

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee | CheckUser and Oversight | February 2009 election
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Alexandria (talk | contribs) at 01:40, 9 February 2009 (→Votes in support of Lucasbfr: +). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Lucasbfr

Lucasbfr (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Hi :)
I have been a Requests for checkuser clerk since its reorganization in early 2007, and I'm now clerking on the new Sockpuppet investigations process. To clear up any confusion, RFCU clerks only helped with formatting cases, archiving them and helping users at the time. We were not allowed to comment on the merits of cases. Helping on the hundreds of cases that are processed each year (My edit count tells me that I edited more than 900 times the RFCU page) allowed me to get a fine grasp on the checkuser practices on Wikipedia. I am also an ORTS volunteer (despite unfortunately not being very active there), where we sometimes have to deal with sensitive or private information.
For the policy part, I have always been interested in the privacy issues involved on Wikipedia, and I value my and other people's privacy very highly. I have therefore always kept an eye on the foundation's privacy policy. I know very well that the project needs to protect itself from abuse, but not at any price. I would for example strictly follow the guidances on IP addresses.
Technically, I am a Computer Science Graduate and I have been using whois, rdns and nmap often enough when considering blocks and unblocks to believe I am able to read them.
Finally, I wanted to stress that I'll be happy to help out but I know all the users that are being considered today, and I know they are all trustworthy. I rest assured the people who will be appointed will be good choices, whatever the results.
Don't hesitate to ask questions! -- lucasbfr talk 13:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and questions for Lucasbfr

Question from Chergles

Are you willing to disclose all checkuser requests that are requested of you (such as if someone requests it by e-mail)? If not, are you willing to disclose all checkuser results that you run (either + or -, not the actual IP results)? If not, why the secrecy? Wouldn't these disclosure help assure people that there wasn't fishing going on? Chergles (talk) 01:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all I'd like to apologize, this reply is going to be a mess. There are 2 types of "private" requests:
  • most of them are sent because a CU is available at a given moment or because the they know about the situation already. These are not logged because the CU either doesn't have the time to fill the form after the request has been completed, or doesn't feel filling the paperwork a second time (a reason must be filled for every check) will help for later checks. I think we should find a way to properly log them (even if I'm sure I am not inventing a new concept here).
  • some are sensitive: checking a known user can be lead to uncomfortable situations whatever the CU result, or a legitimate check can lead to unexpected results. A check might also draw attention to a someone being harassed or simply give too much technical details to an abuser. Many check results are relevant to the community to better understand a dispute, but some results are asked out of mere curiosity (joke accounts, anyone?). If someone screwed up, is it necessary to send him in the arena where the plebe is waiting with stones in their hands and asking for blood ;)? If the matter can be resolved privately and we can all go back at writing the encyclopedia, everybody wins. I like Deskana's "I know what you did last summer" testimony at WP:CHECK.
Keep in mind that even for public requests, results are sometimes not disclosed to the requestor for the same reasons.
I understand that you're concerned about CheckUsers abusing the tool and going for fishing expeditions in the dark. Fishing is bad because people are entitled to their privacy as long as they don't break rules. However, I don't think this is something that happens a lot (CheckUsers don't run around checking legitimate accounts for fun, same as Administrators don't block people for fun). Keep in mind that checking a suspicious account (mostly SPAs I guess) to find the master is not fishing. However asking for disclosing all checks or all results will lead to less privacy for our users, not more.
A last thought: many people criticized Deskana for releasing CU results last month. The check was justified, however I'm not sure releasing the results was a net benefit to the project, in the end. -- lucasbfr talk 08:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that was a long reply... tl;dr version: logging more things is a good idea, but logging every check would lead to less privacy without much benefit for the project. -- lucasbfr talk 08:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes in support of Lucasbfr

  2. Support--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 00:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - Tiptoety talk 00:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong support --Kanonkas :  Talk  00:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support ArakunemTalk 00:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Strong Support Willking1979 (talk) 00:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Orderinchaos 00:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support -- Euryalus (talk) 00:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. Hermione1980 00:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 00:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. -- Avi (talk) 00:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 01:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support —Locke Cole • t • c 01:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. BJTalk 01:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Cla68 (talk) 01:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Majorly talk 01:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. — neuro(talk) 01:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Mr.Z-man 01:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Proofreader77 (talk) 01:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. MER-C 01:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Master&Expert (Talk) 01:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. rootology (C)(T) 02:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. J.delanoygabsadds 02:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Prodego talk 02:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support LittleMountain5 02:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 02:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Noroton (talk) 03:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support — Gavia immer (talk) 03:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support –Capricorn42 (talk) 03:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Ironholds (talk) 05:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Orpheus (talk) 07:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Davewild (talk) 08:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. PeterSymonds (talk) 09:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Xclamation point 12:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  35. - Peripitus (Talk) 12:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  36.  Badgernet  ₪  12:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Strong support — Aitias // discussion 13:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  38. --Conti|✉ 14:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Stifle (talk) 14:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Guy (Help!) 15:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Tex (talk) 15:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  42. لennavecia 15:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support - ScarianCall me Pat! 16:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Strong support Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Húsönd 21:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  46. —Snigbrook 22:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Cenarium (talk) 22:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  48. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Absolutely --Caspian blue 23:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Synergy 01:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Alefbe (talk) 03:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support --4wajzkd02 (talk) 03:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Yes OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support --DFS454 (talk) 14:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support - Sumoeagle179 (talk) 12:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  57. --Oxymoron83 18:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  58. shoy (reactions) 20:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support The Helpful One 23:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Timmeh! 04:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Caulde 15:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  62. GlassCobra 22:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  63. rʨanaɢ (formerly Politizer)talk/contribs 23:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Malinaccier (talk) 00:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Kwsn (Ni!) 01:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes in opposition to Lucasbfr

  2. Gurch (talk) 01:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. RMHED. 01:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Hipocrite (talk) 15:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/CheckUser_and_Oversight/February_2009_election/CheckUser/Lucasbfr&oldid=269440562"