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

Kingturtle

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

Here on en.wiki I have been an Administrator for close to six years and a Bureaucrat for close to five. In each of these capacities I consider myself fair-minded, level-headed and considerate. The integrity and success of Wikipedia is always at the root of my actions here.

Although I want to base my experience in Wikipedia on the tenets of making others feel welcome, creating a friendly environment, and forgiveness, I also accept the reality that a firm hand is necessary in disciplining people who won’t comply. Systems and policies are in place to deal with defiant people and hardcore vandals. I support the penalties issued by the community and/or ArbCom, and I do my part the help enforce them. For example, I have spent a great deal of time, research and energy over the past year to help contain the sockpuppetry charades of banned users Beh-nam, NisarKand and Tajik. Their relentless puppetry and edit wars sometimes occur faster than checkusers can keep up. I file appropriate reports, complete with evidence, and revert the edits in question. Through this experience I noticed that there was a need here for more checkusers – and that is what brings me here. I have the energy, the time, and the experience to be of use to Wikipedia in this regard.

I am familiar with the policies surrounding checkusers. I will not fish. I will not compromise privacy. If granted the responsibilities, I will use the tools only in extreme cases of disruption, sockpuppetry and vandalism. In regards to privacy and my potential interaction with personal information, I am a public school teacher. I am trusted with students’ mental and physical health status, criminal history and family situations. I review that information with complete respect to the individual and never compromise the information. Even though I would act as such on my own, I am actually bound by law to do so. I do not put myself or the school district at risk by compromising private information, and I will not put myself or WikiMedia at risk either. I respect privacy. I respect editors. I respect process. I respect policy. I have no history of abuse of power.

Thank you for your consideration. I welcome all comments and questions. I am happy to be a part of this process and to be working with you on Wikipedia. Kingturtle (talk) 21:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and questions for Kingturtle

For my reasoning, please see User:Tiptoety/CU-OV elections. Tiptoety ^talk 00:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A wiki-resume that could wrap around a city block. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 00:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My reason for opposition is, unfortunately, the same as Dan's support. "The reward for a job well done is three more jobs" is a philosophy that has served us terribly -- we have qualified candidates who do not have overfull plates. --JayHenry (talk) 01:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My opposition to Kingturtle is nothing in the slightest bit personal - all of my interactions with him have been very positive and he is an overall clueful and trustworthy editor. But occasionally I have some questions regarding his overall judgement when making a decision could prove to be unpopular - I feel he is a tad prone to "go with the flow", which I feel is undesirable for a checkuser (and a 'crat, but he has a fairly good eye for consensus so no problems here). Sorry, Kingturtle - nothing personal at all. Master&Expert (Talk) 01:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Support. When I read about the position, KingTurtle was actually the first username that came to mind. KingTurtle has been an active administrator for some time who also aids in username migrations, so this would be a perfect addition to his user privileges. Bob the Wikipedian (talk · contribs)
Too many hats, sorry. Stifle (talk) 14:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not much experience in the field.--Caspian blue 00:06, 7

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) 01:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will make every effort to make my CU activities transparent. There will be situations, though, in which privacy will trump publicity. Therefore, I am not willing to disclose publicly all my CU activities. In cases that I will not disclose publicly, I will certainly disclose to other CUs and/or ArbCom members. I will never take action without either the community, a CU or an ArbCom member knowing. Kingturtle (talk) 13:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Mike R

What happened here [1]? Mike R (talk) 15:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On 17 Jun 2008 2008 I emailed the ArbCom mailing list a letter requesting myself to become a CheckUser. I received an immediate response from a member informing me they received my request and were reviewing it, and to give them a few weeks. On 26 June 2008 Raul made the announcement you are citing, but I had never received word from anyone on ArbCom about such a decision or any other decision, before or after that announcement. I waited for an explanation or a decision, but I received no word at all from ArbCom. On 8 Dec 2008 I sent another letter of request to the ArbCom mailing list. This time I received a reply, and I entered into the process that brings me to this election today. Kingturtle (talk) 15:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Daniel Case

This is more of a request, actually, should you get this tool (I am asking this of all candidates presently in the race, regardless of how things look for them succeeding): Will you, if making a checkuser-based block, put the name of the suspected sockmaster in the log when you do so? Often accounts with minimal or no edit history request unblock, singing the usual "I don't know who this person is; why is Wikipedia blocking me?" song. Being able to compare edit histories without necessarily having to run it by the checkuser who made the block saves us both a little time. That's all. Daniel Case (talk) 16:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is useful to leave a paper trail. Kingturtle (talk) 13:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes in support of Kingturtle

Support--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 00:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Euryalus (talk) 00:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 00:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Avi (talk) 00:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cla68 (talk) 01:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Everyking (talk) 01:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support LittleMountain5 02:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Noroton (talk) 03:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Support. Bob the Wikipedian (talk · contribs)
Joe 03:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. bibliomaniac 1 5 05:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Davewild (talk) 08:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 09:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Aitias // discussion 13:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Conti|✉ 14:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
لenna vecia 15:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Andre (talk) 15:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 16:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 08:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tim meh ! 04:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
rʨanaɢ (formerly Politizer)^talk/_contribs 23:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Malinaccier (talk) 00:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4I7.4I7 12:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Secret ^account 14:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit Centric (talk) 20:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
-- Menti fisto 21:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Philippe 22:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Enric Naval (talk) 00:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 04:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Deb (talk) 12:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Sigma 7 (talk) 19:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kinston eagle (talk) 00:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
JoshuaZ (talk) 00:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Wknight94 (talk) 12:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rje (talk) 20:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Trusilver 04:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CharlotteWebb 10:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - AdjustShift (talk) 14:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes in opposition to Kingturtle

Oppose - Tiptoety ^talk 00:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Kanonkas : Talk 00:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gurch (talk) 01:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose —Locke Cole • t • c 01:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose JayHenry (talk) 01:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RMHED. 01:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BJ^Talk 01:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Majorly talk 01:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
THE GROOVE 01:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— neuro^(talk) 01:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mr.Z-man 01:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Master&Expert (Talk) 01:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
rootology (C)(T) 02:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Prodego ^talk 02:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Grace Note (talk) 08:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stifle (talk) 14:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hipocrite (talk) 15:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Epbr123 (talk) 16:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cenarium (talk) 22:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. --B (talk) 23:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Caspian blue 00:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --4wajzkd02 (talk) 03:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
arimareiji (talk) 19:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
shoy (reactions) 20:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Acps110 (talk) 04:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Step hen 06:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Saivash (talk) 02:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ineligible to vote. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]