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

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

I have previously assisted checkusers here with cases, either helping compile contributions by different editors in an attempt to avoid having to use checkuser, or by checking IPs and ranges for various methods of avoiding scrutiny (TOR, open proxies, closed zombied machines).

I'm already familiar with the CheckUser tool itself from various non-WMF projects and assisting in its documentation and policy development. I have to admit that my approach to restricted access tools is a bit conservative: While I am a fan of transparency in the process, I'd prefer to expose as little checkuser-gleaned information as possible.

Thanks. :) Kylu (talk) 02:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• For my reasoning, please see User:Tiptoety/CU-OV elections. Tiptoety ^talk 00:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• My reasoning (what in the world is wrong with explaining my vote below?): although she is less active at the moment, I have every confidence in her from past interactions. Even if she is not as active as others, this is an easy strong support because of the trust I have in her. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 00:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I think she's going to be too swamped as it is with stewardship. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 01:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't really like the idea of dual positions let alone dual elections. Let's at the least add one job at a time shall we? --JayHenry (talk) 01:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hah, I absolutely agree with disliking the dual elections. When I found out I was in this one, I wasn't happy with the timing. Kylu (talk) 01:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Kylu will soon become a steward, which is obvious at this point. Highly trustworthy and civil, Kylu has not shown me anything that leads me to doubt she will do a good job with the checkuser tool. Therefore, I am supporting. Master&Expert (Talk) 01:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Echo with the above. BTW, stewart =!steward. miranda 02:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Kylu is more of cross wiki person, who I think will be a great Steward, but less active on enwiki. Prodego ^talk 02:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• same rationale as Prodego.—Sandahl (talk) 04:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I tried to get Arbcom to appoint Kylu months ago. It's about time. Thatcher 04:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't think this is a good idea, per Prodego. Giggy (talk) 10:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Seems to be the only candidate I fully trust with this tool. --Charitwo ^(talk) 17:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I completely trust Kylu to use the CheckUser tools well and we don't have so many candidates for this post, so even though her activity on enwiki is not very high, I support. Cenarium (talk) 22:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Contact me if you want a detailed appose. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 09:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• too many hats already (isn' t she going to be elected as a 2009 steward?)--Caspian blue 03:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)(addendum) Oops, I see Thatcher's recommendation belatedly, and I was too quick for judging. --Caspian blue 22:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Even though I see this as reduludent as stewards has checkuser access. Secret ^account 14:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Stewards are not supposed to perform local checks on a project where there are local checkusers.[1] This is such a project, so being a steward is not redundant with being a local checkuser. GRBerry 06:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• See User:Acalamari/CU-OV February 2009#Kylu‎. Acalamari 19:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Checkuser requests that I perform will be either from a public forum (in which case they're already documented) or merely assisting another checkuser (in which case I consider the onus to be on the checkuser performing the check). In the event that there are other rules that are disclosed to checkusers from the ArbCom, I'll obviously perform under those as well.

Semi-relatedly, I would prefer to have a personal log of checkuser activities in my userspace, given allowance to do so, though I'd obviously limit it to my own checks and not post IPs or ranges, nor the names of non-matching users: If someone were to checkuser me against a vandal in pursuit of the vandal, I'd rather not have my name attached to them in any public way if I'm not guilty of it.

Lastly, the checkuser policy mandates having at least two checkusers per checkuser-having project to attempt to keep abuse limited. This is not an issue with this project, as we have quite a few users with checkuser rights, but instead we have a perception (valid or otherwise) that it's a power-centric clique. Why ask a clique to watch itself? Better to encourage adoption of a body like the WP:Review Board to do so instead.

While people enjoy being trusted, and it's nice to have such trust, you shouldn't be put into a position where that trust is required on your part, simply because there is no other alternative.

If you'd like a more detailed explanation, please let me know. Kylu (talk) 01:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable, sure. I've wondered at checkuser-performed blocks with, ah, less-informative block reasons myself. :) Kylu (talk) 18:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 00:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Rjd0060 (talk) 00:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Privatemusings (talk) 00:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Orderinchaos 00:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support -- Euryalus (talk) 00:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support —Locke Cole • t • c 00:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. BJ^Talk 01:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Majorly talk 01:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. — neuro^(talk) 01:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Mr.Z-man 01:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Master&Expert (Talk) 01:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. Kuru ^talk 01:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15. rootology (C)(T) 02:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support – TheAE talk/sign 02:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support J.delanoy^gabs_adds 02:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support LittleMountain5 02:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
19. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 03:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
20. Noroton (talk) 03:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
21. Joe 03:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
22. Thatcher 04:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
23. PhilKnight (talk) 04:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
24. Kwsn (Ni!) 04:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
26. John Reaves 07:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
27. Davewild (talk) 08:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
28. Yes --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
29. --Aqwis (talk) 11:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
30. - Peripitus (Talk) 12:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
31. Jack Merridew 12:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
32. --J.Mundo (talk) 14:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
33. لennavecia 15:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support - Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 16:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support --Charitwo ^(talk) 17:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
36. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 18:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
37. Spencer^T♦C 22:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
38. Cenarium (Talk) 22:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support --B (talk) 23:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
40. Strong support - Alison ^❤ 01:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
41. Sarah 02:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support --4wajzkd02 (talk) 03:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
43. Geogre (talk) 12:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support - Sumoeagle179 (talk) 12:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
45. Protonk (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support Captain panda 16:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
47. shoy (reactions) 20:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support Timmeh! 04:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support▪◦▪≡SiREX≡^Talk 04:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support. — Athaenara ✉ 09:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
51. Dmcdevit·t 02:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
52. Stephen 06:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
53. SupportSecret ^account 14:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
54. Kusma (talk) 20:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
55. Caspian blue 03:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
56. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
57. —Dark ^talk 08:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Saivash (talk) 02:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ineligible to vote. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

59. Lycaon (talk) 19:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support Rje (talk) 20:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
61.  GARDEN  23:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support --Tikiwont (talk) 15:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support -Dureo (talk) 09:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
64. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
65. Acalamari 19:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
66. Apteva (talk) 21:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
67. ++Lar: t/c 23:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
68. Support Graham87 23:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose - Tiptoety ^talk 00:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Oppose--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 00:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Gurch (talk) 01:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 01:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. RMHED. 01:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. JayHenry (talk) 01:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Khoikhoi 01:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Prodego ^talk 02:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Oppose —Sandahl (talk) 04:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Giggy (talk) 10:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. — Aitias // discussion 13:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Hipocrite (talk) 15:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 09:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15. seresin ( ¡? )  20:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
16. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 23:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
17. Oppose -- Acps110 (talk) 05:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]