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

Lucasbfr

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

Hi :)

I have been a

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.

Don't hesitate to ask questions! -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and questions for Lucasbfr

• For my reasoning, please see User:Tiptoety/CU-OV elections. Tiptoety ^talk 00:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Lucasfbr is highly experienced in dealing with abusive sockpuppetry and knows te CU process in-and-out. He is civil and responsible - a very obvious pick for checkusership.
  Talk) 01:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Only candidate that should stand for CU, really.Caulde 15:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• See User:Acalamari/CU-OV February 2009‎#Lucasbfr. Acalamari 19:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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
  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]

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) 16:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know that feeling (I remember digging through block logs trying to guess who was targeted)! This is a good practice for most of the blocks and I'll try to do it when I can. However I know CheckUsers sometimes want to block an IP without revealing whose it is, and I wish to err on the side of caution as much as possible when releasing IP ownership informations. I guess this is something where I'll need to find a balance if I'm elected. -- lucasbfr ^talk 18:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes in support of Lucasbfr

2. Support--
   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 Arakunem^Talk 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
    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. Talk 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. Talk) 01:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
22. T) 02:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
23. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 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. 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. 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. vecia 15:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
43. Support -
    Scarian^{Call 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 --
    talk) 03:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
53. Yes OhanaUnited^{Talk 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. (Ni!) 01:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
66. Support -- Acps110 (talk) 05:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
67. --
    talk) 05:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
68. Stephen 06:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
69. --
    M. se fâche(woof!) 12:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
70. Secret ^account 14:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
71. Sam ^Blab 17:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
72. --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
73. Kusma (talk) 20:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
74. utcursch | talk 02:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
75. Support. Daniel Case (talk) 04:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
76. SoWhy 08:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
77. Support Mayalld (talk) 16:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
78. Support Paxse (talk) 16:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
79. Support⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 04:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
80. Support Rje (talk) 20:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
81.  GARDEN  23:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
82. Support --
    Tikiwont (talk) 15:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
83. Seraphim♥ 16:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
84. McJeff (talk) 18:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
85. Support -MBK₀₀₄ 14:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
86. Kralizec! (talk) 15:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
87. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
88. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
89. (talk) 18:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
90. Acalamari 19:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
91. Enigma^msg 22:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
92. Support Graham87 23:53, 15 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]
5. Minor opposeWackoJacko (talk) 06:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Apteva (talk) 21:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]