Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Curps

As pointed out by several people, CheckUser rights are not handed out as a result of a community vote.

Curps
User:Curps (talk • contribs) really needs no introduction. He has been a key contributor to Wikipedia since February 2004 and has proven to be our most valuable asset to the project in terms of vandalism removal and prevention. (See previous RFA.)

Registration has been required to create new articles as a result of the highly publicised John Seigenthaler Sr. incident. This, coupled with the introduction of semi-protection, have led to the number user accounts created each day to double. Understandably, a small percentage of these registrations include vandal accounts who wish to protect their identity from regular administrators. The Arbitration Committee is visibily overburdened and backlogged with CheckUser requests, and personally I cannot think of a better candidate than Curps to receive this permission in order to better prevent vandalism to the English Wikipedia.

In an unprecedented move, please join me in my WP:BOLD appeal to grant said permissions to Curps for the purpose of creating a better Wikipedia. Hall Monitor 18:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:


 * Here is what I replied to Hall Monitor on my talk page when he first suggested nominating me for checkuser:
 * According to CheckUser_Policy, the Arbitration Committee decides this and only then do they list it at Requests for permissions. So you'd have to sound them out (and maybe wait for the new ArbCom to be selected). Checkuser would obviously be useful, I wouldn't turn it down if it was offered to me, but there isn't any precedent so there would likely be opposition from some quarters. I wouldn't actively seek this, but if the ArbCom thought it would be a good idea I'd accept it. -- Curps 00:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think checkuser is a little too sensitive an issue to be decided by RfAdmin-style nomination and voting, so I don't really support this process. I thank Hall Monitor for his initiative and confidence in me, and any discussion below may be useful for gathering opinions on the topic of checkuser.  The checkuser policy does state clearly that on Wikipedias that have Arbitration Committees it's up to the Arbitration Committee to decide which users might get checkuser ability.  The post-election ArbCom may wish to decide whether to extend checkuser to other users (or to their own new members), so I'd leave it up to them. -- Curps 19:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Please note that the nominee has not accepted this process for awarding CheckUser ability to himself, or anyone. -- Cecropia 00:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Support.  CURPS is long overdue and overqualified for this.  Hall Monitor 18:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) All Admins Should Have CheckUser Status --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 19:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Socks are a problem that seem to be growing at a logarithmic rate. CURPS has earned his place as a trusted member of the community for good reason. Arbcomm is struggling just to keep up with its current case load, much less the growing number of sock checks as the community grows. I see no reason CURPS shouldn't be given access to checkuser. FeloniousMonk 19:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support As per the comments below I understand this isn't going to get Curps checkuser permissions without ArbCom separately agreeing to do such, I am however "supporting" since I believe that we do have more individuals within the project amply qualified and trustworthy, and would support a slight widening of the privlege if ArbCom decided to do so. I believe Curps to be one of those trustworthy and qualified individuals --pgk( talk ) 20:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support, give him emergency powers, Wikipedia is being held hostage. But please, don't plunge this into an empire, resulting in the Barn Star being built, with your apprentice, Jimbo Wales, killing all the vandals.  Sceptr  e  ( Talk  ) 22:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Strong support for a trusted vandal fighter! BD2412  T 22:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Strong Support: Nobody has done more to protect the integrity of Wikipedia than the Curpsmaster 3000. &mdash;  F REAK OF N URxTURE  ( [ TALK ] )  05:07, Jan. 11, 2006
 * 8) Support I for one support our new CheckUser overloards. Seriously though, I think that a few more vigilant users like Curps having this right would go a long way to help slow vandalism. A 05:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. Not that this vote actually counts for anything, but I would strongly urge the ArbCom to consider granting CheckUser to Curps. It may be best to wait until the elections are over though. the wub  "?!"  RFR - a good idea? 19:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support after ArbCom elections have concluded. Silensor 19:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Support, this non-binding straw poll. He's certainly qualified, and the ArbCom should take a look at this... Tito xd (?!? - help us) 01:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Yes. It's just a straw poll, and I appreciate Curps' clarification above.  I think a few more of our everyday, trusted, ceaseless vandal-fighters could use checkuser, but that's just my opinion and I'm quite aware of the ramifications regarding changing the privacy policy to accomodate it. Antandrus  (talk) 01:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Weak Support, upgraded to normal support if he only uses his block bots when we get a flurry of vandal accounts all at once. Curps has likely blocked more vandals than all the other admins combined. karmafist 05:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Support, this is a good idea IMO. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 11:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose Checkuser should be restricted to arbcom or maybe just developers, the potential for abuse is too high. zen master T 19:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose I don't see where this new section is valid on the RfA/RfB page. User:Hall Monitor is not on the ArbCom, which is an elective position, so what standing does he have to raise this issue here and try to reach a consensus, both to the need for outside CheckUsers and for Curps' particular standing to be one? I don't believe that WP:BOLD justifies attempting a unilateral change to core Wikipedia practices. -- Cecropia 22:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose expansion of checkuser privledges past arbcom. Phil Sandifer 23:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. Agree with zen and Phil. Kaldari 00:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose; this is not the way to do this, though I would trust Curps with CheckUser. Ral315 (talk) 01:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose strongly, great admin and as Ral says can be trusted, but only ArbCom should have the priviledges, or give them out, not through RFA-style voting. NSL E (T+C) 01:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Adamantly oppose - nothing personal, but any requests for CheckUser priviledges at this point are extremely premature. Not only has Board approval not been sought, but the Arbitration Committee has not offered support of this request, as policy dictates. Because this is such a serious matter with huge implications, I have to oppose. (Again, nothing against the user.) There is nowhere where it says that people can vote and be granted access. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 02:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * But isn't this just a poll to see whether we support the ArbCom giving the priv to Curps? This can't be a binding vote. BD2412  T 02:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Concurring with your statements, Hall Monitor writes below, "The purpose of this WP:RFCU is to demonstrate what I believe will be a strong showing of support to provide Curps with the ability to perform this function." However, I stand by my oppose. Not only is community support not part of granting CheckUser access, but as neither the Arbitration Committee nor the Board has approved this process or indicated that they will do anything with this, I believe that this is premature and jumping the gun. If you wish to demonstrate support for Curps, please do so after the Board or ArbCom has sanctioned such a process like this one and confirmed that it is in line with policy. Until then, I must oppose. (Again, this is nothing personal.) Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 00:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Until Curps adds his email to his preferences. Curps gives indefinite blocks rather often, but without email set up, how can one contact him? Please set up your email, no serious block-granting admin should go without email. When that's done, you may cross-out my vote. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * There's always {&#123;unblock}} and about 800 other admins to reverse blocks made in error. Perhaps instructions on using this template should be more greatly emphasized in boilerplate messages. I do quite a few indefinite blocks myself, as I routinely check the [ username-spawn log ] (for obvious users... that have somehow slipped past Curps' bot), more often, in fact, than I check my e-mail, lol. &mdash;  F REAK OF N URxTURE  ( [ TALK ] )  07:44, Jan. 13, 2006
 * 1) Oppose - Not reflecting on Curps personally, but checkuser should only be avaialble to a very select few (e.g. arbcom) novacatz 07:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - Given the quickness of his infinite bannings without warning and without checking whether there was a reason why a user made a strange move. Even though you immediately noticed the error and unblocked me, I saw a huge list of people banned infinite without warning and without due process. The chance of this person using the option incorrectly and without care is too big. KittenKlub 10:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Neutral while I admire Curps a lot, I'm not sure I would support him or anyone, being given CheckUser access. This is not personal, I just think we have enough of them. CheckUser is something that is not needed often. Izehar 18:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, I must disagree. We only have 7 people staffed to perform CheckUser requests.  Hall Monitor 19:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * How many requests are there? You say that "[t]he Arbitration Committee is visibily overburdened and backlogged with CheckUser requests"; where can we see that? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 19:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of a major backlog. The seven of us with the privilege are not overburdened so far as I know. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm just thinking of CheckUser Policy and Privacy policy. I have legal/privacy concerns and I don't think that handing out CheckUser access liberally is a very good idea. IMO CheckUser should be used infrequently and the ability to operate the tool should be restricted to a small number of people. Izehar 19:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, it should be restricted to a small number - but adding Curps to the list of the CheckUser enabled will not change that. Suppose we set some RfB-like election standards and limit the number to a small proportion of all registered users (like no more than .005%)? BD2412  T 22:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral - never heard of him - max rspct  leave a message  22:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You've never heard of Curps??? Izehar 22:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments

 * While I wouldn't oppose Curps having CheckUser access, I don't think a community vote is the way to achieve it. I think the request should be made directly to the Arbitration Committee.   [[Sam Korn ]] 18:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The purpose of this WP:RFCU is to demonstrate what I believe will be a strong showing of support to provide Curps with the ability to perform this function. Hall Monitor 18:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Community support has nothing to do with the granting of CheckUser access. If the ArbCom made a statement that they would take this into account, that would be a different matter.  However, there is no policy support for this request at this time.  A request on RfAr would be the appropriate course of action at this time.  [[Sam Korn ]] 19:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * As Sam Korn points out, the community cannot grant CheckUser access to an individual. That decision is to be made, per WMF policy, by the Arbitration Committee.  Community support for an individual is not a factor which the Arbitration Committee has used in the past to determine eligibility for CheckUser, and I think it is premature to hold a vote on this without, at the very least, a request from the Arbitration Committee.  Kelly Martin (talk) 20:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * If the Arbitration Committee is responsible for granting checkuser, why are we voting on it? Talrias (t | e | c) 19:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm going to echo the sentiments of Talrias and Sam Korn. CheckUser is a very serious right to have: it's not an award to be given, and it's certainly not something that a community vote should determine. --Deathphoenix 19:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The CheckUser policy on Meta states "On a wiki with a (Wikimedia-approved) Arbitration Committee, only editors approved by the Arbitrators may have CheckUser status." There's already six users with access, do we really need one more? Even assuming we do, a vote isn't going to accomplish much without ArbCom approval. Carbonite | Talk 20:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I am in contact with members of the Arbitration Committee regarding this nomination, this RFCU is merely a sounding board. Hall Monitor 20:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand your reasons, but I think many people think that this isn't the place to request it. The formatting resembles an RFA/B, where community consensus does count, and is therefore confusing. I think a request on RfAr would be more appropriate, and would still get community comments.  I also think that a self-nom would be far more appropriate, as would the delay that Curps mentions.   [[Sam Korn ]] 20:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree this vote is not enough to change policy to give Curps or anyone checkuser priviledge, I suspect the arbcom, Jimbo and/or the developers would have to approve this, though they definitely shouldn't. A single admin should never be allowed to lookup private user data (without arbcom approval), the potential for abuse is way too high. Wikipedia's privacy policy should be updated to provide more checks and balances for the safekeeping of private user data such as IP address. zen master T 20:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * A poll (not a vote) to see how the community views extending checkuser priviledges to more admins, and perhaps to Curps in particular, may be useful, but it should probably wait until after the elections. We don't even know whether the ArbCom will be expanded; if it is, the community may have a different opinion about checkuser.  Chick Bowen 21:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Re: Hall Monitor's 20:13 (UTC) comment; are you inferring that ArbCom requested this "sounding board"? --Durin 21:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I strongly oppose anyone being given checkuser privileges until the use of these privileges is a publicly observable function. I do not advocate releasing the information from the request, but I do think that if a checkuser is done, there should be a log with output such as:
 * 21:32 10 January 2006 Snoopy ran checkuser on CharlieBrown


 * Without these actions being logged, abuses can and will happen. I am already aware of at least two abuses of checkuser. Right now, the right is granted and there is no oversight. In fact, I'd support a suspension of checkuser privileges until this logging function was available. --Durin 21:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * There is a log of uses of CheckUser. For privacy reasons, however, access to it is restricted to CheckUsers and Stewards.  If you feel that CheckUser has been abused, you should contact a Steward to discuss the matter.  The Foundation takes abuse of the CheckUser functionality very seriously.  Durin, for some reason, is here feigning ignorance of the existence of the CheckUser log, which he is aware of as a result of having asked for an investigation into my use of CheckUser.  I was cleared of the wrongdoing of which he accused me by User:Anthere, a steward and Foundation Board member.  The details may be found here. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * In fairness, he didn't accuse. He said he had "reason to suspect", and he asked Anthere to let hime know. AnnH (talk) 22:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Kelly, I am well aware of the existence of the log, since as you note and Ann confirmed I asked for a check against those logs. Since I am obviously aware of it, I am obviously asking about something different. Please re-read what I said, and note that I said publically observable and kindly refrain from accusing me of feigning ignorance, since it is blatantly obvious that I did no such thing. --Durin 03:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
 * 1. How will the having the ability to perform m:CheckUser requests assist you?.
 * A.


 * 2. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A.


 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts in the past, or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * A.


 * 4. Under what circumstances would you use your CheckUser access?
 * A.