east718

Hi! I'm east718, and I've been an administrator on the English Wikipedia since 2007. I didn't plan on running in this election, but was drafted in late 2008 to stand in it. I'm pretty humbled that the Arbitration Committee has placed enough trust in me to consider me for the checkuser tool; if the community also chooses to do the same, I will not betray their trust.

Since early 2008, I have gained experience working behind the scenes with checkusers and helping them solve nasty cases involving long-term abusers, especially abusers who are intelligent enough to take steps to conceal themselves. A couple examples that jump to mind are myself and Dmcdevit working together for several months with the goal of removing a single person from the project who was using multiple accounts to abuse our consensus-based decision making process in an effort to insert pedophilia advocacy into articles; more recently, I have been assisting Rlevse with several cases that are difficult to crack without extensive technical and behavioral analysis.

My main contribution to the checkuser team would be bringing the broad technical skills that I have to the table and continue assisting other checkusers, but in a more effective manner with access to the tool myself. Sometimes, sockpuppets like Bassettcat or Archtransit fall through the cracks for months; I suspect that incidents like this would be isolated with more checkusers reviewing each others' work. I also intend on dabbling in WP:SPI and the Augean stables of countervandalism, since the tedium and repetition involved with the territory is not a problem for me.

I understand that checkuser is to be used only to prevent disruption—obviously, use of the tool to intimidate others or attempt to gain the upper hand in an editorial/internal dispute is verboten. I don't think you'll have to worry about that with me though: I respect all editors and their privacy, and I strive greatly to treat them in a professional manner. I have never abused my admin tools, and I have never attempted to use the bit as a bully pulpit.

As for the legal stuff, I'm an adult who's willing to identify with the foundation, and I'm not one of those careless people who think that they're not responsible for their actions on the internet just because they have a shield of pseudonymity. I have no problem with losing my own pseudonymity, and if my real name, employer, etc. are disclosed, I do not foresee it impacting my service to Wikipedia. I'm familiar with both the English Wikipedia's checkuser policy and the global checkuser and privacy policies, including the six "safe harbors" for releasing information derived from confidential system logs. While I have never been particularly enamored with the "rules" when it comes time to put in work for the encyclopedia, I plan on holding the aforementioned ones sacrosanct. The privacy of editors is nothing to trifle with.

Thanks in advance for your consideration and for any advice or comments you'd like to leave. — east718 | talk | 21:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and questions for east718

This page is protected, probably to prevent early voting. Unfortunately, this also restricts editors from asking questions of me; if you wish to do so and cannot, please post it on my talkpage and I'll move it over here provided the arbs don't have a problem with it. — east718 | talk | 21:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Synergy

Some[dubious – discuss] may feel you are too "behind the scenes" (taken from your statement). What assurances can you provide that you will be more open to discussion, or likely to be more active on-wiki? Synergy 00:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am always open to discussion of my actions, and have always campaigned for more criticism of administrators' actions - without criticism of our behavior, how are we to become better at what we do? On-wiki discussion is strongly preferred by me to email/IRC/whatnot, unless there's a specific reason to avoid it, such as dealing with grave harassment of editors or discussing material that's governed by the privacy policy. (Or, just for idle banter in the vein of #wikipedia-en, which would be a misuse of project resources if it were on some talkpage.) In the two cases I mentioned, pedophilia advocacy has always traditionally been handled by ArbCom and admins working closely with them, and the sockpuppeteer that Rlevse was targeting is very intelligent and subtly disruptive (think Robdurbar or Archtransit). On-wiki discussion may not be prudent in the latter case because of both the privacy aspect, and the possibility of the sockpuppeteer catching on and changing their style up. I think these are acceptable instances where private conversation among a small group of admins or checkusers would be acceptable. My current six week long period of inactivity is involuntary and is because of computer downtime; I don't edit from work. I was averaging around 400 edits a month for 2008, it's up to you to decide if that's active enough. :) — east718 | talk | 00:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. I meant specifically with respect to cases for which this tool would be requested, and not in general (i.e. WP:SPI). Synergy 01:48, 7 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) 01:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Shalom

Dear East.718, I have a question regarding your checkuser candidacy, but I'm not sure how best to ask it because I'm not really supposed to be here anymore. So I'll just ask and let you decide how to answer it.

I am best known as Shalom Yechiel (talk · contribs) and also used some other accounts. I did "right to vanish" last week and am no longer active. My concern relates to a comment you made at my RFA last summer.

Let me state (especially to certain others who may be reading this) that I'm not upset about your RFA vote, your opinion or anything like that. I emailed you afterward, you didn't respond and I left it there. You stated erroneously that I had vandalized Wikipedia during a previous RFA, but you were just parroting someone else's error so I'm not blaming you for that.

What concerns me specifically is this sentence: "Look at it this way: I have no doubt Shalom is a great guy and wouldn't hesitate to buy him a beer, but at the same time I wouldn't consider employing him."

Now I understand the context: an RFA is comparable to a job application in that a candidate must be vetted for competence and trustworthiness, and you didn't feel it appropriate to support me. Taken out of context, or just taken literally, it could be read in a much more sinister way, that you might actually not employ me for a job based on my Wikipedia actions. If that's what you meant, then I have reason to wonder if you should be learning private information about users.

My current location can be determined from my IP address signed to this post, and if I can trust your userpage we live in the same U.S. state and we share a professional interest in science. It's not entirely inconceivable that our paths might cross off-wiki at some point in the future, and if that were to happen I would be happy to meet you. I'm just worried that, if I take you literally, you might reject a hypothetical job application to work at your structural engineering firm in 2014 because I vandalized Wikipedia in 2007. Keep in mind that my real name is out there, and other private information about me is available on the checkuser email list.

If this sounds too much like I'm just complaining about myself, I'll ask you a different question: would you employ Gregory Kohs to a position where he is professionally competent, or would you hold his Wikipedia exploits against him? What about other banned users, or other users who are not banned but got into trouble? Can you separate your private, confidential knowledge about users from any possible future real-life interaction you might have with them?

Thanks for reading the question, and I hope you will have a good response. 129.49.7.125 (talk) 00:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Shalom. I'm going to focus mainly on your fear of retaliation... I'm afraid you just misunderstood. This is partly my fault since I didn't explicitly label my rhetoric as that, but what can I do now? The metaphor was for Wikipedia application only, in the sense that I would not hire a former vandal for a middle management position or security officer (a rough equivalent to an admin on enwp). I certainly wouldn't care about the hobbies of a potential colleague, - fucking around on Wikipedia in your spare time seven years ago isn't particularly concerning. Two other things to consider if your unlikely scenario ever pops up: 1/ it would be most immoral of me (not to mention probably illegal) to use privileged information from Wikipedia to make decisions on behalf of my firm, and 2/ I would recuse from making such a decision myself, since my perception of the applicant would be slightly colored.
Best of luck in college, and with whatever career path you decide to take. Send me mail if you'd like to chat or want advice on anything. :) — east718 | talk | 00:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, East718. I was hoping you would answer something along those lines. I will not be voting in the elections, but you have answered my concern admirably. Good luck. 129.49.7.125 (talk) 17:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question from User:Sticky Parkin

Last year you were running a bot I think, I'm not sure if it was authorised, at least in about January/Feb last year, though it may have been later, I didn't keep up with what happened. What was your reason for running an unauthorised bot at the time, rather than getting it authorised? Do you have a rebellious streak, or feel the need to cheekily do things others who aren't in your clique might not know about? Sticky Parkin 02:36, 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) 16:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes in support of east718

  2. Support Willking1979 (talk) 00:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Privatemusings (talk) 00:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Kanonkas :  Talk  00:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support -- Euryalus (talk) 00:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support —Locke Cole • t • c 01:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. BJTalk 01:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 01:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. THE GROOVE 01:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support GlassCobra 02:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. rootology (C)(T) 02:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Avruch T 02:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Jack Merridew 12:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. --Nate1481 13:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support لennavecia 15:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - ScarianCall me Pat! 16:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Hipocrite (talk) 15:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. –Sarregouset (talk) 21:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Yup LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support - Sumoeagle179 (talk) 12:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - Timmeh! 04:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support - Basketball110 My story/Tell me yours 02:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC) ;)[reply]
  26. Dmcdevit·t 02:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. --Caspian blue 03:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Strongly Secret account 14:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Bearian (talk) 18:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support--Enric Naval (talk) 00:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support - Showtime2009 (talk) 15:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support - Iss246 (talk) 02:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes in opposition to east718

  2. Oppose - Tiptoety talk 00:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 00:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Gurch (talk) 01:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. RMHED. 01:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Majorly talk 01:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Acalamari 01:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Mr.Z-man 01:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. — neuro(talk) 01:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Master&Expert (Talk) 01:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Dragons flight (talk) 01:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose. Everyking (talk) 01:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose Prodego talk 02:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose. miranda 02:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. LittleMountain5 02:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Noroton (talk) 02:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 02:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Joe 03:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. J.Mundo
  20. Oppose Ironholds (talk) 05:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose bibliomaniac15 05:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Davewild (talk) 08:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Weak oppose —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 09:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose --Herby talk thyme 09:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. --S Marshall Talk/Cont 10:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose --Apoc2400 (talk) 10:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose — Aitias // discussion 13:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Stifle (talk) 14:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Tex (talk) 15:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Welshleprechaun (talk) 17:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Sticky Parkin 20:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. SpencerT♦C 22:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose.Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. --B (talk) 23:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Logos5557 (talk) 23:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose --4wajzkd02 (talk) 03:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 09:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  38. CharlotteWebb 09:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Very weak oppose –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  42. shoy (reactions) 20:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Sceptre (talk) 03:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Sandahl (talk) 03:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Artichoker[talk] 16:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Oppose.--Crunch (talk) 17:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Opppose -- Acps110 (talk) 04:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Stephen 06:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  50. — TKD::Talk 07:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Oppose -- SimonD (talk)
  52. Oppose - Philippe 22:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  53. FluffyWhiteCat (talk) 01:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  54. GRBerry 06:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Dlabtot (talk) 21:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  56. --A NobodyMy talk 03:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Oppose Rje (talk) 20:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  58.  GARDEN  23:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  59. McJeff (talk) 18:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Oppose --Rockfang (talk) 01:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Oppose - per tiptoey--Cerejota (talk) 06:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Oppose Graham87 23:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More