Note: This CU request is currently on hold due to recent desysopping (pending review) of User:Emesee. This nomination has been reopened to allow the community to review the checkuser access request. --mikeutalk 11:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Special note: due to the SUL process, Remi now mainly edits as Emesee, a name which he has long used on his other Wikimedia accounts. --McCormack 07:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
copied from colloquium
I've noted over the past few months that User:Remi and User:Erkan_Yilmaz are often quite curious about Checkuser actions (and CU-related blocks), and I think it wouldn't be a bad idea to give them the tool so they can see for themselves, as well as probably catching problematic accounts that JWS and I aren't catching (we're both a bit less active on RC patrol than we used to be). While we clearly don't need an entire platoon of Checkusers running around the place, both these users have a long history of doing good for the project, and being very patient even with those who are clearly seeking to try our collective patience. The CU tool gives us a powerful ability to both identify problem-causers, as well as allowing us to avoid "collateral damage" when blocking IPs (since it allows us to check an IP before giving a hard block). --SB_Johnny | talk 12:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Support -- ScribblewikiLover 17:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC) This is the only contribution by ScribblewikiLover, who has been blocked on meta for abusing multiple accounts. John Vandenberg(chat) 02:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Support. Wikiversity is small and barely has 25 participants who care to discuss checkuser nominations. As far as I know, Wikiversity has always had to "beat the bushes" in order to attract attention during checkuser discussion. There is no rule against this community practice. Note this definition of "canvass": "To examine carefully or discuss thoroughly; scrutinize. That is what we are doing here. I cannot imagine why anyone wouldn't want a canvassed checkuser nomination to pass.--JWSchmidt 13:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC) --JWSchmidt 02:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Support -- Jtneill - Talk - c 13:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Support -- Remi has done exemplary work at Wikibooks, and I trust that he will continue to do so here. --Jomegat 01:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC) Support retracted (see below) --Jomegat 13:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Support While I don't think we always agree, Emesee looks me always a hard-working good editor. --Aphaia 11:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Support Wikiversity could really use people with access to local checkuser tools again, due to the recent resignations and removals, Wikiversity currently has none. Checkuser should like custodianship be no big deal in my book. --darklama 21:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Oppose I wouldn't want a canvassed checkuser nomination to pass. -- Catchi? 20:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Oppose I no longer have confidence that he can use tools in an objective and fair manner. Protecting a mainspace page during an edit war that a custodian is involved in is inapropriate. Protection of a Community Review page to shield oneself from criticsm is unacceptable, and does not reflect the kind of judgement that we require from a CU. --mikeutalk 11:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Oppose ditto what mikeu said above. --SB_Johnnytalk 11:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Oppose This new behavior is troubling. --Jomegat 13:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Oppose I was very concerned that ScribblewikiLover (talk | email | contribs | stats) and Kanonkas (talk | email | contribs | stats) turned up to vote here, and that this request was kept open so long. I did not want to oppose because local community members had rallied to support Emesee. Sadly, recent events are an extra concern. Checkusers need to be like stewards; they are elected, and should use their tools carefully, with 100% support from the local community and the wider community, in order to continue to be able to serve the community who need them - a replacement CU cant be easily elected. John Vandenberg(chat) 14:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Because of the events of last night. Geo.plrd 15:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
When we use a tool, it is possible to make mistakes. When using the checkuser tool, it is possible to act on incomplete or incorrectly interpreted information and this can lead to poorly-justified invasion of a user's privacy. Are there times when a checkuser should ask another checkuser for a "second opinion" before using the checkuser tool? If, as a checkuser, you ever discover that you have made an error in your use of the checkuser tool, what will you do? --JWSchmidt 14:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
In situations where I am at all unsure of what use of the tool would be appropriate, I would consult with more experienced users familiar with the policies. Especially starting out, collaboration seems especially important. Privacy is a high virtue and not something to be taken lightly.
And if I discover I have made an error, I would do everything in my power in order to forestall any harmful effects from occurring; and then if negative effects had occurred I would do everything in my power reconcile them. What specific actions to take seems like it would be rather unique to each situation. However, what does come to mind is consulting with individuals who have more experience with the project and the checkuser tool than myself, and then using their guidance to hopefully remedy the situation as best as possible. --Remi 01:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I've seen situations where the checkuser tool is used in haste, out of fear that a vandal will make a big mess. I think it is better to let a vandal make a mess, even if it means having to spend time cleaning up the mess, rather rush and make an error with the checkuser tool. Vandalism is reversible, but the public release of private user information is hard to reverse. --JWSchmidt 02:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I would agree with what JWSchmidt says here. The public use of CU can be quite damaging - it often does not prove a lot. However vandal accounts are often from Open Proxies & so that information can be very useful.
On Commons (where I have the rights) we will circulate ones we are not sure about around the other project CUs for second opinions & that is useful & saves any public mistakes. I confess in my early days I did do things rather hastily (however so did your nominator :)) but that was quite a while back. --Herbytalk thyme 16:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
My vote will be support, but I just have one question to check on: Is Remi definitely the username for checkuser status, given the request to custodian flag other usernames?
-- Jtneill - Talk - c 10:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
My guess is that as the application then goes through the Foundation, it will be impossible to transfer the status to a different user name without repeating the nomination process. Checkuser is much more formal than bureaucrat or custodian. --McCormack 11:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe that's true for renames... the permissions transfer along automatically. That policy may well apply for cases where a new name is taken up without a rename, but even then, if it can be clearly shown the same person is in control of both accounts, that there is crosslinking in place, and that the permission on the other account is removed at the same time, I don't necessarily see a problem there... I'm just one steward though. Sorry this answer is a bit late! If a formal answer is needed please advise. ++Lar: t/c 16:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Username Emesee would be preferable and more convenient for myself. But whatever consensus is, is fine. Emesee 02:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm confused - although Emesee has accepted this checkuser nomination, and the voting is still taking place but according to Emesee's talkpage he has requested all Custodial rights to be removed - but what about this, would this be invalid now and also why isn't the support staff updated stating this, including a number of Custodians have had his/her user right removed, shouldn't the support staff be updated as well - it's hard to say who's left and who's haven't since this is what a number of users seem to be saying, if it is the case then it's a shame that a number of great contributors are indeed leaving. DarkMage 10:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
For now, I suggest that the community refuse to accept this resignation of Custodial rights. I want to let Emesee have a few days to calm down and think things through. Emesee performed a custodial action that other custodians had also wanted to take. He need feel no shame for his actions. --JWSchmidt 10:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
At the moment his user page states "decustodian all accounts but this account" . I do not know why the note was posted, but currently there is no problem with the vote here. --mikeutalk 21:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I had a chance to talk to the candidate on IRC. He said he has retracted his request that his custodianship be terminated. I thanked him for doing so. --JWSchmidt 13:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Comment - I'd like to point out that the sole oppose, User:White Cat, claims there was canvassing but has very little contributions nor exposure to really base such a claim. I would ask for them to produce such evidence to verify their claim or remove their accusations of impropriety. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
A few points:
I see the request has been made at meta:  Good deal!
I sent an identity confirmation email boilerplate to Remi... the request is on hold until the info is sent to the foundation (not to me, I just sent the email :) ).
In doing so I noticed that Remi's other userid doesn't have email turned on. This needs to be corrected, or one userid needs to be settled on and the two properly crosslinked to avoid confusion. ++Lar: t/c 01:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I turned it back on a few minutes ago. Thank you for the heads up. Emesee 01:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)