Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/August 2009 election/Oversight/Keegan

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Keegan[edit]

Page links: (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

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

I am Keegan, that is my true first name. I am 28 years old, and I reside in the Central Time zone of the United States.

I have been a consumer of Wikipedia for nearly six years (fall '03), five years as an editor by IP (fall '04), four years as an account(fall '05), and I have been a sysop for just shy of three years (fall '06).

I serve the Foundation as an OTRS volunteer, working with info and sister projects primarily but access to permissions and photosubmissions in case the need arrives or I run out of other things to do. I am not a sysop on any other project, but sister projects causes me to keep an eye out on other Foundation wikis. This work occasionally includes coordinating with administrators on other projects in dealing with privacy issues.

I can aid Wikipedia by serving as a functionary of the project/Foundation with Oversight. I am calm, civil, communicative and have a solid understanding of the Wikimedia Foundation's Privacy Policy and how it is meant to work in conjunction with individual projects. Oversight requires the delicate touch of privacy, transparency, trust, and knowing when to suppress an edit and when to tell someone no. It's quite the high-wire act, but I have great balance. I am not an article writer, I make no bones about it. I wish to aid the project and the community however possible by maintaining what others have taken their time to write; Oversight is one of those spots that I can fill to give back for the knowledge that others have given me.

If you are unfamiliar with me (I'm not the most active of this slate at clicking "edit"), please do have a hearty look over my contributions and my logs. I have requested Oversight many times over the years and to my recollection all requests have been valid and acted upon accordingly, including dealing with some well know long-term vandals and other cross-wiki issues. I am available here for questions or concerns or by my email. Keegan (talk) 04:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and questions for Keegan[edit]

  • Question from Aitias (added 00:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)): Obviously, you would not have nominated yourself if you did not believe that there is a realistic chance to be elected. Why do you feel that you of all people should be one of those which will be elected? Do you, for example, reckon that you are better qualified than the other candidates?[reply]
    I'll answer the second question first, because it is the short response of the two: I do not consider myself to be better qualified than any other candidate.
    Now for the first question, which is a bit more complicated: I do not think that I should be one of the ones elected. I believe that I can be one of the ones elected. My feelings on UserRights are adequately covered in two essays I wrote, located here and here. My experience in my physical life as well as my digital one leaves me confident that I can fulfill the job as required. Oversight requires a delicate touch and is not a measure of status or gravitas; it serves as a function to protect both the privacy of others and the project in itself. Now, the actual act of oversight or revision supression undertaken is a different issue, because it has status and gravitas. To perform an oversight function requires the trust of the community, which is implicit in the results of an election. To just say "Trust me" smacks of ego when there is no confidence to boot. Perceptions of status are just that: perceptions. I convey no special privilege to any one user. I hope this adequately addresses your questions. Keegan (talk) 03:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question from Mailer Diablo 04:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC): How would you deal with editors/vandals/requestors/lawyers who attempt to creatively stretch the Oversight/Suppression policy, be it making an edit or making a request for suppression?[reply]
    Easy to answer now, since I know of better ways to deal with such situations. I would not. Previously I was engaged in a debate in which I deleted an article after a legal threat. However, that was an unusual sequence of events that, for privacy reasons, cannot be outlined. I learned my lesson about the proper process under such duress. I have since run across multiple scenarios that have been properly remedied without disruption. Keegan (talk) 04:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "All communication sent via the "E-mail this user" link is considered public, at my discretion. Reasonable requests for confidentiality will be honored, but the whole "e-mail is sacrosanct and private" argument I do not buy for one solitary second. Do not expect to use that argument as an all-purpose shield. I also never check my email. So..." is from your userpage. For an oversight candidate? NW (Talk) 01:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have removed that entire section. Frankly, I haven't looked at it in quite awhile. I took if from Calton with humorous intent. Perhaps you can reconsider, I actually do consider email private and this was not an accurate reflection of my views. Keegan (talk) 02:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    ...and by "it" I mean that header. I skip down to business. Keegan (talk) 02:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Followup Now that I am on my home PC, I have a further moment to explain. The entirety of that section was meant to be satirical. I do not care where you post on my page, how you format, or if you smoke. Do as you please, and yes you may email me and it will be kept confidential. Now, following that, I understand the relevant misinterpretation; the problem with satire is you have to be in on the joke. So in summary, I do take private communications quite seriously and some times my quirky sense of humor gets in the way of that perception. I hope that this can be considered by all reading the comments and participating in the election. Keegan (talk) 03:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I can accept that as a valid statement. I shall take another look then, and possibly reconsider. NW (Talk) 14:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question from Mike.lifeguard 06:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC): Would you please make a (realistic) statement regarding your anticipated availability for handling oversight matters?[reply]
    I am realistically able to click buttons around seven hours a day. My employment does not make computer access immediate in the sense I am sitting right there in front of a screen. With that said, I do get email updates on my phone and read them as the day goes by when lists are posted to. Following that, if it's an urgent need for Oversight coming through the list, it is realistically possible for me to take three minutes to hop on the PC and take care of it. If it email that needs responded to without action being taken, I can take care of that in due course. My employer is quite understanding about that sort of situation. Keegan (talk) 19:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (comment moved from vote section) Don't know Keegan, but seems well prepared. ceranthor 12:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes in support of Keegan[edit]

  2. Vicenarian (T · C) 00:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Majorly talk 00:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Prodego talk 00:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. (X! · talk)  · @065  ·  00:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. JamieS93 00:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. --Aqwis (talk) 00:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Chzz  ►  01:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. — Aitias // discussion 01:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Triplestop x3 01:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC) Sorry, not eligible; did not have 150 article space edits before June 15. Risker (talk) 00:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC) [reply]
  12. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. –blurpeace (talk) 03:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Jehochman Talk 03:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    龗 (talk) 04:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Indented, as user is not yet eligible to vote. (X! · talk)  · @251  ·  05:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. SoWhy 06:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. --Closedmouth (talk) 07:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. AdjustShift (talk) 09:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Cenarium (talk) 10:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    --Fox1942 (talk) 11:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC) (Vote indented as user is ineligible to vote in this election - SoWhy 11:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  20. Knows his stuff. AGK 13:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 13:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Shimgray | talk | 14:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. LittleMountain5 15:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. --UntilItSleeps Public PC 16:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. — Ched :  ?  21:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Shappy talk 22:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. --Kurdo777 (talk) 23:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Daniel (talk) 00:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Samir 04:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. BrianY (talk) 04:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. ceranthor 12:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Aye, but weak ~~ Phoe talk ~~ 12:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Camaron · Christopher · talk 13:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  36. PhilKnight (talk) 17:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Pmlineditor 17:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Alexfusco5 19:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  39. (reasoning) The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 02:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  40. FASTILY (TALK) 04:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Cubs197 (talk) 05:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Killiondude (talk) 06:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Tryptofish (talk) 14:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  44. miranda 20:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Strongly; see here. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 23:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  46. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 01:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Ysangkok (talk) 11:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Þjóðólfr (talk) 18:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  49. iMatthew talk at 00:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Icewedge (talk) 17:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  53. WJBscribe (talk) 21:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Synchronism (talk) 21:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  55.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  56. — madman bum and angel 04:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Sceptre (talk) 14:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Malinaccier (talk) 17:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  60. — CactusWriter | needles 14:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Cbrown1023 talk 17:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  62. -- Banjeboi 20:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Master&Expert (Talk) 09:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  64. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  65. R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 14:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  66. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 21:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  67. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 00:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  68. --Kanonkas :  Talk  17:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Heimstern Läufer (talk) (rationale) 18:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  70. billinghurst (talk) 09:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  71. —Terrence and Phillip 16:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Timmeh (review me) 19:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Lara 17:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  75. hmwitht 18:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support --StaniStani  22:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  77. BJTalk 23:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  78. --Wehwalt (talk) 23:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes in opposition to Keegan[edit]

  2. Davewild (talk) 19:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Caspian blue 17:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/CheckUser_and_Oversight/August_2009_election/Oversight/Keegan&oldid=1144518643"