KumiokoCleanStart (talk | contribs) →Comments: Reply to Rschen |
|||
Line 292: | Line 292: | ||
:::For the record, I discussed the Highways ArbCom case with ArbCom in my application and disclosed it in my nomination above. I have been open with the Arbitration Committee about my editing history, even past what I believe they would have found on their own, considering that I became an admin long before some of them started editing at all. Finally, all you have done is prove that I had problems in 2006, which I freely admit. --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rs]][[User talk:Rschen7754|chen]][[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|7754]]''' 21:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC) |
:::For the record, I discussed the Highways ArbCom case with ArbCom in my application and disclosed it in my nomination above. I have been open with the Arbitration Committee about my editing history, even past what I believe they would have found on their own, considering that I became an admin long before some of them started editing at all. Finally, all you have done is prove that I had problems in 2006, which I freely admit. --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rs]][[User talk:Rschen7754|chen]][[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|7754]]''' 21:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC) |
||
::::And if Arbcom overlooks it then that's on them. But I still don't trust you with these tools and don't think you should have them. Additionally, this isn't all of it, there are still problems with your actions and attitude in the current times. I'm just not going to go digging and wasting my time when I don't beleive that any amount of time, effort or research is going to do anything. As I told the I levied y oppose and all the badgering for my oppose frankly, was complete and utter bullshit from people who should know better and are supposed to be setting the standards. It just proves how far fro grace the current day Arbcom has fallen. [[User:KumiokoCleanStart|Kumioko]] ([[User talk:KumiokoCleanStart|talk]]) 02:24, 11 August 2013 (UTC) |
::::And if Arbcom overlooks it then that's on them. But I still don't trust you with these tools and don't think you should have them. Additionally, this isn't all of it, there are still problems with your actions and attitude in the current times. I'm just not going to go digging and wasting my time when I don't beleive that any amount of time, effort or research is going to do anything. As I told the I levied y oppose and all the badgering for my oppose frankly, was complete and utter bullshit from people who should know better and are supposed to be setting the standards. It just proves how far fro grace the current day Arbcom has fallen. [[User:KumiokoCleanStart|Kumioko]] ([[User talk:KumiokoCleanStart|talk]]) 02:24, 11 August 2013 (UTC) |
||
:::::Because this is not a vote, as you've been told. You are submitting a comment to aid the Arbitration Committee's decisions. If you do not wish to do so, there's no point in commenting here. I add that people on Arbcom might take you more seriously if you provided proofs instead of vaguely pointing in the directions of some stuff in 2006 and implying guilt by association with a wikiproject. I'm sorry, but it all looks very petty, and your repeated and loud assertions that arbcom doesn't care don't justify your refusal to back up your claims. <i><b>[[User:Snowolf|<font color = "darkmagenta">Snowolf</font>]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Snowolf|<font color = "darkmagenta">How can I help?</font>]]</small></sup></b></i> 09:28, 11 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Support''' I rarely cast a comment on this (actually I think I have never done so before) but I consider that Rschen is a well-suited candidate for checkuser. He knows the robes and is technically prepared. — [[User:Hahc21|<font color="#333333">'''ΛΧΣ'''</font>]][[User_talk:Hahc21|<font color="#336699">'''<sup>21</sup>'''</font>]] 02:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC) |
*'''Support''' I rarely cast a comment on this (actually I think I have never done so before) but I consider that Rschen is a well-suited candidate for checkuser. He knows the robes and is technically prepared. — [[User:Hahc21|<font color="#333333">'''ΛΧΣ'''</font>]][[User_talk:Hahc21|<font color="#336699">'''<sup>21</sup>'''</font>]] 02:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC) |
||
*'''Support''' - Rschen is a very active SPI clerk and has much countervandalism experience on multiple wikis. He is definitely qualified for CheckUser access. [[User talk:TCN7JM|<font color="blue" face="Tahoma">T</font>]][[Special:Contributions/TCN7JM|<font color="red" face="Tahoma">C</font>]][[User:TCN7JM|<font color="gray" face="Tahoma">N7</font><font color="black" face="Tahoma">JM</font>]] 02:45, 7 August 2013 (UTC) |
*'''Support''' - Rschen is a very active SPI clerk and has much countervandalism experience on multiple wikis. He is definitely qualified for CheckUser access. [[User talk:TCN7JM|<font color="blue" face="Tahoma">T</font>]][[Special:Contributions/TCN7JM|<font color="red" face="Tahoma">C</font>]][[User:TCN7JM|<font color="gray" face="Tahoma">N7</font><font color="black" face="Tahoma">JM</font>]] 02:45, 7 August 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 09:28, 11 August 2013
Ks0stm (CU)
Ks0stm (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Nomination statement
- I'll start this out with a dose of reality: I realize I am probably far from the most experienced candidate offering themselves up for CheckUser and Oversight. I am applying for CheckUser and Oversight mostly because there are a few specific areas where I feel I could be of use. First, I am active on IRC. There are occasions when requests made in the #wikipedia-en-revdel connect channel are more appropriate for oversight than RevDel, and the channel could always use more members with Oversight permissions. For similar reasons I am applying for CheckUser; while I am far from the most experienced in the area, I do have a limited amount of SPI experience and would be able to be active in the #wikipedia-en-admins connect and #wikimedia-checkuser connect channels. I also am an OTRS volunteer (permissions and info-en (f) queues), and could offer assistance there as needed.
Standard questions for all candidates
- Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
- Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.
- I have a general knowledge of the way IP addresses work, but otherwise not a whole lot. I am willing to learn the ropes of the checkuser function and do the research necessary to bring my knowledge of user agents and other technical details up before diving in head first. --Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 16:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- Do you hold advanced permissions (checkuser, oversight, bureaucrat, steward) on this or other WMF projects? If so, please list them. Also, do you have OTRS permissions? If so, to which queues?
Questions for this candidate
- What does "Check User is not a fishing expedition" mean? --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 13:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- I believe the best way to describe it is that you need probable cause to perform a checkuser; in other words, there has to be some evidence that some sort of abusive sockpuppetry is going on before performing a checkuser. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 18:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- What are two SPI cases that you have been involved in at some level? --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 13:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mealwaysrockz007/Archive#16 January 2013 and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/HopeAfrique/Archive. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 18:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- Would you run a check at these SPI cases? 1 2 3 --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 13:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- Not on my own, by any means. As a new checkuser I would not feel comfortable handling such a prolific case on my own. I would be more than happy to assist another checkuser on the case, however.
- I don't see that a CheckUser is necessary in this case.
- Yes, I would run a check on this case. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 03:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- Background - From Wikipedia:CheckUser#CheckUser_and_privacy_policy - "This policy encourages English Wikipedia CheckUsers not to allow such connections to be made from their results, but the global privacy policy allows them to do so in the case of serious disruption, and this policy allows CheckUsers to prioritise compliance with Wikipedia policy over the personal privacy of a user who has abusively edited the encyclopedia". The meta policy is less restrictive and more cloudy in meaning, saying only "When necessary for investigation of abuse complaints".
Keeping these policies in mind, what is your personal bar for releasing the IP address of a user? ~Charmlet -talk- 23:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- I'm of the camp that it is very rarely be necessary to publicly release the IP address(es) of a user, so personally my bar would be very high. I feel the only time it would be necessary is for an abuse response case. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 03:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- Continuing above, consider this scenario - User:Justanothereditor publicly reveals his IP address. There is an SPI opened against him and User:Sock. In investigating this through CheckUser, you determine that User:Sock used the same IP address as User:Justanothereditor. However, it is not indistinguishable, and behavioral and other evidence makes you think that they may not be the same person. How do you close the case? ~Charmlet -talk- 23:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- Why am I checkusering this? "Behavioral...evidence makes you think that they may not be the same person" does not sound inviting of a checkuser. Assuming for answering's sake that I did a checkuser and found such evidence, I would mark it with Inconclusive or Unlikely (depending on my level of confidence that they are not related) and leave the closing to a clerk/patrolling admin. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 03:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- If appointed, will you be willing to help out on the checkuser queue at ACC? Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Comments
- Comments may also be submitted to the Arbitration Committee privately by emailing arbcom-en-clists.wikimedia.org. Please note that the candidate will be provided the opportunity to respond to a paraphrased version of any emailed comments; the sender's name will not be provided.
- I like that he's available on IRC, but he isn't very active in SPI, so I wouldn't say he's quite ready for CheckUser yet.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Ambivalent - He admits a relative lack of technical expertise, so I'm not certain what he'd use checkuser for, beyond a few very obvious cases. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- I'm willing to do the research and learning necessary and to gain the experience necessary to do the harder cases. Basically I would start with the obvious cases and learn to do the harder cases as I go. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 00:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- Is a host with IP address 172.16.5.3 and a 255.255.255.0 subnet mask in the same network as a host with the address 172.16.5.133/25 ? Why or why not? Checkusers may not have to have the full technical expertise to be able to subnet or supernet but the learning curve may be steep enough that it may take you a good while before you might be up and running enough to be as effective as the current need mandates. A year from now with time spent around SPI and having learned some about networks, I think you would be a strong candidate.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 01:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- Is a host with IP address 172.16.5.3 and a 255.255.255.0 subnet mask in the same network as a host with the address 172.16.5.133/25 ? Why or why not? Checkusers may not have to have the full technical expertise to be able to subnet or supernet but the learning curve may be steep enough that it may take you a good while before you might be up and running enough to be as effective as the current need mandates. A year from now with time spent around SPI and having learned some about networks, I think you would be a strong candidate.
- I'm willing to do the research and learning necessary and to gain the experience necessary to do the harder cases. Basically I would start with the obvious cases and learn to do the harder cases as I go. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 00:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- Weak support I see no glaring reason not to support Ks0stm. I imagine a little time and training as a functionary will help him gain the experience necessary to be a successful CU. I'd also encourage Ks0stm to learn the ropes around SPI, and get a little involved in that. Signalizing (talk) 19:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support - I don't know too much about this user but they seem to have a level head and a calm demeanor.Kumioko (talk) 02:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
LFaraone (CU)
LFaraone (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Nomination statement
- Hi there. I'm an administrator on the English Wikipedia and a member of the Volunteer Response Team. On-wiki, I generally work in process areas such as WP:AfD and other administrative backlogs. In OTRS, I help answer queries from subjects and others about Wikipedia, and assist them when applicable in ensuring that content on Wikipedia is compliant with relevant policies. I also help process the permissions queues on Wikimedia Commons, where license grants are validated and the rights to use images confirmed. Outside Wikipedia, I'm a member of Debian's FTP team, where we assess new software programs entering Debian for legality and policy correctness. Professionally, I am a software engineer, and help manage the operations of a small technology company. I believe my experience with handling sensitive matters via OTRS as well as my work elsewhere in legal compliance would make me an effective user of the CheckUser permission.
Standard questions for all candidates
Some of the below is a repetition of the above. LFaraone 23:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
- Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.
- In addition to my primary employment, I work for a university IT organisation assisting with residential networking, IP assignments, and campus IT policy compliance.
- Do you hold advanced permissions (checkuser, oversight, bureaucrat, steward) on this or other WMF projects? If so, please list them. Also, do you have OTRS permissions? If so, to which queues?
- info-en (f), permissions (f). I have processed applications via UTRS before.
Questions for this candidate
- What does "Check User is not a fishing expedition" mean? --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 13:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- What are two SPI cases that you have been involved in at some level? --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 13:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- Would you run a check at these SPI cases? 1 2 3 --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 13:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- If appointed, will you be willing to help out on the checkuser queue at ACC? Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Comments
- Comments may also be submitted to the Arbitration Committee privately by emailing arbcom-en-clists.wikimedia.org. Please note that the candidate will be provided the opportunity to respond to a paraphrased version of any emailed comments; the sender's name will not be provided.
- I think LFaraone has the technical competence required for the CU tool and that has shown a willingness to learn and humble attitude that is very good in a functionary. He is easily reachable on IRC. Snowolf How can I help? 16:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support - Technically competent and sensible enough. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support - basically per Snowolf. My experiences with Luke have always been extremely positive. Legoktm (talk) 23:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support - Only recently seen this user around but impressed so far by what I have seen. Kumioko (talk) 02:05, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Materialscientist (CU)
Materialscientist (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Nomination statement
- Since becoming administrator in October 2009, I frequently deal with long-term vandals and open proxies, and the CU tools are of great help in those areas. For example, edits and/or filter logs often strongly suggest that a registered user edited from an open proxy (Runtshit is an easy example) that needs to be checked and blocked to avoid re-use.
I took part in several SPI cases, from which I've learned the associated policies and practices. That said, I do not consider myself an SPI expert; I will help obvious cases that stalled due to backlog, but at this stage I am not planning to become an SPI regular. My current drive for CU tools is vandalism and open proxies.
I have a UTRS account, which I use passively, to monitor proxy-related cases, and I will help the "Checkuser Needed" and "Waiting WP:OP" requests there. My admin stats are here.
Standard questions for all candidates
- Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
- I daily interpret ISP-related data and issue proxy blocks and rangeblocks. I have some knowledge of XFF, rDNS, IPv6, rangeblocks, autoblocks, Tors, proxy tunnels, how to verify an open proxy, and where to look for possible entry and exit ports. I set up and regularly monitor some edit filters (most importantly No. 464). Materialscientist (talk) 10:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.
- I performed the duties of system administrator in my research group (of ca. 20 people) between 2000 and 2005. Materialscientist (talk) 10:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Do you hold advanced permissions (checkuser, oversight, bureaucrat, steward) on this or other WMF projects? If so, please list them. Also, do you have OTRS permissions? If so, to which queues?
- No advanced or OTRS permissions. Materialscientist (talk) 10:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Questions for this candidate
- In the WP:ACC tool, there are constantly account requests being received from users on blocked ranges, so those are placed in a holding queue for CU attention. If you are selected to be a CheckUser, will you be willing to assist in clearing the CU queue? —DoRD (talk) 17:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- Yes. Materialscientist (talk) 22:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- What does "Check User is not a fishing expedition" mean? --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 13:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- It is covered in WP:NOTFISHING, but you're expecting a personal answer, thus. CU checks are intrusion into privacy and do need a strong justification. The targeted information should be retrievable, not available by other means, and the en.wiki community should have a clear benefit from the checkuser learning that information. Materialscientist (talk) 23:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- Would you run a check at these SPI cases? 1 2 3 --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 13:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- 1 - no, at least not on my own. This is an LTA case where most account-connecting evidence (looking through the archive) is weak by my measures. I would invite clerks and editors who dealt with this case, and listen ;-). Materialscientist (talk) 03:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- 2 - no, even upon superficial look, for multiple reasons - editing unlogged is not against the policy; the behavioral evidence was weak (three IPs are from Vietnam, and thus poor grammar was not unexpected; Tue2011tue did not attack Areaseven); at the time of the report, three IPs were stale, and the active one could and should be warned and blocked for incivility w/o the need for CU. Materialscientist (talk) 01:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- 3 - yes, even upon superficial look, on user accounts. I've blocked Ottoniel110 as an obvious sock of Ottoniel Blanco, who does have a socking history, and deleted some image(s) on Commons. As a Commons admin I can see that, pairwise, Tu Real Socio and Reanima2, and Ottoniel Blanco and Reanima2 have uploaded the same images. There is a case of using throwaway accounts to slip in copyrighted images; the behavioral evidence is often weak by my measures, and a CU scan might be helpful. I would even ask INeverCry to have a look, because he was involved with those users and is an admin and CU on Commons (and I have interacted with him in the past). Materialscientist (talk) 02:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- Background - From Wikipedia:CheckUser#CheckUser_and_privacy_policy - "This policy encourages English Wikipedia CheckUsers not to allow such connections to be made from their results, but the global privacy policy allows them to do so in the case of serious disruption, and this policy allows CheckUsers to prioritise compliance with Wikipedia policy over the personal privacy of a user who has abusively edited the encyclopedia". The meta policy is less restrictive and more cloudy in meaning, saying only "When necessary for investigation of abuse complaints".
Keeping these policies in mind, what is your personal bar for releasing the IP address of a user? ~Charmlet -talk- 23:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- My bar is rather high. Checkuser can always help an investigation without revealing personal details, and should do their best to not disclose those details. To give an example related to your question below, a checkuser could report that user:X and user:Y used the same IP five times in August 2013, without mentioning the IP, but this would reveal that those users shared their geolocation. This information might be private and might not even be helpful for the SPI case. Materialscientist (talk) 00:32, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- Continuing above, consider this scenario - User:Justanothereditor publicly reveals his IP address. There is an SPI opened against him and User:Sock. In investigating this through CheckUser, you determine that User:Sock used the same IP address as User:Justanothereditor. However, it is not indistinguishable, and behavioral and other evidence makes you think that they may not be the same person. How do you close the case? ~Charmlet -talk- 23:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- I am not supposed to close cases, I could only provide my opinion, and here it would depend on the technical (connection and timing) and behavioral details. I might hint on my certainty and character of evidence, but I would do my best to not disclose unnecessary details. Materialscientist (talk) 00:32, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- If I may clarify - by close I meant "how would you report your findings?" Sorry for the confusion. ~Charmlet -talk- 00:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- You have answered your question for me :-). I have to assume that "behavioral and other evidence makes [me] think that they may not be the same person" and reflect this in my report. Materialscientist (talk) 01:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- If I may clarify - by close I meant "how would you report your findings?" Sorry for the confusion. ~Charmlet -talk- 00:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- I am not supposed to close cases, I could only provide my opinion, and here it would depend on the technical (connection and timing) and behavioral details. I might hint on my certainty and character of evidence, but I would do my best to not disclose unnecessary details. Materialscientist (talk) 00:32, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- It's not unheard of for you to make three month blocks due to a single unproductive edit (this edit that appears to be a test got the IP a three month block). Due to these blocks, and the large number of range blocks you make, you are the admin that causes the largest number of ACC requests, by quite a large margin. In my quick sample of current ACC requests that have been deferred to checkusers, blocks you placed account for 30% of the current requests. I recall one time when there were approximately 15 requests, all from unique IP ranges assigned to unique IPs, all blocked by you. Given this, I am a bit worried that you may be overly liberal with your usage of checkuser blocks. As you know, checkuser blocks by their very nature are not as open to review as normal blocks; undoing a checkuser block, no matter how justified it might appear to an admin, is grounds for removal of their admin rights. This means that if you are overly liberal with checkuser blocks that you could cause quite a bit of damage, and other checkusers will be running around trying to clean it up. Therefore, I have a few questions to help alleviate my concerns. Thanks. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 09:00, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- Those who come to my talk seeking to lift my block know that I am rather liberal in this regard. Given my frequency of blocks, such requests are very rare, and such requests from ACC people are extremely rare. We all make mistakes, and I always welcome feedback. There are simple answers to your concerns above, but all would be speculative without details. If you provide them, I'll gladly explain every individual case. Materialscientist (talk) 13:51, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- Are you registered with ACC? Will you substantially assist as a checkuser in the ACC process? (You've already answered a question very similar to this one in the above section, so you needn't answer it again. I leave it here so my ramble about ACC doesn't look so pointless.)
- No. Yes. Materialscientist (talk) 13:51, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- Detail under what circumstances you believe it is appropriate (or inappropriate) to place a checkuser block.
- A brief reply is this: I believe a checkuser block should be issued when there was a strong reason to run a CU check; the check strongly suggested blatantly inappropriate use of multiple accounts, and the checkuser wanted to stress that it was the CU information that led to the block (i.e. details are confidential, and xe takes the responsibility). To me, this is the last resort, as I find that many users/admins trust CUs and hesitate questioning validity of their blocks (you reminded me a case that I saw by sheer chance, years ago, when a checkuser was questioned, reanalyzed the block, and lifted it with a summary that he was an idiot :-). Standard blocks (for vandalism, spamming, or even abuse of multiple accounts) should be issued whenever they can justify the situation. Materialscientist (talk) 13:51, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- Discuss the circumstances which would lead you to use block options such anon. only, cannot edit talk page, and email blocked in a checkuser block.
- I recall only one case when I revoked email access - when the user continued on-wiki spam through email. I am also rather reserved in revoking talk page access, and do it only in cases of blatant talk page abuse after block - those usually come up via the WP:RFP or my talk pages. Nearly all my IP blocks are anonblocks, with exception of open proxies. There was one case when I've hardblocked a range because I misinterpreted information provided by a checkuser - that was a mistake pointed to me by another checkuser. There were a few cases when my hard rangeblocks were lifted because there was one or a few appealing IPs on a troublesome proxy range - this is not unheard of for proxy blocks, and CU tools do help reducing the number of such mistakes and dealing with appeals. This is said mostly in reply to your concerns above, and not to elaborate on general blocking policies and my philosophy on that. I have to go now and will continue after receiving feedback. Materialscientist (talk) 13:51, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- Are you registered with ACC? Will you substantially assist as a checkuser in the ACC process? (You've already answered a question very similar to this one in the above section, so you needn't answer it again. I leave it here so my ramble about ACC doesn't look so pointless.)
Comments
- Comments may also be submitted to the Arbitration Committee privately by emailing arbcom-en-clists.wikimedia.org. Please note that the candidate will be provided the opportunity to respond to a paraphrased version of any emailed comments; the sender's name will not be provided.
- Materialscientist is a prolific and highly capable admin, and in my opinion, a well above average candidate for checkuser privileges. PhilKnight (talk) 15:22, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Unreserved support. Materialscientist's and my ways crossed frequently on a large number of science-related articles where I saw him particularly active in reverting vandalism. I fully and absolutely trust in his knowledge of Wikipedia policies. kashmiri TALK 16:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- In terms of raw administrative talent, Materialscientist may be our most effective sysop. Of the too-small crew of admins that polices the "front lines", I'd dare say he's the most ubiquitous; when you take into consideration that (as far as I can remember from reading the drama boards) he's never been the subject of a legitimate serious complaint, my not-even-back-of-the-envelope math makes me think he might enjoy the lowest error rate of any admin. I'm partially tempted to selfishly oppose this, for fear that it'll suddenly be harder to get vandals blocked, but the CheckUser-ing backlog is much more serious than the vandal-blocking backlog, so, yeah, give him the bit. — PublicAmpers&(main account • talk • block) 17:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support One of the things I think people miss about Materialscientist is that although you don't see him around SPI much, he has considerable technical know-how suitable for the role. He does significant work against open proxies, and I believe his work would benefit from CheckUser access.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Strong Support As per PhilKnight and PublicAmpersand.An outstanding and very active Admin with a lot of administrative actions who had done over 56K blocks in additions thousands of other actions and has been spot on.The project will gain with the user having CheckUser access. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support - Obviously. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- By far the strongest candidate here. Materialscientist is a prolific administrator with a calm head on their shoulders. I would be happy to work with them as a member of the CheckUser team. Tiptoety talk 03:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support. Materialscientist understands some subtle issues about vandalism. He has the appropriate insight and reserve. Glrx (talk) 04:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support Highly skilled user who has done tremendous anti-vandalism work. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support most definitely. Legoktm (talk) 23:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support - Materialscientist is a great administrator when it comes to countervandalism, he definitely could benefit from becoming a CheckUser. TCN7JM 00:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support with full confidence.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 01:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC) - Support - Generally seems to be a very good admin and works in an area where access to the tools would benefit them. Kumioko (talk) 02:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- This user's very active in closely related administrative areas and generally respected. (S)he has the required technical competence and would enwiki benefit from (s)he being an addition to the CU team. Snowolf How can I help? 08:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support Strong technical backing, coupled with a solid understanding of the SPI process. I know that they are extremely active regarding proxies, and their general cluefulness is evident around the project. NativeForeigner Talk 08:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
NativeForeigner (CU)
NativeForeigner (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Nomination statement
- Hello, I'm NativeForeigner, and I am applying for the Checkuser tool. I have been an administrator since June 2010. I became a SPI clerk trainee in July of that year, and was a full clerk in January 2012. I have since assisted in the training of other clerks at SPI. I am also an OTRS volunteer on the info-en and permissions queues. I am requesting Checkuser due to my frequent and long-term participation at SPI where the tool would be very useful. Recently, Checkuser backlogs, especially at SPI, have been a significant problem, and I wish to help alleviate this recurring issue. Additionally, my lengthy experience as a SPI clerk has given me a good understanding of the Checkuser tool, along with its uses and responsibilities.
From a technical perspective, I am very well versed with IPv4 via my workplace. We are currently experimenting with IPv6 and I have a good working understanding of the system. Furthermore, I have some experience with Chinese and Korean ISPs. With my technical and on-wiki experience, I know that my work at SPI would be much more efficient if I had the Checkuser tool. Thank you for your consideration.
Standard questions for all candidates
- Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
- I have been heavily involved at SPI as a clerk, and have worked with numerous checkusers. NativeForeigner Talk 22:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.
- I provide IT Services and have a strong background in CIDR and IPv4. I also work with an institution that is starting to try and roll out IPv6, and I have a good fundamental understanding of IPv6. NativeForeigner Talk 22:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Do you hold advanced permissions (checkuser, oversight, bureaucrat, steward) on this or other WMF projects? If so, please list them. Also, do you have OTRS permissions? If so, to which queues?
- I do not hold any advanced permissions on any WMF projects. I do have OTRS permissions on the info-en (l) and permissions queues. NativeForeigner Talk 22:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Questions for this candidate
- If appointed, will you be willing to help out on the checkuser queue at ACC? Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- Definitely. It's not my main focus right now but I've seen the backlog listed at SPI for some time now, and it's something I'd be willing to learn and participate in should I receive CheckUser. NativeForeigner Talk 08:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Comments
- Comments may also be submitted to the Arbitration Committee privately by emailing arbcom-en-clists.wikimedia.org. Please note that the candidate will be provided the opportunity to respond to a paraphrased version of any emailed comments; the sender's name will not be provided.
- I think he's a fairly strong candidate and wouldn't see the problem with granting it.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- NativeForeigner is a very good candidate and is well qualified for the role. He's very helpful to other users as it is and would no doubt put the tools to good use. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support - Technically competent and an SPI clerk. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support for a very strong candidate. Already knows the SPI ropes...
— Berean Hunter (talk) 01:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Reaper Eternal (CU)
Reaper Eternal (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Nomination statement
- Hello, I'm Reaper Eternal. I'm fairly active in sockpuppet investigations and in the request-an-account process (http://toolserver.org/~acc), so I am familiar with working with IPs and checking for multiple account abuse. Additionally, I am working towards a degree in engineering, and I work at a job which requires a good programming knowledge. I am reasonably familiar with IPv4, though I am somewhat less familiar with IPv6. For this reason, I am applying for the checkuser group on the English Wikipedia. I have already identified to the WMF for ACC access.
Standard questions for all candidates
- Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
- I'm an active SPI clerk and active in the request-an-account process. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:02, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.
- I am an engineering intern student at the University of Cincinnati. I am familiar with programming, since that is my full-time job, and I develop software, like IRC bots, on my own time. Some of the programs I have written are networked, which requires a fundamental understanding of TCP/UDP/ICMP. (And yes, I know ICMP isn't a data transport technology like the other two; it's used to relay error messages and other queries.) I am familiar with the basics of IPv4 and IPv6 addressing largely through my own personal research into the topic, since I'm not in an IT degree. In short, I believe I have sufficient knowledge gained through personal research and testing and sufficient "real-world" experience gained through my full-time job for this task. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:02, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- Do you hold advanced permissions (checkuser, oversight, bureaucrat, steward) on this or other WMF projects? If so, please list them. Also, do you have OTRS permissions? If so, to which queues?
- No and no. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:02, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Questions for this candidate
- Background - From Wikipedia:CheckUser#CheckUser_and_privacy_policy - "This policy encourages English Wikipedia CheckUsers not to allow such connections to be made from their results, but the global privacy policy allows them to do so in the case of serious disruption, and this policy allows CheckUsers to prioritise compliance with Wikipedia policy over the personal privacy of a user who has abusively edited the encyclopedia". The meta policy is less restrictive and more cloudy in meaning, saying only "When necessary for investigation of abuse complaints".
Keeping these policies in mind, what is your personal bar for releasing the IP address of a user? ~Charmlet -talk- 23:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- About the only thing that could prompt me to actually publicly release the IP information would be extreme abuse on the level of Morning277, who (plural; "he" is a group of paid sockpuppeteers) regularly abuses both accounts and IPs, including webhosts, to add promotional content to Wikipedia.
- Of course, some abusive users' IPs are inadvertently released by checkusers placing IP blocks. Anybody can see a checkuser noting IP blocked on an SPI case and look at the block log. If a random IP receives a
{{checkuserblock}}
around the same time, it's a good indication to others that the accounts and IP were related. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- Continuing above, consider this scenario - User:Justanothereditor publicly reveals his IP address. There is an SPI opened against him and User:Sock. In investigating this through CheckUser, you determine that User:Sock used the same IP address as User:Justanothereditor. However, it is not indistinguishable, and behavioral and other evidence makes you think that they may not be the same person. How do you close the case? ~Charmlet -talk- 23:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- Allow me to answer with a question of my own: Why would I be checking these users in the first place? If Justanothereditor publicly claimed an IP editor to be himself, then no violation of the sockpuppetry policy has occurred, and there would be no need for checkuser in any event. If behavioral evidence does not link Sock and Justanothereditor, then I would also never be checking.
- If, by fluke, I happened to notice the shared IP (for example, I might be checking a range to investigate the damage of a hard rangeblock), I would still do nothing since no evidence of sockpuppetry has been provided.
- Even if they were the same editor, editing with two different accounts in different areas of Wikipedia is not a violation of WP:ILLEGIT.
- Thus, if this were an SPI case, I would close it as "no evidence of abusive sockpuppetry provided". I've done that several times already, even not being a checkuser. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Comments
- Comments may also be submitted to the Arbitration Committee privately by emailing arbcom-en-clists.wikimedia.org. Please note that the candidate will be provided the opportunity to respond to a paraphrased version of any emailed comments; the sender's name will not be provided.
- In my dealings with him ReaperEternal has shown general competence and cluefulness, and is highly active and easily reachable on IRC, which to me is a big plus as sometimes it can be hard to track down a CU. Like with DQ before, I would say that we'd have a big bump in enwiki cu's availability on IRC if Reaper joined the CU team. Snowolf How can I help? 20:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- ReaperEternal is an excellent candidate, largely in part due to his involvement with ACC. As there's generally a constant backlog of requests waiting for a Checkuser, he would certainly be an asset to ACC and thus en.wiki. Dusti*Let's talk!* 15:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Snowolf - ReaperEternal is highly competent and clueful. Ever since he joined the SPI clerk team, he has shown a consistent talent at sorting out sockpuppetry cases as well as being generally helpful in that arena. I would gladly welcome him to the CU team. —DoRD (talk) 15:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- I've seen Reaper Eternal in action on a fair number of SPI cases, and cannot but fully recommend him - for his helpfulness and also for the real speed of his reaction to SP. kashmiri TALK 16:52, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Strong oppose - I originally thought it would be better to submit my reasoning in private, but now that I've told a few people, I thought I might as well make it public. In his Commons contribs, he made numerous personal attacks, saying "fuck you", "obvious troll is obvious", and "Russavia, you utterly disgust me with your slimy antics.". Although that situation was quite contentious, this definitely was one of the worst ways he could've handled it, and my observations of his interactions on IRC suggest that he might repeat this in the future. These are far from the temperament or patience I'd expect from a functionary and for this reason, I cannot support trusting him with my private information.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: I fully understand your point, still I beg to note that the role of a CheckUser does not really require any dispute resolution and diplomacy skills ;) kashmiri TALK 20:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) "he made numerous personal attacks" Uh, no. I really only made one insult ("fuck you"), which I later redacted and apologized for. Russavia's actions were blatant trolling of Jimbo Wales, so calling him out on it ("obvious trolling is obvious") isn't a personal attack. Saying that he disgusts me for those action, while rude, is also not a personal attack. I don't see how one episode of losing my cool against a person who was abusing commons to grossly attack another person demonstrates a pattern of personal attacks. "My observations of his interactions on IRC suggest that he might repeat this in the future." Any evidence of this? "I cannot support trusting him with my private information." So I'm untrustworthy? I work with the military.... Anyway, I wouldn't be checking you since I consider myself involved with respect to you following my strong opposition to your RFA. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- If getting along well with Russavia is a requirement for functionary status, we'll have very few qualified candidates... Mark Arsten (talk) 21:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- You should be able to get along with any user if you're a functionary. Whether these are real PAs or not, I consider them wholly below the standards I have for functionaries. I believe Reaper's comment here is rather impatient, but this is based only on my gut feeling about his comments (on IRC and on-wiki). It's not a pattern, but to me it's the most obvious example of my gut feeling that he lacks patience (the RfA oppose is one example, in my opinion, but he's free to express his own opinions).
- I won't go into the details because I know they would really frustrate him. But, I see no reason to ever show that Reaper lost his cool on-wiki like on Commons, however bad he thinks the other user is acting. You should know better than to call an established user a troll in such a manner, even if you might be right, when that's not the overall opinion of the local community. If you did this when you had CheckUser access, think of how that reflects on our community as a whole. I will retract this opposition if Reaper promises that this kind of outburst will never ever happen again, regardless of how contentious a situation is.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry Jasper, but some of the comments Russavia made were blatant trolling. As Mark says, if this is how high your bar for functionary status is (perfection times 2), we'd have nobody with the permissions at all. ~Charmlet -talk- 03:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- While I very much support strong civility enforcement, I can't say that I'm troubled by the comments. I'm pretty sure no such comments will ever be made by RE on this project, the functionaries mailing list, the CU mailing list or the CU irc channel, and so I'm much more interested in getting what is likely to be an excellent checkuser (and imo the most qualified candidate here) than discuss some heated discussions related to the Pricasso nonsense over on commons. That is obviously only my personal opinion, and Jasper is entitled to his, and Arbcom listens and reads all :) Snowolf How can I help? 20:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- I would however suggest that nowhere we've ever decided that somebody in the militar'y makes them inherently trustworthy, and I fail to see the relevance on that here (in the reply to Jasper). Likewise, I would suggest that this section is comments and not a vote, and there's no need to write "strong oppose" or "support", as what I would assume Arbcom is mostly looking for is actual information and opinions about the candidates. I would think it might be worth considering this as a way to lower temperature :) We're all just feeding opinions to the Arbs to work on :) Snowolf How can I help? 20:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not saying that working for the military makes me trustworthy. I'm saying that I'm already entrusted with sensitive information and am familiar with working with it. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- Isn't that mostly irrelevant tho? We've had people that apparently are entrusted with sensitive information IRL leak stuff before, and we've had people make claims about their RL occupations that turned out to be slightly exaggerated before. On-wiki behavior is, imo, the best indicator of on-wiki behavior. Snowolf How can I help? 12:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not saying that working for the military makes me trustworthy. I'm saying that I'm already entrusted with sensitive information and am familiar with working with it. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- (Drive-by comments, tangentially related) I think it's quite common for English Wikipedia admins to make a bit of a faux pas when they go to other wikis - I know I did back in 2009 on the English Wikinews. It's a problem that needs to be solved, but obviously that's not something to be discussed here. That being said, the ability to work with CUs from other wikis, especially Commons, is necessary as I know the CUs from here do have to ask favors from them. Focusing on the presence of this particular ability seems more useful to me, in my opinion. --Rschen7754 04:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- I would however suggest that nowhere we've ever decided that somebody in the militar'y makes them inherently trustworthy, and I fail to see the relevance on that here (in the reply to Jasper). Likewise, I would suggest that this section is comments and not a vote, and there's no need to write "strong oppose" or "support", as what I would assume Arbcom is mostly looking for is actual information and opinions about the candidates. I would think it might be worth considering this as a way to lower temperature :) We're all just feeding opinions to the Arbs to work on :) Snowolf How can I help? 20:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support Competent, skilled user with a clean record on this website, which is all I think he should be judged on. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support - Reaper is frequently on IRC and is familiar with the major sock farms and LTAs, and would be an asset to the CU team. Legoktm (talk) 23:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support - another very strong candidate where the CU tools would complement much of the work that he is already involved with at SPI.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 01:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC) - Support - I can't add more than whats already been said above but its a logical fit for the tool given the area this user works in. Kumioko (talk) 02:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support I have often seen Reaper Eternal step into a situation and calm it or resolve it with courtesy and firm authority. The CU ability will add to what he can do for the wiki; I just hope he doesn't stop doing admin stuff! --MelanieN (talk) 03:16, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Rschen7754 (CU)
Rschen7754 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Nomination statement
- Hi! I’m Rschen7754, and I am applying for the CheckUser permission on the English Wikipedia. With the recent shortage of active CheckUsers, especially between 0400 and 1000 UTC, I thought I would offer my assistance to help reduce the workload and increase availability.
I’ve been an editor since March 2005, and an admin since December 2005; I have also served as a sockpuppet investigations clerk since January, and have a good record there. I believe I can bring a different perspective to the CU team, as an editor who is a frequent participant in the recognized content processes, and who has a lot of crosswiki experience. Nowadays a lot of editors blocked from the English Wikipedia move to other Wikimedia sites, and editors blocked elsewhere frequently migrate here, while automated spam is on the rise everywhere; meanwhile, the processes to take care of this remain fairly complex. I am passionate about crosswiki issues and have dealt with several already, as detailed below. I am identified to the Foundation.
Note: I will be on vacation from August 6 through 13, and while I will make every effort to reply to questions promptly, there may be delays. --Rschen7754 17:16, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Standard questions for all candidates
- Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
- I have been a SPI clerk since January 2013, and a full clerk since March. I have had very few clerk endorsements overturned out of the many that I have endorsed, and feel that I have a good grasp on when checks should be run. I am also very familiar with crosswiki issues and policies, as a member of the Small Wikis Monitoring Team and as an admin on Meta, Wikidata, and the English Wikivoyage. I have a working relationship with many of the active stewards and English Wikipedia CUs, and I have also filed requests for CU on Commons, Meta, Wikidata, and the English Wikivoyage which were subsequently run by either local CUs or stewards.
- Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.
- I am a graduate student in computer science, and have taken networking classes - I'm definitely not an expert, but I understand the basics of IPv4 and IPv6, including rangeblocks, open proxies, shared VPS, etc.
- Do you hold advanced permissions (checkuser, oversight, bureaucrat, steward) on this or other WMF projects? If so, please list them. Also, do you have OTRS permissions? If so, to which queues?
- I have OTRS access to info-en (f), permissions, photosubmissions (f), and sister projects (f).
- I am a bureaucrat on Outreach Wiki (outreach.wikimedia.org) because I kept asking Ktr101 to give trusted users such as stewards and global sysops userrights, and he gave me the bureaucrat right in July 2013. All flags there are given on an ad-hoc basis, reflecting one's global record. [1]
- I am an oversighter (in name only) on Wikidata (d:Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Oversight/Rschen7754) as of May 2013. Following a rash of suppressions, a portion of the Wikidata community decided to elect oversighters. The global oversight policy requires a minimum of 25 supports, and mandates that either 2+ oversighters or no oversighters at all are given the oversight flag on a wiki, so that one can audit the other's actions. However, while I passed with 36 supports and 100% support/oppose ratio, none of the other 6 candidates passed - the next highest candidates got 20 supports (Sven Manguard and Courcelles). Nobody else has been brave enough to run (again), especially since the month after that, there were much fewer suppressions. I will be granted the rights upon election of a second oversighter, whenever that is. --Rschen7754 18:27, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Questions for this candidate
- Have you ever been sanctioned in any Arbitration Committee case?
- Why should we believe you are a different person now?
- The sanction was over seven years ago, when I had been editing for just over a year. At that time I was a lot less mature, onwiki and in real life, and I would not handle things the same way again. As for the case itself, I doubt that giving probation to all of the principal parties was the best solution (as some arbitrators had expressed in the voting for the proposed decision), but I accept that simply moving the hundreds of pages back after they had been moved already was just as disruptive as the initial moves done without consensus in the first place, and I know how to handle such disputes more effectively and diplomatically now. Finally, I believe that I have shown professionalism and trustworthiness in the additional responsibilities that I have acquired since then, including OTRS, SPI clerk, and adminship on other wikis. --Rschen7754 19:39, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- With responsibilities across multiple wikis, and CU activity being rather time-consuming, are you sure you'd be able to add this additional responsibility without risking being overstretched? Snowolf How can I help? 20:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- As this would replace my SPI clerkship and some of my SWMT time (since a lot of the SWMT vandals hit enwiki) I'm not that concerned; I'm sure that CU will take more time than either of those, but I feel that I can handle it. With that being said, I doubt that I would have the time to run 1000 CUs a month like some of our most active CUs (and nothing against them), but I am sure that I have enough enough time to contribute to where I could be a positive influence. --Rschen7754 23:23, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Background - From Wikipedia:CheckUser#CheckUser_and_privacy_policy - "This policy encourages English Wikipedia CheckUsers not to allow such connections to be made from their results, but the global privacy policy allows them to do so in the case of serious disruption, and this policy allows CheckUsers to prioritise compliance with Wikipedia policy over the personal privacy of a user who has abusively edited the encyclopedia". The meta policy is less restrictive and more cloudy in meaning, saying only "When necessary for investigation of abuse complaints".
Keeping these policies in mind, what is your personal bar for releasing the IP address of a user? ~Charmlet -talk- 23:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- While I know some CUs use a more relaxed standard, I fall into the camp of making efforts to protect editors from having their IP addresses released, even though the privacy policy does permit it in certain circumstances. There's direct release of this information (posting explicitly on, say, a SPI that User = IP address) and indirect release of this information (the same CU hardblocking an IP after blocking the associated named account). Direct release is almost never acceptable, and indirect release should be avoided whenever possible. However, in certain circumstances, that may have to be done to stop serious abuse from occurring (in complexity, like the Morning277 case noted by ReaperEternal, or time-sensitive matters where a rangeblock needs to be done against an IP-hopping determined vandal), and is allowed by the wmf:Privacy policy. I don't believe that the use of open proxies needs to be hidden, and neither do shared VPS serverfarms; also, spambots are not people and the IP addresses are usually zombie computers / open proxies / shared VPS anyway. I have proposed a similar philosophy at d:Wikidata:Requests for comment/Defining CheckUser#Disclosure for the Wikidata project, even though we will not be having local CheckUsers anytime soon. Also for the record, note Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 7#Checkuser practice regarding the association of IP addresses to accounts. --Rschen7754 01:05, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- Continuing above, consider this scenario - User:Justanothereditor publicly reveals his IP address. There is an SPI opened against him and User:Sock. In investigating this through CheckUser, you determine that User:Sock used the same IP address as User:Justanothereditor. However, it is not indistinguishable, and behavioral and other evidence makes you think that they may not be the same person. How do you close the case? ~Charmlet -talk- 23:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- Well, with the exception of cases that are pretty clear-cut, CUs generally do not close cases; they get left to a clerk to handle, so that there's another set of eyes looking at the behavioral evidence again. And the basis for doing a CU in this case is questionable at best, with no evidence of multiple accounts. But if you're asking about a scenario where it is found that two editors share an IP yet are quite distinct... in this case there would be no grounds to publicly disclose a connection. --Rschen7754 01:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- If appointed, will you be willing to help out on the checkuser queue at ACC? Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Comments
- Comments may also be submitted to the Arbitration Committee privately by emailing arbcom-en-clists.wikimedia.org. Please note that the candidate will be provided the opportunity to respond to a paraphrased version of any emailed comments; the sender's name will not be provided.
- Rschen is significantly active cross-wiki, which to me is a big plus as many of our LTAs happen to enjoy being active on multiple projects, and is easy to reach, and like with ReaperEternal above, his addition to the team would significantly increase the coverage on IRC. Snowolf How can I help? 20:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- As an SPI clerk, Rschen7754 has always shown good judgement when dealing with cases, and I agree that his cross-wiki experience would be a great asset to the CU team. —DoRD (talk) 15:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- I concur with the above. He's also available at times when CheckUsers are really scarce, which is a big plus.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:08, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support - Technically competent enough and an SPI clerk. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support Experienced, trustworthy user. No concerns at all. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support Rschen is extremely active cross-wiki and is usually online when the other CUs are asleep, which will be great for quickly dealing with LTAs. Legoktm (talk) 23:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support as an excellent candidate with good experience in SPI.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 01:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC) - Oppose - This user is technically proficient but has on multiple occasions acted rashly and innaproprately towards other editors. Should not even be an admin let alone have access to this. Kumioko (talk) 02:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- Could you please provide supporting evidence for your statement? NW (Talk) 14:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- Again, I am not going to turn this into a circus because I dared to oppose. It doesn't look like its going to matter anyway judging by the other support votes. Kumioko (talk) 14:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- There's no opposes or supports here, it's not a vote. It's commenting for the benefit of Arbcom which will then review the comments and take them into account in the decisions, so either you're interested in that, or it's pointless to make a statement and then when arbcom is trying to take it into account refuse to offer diffs to help them do that.... Snowolf How can I help? 16:46, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- Noted and I understand that. As I noted on NW's talk page offline from this discussion, I do not have any faith that my comments would be used or taken seriously anyway and I believe this "election" is just more or less a show for the sake of it. Additially, my oppose, for whatever reason I gave should be given just as much weight as the Support's because he's a good guy! If your not looking for further clarification of why people are supporting these candidates then frankly all this argumentation and badgering for my oppose is inappropriate. Me and this user both, mutually, feel the other is ill-suited to certain tasks. I voted here and I expect if I run for something this editor will vote their conscience in my election. You and the other Arb's do not have to like it or even acknoledge it. You don't even have to consider it. But I do not feel this user should have the tools. I should not need to spend the next 3 months writing an arbitration brief because of my lack of confidence in this editor. Kumioko (talk) 17:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- Everyone will review the comments here before casting their final votes on appointments. What would be useful is not an 'arbitration brief', what would be highly useful is a few diffs that provide evidence of the candidate acting "rashly and innaproprately towards other editors". That statement won't persuade anyone to oppose an appointment, but a few clear diffs very easily could. Evidence-less comments on either side are not particularly useful. Courcelles 15:58, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- If the Arbcom is just going to hound opposers for justification and just let supporters give their opinions then there is no point in bothering to oppose. Do whatever you want with my comments. So far it seems like their minds are already pretty much made up anyway. Kumioko (talk) 16:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
AGK, I am going to stray a little ways from civil here and tell you that these days, Arbcom is laughable to about 90% of the community that knows what Arbcom is and what it does. It has gone so far off its mandate its unrecognizable. Arbcom is a joke, so if you feel that my comments about my lack of confidence and trust in this admin is laughabe, then that's completely up to you. As I said above, this process of screening candidates is basically a joke and you and I both know that the Arbcom has all but made up their minds which candidates are going to be selected. This process is just a front and the Arbcom is nothing more than a kangaroo court. So since you have posted your feelings and I have posted mine. I don't care if every other editor trusts him or if Arbcom thinks he is a shoe in. I do not trust him to have access to the information he will have access too and I think he will abuse it due to the wide latitude and discretion given to those who have access to this tools set. Since you and your pals insist on pressing the matter here: Ever since Rschen began editing he has had problems. Starting way way back when they first started editing in 2006. It is represented in his affiliations with the US roads project and it continues on through to today. I'm not going to document every single instance but will point out some in the beginning and some in more recent times to show a pattern of misconduct that has followed the user. Since Rschen is an admin, that status offers him significant protection from prosecution.
- He got off to a rough start in 2006
- 19 March 2006 - User blocked for 24 hours for violating 3RR
- July 2006 - User was sanctioned by the Arbcom. That sanction was lifted in March 2007. This has particular importance because he continues to affiliate with US roads to this day and that project has a long and sordid history. Several of the Arbcom members are aware of this and you all can discuss that projects issues amongst yourselves.
- August 2006 - Blocked for making disruptive edits
- 2006 - More of the same here.
- Etc. etc all the way through to the current day.
- General
- I have myself been the target of his comments.
- User started and is closely affiliated to WikiProject U.S. Roads. A WikiProject widely known to act aggressively to non members of the project who work or try and do anything with or too articles in that project.
- He has been brought to AN/ANI/3RR and other venues multiple times. Some have been pointless bickering by vandals and the like but several had merit. They were dismissed as warnings or someone felt the need to justify his actions because he was an "admin". You can look through his talk page, through his congtributions, look through his actions on the sister wikis, etc.
Now there is a lot more than that, but as I stated before I believe the Arbcom already has their mind made up so I am not going to invest a bunch of extra time to research and do the Arbcom's job of due diligence knowing they don't care about my opinions. Especially when I don't have access to the Admin tools to do the job properly because I am not allowed to help the project and knuckleheads like Rschen are. So, if you want to find out if the candidate is worth their salt, you have access to all the tools and can see way more than I can. So you'll excuse me if I am less than impressed with your stupid insults and badgering of my oppose. Especially when you allow all the supports to stand without so much as a single clarifying question. Now you can go ahead and make insinuations, dismiss my comments, justify why they are a good candidate and promote them as you already intended to do. Same as Guerrillo. Kumioko (talk) 22:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- For the record, I discussed the Highways ArbCom case with ArbCom in my application and disclosed it in my nomination above. I have been open with the Arbitration Committee about my editing history, even past what I believe they would have found on their own, considering that I became an admin long before some of them started editing at all. Finally, all you have done is prove that I had problems in 2006, which I freely admit. --Rschen7754 21:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- And if Arbcom overlooks it then that's on them. But I still don't trust you with these tools and don't think you should have them. Additionally, this isn't all of it, there are still problems with your actions and attitude in the current times. I'm just not going to go digging and wasting my time when I don't beleive that any amount of time, effort or research is going to do anything. As I told the I levied y oppose and all the badgering for my oppose frankly, was complete and utter bullshit from people who should know better and are supposed to be setting the standards. It just proves how far fro grace the current day Arbcom has fallen. Kumioko (talk) 02:24, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Because this is not a vote, as you've been told. You are submitting a comment to aid the Arbitration Committee's decisions. If you do not wish to do so, there's no point in commenting here. I add that people on Arbcom might take you more seriously if you provided proofs instead of vaguely pointing in the directions of some stuff in 2006 and implying guilt by association with a wikiproject. I'm sorry, but it all looks very petty, and your repeated and loud assertions that arbcom doesn't care don't justify your refusal to back up your claims. Snowolf How can I help? 09:28, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- And if Arbcom overlooks it then that's on them. But I still don't trust you with these tools and don't think you should have them. Additionally, this isn't all of it, there are still problems with your actions and attitude in the current times. I'm just not going to go digging and wasting my time when I don't beleive that any amount of time, effort or research is going to do anything. As I told the I levied y oppose and all the badgering for my oppose frankly, was complete and utter bullshit from people who should know better and are supposed to be setting the standards. It just proves how far fro grace the current day Arbcom has fallen. Kumioko (talk) 02:24, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- For the record, I discussed the Highways ArbCom case with ArbCom in my application and disclosed it in my nomination above. I have been open with the Arbitration Committee about my editing history, even past what I believe they would have found on their own, considering that I became an admin long before some of them started editing at all. Finally, all you have done is prove that I had problems in 2006, which I freely admit. --Rschen7754 21:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support I rarely cast a comment on this (actually I think I have never done so before) but I consider that Rschen is a well-suited candidate for checkuser. He knows the robes and is technically prepared. — ΛΧΣ21 02:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support - Rschen is a very active SPI clerk and has much countervandalism experience on multiple wikis. He is definitely qualified for CheckUser access. TCN7JM 02:45, 7 August 2013 (UTC)