Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/2011 CUOS appointments/CU/Courcelles

Courcelles

 * Nomination statement (250 words max.)

Hello, I'm Courcelles, and I'm applying to retain the checkuser and oversight permissions following the end of my term on the Audit Subcommittee in April of next year. I've been a member of that subcommittee for nearly six months now, and an administrator here for around eighteen. In that time, I've also been semi-active as an operator of both permissions, and am frequently available on-wiki and through IRC to handle requests that come up. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them.

Standard questions for all candidates
Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
 * A: Well, in the six months I've held a CU flag, I've ran a decent number of SPI's, investigated sockpuppets of serial vandals, handled requests at ACC, and participated on the checkuser-l mailing list. Courcelles 21:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.


 * A: Well, as I've said before, I'm not a computer professional like some of the candidates, but what I haven't learned professionally, I think I have picked up through experience and lots of reading into various issues over the last few months of using the CU tool. I could already do binary arithmetic, and a lot of the day-to-day things of ranges, ISP behaviour, and user agents are learned by doing, which I have. Courcelles 21:50, 26 September 2011 (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?
 * A: I currently hold the CU and OS flags here as a member of the AUSC. I'm on OTRS, with acccess to oversight-en, info-en, and permissions. Courcelles 21:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Questions for this candidate
Being a checkuser, would you be willing to continue to help with the Checkuser backlog at WP:ACC as there are usually up to 6 requests waiting about 5 days+? -- DQ  (t)   (e)  19:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * A: I'm never great at remembering to check ACC, but I think I've been willing to take a look every time someone has poked me that there was work needed there. I'm around on IRC, and there's a backlog, just poke me, and I'll come take a look. Courcelles 21:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Would you be proactive in looking at the open cases at SPI to see if they could use a checkuser after your term ends on AUSC? -- DQ  (t)   (e)  19:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * A: Of course. The clerk system is a great one at workflow management, but CU's are, and should be, looking at other cases on the SPI page to see if their services would be useful. Courcelles 21:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

As a CheckUser, you will likely, from time to time, coordinate and communicate with the Stewards. What cross-wiki experience can you bring that can help out not only the Stewards, but editors, administrators, and CheckUsers on other wikis? –MuZemike 21:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * A:Well, I'm an administrator on Meta and the Commons, as well as a global rollbacker. I've been somewhat active on the chekcuser-l mailing list and the wikimedia-checkuser channel investigating cross-wiki sockpuppetry, as well as reporting socks, either on small wikis or identified via CU here, to the stewards for global action. Courcelles 22:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

In your own words, what are the main differences between the WMF's CheckUser policy and the privacy policy? –MuZemike 21:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * A: The privacy policy is the overarching policy, and the CU policie is designed to apply the general privacy policy to the pecific case of the CheckUser tool. To say there are any (significant) differences is not something I would agree with, just that the privacy policy has a much bigger focus, covering more types of restricted access and non-publc data than just that accessible through the CU tool. Courcelles 02:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Under what circumstances do the above policies give on the release of CheckUser data? –MuZemike 21:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * A: Bottom line is that the number of times you can give actual Checkuser data, as opposed to cryptic treasure map answers about your conclusions is fairly limited. Actual raw CU data (which I will define for this answer only as IP's, UA's, or anything derived from the interface, as opposed to answers like )may only be revealed under subpoena, if the user in question authorises it (and even then, I'd be highly disinclined to post it publicly, as it could compromise another user's privacy in some scenarios), if it is truly and fully necessary to do so to protect the projects, the public, or a user; to file an abuse report with an ISP.  The policies allow us to reveal information about web spiders and the like, but is much more, if not entirely, a SysAdmin problem than a CheckUser one. The general overarching rule is that if you must release information, and you rarely have to, keep it as absolutely quiet as you can while still accomplishing what caused the release to be allowable under policy.  ANd if you don't absolutely have to, say nothing at all. Courcelles 02:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Give some examples on when CheckUser requests of a sensitive nature or discovered CheckUser results of interest that would not be posted on-wiki. –MuZemike 21:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * A:Well, as the top of WP:SPI says, any request that involves private information or possible sockpuppetry by an administrator should be breached in e-mail. The converse of course applies, that if a check reveals something either hinting at admin sockpuppetry, or something surprising, alerting other checkusers for advice and double-checking of what you saw on the CU screen either before, or in place of, a public report is best. As we've all seen, sometimes something that looks strange on the CU results screen actually has a perfectly logical explanation that another CU may be able to provide. Courcelles 01:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

In April 2011, you were appointed to ArbCom's Audit Subcommittee. What experiences do you bring from there that would be an asset for you as a full CheckUser? Note that I am not looking for specifics, but more general experiences as a result of your time on the subcommittee. –MuZemike 21:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * A: Well, your third question directly hits against something the AUSC reported on earlier in the year, whether tying an IP to an account was permissible under policy. AUSC work is very much a crash course in everything that functionaries deal with in using these tools, as not only does an AUSC member have to be fully capable of using them (I continue to insist that opining on the validity of a tool's use you don't know how to use is unwise), AUSC members have to be able to determine (though discussion, to be fair) whether certain usages of the tools was legitimate.  AUSC members have to learn, quickly, as much as they can about the tools to be any use on that subcommittee, and to internalise the policies related to their use, and what constitutes misuse.  Courcelles 02:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Checkuers are often relied on to determine whether someone is using anonymising proxies to perform their sockpuppetry. Please describe your general experience in this area. Please also describe, preferably with an example, how you (would have) suspected, identified, confirmed, and blocked a socking open proxy on Wikipedia. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * My general experience with proxies has been mainly chasing a few sockmasters who use them, so my experience here isn't great. Sometimes, as a checkuser, you already are deeply suspicious of an IP, if an master you know is in one country suddenly appears in the middle of nowhere, for instance, you're going to take a closer look. Also, if XFF data shows up, you're going to look closer. (There are other reasons you might want to run a proxy check, but I'm trying to stay away from WP:BEANS here). Once you dig deeper, you might find the IP or range on a list of proxies, which tells you you're onto something (or see that one of the proxy blocking bots previously blocked it).  But that's just an indicator, and at this step, the absence of evidence is not that meaningful.  To prove an IP is an open proxy, you really need to connect through it using the browser, either through navigation or changing the proxy settings, if I can di that, it's definitely an open proxy. Given we have a foundational policy against open proxies, if an IP is confirmed as one, it gets hardblocked for a couple months, or longer if it is long-term open. (The blocking is more necessary because the only reason I'm likely to ever check for an open proxy is if there is abuse happening.) Courcelles 14:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments

 * Comments may also be submitted to the Arbitration Committee privately by emailing 


 * In my limited observations of Courcelles I have found him to be an articulate and good faith editor with the significant authorities that he has on WP, so I support him continuing in CU and OS. Pine talk 19:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Courcelles is a well seasoned member of the AUSC and I would fully support for turning in the audit flag (or keeping it for that matter) for the CU flag. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  17:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Courcelles strikes me as both neutral and transparent in their actions. Jehochman Talk 12:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have a generally favorable impression of Courcelles' judgment in his current roles. If he wants to continue doing CU and Oversight work after rotating off the audit committee, that should be beneficial to Wikipedia. --Orlady (talk) 02:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Really another no-brainer. Very helpful as a checkuser. T. Canens (talk) 04:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Abuse response on users has been stopped with some exceptions, such as, a couple weeks ago by me.   Ebe 123   (+) $talk Contribs$ 22:46, 7 October 2011 (UTC)