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

Kww

 * Nomination statement (250 words max.)

My main administrative activity on Wikipedia has always been dealing with sockpuppetry in its various forms. I think anyone reviewing my record at WP:SPI will note both my diligence and my accuracy rate. I believe sockpuppetry to be both the most severe and most common form of abuse on Wikipedia. "Severe", because it undermines the basic faith we all need to have that we are actually reaching group consensus, and "common" because I find that in every long term disruption, someone resorts to it in an effort to prevail.

Standard questions for all candidates
Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
 * A: As noted above, review my record at SPI. I'm a frequent contributor, and my record at accurately detecting socks speaks for itself.

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


 * A: I received my Computer Engineering degree over 30 years ago, and have been active in communications and networking ever since. I'm fully technically competent to understand and analyze all data presented to a Checkuser.

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: No.

Questions for this candidate
Being a new checkuser, would you be willing to help with the Checkuser backlog at WP:ACC as there are usually up to 6 requests waiting about 5 days+? -- DQ  (t)   (e)  19:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * A: Yes, although I would like to gain a better understanding of exactly why the backlog exists. That tends to imply that the checks are more laborious, and the reason for that isn't obvious to me.

Would you be proactive in looking at the open cases at SPI to see if they could use a checkuser? -- DQ  (t)   (e)  19:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * A: Absolutely. Many users are reluctant to request a checkuser, and their case winds up taking far longer to process than it should.&mdash;Kww(talk) 21:27, 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 21:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * A: Not much. I have edited on Commons and the Dutch Wikipedia, and communicated with admins on Commons for purposes of tracking puppeteers (Chace Watson was very active on Commons, as well as English Wikipedia]].&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

In your own words, what are the main differences between the WMF's CheckUser policy and the privacy policy? –MuZemike 21:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * A: Two different, but closely related, topics. The CheckUser policy focuses on who will have access to private data, while the privacy policy focuses on when and how that private data will be collected.

Under what circumstances do the above policies give on the release of CheckUser data? –MuZemike 21:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * A: The release has to be a necessary response to the abuse. The user has to be violating policy and the release has to be necessary to combat the disruption. In general, it isn't necessary to reveal sufficient personal information to allow identification. Linking two accounts, for example, doesn't reveal anything that the user hasn't already revealed, but it's enough to allow dealing with most abuse. In general, it's revealing IP addresses that is considered unnecessary: it's very rarely necessary to release the IP address to combat the disruption.&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to complete the answer: there are other cases that don't come up much: a valid subpoena, the user in question actually requesting that the information be released; a threat to the rights, property, or safety of the foundation; releasing the information to ISPs and similar entities when vandalism is persistent. The one remaining case in the policy is one I would need to have an example of before I could speak to properly: I'm not sure how a problem with a spider could require release of information to anyone but the owner of the spider.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:55, 28 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 21:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * A:Checkuser requests against admins are normally dealt with via e-mail.&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:49, 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) 17:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * A: I won't pretend to more experience than I actually have in this area. I understand the theory of proxying, and have dealt with sockpuppeteers that used it. Primarily Brexx, and I discuss his use of proxies here and here. In that case, it was convincing behavioural evidence combined with IP addresses that simply made no sense: a UAE editor editing out of Atlanta. As a checkuser, I would expect to have to learn to deal with technical testing of proxies, and would require help from other checkusers in the beginning. I'm familiar with Procseebot and Torbot, and would expect to use their results to help guide me.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments

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


 * The user claims a record of accuracy. User has in the past misread a faked autoblock request, and used SPI seemingly outside CU criteria. The issue is not simply the mistakes - mistakes happen - but that I haven't seen anything that shows how the user is going to avoid these and related issues in the future. Gimmetoo (talk) 14:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I claimed a record of accuracy, not inerrancy. If you have specifics regarding your belief that I have gone outside CU criteria, I'm interested in knowing examples so that I may discuss them.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Which CU criterion supports using CU on an admin's alt account? Gimmetoo (talk) 15:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * F:"Request doesn't fit any of the criteria but you believe a check is warranted anyway". At the time the CU was requested, you had refused to acknowledge the existence of Gimmetoo from the Gimmetrow account, and were simply claiming to be Gimmetrow without providing any evidence whatsoever that you were, indeed, Gimmetrow. You were given explicit permission to unblock the Gimmetoo account from the Gimmetrow account as a method of taking ownership. You were asked to make edits acknowledging the relationship between the two accounts from the Gimmetrow account. You refused to do so. You have, to date, refused to explain your reason for refusing to acknowledge the relationship between the two accounts from your admin account. Eliminating the possibility of admin impersonation is very much a legitimate reason to request checkuser. You have, since that time, demonstrated that Gimmetoo has access to data sent to Gimmetrow, so everyone proceeds on the assumption that Gimmetoo is, indeed, a legitimate alternate. That it was very difficult to come to that conclusion is entirely your responsibility.&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There are multiple problems with this response. First, at the time the CU was requested - by you - I was blocked with no talk page access, and nobody had tried to contact me before the block without warning. So, did you or did you not think this account was an alt account of an admin? If not, then there was no sock. If so, then it was an alt account, declared as such, and not a sock. But if you thought it was a sock of an admin, CU criteria says to report it to the arb committee. Also, you explcitly threatened me not to unblock with the gimmetrow account. (And, you were WP:INVOLVEd) Your failure to acknowledge or understand any of this doesn't make me more confident. Gimmetoo (talk) 16:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * First, note that I did not block either account, and no, I did not believe Gimmetoo to be a sock of an admin. I believed Gimmetoo to be an editor impersonating an admin. My only action on the block was to deny the unblock request. Note, as well, that the very fact that the checkuser was run shows that other people believed my suspicions to be valid and that the checkuser was appropriate. A checkuser is not a robot: it is always the checkuser's responsibility to ensure that the request being made is valid.&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Really? You really believed this account was an impersonator? Do I need to show diffs where you say otherwise? And yes, you had blocked the account previously and inappropriately, so as far as I'm concerned you were and will forever remain WP:INVOLVEd and barred from administrative action with regards to me. Denying an unblock is an administrative action, and quite a significant one. This all happened over a year ago. You should have just acknowledged now that you messed up back then. You did not and have not, and that means I consider you, at present, unfit for the CU role. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If you are referring to the July 30 block, that was for edit warring, and I will stand by that one as well. WP:INVOLVED doesn't say "once an admin blocks an account, he can never take administrative actions against that account again". At that time, I wasn't aware that Gimmetrow was refusing to acknowledge the existence of Gimmetoo. That came up at later at ANI, and I based later actions upon later knowledge. Most of the back and forth is here for people that are interested. I don't believe that I messed up in either case. I'm sorry that you still don't seem to recognize that your own refusal to acknowledge the Gimmetoo account from the Gimmetrow account was the primary cause of the problem. Even when I offered you a way out (by e-mailing something to Gimmetrow for Gimmetoo to say), you wouldn't do it until directly asked at ANI. I still don't understand why you were so determinedly uncooperative.&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If people want communication and cooperation, then they should start with that, and not "block first and ask questions later" without a basis in policy. You're old enough to understand human nature. Yes, you blocked me - who you were well aware was an admin - for "EW" for removing improperly sourced and verifiably false information from a biography of a living person. I do think that once an admin makes an inappropriate block, and especially when that admin refuses to acknowledge it, that admin has a COI with regard to further administrative actions about that editor. Gimmetoo (talk) 19:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * To me this looks like sour grapes. I'm much more interested in the opinions of disinterested parties, rather than those with reason to bear a grudge. Jehochman Talk 12:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm more interested in the opinions of people who support Wikipedia policies, rather than those who (for instance) use or support the use of admin tools to retain poorly sourced and verifiably false information in a biography of a living person. This user still defends that action. That alone should give pause, but Kww has also misread an autoblock notice, filed a false SPI, supported the silencing of an editor without basis in policy, and has edit-warred to remove verifiable information from an article. Kww defends all those actions. That's too many problems, and that's just from a sample size of 1. How many editors have disappeared due to Kww that we don't know about? Based on past experience with this user, I don't trust this user with privileged "checkuser" blocks. I also don't trust this user with access to private data. Gimmetoo (talk) 12:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Kevin has, in my opinion, shown an outstanding ability to do the right thing (per rules etc.) rather than the thing he'd prefer. I've by no means watched all of his admin actions, but those I do run across I've felt have been of very high quality.  This from someone who opposed him at RfA at all but his last one.  Good guy, I trust him. Hobit (talk) 17:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I want to head this off before it even starts. We are not the same user, despite our names looking somewhat similar (this was brought up at least once in the past, only bringing this up again since it's for CU access).  Kwsn   (Ni!)  18:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I support Kww, especially on the issue of CU/SPI. I have known his work for a few years now and I completely agree with Hobit on the subject of removing his personal beliefs or interests from the decision making process. Protonk (talk) 02:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per Hobit. Kww tends to adhere strictly to formal rules which is desirable in a checkuser.  He is a fine candidate.  Eluchil404 (talk) 23:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your dedicated work to SPI and I wish you luck. :) -- DQ  (t)   (e)  19:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Kww will be a great addition to the CU team. For personal characteristics, the fact that even Hobit (pretty much on the other side of the inclusion-delection ideological spectrum) supports him is telling; there really is no question about his experience in SPI-related matters. T. Canens (talk) 04:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've had a number of disagreements with Kww over what does or does not constitute a promotional link, or indicate promotionalism more generally. But none of that affects CU, so I wanted to come here to say that I strongly support his application--I admire his SPI work in general and with this tool he will be able to help us considerably.  DGG ( talk ) 01:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)