Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/2012 CUOS appointments/OS/NuclearWarfare

NuclearWarfare

 * Nomination statement (250 words max.)
 * Hi, I’m NW. I’ve been an editor for about four and a half years and have been involved in editing a number of diverse topic areas across the encyclopedia. I have also been an administrator and OTRS volunteer for two or three years now and have tried to assist editors as best I can. I hope to continue that if I am appointed as an oversighter. Let me know if you have any questions and I’ll do my best to answer them.

Standard questions for all candidates
Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
 * My statement above is brief, but should speak for itself. Briefly: I have administrated here and on Commons, served as a Arbitration Clerk, and done a fair amount of anti-vandalism that involved reporting matters for oversight. However, while experience is necessary, I feel that the role is more about trust than anything else. I would hope that I have most of the community's, and I would appreciate your comments. NW ( Talk ) 04:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.
 * I imagine that, as Ponyo says in her reply to this question, "the Oversight role does not so much require specific technical expertise as it does sound judgement and a firm grasp of what information falls under the Wikimedia Foundation's Oversight policy." NW ( Talk ) 04:02, 25 June 2012 (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 yes, respectively. I have access to the Permissions, photosubmission (f), info-en (f), sister projects, and Donations queuse on OTRS. NW ( Talk ) 23:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Questions for this candidate

 * Please describe your familiarity with the Wikimedia Privacy Policy, Meta Oversight Policy, ENWP Oversight policy, and ENWP Outing policy. Also, without breaching privacy, for each of these policies, give an example of a time that you have used the policy when evaluating a situation or taking action. Pine ✉ 01:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The way I see it, the privacy and oversight policies are all fairly straightforward. They boil down to this: don't give out any information to 1) anyone who isn't authorized AND 2) does not need to know. As I am not a functionary, I have not had much interactions with either of them, so I don't think I can point to anything onwiki. And that really is how it should be&mdash;I have hardly discussed any of the OTRS work I have done onwiki (which isn't that substantial, but is worth mentioning) because I feel that it's better to avoid discussion of confidential matters onwiki. The outing policy is pretty straightforward too: any personal information that someone has not self-disclosed is off limits. This should not be construed in a manner endorsing the use of oversight to avoid scrutiny, but in general, the outing policy is designed to make editors focus on the edits, not the editor's identity. That's the principle I would try to abide by. NW ( Talk ) 01:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Why did you choose "Nuclear Warfare" as an account name? Nobody Ent 02:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Requests for adminship/NuclearWarfare 2, question 6 (in the collapse box). NW ( Talk ) 13:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Any intention on following through with with rename you discussed at the time? Nobody Ent 23:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably not. It came up a while back on my talk page (User talk:NuclearWarfare/Archive 25), and nothing has really changed for me since then. NW ( Talk ) 23:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments

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


 * Oppose I have concerns about granting NW additional tools that contain user's private information after he was involved in an incident that resulted in the outing of two Wiki editors. I will note that NW did not intentionally release information or provide personal information directly, but was involved in a series of discussions that led to the outings.  I also note that NW was appalled at what happened, but I would feel more comfortable if the tools were in more seasoned hands.   GregJackP   Boomer!   02:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I've known NuclearWarfare for most of the time he has been active on the project and have had a chance to see him work in difficult conditions as an arb clerk and admin. I have no doubt he will properly wield the oversight tool.  MBisanz  talk 02:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - some mixed feelings but overall I've seen this user do a good job along several dimensions (admin, clerk, editor, etc.) Volunteer Marek 21:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  Support For the exact reasons stated by Gregjackp. I believe he needs more maturity and judgment before having these tools . <span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 21:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment- I think the unfortunate previous incident served as a learning experience for NW, and he may now be even more vigilant about editors' personal information having seen the consequences of even a small privacy breach. I would like to hear NW's takeaway from the experience, and would consider striking my opposition depending on his response.    My biggest reservation is that he is young and may not have the life experience to fully appreciate what's at stake for editors with jobs, families, business reputations, etc.  Based on the nature of the previous incident, I have a concern that NW may be naive about others' malignant motives and willingness to exploit his access to information. Despite the previous incident, I acknowledge that NW has a lot of potential, and my comments are not a personal indictment against him. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 19:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how much I can really reply to your or GJP's comments without revealing details of the incident. There are implications in GJP's statements that I think are misleading, but I am not willing to discuss it onwiki any further. (Most of?) ArbCom should know what I'm talking about; if they have any questions, I will of course be willing to discuss the matter with them. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 03:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Your judgment regarding editors' privacy is pretty important, so I'd prefer that you discuss this out in the open and not behind closed doors. I think you can do that without compromising anyone's personal information.  I think it's fair to summarize the incident as follows:


 * You had an off wiki chat with a then active wiki editor and with a banned editor who turned out to be Timothy Usher, a user previously banned for outing wiki editors.  In the course of that conversation, you discussed speculation about whether two active editors had any real life connection with each other or whether they may be sock puppets.  You had access to checkuser logs snd oversighted  info about the two editors you were discussing.  You disclosed information about those editors' locations to Timothy Usher and the other wiki editor you were chatting with. That information was used by Timothy Usher to assist his outing of the two editors.  Timothy Usher contacted, among others, both of the editors via their real life email addresses and contacted at least one of the editors' employers. The editors' real identities and personal lives were then discussed on various internet sites known for harassing wiki editors.  When you were made aware of what happened following your chat with Timothy Usher, you provided chat transcripts of the conversations to Arb and discussed the matter with the editors and Arb.


 * You said that you were unaware that the person you were chatting with was Timothy Usher. When you made the disclosures in the course of the chat, you did not perceive that you were violating editors' privacy, and you did not accurately perceive the motives or abilities of the people who were chatting with you about private information you had access to with your admin and clerk tools.


 * I think the community deserves a bit more transparency here. In my view, this privacy breach is something that should weigh heavily on the community's collective mind unless you can articulate what went wrong and how you will better protect editors' privacy in the future. I think you can speak to this in general and without disclosing any private details about anyone. I hope that you will take the opportunity to do so.<b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 05:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "You had access to checkuser logs and oversighted info about the two editors you were discussing." I can assure you that he did not - checkuser and oversight logs and data are never provided to anyone who does not have access to those tools, and are handled in accordance with the Foundation's Privacy Policy and our local wiki's policies regarding the use of those tools. As NW has never been a functionary, he has never had access to this data. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  non-admin (t/a/c) 15:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I can assure you that he did have access to that information in this particular case. I don't know if he had direct access to the logs or if the information was shared with him by another checkuser, but there's no question he had the information, and he disclosed information about the editor' ip addresses and locations to Timothy Usher. I do not believe NW will deny that he had access to the data.  I was under the impression that admins could view checkuser logs even if they don't have the tool.  In any event, NW had access to the data in this instance. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 16:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect here, Minor4th; the editor in question revealed his own information on another Wikimedia project, by linking his username to his IP address, which was unusually specific in its geolocation; this information was removed from public view at the recommendation of English Wikipedia arbitrators when it was identified during the investigation of the complaint, but long after it had been collected by third parties. No checkuser data was provided to NuclearWarfare, only the general information that checkusers are permitted to share, even onwiki. Risker (talk) 17:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Risker, it may be true that one of the editors linked a username to an IP address, but the information NW disclosed was about two different editors. The fact remains, NW had the chat with Timothy Usher and disclosed information about two editors derived from checkuser results. Is it NW's position that such a disclosure is ok? If that's his position, then he should just say so.   In my view,  it is really irrelevant whether the banned editor would have ultimately made the right connections without confirming information through NW -- NW should have protected the information. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 21:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * First off, it has been quite a while since this incident, so my memory may be faulty. I have looked back through a few emails, and they seemed to imply that the information I stated was along the lines of "According to Checkuser X, who I spoke with offwiki, User A and User B have logged onto Wikipedia from different workplace IP addresses repeatedly." I believe that if I were a checkuser and discovered such information, it would be permissible for me to state such if another Wikipedian were pursuing a sockpuppetry investigation.<P>Now would I? No. These days, a statement from me in those circumstances would be "I do not believe that User A and User B are the same editor Full Stop. But this is as far as I am willing to discuss this matter onwiki. If the Arbitration Committee has additional concerns, they are welocme to contact me. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 00:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. That is all I was looking for - an indication from you that you would handle things differently if you were faced with those circumstances today. I am changing my oppose to support. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 00:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "quite a while" is how long ago? Gimmetoo (talk) 16:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * September 2010, plus or minus a few months. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 18:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * To further clarify, checkuser logs are only visible to those with the checkuser right; they are not visible to administrators, and I think even stewards have to grant themselves checkuser locally in order to view the logs. In any event, these logs only indicate who checked what username or IP address and the stated reason for doing so (i.e. "18:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC) - Hersfold got IP addresses for User:Hersfold non-admin (obvious sock)"); individual log entries do not provide any private data. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  non-admin (t/a/c) 18:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - taking into the account the concerns about the accidental and unintended outing, I still strongly believe that NW is a net positive and will be a good addition to the oversight team. When someone makes a mistake and is "appalled" by it, I trust that they would be very careful to never make such a mistake again. We all learn from our mistakes and it is better that this mistake was made earlier (before being an OS) than later where if NW was an OS, he would be coming in contact with a lot more personal information. The  Helpful  One  14:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Commeny - it concerns me that at the time, NW was both an admin and an Arbcom clerk, but he did not have the good judgment to avoid a conversation with a party to a case about another (opposing) party. The outing resulted in the other party losing his job due to off-Wiki harassment and a subsequent loss of over half of his annual income.  As both an admin and a clerk, he should have completely avoided the situation.   GregJackP   Boomer!   18:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - all round good egg and trustworthy William M. Connolley (talk) 21:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support As someone who is notoriously skittish about trust and privacy on the internet, it should mean something that there is no user I trust more than NW. I've felt this way for a rather long time, too.  S ven M anguard   <font color="F0A804">Wha?  23:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hands more seasoned are no protection against a hand's ability to make a mistake; or arrive under hand. My first impression of NW was a reaction to his name. I remember thinking: "That's a damn strong name; I'll be keeping an eye out to see if your strong enough to carry it" He was; and is! I'll not trade what I know for the myth of seasoned hands. My76Strat (talk) 01:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support My experience with NW is that he is a very fair person with quite good judgment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support NW is trustworthy. As an arbcom clerk and at WP:AE his judgement has been sound, sometimes in tricky situations. Mathsci (talk) 14:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Has good judgement abilities (go find a job in the court).-- Ankit Maity <sup style="color:magenta;">Talk <sub style="color:green;">Contribs 15:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Experienced, level headed, has more than the usual allotment of "clue". KillerChihuahua ?!? 16:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Clueful and trustworthy. Drmies (talk) 18:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - Fair and reasonable, echoing much of the above. Tarc (talk) 13:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - Good candidate. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 15:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Opposes doesn't convinces me much. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 12:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ambivalent. The issue above from September 2010 is significant - NW revealed info to a banned user that led to outing. Shortly before that, NW used administrative tools in an incident that showed NW had no understanding of real-live privacy issues . NW apparently didn't learn from that one. It's nearly two years later, andI perhaps NW has learned from these experiences, but then again, perhaps not. If NW were going for CU I would oppose much more strongly. Gimmetoo (talk) 13:53, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Trusted candidate. Everyone here is a human being and everyone can and does make a mistake on many different occasions as nobody in this world is perfect. Nuclear Warfare is well experienced user and knows and understands the Oversight policies well enough for using the Oversight permission. TheGeneralUser (talk) 22:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)