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

Tiptoety

 * Nomination statement (250 words max.)
 * Hi all. I've been an editor here at the English Wikipedia for a little over 5 years now and an administrator for around 4. I feel that my tenure here has proven my dedication to improving the project and serving the Wikimedia community as a whole. With regards to oversight, I am well versed in both the global and local oversight policies as well as the privacy policy, and have been a local oversighter on Commons since April of 2010. In my time as an oversighter on Commons I have made a goal of handling requests quickly and thoroughly, something I feel is important when dealing with oversight requests. Additionally, in my role as a CheckUser here on the English Wikipedia I have come across various situations where I would have been aided by having access to the oversight tools. Thanks for your consideration.

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.
 * As stated above, I am familiar with the use of the Oversight extension as I have had access to the tools on Commons since early 2010. Additionally, I have experience dealing with subjects of articles in my role as an OTRS team leader where often they feel that libelous content has been published about them on Wikipedia.

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?


 * English Wikipedia, CheckUser
 * Commons - CheckUser, Oversight.
 * Meta - Checkuser, Bureaucrat.
 * OTRS - Access to all queues in my role as an OTRS team leader (administrator).
 * Global - Global rollback, Global Sysop.

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✉ 01:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Pine. As stated above, all of my actions as a CheckUser both here and on other projects as well as my actions as an Oversighter on Commons and as an OTRS team leader are governed by the Wikimedia Privacy Policy. Each and every time I look at processing a CheckUser request I ensure that I disseminate the least amount of information possible to ensure that I am complying with the Privacy Policy. An example of such can be found here where, given the long term nature of this sockpuppeteer I likely could have more specific information such as "same small ISP" (only an example) and I chose not to. As for the Meta Oversight Policy (which I refer to as the "Global" Oversight Policy), it governs the use and access to the tool on all foundation wikis. Given the Commons does not have its only Oversight Policy, I always refer to the Global Oversight Policy when reviewing a request for suppression. I am unable to provide a specific example as they are handled via email and contain information not available to "the public." The English Wikipedia Oversight Policy governs the use of Oversight only on this project. It provides rules for how the tools are accessed, used, and under what circumstances revdeletion should be used in lieu of Suppression (Oversight). Generally speaking, the only time I have used this policy was when I was trying to determine if I should just revdelete something or send an email to the Oversight list as well. Lastly the Outing Policy, which is a subsection of the Harassment Policy outlines prohibited actions associated with providing personal real life information about an editor. This can include, but is not limited to, phone numbers, real life names, addresses, social security cards, and dates of birth. An important factor in dealing with outing is to treat every post with personal information in it like it is real. Confirming or denying the accuracy of the information only adds flames to the fire. On a more personal note, I have been outed many times before and subject to real life harassment as a result of my activities here. As such, combating outing and ensuring a safe working environment here is very important to me.  Tiptoety  talk 05:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Question about this edit . If an editor comes in with a clear and obvious knowledge of a subject, but is banned, what do you do? You know, or you believe, that the editor is making unquestionably good contributions to the project.  But you know he is breaking the rules. Do you follow the law? As you did in this case.  Or something else, in case what? 86.182.14.133 (talk) 21:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)  This IP is Nangparbat Darkness Shines (talk) 18:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see my oppose, below and the subsequent discussion with one of your supporters. As documented, you responded to a notification on your talk page with an indication that while you had taken no action with your tools you had nevertheless protected the article for a few days. You covered this in the article edit summary with "persistent sockpuppetry" as the reason. There were 2 unregistered users each with 1 edit on the article in question and no edits anywhere else. There was no recent or ongoing vandalism on the article. On reflection, examining the evidence, was it (a) appropriate to protect the article, (b) use "persistent sockpuppetry" as the reason, (c) not answer that specific question when requested by me on your talk page and at ANI (d) apparently use the privileged access you have to justify your non-specific, obtuse responses. Finally, do you agree that accurate edit summaries detailing Administrator actions are important and if granted with ability to Oversight how will you ensure that edit summaries adequately describe your actions while maintaining appropriate discretion? I had not intended to put these questions to you but the badgering of your supporter compels me to ask you to clear up matters. Leaky  Caldron  16:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It is late my time and I just got home from work. Just dropping a note here to say I will answer this tomorrow. Thanks for understanding, Tiptoety  talk 05:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Leaky_caldron. Sorry it took me so long to reply. For one I had to go back and research in incident in question as it took place back in late November of 2011. As for the question: (a) Yes, I felt it was appropriate to protect the article. I will note that the protection was short. (b) While I will contend that the specific protection summary of "Persistent sockpuppetry" may not have been the best choice of words, I do not feel it missed the point all together. "Persistent sockpuppetry" is one of the drop-down templates in the protection interface and is commonly used when the article is protected due to socking. (c) I felt that I did answer your question to the best of my ability at AN/I, but given that I can not publicly link a user to an IP address I was and still am simply unable to go into specifics. Some specifics could include the sockmasters past which involves continued vandalism to targeted articles over a short period of time, the use of 4chan and other such sites to flood an article, or entering malicious code. (d) I think "c" answers this question. I am not trying to be obtuse. I am trying to respond to your inquiry to the extent that I am not violating a Foundation Policy. Best, Tiptoety  talk 03:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the detailed reply. In as much as any of this is relevant to your application for Oversight, it is the use of a patently incorrect edit summary. If the interface does not provide a more appropriate notice, such as "protected pending sockpuppet investigation" then it could have been typed in. Otherwise I'm sure that you could get the options on the interface amended. When edit summaries are used by Admins on functions such as protection, blocking or oversight they absolutely must be accurate and not inadvertently misleading. Persistent means a pattern of habitual behaviour, and 2 IPs each making a single edit is more than stretching the description of "persistent". That said, we are only here due to the badgering of your supporter. Good luck if successful and if you can modify the protection edit summary interface that would be very helpful. Leaky  Caldron  11:08, 27 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.


 * On April 24 Tiptoety blocked AndyTheGrump for "Slow moving edit warring at MonaVie." This was based on a total of 5 reverts over a period from 7 Feb to 19 April. As a result of extensive discussion on WP:ANI, Tiptoety's block was overturned as grossly negligent. The discussion can be reviewed at Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive748. Appointing someone to a position that is nearly impossible to audit when they have a recent history of negligent use of existing tools is an error. Hipocrite (talk) 23:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support good admin work. Nobody Ent 02:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've known Tiptoety for a long time and seen his user of similar tools with Checkuser and OTRS-admin. I have no doubt of his ability to apply those skills to the oversight right and support this request.  MBisanz  talk 02:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Tiptoety is a trustworthy long-time admin who has good judgment and will likely put the OS tools to good use. Jafeluv (talk) 06:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Hipocrite. Cooking up bad blocks on IRC and then refusing to discuss their actions is behavior that should not be compatible with being a functionary.  Skinwalker (talk) 13:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Also opposed. Hipocrite's evidence does not leave me impressed with his judgment; furthermore, this exchange was pretty bad. Biting a non-admin for calling out a clear admin mistake (note; as a non-admin, Bedford did not have any way to know what was happening because he couldn't see deleted pages) is not desirable in those we give sensitive functions to; I don't see any reason to assume he won't be equally bitey with someone who questions his oversight usage. And stressing what is "required" of someone rather than getting the problem dealt with is just process wonking of which we need none. Heimstern:Away (talk) 00:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Heim, Skinwalker, and Hipocrite: I don't want to comment either way on this candidacy at this stage, nor do I have the remotest inclination to influence your decision, but I do think we must consider that the sysop noticeboards have had a recurring problem with complainants not taking up concerns (in the first place) with the administrator in question. WP:NOTBUREAU may apply, but so too does the usual order of WP:GBU, as well as good manners and common courtesy. Hauling a contributor in front of the peanut gallery without first using a more low-key venue is rather rude, and at this I suspect every administrator has (at some point) shown annoyance. AGK  [•] 10:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I wonder, though, what's ruder - "peanut gallery without first using a more low-key venue," or blocking someone for "Slow moving edit warring at MonaVie," without nary a warning or comment after getting begged-to-block on IRC? Hipocrite (talk) 10:35, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Under normal circumstances, yes, I agree that it should be handled that way. Deleting a long-standing article because you didn't bother to check if it had been vandalized is a case that needs immediate reversal and going directly to the adminboard to get eyes on it is an entirely sensible approach. Indeed, it was the deletion that was "rather rude", not the post on ANI. Heimstern:Away (talk) 10:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Naturally, and in trying to avoid prejudging the candidacy I did ignore the context. AGK  [•] 11:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose essentially per Hipocrite. Volunteer Marek 21:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Hipocrite (I'd forgotten the King Bedford fubar). Nobody Ent 22:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose based on what I considered to be an inappropriate decision to semi-protect an article page using an inaccurate edit summary of "persistent sockpuppetry" when there was no evidence of persistent disruption. . A debatable (though potentially correct) decision but justified by an inaccurate edit summary is concerning in the context of extending Oversight permissions to this Admin.   Leaky  Caldron  10:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Well, there can be no arguing that the block of AndyTheGrump was crap. I'm sure Tiptoety knows it though, and I reckon he's unlikely to repeat that. It's like that referee at a recent world cup who gave a footballer three yellow cards when he should have sent him off at the second: he lost his chance at refereeing the final, but in hindsight, would have been ideal in the sense that it's a mistake he would be extremely unlikely to repeat. I have always found Tiptoety willing to discuss his actions as a CheckUser, and he has been an ideal go-to person for a second opinion.
 * As for Leaky Cauldron's oppose, it was widely suspected and later reiterated by him that Tiptoety's decision rested on information which non-functionaries do not have access to, and he would be violating the privacy policy if he had revealed it. If one suspects an error in the context of functionary tools then it should be reported to the AUSC, but Tiptoey is absolutely justified in not expending another editor's privacy just so he can "win" a discussion with an uninvolved editor. WilliamH (talk) 13:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * They recorded a misleading edit synopsis of "persistent sockpuppetry". Misleading/sloppy/inaccurate/incorrect/lazy edit summaries by Admins using tools is, in my opinion, unacceptable. He failed to answer that particular part of my concern. I was not at all concerned that the use of his covert tools may have identified socking, although the initial request from another editor and the Admin's response - see here is also a bit casual for my liking. Since when is it ok to protect an article based only on un-investigated, circumstantial evidence and use a misleading edit summary to boot? I wanted to understand why the public record of the decision to semi-protect an article experiencing negligible disruption was "persistent sockpuppetry" when the recent history of the article indicated no such disruption. Why protect an article from no disruption but take no action against the alleged culprit?  Leaky  Caldron  15:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * His decision rested on information which you do not have access to. With all due respect, you are not in a position to comment on its legitimacy. WilliamH (talk) 15:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not come here to make a "thing" out of this but you seem to wish to intentionally ridicule my oppose with a specious interpretation all of your own. Let me repeat, leaving an edit summary of "persistent sockpuppetry" as a justification for protecting an article where there was no evidence of persistent disruption and only 1 edit each by the 2 unregistered users concerned is neither "persistent" and quite possibly not "sockpuppetry". It was a knee-jerk response to a drive by request and documented in a cavalier manner. Since you've decided to challenge my opinion and effectively told me to mind my own business, let's see what the candidate has to say. I'll formulate a question. Leaky  Caldron  16:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Neutral I was going to support but I couldn't decide after I saw the other comments. -- Ankit Maity Talk Contribs 16:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Experienced, reliable and trustworthy. Not overly convinced by the complaints of previous "bad behaviour" as I don't see it as germane to the use of the OS tools. QU  TalkQu  20:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support We all make mistakes, he's had the Checkuser tools here since September 2010, and still stands. Has every action of other functionary been perfect 100%, no. We aren't gods. He's trustworthy and as far as I have been in contact with him always willing to explain things. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  18:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Good admin, can be trusted. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. c has an excellent long-standing history of service across several projects. That makes him an excellent choice for oversight tools. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  18:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Tiptoety has been a trusted checkuser for several years across several wikis, as well as holding the oversight permissions over on commons. In my dealings with him, I found him to be active, insightful and fair. Over one's time on Wiki*dia, mistakes and misjudgements are bound to happen, but in this case they do not, for me, affect the trust I have for this user, and I'm sure if appointed he will only be a positive influence.  Snowolf How can I help? 05:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Seeing he is a checkuser and has the oversight rights on commons, he can be easily trusted for the same rights here. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 12:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Tiptoety is a trustworthy admin and experienced with checkuser and has the oversight rights tools across projects Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:04, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Trusted candidate. Tiptoety already has the required working experience with the CheckUser tool on Wikipedia and MetaWiki and Oversight tool on Wikimedia Commons. 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. User is quite experienced and knows the policy well on using the Oversight permission. TheGeneralUser (talk) 20:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)