Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/2013 CUOS appointments/CU

Ks0stm (CU)

 * 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 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  and  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

 * 1) Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
 * I have filed a some SPIs in the past (but am by no means a regular filer...I just don't come across socks all that often) and am familiar with behavioral evidence as it relates to sockpuppetry. -- Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 16:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) 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)
 * 1) 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 the info-en(f) and permissions queues. I hold no advanced permissions on any WMF project. -- Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 16:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Questions for this candidate

 * What does "Check User is not a fishing expedition" mean? --In actu (Guerillero) &#124; 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) &#124; My Talk  13:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Mealwaysrockz007/Archive and 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) &#124; 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 CheckUser - "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 or  (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)
 * I'd be more than willing to try. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 03:43, 8 August 2013 (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.

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  01:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * 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)
 * I think Ks0stm is trustworthy enough for this additional responsibility. Whatever he needs to learn, he'll pick it up in short order. Kurtis (talk) 20:31, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

LFaraone (CU)

 * 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. L Faraone  23:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
 * I've made WP:SPI reports when it seemed relevant, and am used to handling abuse cases. I am particularly active in WP:AfD, where sockpuppeting or meatpuppetry is common.
 * 1) 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.
 * 1) 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) &#124; My Talk  13:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't use CheckUser unless we have a reason to think abuse is occurring; it shouldn't be used without clear indications that two accounts are possibly linked. L Faraone  23:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * What are two SPI cases that you have been involved in at some level? --In actu (Guerillero) &#124; My Talk  13:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet_investigations/Jono2013/Archive and Sockpuppet_investigations/Maxwhr/Archive. L Faraone  15:02, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Would you run a check at these SPI cases? 1 2 3 --In actu (Guerillero) &#124; My Talk  13:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The evidence in №1 is very weak, and №2 is even weaker: there appears to be no attempt to avoid scrutiny. In №3 however, the evidence is more clear that block evading is going on, and I would perform a check in that case. I'm pretty sure that Ottoniel110 is WP:QUACK, but the others might benefit from additional checking. L Faraone  14:57, 13 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)
 * Sure. L Faraone  14:57, 13 August 2013 (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.


 * 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)
 * No reason not to, per Snowolf. Kurtis (talk) 20:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Materialscientist (CU)

 * 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

 * 1) 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)
 * 1) 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)
 * 1) 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) &#124; 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) &#124; 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 CheckUser - "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)
 * 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)

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.

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  01:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 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 &#38;  (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. T  C  N7 JM  00:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support with full confidence.
 * 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)
 * A jack of all trades if ever there was one &mdash; Materialscientist is everywhere. I've seen him at AN/I, and I've seen him at Joseph Stalin. He's extremely easy to get along with, thorough in his explanations, and very meticulous in his approach. In short, a no-brainer. Kurtis (talk) 20:38, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support He has my unqualified support. I've been quickly impressed with his work on wiki. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 00:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Dedicated and principled admin for whom I have tremendous respect. Daniel Case (talk) 10:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Has a long standing track record of using the tools effectively, particularly in the area of vandalism / abuse, and being a good communicator. Exactly what we need. Ritchie333   (talk)   (cont)   10:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Very strong technical abilities, a deep understanding of policy, and you couldn't ask for a better temperament. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support MaterialScientist has the an excellent temperament and trustworthiness for this role and higher.  Royal broil  02:33, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support I trust this user. Very prolific vandal fighter (I see him on every other page) and not only technologically literate, but understands complex Wikipedia policies in ways others do not, even if liberal in enforcing them. The community would benefit a lot if Materialscientist were given the ability to identify sockpuppets. I even believe this user is capable of causing SPI no longer be a rotting slough, if he wants to. I don't normally comment on specific users (because I do not like drama), but I support this person 100%, as seems many others do too. Ginsuloft (talk) 00:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Have my confidence. Only seen good work come from him. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Materialscientist is highly esteemed in my eyes, he is a positive role model for anyone seeking an editor worthy of emulation; in every manner of speech and conduct, we are very lucky to have this caliber of service voluntarily donated. If this offer to serve is not ratified there literally is incompetence within the body charged to decide these appointments. :) John Cline (talk) 13:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Skilled, knowledgeable admin with the skillset and tenacity to kick SPI into high gear -- T K K ! bark with me if you're my dog!  18:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

NativeForeigner (CU)

 * 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

 * 1) 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)
 * 1) 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)
 * 1) 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 . 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)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  01:27, 7 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...
 * He has all the necessary experience. I definitely trust NativeForeigner! Kurtis (talk) 20:41, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Secret account 03:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Reaper Eternal (CU)

 * 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

 * 1) 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)
 * 1) 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)
 * 1) 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 CheckUser - "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 on an SPI case and look at the block log. If a random IP receives a  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 . 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.  D u s t i *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 [//commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Jimmy_Wales_by_Pricasso.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=98169440 "fuck you"], [//commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Jimmy_Wales_by_Pricasso.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=98170127 "obvious troll is obvious"], and [//commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Jimmy_Wales_by_Pricasso.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=98181972 "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)
 * 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)
 * "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)
 * (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)
 * This is a clear seems to me to be a revenge !vote from Jasper for Reaper torpedoing his RfA back in March. Like Reaper has already pointed out, I don't see how one entirely justified outburst on a different wiki is indicative of a pattern of problems here. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 10:16, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * How is it a clear revenge vote? Jasper has raised serious issues, whether we disagree with his view or not is another matter, and there are some who take civility very seriously. Please withdraw this uncalled for assumption of bad faith on Jasper's motivation.  Snowolf How can I help? 22:31, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Just calling it how I see it Snowolf, we're all entitled to an opinion. However, in light of your concerns, I have adjusted my comment to more overtly reflect the fact that it is merely my own observation. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 14:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Concur w/ Basalisk. (Reaper's critique of Jasper was pretty stinging at that RfA, I'm sure it wasn't easy to forget! The "Strong oppose" here screams attempted retaliation.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  01:36, 7 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.
 * 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)
 * Support. Technically proficient, prolific, readily available. Would be a strong addition to the team. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 10:16, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit hesitant to wholeheartedly give Reaper my full and unequivocal backing, largely per Kumioko but also based on my own observations over a period of years. However, although I don't always agree with everything he says, I certainly do trust him. Weak support. Kurtis (talk) 20:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 00:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - the answers to the questions I posed were not only surface-level, but showed a willingness to think and go in depth and be cautious when doing so. ~ Charmlet -talk- 02:37, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I am inclined to oppose this appointment based on what I perceive as a rush to adverse judgement predicated by a willingness to forgo reasonable assumptions of good faith that should have some mitigating value reinforced by a stubbornness that favors fidelity to his adopted position over reason once he has committed a stance. In total it is a temperament that impacts my ability to support without reservation. :) John Cline (talk) 13:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Any evidence to back this up? I can provide many examples (those just from today) of me showing good faith. As regards "rush[ing] to adverse judgement", I don't have a clue what you mean. Very rarely has my judgement even been questioned. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:38, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support The examples given of the behavior on Commons are minor when you view Reaper's work as a whole. We're all human - no one is perfect, and a couple statements that barely edge into attack territory won't sway me. 99.9% of the time, they're the calming force in a heated debate, and if it was 100% they'd be a robot - and who would trust a robot with CU? -- T K K ! bark with me if you're my dog!  18:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Rschen7754 (CU)

 * 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 [//meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/?diff=4669573&diffonly=yes 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

 * 1) 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.
 * 1) 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.
 * 1) 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.
 * 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?
 * Yes. I was sanctioned in Highways (July 2006) with probation, which was subsequently lifted in March 2007. --Rschen7754 19:39, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


 * 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 CheckUser - "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 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 for the Wikidata project, even though we will not be having local CheckUsers anytime soon. Also for the record, note Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 7. --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)
 * I currently do not have ACC access, but I'd be willing to give it a shot. --Rschen7754 01:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * My 14 year old son creates a Wikipedia account without my knowledge, taking care to use it when I am out of the house at work. He runs into edit warring on a Spongebob Squarepants article and is blocked for 24 hours for violating WP:3RR. Instead of sitting out the block, he creates another account and carries on. The sock is indef blocked per WP:DUCK, and the block extended to 72 hours. After another round of this, an SPI is opened. You are asked to run a CU, which would identify me as a potential sock. What action would you advocate? Ritchie333   (talk)   (cont)   16:07, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Due to our past interactions, I would not be running the CU and would pass it off to someone else. However, in those circumstances, I believe the usual practice is to ask for an explanation before doing something drastic like indefinitely blocking the established contributor. --Rschen7754 21:06, 12 August 2013 (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.

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  01:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * 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)
 * You have been asked three times to explain your opposition, and have had it explained two times why a simple yes or no vote is useless to us. Bearing that in mind, your understanding of what it "seems like" is laughable. AGK  [•] 21:46, 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
 * 1) 19 March 2006 - User blocked for 24 hours for violating 3RR
 * 2) 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.
 * 3) August 2006 - Blocked for making disruptive edits
 * 4) 2006 - More of the same here.
 * 5) Etc. etc all the way through to the current day.

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)
 * General
 * 1) I have myself been the target of his comments.
 * 2) 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.
 * 3) 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.
 * 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)
 * Yes I know that the promotion lies solely in the hands of the Arbcom and nothing we as editors say matters. And it looks equally if not more petty..and innappropriate that members of Arbcom are only badgering opposition of the user getting the tools. My reasoning is above but her it is again. I do not trust him, I do not think he should have the tools. Rschen is unnecessarily antagonistic in discussions, votes for things like RFA. It obvious the Arbcom is intent on doing anything to strike my oppose and my comments. I'm not going to do it because I have enough moral integrity to vote how I feel not how everyone else feels or how the Arbcom wants to vote. That gives you few options. You can keep badgering me and hope I change my mind, you can block me and remove it using that as the justification or you can simply ignore it and promote him anyway. Kumioko (talk) 13:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "You are stupid and I know something but won't tell you". Sorry, that borders TROLLING, on top of unsubstantiated charges and personal attacks. I strongly recommend EOT.  kashmiri TALK  13:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually I didn't say they were stupid. Actually I said they were technically proficient...but I don't trust him. This rememinds me of a time in Wikpedia when people were allowed to levy their comment and vote their conscience in venues like this. Now it seems even Arbcom and their supporters bully editors who oppose a candidate getting a higher permission. I miss those old times when not only would Arbcom not do this behavior but if they did their conduct would not only be frowned on, but would be addressed and dealt with. I also did tell them some, but I don't have the admin toolset or the other tools necessary to do the task. Additionally, this user is active in multiple wiki's and IRC which I don't work with much. Add to all that the indications that Arbco not only doesn't care about my comments but seem intent on forcing me to change them. I simply am not willing to waste my time researching and providing more comments when they don't want to hear it. Kumioko (talk) 13:49, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You did not bother being decent enough to offer a single diff to substantiate your claims, instead keep lashing out at the ArbCom and one of the nominees, para after para. If you want to whine about ArbCom, you are in the wrong place: this page is only for discussing the 2013 CU candidacies. So, either give substance to your claims, which will be appreciated, or just stop trolling please.  kashmiri TALK  16:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That's how things are here in wiki these days I guess. You oppose a user getting access to sensitive information and your called a troll. You didn't even vote here Kashmiri, your the one trolling. Someone should remove everything from your post down. I would do it myself but some might view that as a POV action on my part....and rightly so. Kumioko (talk) 17:22, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you ever thought, Kumioko, that if multiple users are telling you to stop doing something, including one that hasn't commented here and is thus neutral, that maybe you should just stop? You have given absolutely no evidence to support your claims except for pointing out some stuff seven years ago that the candidate already pointed out himself above. Multiple users have told you this, yet you refuse to support your claims any further. T  C  N7 JM  20:49, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That's because I do not have ay faith or believe that if I spent my time doing it, that it would matter anyway I did the above because frankly it was extremely easy to find. Its obvious. Its so obvious that if I dig, or anyone digs, then they are going to find stuff. Im sorry I am not willing to spend my time digging up information on a user I don't trust because the Arbcom and a few of that editors fan club feels like hounding me and harrassing me for opposing. I don't really care if 50 or 100 editors tell me my opinion doesn't count. I don't trust him and I wanted to voice that. I don't care if Arbcom or anyone else listens or even agrees but that is how I feel. You and the others may not like or care about my opinion but one thing no one can see is that I didn't take time or care about the issue enough to levy n opinion. If someone wants to oppose they should have the same right to do so as the supporters without being hounded and harassed. If you guys don't want any opposes then remove them, but I am not going to do it because I do not feel he is suited for this task. No matter how experienced he is or how much he does SPI. Now for all here I am done arguing about this here. If you want to drop a note on my talk page and discuss it there that's fine but this hounding, trolling and harassment here have gone on too long already and I am stopping it right now. Kumioko (talk) 23:47, 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. — ΛΧΣ  21  02:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * These robes? Bishonen &#124; talk 12:00, 12 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. T  C  N7 JM  02:45, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Absolutely! Rschen is very level-headed, experienced, and dedicated to the well being of the project. He will do a good job as CheckUser. Kurtis (talk) 20:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Experienced editor, very active in SPI and from what I've seen would make a fine checkuser. Jafeluv (talk) 07:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Neutral. His tone can be problematic and he needs to leave better edit summaries (example 1, example 2, example 3) but I can't think why that, or indeed any other incident would lead to him abusing the CU privilege. Frankly, if he spends more time at SPI, it will be a net benefit to the encyclopedia. Ritchie333   (talk)   (cont)   15:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * To provide more context that is missing from the last two examples, my "courtesy" notification resulted in a very POINTy oppose that was openly hostile. --Rschen7754 21:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll select a different example. In March, Rschen was involved in a dispute at WP:DRN. After reverted his comments, Rschen reverted them back , which culminated in Mark warning Rschen that if he continued, formal arbitration would be suggested. . Rschen took exception to this  which resulted in a second warning from Mark .  subsequently struck some of Rschen's comments ,  called Rschen "a major participant in this dispute" . Rschen's response was to nominate WP:DRN for deletion . I'll leave it up to the community to decide whether this behaviour would cause concern for granting him checkuser rights.  Ritchie333   (talk)   (cont)   08:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah.....I do have to say, that really effected me a great deal in a very negative way. I also know that it had a great deal of effect on DR/N. So much in fact that has taken steps to restructure DR/N and many changes are hoped to be improvements. But not all of it was received well and there has been a lot of work, some missteps, and DR/N has actually stalled from the entire fiasco. It put editor's reputations in question, it disrupted the board and the community and pitted editors against each other of the reaction of someone who thought they were defending the Wiki but were in fact just Don Quixote tilting at wind mills. I think I understand because I have made mistakes that were insensitive and I believe I have learned from them. My concern is that there was no lesson learned from that situation by Rschen and that perhaps they felt right in their aggressive handling of others who were trying to help them. I think he was hooked and couldn't stop and just kept going...and I understand that as well.


 * If Rschen can assure the community that he learned something from that situation that would at least lead some of us to know that what he did was wrong and for what reasons or if he thinks he is still right for that situation. I am not going to participate in the !vote as I am not trying to persuade or even judge Rschen here. If he can give a sincere explanation as to anything he comes away with from that experience that will help explain it and satisfy the above query, it would at least be of interest to me.-- Mark  09:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose My interactions with Rschen in their role as clerk leaves me with the impression that Rschen does not have the necessary temperament for the role. --Surturz (talk) 04:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. I have no doubts that Rschen will be able to handle the role just fine. I am supremely unconcerned by temperament; you don't need the temperament of a saint to be a checkuser, and Rschen's temperament should be just fine. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 09:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Four months ago User:Rschen7754 was involved in a WP:DRN case involving Manual of Style/Road junction lists. DRN has a Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Guide for Participants at the top of the page. The exact words of the notice at the time of the case were
 * "What this noticeboard is not:
 * It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct."
 * (Emphasis in original).
 * In Rschen7754's opening comments, he made several comments about user conduct, and a DRN volunteer collapsed his comments with the message "DR/N is not for discussing other editors or editor behavior. Please re-make this opening without discussing individual editors."
 * Rschen7754 reverted the DRN volunteer The volunteer placed a warning on the case and deleted those portions of Rschen7754's comments that violated the DRN guidelines Rschen7754 reverted the volunteer again and was warned again. Rschen7754 then hatted his comments with the message "I decline to participate."
 * Rschen7754 then nominated the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard for deletion.
 * This concerns me greatly. I believe that in the above actions Rschen7754 has shown that when he disagrees with the rules of a noticeboard, he thinks that means that the rules don't apply to him. Why should we believe that he will treat the rules for using checkuser any differently? I also am concerned that is treatment of me and the other DRN volunteers demonstrates an unwillingness to handle disagreements in a calm, rational manner. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm going to paste what I wrote in my application about this, as I think it explains this very well.


 * After a shockingly bad experience following a DRN involving aggressive clerking, editing of my own comments, and refusal for a "volunteer" to recuse due to past negative interactions, and subsequent comments about similar bad experiences on my talkpage (w:en:User talk:Rschen7754/Archive 19), I decided to be BOLD and nominate DRN for MFD (w:en:Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard), taking a page from the 2008-era BAG MFDs (w:en:Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group (3rd nomination)). Following an IRC conversation with Steven Zhang, who made clear that he understood my concerns and would work to make sure that such horrible incidents would not happen again, and Amadscientist's subsequent attempts to reconcile the matter, I dropped the MFD in good faith after only a few hours.


 * I've thought about this one over the last few months - I don't get the feeling that it was the best that I could have done, and I probably was a bit more confrontational than necessary in my original response, but I'm still not entirely sure what the "best" way to resolve the issue was. If I had known that Steven Zhang would have been so responsive, I might have been able to skip the MFD, but at the time I highly doubted that a RFC would bring sufficient attention to the issues. I'm a person who believes in structure and stability, but I also believe in being fair, and a dispute resolution noticeboard that did not appear to seek to resolve content disputes fairly, and served to get people into additional disputes over the procedures of DRN, was a huge red flag for me. I do tend to go with the flow and not challenge established structure or "rock the boat", but when necessary, I am not afraid to take bold actions and speak up when the "structure" or "way of doing things" is completely wrong.


 * In the end, some good discussions were held that I do believe led to some improvements, or at least greater care when resolving disputes. Unfortunately, Guy Macon continued to tell his side of the story at w:en:WT:DRN for a few weeks afterward, but I disengaged and went on with work elsewhere. --Rschen7754 13:32, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That does indeed sound like you are saying you were right in you actions and accusations. For example, (regardless that the guideline stated recusal for strong interaction) you state I was in conflict of interest with you and that was the reason I had to recuse myself at your demand. The "conflict" was interaction on my talk page months before over a completely different issue. I didn't remember you, yet you accused me of retaliating over a GA Review I had too many contributions to do, that you commented on.


 * Sounds exactly as if you are still blaming that entirely on me and taking no responsibility for any of your aggressive actions and simply believe there was something needing to be fixed at all cost. This is Wikipedia...everything can be "fixed" with any perception of flaw. What you did was to force your will in a spectacular display of battle ground mentality tilting at windmills. DR/N has been badly effected by the incident and regardless of the positive improvements made the backlog is getting out of hand and volunteers are few and far between. I guess the demoralizing aspects of your technique with others should probably be addressed at some point.-- Mark  20:19, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No, that's not what I am saying. My original post on that day was a bit inflammatory; I accept that responsibility full well. What was also inappropriate were the "volunteer"s' responses to that, which included warning me that I would be asked to leave the board. I think that it is troubling to blame me for everything that is happening to DRN; comments like this do not help. But this isn't WT:DRN, so I will leave it at that. Finally, I was not "forcing" anyone to do anything; the community could have rejected that MFD entirely and said I was completely wrong, and nothing would have happened. --Rschen7754 00:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Rschen7754, the above response raises some questions in my mind.
 * You have indicatedthat you disagree with DRN's "Avoid discussing editor behavior or conduct, just content please" rule, and you chose to violate DRN's rule and used multiple reverts to keep your discussion about user conduct at DRN despite multiple DRN volunteers telling you not to do that. Do you believe that this was correct behavior? Do you believe that the DRN guidelines apply to you?
 * You have indicated that you "don't actually want to see DRN shut down, but if there is no willingness to reform, then it should be shut down", later citing a five-year-old MfD, but the result of that MfD was "Please take concerns to talk page for 'reform'." and "there is no reason to just delete the process", not an endorsement of nominating noticeboards for deletion because you believe that they need "reform". Do you believe that this was correct behavior and conforms with Deletion policy? Was this a good-faith deletion request or was it done to illustrate a point? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:19, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * My explanation was an explanation of why it was a conduct dispute. I do admit that I could have worded that particular post better, but otherwise I don't see any point in rehashing what happened months ago any further. I do need to say that the 2008 BAG MFD was co-nominated by an editor who is now a sitting arbitrator, so it couldn't have been all that bad; furthermore, I believe Wikipedia processes have actually been shut down through MFDs. Finally, I believe that programs that damage the encyclopedia should be shut down if they cannot be fixed. We make efforts to fix new articles before deleting them; why not do that with Wikipedia processes? A dispute resolution process that gets you in another dispute on top of the original is destructive to the encyclopedia. And I am not sure how relevant this is to the CU tool, its use, or the privacy policy. --Rschen7754 00:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * My my count, your answers were as follows. Please feel free to correct me if I got any wrong.


 * Q: Was nominating DRN for deletion correct behavior?
 * A: Yes.


 * Q: Was DRN nominated to illustrate a point?
 * A: Yes. It is correct behavior to nominate DRN for deletion to illustrate a point if the point is "I believe that DRN damages the encyclopedia and cannot be fixed."


 * Q: Was repeatedly violating DRN's "Avoid discussing editor behavior or conduct, just content please" guideline correct behavior?
 * A: Yes. Violating DRN guidelines was correct behavior, because explaining why I thought it was a conduct dispute required me to violate DRN guidelines.


 * Needless to say, I disagree with all of the above.


 * Correct behavior is to follow guidelines whether you agree with them or not, and to try to change them through consensus if you disagree with them strongly enough. If you had simply followed our consensus policy, we would not be having this conversation.


 * Correct behavior if you think that a DRN case is a content dispute is to say that in your opening statement without discussing the specific conduct of other editors. Having participated in three DRN cases, all of this this should be familiar to you.


 * Correct behavior when multiple DRN volunteers tell you to stop doing something is to stop doing it and discuss why you believe they are wrong on the DRN talk page.


 * Correct behavior if you believe that DRN or any other page damages the encyclopedia and cannot be fixed is to start by saying exactly that on the article talk page. Even if you are convinced that there is a clear and urgent danger that cannot wait, you should take immediate steps to remove the harmful material, not start a long MfD discussion about removing it.


 * Nominating an active noticeboard for deletion while freely admitting that you do not wish the noticeboard to be deleted is disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point.


 * You have given me no reason to believe that you will treat the guidelines for checkuser use any differently than you have treated the DRN guidelines or our consensus policy.


 * I believe that I have made my point and that further comments by me would be beating a dead horse, so I am going to stop commenting, let you have the last word, and leave this in other, more capable hands. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I would like to add to this that if I believed that the majority of the English Wikipedia CheckUsers were violating the privacy policy, this incident shows that I would speak up and report this to the appropriate venues (AUSC, Ombudsman Commission) rather than just going with the flow. --Rschen7754 13:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support I see no reason to oppose him. I've checked half of his edits. Also chatted with him. I think he'll make a good CU.-- Pr at yya  (Hello!) 14:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Convinced me was intentionally passive-aggressive & obtuse in a good-faith request for help to understand summary conclusion re an SPI case. Can only assume a passive-aggressive grudge ensued derived from an admin network of friends he knows, one of whom I probably offended at some point, since had no previous direct contact w/ this user. This kind of stuff is all-too human but an admin should rise above. Not good, and now I wouldn't go to him for anything, learned my lesson. Did what he could to further the divide between admin and a regular content editor. Good show. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:46, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Neutral. It is clear to me from the above discussion that Rschen would be more appreciated if he displayed more humility towards the established rules and towards fellow editors, and his attitude is not just a matter of a single past incident (see, e.g., his unnecessary and belittling statement "I became an admin long before some of them [in ArbCom] started editing at all" a few lines above). Given his attitude, I would not feel comfortable recommending him for, say, an admin or even a DRN volunteer role (I know he is an admin).
 * That said, I don't see how these character traits could realistically affect his day-to-day work as a CheckUser where an ability to keep calm is – let's admit that – of less importance than certain technical skills and knowledge (like, understanding of IP addressing). That of course with an understanding that Rschen will refrain from using the CU tools at his disposal to his advantage in any content dispute.
 * Hence, neutral <span style="font-family:'Candara',sans-serif;"> kashmiri <sup style="color:#80F;">TALK  21:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * For the record, it was not my intention to belittle anyone; my statement was reflecting the reality that arbitrators cannot go through all of the candidates' contributions, while carrying the normal caseload of an arbitrator. In addition to this, personally I find it disorienting to try and research something that happened before I even started editing, and I am sure that arbitrators, as well as any other editor, would find it difficult too. --Rschen7754 00:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support seems like a capable candidate. Automatic 22:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Neutral. Not here to say whether or not he should have this tool. It seems to me that some argument could be made that there is little chance the issues displayed could effect their checkuser work and some argument that trust could still be a factor if battleground mentality is too much of an influence. It is, as always, a community decision.-- Mark  22:13, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It isn't about the battleground mentality. It is about the willful violation of Wikipedia guidelines and the question of whether he will treat the checkuser guidelines the same way. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Even if I plead guilty to the charges (which I am definitely not), there's a huge difference between DRN guidelines and the m:CheckUser policy and wmf:Privacy policy, which all Wikimedia projects are bound by, and which I will already be bound by (along with the m:Oversight policy) when I assume my status as a Wikidata oversighter. I have never violated SPI guidelines in my role as a SPI clerk; if I made a habit of it, I would have been quickly removed as a trainee clerk. --Rschen7754 04:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There are no charges. This is what happened and I made my comments and I really am neutral about you getting Check User. I disagree with Guy only in that, on top of what he says, you do have a battleground mentality and you do get hooked and you can't let go. Heck...maybe that's good for check user. Personally, I think you would use it in some unique way to push the envelope. I think you have in no way explained why you latched onto DR/N over a dispute you were involved with. I don't think you are disinterested. I think you take things very personally, go too far and have no true perspective of your actions. But that is just my opinion.-- Mark  05:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. I have worked closely with Rschen7754 throughout both of our time on the project. What I've learned is that Rschen has a tendency to stick to his guns on an issue and both speak out and act when he feels strongly about something. Both of these attributes have the possibility of cutting both ways. However, no matter what side of any issue you stand on, if you have those tendencies, it will cause you to rack up enemies (or perhaps more accurately worded, people that have a beef with you), and I think that we are seeing that in this nomination. I think that overall, Rschen is clearly a net positive for the project, and we would do well to allow him to contribute in a greater capacity. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That is a bit dismissive. I hold no grudge. I was pinged to this discussion and will not !vote one way or another. I have sad my piece and am finished.-- Mark  08:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Also reading this whole discussion and some others he's been involved in gives me the impression he makes a battlefield out of it instead, and his statements are far from the temperament or patience I'd expect from a functionary, especially the one which is supposed to deal with private information. For all these reasons, I cannot obviously trust him. — Danny B. (talk) 16:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC) Let me also emphasize, that the number of edits is irelevant in this case. I don't have to edit a wiki to be able to see and follow users' behavior. And also there is not only enwiki... — Danny B. (talk) 18:11, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose A person who judges others on single isolated thing, deliberately overseeing/ignoring/not minding (Apology of non-native English speaker: I don't know which term is best to use in this context.) the complex situation, has obviously <span title="Term from western movies meaning such person draws very fast." style="border-bottom: 1px dotted; cursor: help;">"colts damn low", so can't be trusted to judge calmly whether to use CU tools or not. CU is dealing with private data and thus must be used with discretion and with consideration of larger context. CU is neither fishing nor a weapon for punishments nor even a tool to implement own opinions. While misuse of admin tools can be quite simply repaired, privacy breaching is usually once forever with no chance of reverse for the affected user.
 * I suspect this is related to my oppose on your Global editinterface permissions request, since you have 22 edits on this wiki. --Rschen7754 16:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for nice explicit example of fast drawing I was mentioning above. This is exactly why I really can't trust you when dealing with private data. Taking opposite opinions immediately personally and trying to find the reason everywhere else without any attempt to self-reflection at first as well as attempting to discredit opponents rather than focusing on the core of reservations makes me seriously worry about potential abuse of private data in case of personal dispute with any local user.
 * You don't have to edit this wiki to follow a users behaviour or to oppose them, but it is usually best to have some if you are making such extreme comments about them not being able to handle private data and such. Also I find it interesting how this oppose comes not long and is an exact return of Rschen's opposition of your global rights requests. Mind explaining that? John F. Lewis (talk) 18:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support—I've read the above comments from several people, and I think I need to offer a few comments to place some things into perspective.
 * Any editor with a tenure here, and an activity level similar to rschen7754's is going to attract people who don't like him/her. That goes double for admins, who, by the nature of the job, will have to make difficult decisions from time to time about blocks or different things that will never satisfy all parties.
 * These type of pages, for nominations or elections, are always about an editor, not article content nor processes. So it comes as no surprise that people with negative viewpoints of rschen7754 will find this page and comment here. It's also no surprise that they'll do so in the most unflattering light possible, or cast the most aspersions about his character possible.
 * Again, the candidate clerks at SPI, and someone who doesn't like a specific result in a specific situation comes to oppose him. How about all of the other dozens of cases he's handled at that forum? Plane crashes make the news because of their rarity and spectacular nature, but the hundreds of successful flights each and every day make no news. Negativity and sensationalism sell papers and make for great oppose votes, but positivity and regular activity don't attract the same attention.
 * Some of the opposers above will likely attribute my support of this candidate as a "knee-jerk" reaction because we're both active members of the same WikiProject. However, they would be wrong as we don't always see eye-to-eye on things, we are separate people, and I am still entitled to my own opinions.
 * It's telling, that one of the neutral commenters above gave some very complimentary thoughts. They were removed, so I'll quote the salient portions here:"However, I've mentioned it before, but I'll say it here again - I have never seen him abuse tools. Not once - ever. He had the ability to block Mark and Guy (and, presumably, myself) for 'trolling' and 'harassment' and put up a good argument on ANI for justifying it - but he didn't. That's worth reflecting on. Ritchie333  (talk)   (cont)   08:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)"
 * In summary, a lot of the opposition here continues some of the "battleground mentality" the candidate is supposed to display. I remain unconvinced that an admin who has never abused the tools, according to one of his non-supporters, would suddenly do so with this one.  Imzadi 1979  →   20:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I just want to clarify that, the permission being requested here isn't akin to the admin tools. There is nothing that can be done with the admin tools that cannot be reverted. With this tool though, it exposes the users personal information in such a way that cannot be undone if abused. Its out there, forever. So as we have seen with a couple of high profile cases in the last year, the results can be devestating and reverberate through the project. It could well be that your right and he won't abuse it or use it for his own ends but I for one do not want to take that chance. This tool, must be given to only the most trusted users who have demonstrated an ability to keep a cool head and a meticulous patience (like Snowolf for example). Rschen just does not meet that qualification to me given his previous interactions with myself and other users I have seen over the years. Kumioko (talk) 20:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose I have witnessed a higher amount of controversiality and negative reactions from others toward Rschen (NOT ME!) - even when compared to other admins. I am concerned about his temperament. With this being an elite role needing few people, I feel that these tools should go to less controversial candidates.  Royal broil  03:00, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Being a CU is no fun at all and will draw fire from all quarters no matter how well the role is performed. Asbestos trousers are needed as well as a high level of technical skill and diligence. Rschen has these and is also a solid crosswiki worker which is relevant to CU activities. QuiteUnusual (talk) 10:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * With each successive interaction I've had with rschen7754 I always remember being more impressed than the one before, until at some point in the past when he became fully esteemed by me to the point of unequivocal support. :) John Cline (talk) 14:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Rschen7754 is very responsive on IRC and during my interactions with him on multiple Wikimedia projects I discovered nothing which would speak against making him a functionary. Vogone (talk) 18:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)