Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/May 2010 election/CheckUser/Jamesofur

Jamesofur
Howdy!

For those who haven't met me either on wiki or IRC (or some of you irl) my name is James. If you look at my account ( here for my matrix or here for the SUL util) you will notice a couple things. One that is obvious is that while my En account has been created for a while I wasn't really active before last August. Before that I was around (with very infrequent wikignomish edits logged in and out) but I mostly read, and read. Because of a habit I have of following links to keep getting the story this often included pages about the "infrastructure" of the wiki and eventually led me to getting more active. The other thing you will notice is that while I have not been an admin on En for long (RfA Passed April 22nd) I have a fair amount of tools... on other wikis. My focus for quite a while has been cross-wiki abuse (vandalism and spam) as part of that I am a Checkuser and Sysop on the Simple English Wikipedia, a sysop on Meta Wiki as well as a Global sysop and Global rollbacker. I am also an OTRS agent focusing on Permissions and copyright violations.

I think I could be a great addition to the En checkuser team:


 * Availability: I constantly idle on IRC and am available for hours a day (and frequently at odd hours when other CUs do not seem to be available) and easily contactable by multiple people for emergencies (and happy to help whenever humanly possible).
 * crosswiki experience, work and tools: Having access to the Checkuser tools on En would allow me to help for both time sensitive (and perhaps complex) checks and the fast and simple requests that are not worth leaving to rot, especially for the fairly frequent occurrences when stewards are looking for help or vandals are crossing project boundaries where I have either the tools or contacts to help deal with them. I will also be available to speed up processing of normal on wiki Checkuser requests.


 * Prior experience: I have held the Checkuser on another WMF project since December. Because of this I have already had extensive experience with the tools both technically (range blocks, proxies/nmap, XFF's etc) and (arguably more important) first hand experience learning more about behavioral evidence.  I have also had experience with the vandals we already have to deal with through work both with they come to Simple (when they get blocked here they go there) and through the Checkuser-l mailing list (where I'm a list admin).

I can tend to be a bit tl;dr and so I don't want to drag on too much longer, but I am happy to answer any questions people have and will promise to respond quickly. I also have a slightly expanded statement since I had to cut this one down for the 500 word limit.  James  ( T   C )  16:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments and questions for Jamesofur

 * Questions from Deskana: (five questions, so I'm only looking for brief answers)
 * 1) What are the key differences between the checkuser policy and the privacy policy?
 * The short answer is that they tend to have different job. The part of privacy policy that we deal with as a CU is largely focused on the release of information with some broader comments about access and use. The Checkuser policy quotes the privacy policy but the rest is much more directly focused on who is allowed access to the tool and when it can be used. What little is added on Checkuser focuses on the same.
 * 1) What conditions does the checkuser policy require to be met in order to use the checkuser tool on an account?
 * The checkuser policy is quite clear, you can only use checkuser to prevent damage to the WMF projects most specifically to combat vandalism, abusive socks and disruption and that it must NOT be used as any kind of political tool or threat. You are allowed to check an account on request, but not required to.
 * 1) What conditions does the privacy policy require to be met in order to use the checkuser tool on an account?
 * In general the privacy policy does not concern itself with what conditions must be required to use the tool, except that it must be used as minimally as possible and to serve the good of the projects except when forced to use it by a legally binding decision (which is generally outside of our purview).
 * 1) What conditions does the checkuser policy give on the release of data from the checkuser tool?
 * In general the checkuser policy does not deal with this issue (though it does quote the privacy policy). It does give some deeper explanation that basically boils down to "if in doubt, don't or seek additional tool holders to discuss it with)
 * 1) What conditions does the privacy policy give on the release of data from the checkuser tool?
 * The privacy policy states that data must never be released except under specific conditions (paraphrased):
 * Valid, and forced, request from law enforcement.
 * With permission from the user
 * When required to investigate, defend against and report abuse.
 * When necessary to protect the Foundation, it's users, and the public (this is a bit of the catch all, threats of harm for example)
 * Bot related technical data to help the developers (generally involves data the developers will get from elsewhere).

On a side note the Checkuser quote from the privacy policy seems a bit out of date... I'm going to have to look into that later today.  James  ( T   C )  23:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Really last minute question from Spitfire
 * 1) Imagine a scenario where a user has created a vandalism page, which was tagged for speedy deletion, and they then then tried to remove the tag, but upon being stopped by a bot, they appeared to log out and remove the tag that way. The page was later deleted but an SPI case was opened on the user, you preform a check which reveals that the user is related to the IP, what action do you take, and why? (or would you not have preformed the check, and if not, why?)
 * To be totally honest it is highly unlikely I would do the check at all. In a case like that "proving" the connection isn't of any real help especially with the duckyness. Removing the speedy tag while "pretending" to be someone else (assuming they realized they weren't logged in) is bad but is really just a continuation of the vandalism and not an abusive sock issue. Even when vandalism is involved the tools only need to be used (and should be used) when you need them. Further actions would be the same, the vandalism is the real issue here not abuse of accounts/ips, if the IP or account is continuing to vandalize and isn't blocked then I would block but knowing they are linked is not sufficient (in my mind) to warrant placing or adjusting a block on it's own merits.  James  ( T   C )  12:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Question from User:zzuuzz
 * What actions would you consider taking if you found an editor was using one or more open proxies to edit? Under what circumstances would you reveal this discovery to the community?
 * The policy on En, (it's actually a bit different in practice on some projects despite meta) is fairly clear and if I discover new, unblocked, open proxies they're going to get blocked as such. While editing from an Open Proxy may make me take a second look at the info I have there are very legitimate reasons to do so (most obviously when editing from a location which censors or blocks the project such as China or Iran). In my CU checks on Simple I have definitely found very legitimate editors while checking vandals. So far any legitimate editor I've found using Open Proxies had already asked for and received an IPBlockExemption but if I found one who did not I would attempt to get a hold of them (privately) to see if they need the Exemption. Legitimate editors are more then welcome to edit from unblocked proxies if they want without running afoul of policy and if they have to do it for some reason I have no problem given the ability to do so.
 * Regarding when I would reveal the discovery: As always, only when necessary. When investigating a sockpuppet or abuser noting on the SPI or checkuser-l thread that they used open proxies can be very helpful for future investigations and so should be noted. I can't think of any reason to reveal the fact that a legitimate editor is using open proxies. In general Open proxy editing can be used as a marker but isn't "the problem" the problem is if they are acting abusively or not. If they are then we need to address that and if they aren't then there is nothing to address other then making sure they are able to edit.  James  ( T   C )  21:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Question from User:7
 * Q One of the less documented areas of CU work is to help out at WP:ACC when a CU rangeblock has been applied to an IP requesting a new account. This can be done directly in the ACC interface, or by responding to emails sent to the functionaries list or to a Quick SPI request.  Do you have an account with ACC or would you be willing to setup one to help there too?
 * A: Aye, I actually already have an account on ACC and idle in the channel on IRC where both requests and comments are posted. While I make accounts when I see them still open the majority of what I already do there is to help people who have questions on whether they should make the account or not (so same thing a CU will do) I've actually ended up helping out as a CU on multiple instances already because I was able to confirm it was not the person who was being blocked (because of evidence I had seen on either checkuser-l or from Simple since many of the vandals cross project).  James  ( T   C )  18:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Question from Happy-melon
 * 1) All CheckUsers and Oversighters are members of the functionaries-en mailing list, a forum for discussion and co-ordination of privacy-related issues which affect any and all areas of Wikipedia. What qualities and perspectives would you bring to such discussions?
 * Mostly I don't think I'll bring something "new" as much as another angle. I think in general I'm another level headed and calm individual who would be able to comment whenever people wanted advice/thoughts or when I thought I had something that would contribute. Just like the checkuser-l list now I like to read every post I get on any of the foundation/wikipedia mailing lists even if that means I look at it briefly when I get it and read it fully when I have time if it doesn't look like it needs an emergency response and to make sure I read everything even when responding would be superfluous or unhelpful. I also think I'd be able to bring another voice from someone active in the xwiki community which can be very helpful, of course we already have some good voices in that category already. The other thing is a bit harder to "prove", I like to think that I try to see things from a "reader/user/new editor" point of view as much as possible along with the editor point of view and would like to add that insight when something comes up on the mailing list. I don't honestly know how much current functionaries think along those lines so it very well good be something that is already well represented :).  James  ( T   C )  07:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)