Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/2011 CUOS appointments/CU/Kww
Kww
Oversight candidate pages: Courcelles • Fluffernutter • WilliamH
Comment on the candidate below or by email • Community consultation period is now closed.
Kww (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Nomination statement (250 words max.)
My main adminstrative activity on Wikipedia has always been dealing with sockpuppetry in its various forms. I think anyone reviewing my record WP:SPI will note both my diligence and my accuracy rate. I believe sockpuppetry to be both the most severe and most common form of abuse on Wikipedia. "Severe", because it undermines the basic faith we all need to have that we are actually reaching group consensus, and "common" because I find that in every long term disruption, someone resorts to it in an effort to prevail.
Standard questions for all candidates
Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
- A: As noted above, review my record at SPI. I'm a frequent contributor, and my record at accurately detecting socks speaks for itself.
Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.
- A: I received my Computer Engineering degree over 30 years ago, and have been active in communications and networking ever since. I'm fully technically competent to understand and analyze all data presented to a Checkuser.
Do you hold advanced permissions (checkuser, oversight, bureaucrat, steward) on this or other WMF projects? If so, please list them. Also, do you have OTRS permissions? If so, to which queues?
- A: No.
Questions for this candidate
Being a new checkuser, would you be willing to help with the Checkuser backlog at WP:ACC as there are usually up to 6 requests waiting about 5 days+? -- DQ (t) (e) 19:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- A: Yes, although I would like to gain a better understanding of exactly why the backlog exists. That tends to imply that the checks are more laborious, and the reason for that isn't obvious to me.
Would you be proactive in looking at the open cases at SPI to see if they could use a checkuser? -- DQ (t) (e) 19:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- A: Absolutely. Many users are reluctant to request a checkuser, and their case winds up taking far longer to process than it should.—Kww(talk) 21:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
As a CheckUser, you will likely, from time to time, coordinate and communicate with the Stewards. What cross-wiki experience can you bring that can help out not only the Stewards, but editors, administrators, and CheckUsers on other wikis? –MuZemike 21:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- A:
In your own words, what are the main differences between the WMF's CheckUser policy and the privacy policy? –MuZemike 21:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- A:
Under what circumstances do the above policies give on the release of CheckUser data? –MuZemike 21:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- A:
Give some examples on when CheckUser requests of a sensitive nature or discovered CheckUser results of interest that would not be posted on-wiki. –MuZemike 21:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- A:
Comments
- Comments may also be submitted to the Arbitration Committee privately by emailing arbcom-en-b
lists.wikimedia.org
- The user claims a record of accuracy. User has in the past misread a faked autoblock request, and used SPI seemingly outside CU criteria. The issue is not simply the mistakes - mistakes happen - but that I haven't seen anything that shows how the user is going to avoid these and related issues in the future. Gimmetoo (talk) 14:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- I claimed a record of accuracy, not inerrancy. If you have specifics regarding your belief that I have gone outside CU criteria, I'm interested in knowing examples so that I may discuss them.—Kww(talk) 15:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- Which CU criterion supports using CU on an admin's alt account? Gimmetoo (talk) 15:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- F:"Request doesn't fit any of the criteria but you believe a check is warranted anyway". At the time the CU was requested, you had refused to acknowledge the existence of Gimmetoo from the Gimmetrow account, and were simply claiming to be Gimmetrow without providing any evidence whatsoever that you were, indeed, Gimmetrow. You were given explicit permission to unblock the Gimmetoo account from the Gimmetrow account as a method of taking ownership. You were asked to make edits acknowledging the relationship between the two accounts from the Gimmetrow account. You refused to do so. You have, to date, refused to explain your reason for refusing to acknowledge the relationship between the two accounts from your admin account. Eliminating the possibility of admin impersonation is very much a legitimate reason to request checkuser. You have, since that time, demonstrated that Gimmetoo has access to data sent to Gimmetrow, so everyone proceeds on the assumption that Gimmetoo is, indeed, a legitimate alternate. That it was very difficult to come to that conclusion is entirely your responsibility.—Kww(talk) 16:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- There are multiple problems with this response. First, at the time the CU was requested - by you - I was blocked with no talk page access, and nobody had tried to contact me before the block without warning. So, did you or did you not think this account was an alt account of an admin? If not, then there was no sock. If so, then it was an alt account, declared as such, and not a sock. But if you thought it was a sock of an admin, CU criteria says to report it to the arb committee. Also, you explcitly threatened me not to unblock with the gimmetrow account. (And, you were WP:INVOLVEd) Your failure to acknowledge or understand any of this doesn't make me more confident. Gimmetoo (talk) 16:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- First, note that I did not block either account, and no, I did not believe Gimmetoo to be a sock of an admin. I believed Gimmetoo to be an editor impersonating an admin. My only action on the block was to deny the unblock request. Note, as well, that the very fact that the checkuser was run shows that other people believed my suspicions to be valid and that the checkuser was appropriate. A checkuser is not a robot: it is always the checkuser's responsibility to ensure that the request being made is valid.—Kww(talk) 18:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- Really? You really believed this account was an impersonator? Do I need to show diffs where you say otherwise? And yes, you had blocked the account previously and inappropriately, so as far as I'm concerned you were and will forever remain WP:INVOLVEd and barred from administrative action with regards to me. Denying an unblock is an administrative action, and quite a significant one. This all happened over a year ago. You should have just acknowledged now that you messed up back then. You did not and have not, and that means I consider you, at present, unfit for the CU role. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- If you are referring to the July 30 block, that was for edit warring, and I will stand by that one as well. WP:INVOLVED doesn't say "once an admin blocks an account, he can never take administrative actions against that account again". At that time, I wasn't aware that Gimmetrow was refusing to acknowledge the existence of Gimmetoo. That came up at later at ANI, and I based later actions upon later knowledge. Most of the back and forth is here for people that are interested. I don't believe that I messed up in either case. I'm sorry that you still don't seem to recognize that your own refusal to acknowledge the Gimmetoo account from the Gimmetrow account was the primary cause of the problem. Even when I offered you a way out (by e-mailing something to Gimmetrow for Gimmetoo to say), you wouldn't do it until directly asked at ANI. I still don't understand why you were so determinedly uncooperative.—Kww(talk) 19:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- If people want communication and cooperation, then they should start with that, and not "block first and ask questions later" without a basis in policy. You're old enough to understand human nature. Yes, you blocked me earlier for "EW" for handling a BLP issue. I do think that once an admin makes an inappropriate block, and refuses to acknowledge it, that admin has a COI with regard to further administrative actions about that editor. Gimmetoo (talk) 19:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- If you are referring to the July 30 block, that was for edit warring, and I will stand by that one as well. WP:INVOLVED doesn't say "once an admin blocks an account, he can never take administrative actions against that account again". At that time, I wasn't aware that Gimmetrow was refusing to acknowledge the existence of Gimmetoo. That came up at later at ANI, and I based later actions upon later knowledge. Most of the back and forth is here for people that are interested. I don't believe that I messed up in either case. I'm sorry that you still don't seem to recognize that your own refusal to acknowledge the Gimmetoo account from the Gimmetrow account was the primary cause of the problem. Even when I offered you a way out (by e-mailing something to Gimmetrow for Gimmetoo to say), you wouldn't do it until directly asked at ANI. I still don't understand why you were so determinedly uncooperative.—Kww(talk) 19:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- Really? You really believed this account was an impersonator? Do I need to show diffs where you say otherwise? And yes, you had blocked the account previously and inappropriately, so as far as I'm concerned you were and will forever remain WP:INVOLVEd and barred from administrative action with regards to me. Denying an unblock is an administrative action, and quite a significant one. This all happened over a year ago. You should have just acknowledged now that you messed up back then. You did not and have not, and that means I consider you, at present, unfit for the CU role. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- First, note that I did not block either account, and no, I did not believe Gimmetoo to be a sock of an admin. I believed Gimmetoo to be an editor impersonating an admin. My only action on the block was to deny the unblock request. Note, as well, that the very fact that the checkuser was run shows that other people believed my suspicions to be valid and that the checkuser was appropriate. A checkuser is not a robot: it is always the checkuser's responsibility to ensure that the request being made is valid.—Kww(talk) 18:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- There are multiple problems with this response. First, at the time the CU was requested - by you - I was blocked with no talk page access, and nobody had tried to contact me before the block without warning. So, did you or did you not think this account was an alt account of an admin? If not, then there was no sock. If so, then it was an alt account, declared as such, and not a sock. But if you thought it was a sock of an admin, CU criteria says to report it to the arb committee. Also, you explcitly threatened me not to unblock with the gimmetrow account. (And, you were WP:INVOLVEd) Your failure to acknowledge or understand any of this doesn't make me more confident. Gimmetoo (talk) 16:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- F:"Request doesn't fit any of the criteria but you believe a check is warranted anyway". At the time the CU was requested, you had refused to acknowledge the existence of Gimmetoo from the Gimmetrow account, and were simply claiming to be Gimmetrow without providing any evidence whatsoever that you were, indeed, Gimmetrow. You were given explicit permission to unblock the Gimmetoo account from the Gimmetrow account as a method of taking ownership. You were asked to make edits acknowledging the relationship between the two accounts from the Gimmetrow account. You refused to do so. You have, to date, refused to explain your reason for refusing to acknowledge the relationship between the two accounts from your admin account. Eliminating the possibility of admin impersonation is very much a legitimate reason to request checkuser. You have, since that time, demonstrated that Gimmetoo has access to data sent to Gimmetrow, so everyone proceeds on the assumption that Gimmetoo is, indeed, a legitimate alternate. That it was very difficult to come to that conclusion is entirely your responsibility.—Kww(talk) 16:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- Which CU criterion supports using CU on an admin's alt account? Gimmetoo (talk) 15:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- I claimed a record of accuracy, not inerrancy. If you have specifics regarding your belief that I have gone outside CU criteria, I'm interested in knowing examples so that I may discuss them.—Kww(talk) 15:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- Kevin has, in my opinion, shown an outstanding ability to do the right thing (per rules etc.) rather than the thing he'd prefer. I've by no means watched all of his admin actions, but those I do run across I've felt have been of very high quality. This from someone who opposed him at RfA at all but his last one. Good guy, I trust him. Hobit (talk) 17:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- I want to head this off before it even starts. We are not the same user, despite our names looking somewhat similar (this was brought up at least once in the past, only bringing this up again since it's for CU access). Kwsn (Ni!) 18:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)