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

MuZemike (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Hello, folks! I am MuZemike (first name being Mike, of course), and I am making myself available to run for CheckUser in this CheckUser/Oversight election. I have been an editor on the English Wikipedia since May 31, 2008 and an administrator since September 14, 2009. I have over 40,000 edits so far (verify) and have conributed to 7 good articles and 12 did you know articles. Recently, I have co-coordinated with User:Wizardman in the April 2010 good article nomination backlog elimination drive, which resulted in a reduction in the backlog by over 300 nominations.

I have been a CheckUser clerk for sockpuppet investigations since July 21, 2009 and have helped to rewrite the administrators' instructions for sock puppetry (as now transcluded on the WP:SOCK policy page). As a clerk, I have assisted other editors and the CheckUsers in many cases; as an admin, I have handled hundreds of SPI cases, especially at times when the backlogs were quite large. In addition to SPI, I am also an edit filter manager and have created to date four edit filters, three of which I actively maintain to combat various vandalism.

Being a Wisconsinite, I live in the Central Time Zone (UTC-5). I am not in school right now, and I work 4 days a week, normally having off Saturdays, Sundays, and Mondays unless other RL activities require me to be away. I have at times coordinated with CheckUsers on other Wikipedias and have gotten accounts blocked on enwiki or globally locked on Meta; if elected to CheckUser I will continue in cross-wiki coordination with other CheckUsers and administrators.

Technically, I am knowledgeable in the CIDR notation (which is essential for any type of rangeblocking) and have made many rangeblocks. I am also able to read WHOIS and geolocation information as well as interpret editing patterns to determine whether IP addresses are static or dynamic. I generally block IP addresses on a need-be basis; that is, I usually block long enough to prevent disruption as other innocent users can easily take over on IPs. If there hasn't been any recent disruption, then I normally don't block.

I have knowledge to how the CheckUser tool works and what it can check and what it can not check. As we know CheckUser is not a fishing or 8-ball tool, I understand that it's not a be-all and end-all tool for determining sock puppetry - that is up to the regular admin (as I have done many times) to ultimately take the CheckUser evidence alongside the behavioral editing patterns and determine if there is a match.

Finally (I'll put this out right here and now), I am above the legal age required by the Wikimedia Foundation (I am 28) and will identify myself to the Foundation if elected by the community. –MuZemike 17:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• 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?

   In the crudest sense, the WMF's privacy policy is more general and applies to both checkuser and oversight, while the checkuser policy is more specific as to what cannot be done per the privacy policy. In addition, the privacy policy covers additional points of emphasis such as the viewing of deleted pages/revisions, the usage of cookies, and legal implications. Basically, the privacy policy is the driving force behind what the checkuser policy does. –MuZemike 15:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2. What conditions does the checkuser policy require to be met in order to use the checkuser tool on an account?

   Because of privacy policy reasons and the need to prevent releasing one's private information out to the public, checkuser is supposed to be used only when necessary. As the policy states, that includes abuse via socks or other abuse such as vandalism or similar disruption. Just as with other tools given to editors and admins like rollback, deletion, or blocking, you cannot use it to gain an upper hand in a dispute. –MuZemike 15:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3. What conditions does the privacy policy require to be met in order to use the checkuser tool on an account?

   The privacy policy basically says the same thing as the checkuser policy, while the privacy policy adds that the usage of its main applicable tools (CU and OS) should be kept to a minimum to (understandably) reduce exposure to such privacy issues. This is why we normally block users without running a checkuser when behavioral evidence clearly indicates sock puppet activity. –MuZemike 15:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4. What conditions does the checkuser policy give on the release of data from the checkuser tool?

   First off, I sense the difference between this and the following question is that #4 deals with specifically what checkuser can and cannot do, while #5 deals with what checkuser, oversight, or any other future tool dealing with privacy can or cannot do in general. The big things with checkuser is that IPs should not be revealed publicly (which is why you see many times from CUs "no comment on the IP(s)") and only to other users (the privacy policy actually narrows this down to "other privileged users"), and the old "when in doubt, don't disclose" mantra. –MuZemike 15:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5. What conditions does the privacy policy give on the release of data from the checkuser tool?

   The release of private information is made more explicit in the privacy policy than in the checkuser policy. To briefly list them, reasons to release include in response to a subpoena or law enforcement request, with the affected user's permission, for abuse complaints (either internally or with an ISP) for resolution of technical issues, or when otherwise necessary to protect the WMF or the public. –MuZemike 15:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Questions from Firsfron:

You recently indefinitely blocked a good-faith contributor with over 17,000 edits under his belt with the block summary Vandalism-only account. Although you reversed the block and apologized, the editor is question has politely requested an explanation, but still has received none. You've edited since then. As a Checkuser, what will you do to prevent mistakes like this (relating to both Checkuser tools and Administrator tools) from occurring in the future? And, in the case of a mistake in Checkuser procedures, will you explain your rationale for the mistaken action? Firsfron of Ronchester 17:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I have explained that in the unblocking and thought the situation was settled. I made a mistake there and admitted to it, albeit at a horrible, horrible time. I cannot add anything else there besides the fact that I messed up there on blocking.

As far as CU is concerned, if I have overlooked something in the CU results, I would not be afraid to admit to error (as I have done in the past and very recently), but my the WMF privacy policy, I cannot go as far as to disclosing anything that would result in outing a person's private information if it hasn't been done so already by that person. It is just as bad if not worse to try to rectify one mistake and then make another in the rectification process. –MuZemike 08:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• 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?)

   First off, if a block is necessary to stop the continued vandalism, then I would block the registered account only (remember that the related IP would be autoblocked, and such information about autoblocks is hidden from public view including administrators). The main thing here to worry about is to try and prevent the release or personally identifiable information to the user, so I there would be no need for me to disclose whether or not there is a connection. Since some will easily assume that the IP is related due to looking at the contributions on a page, there isn't much that I would be able to do preventing such inferences from being made. Now if the registered user clearly indicated that the IP did belong to that user, then there would be no privacy policy violation by disclosing that. –MuZemike 16:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• 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?

Per our (WMF also) policy on open proxies, the OP would be blocked and normally for a very long time or until the proxy closes; good faith contributors caught under . Naturally, this block would be listed in the block logs, so this would already be revealed. They may be disclosed as part of a sockpuppet investigation for instance that OPs were being used. This is done to let users know in the case of repeated abuse via OPs; for our more serial vandals and sockpuppeteers, this is commonplace. –MuZemike 16:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• 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. I have just a little experience in creating accounts for others, as the unblock-en-l mailing list gets similar requests from time to time. If checkuser assistance is needed over in the ACC area, I'd be willing to volunteer some of my time to help over there. I do realize the folks over at ACC are fairly low-key but just as essential. –MuZemike 17:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]