The feedback have been noted. The request is withdrawn, and I appreciate everyone's participation. I recognise I don't have the required support to checkuser. At four opposes, there is a probability that I will not receive the required support percentages with the size of this wiki. I don't want to take more editorial time for this discussion. I also won't renew the request on my own. Thank you again, NonvocalScream (talk) 01:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

NonvocalScream

[change source]
NonvocalScream (talk · contribs)

Hello. I'm Jon. I'm an editor, I also have the mop that I use from time to time. I have a through understanding of IP and editor relationships. I am online more than ever for this wiki, and available for CU requests. I am also available to crosscheck other checkusers. I am already identified to the foundation and have no issues dealing with restricted data, as I already deal with the data. I have a deep understanding of the privacy policy and can demonstrate when to check, and when not to check. I will be an asset by assisting in the prevention of abuse and socking on this wiki.

I have addressed the concerns brought about in the last nomination. Thank you for your consideration.



Optional Questions

[change source]

From: fr33kman talk

Q: Recently we have had a problem with an IP open proxy vandal, under what circumstances would a CU be useful to perform on an open proxy IP addy? When would it be a waste of time? What information would be most useful?
A:For one incident, no. For a string, perhaps. This can assist in indicating if a single user had used the proxy for the creation of sock accounts. The information included with the tool is the standard fingerprinting information given from the user during an HTTP GET.


Q: When would you perform an unannounced CU check on an established user? Give two examples when it'd be okay to do this?
A:After the closing of a discussion, when vote fraud is suspected. Also, if the edit pattern matches for two accounts when you suspect those accounts are being used to sway a discussion, participate in a revert war.


Q: Another checkuser performs a CU that you think is a violation of policy; what do you do about it?
A:I would report it discreetly to the m:Ombudsman commission. This permits discretion in the event I am wrong. In the event I am right, the possible outcomes can range from simply educating the checkuser on the privacy policy to removal of access. All with a minimum of drama.


Q: When would you perform a CU on an editor when you are personally involved with that editor?
A:I do not believe this would be a good idea. If the reason for a check is strong enough, the options available to me include asking a steward or another checkuser to run the check.


Q: Why was en:CIDR invented? Is en:IPV6 still needed today? Why or why not?
A:There are only a limited amount of IPV4 addresses available. CIDR was a measure intended to stem the demand for new addresses. To whether IPV6 is needed or not, there is much contention. Some say no, due to NAT. Network address translation permits many computers to use one IP address. Some say yes... that more devices are using IP address, from phones, to copy machines.

From: Barras (talk)

Q: I refer to Fr33kman's question #3: You would it report directly to the Ombudsmen. Would it not be better first to talk to the other CU? Perhabs he had a good reason for doing this. Please explain for me, why you would first talk to the Ombudsmen (at least it sounds to me this way).
A:The ombudsman is experienced enough to decide if a violation did or did not occur. The other CU will not know a complaint was made, if I am wrong. If I am correct, the OC can decide the best action. Oversight is important with this tool. Now, I'd let the other CU know (if I was right) , of course, for courtesy... but I don't think I could sweep it under the rug. There is a special trust here.
Q: If someone talks to you via mail or IRC or something else and asks you to perform a CU what would you do? The user doesn't want to post the request onwiki. And what would you do if the request is borderlining (make or not make)?
A:If there is a need / or valid cause to run CU, then you can run it. If not, then no. Matters not where the request is from. Also the privacy policy dictates how I can disclose and if I can disclose results.

From: Pmlineditor ∞

Q: In your view which Checkuser requests should not go via WP:RFCU?
A:Any checkuser request can go to RFCU. I can think of maybe a couple of examples of RFCU requests not going on wiki. Let us take a candidate for RFA (requests for adminship). If the editor that is requesting an RFCU does not have strong evidence, but instead, semi strong... they may be best to request this RFCU offline. To do otherwise, may torpedo the RFA of a could be innocent editor. That would be unfortunate. Now... whether that RFCU is accepted, would depend on the merits of the request. Also, whether the information is disclosed, would depend on the application of the privacy policy in that particular case. (example: Did an administrator request the information in order to formulate a targeted range block? Did the request have strong merit, and did the CU outcome present strong technical evidence of abuse?) All these variables would also play into the request.
Q: What disruption might a sockpuppeteer cause in mainspace (rather than WP space) that only a CheckUser could solve?
A:Socking in mainspace, where there are similar edit patterns, where two or more accounts (one editor) are attempting to develop a consensus in an article using sock accounts.
Q: You withdrew your last RfCU. What has changed since then that you nommed yourself?
A:Some disagreements I now take privately with individuals, instead of using our noticeboards. I double think before I post a concern to the noticeboards. And I double think "Is it worth it that I engage on this

From Jamesofur (talk):

Q: In your own opinion and understanding of the policies if you are approached by the following people what would your response be, please explain why the decision fits with policy:
A:If the edit pattern is the same, in exactness, a checkuser query may not be needed. However, for the established editor, a checkuser query may be indicated to see is certain technical evidence exists. Were there similar patterns elsewhere? This question would need to be addressed as well before a decision was made. For both discussion, if a CU were run, it may be a good idea to wait until those discussions close, although not required. Also, would I state that I ran a checkuser? Probably not... in deference to user privacy, and common sense. Sometimes the fact that a CU was run, casts users in a bad light unfairly even if technical evidence suggests no wrongdoing. In the most vanilla of circumstance, the same response is indicated for RFA and deletion discussions. I've always believed that we should exhaust other means, rather then go to CU query firstly.
A:If you approached me, yes, I may disclose the IP's to you if I can confirm they are abusing simple, in order for you to construct a report to the ISP. This release is permitted in the privacy policy in the section titled Release — Policy on Release of Data subsection 5. I would have to use common sense for whom I release to. I think it may go without saying, I would not release to a questionable editor.
A:One year worth of evidence. The duck test may not necessitate a CU query. This one I might give back to the community. I have to admit honestly that I would, in this case, consult with other checkusers. This one is not clear cut with the info you have me.
Q: In your own words: when, and how, are you allowed to release location information of a user you CUd?
A:For ISP reports... the location is disclosed with the IP, that is unavoidable. I can also state that two editors use the network, but no good for me to state city. I don't like it for others to state it, so I won't be stating it. In deference to privacy. If the editor needs to confirm a location on wiki, and 1 consents to a CU and 2 consents to location release; then I can release. I don't have to release. I am not even required to run the check.
Q: In your own word: When, and how, are you allowed to release the actual IP of a user you CUd?
A: Only for ISP reports. That is permitted. If a foundation board chairperson or whomever he says can get it, or M. Godwin requests the IP, I can disclose to them as well. In general, the IP should not be disclosed. If there is any confusion on my port, I won't release anything.
Q: Would you mind saying why you are identified to the WMF? I could not find a CU/OS position and I know OTRS doesn't need to identify generally. I would assume the blog.
A:The blog software permits me access to the IP of each contributer. Also, I have direct editorial access to the blog, I can change things. It allows the foundation to hold me accountable if I mishandle one of those. NonvocalScream (talk) 18:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support

[change source]
  1. Having received the answers to my questions above, AND having held private real-time discussions with this admin, I feel that Scream has a good understanding of the technical aspects of the role and the ethical aspects of the role. "Too many CU's" is meaningless to me. Full support! fr33kman talk 04:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I am probably one of the most "controversial" admins/checkusers around, yet somehow I have managed to use checkuser rights perfectly well. I cannot see what harm there would be in him having CU rights too. Majorly talk 12:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Well, I was absolutely spitted. My first thought was (as usual) the number of persons who have the tool. Then I re-thought this and decided that I shouldn’t care about numbers (yes, I can learn things). Scream did perhaps some odd actions, but we are all only humans and to err is human. No one is perfect. I’m impressed about Scream’s knowledge about the IPs and so on. I think he would be a good choice for being a cu. Moreover, I like his answers. Good luck --Barras (talk) 13:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Seemingly one of the few on here who both acts like an adult and can use half-decent English Soup Dish (talk) 15:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That comment is unnecessary. The project is largely comprised of non-native English speakers, and that doesn't have any bearing on their competence or ability to contribute productively. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes it does. It absolutely does. If the project is meant to be aimed at those who struggle with English, having editors/admins who don't know the difference between your/you're or there/their/they're, for instance, makes the whole thing a joke Soup Dish (talk) 17:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    But what has that got to do with CU? CU is more of a technical thing, isn't it? Pmlineditor ∞ 17:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    CU has a great deal to do with competence. Most non-native English speakers on this project are, sadly and in terms of what this project is about, woefully incompetent Soup Dish (talk) 17:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess us dyslexics should resign then? fr33kman talk 17:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    @Soup Dish: I as editor, admin and oversighter here and as non-native speaker could feel attacked. This is imo disruptive editing... Barras (talk) 18:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I tend to agree that Soup Dish's vote is trolling and needlessly offensive. I struggle to assume good faith of accounts that spend most of their time on this project voting on things in a troll-like way. Something should be done. Majorly talk 21:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Soup Dish has been doing this for a long time; some action must be taken. Pmlineditor ∞ 11:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per Fr33kman & Majorly. Griffinofwales (talk) 19:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - Barras has said it for me. --Peterdownunder (talk) 01:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[change source]
  1. Regretful oppose - I acknowledge that Scream does good work, and I appreciate his efforts. That said, I am not sure much has changed since the last request only a few months ago. Scream seems to find himself (not just at simple) involved in a number of disputes, and there have been times when I was not impressed with the way he dealt with them. Do I trust Scream to not abuse the rights? Yes. Do I trust him not to misuse the rights? I am not so sure. Sorry Scream, Tiptoety talk 04:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The difference between misuse and abuse is what exactly?? ... I'd also like to point out that admins frequently find themselves in disputes; sometimes it is their duty to get into disputes, sometimes it is not; could you give a couple of examples please? fr33kman talk 05:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This has nothing to do with Tiptoety's oppose, really, I just want to know why you feel the need to badger people that disagree with you. – Katerenka (talk • contribs) 05:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Asking for clarification is not badgering people. Any user has the right to refuse to answer any question I pose. I don't know who you are, but I think I have earned the respect (via long service) on this wiki to ask these kinds of questions. I am also a checkuser (as well as an admin and a crat) and so probably have a good understanding of what is needed in a CU candidate. It is also VERY MUCH accepted practice to question the reasoning of people who take part in any form of discussion on any WMF project; whether for or against a candidate. fr33kman talk 05:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Asking for clarification and what you do are two different things. You being a checkuser has nothing to do with anything other than perhaps you think you're better than me, a lowly editor, which is fine, I could care less how you perceive yourself. I would just like to see you perhaps change the way you come across (arrogant and egotistical) on this project. And don't assume to have my respect, because you do not have it. – Katerenka (talk • contribs) 05:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The people who have been here for more than 12 days know better; they can tell you straight out that I've never been guilty of what you have accused me of! I think I'll leave it to them to decide! I have no worries on that account! :) fr33kman talk 05:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I am rather new, and I am telling you how you come across to me. You would think that you would want to give off a better first impression, but if you don't I don't really care. As far as I'm concerned this matter is closed. People with your mindset rarely change. – Katerenka (talk • contribs) 05:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You obviously know very little about me. Ask around before you determine what kind of person I am! :) fr33kman talk 05:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally I can't see what Fr33kman is doing wrong. Bringing up the old "OHNOES BADGDERING" rubbish definitely is wrong. While RfA/RfX is a vote pretty much, discussion should not be stifled. If one disagrees with something, one is certainly allowed to ask for clarification. A single comment does not constitute "badgering" anyway. This might make interesting reading. Majorly talk 12:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, from what we do know of you (from here) it is not very becoming. Anyways, to answer your questions. The difference between misuses and abuse is that misuses can often times be unintentional, while abuse is not. As for examples, most of them come from other Wikis, OTRS stuff, and mailing list discussions. Being that some of these are private I would rather not go into to much detail. If Scream would like some examples of what I am talking about, I can provide those to him via email. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 06:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, please do. NonvocalScream (talk) 12:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Email sent. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 20:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I was asked to comment here to help clarify any confusion. Speaking from experience, to the best of my recollection, I do not know of any occasion when NonvocalScream has misused or abused his access to the OTRS system. I would be interested, both as an editor with Wikimedia projects at heart (ie. this RfCU) and as an OTRS administrator (ie. any long-term issues with OTRS), to be made aware of the issues to which Tiptoety refers. Tip, if you could please email me with an explanation as to what you refer by this vote (in particular the OTRS part), it'd be much appreciated. Regards, Daniel (talk) 03:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have contacted Daniel, and he is now well aware to what I am referring to here. Please understand that my oppose is not based up abuse or misuse of Scream's OTRS access but a rash decision that he made. Scream has asked me to reconsider my position, and I currently am. I may very well hold out functionaries to too high of standards. Tiptoety talk 00:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sorry scream, too many bad decisions with your sysop tools. I can't trust you with CU, so I have to Oppose. Pmlineditor ∞ 09:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you provide some diffs, please? I need them, because I'm not sure about the candidate. Thanks Barras (talk) 10:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A recent diff may be this - admin actions without consensus may not harm much but doing random uses of CU will. Also the entire BG7 episode... I think that was a poor reflection of the trust we placed on him. Then the sudden unblock... reblock in the PBP case. Also, deleting stubs per A3 without even alerting users. Pmlineditor ∞ 10:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree to the diff. Yotcmdr just overturnded an other admin's decission what is not ok. So, I fully agree with NSV's action. Barras (talk) 11:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm talking of the action... not the revert. Pmlineditor ∞ 11:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I can fully understand this action due to the amount of the vandalism this wiki receives. I understand the intention that we don't want or even need vandalism on our mainpage. Barras (talk) 11:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    But cascade? When was the last time that DYK was vandalised? And was the handling of the PBP and BG situation appropriate? I'm not at all convinced. Pmlineditor ∞ 11:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Protections are to prevent vandalism. Why first waiting until the mainpage is destroyed with vandalism? It is good that there is still no vandalism, but if there were vandalism it would be bad for our mainpage. Barras (talk) 11:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A) My problem is not with the decision, but about doing such a thing without consensus. B) Look at this. Majority of the last updates were by non-admins. Pmlineditor ∞ 11:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wrong, 9 out of 50 edits isnt the majority. Barras (talk) 11:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I see about 30 edits. I became an admin much later. Also, the protection would prevent bots from adding interwikis. Pmlineditor ∞ 11:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    New iws can be added manually, that's not a problem. Now I see that you became later sysop, but you are now sysop and one of the users who update DYK. I think not much will change the next time, so the most updates will be made by admins. Barras (talk) 11:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per alot of what Tiptoey and Pmlineeditor have said. I just still see too much rash judgement and decision making happening. Something that shouldn't really happen from a checkuser. As an editor, nothing but the utmost respect. But I do find myself questioning his decisions alot. -DJSasso (talk) 01:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Tiptoety cites "private data" which an OTRS admin has clarified, here, on this request. PMline cites the main page cascade addition. I'm having a hard time gleaning how my decision to protect the main page shows I'm not suitable for checkuser. What decisions, which judgements? If I may ask. Warmly, NonvocalScream (talk) 02:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Scream seems to find himself (not just at simple) involved in a number of disputes <-- I find this to be the case a very large amount of time. too many bad decisions with your sysop tools <-- I also find this to be the case. You jump to actions too fast and get worked up to fast. An example of jumping to fast was the recent purplebackpack situation. Another example is how you handled the BG7 situation. There are a number. -DJSasso (talk) 16:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just one point, while I'm reconsidering my !vote, I'd like to explain that my !vote was not about your MP protect, it was about the decisions you took in several cases -BG7, PBP, etc. Pmlineditor ∞ 16:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The BG7 block was broadly supported by the community, and the resulting RFDA was closed. I had him blocked to prevent further disruption to the project. Note also the PB unblock was based upon that there was no consensus or support for an indef block, and I was reviewing the unblock template as uninvolved. Please also note that when Chen replaced the block, I completely disengaged in favor of not wheeling or becoming <hyperbole> entrenched in a dispute</hyperbole>. In the end, my decision there, was replaced. (two week block) Remember that a discussion and a disagreement is not a dispute. One could go as far as to say that because I support unblocking CM90, and it appears at the present time, no other editor does, that is a dispute. This is wrong, and it is not a dispute, but thoughtful discussion. I was not elected to participate in groupthink. I was elected to use my discretion and judgement. If this is no longer the case, find three administrators who would request I give up the hat in the next seven days, and I will do so, and continue as a regular editor with no hard feelings and no show or "drama". It is that simple. Lacking that, I will continue to use my judgement and discretion in what I believe is in the best interest of this encyclopedia, community, and it's editors based of of consensus and established guidelines and policy. This is what I was elected for, this is why the community consented to my serving the project in this way. Please don't let my good faithed discretionary judgements, something I was elected to do, be a reason you can not trust me to accuratly execute or decline CU requests, and to properly safeguard nonpublic data. With very warm regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 17:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you miss the point that you do these actions before discussion has finished. The discussion was far from over in the PBP situation, yet you changed the time anyways instead of letting the admin who first made the block change it. I never said either of these situations were a dispute, the disputes I reference is your out and out fighting with people like BG, which is by no stretch just a disagreement. I of all people know the diference between disagreement and dispute as I disagree with people alot. As far as stating we should find others to get you to give up your admin bit, that is just drama baiting right there. But that being said, I probably would consider voting to remove your bit had it been up for discussion to be honest, but I have never had enough reason to start the process myself. -DJSasso (talk) 17:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason for the immediacy in unblocking PB... any block can be dangerous, in the way that we lose valuable contributions. And editors leave with hard feelings attached. This is not a good things. The discussion stalled, I think I commented on that a couple of days later. It was already readily apparent that the editor 1) should be blocked and 2) should not be indef. That was enough to act upon. It was unlikely the consensus would have changed, I could tell that from the comments and thoughts. Note how I responded when someone came behind me and changed me, I did not respond, but I waited. The outcome was the same. Any administrator can undo another admin, when there is consensus to do so. There was in that case. I don't think I've fought with BG, but responded in the interest of project protection. And if I was to abrasive, I apologise. I will work on being more nice. Additionally, I don't think three messages to my talk page, is drama baiting. Just a commitment to accountability. I'm saying that if I'm acting wrongly, then I will take to it, and either change, or make it right by recognising that if the community no longer consents to my hat, then I can give it back. This hat is no big deal, and there should be no drama attached to anyone telling me that maybe I'm not cut out. I honestly hope that does not happen, but if it does... This is not about me, but the encyclopedia. Warmly, NonvocalScream (talk) 17:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Too short of a time since last request, and I am not sure if the user is the right candidate for this job. He tends to be quite confrontational and argumentative (slightly) and I do not trust his judgement or discretion yet. Many of the issues raised in your last RfCU are still present now. Razorflame 00:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If I understand, checkuser folks should not argue/disagree/or confront issues? And for me, could you clarify what judgement or discretion specifically you have issue with? NonvocalScream (talk) 01:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, but if you have a rash temperment, then that can lead to rash decisions, which can lead to incorrect checks or mistakes. I simply do not trust you enough with the CU flag at this point in time. Razorflame 01:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you cite examples? I'd like to know what causes you to state my temperament. I think I have a good temperament. Perhaps some examples. Warmly, NonvocalScream (talk) 01:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Look at what Tiptoety and DJSasso have said and you will find your examples. Razorflame 01:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems like the easy way to go. Thank you for your feedback. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 01:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[change source]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
More