Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/August 2009 election/CheckUser/Tiptoety

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee‎ | CheckUser and Oversight‎ | August 2009 election

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by EricBarbour (talk | contribs) at 18:25, 29 July 2009 (→‎Votes in opposition to Tiptoety). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Tiptoety

Page links: (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

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

Hello. For those of you who do not know me, I am Tiptoety (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and have been a member of Wikipedia for 2 years, 2 months, and 23 days making my first edit on the 2nd of May 2007.

I currently serve (and was the founder of) as a clerk at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations (I also served as a clerk at its predecessor Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser), where I have assisted with ~423 cases (the majority of which I closed myself). In serving as a clerk, one of my main responsibilities is endorsing or declining a request for CheckUser. In doing so, I have found that there were/are numerous times when I endorsed a case and it was left untouched by a Checkuser for 24 hours or more (my timezone is UTC-8 which is different than the majority of the current Checkusers). By me having access to the CheckUser tool I could assist in ensuring a fast response to request for CheckUser attention, which is important.

As of the 2nd of May 2008 I have served the project as one of its many administrators with approximately 13,000 administrative actions (verify), including over 4,000 blocks with the majority relating to incidents of sockpuppetry. As such, I feel that I am an active administrator whom would strongly benefit from the additional tool. Such instances would involve the blocking of underlying IPs in cases of rampant sockpuppetry, rangeblocks when appropriate, and checks for "sleeper" accounts. I am also a member of Wikimedia's OTRS team (verify) with access to en(f) as well as permissions where sensitive and private information is dealt with often. I feel that it is important to protect others privacy, and ensure that matters are handled with the utmost care. In volunteering at OTRS I have encountered multiple tickets which have required me to contact a CheckUser for assistance, which ultimately results in a slower response time. Should I be granted CheckUser access, it will assist me in my OTRS work and result in better ticket response times.

My philosophy on CheckUser is that it is a tool to be used to protect the project from disruption and to enable the creation of content by removing disruptive users.

As I am sure there will be a question around this, I will address it now. Each editor has their own philosophy on dealing with on-wiki threats of violence (TOV). Per the privacy policy (#6) , it states that CheckUsers may release the data of an editor "Where it is reasonably necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the public." Because of this, I am not opposed to releasing the information of a specific user (should the situation warrant it) to another single user for the purpose of contacting law enforcement but will not release the information to the community at large as it serves no purpose and violates the person's privacy. I am also willing (and have done so in the past) to contact the authorities myself should the situation call for it (to reduce drama, and to protect the person in question).

Lastly, I would like to say that I am honored to have been selected by the committee to stand in this election, but note that there are other very qualified candidates standing and wish them the best of luck! Cheers, Tiptoety talk 02:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and questions for Tiptoety

  • Question from Aitias (added 00:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)): Obviously, you would not have nominated yourself if you did not believe that there is a realistic chance to be elected. Why do you feel that you of all people should be one of those which will be elected? Do you, for example, reckon that you are better qualified than the other candidates?[reply]
Hello Aitias, and thank you for the question. The answer to your question is a little harder than "yes" or "no". Every candidate standing in this election has been vetted by ArbCom, is trusted members of the community, and each have their own set of special skills to bring to the table. For me, I feel the skills I bring are my experience at WP:SPI (a process in part I created), and a history of dealing with sock-related issues. Because of this I am very familiar with the a wide range of sockmasters, their editing behavior, and spotting them, as well as how to deal with cases sockpuppetry and when to use the tool and when not to.
That said, do I feel I have more relevant experience? Yes. Am I more qualified? No, like I said before each person has something special to bring to the table. Tiptoety talk 02:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question from iridescent (added 19:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)): This will get mentioned at some point, so better to clear it up now. When you first joined Wikipedia, you were a police cadet; are you currently employed by (or volunteering for) any investigatory agency (state or private) and if so, do you see any potential conflict of interest and how would would you handle potential legal issues (credible threats, criminal defamation etc) which potentially fell under the jurisdiction of your force/company? – iridescent 19:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am affilianted with some form of law enforcement agency, though hope that does not sway people to support or oppose as it has very little relevance to my actions on-wiki. I will not mix my real life activities with my on-wiki ones, and will defer to other Checkusers, ArbCom, or the foundation should a potential conflict of interest arise. To answer the second part, no. I will not take any action in a situation where the TOV has taken place within the juristiction of said law enforcement agency (not without being told to do so by the foundation). I hope that clears things up, Tiptoety talk 17:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions from SilkTork *YES! 09:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC) : 1. How would you judge when it is appropriate to use CheckUser to prevent disruption that a user has not yet caused? 2. What disruption might a user with multiple accounts cause in mainspace (rather than project space) that only a CheckUser could solve? 3. In your view which sensitive Checkuser requests should not go via WP:SPI?[reply]
  • 1. There are very few situations when CheckUser should be used to prevent disruption that has yet to be caused. Of the situations I can think of, the main one would be Grawp attacks (or similar attacks). Without sticking beans up my nose, there are times when it is more than obvious that an account is Grawp, and it should be blocked and checked right away, regardless of if the account has caused disruption yet.
  • 2. Generally speaking, most sock-related issues can be solved without the need for CheckUser (WP:DUCK). I think that the most prevalent situation that only Checkusers could solve would be editors jumping IPs to evade blocks to vandalize articles, continue edit wars, or make other disruptive edits. In such situations, CheckUser would be needed to block the underlying IPs (depending on of they are dynamic or static), perform range blocks (only in severe situations), and/or block any open proxies the editor may be editing from.
  • 3. I am of the mind that most situations should be handled on-wiki (for the purpose of transparency), and the Checkusers, administrators, and reporting users should be held accountable by the community for the actions they perform. That said, situations where there is a potential for very high drama (socks of functionaries) should be first dealt with in private (via ArbCom or the foundation), but ultimately should be discussed on-wiki. Also, situations involving potential libel, or real life harm should probably be kept off-wiki. Tiptoety talk 17:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question from Offliner (talk) 13:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC): What kind of evidence do you think is necessary before using the tool? Can you give an example on what kind of evidence would be enough for you to run a CheckUser without a prior SPI report, and what kind of evidence would not? If someone would approach you with only a personal suspicion (based on his knowledge of the sockmaster's behaviour) that an editor is a sockpuppet, without presenting objective evidence, what would you do? Offliner (talk) 13:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the question Offliner, and sorry for the delay in answering it. Generally speaking, the account would need to have made disruptive edits for a check to be ran on it, or a link made via editing patterns between it and other abusive account(s). Such editing patterns might include pushing a specific POV, reverting back to edits of blocked sockpuppets, editing times (which could be compared to other CheckUser evidence should one have been ran before), or distinct spelling/grammar similarities. (For specific examples feel free to look through my edits where I have endorsed or declined requests for CheckUser at WP:SPI). Evidence that would not justify a check being ran would be requests based upon a "general suspicion", or those where the requesting party is clearly using the SPI case to gain the upper hand in a dispute. There are of course of situations where judgment would need to be used. To answer your last question. Should an editor approach me and simply ask me to run a check based upon their knowledge of a certain sockmasters behavior I would not run one without viewing the evidence for myself. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 04:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions from Tony1:
    • (1) Can you provide examples of high-level administrative judgement in your role as an ArbCom clerk that suggest you have the appropriate skill-base for CU?
  • Well, for the most part clerks work is simply "janitorial" in nature and commonly consists of enacting motions, opening and closing cases, cross posting notices, and tiding up where needed. But there does become situations where discretion and judgment must come into play, and the clerks as a whole must play referee (even if that means kicking someone off the court on occasion). I think a specific example involves SQRT5P1D2 (talk · contribs), whom was claimed to have been causing disruptive at WP:ARBMAC2. As the clerk for the case, I decided the best approach would be to educate, inform, a gently warn the user instead of kicking him off the court completely (please see here for my message, and here for his response) While this may not be "high-level administrative action, I feel that it is just as much an administrators job to try and resolve disputes without the use of tools as it is to use the tools when necessary. The same would apply for my use of CheckUser.
I have taken note of your questions, and will answer them shortly. Tiptoety talk 17:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally speaking, yes. I would support curbing the policy to only allow users to use alt. accounts for the use of editing on public computers, or be required to disclose the account to ArbCom. Now that said, that is only my opinion. As a CheckUser my job would be to follow policy, and currently the policy is written in a way which is more lax on the use of alt. accounts. Tiptoety talk 04:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. :-) Take note that prior to this incident, there was little to no community input on how situations like this should be handled (the use of both CheckUser and 'crat powers in a discussion). That said, I probably would have contacted E-man directly (which Deskana did), but would have given him ample time to answer as the RFA was still new and had a while left to go. I would have requested input from other 'crats as well as Checkusers prior to me taking any action on-wiki. Now in retrospect, knowing what we know now I would have never mixed my role as a 'crat and CU and would have deferred to others to help. Tiptoety talk 04:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  1. How old are you?
    I am 18 years of age or older. Tiptoety talk 00:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't want to be rude. But do you intend to give a real answer to this question? You're standing for CU my friend and there are very real-world implications associated with the tool that you are asking for. Giving a cheeky answer that you're over 18 is not sufficient in my opinion. -- Samir 04:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize. I did not intend for it to come across cheeky at all, nor did I mean any offense. As for my reason for not being more direct, it is for my privacy. I believe user privacy is very important, including my own. I hope that clears things up. Tiptoety talk 05:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The community is mindful of Essjay controversy or some former Checkusers' abuses/misuses of the tool because they abused the community trust by lying their identity or blocking their opponents for their POV pushing regardless of the fact that such abuses are unethical and violates COI. Since we do not have any "removing the bit system" except ArbCom, if you as a Checkuser witness such abuses by colleagues, what would you do for that and would you be wiling to publicize such issues to the community?
    Yes. Abusing the communities trust should not be protected, nor should anyone turn a blind eye to it. If I witnessed another functionary abusing his or her rights, I would immediately report their actions to ArbCom, and should it be an Arb I would contact another whom I trusted as well as Jimbo Wales. As an end result the abuse should be publicized to allow the community to review the evidence for themselves and voice their opinions. Tiptoety talk 00:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (comment moved from vote section) Regardless of whether you have not answered my latest answer, I support you because you have the far most SPI clerking experience among all the candidates. However, well, I can be swayed to abstain or oppose according to your answer later though.--Caspian blue 00:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (comment moved from vote section) One of the most qualified candidates. PeterSymonds (talk) 00:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (comment moved from vote section) Candidate is clearly one of the most qualified in the running. His experience as a clerk has been superb, and I can find no reason to oppose. Firestorm Talk 00:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: (1) In determining whether to support someone for promotion to such a trustworthy position, I think age is highly relevant. It is, of course, your choice ultimately, but I believe your candidature would be assisted by candidness in this respect. (2) I wish you were writing to a higher standard, or took more care to edit your posts. I think you would be in a position in which good administrative writing is required. Tony (talk) 08:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes in support of Tiptoety

  1. Steve Crossin The clock is ticking.... 00:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong support. — Aitias // discussion 00:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Vicenarian (T · C) 00:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Shappy talk 00:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. JamieS93 00:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Absolute yes. PeterSymonds (talk) 00:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --Caspian blue 00:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strongly. iMatthew talk at 00:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 00:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Prodego talk 00:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. NW (Talk) 00:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. John Carter (talk) 00:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. (X! · talk)  · @062  ·  00:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. —harej (talk) (cool!) 00:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Majorly talk 00:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Firestorm Talk 00:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19.  Chzz  ►  01:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Triplestop x3 01:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Rjd0060 (talk) 01:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. ThemFromSpace 01:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. —Animum (talk) 01:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Noroton (talk) 03:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. — Jake Wartenberg 03:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Nathan T 03:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Timmeh 03:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Jehochman Talk 04:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Nevard (talk) 04:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. — Σxplicit 05:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support -- Tinu Cherian - 05:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Strong support. bibliomaniac15 05:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Law type! snype? 06:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. Daniel Case (talk) 06:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Offliner (talk) 07:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  38. SoWhy 11:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  39. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 12:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Aye ~~ Phoe talk ~~ 12:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  41. AGK 13:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  42. --Until It Sleeps Wake me 13:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support --4wajzkd02 (talk) 15:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  44. LittleMountain5 15:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. Zitterbewegung Talk 15:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  46. MuZemike 16:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Griffinofwales (talk) 17:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Davewild (talk) 18:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  50. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Masonpatriot (talk) 18:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  52. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  53. FASTILY (TALK) 19:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  54. --Ipatrol (talk) 19:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Strong support. --Kanonkas :  Talk  20:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  56. — Ched :  ?  21:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  57. - Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  58. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Basket of Puppies 22:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Crowsnest (talk) 22:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Bsimmons666 (talk) 23:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Daniel (talk) 00:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  63. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 01:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  64. RJC TalkContribs 01:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Priyanath talk 02:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Unionhawk Talk E-mail 02:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  67. BrianY (talk) 04:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Pax85 (talk) 05:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Becksguy (talk) 08:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  70. ceranthor 12:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Camaron · Christopher · talk 12:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Toddst1 (talk) 14:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  73. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 15:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Pmlineditor 15:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  75. PhilKnight (talk) 17:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes in opposition to Tiptoety

  2. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Antandrus (talk) 00:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. JayHenry (talk) 01:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Skinwalker (talk) 02:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Kingturtle (talk) 03:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Javerttalk 04:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Cla68 (talk) 07:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. AdjustShift (talk) 09:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Tony (talk) 11:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    --Fox1942 (talk) 11:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC) (Vote indented as user is not allowed to vote in this election - SoWhy 11:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  13. Goodmorningworld (talk) 07:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Drew Smith What I've done
  16. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 04:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. --Joopercoopers (talk) 11:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. *** Crotalus *** 18:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Eric Barbour (talk) 18:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/CheckUser_and_Oversight/August_2009_election/CheckUser/Tiptoety&oldid=304925010"