My complaint to the arbitration committee
I don't reproduce e-Mails which I've received, only those e-Mails which were sent in by myself. Names or quotes from received e-Mails have been deleted. My original typographical and spelling errors have not been corrected.
Following E-Mail I have sent to email@example.com:
I want to complain about administrator User:Kww and User:Tnxman307 for missusing the function of checkuser against my account User:Schwalker.
The checkuser has no sufficient grounds as explained in the first paragraph of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CheckUser#Grounds_for_checking: "The tool is to be used to fight vandalism, to check for sockpuppet activity, to limit disruption or potential disruption of any Wikimedia project, and to investigate legitimate concerns of bad faith editing."
There have been no allegations against Schwalker of vandalism, nor of the misuse of sockpuppets, nor of disrupting the En.wikipedia project or of bad faith editing.
On 19 September 2010 I realized that User:Otto4711 has been blocked on 25 September 2010 by a User:Vanished 6551232. I expressed my surprise about the block of Otto4711 on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations/Otto4711 at 19:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC). This was my very first edit concerning the block of Otto4711.
Since the block of Otto4711 in September 2010, the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vanished_6551232 has been deleted, and Vanished_6551232 has been blocked himself.
That's why I issued a request for explaning the closer circumstances of the Otto4711 block at 23:08, 19 February 2011 on Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=414858775.
Three users responded to my request: User:Silverscreen, User:Kww and User:Beyond My Ken.
Please note that Kww at 03:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC) explicitly wrote: "I always wonder why people dig into these things".
I tried to answer to these responses at 13:27, 20 February 2011, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=414947374#Trying_to_understand_another_user_s_block.
To Kww's statement "I always wonder why people dig into these things" explained in good faith: "As already stated on Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations/Otto4711, I don't know Otto4711, but have read very reasonable contributions in many discussions about categories, so I'm completely surprized by the block of this user."
Then Kww at 15:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC) reported Schwalker as a suspected sockpuppet of User:Otto4711, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Otto4711&diff=414960534&oldid=412994730, with the reason: "Pretty much [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=414947374#Trying_to_understand_another_user.27s_block the inexplicable interest in Otto4711's block]. My strong suspicion is that Otto4711 is attempting to get his block overturned by using a sock to instigate an investigation into the original block."
Kww explicitly asked for a checkuser at 16:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC): "... and my block finger isn't willing to push the button without a checkuser".
At 16:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC) Tnxman307 said that Schwalker is unrelated to the account User:I Want My GayTV, who had been attributed as a sockpuppet to Otto4711 before, and that two other accounts are I Want My GayTV. Obviously Tnxman307 had their information from a checkuser run on both accounts, Schwalker and I Want My GayTV.
Not having been notified of the proposed checkuser, I could not comment on it beforehand.
At 17:25, 20 February 2011, Kww mentions the result of the Checkuser at the ANI, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=414975939&oldid=414972811:
"Despite the reasonable suspicion, Schwalker does not [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Otto4711&oldid=414968606 match Otto4711's recent socks on a technical basis], and I personally don't find the behaviour compelling evidence. ..."
On my request, Kww has confirmed at 02:29, 21 February 2011 that a checkuser of Schwalker really was run at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=415056712&oldid=415043883.
Kww acted in bad faith when on the ANI they first stated to "always wonder why people dig into these things", provoking my answer.
Then, after I tried to explain my interest in Otto4711's block, Kww presented my answer as evidence for requesting a checkuser, with the interpretation of me having an "inexplicable interest in Otto4711's block".
There is no obligation for any user to explain their personal interest in the case of another user's block.
Anyway, an interest in another user's block can't be a sufficient reason for a checkuser.
Even, "an investigation into the original block" would be no crime whatever, and to "instigate" such an investigation would not disturb the project. Please note that I have not requested a formal "investigation" so far. What I did is asking the administrators of Wikipedia to explain the circumstances of Otto4711's block to me.
Even, "Otto4711 getting his block overturned" by an investigation into their original block would not disturb the project. On the contrary: it is exactly what Kww on the ANI has proposed Otto4711 should do ("... He's been doing that so persistently that now the only way to get his account restored is by contacting the arbitration committee and making his case.—Kww(talk) 17:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)")
So Tnxman307 did run the checkuser, although Kww had not presented sufficient evidence, and even had presented reasons which should never justify a checkuser.
In my opinion this checkuser is a case of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CheckUser#Fishing: "performing a check on accounts where there is no credible evidence to suspect sockpuppetry".
I think that a checkuser is a mayor invasion in a user's integrity and data security, which should never be run without very convincing evidence.
After this checkuser, I personally don't feel in a position to continue my started discussion on the ANI, since it is no discussion between equal parties anylonger. Fortunately, other users on the ANI have suported my request. A number of them have also critisized the checkuser of my account. (User: Orange Suede Sofa, User:WikiManOne, User:Rich Farmbrough).
So I would not issue this complaint, if Kww or Tnxman307 had apologized for the run checkuser, but they don't seem to consider it as a mistake.
I demand that measures are taken against Kww and Tnxman307 to guanrantee that neither I nor someone else will again experience a similar situation where fishing methods are used by this administrator and this checkuser.
Until that, I don't intend to continue contributing to en.wikipedia, and actuyll can't recommend anyone else to participate in this project.
Additionally, following two e-Mails have been sent to someone who had responded to the first e-mail.
Hallo, thanks for your response.
Please treat any e-mails I send to the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee as confidential, and don't share them with other people with out my explicit agreement.
I'm not sure who exactly you mean by "deleted", so please don't sent the text of my complaint to anyone else.
I have now sent unaltered copys of my yesterday's e-mail with the text of the complaint to both, User:Tnxman307 and User:Kww, via Wikipedia-E-Mail. So I hope this will help Tnxman307 and Kww to fully understand my concerns,
please note that my complaint not only refers to the behaviour of Tnxman 307, but was issued against both users, Kww and Tnxman307.
As can be seen at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Otto4711&oldid=414978853:
Kww was the User who reported Schwalker as an alleged sockpuppet of Otto4711 at 15:31, 20 February 2011.
Tnxman307 did not run a checkuser immediately, but first asked back at 16:14, 20 February 2011: "Hmm. While the interest is odd, the account has been around, and active, for a few years now. Surely they would have been discovered before now?"
Kww responded at 16:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC) with: "'I've found surprising misses before (User:Paint Old Street Black was missed on several sweeps for ItHysteria, for example), but yes, that is one of the main reasons I'm not shouting WP:DUCK, and my block finger isn't willing to push the button without a checkuser."
Only then did Tnxman307 run the checkuser.
The additional arguments by Kww at 16:25 are invalid in my opinion:
- That another sockpuppet ("Paint Old Street Black") of an entirely
different user ("ltHysteria") has been missed several times by administrators can't have any influence on the decision about a Checkuser of the Schwalker-account. Schwalker is neither responsible for what ltHysteria did, nor for the misses of administrators in the case of ltHysteria.
- Kww explains that "that" (Schwalker having been around, and active,
for a few years now) "is one of the main reasons" that Kww is not blocking Schwalker immediately without a checkuser. But these facts (being around and active for a few years now) only would defend Schwalker from the sockpuppet allegations, and where brought up by Tnxman307 at 16:14 as an argument against running a checkuser immediately. So when Tnxman307 nevertheless ran the checkuser, the same facts were no more used as an arguement in defense of, but suddenly against Schwalker.
From this dialog between Kww and Tnxman307, I have got the impression that Tnxman307 was not secure and independent in their judgement. But Tnxman307 appears to have been influenced by the authority of Kww, which Kww as an administrator may have in the eyes of Tnxman307. It appears to me as if in this case, the decision to run a checkuser was not made by Tnxman307 alone, but in a kind of collaboration between Tnxman307 and Kww.
This is the reason why the complaint goes against both, Kww and Tnxman307,
Some notes about my experiences with this project
I have contributed to this project over a period of more than four years. With breaks and not always very intensive, but I believe most of my edits are sourced and factually correct. I've not avoided controversial discussions when I thought that it would help to produce a better encyclopaedic text. However I've never been blocked yet. During this time, I've met several nice and intelligent people, from who I could learn much about what an encyclopaedia is, and how it should be written. For an example can I mention in this context that I've always enjoyed to discuss things with Slrubenstein.
Over four years, I have only edited with this account Schwalker. On ocassion of a small number of articles, I've used the account User:Rosenkohl, for example when working on the same topic at the same time on de.wikipedia, in order to make my edits more transparent for other users on both projects. Never have I used sock-puppets.
Although I have many ideas how some articles could be improved, I had stopped editing after a checkuser investigation had been run against me. I wrote a complaint and sent it to an Audit Subcommittee of the Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee#Audit_Subcommittee Arbitration Committee of this project. Today, someone has responded to me on behalf of this Audit Subcommittee, and explained that they think that running this checkuser investigation was appropiate.
Because of this checkuser investigation, and answer of the Audit Subcommittee I don't feel that my privacy and data security is guaranted by and in this project en.wikipedia, nor that they are guaranteed for other users. I want to thank those, who have critisized the checkuser against my account on the Administrator's noticeboard, namely User: Orange Suede Sofa, User:WikiManOne, User:Rich Farmbrough (my apologies to those which I've forgotten here).
My advice: Don't participate in the English language Wikipedia
I don't intend to resume contributing to en.wikipedia, and can't recommend anyone else to participate in this project.
--Schwalker (talk) 09:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)