User:Surturz/DQAUSC

Complaint

Dear Audit Subcommittee,
This email is available onwiki at User:Surturz/DQAUSC.
I am lodging a formal complaint against CheckUser User:DeltaQuad ("DQ") and (more broadly) the processes of the CheckUser team, for the actions that led to the wrongful block of User:Int21h for sockpuppetry on 28 December 2012. [1]
This course of action has been recommended to me by Administrator User:Fluffernutter[2], SPI clerk User:Rschen7754[3], and DQ himself[4].
SPI Clerk Rschen7754 has stated that "CheckUser is not subject to the dispute resolution process".[5] I would like AUSC to clarify whether this means that CheckUsers are exempt from WP:RFC/U for any conduct issues involving CheckUser tools. I would have preferred to go through normal WP:DR procedures with DQ rather than straight to a formal complaint to ArbCom (via its subcommittee AUSC).
First I would like to stress that I am not alleging any malice or dishonesty on the part of DQ, my complaints only go to his judgement and competence as a CheckUser and Administrator.
Second I acknowledge that Int21h's response, consisting of numerous expletive-filled tirades, was a mitigating factor and DQ should be congratulated on weathering the abuse with admirable stoicism.
Those factors notwithstanding, I believe that DQ has violated both the CheckUser and WP:ADMINACCT policies.

CheckUser policy violation

The WP:NOTFISHING section of WP:CHECK states:

"Fishing" is to check an account where there is no credible evidence to suspect sockpuppetry. Checks are inappropriate unless there is evidence suggesting abusive sock-puppetry. Checking an account where the alleged sockmaster is unknown, but there is reasonable suspicion of sockpuppetry is not fishing, and a suspected sock-puppet's operator is sometimes unknown until a CheckUser investigation is concluded. Checks with a negative result do not mean the check was initially invalid.

WP:CHECK also advises:

CheckUser is not magic wiki pixie dust. Almost all queries about IPs will be because two editors were behaving the same way or an editor was behaving in a way that appears suggestive of possible disruption. An editing pattern match is the important thing; the IP match is really just extra evidence (or not).

I believe that DQ blocked the Int21h account on technical evidence (IP address and software signature match) alone. The initial invasion of Int21h’s privacy was justified per NOTFISHING as DQ looked for the sockmaster. However, DQ’s verdict that Int21h was a sock could only be justified if there was “evidence suggesting abusive sockpuppetry” by the Int21h account. I asked the following question, and received the following answer from DQ:

Q: Did you have any evidence that the Int21h itself account was disrupting the project, or that the sock accounts were assisting the Int21h on talkpages, etc?
A: At the time, no, I did not have any evidence to say that the Int21h account was being disruptive 'by itself, or that any of the sock accounts were editing the same articles, project space pages, talkpages, etc. together.

I think this is an admission by DQ that, against policy, he only considered technical evidence (IP address + web browser type) in his determination against the Int21h account. Int21h was using the Tor network to ensure his anonymity, and this caused a false positive match on technical details with a vandal; this was an honest mistake by DQ and forgivable. The lack of additional evidence of abuse as required by WP:CHECK was negligence on DQ’s part and unacceptable. Although the clean block log was considered, the age of the Int21h account (6 years) does not seem to have been considered, nor the good contribution history of the account[6] – either of which would have raised doubts as to whether this was really a vandal’s account; ignorance here was also negligent of DQ.

DQ has stated “I got three others to certify the results and two of those three to agree to an emergency block (they all agreed to a block if answers didn't satisfy)”However, DQ did not ask Int21h any questions as recommended by the dissenting CU. It is hard to see where the “emergency” was given that, as stated before, the Int21h account itself was not involved in any abuse.

WP:ADMINACCT policy violation

ADMINACCT states, in part:

Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools, and unexplained administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools.

I assert that DQ blocked the Int21h account with no warning, tendered no evidence to support the block reason, and the resulting demoralisation of Int21h has been extreme (evidenced by his posts on the ArbCom talkpage[7])
The edit history of Int21h’s talkpage verifies that DQ did not give any warning of the block, nor give Int21h a chance to defend himself.DQ’s block gave the following reason:

Hello Int21h,
You have been blocked based on CheckUser evidence that you are clearly abusing multiple accounts. If you believe this is a mistake, you may email me. At this time, until my investigation is complete, i'm not going to release the account names in which are matching with you as this is a big investigation and is not complete, but several CheckUsers have already looked into this offwiki and have verified the results. If you wish not to email me, you can appeal right to the Ban Appeals Subcommittee by emailing arbcom-appeals-en@lists.wikimedia.org. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 00:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC) )[8]

In this block reason, DQ gives no evidence at all that Int21h was a sock account – not even the most basic evidence: the name of the other sock account. DQ has recently admitted that he should have done this. DQ noted that “several CheckUsers” verified his results, but does not name them (and he continues to refuse to name them, citing privacy).

As noted before, Int21h’s extremely hostile response to the block is a mitigating factor, but there are no posts on Int21h’s talkpage (the only page he could edit) by DQ until DQ’s apology for the bad block.

In the original block, DQ included the checkuserblock-account template which states:

CheckUser evidence has determined that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked permanently to prevent abuse.
Administrators: CheckUsers are privy to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy, and therefore must be consulted before this block can be removed. Administrators undoing checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser risk having their administrator rights removed by the Arbitration Committee (per this announcement). -- -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 00:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[9]

DQ only informed Int21h of two means of appeal, the first to email DQ (as the blocking CheckUser), and the other to email arbcom-appeals-en@lists.wikimedia.org. It seems that Int21h did email the arbcom appeals list but they told him to email DQ(This seems an error in governance to me). So there was now only one avenue of appeal left to Int21h – User:DeltaQuad. Int21h did not want to reveal his email address to DQ, and DQ appears to have ignored the only on-wiki page that Int21h could edit, despite a good character reference for Int21h soon after the block[10], and another editor mentioning a similar IPBE SPI case that had occurred nine days earlier where an innocent longterm editor had been blocked.[11]. Based on very limited information provided by Bureaucrat Hersfold about the CheckUser process[12], Int21h also (remarkably) managed to correctly diagnose the mistake that had been made[13] Int21h, however, would not be unblocked for another 20 days.
I believe if DQ had obeyed WP:ADMINACCT, his error would have been detected earlier, and the bad block either never happened, or the consequences not have been so great.

Thank you for considering my complaint. --Surturz (talk) 14:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Verdict

On 4 March 2013, the Audit Subcommittee received a complaint by Surturz against DeltaQuad related to DeltaQuad's use of his checkuser permissions to check and block Int21h. The results of our investigation and our recommendations concerning this complaint are as follows.

Checkusers are expected to only take actions when they have a reasonable basis in fact to conclude that the action is permitted under the Checkuser Policy and that its performance will advance the purposes of the project. A reasonable basis in fact is evidence such that an impartial third-party possessing the same information as the Checkuser could reach the same conclusion as the Checkuser. The concurrence of other Checkusers as to an action may tend to indicate it had a reasonable basis in fact, but will not relieve the Checkuser who took the action of responsibility. If a Checkuser possesses a reasonable basis in fact to take an action, takes the action in good-faith, and the action is later determined to have been incorrectly taken, the Checkuser has erred, but not abused their access to the tool. Repeated or regular errors, even if they are based on a reasonable belief and taken in good-faith, may serve as grounds for removal of Checkuser status due to lack of competency.

Use of open proxies, including Tor, is strongly discouraged. However, good cause may exist for an editor to particpate via open proxies under exceptional circumstances. A user who has requested the IP block exemption flag is deemed to have consented to periodic monitoring with the Checkuser tool given the high risk of abuse. A user who has requested the IP block exemption flag is not deemed to have consented to disclosure of their private information beyond what is necessary to monitor their use of the IP block exemption flag.

Int21h requested the IPBE flag via the unblock-en-l mailing list to edit via Tor and was granted the right on December 27, 2011. DeltaQuad Checkusered Int21h on December 27, 2012.

Based on our review of all materials available to us, DeltaQuad had a reasonable basis in fact to Checkuser Int21h and we have found no evidence that DeltaQuad did so in bad faith.

DeltaQuad blocked Int21h on December 28, 2012 with the block log reason of "{{checkuserblock-account}}". A Checkuser is not required to inquire with the target of a Checkuser block prior to enacting the block. Other Checkusers concurred in the actions DeltaQuad took. It was determined at a later date that DeltaQuad's block of Int21h was erroneous as a result of unknown information concerning the manner in which Tor and programs associated with Tor process certain technical information. DeltaQuad unblocked Int21h on January 19, 2013 and apologized for having made the block.

Based on our review of all materials, DeltaQuad made a reasonable investigation to obtain relevant facts to support a block of Int21h. DeltaQuad further acted reasonably in blocking Int21h as a result of the facts that were available to him at the time. While there were facts unknown to DeltaQuad that resulted in the block being invalidated, DeltaQuad did not err in failing to obtain extraordinary information beyond the knowledge of the average Checkuser in forming the basis for the block.

The blocking policy strongly encourages blocking administrators to leave notice on the blocked user's talk page regarding the terms of the block. This policy exists to provide notice to the blocked users and other users who may review the block as to the reason for the block. DeltaQuad [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Int21h&diff=530065965&oldid=529925458 left] notice on Int21h's talk page regarding the block. We find DeltaQuad satisfied his duty to provide notice to Int21h and other users as to the relevant terms of the block through his use of the {{checkuserblock-account}} template in the block log and via the talk page notice.

All administrators are required "to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed." A Checkuser is not required to disclose alternate accounts they find to a blocked user nor are they required to disclose to the blocked user the precise evidence they used as the basis of the block. While a Checkuser must disclose the information used as the basis of a block to fellow Checkusers and the Arbitration Committee, it is left to their discretion as to the amount of information to disclose to the blocked user.

Int21h attempted to appeal the block to a mailing list and via an [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Int21h&oldid=530581411#Block obscene message] on his user talk page on December 31, 2012. Int21h refused to communicate with DeltaQuad via email. MaxSem summarily denied the on-wiki block appeal on December 31, 2012. DeltaQuad was not active on the English Wikipedia while the block appeal was pending on Int21h's talk page. Int21h failed to re-file the unblock request on-wiki or to contact DeltaQuad via email.

As a matter of best practice, DeltaQuad should have responded on-wiki to Int21h. However, DeltaQuad did not breach his duty under WP:ADMINACCT as he was not active when the block appeal was made and rejected, nor was he contacted by the blocked user to contest the block via another means. DeltaQuad's failure to intiate communication in response Int21h's terminated obscene block appeal was not an abusive error or misconduct.

We conclude that DeltaQuad acted reasonably in Checkusering and blocking Int21h. Even though the block was subsequently invalidated, DeltaQuad's block was appropriately made based on a reasonable interpretation of the evidence available at the time. DeltaQuad failed to promptly respond to Int21h's rejected obscene block appeal. DeltaQuad's failure was not the result of abuse, misconduct or indicative of incompetence in holding Checkuser status. Therefore, the AUSC has completed its investigation and is submitting this report to the Arbitration Committee with a recommendation that no further action be taken.

For the Audit Subcommittee, Anthony (AGK)