User:Schwalker

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 arbcom-audit-en@lists.wikimedia.org:

{{Box-header|title=23. Februar 2011}}

Hallo,

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.

Greetings,

{{Box-footer}}

Additionally, following two e-Mails have been sent to someone who had responded to the first e-mail.

{{Box-header|title=24. Februar 2011}}

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,

Greetings

{{Box-footer}}

{{Box-header|title=25. Februar 2011}}

Hallo deleted,

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,

Greetings

{{Box-footer}}

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).

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)