Subject: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Peter Karlsen is a sockpuppet
------------------------

From: Avi <avi.wiki@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 00:34
To: English Wikipedia Functionaries email list <functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org>


Forwarded with permission.

Reason to check here?

--Avi
----
User:Avraham

pub 3072D/F80E29F9 1/30/2009 Avi (Wikimedia-related key) <avi.wiki@gmail.com>
Primary key fingerprint: 167C 063F 7981 A1F6 71EC ABAA 0D62 B019 F80E 29F9


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Anthony Newman <anthonynewman1@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 11:38 PM
Subject: Peter Karlsen is a sockpuppet
To: Avi <avi.wiki@gmail.com>


Avraham,

Could you run a CheckUser on Peter Karlsen?

Here is the evidence:
---------
I have a strong suspicion that User:Peter Karlsen <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Peter_Karlsen> is a sockpuppet of User:Erik9 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Erik9>, who is a sockpuppet of banned user User:John254 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:John254>. User:Erik9 is already so identified.

Suspicious behaviour of Peter Karlsen:

1. It's rather suspicious that 40 minutes after account creation, Peter Karlsen had the experience to use install and use popups.

2. On the same day of account creation, Peter Karlsen knows how to substitute and use templates like {{uw-blp}} <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:78.149.59.59&diff=381589826>.

3. All his edits make it evident that he is a very experienced editor who is not under his first account. For example, see Wikipedia:Protected edit user right <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protected_edit_user_right>.

Similarities between Peter Karlsen and Erik9

1. Both began using popups <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation_popups> the day the accounts were created. See <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&dir=prev&target=Peter+Karlsen"> and <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&dir=prev&target=Erik9>.

2. The style in which Peter Karlsen and Erik9 warn vandals are similar. Both do not provide edit summaries, which automatically turns out to be "←Created page with '{{subst:uw-vand2|Name of article}} ~~~~". See <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&dir=prev&offset=20090914163707&limit=4&target=Erik9> and <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&dir=prev&target=Peter+Karlsen&limit=45>. Note that both use uw-vand and not uw-vandalism or alternate forms.

3. Both Peter Karlsen and Erik9 run bots. Peter Karlsen has KarsenBot <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:KarlsenBot>. Erik9 has Erik9bot <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Erik9bot>. Note also Andrea105Bot <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Andrea105Bot>, ValhallaBot <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ValhallaBot>, and Jennifer500Bot <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jennifer500Bot> from sockpuppets of main account John254. Note the similarity in format and capitalisation (KarsenBot, ValhallaBot, Jennifer500Bot). Syntax is [Username][Bot].

4. Both use User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD.js <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD.js> to close AfDs. For Peter Karlsen, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kilburn Priory <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kilburn_Priory>, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dimitris Froxylias <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dimitris_Froxylias>, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Switch adapted toys <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Switch_adapted_toys>. For Erik9, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Send More Paramedics <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Send_More_Paramedics>, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exoskeletal engine <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Exoskeletal_engine>, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sound of Fishsteps <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Sound_of_Fishsteps>.

------

Thank you,

Anthony Newman, an editor





_______________________________________________
Functionaries-en mailing list
Functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinf...unctionaries-en


----------
From: Alison Cassidy <cooties@mac.com>
Date: Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 00:52
To: avi.wiki@gmail.com, Functionaries email list for the English Wikipedia <functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org>


Hi all,

Given Erik9 is a sock of John254, that also points to the name chosen below (it's a typical John254 username). That plus all the other evidence provided & I'd say yes, a check is warranted.

-- Allie

_______________________________________________
Functionaries-en mailing list
Functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinf...unctionaries-en


_______________________________________________
Functionaries-en mailing list
Functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinf...unctionaries-en


----------
From: Tiptoety <tiptoety@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 13:30
To: Functionaries email list for the English Wikipedia <functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org>


Agree with Ali here.

~Tiptoety
en.wiki // commons // meta

_______________________________________________
Functionaries-en mailing list
Functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinf...unctionaries-en


----------
From: Avi <avi.wiki@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 00:26
To: Functionaries email list for the English Wikipedia <functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org>


As Erik9 is stale (by about 9 days ), anyone have data to which Peter Karlsen can be compared?

_______________________________________________
Functionaries-en mailing list
Functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinf...unctionaries-en


----------
From: Cas Liber <casliber01@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 00:49
To: Functionaries email list for the English Wikipedia <functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org>


there was another sock after Erik9 I thought (?)

From: Avi <avi.wiki@gmail.com>
To: Functionaries email list for the English Wikipedia <functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Tue, 30 November, 2010 4:26:31 PM
Subject: Re: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Peter Karlsen is a sockpuppet



_______________________________________________
Functionaries-en mailing list
Functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinf...unctionaries-en


----------
From: Amalthea <amalthea.wikimedia@googlemail.com>
Date: Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 05:49
To: Functionaries email list for the English Wikipedia <functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org>


From the archive:

From: hersfoldwiki at gmail.com (Hersfold)
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 22:15:16 -0500
Subject: [Functionaries-en] Possible return of John254/Erik9/Kristen Eriksen etc.- CU to please check out
Message-ID: <4B25ADC4.5070303@gmail.com>

| Risker wrote:
| > Matt Bisanz pointed out this account to me tonight:
| > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...arget=Andrea105
| >
| > It appears to have been created after one of John's other socks was banned,
| > has a strong interest in bots, and earliest edits were to create and then
| > improve the account's monobook.
| >
| > I can't remember who was dealing with John254 and the other accounts,
| > although I do remember that the range is 71.131.0.0/19 . Could one of the
| > functionaries with checkuser please take a look?
|
| It's within that range, the data is:
|
| *IP*: 71.131.1.6
| <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:CheckUser&user=71.131.1.6&reason=%5BFunctionaries-en%5D+Possible+return+of+John254%2FErik9%2FKristen+Eriksen%09etc.-+CU+to+please+check+out> Mozilla/5.0
| (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.1.5) Gecko/20091102
| Firefox/3.5.5 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729)
|
| and other IP addresses, all within 71.131.0.0/19. Other useragents
| include AWB's and Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 6.0;
| Trident/4.0; SLCC1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; Media Center PC 5.0; .NET CLR
| 3.5.30729; .NET CLR 3.0.30729) - most, if not all, edits are automated.
| They've made so many already checkuser had to truncate the results.

----------
From: Amalthea <amalthea.wikimedia@googlemail.com>
Date: Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 06:00
To: functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org


Also, from
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/private...chment-0004.htm

Kristen Eriksen
* 71.131.6.187 (05:44, 12 January 2009 -- 05:35, 25 January 2009) [1870] (~3170 from all users)
* 130.65.109.104 (22:37, 15 November 2008 -- 21:51, 10 January 2009) [905] (~1028 from all users)
* 130.65.109.100 (22:42, 16 November 2008 -- 23:35, 28 December 2008) [151] (~159 from all users)

----------
From: Amalthea <amalthea.wikimedia@googlemail.com>
Date: Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 09:09
To: avi.wiki@gmail.com, functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org


Avi, are you still onto this one? From a glance at the CU log this seems
to be a match.

Amalthea

----------
From: Avi <avi.wiki@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 09:28
To: Amalthea <amalthea.wikimedia@googlemail.com>, functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org


Ouch, I seemed to have accidentaly archived and forgotten this. On the
road now; cam pick it up later today unless you want to handle it.

--Avi
--
Sent from my mobile device

----------
From: Avi <avi.wiki@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 12:14
To: functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org


Looks authentic, block on sight?

--Avi

_______________________________________________
Functionaries-en mailing list
Functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinf...unctionaries-en


----------
From: Avi <avi.wiki@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 12:49
To: English Wikipedia Functionaries email list <functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org>


I have blocked the user and his bot, indefinitely, with the note "Please contact ArbCom". If he is really turning over a new leaf, that should be encouraged, which is why I neither tagged nor mentioned the ban in the notes. E-mail is not active, so I left a note on the talk page to contact arbcom regarding editing privileges <https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/User_talk:Peter_Karlsen>.

I have removed all userrights from both the account and the bot ('crats can de-flag bots on enwiki w/o acting as stewards) with the same ArbCom note.

I'd request people watchlist the account/talk pages in case someone decides to unblock as I was somewhat vague--on purpose.

Thank you,

_______________________________________________
Functionaries-en mailing list
Functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinf...unctionaries-en


----------
From: Avi <avi.wiki@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 12:50
To: Anthony Newman <anthonynewman1@yahoo.com>
Cc: English Wikipedia Functionaries email list <functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org>


The user is currently blocked pending communication with ArbCom.
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 1:01 AM, Anthony Newman <anthonynewman1@yahoo.com> wrote:
Any updates?> Subject: Re: Peter Karlsen is a sockpuppet
> To: avi.wiki@gmail.com
> Date: Monday, November 29, 2010, 5:24 AM
> Sure. Thanks.
>
> --- On Mon, 11/29/10, Avi <avi.wiki@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > From: Avi <avi.wiki@gmail.com>
> > Subject: Re: Peter Karlsen is a sockpuppet
> > To: "Anthony Newman" <anthonynewman1@yahoo.com>
> > Date: Monday, November 29, 2010, 4:44 AM
> > May I forward this to func-en for more eyes
> > to determine if a check is acceptable?
> >
> > On Sun, Nov 28, 2010
> > at 11:38 PM, Anthony Newman <anthonynewman1@yahoo.com>


_______________________________________________
Functionaries-en mailing list
Functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinf...unctionaries-en

The only effect of changing the retention parameters was to force the CUs to hold the data themselves. Thus the foundation's CYA essentially makes the volunteers liable (as usual), and of course you can bet that they'd do nothing to defend a CU if it ever came to that.

Which of course just makes this discussion all the more silly.

(And yes, lurkers, this also confirms that the functionaries archives is on the table too.)

Dominic (T-C-L-K-R-D) says they might be moving away from that, which would be interesting if it is actually followed through with:

Lots of private logs were made just before they ceased to be global, and presumably plenty of the CUs will have to make more private logs if they do this (depending on how the wiki is used, no idea there).

If it's on a wiki, it's not very secure anyway (didn't LulzSec use PhP tricks?).

Oddly enough, somewhere else on the WT:ARB page somebody said that Mailman's database can't be altered (so it's either archives or no archives), but again I have no idea whether that's true.

I'm pretty sure it's true. There's a button to turn the archives on and off in the mailing list admin interface. I'm pretty sure that turning it off destroys all previous archives, with no way to selective preserve some in the archives (though one could download them first).

When I was in the midst of the Nocal/CAMERA canvassing ring investigation we had an ex-CU with a long list of IPs from years ago. Not surprising as a ban on privately storing IP information would give sockpuppeteers a quarterly pardon. Using WMF employees as the only CUs would be a step in the right direction but it's just so much cheaper to use disposable volunteers.

To someone not familiar with wiki structure, the characteristics that are often incorporated in guidelines and policies, that make the wiki much more functional than might appear, may seem obscure and "wikilawyering." An example would be the guidelines that checkuser requests must show actual disruption, that a user will not be checkusered unless (1) their edits are disruptive, or (2) their identity as a sock of a particularly disruptive editor is clear.
Private checkuser requests are discouraged. ArbComm, by routinely checkusering on private complaints, is defeating and bypassing the public policy.

Acting on such private complaints would only be valid if there were necessity. There is shown, in the correspondence, no necessity, nor any concern for that. Rather, arbs can all checkuser, and it seems that many of them rush to do so. Yup, this could be a sock, block.

Normally, if a random editor asks for checkuser, checkusers will decline unless there is disruption. In the mails from ArbComm, we see how an editor, either anonymous, or with undisclosed relationships with arbitrators and others can send an email to ArbComm with suspicions, and the user is checkusered.

ArbComm is functioning as a star chamber. The point of a star chamber is to protect the real plaintiffs and witnesses, one does not know who one's accusers are, nor does anyone else. In this case there seems to be no concern, in the mails we saw, as to who the accuser was and a possible agenda.

So, who is the user "Anthony Newman." That's not a Wikipedia user name. How far would an anonymous checkuser request, with no problematic behavior alleged, only circumstantial evidence about being an experienced user, get?

These mails are far from routine boring stuff, once the implications are realized. They confirm, clearly, what many have suspected, that ArbComm is out of control, a law unto itself, willing to control, to dominate, not the passive and neutral arbitration forum that is the image presented openly. It's totally broken, which is a product of how ArbComm is selected, it's predictable, in fact. Given a few years, that election method would produce what Wikipedia has, like clockwork. It's not about bad people. It's about structure that brings out the worst in good people, besides selecting for people with hidden power and control issues.

ArbComm has mixed executive and judicial functions. As has been known for a long time, these are incompatible, they create corruption.

There have been checkusers who would refuse to use the tool except upon open public request, by a responsible editor. That's the design of the system, and leaving that design opens the door for abuse.

In the normal on-wiki process, a user is notified if they are under suspicion and investigation, so that they may reply. This ArbComm CU process completely bypasses that, without any showing of necessity or even consideration of necessity.

And to maintain collegiality, my guess is that any arbitrators who don't approve of this keep quiet. (Or they soon learn to keep quiet!) That's how it works in little communities like ArbComm, way too often.

It would actually be more expensive than you realize, since you'd need people fluent in a lot of languages to actually be effective (the actual CU data gets you part way there, but you really do need the "behavioral" evidence to get anywhere close to certainty).

Well, on the smaller wikis the opposite is true... when the CUs are doing the RC patrolling and are generally the only ones "hunting socks", it's much better to just quietly run the checks rather than insist on the drama of a noticeboard. WP's culture is entirely unlike the culture on the wikis I did it on though, and I don't recall anyone ever abusing it.

Honestly the best solution would be to simply record the IP address in the edit history and just let everyone see it.

The problem with checkuser is that there are a small but vocal number of Wikipedians who absolutely do not want their IP addresses known because they are engaged in gross abuses of Wikipedia's process for their own purposes, and they are afraid that such abuses will be more visible if they are subjected to checkuser. They then use the (frankly silly) fear of the possible exposure of the IP address of somebody editing from Iran or China leading to judicial torture or murder of a dissident in some such country as an excuse to mandate concealing user IP information from virtually everyone.

If you live in a country where your government is prone to torturing people who write things critical of them on websites, you need to do more than just rely on the purveyors of the website to protect you. Wikipedia isn't going to save you from Iran's police force. Not to mention such editing isn't really part of Wikipedia's mission anyway. That's just an aspect of the anarchist, revolution-of-the-people mindset that pervaded the early Wikipedia community, that has been coopted by issue advocates as a way to conceal their own misbehavior. Without that unholy alliance I suspect there's be far less concern about IP data or the user of checkuser.

Which is a shame. Arbcom/admins already have to deal with a boatload of problems they are ill-equipped to handle. They'd be complete fools not to keep an archive of problem user IPs. That WMF/policy lies by omission making no mention that your data could be stored in a secret wiki is a real problem. One simply solved by telling people the truth.

True, the actual checking of IPs is only a small part of a CU's work. Still, you could insist that only WMF staff were allowed to do that aspect, which would probably cut down dramatically on IP fishing expeditions. The rest of the work could be done by anyone, admin or not.

There's no reason to do that, though. In fact, asserting that such work should be done by WMF staff just buys into the silly notion that IP addresses are deeply personal information that one needs to keep secret, when in fact they're nothing of the sort. Once you stop buying into Wikipedia's cult of anonymity, all this becomes much easier.

Is there no data protection legislation in the US?

Crowdsourcing CU work. I like it.

Of course they'll have to give up a main "argument" why people want to be supersecret "nameusers" on WP: "WARNING UNLOGGED-IN IP WEENIE: IF YOU MAKE THIS EDIT, THE WHOLE WORLD WILL KNOW YOUR NAKED IP ADDRESS!!!"

Like you should care.

Of course. It's completely illegal for you to steal data from anyone else who has collected it. Is that not illegal where you are?

Indeed. Although the "experiment" of blocking nonidentified editors from creating new articles was a whole lot more effective at increasing registration rates, now, wasn't it?

I'm not talking about theft, I'm talking about data protection, a concept that seems foreign to most Americans. Where I am any organisation that wants to store information on people has to register with a central data protection agency specifying what information they intend to store, how long for, what they intend to use it for and so on.

What a bizarre concept! How do you get anything done?

The bizarre concept is that you seem to believe that allowing Uncle Tom Cobbley and all to collect and keep whatever information they like on people and do with it as they will is perfectly acceptable. It's not, and hasn't been acceptable in Europe for many years.

Easy, you just outsource to India.

But you can't move the data outside the EU unless the subjects have agreed.

Easy, you compile the data from India using a subsidiary. That way the data never enters the EU.

Unless, of course, it's being done by the Home Office, or by any entity contracted to them, or by some other agency of Her Majesty's Government. If you think your precious data protection laws actually mean anything, you're a bigger fool than you appear. Those laws are panaceas that don't actually do anything except force businesses to fill out additional paperwork and pay off more bureaucrats, and in any case multinationals just get around them by storing the data outside of the EU.

I thank you for your uninformed opinion, which I have filed in the appropriate receptacle.

EU outlines shortcomings in UK data law

'One size fits all' EU data law would undermine rights, says Clarke

New EU data protection laws still years away

And from your own "pedia":


Plus, this report from US Homeland Security, which comes right out and states something that I rarely see mentioned elsewhere:

Doesn't look like it. Although to be fair, they are still arguing over what constitutes an "editor" so that they can figure out whether the number of "editors" is increasing or increasing.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8382477.stm

Once again we have the problem that WP, much like goverments, refuses to ever run any prospective randomized controlled trials. They could actually apply one set of editing rules to all the articles that start with "A" and another set to all those that start with "B" and compare the two across the same time span. Then reverse then and compare again. But they've never done anything like that, so all we have from them is (very bad) retrospective epidemology about policy. Which, even with historical-case-controls (like we're talking about here), proves very little.

Except, of course, in a negative way (since we can say that no, whatever they did, the effect wasn't so large that it was very obvious to everybody that something HUUUUUGE was happening). Big deal.

Walesian slip?

The EU's data protection directives may not be perfect, but we have no "identity card numbers" in the UK, so you can write whatever pleases you on a hotel registration card, which the police have no interest in anyway and certainly don't bother to collect. Why would they turn up to collect bits of paper when the exact same information is held in a computer system? The US may still be living in the dark ages, but the rest of the world has moved on. What's clear from Kelly's misunderstanding of data protection is that the US is yet to even reach first base.

Malleus: I think the batteries in your irony detector are low again.

Yeah. I think I'll just leave it.

I don't have an irony detector. Does WalMart sell them?

Wouldn't know, I don't shop at Wal-mart. But I imagine you have to give them all your personal information before they'll sell you the batteries.

Wal-mart is called Asda where I live, and I Iove shopping there because it's open 24-hours and has self-service checkouts, so I can be in and out like a Will-o'-the-wisp. It's a big store, but I give myself a maximum time of five minutes from door to car.

So, Mr. Wisp, are you invisible to the hundreds of thousands of surveillance cameras being run by UK local police and corporations?

In what way is a surveillance camera capturing data about me? It could be anybody on their grainy recordings. Admittedly my local Asda does operate an ANPR system though, just the way of the world now I guess. Maybe we should all move to the wild mountains of Montana and declare a free state.

Stupid Brits have everything nice.