Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/2017 CUOS appointments

Add links
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcut

The community comments phase is closed. The Committee has announced the functionary appointments.

The current time and date is 02:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC).
Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint additional editors to the CheckUser and Oversight teams.

Prospective applicants must be familiar with (i) policies relevant to CU and/or OS and (ii) the global privacy policy and related documents. They must have good communication and team-working skills. CheckUser candidates must be familiar with basic networking topics and with SPI tools and techniques, and preferably are willing to volunteer at ACC or UTRS. Applicants must also be:

  • available to regularly assist with the workload;
  • familiar with Wikipedia processes, policies, and guidelines;
  • at least 18 years of age and have legal majority in their jurisdiction of residence;
  • willing to disclose all other accounts they have operated to the committee;
  • willing to agree to the WMF Access to Non-Public Information Policy.

We welcome all applicants with suitable interest to apply, but this year we have particular need of applicants who are:

Both
Checkusers
  • Familiar with common ISPs and editing patterns from Asia and Eastern Europe.
  • Familiar with IPv6
  • Familiar with identification of factors that may change a result or block such as ISP, location, activity, or type of network
  • Experienced in analyzing behavioral evidence for sockpuppetry investigations
  • Interested in mentoring editors who wish to become SPI clerks
Oversight
  • Available to handle oversight requests between 06:00 and 15:00 UTC.

Applicants must be aware that they are likely to receive considerable internal and external scrutiny. External scrutiny may include attempts to investigate on- and off-wiki activities; previous candidates have had personal details revealed and unwanted contact made with employers and family. We are unable to prevent this and such risks will continue if you are successful.

Appointment process

Dates are provisional and subject to change
  • Applications: 1 Sept to 12 Sept

    Candidates self-nominate by email to arbcom-en-c@lists.wikimedia.org. Each candidate will receive an application questionnaire to be completed and returned to the arbcom-en-c mailing list before the nomination period ends. The questionnaire includes a nomination statement, to a maximum of 250 words, for inclusion on the candidate's nomination sub-page(s).

  • Review period: 12 Sept to 15 Sept

    The committee will review applications and ask the functionary team for their feedback.

  • Notification of candidates: 16 Sept to 18 Sept

    The committee will notify candidates going forward for community consultation and create the candidate subpages containing the submitted nomination statements.

  • Community consultation: 18 Sept to 29 Sept

    Nomination statements will be published and candidates invited to answer questions publicly. The community is invited to ask questions and to comment on each candidate. Comments may be posted on the candidates' subpages or submitted privately by email to arbcom-en-c@lists.wikimedia.org. Editors are encouraged to include a detailed rationale, supported by relevant links where appropriate.

Candidates

To comment on candidates, please use section edit buttons to edit the appropriate candidate subpage(s) ***

CheckUser

The community comments phase is closed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:43, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There'sNoTime (CU)

There'sNoTime (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Nomination statement
Hi, I'm There'sNoTime - I've been an administrator here since December of last year, and have decided to apply to be considered for checkuser and oversight due to my technical background and desire to be of further use to the community. I believe, through my real-life work in healthcare IT, I have the technical ability to use this access to help track down sockpuppets and prevent abuse on our project. Working in the healthcare IT industry, privacy is paramount. It instils a strong belief that data should remain private and is a fundamental part of my day-to-day activities. My work on Wikipedia shows the commitment to and understanding of the policies which guide our contributions, and if granted these tools I would use them to help protect and maintain this project. Thank you.
Standard questions for all candidates
  1. Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
    Before I was an administrator, I was involved in reporting suspected sockpuppets to SPI. Now, I try to patrol SPI and act on reports there. In general, I believe I can identify sockpuppets from behaviour and pattern, especially through my work with edit filters which has taught me to analyse editing to form filterable patterns.
  2. Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.
    Formally I'm a Computer Science graduate, but I have worked in the IT sector for over three years - through this, I have an understanding in IP addressing (both IPv4 and IPv6) and a detailed understanding of browser user agents.
  3. Do you hold advanced permissions (checkuser, oversight, bureaucrat, steward) on this or other WMF projects? If so, please list them. Also, do you have OTRS permissions? If so, to which queues?
    I do not currently hold these advanced permissions on this or any other WMF project. I have OTRS access to info-en
Questions for this candidate
  • You changed your username earlier this year and vanished, to the extent that it took me a while to put two and two together. Are you concerned that by gaining checkuser, you will raise the risk of this happening again? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed I did, and although ArbCom and others were kind enough to distance this username and my previous (which was Samtar, as I'd like to be transparent here) public links still remain, and I have had no issues in confirming this when asked. As for concern - yes, and its a concern which has been validated already. Does this put me off running for checkuser? No, as even without the advanced permission I will continue to contribute, remove vandalism and protect users against harassment, which will always attract negative attention from LTAs. Thank you for your question Ritchie333 -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 14:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Comments may also be submitted to the Arbitration Committee privately by emailing arbcom-en-c@lists.wikimedia.org. Please note that the candidate will be provided the opportunity to respond to a paraphrased version of any emailed comments; the sender's name will not be provided.
  • Support TNT has the technical skills, appreciation for privacy, and respect of the community. One of our best admins and someone who appreciates how Wikipedia can impact the real world. I said in my support of SoWhy I thought he was probably the best candidate we have for oversight, and I'll same the same about TNT for CU (and he's a very close second on oversight as well .) TonyBallioni (talk) 04:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since Sam has gone ahead and disclosed the harassment issues he has personally faced and connected the two accounts here, I'll expand more at what I was hinting at above. The fact that he has faced harassment off-wiki because of his work on-wiki I think will make him an excellent functionary and shows that he understands what he is getting into. I think having someone who has experienced that on the functionary team and who is also so humble and still willing to serve is a huge positive, and is part of the reasoning I think he is probably the best on the current list. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:59, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support TNT has the desired temperament and respect for privacy to have access to this confidential data. I believe he will be an asset to the community in this role. You will find no user I would trust more with access to the check user toolset. I respectfully place my support to TNT for check-user. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 21:27, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - TNT has been very helpful in identifying socks and demonstrating his technical knowledge. He is active regularly and responds to all inquiries timely. I think he'd do great as a checkuser. -- Dane talk 22:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible support: all of my experiences with TNT have been good ones - he's friendly, understanding and has the right temperament for the role. DrStrauss talk 22:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As one of the more active admins in blocking vandals, TNT would undoubtedly make a great CU. His temperament and ability to make quick and accurate decisions is appreciable. As for his technical skills, my interest in learning about IPv4 addresses is solely due to TNT's help and guidance. Jiten Dhandha • talk • contributions • 23:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support From my interactions on Edit Filters, TNT has the temperament and technical knowledge to make a great CU, and the tool will only make the EF-vs-LTA area go smoother. CrowCaw 23:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure on this one. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Snowsleeping/Archive was awkwardly handled - when a CU asks for diffs, they need the diffs before they will run the check because the grounds for running a CU hasn't been proven to them. [1] was also a bit odd. I also didn't see a lot of SPIs requesting CU. I don't generally go to this depth in researching candidates, but with less than a year of adminship it becomes more important. My comments to Miniapolis about blocking nasty trolls apply here too, in regards to the harassment; it's a day-to-day reality. --Rschen7754 05:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I have had nothing but a good impression from my interactions with TNT, and after checking his record, I see nothing which negatively affects my viewpoint of him. I have no hesitation in supporting this candidate. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  13:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I trust TNT with the tools here. He is very helpful over at IRC, and I suspect that he will be even more helpful with these tools. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 17:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I have interacted with the candidate on few occasions, have seen his contrib history, is trustworthy enough. I have no doubt/issues whatsoever. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:00, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Tony. Double sharp (talk) 06:44, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, no concerns here. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 15:28, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support - Extraordinary contributor! Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:59, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak oppose I'll be alone here. While I've only had minor interactions with this editor, I'm concerned about failure to assume good faith both on this project and the Simple English Wikipedia. I could be misinterpreting this, but it seems that some of his comments, especially on talk pages of users who are under a cloud, come across as overly harsh and not very welcoming. Additionally, I've noticed sometimes the user has a very "you are a disruptive editor and that is the end" attitude, whereas I expect admins to throughly explain their actions and reasoning behind them. IMHO WP:ADMINACCT isn't always as strictly enforced as I would like it to be for standard admins, let alone CU admins. I have no reason to believe that the user would abuse the rights, but I just would like to see some slight changes in behavior before I can support this. Comfycozybeds (talk) 17:55, 24 September 2017 (UTC) Confirmed sockpuppet ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Responded at the editors talk page (diff) as they are currently blocked -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 08:58, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support No concerns and we need more CUs Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:49, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - an ideal, trusted candidate. Patient Zerotalk 13:16, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - capable editor, although I'm not sure it was worth revealing your past username although I appreciate your misplaced effort at transparency. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:03, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BU Rob13 (CU)

BU Rob13 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Nomination statement
I'd like to nominate myself for the CheckUser user right.
For the past year, I've been involved significantly in combating sockpuppetry. I've been especially active in handling certain long-term abuse cases (Nikita, Orchomen) and identifying sleeper accounts before they obtain user rights such as autoconfirmed or extended confirmed. I request at least a half-dozen checks be run each week in connection with these activities, often more, and I'm quite sure the CheckUsers that frequent IRC are getting tired of me. It would be helpful to take on some of the CU work associated with my activities myself so I'm not poking existing CheckUsers so frequently. I could also help others on IRC who identify a potential sock, especially ones associated with prolific and destructive sockmasters.
I would consider myself one of the more technical editors on the project. I have a familiarity with IPv6, IP ranges, whois reports, and other technical details relevant to CheckUser. I've handled SPI cases from an administrative perspective often when the process has run a backlog and have developed a familiarity with patterns of sockpuppetry. I have a strong belief in mentoring and would be happy to mentor SPI clerks in the future.
Standard questions for all candidates
  1. Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
    I've handled SPI cases as an administrator for quite a while. I also have handled figuring out the SNAFU that is paid editing sock rings on multiple occasions, most recently with regard to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TiffanyTinnell. I've also helped set up edit filters to deal with multiple sockmasters.
  2. Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.
    I previously worked on a large website (8 million registered accounts) handling ban evasion investigations. This is where I acquired my basic knowledge of IPs, ranges, etc. The rest of my knowledge has come from working with CheckUsers in the past, especially Amanda. My knowledge comes from experience, not from formal study. I work with private data on OTRS, and I have a strong appreciation for confidentiality.
  3. Do you hold advanced permissions (checkuser, oversight, bureaucrat, steward) on this or other WMF projects? If so, please list them. Also, do you have OTRS permissions? If so, to which queues?
    I'm an admin and active edit filter manager. I'm an OTRS agent, and I have access to info-en, permissions-en, and multiple queues related to sister projects.
Questions for this candidate
Comments
Comments may also be submitted to the Arbitration Committee privately by emailing arbcom-en-c@lists.wikimedia.org. Please note that the candidate will be provided the opportunity to respond to a paraphrased version of any emailed comments; the sender's name will not be provided.

Miniapolis (CU)

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

Nomination statement
I think I'd be a beneficial addition to the checkuser corps as an experienced, trusted user with good judgment and time available to help out. I began editing Wikipedia in early 2008 (although I registered about a year earlier as a gesture of support for the project), became more active as an editor in late 2010 and have been around consistently ever since. I became an administrator in early 2013, and have been an Arbitration Committee clerk for about two years. My schedule is such that I’m around pretty consistently most days.
Until now I’ve looked in on SPI from time to time and my mop-wielding is primarily on other administrative backlogs, but my primary interest is in article improvement. However, sockpuppetry threatens the integrity of Wikipedia and I’m happy to do whatever I can to counter it. I’m a quick study, and would never misuse the checkuser tool for any reason (if for no other reason than SPI isn’t my primary activity here).
Although I’m a cautious admin, one of the things I enjoy most about Wikipedia is its opportunity to acquire new skills. I hope the community sees fit to trust me with the flag, but am certain that whoever is selected will ultimately benefit the encyclopedia.
Standard questions for all candidates
  1. Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
    I've been an admin since early 2013 and an ArbCom clerk for about two years. As a coordinator for the Guild of Copy Editors for the past few years, I have extensive experience interacting with other editors.
  2. Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.
    I've been employed in positions of trust which require a background check.
  3. Do you hold advanced permissions (checkuser, oversight, bureaucrat, steward) on this or other WMF projects? If so, please list them. Also, do you have OTRS permissions? If so, to which queues?
    No advanced permissions, although I have access to UTRS and the OTRS en-permissions queue.
Questions for this candidate
  • As far as I can tell, you have not made any edit to any SPI in 2017, and your last issued block for sockpuppetry was in September 2016. In the last 12 months, you have only made 7 blocks (for anything). So the question or questions, I have to ask, are: why CU as opposed to, say, OS? As a CU, you would be making a lot more blocks against users, a lot of whom are not very nice, to say the least. Is this something that you are okay with? Do you think that this would be a cause for burnout several months into the role? --Rschen7754 04:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel qualified for OS at this time, and most oversighters seem to have been checkusers first (although I haven't considered OS and haven't researched this). As an admin I've dealt with irate editors, and as a continuously-active editor for almost seven years I know when it's time to step back. Since my editing is voluntary, I don't see burnout as a problem and consider that not being a "block-happy admin" may be beneficial to the project.
  • CU necessarily entails involvement in SPI; good thing, too, since we desperately need more CUs to cut into the backlog. What is your procedure when investigating sockpuppetry, whether "in the wild" or at an SPI? What do you look for? Under what conditions would you run a check? GABgab 22:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I rely on behavioral evidence and account overlap, and would run a check only if I heard quacking.
Comments
Comments may also be submitted to the Arbitration Committee privately by emailing arbcom-en-c@lists.wikimedia.org. Please note that the candidate will be provided the opportunity to respond to a paraphrased version of any emailed comments; the sender's name will not be provided.

Dane (CU)

Dane (talk · contribs · rights · RfA)

Nomination statement
I am applying for the CheckUser tool primarily as a need to overcome the queues which often reach several weeks at ACC where I am a tool admin. I believe enabling users to gain access to the encyclopedia is key to our goals and when CU queues are backed up, it prevents these new users from being able to edit. Additionally, I would like to be able to contribute to this area of SPI investigations. I would use the tool cautiously in the beginning as I look for guidance while I learn the ropes of operating the tool. I am always available on IRC (pings get sent to my mobile devices) and I respond to emails and requests for my attention pretty quickly. I believe the combination of my experience on-wiki and off-wiki makes me an ideal candidate for this functionary position.
Standard questions for all candidates
  1. Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
    I have contributed several SPI's, however my largest contribution to SPI to date is for ShantaethePirate which I uncovered in January 2017 and continue to follow and report. I also regularly fight vandalism on Wikipedia and utilize AIV and RFPP.
  2. Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.
    I regularly work with networking in my day job and am familiar with the addressing protocols. I also am regularly resolving and mitigating outages and technical issues as well as performing pings, traceroutes, geolocates, etc. and interpreting the resulting data. I currently work with several types of private data in my day job when investigating issues requested by local law enforcement. I also regularly work with private data in ACC for Wikipedia, where I am primarily looking to use the CU tool to clear that queue.
  3. Do you hold advanced permissions (checkuser, oversight, bureaucrat, steward) on this or other WMF projects? If so, please list them. Also, do you have OTRS permissions? If so, to which queues?
    I do not currently hold any advanced permissions on this or any other WMF project and I do not currently have OTRS permissions.
Questions for this candidate
  • I will not be expressing an opinion on this candidacy since I'm also applying for the same right, but I would like to ask how you see CheckUser blocks working with a non-admin CU? An arbitrator is welcome to step in to answer this instead of the candidate. Specifically, would admins make CU blocks at the direction of a non-admin CU? Would they have to hand off any SPI that requires a CU range block to another CU? ~ Rob13Talk 13:38, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would be curious what Dane has to say for how he would handle it, but speaking as an arb more in my personal capacity than on behalf of the committee, personally I would have no problem if Dane were to hand off CU blocks to an admin, who could make the block rationale something like {{checkuserblock-account}} <!-- Per request by CU [[User:Dane|Dane]] -->. For IPs and ranges it might get a bit more touchy, but I still would not mind him handing them off to regular admins so long as he didn't hand the same admin both accounts and their related IPs (though doing so to another CU would be fine). However, assuming he uses the bit primarily for the prodigious CU queue backlogs at ACC, I forsee his needing to request CU blocks being rather rare. I've done a smattering of work at ACC, and I've made at most one or two CU blocks as a result of my work there. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 18:45, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I intend to mainly use this right to clear the regular CU backlog on ACC, which would free up other CU's to perform tasks such as SPI's. As such, I don't foresee myself requiring the need to request a "block" on anything except for in the rarest of cases, where I would attempt to reach another CU who's an administrator to perform the block, similar to what Ks0stm said above. I would aim to use another CU as it would be easiest due to the sensitive nature of CU blocks. -- Dane talk 22:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Comments may also be submitted to the Arbitration Committee privately by emailing arbcom-en-c@lists.wikimedia.org. Please note that the candidate will be provided the opportunity to respond to a paraphrased version of any emailed comments; the sender's name will not be provided.
  • I was under the impression that non-administrators who are not arbitrators could not become CU/OS on this project because this is not considered a community election. Unless this has changed within the last year, WMF will likely object to this. --Rschen7754 02:45, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose even if the WMF is fine with a non-admin being able to be a CU, they would lack one of the critical parts of the toolkit: the block button. I like Dane, and I believe he was treated unfairly at RfA and should have passed, and I would gladly support him a second time. That being said, I don't think we should appoint CUs without the ability to block users. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I respect that rationale. I do want to clarify my main intent is to have CU in order to work the backlog at ACC which requires me to be able to check for socks in ACC requests that show evidence of puppetry. -- Dane talk 04:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. I get that, and I don't have any concerns that you would abuse the tools, and I think I've said on-wiki before that I think your RfA was one of the lowpoints of recent RfAs. I get that ACC there is a need for it, but we also have a huge need currently at SPI, which really is the primary place CUs work (that and arbcom having to look at it for block appeals, etc.) I'd want any CUs appointed in this round to be able to pick up some of the slack left by Bbb23's recenr wikibreak. While you could just give CU results, I still think the ability to block is essential here. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what it's worth, there is often a large backlog of ACC requests needing CU attention, and even if Dane were to limit use of the tool to ACC, it would lighten the load on other CUs, freeing them to work more SPI cases. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'm going to set aside the question of whether any non-admin should be a CU/OS holder, although I've spoken about that before - theoretically, the candidate could use CU solely in ACC, though I will come back to that. In this particular case, the candidate ran at RFA less than 6 months ago, with a closing percentage of around 56%. That does not show a lot of support from the community, and the rationale is valid (CSD concerns). For me, that certainly is valid here (if the candidate doesn't show an understanding of that, what does it say about how they will apply more consequential policies)? As far as the role at ACC, I do not feel that it substitutes for the demonstration of trust. Over several years I have gotten the impression that ACC operates in its own sphere, and does not face the necessary community scrutiny/oversight that it should, for both the vetting of applicants and for those who are later promoted to admin. And at that, Dane has been an admin there for less than a month, and on the system for less than a year [3]. I suppose some might suggest a voluntary restriction to ACC, like how some make similar suggestions at RFA, but I think that is a bad precedent to set at both venues since there is no technical way of enforcing this (for example, all CUs have access to the CU log, mailing list, and wiki). I would suggest addressing the criticisms from that RFA and running again in the future. --Rschen7754 04:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other here. I think that in general, I would be happy to see a non-admin appointed as a CU if they were going to be active with ACC. Normally I think that the sysop bit is pretty well essential to using the CU tools, unless we want some extra bureaucracy like on dewiki. About the candidate in particular, the recently-failed RfA is worrying, though I have checked through his contributions and the civility issue does not seem to be a problem anymore. The CSD issue isn't really related to using the CU tool, especially since he would be using CU in an area where he has experience. I'm still on the fence about this, because as Rschen7754 says ACC is very withdrawn from enwiki as a whole and trust there may not indicate trust to use this right across the entire site. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 04:32, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - CU is too sensitive for a non-admin. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your !vote BMK! I did want to clarify that ACC already uses comparable data that CU uses, which is why “the Foundation takes the tool as serious as they do with the CheckUser tool, as our interface contains similar data available to tool users.” (From WP:ACC) So I have a bit of experience with handling this type of sensitive data on-wiki. The additional tool would allow me to identify potential socks for the ACC CU queue where there is a reasonable suspicion based on evidence or existing block. -- Dane talk 12:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I did want to clarify that ACC already uses comparable data that CU uses" -> yes, but generally for very new editors (who have no account and need one), not for established accounts. --Rschen7754 18:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I firmly believe that functionary positions require the knowledge that is required of admins. Without a successful RfA, while that knowledge may exist, it has not necessarily been demonstrated by a candidate. In this particular case, I believe the call for CUs is probably more related to the serious backlog at SPI where in my own experience, some cases are left waiting for several days for a CU. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Kudpung: Not to say I agree with it, but I won't argue with the first half of your statement. As for the rationale for making a call for CUs, ACC was actually almost as big a part of it as the SPI backlogs, since the chronic CU backlog at ACC can also result in up to 60 requests languishing for up to several days while waiting for a CU to check and make sure the request isn't the target of a block or an LTA trying to sneak in through ACC. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 18:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As Aiken drum states below: 'RfA is the method we have to show a user is entrusted with advanced permission'. I was just also pointing out that from my perspective, I would prefer those entrusted with the CU tools to be prepared to use them in all the situations that require it. I consider SPI and COIN to be by far the most serious issues and it's problematic and discouraging having to ask two or three functionaries before we can get a SPI closed. Just my opinion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose--I am an ACC interface-user and certainly know the extreme scrutiny we are subject to. That being said, I am not comfortable with a non-admin CU.Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 13:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I would want any CU's to be sysop's first; they would not otherwise be able to carry out all of the functions of the position. — xaosflux Talk 13:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try again at RfA The RfA failed for spurious reasons, and in a different time would have been a shoe-in. However, I cannot give support to this, because while I have no doubts about your technical ability, like it or not, RfA is the method we have to show a user is entrusted with advanced permissions. Until you have that, there's little to say unfortunately, and as these are just advisory comments, ArbCom would need more to go on. Aiken D 18:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose exclusively because you're not an admin, I would support otherwise. We went through this non-admins with access to private data thing (last year I think) in the Arbcom elections, and while I think we determined it was permissible and not technically impossible, my feeling is that this is effectively an unbundling, and the community repeatedly rejects unbundling proposals. I guess I agree with Kudpung that functionaries should have admin experience, if only because of the abuse you'll have to put up with once you gain the ability to block accounts (even if it's not you pushing the button). I do hope to see you at RfA again. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - because as Aiken drum said, RfA is our way of knowing someone is able to handle advanced user rights, and besides, as others have stated, not having the admin bit prevents CUs from being able to do a crucial function of their job: blocking the socks and sockmasters. Furthermore, Dane has only been an active editor for a little over a year, and I after three years feel nowhere near ready to take on CU or oversight rights. Someone who has been active for this amount of time generally wouldn't even pass RfA on grounds of lack of experience (and I did oppose your RfA for lack of experience and concerns about CSD tagging), so I see no way someone with this level of experience could handle sensitive areas like, indeed, CU privileges. 65HCA7 21:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Dane has the right temperament, technical skills and tact for the roles. Looking through his RfA, it was a travesty of justice to be quite honest. I am unaware of any WMF rules about non-admins having access to private data (indeed, Dane already does in his capacity as an account creator) but if this is the case they I'll have to change to a procedural oppose. CU-block-wise, it's gonna be difficult. Admin assistance will be needed. But it's never been tried before: give it a go. We shouldn't shy away from choosing suitable candidates because it's easy, we should select the candidates with the best qualities even if it is hard. DrStrauss talk 22:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A fine editor, I'm just not comfortable with a non-admin functionary; I'd like to see good use of admin tools before I can trust someone with such a sensitive role. Simplexity22 (talk) 04:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Rschen7754. Double sharp (talk) 06:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per oppose at above, you have to be entrusted on RfA before you can have the specialized tool on that privilege users group. SA 13 Bro (talk) 18:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral I'm not 100% confidant about having a non-admin CU, but I do see the user's reasoning about clearing the backlog at ACC. Also, sometimes the backlog for CU at SPI will result in multiple cases turning up Red X Unrelated or  Unlikely, in which cases no CheckUser blocks would be needed. Comfycozybeds (talk) 18:00, 24 September 2017 (UTC) Confirmed sockpuppet ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Regardless what WMF says I could never support a non-admin to use CU, Dane is a trusted user no doubt about it and I'm not saying I don't trust them but for me I simply cannot support a non-admin to have or use CU. –Davey2010Talk 18:25, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - sorry, not at this time. I, like many others here, cannot support a non-admin CU - it is a highly sensitive field to work in. It is evident that Dane does not have the community's trust, having recently failed his RFA. Patient Zerotalk 09:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NinjaRobotPirate (CU)

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

Nomination statement
Hello. I'm NinjaRobotPirate, an administrator for a little over eight months now, and I'm applying for checkuser access. This is earlier than I had intended, but I believe we need more checkusers. Several checkusers have retired lately, and the backlog at SPI has gotten worse. I have a history of patrolling SPI, performing range blocks, and investigating LTA cases. I think this gives me the experience necessary to be a checkuser. You can see some of what I've been working on at User:NinjaRobotPirate/Socks, which collects many LTA vandals and sock puppets. I would use the checkuser tool to continue this work, both at SPI and as part of my regular sockhunting.
Standard questions for all candidates
  1. Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
    As above, I'm familiar with the SPI process, and I've been actively patrolling SPI cases since I became an admin. My watchlist is engineered to catch several prolific sockmasters and LTA vandals, and it's fairly common for me to block socks as I find them. I've also written a couple LTA reports.
  2. Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.
    I'm an IT worker and have performed UNIX system administration. This gives me a pretty solid understanding of the technical issues, including range blocks.
  3. Do you hold advanced permissions (checkuser, oversight, bureaucrat, steward) on this or other WMF projects? If so, please list them. Also, do you have OTRS permissions? If so, to which queues?
    No, I hold no other permissions.
Questions for this candidate
Comments
Comments may also be submitted to the Arbitration Committee privately by emailing arbcom-en-c@lists.wikimedia.org. Please note that the candidate will be provided the opportunity to respond to a paraphrased version of any emailed comments; the sender's name will not be provided.

Oshwah (CU)

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

Nomination statement
I am applying for the CheckUser and Oversight permissions to extend my participation with Wikipedia in order to protect the privacy of users, and be available to help with processing the requests that I see frequently occur and go unanswered on IRC, as well as help with the backlog at SPI and ACC. I've been an administrator for a year, and have been consistently active and available to help with requests and urgent matters on IRC and other communication methods. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to ask me them and I'll be happy to answer.
Standard questions for all candidates
  1. Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
    My time has been mostly spent in recent changes patrolling and attempting to mentor and help new users on Wikipedia. I patrol recent changes and revert vandalism, respond to instances of long-term abuse, username violations, blatant sock puppetry, page protection requests, and (occasionally) AFD, AN3, and ANI. I'm also an ACC Tool Administrator on WP:ACC, and assist with processing account creation requests, as well as helping tool users with difficult or complex cases. I would use the tools to help with investigating and conducting checks in SPI and to respond to checkuser requests in ACC.
  2. Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.
    My user page explains the extent of my background in a nutshell - I've grown up around computers and my IT-related experience goes very far back. I performed computer and network administration throughout my youth while in school, and held jobs in IT-related areas ever since. I have a BS in Computer Software Engineering Technology and a Minor in Applied Mathematics.
    I have extensive IPv4 and IPv6 experience that I actively use during my daily tasks at my current job, including networking, traffic routing, VPN, encryption, and security. I also have basic and advanced certification with Dell SonicWall firewalls and have written packet sniffing, ARP, and ICMP software GUIs and tools using C++, Win32, and the WinPcap library.
  3. Do you hold advanced permissions (checkuser, oversight, bureaucrat, steward) on this or other WMF projects? If so, please list them. Also, do you have OTRS permissions? If so, to which queues?
    I do not have advanced permissions on other projects, and I currently do not have OTRS permissions (but that certainly can change).
Questions for this candidate
Comments
Comments may also be submitted to the Arbitration Committee privately by emailing arbcom-en-c@lists.wikimedia.org. Please note that the candidate will be provided the opportunity to respond to a paraphrased version of any emailed comments; the sender's name will not be provided.
Hi, Ritchie333, in the 2nd case (Username block), did Oshwah had any genuine chance to understand that it was an username generated by some-one involved with WP and may have been in good-faith?Also, I personally feel Oshwah to be one of our most user-friendly and civil sysop and fail to spot examples of failing AdminAcct. All question(s) need not be answered.Regards:)Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 14:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
According to the username policy, "Users who adopt such usernames, but who are not editing problematically in related articles, should not be blocked. Instead, they should be gently encouraged to change their username." At the point Oshwah blocked, the account had 0 edits. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wholly agreed.But, then again, interpretations and executions of the policy vary. And I have seen soft-blocks at zero edits fairly commonly.Regards:)Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 14:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per the first three supports. JTP (talk • contribs) 15:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regretful Oppose Oshwah is really great and I like him quite a lot. He is very helpful on IRC and is probably the most active admin on it. I frequently ask him for his support in dealing with copyright revision deletions when I need it done quick and its too complicated to make the template useful. That being said, I my fear here is that the usage of the CU tool would rely too much on off-wiki communication. Yes, there are times when it does need to be done in private (I've contacted CU privately many times before), but at the same time CUs need to understand the primacy of on-wiki communication compared to off-wiki unless there is a good reason otherwise. My fear here is this: not that Oshwah would abuse the tools, I think its pretty clear he wouldn't, but that some people would use his good nature as a way to skip cases that should be handled via SPI so that there is public scrutiny and an on-wiki record. There's a fine line between when it is appropriate to contact a CU off-wiki and when its preferable to do it in publicly in an SPI, and unfortunately I think Oshwah being appointed would lead to too many other users taking action off-wiki that should be done on-wiki. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Overstepped his authority by blocking an editor for socking based on flimsy behavioral evidence, without citing an investigation in his rationale for the block. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Irannejad90. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Has the technical skills, and the requesit respect for privacy. Trustworthy admin who is aware of the policy on sockpuppetry and the blocking policy. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 21:32, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Oshwah has the technical knowledge for sure as well as a solid grasp of the policies. I do not share the concerns about his ability to differentiate when something needs to be "on-wiki" vs. "off-wiki" and I am confident he would redirect requestors as necessary and appropriate. -- Dane talk 22:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've just given one case where he flat out violated policy above. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt his knowledge of when to ask something off-wiki or on-wiki. I doubt the judgement of the contingent we have who think IRC is equivalent to Wikipedia. I'm confident if Oshwah were to get the CU flag, we'd have a lot of Well Oshwah is so helpful, let me just get him to run this, when it should be an SPI rather than an off-wiki request. It puts him in a very bad situation because as the most active admin on #wikipedia-en, he will be flooded with these types of requests, which increases the odds of him making a poor judgement call entirely in good faith. Unlike oversight, being overly accessible on CU has the potential to cause problems if the request should be made at SPI, and again, I've asked for CUs off-wiki plenty of times, so this isn't a everything must be on-wiki oppose. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:12, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: an editor recently posted sensitive information on my user page, there were no available oversighters on IRC, Oshwah had it revdel'd as soon as I mentioned it to him and it was suppressed quickly thereafter. No concerns whatsoever. DrStrauss talk 22:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support One of the most helpful admins I've come across in my time editing here. As for his technical abilities, the answer to the second standard question is enough to judge his understanding of IP addresses and network-related areas. The concerns raised by TonyBallioni are valid, but I don't doubt Oshwah's ability to discern what should and should not be done with the tools he's been given based on how well he has handled his current admin tools so far. Jiten Dhandha • talk • contributions • 23:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I have no concerns. Oshwah has consistently shown excellent judgment, and I see no reason not to trust him with CU. AlexEng(TALK) 01:22, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I also have no concerns. Great to talk to on IRC, and is very helpful. I think of him as my go-to-guy for any questions I might have of WP. I think of him as a really great guy in general. Yoshi24517Chat On Wikibreak 05:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I've gone through some of the SPIs they have handled in the past and they've been okay, and I strongly disagree with wbm1058's assessment of that particular SPI. I've read through Ritchie's links, but I don't think they are relevant in this context and/or are pretty old (but also see my comments on the OS nomination). --Rschen7754 06:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I've been happy to see Oshwah turn out to be a pretty decent admin, devoid of controversy, drama, or incivility, and genuinely wanting to help others. Oshwah has proven to be a real crowdpleaser of an admin. The uncontroversial admin grinding is awesome. However, I don't think this user has firmly established themselves among the ranks of the most trusted and consistent members of this project who are typically granted these highly exclusive and sensitive rights. For one, I think their talk page conduct falls short of the expected standard of professionalism for administrators. Sorry. I really do appreciate Oshwah's niceness, but relative to other administrators and any other user I've encountered, they're too social/forum-esque on the talk pages. I'm sure they're an absolute joy to talk to off-wiki, but a different standard of conduct is expected on-wiki, particularly for administrators. Seriously, it goes beyond the conduct of even the most friendly editors I've come across in my time here. No one in a professional atmosphere is communicating the way Oshwah consistently communicates on-wiki. And that's not meant to demean a user for being "too friendly". It's possible to be super friendly without conveying a lack of maturity or a lack of seriousness. Oshwah's not successfully doing that though. Secondly, his judgment isn't as rock-solid as we should expect. It's hard to review his edits due to the high volume of automated edits, but a cursory review reveals instances of apparent questionable judgment. They immediately blocked this account after it made its first edit, despite there being no clear username vio, and reverted an apparent good faith rename request, while revoking talk page access. As an admin, I fail to see why any action was ever needed regarding that account, especially the user's suppression after a seemingly-legitimate rename request in response to a soft block. I fail to see why someone shouldn't be allowed to edit under either handle, according to username policy. I really don't. In this context, it's hard to simply look past this, where they blocked a user without even knowing how or why. In my 6 years of being an admin, I never just happened to stumble upon some random new user and accidentally block them for absolutely no reason. Farhadfarhadxex? AriseMyLove? Perhaps there's something I'm just missing here. However this user comes off as either overzealous or reckless. I'm left with concerns about experience, judgment and maturity. Swarm ♠ 08:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I firmly believe that a friendly disposition and ability to interact with other editors is important. I am yet to see any sysop that hasn't completed screwed something up at some point so the comments about 'accidents' do not affect my opinion. Despite the comments here about about him being 'too friendly' and 'an absolute joy' to the point of lacking professionalism, I find it hard to see that as a negative, you could literally have a robot Cluebot do this job otherwise. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  13:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that Oshwah would be a good candidate for oversighter, but less so with CheckUser. Some of the examples above demonstrate overzealousness and I worry about how that would apply to his use of the CU tool, which should be used sparingly and only with good justification. But I won't oppose here, because I bet that Oshwah would still be able to use the tools well. I'm also not impressed by some of the oppose reasons above, specifically relating to his demeanour and whether he would respond to requests for CU on the IRC. A good demeanour can be very useful for a CheckUser, especially a new one who will rely on the help of his/her peers at the start. Most cross-wiki coordination is done through IRC, the mailing list, or the wiki, so it's a good thing to have a CU who is on IRC and able to respond in these cases. The bureaucracy at SPI doesn't need to be followed for all requests. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 21:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. While the concerns that the opposers have made are valid, I don't feel like they are significant enough to overshadow how well Oshwah has done as an admin and I think him having CU would only be a benefit to Wikipedia. The concerns about occasional overzealousness are valid and if granted CU he would need to ensure he isn't overzealous with it, but I don't think that alone disqualifies him. timawesomeness ⟨talk⟩ 03:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support I'm a bit conflicted about this. On the one hand, I've always personally found Oshwah to be a good admin, I don't have any doubts he can be trusted with non-public info, and he seems technically competent. I disagree with the concerns about IRC, as I think Oshwah has good enough judgement to know when he should open and close a "for the record" SPI (recent example). On the other hand, the examples provided by Ritchie333 and Swarm are a cause for concern and leads me to believe he may be a bit too eager with his use of tools on occasion. However, these examples seem, to me, like a drop in an ocean when compared to the vast number of proper blocks Oshwah makes, and I've never seen bad work from him when dealing with sockpuppets. Simplexity22 (talk) 04:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Ritchie, and Swarm have good arguments. But I am comfortable with supporting him, because he acts in goodfatith, with or without intentions, he is a good example of WP:OFWV. Everybody makes mistakes, how can Oshwah be an exception to this? But fortunately he is willing to learn from his mistakes, and "trying not to repeat a mistake" is important, which he does. Yes, his talkpage is a little off-the-topic, his communication is a lot on the side of informal/casual. But he has a very good understanding of enwiki policies, and he behaves accordingly. There were one or two hiccups, but we all have done something stupid here. I have not seen any major mistake, or misuse of any tool that would merit him an oppose. —usernamekiran(talk) 07:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Oshwah is a great guy and a good admin. With time, he could easily become one of our best and most respected admins and a great functionary but right now this is premature and these positions are too sensitive to be decided on the basis of popularity. Oshwah is trying to be everywhere all the time and all things to all people. He lacks focus, which means he does lots of things very quickly but doesn't have time to get into the details. He sees something, reacts, then moves on to the next thing demanding his attention. That's great for front-line firefighting, but checkuser and oversight require a level of detachment (to continue a bad metaphor, checkusers and oversighters are more like arson investigators than firefighters) to investigate the whole situation. In the case of checkuser, you might have to spend several hours untangling a web of sockpuppets, or you might spend just as long investigating ranges to eliminate false positives or triple check your conclusions to make sure you don't accidentally vilify a good editor or block an entire country. Sorry, Oshwah, I'm not questioning your skill or your motives, I just haven't seen that level of patience or detachment from you yet. You've only been an admin for a year and most checkusers are long-experienced admins and I can't see any reason you wouldn't make a fantastic checkuser in a few years. I just think it's premature now. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I endorse Oshwah have the tool to deal for catching up those vandal sock accounts, but the privilege right have to grant by community users consensus trusted. SA 13 Bro (talk) 18:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose from what I've seen of Oshwah, they've been spreading themselves too thinly, and can only echo HJ Mitchell's sentiments above. I've stumbled upon their user talk page a few times now since they became an admin, and I've seen unreplied to comments from new users- the very users we should be trying to keep onboard, but also people treating Oshwah as some sort of forum shop, or way to circumvent the normal system/processes we have in place. jcc (tea and biscuits) 13:24, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support - I like the hair! :D Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regretful oppose (and without prejudice to a future appointment), mainly as per HJ Mitchell rather than any one individual mistake or misjudgment. I'm very sorry, but I can't help but agree with the opposition's concerns, even as I echo some of the positive points of supporters. GABgab 22:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regretful oppose per Ritchie and HJ - The blocks are concerning and unfortunately at this time is something I cannot support, We all make mistakes but when you're a CU there can't be any room for errors and mistakes, Sorry. –Davey2010Talk 18:42, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Swarm and HJ Mitchell. Yintan  01:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - the issues brought up previously are valid, but I do not see these as obstacles. Oshwah is experienced in matters involving IP addresses, and therefore I do think he can and should be trusted with the sensitive information that is part and parcel of being a CheckUser. Patient Zerotalk 09:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest support possible Oshwah has been a great admin and would be an incredible asset as a CU! CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:15, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I read the comments from those in opposition and took special note of what HJ Mitchell and Jcc said. They might be right. Regardless, I've been stalking Oshwah's talk page for some time and this is one bull I'd be pleased to unleash in the china shop. I think Wikipedia needs Oshwah's activity as CU more than it needs to forgo help in an effort to be careful or diplomatic. If Oshwah screws up and causes problems I'd be willing to admit I'm wrong, but Wikipedia has bigger fish to fry. give Oshwah more trust and let's see what happens. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Berean Hunter (CU)

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

Nomination statement
I'm applying for the checkuser tool so that I may assist further with sockpuppet investigations.
  • I have been a SPI clerk and administrator since 2012.
  • I enjoy investigating cases, helping editors and working with the SPI team of clerks and checkusers.
  • I have a working knowledge of the sockpuppet, checkuser and privacy policies that pertain to the investigations.
  • I regularly evaluate behavioral evidence.
  • I have participated at varying levels in SPI cases for just over 1000 distinct sockmasters.
  • I understand IPv4 and IPv6 addressing and can make rangeblocks.
I learned GNU/Linux, system administration and networking when you had to build and compile the operating system yourself. These were additional technical roles and not my primary career. After several years of hands-on experience, I chose to formalize with educational capstones and completed both Cisco Academy and Red Hat Academy for Network Administration. I understand networking protocols, addressing (IPv4 and IPv6) and addressing concepts such as supernetting and subnetting required for mapping ISP topologies and understanding whois reports. I can use command line networking security tools as well as GUI tools.
Thank you for your consideration, Berean Hunter
Standard questions for all candidates
  1. Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
    As described above in my nomination statement.
  2. Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.
    Same as above.
  3. Do you hold advanced permissions (checkuser, oversight, bureaucrat, steward) on this or other WMF projects? If so, please list them. Also, do you have OTRS permissions? If so, to which queues?
    No to all
Questions for this candidate
  • I'm not sure how my previous inactivity would affect my current ability to be an active functionary. My inactivity last year centered primarily around family crisis and loss of loved ones. I hope that I'm done with that for a good, long while.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Comments may also be submitted to the Arbitration Committee privately by emailing arbcom-en-c@lists.wikimedia.org. Please note that the candidate will be provided the opportunity to respond to a paraphrased version of any emailed comments; the sender's name will not be provided.

Zzuuzz (CU)

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

Nomination statement
Hello. I am applying for CheckUser permissions. I've been editing since 2005 and an administrator since 2007. I spend a lot of my time dealing with vandalism, harassment, long term abuse, and some of the more obvious and prolific sockpuppeteers. I am applying for the tool in order to better help the community with what I already do, and to take some load from other CheckUsers and other users both at the front line of recent changes and secondary areas such as SPI, admin boards, mailing lists, ACC, unblock requests and UTRS.
I have a good understanding of relevant policy, as well as the technical aspects of networks and website requests. I have a lot of experience investigating and blocking IP addresses and ranges of all types from all parts of the world, both IPv4 and IPv6. I also have a lot of experience with proxies (open, anonymising, or otherwise). I take a particular interest in making blocks which are proportionate and with minimal collateral, and I will apply these principles to the CheckUser tool if this application is successful. Thank you for your consideration.
Standard questions for all candidates
  1. Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
    I'd describe myself as quite an experienced admin with over 21,000 blocks, most for either vandalism or abuse of multiple accounts. A lot of the blocks are for long term abuse cases and vandal sockpuppets, many of which aren't necessarily listed at SPI, but often involve checkusers nonetheless. I've also helped out quite a lot with WP:OP Wikiproject and investigating open proxies.
  2. Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.
    My off-wiki experience includes years of being paid to manage IT security, networks, firewalls, routing, DHCP, DNS, web servers, websites, VPNs and other proxies. This includes things like investigating users attempting to evade bans, as well as handling private data.
  3. Do you hold advanced permissions (checkuser, oversight, bureaucrat, steward) on this or other WMF projects? If so, please list them. Also, do you have OTRS permissions? If so, to which queues?
    No, none, never have.
Questions for this candidate
Comments
Comments may also be submitted to the Arbitration Committee privately by emailing arbcom-en-c@lists.wikimedia.org. Please note that the candidate will be provided the opportunity to respond to a paraphrased version of any emailed comments; the sender's name will not be provided.

Smartse (CU)

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

Nomination statement
I am Smartse and am requesting access to the CheckUser tool. I began editing in 2009 and bccame an administrator in 2011. My primary area of administrative work relates to dealing with conflicts of interest and undisclosed paid editing (UPE). In the course of this, I have often come across groups of suspected sockpuppets and initiated investigations to confirm this. Some recent examples include HemantDas34 (initiated here), Earflaps/MusicLover650 and Jbuffkin. Evidence I provided also led to the community ban of FoCuSandLeArN. These investigations demonstrate my ability to investigate the contributions of users and determine both whether they are disruptive and whether sockpuppetry is likely. I request access primarily to assist in investigations into sockfarms operated by UPEs but would also deal with straightforward SPIs and hopefully gain the experience to assist in other areas. I believe that the length of time that I have contributed to what is a controversial subject, with little or no conflict with the community, demonstrates my ability to follow policy to the letter. I have always erred on the side of caution when dealing with personal information and this would continue were I granted the permission. I am acutely aware of the considerable responsibility entrusted to checkusers and can confidently state that I would only use it to prevent disruption to the project. At present I admit to having little knowledge of networking technologies but am more than willing to learn and am certain of my ability to make use of the tools.
Standard questions for all candidates
  1. Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
    I think this is adequately covered above. SmartSE (talk) 18:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.
    Seeing the other nominations I do feel rather unqualified for the job. I freely admit to having little knowledge of networking as I haven't had a reason to know anything. My work is very analytical however which I assume will be helpful if I am granted the tools. In addition I am always eager to learn new things so feel I will be able to pick up the ropes soon enough if I gain access to the information. SmartSE (talk) 18:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Do you hold advanced permissions (checkuser, oversight, bureaucrat, steward) on this or other WMF projects? If so, please list them. Also, do you have OTRS permissions? If so, to which queues?
    No and no. SmartSE (talk) 18:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for this candidate
  • Could you explain what your personal criteria would be to perform a check on someone you suspect of undisclosed paid editing? Specifically, what would cause you not to run a check, if anything? ~ Rob13Talk 17:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BU Rob13: There needs to be a reasonable suspicion that sockpuppetry is occurring to run a CU. Normally that would mean that we need subject crossover and/or behavioural similarities to link accounts together. This current case at COIN (and subsequent SPI) is an example of where I think it is justified, even when though the evidence directly linking the non-stale editors is fairly flaky, because altogether I think there is clear evidence of something suspect going on between all of the accounts. In other cases though, what constitutes reasonable suspicion is up for debate and I admit to having been slightly frustrated at times with the ad hoc nature of requesting CU on individual suspicious users and the lack of clarity on what evidence is required to do so. The HermantDas34 case began when I spotted a user creating an obviously spammy article after first creating it as a redirect. That isn't the behaviour of a true new user so a CU was justified even without any other user to compare against. Personally I thought that a CU was justified in this case where we know the Upwork user has socked before, but has since made their profile private so we can't know how many jobs they have taken on. If I am given access to the tools, in borderline cases I would continue to defer to other CUs as to whether a CU should be performed, and then do the leg work after that. In terms of not running a check, if there were cases like Earflaps (but with no link to a previous account) or FoCuSandLeArN where established users are determined to be UPE but there is no evidence of socking, then I would not run a check. SmartSE (talk) 20:56, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Doc James: I hadn't been aware of that link to FaL until you posted at COIN last week. If evidence was presented that linked an established user to a company such as that and they were confirmed to use socks in the past, then I would take that into account and in this case at least, a check would be justified. SmartSE (talk) 19:47, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Comments may also be submitted to the Arbitration Committee privately by emailing arbcom-en-c@lists.wikimedia.org. Please note that the candidate will be provided the opportunity to respond to a paraphrased version of any emailed comments; the sender's name will not be provided.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Oversight

The community comments phase is closed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:44, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There'sNoTime (OS)

There'sNoTime (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Nomination statement
Hi, I'm There'sNoTime - I've been an administrator here since December of last year, and have decided to apply to be considered for checkuser and oversight due to my technical background and desire to be of further use to the community. I believe, through my real-life work in healthcare IT, I have the technical ability to use this access to help track down sockpuppets and prevent abuse on our project. Working in the healthcare IT industry, privacy is paramount. It instils a strong belief that data should remain private and is a fundamental part of my day-to-day activities. My work on Wikipedia shows the commitment to and understanding of the policies which guide our contributions, and if granted these tools I would use them to help protect and maintain this project. Thank you.
Standard questions for all candidates
  1. Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
    Through my work as an administrator, I have come across multiple instances of content needing revision deletion or suppression - when this occurs, I've always acted quickly to minimise the damage such content can cause. I believe Oversight is a role where the only helpful, on-wiki experience you can have is primarily requesting oversight and not getting it denied. To be best of my knowledge, all my requests have been actioned.
  2. Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.
    As I mention in my nomination statement, I work in an IT sector where privacy and abidance to regulations is a must. I believe this experience has helped my thorough understanding of the oversight policy.
  3. Do you hold advanced permissions (checkuser, oversight, bureaucrat, steward) on this or other WMF projects? If so, please list them. Also, do you have OTRS permissions? If so, to which queues?
    I do not currently hold these advanced permissions on this or any other WMF project. I have OTRS access to info-en
Questions for this candidate
Comments
Comments may also be submitted to the Arbitration Committee privately by emailing arbcom-en-c@lists.wikimedia.org. Please note that the candidate will be provided the opportunity to respond to a paraphrased version of any emailed comments; the sender's name will not be provided.

Sphilbrick (OS)

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

Nomination statement
I am applying for Oversight, not CU. I have almost 10 years of experience as a Wikipedia editor. Over my Wikimedia career, I started with Wikipedia, expanded into contributions to Commons, then active involvement as an OTRS agent, and modest contributions to Wikidata. I have been appointed an admin at the English Wikipedia, Commons and OTRS. I briefly served as an arbcom clerk (mainly to help me decide whether I should run for arbcom which persuaded me, at least at the time, that I should not, but that may change in the future). I enjoy helping, so I've been active at the help desk, and at Request for Feedback (a predecessor to the teahouse). I enjoy being part of this community, so I've attended Wikimania events in DC and Montréal as well as Wikimedia USA events in New York and DC. I've been active with copyright issues, so have a fair bit of experience with revision deletion. I'm one of the more active OTRS agents (closed 1008 tickets in last month, not counting spam removals), where I have fielded many requests for removal of information, some of which result in polite explanations why it cannot be removed, some of which result in simple removal, some of which result in revision deletion, and some of which have been forwarded on to oversight for possible suppression.
Standard questions for all candidates
  1. Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
    I try to start out each day doing some copyright work at Copypatrol. According to the leaderboard, I've closed about 3500 potential copyright issues. When violation are identified, they are typically revision deleted, so I have substantial experience with revision deletion.
    I am one of the more active OTRS agents, fielding emails from the public, including readers with questions, subjects of articles with complaints, and brand-new editors who don't know where else to turn. The second of those groups is most relevant to OS - many people write in asking for some material to be removed from an article about them. Responding to these questions requires close attention to our policies, especially WP:BLPPRIVACY. We need to balance the desire to be an informative encyclopedia with the desires of people to protect their privacy. A typical review requires an assessment of what can and cannot be removed per policy, and whether it can be "simply" removed as an editor, or requires more advanced removal such as revision deletion or suppression. As an admin, I can carry out simple removal and revision deletion, and in cases where suppression should be considered, I file a request with Oversight.
    In addition to carrying out removal, I often have to reject some aspect of the request, and I try to provide a tactful explanation when I feel that removal is not warranted. If I receive this appointment, my activity in OTRS will largely remain the same, except that I will be able to carry our suppression, if that is warranted. My intention is to do this in consultation with other functionaries, in order to make sure my assessments remain in line with the community. I don't intend to be limited to OTRS related issues, if appointed, I will be an active participant in general issue sent in to Oversight.
  2. Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.
    I am currently the President of a local charitable organization, as well as a member of its Board of Directors. While it is a modest-sized organization, we do have access to private information and we have to comply with local, state, and national guidelines for the handling of non-public information. I have previously served as a member of the Board of Directors of a national professional organization (one notable enough to have a Wikipedia article about them), and in a more significant way, was trusted with material non-public information. I spent a number of years as a financial consultant, and often had access to non-public material, especially when consulting in legal cases, and in merger and acquisition work.
  3. Do you hold advanced permissions (checkuser, oversight, bureaucrat, steward) on this or other WMF projects? If so, please list them. Also, do you have OTRS permissions? If so, to which queues?
    I do not have advanced permissions on this or other projects. I am an OTRS agent, and recently became an OTRS administrator. My queue access lists is:
    OTRS admins, info-en, info-queues, permissions, Wikibooks, Commons
Questions for this candidate
  • While not formally expressed as a question, Rob noted my lack of involvement in IRC. My hope is to persuade people that Teamspeak is better but failing that, I will commit to becoming active in IRC again.
Comments
Comments may also be submitted to the Arbitration Committee privately by emailing arbcom-en-c@lists.wikimedia.org. Please note that the candidate will be provided the opportunity to respond to a paraphrased version of any emailed comments; the sender's name will not be provided.

SoWhy (OS)

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

Nomination statement
Hi everyone,
as many of you know, my main area of admin activity is deletion (speedy deletion and AFD). In course of my work there, I have come across multiple pages with information that needed to be oversighted and all my requests were granted. I also believe most users have come to know me as a calm, civil and communicative person when dealing with any issue, even when things get heated and people disagree with me.
In real life, I am 33 year old lawyer from a small town east of Munich, Germany, which makes my time zone CET/CEST (UTC+1/+2). My online time varies but I am usually quick to respond to mails which I monitor at any time I am at work or at home.
Last but not least, I wish to repeat something I wrote the last time I stood for OS 8 years ago which is as true today as it was back then: If you oppose my candidacy, please take the time to elaborate why .After all, if any mistakes I made or make made you vote in such a way, I can only seek to address and learn from them if I know what they are.
Regards SoWhy
Standard questions for all candidates
  1. Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
    I think I said it all in my nom statement. If you have any questions, feel free to ask.
  2. Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.
    As I mentioned above, I'm a lawyer IRL, so dealing with private data is my daily bread.
  3. Do you hold advanced permissions (checkuser, oversight, bureaucrat, steward) on this or other WMF projects? If so, please list them. Also, do you have OTRS permissions? If so, to which queues?
    No.
Questions for this candidate
  • The global OS policy states that the oversight tool can be used for the "removal of potentially libelous information either: ... b) when the case is clear, and there is no editorial reason to keep the revision." What does this mean to you? --Rschen7754 05:30, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this part of the policy is reserved for addition of material that has no reason whatsoever to be here, like someone randomly inserting "John Doe is a child molester" into various articles without any reason to assume that this might possibly be true or relevant to any article.
  • I will try but since our policy merely circle-defines "libelous" as whatever is written in defamation, I'm mostly quoting from there. Libelous means that a statement is a) false, b) caused harm (either in itself (e.g. "murderer", "rapist" etc.) or in context and c) was made without adequately researching the truthfulness. "Potentially libelous" encompasses any statement that - if false - may cause harm (e.g. "John Doe is a child molester"). If the material was clearly inserted solely to defame the person in question and not in any way potentially correct, there is no editorial reason to keep it. If, on the other hand, the material alleges that it might be correct, it should - at most - be handled by revision deletion or - usually - by reverting, at least until factual correctness can clearly be ruled out. As with many things, I assume this is something that one learns on a case-by-case basis and something I, if I am granted access to the OS tool, would definitely discuss with other, more experienced oversighters before rushing into it. Regards SoWhy 09:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Comments may also be submitted to the Arbitration Committee privately by emailing arbcom-en-c@lists.wikimedia.org. Please note that the candidate will be provided the opportunity to respond to a paraphrased version of any emailed comments; the sender's name will not be provided.
  • Support SoWhy and I are frequent sparring partners on policy discussions, and I opposed his recent RfB based on concerns based on how we disagree on the evaluation of consensus. That being said, I honestly can't think of someone this round who would be a better oversighter. I think his legal background would be useful since it deals with privacy concerns, and he is exceptionally unlikely to use the tools or access to private information to further his own interests either on-wiki or off-wiki. I strongly urge the committee to make SoWhy an oversighter in this round of appointments. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:37, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A trusted administrator, opposes at his recent RfB demonstrate that the worst objections to SoWhy as a bureaucrat make him an exemplary OS candidate. Jclemens (talk) 08:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. My experience of SoWhy, and the comments at his recent RfB, indicate that they are often very literal and rigid in their interpretation of policies. Oversight is a role that requires dealing with a great many edge cases and situations where the intent of the policies and the sometimes complex facts of the individual case need interpreting and analysing. Thryduulf (talk) 10:32, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thryduulf: Could you maybe provide one or two fictional(ized) examples of such "edge cases" that you think are not covered by a literal interpretation of policy? Obviously, I would have preferred if you had given me the chance to alleviate your concerns prior to making this comment but nonetheless, I am genuinely interested what these "edge cases" would look like. Regards SoWhy 11:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The most common situations are probably related to the Streisand effect. Thryduulf (talk) 12:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thryduulf: Please forgive my continued ignorance. I'm aware of the Streisand effect but I don't see the connection. Since you are an Oversighter yourself, maybe you can provide one or two examples from your experience where you felt a literal interpretation of policy would have been incorrect? Regards SoWhy 06:26, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have time right now to look for a suitable example, but this is the key paragraph from the boilerplate response we can send when there is a concern re the Streisand effect, which usually applies to older edits (e.g. a few days ago someone requested we oversight their real name and/or email address from the userpage of a user they had abandoned in circa 2010; many are not as clear as that) "All Wikipedia content that is in a public log, such as a page history, is available in periodic database "dumps" which are free for downloading to anyone. With the age of your request this means that while we can remove it from the live version of Wikipedia, we cannot remove the edit from the internet entirely. The consequence of this is that if you have a serious concern over someone trying to invade your privacy, often times removing the edit, IP address or username has the potential to escalate the problem since the information is available elsewhere and may cause a greater concern for privacy than you had in the beginning." Thryduulf (talk) 09:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thryduulf: Ahh, now I understand. Yes, that response makes perfect sense in such situations and it is actually in line with my thinking not to act hasty when something has existed for years (which is also why I regularly deny requests for speedy deletion of pages that existed for 10+ years even if the criteria match, see also WP:SILENCE). Thanks for taking the time to explain and I can assure you that if I am granted OS, I will consider the circumstances of each request carefully. After all, as you say, what's the point of suppression if the act of suppression itself is the one that draws people to the information in the first place? Regards SoWhy 11:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. SoWhy's strict adherence to policy and not allowing gut feeling to interfere with his assessment of a situation actually makes him particularly well suited to the use of the OS tool. It would be most unusual for him to make any controversial decisions over edge cases. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support--Essentially per Kudpung and TonyBallioni.I agree that he is the prob. the best of the lot.Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 13:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I wasn't really intending to comment here, but I'm moved to by Thryduulf's oppose. Oversight/suppression has some of the most clearly delineated criteria of the project, with less room for "fuzzy" judgment than most. If an editor disagrees with a decline for OS, they can always nominate it again and ask for someone else to review - and it's backed up by the wider criteria for revision deletion, which minimizes any possible fallout from possibly marginal cases. I see SoWhy as possibly the strongest candidate running for OS this time. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Absolutely Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support No concerns ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 16:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Extremely well qualified both on-wiki and off.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I opposed the bureaucrat candidacy because of the inflexibility and rigidity shown towards CSD. However, OS requires a different kind of judgement which I believe SW possesses. With the RfB, there were alarm bells ringing as there had been too many controversial opposes. With this I can't see what can go wrong, but I can see what could go right. Aiken D 18:47, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Oversight requires the skillset that the candidate possess. I think he would perform well in this role. -- Dane talk 22:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support SoWhy has the experience and judgement to make good use of OS. I have no concerns whatsoever about this candidacy, and his appointment would benefit the community. -- Begoon 00:46, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per TonyBallioni and Kudpung, has a need for the tool, and I find the answer to Thryduulf's comment to be acceptable. Simplexity22 (talk) 05:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A lot familiar with SoWhy's activity, I also skimmed it a good deal during his RfB. He would be very good with OS tool. —usernamekiran(talk) 07:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The expertise and strict approach are excellent qualities for oversight. Alex ShihTalk 07:53, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I'm satisfied with the response above. --Rschen7754 02:16, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I don't see anything wrong here, and the response to the (only) oppose vote was quite good. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:21, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong support Most definitely. This user was almost granted bureaucratship and failed at the last minute, which shows his trustworthiness. Comfycozybeds (talk) 18:12, 24 September 2017 (UTC) Confirmed sockpuppet ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • support. I am certain that he won't misuse the access and I don't find his potential inflexibility that was mentioned at RfB as a problem here --Kostas20142 (talk) 11:28, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. No issues here, I trust SoWhy. Yintan  01:05, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - if anything, I think a literal, black-and-white minded approach is ideal for this permission - ergo, SoWhy is an ideal candidate. Patient Zerotalk 09:49, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I don't see any concerns here, –Davey2010Talk 18:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Primefac (OS)

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

Nomination statement
I am applying for the oversight position because I appreciate the importance of handling situations promptly and am often online. I currently handle many revision deletion requests per week, mainly for copyright violations, but also via email and IRC. I see many oversight requests in IRC, and I think having another set of eyes to speed up the OS process, even if by only a small amount, will help keep Wikipedia a safe and collaborative space. As an educator in secondary schools, I understand the vital nature of keeping personal information private (both from a "putting things out there" perspective as well as the "keeping things private" standpoint) as well as the necessity of keeping libellous and harmful material out of public spaces.
Standard questions for all candidates
  1. Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
    I regularly patrol the CSD-tagged pages, in particular the copyright violations, and perform a lot of revdel's during the course of those patrols. Often an WP:A10 page will need a revdel or oversight. In addition I frequently see {{help me}} and/or AFC posts that reveal personal information, which I revdel followed by a request to oversight. I am regularly present in the IRC help channels, and occasionally receive revdel requests from non-admins regarding questionable content they've found during their travels around Wikipedia.
  2. Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.
    I've been teaching (in one form or another) since 2014, which generally involves the handling of sensitive information. Most are mundane things like allergies, but there are serious things like behavioural history and psychological profiles as well. These issues are not to be spread around, and student behaviour during school is also considered sensitive and not-to-be-discussed outside of work itself.
  3. Do you hold advanced permissions (checkuser, oversight, bureaucrat, steward) on this or other WMF projects? If so, please list them. Also, do you have OTRS permissions? If so, to which queues?
    No advanced permissions (just the mop), but I do have OTRS access (info-en and permissions-en queues)
Questions for this candidate
Comments
Comments may also be submitted to the Arbitration Committee privately by emailing arbcom-en-c@lists.wikimedia.org. Please note that the candidate will be provided the opportunity to respond to a paraphrased version of any emailed comments; the sender's name will not be provided.

Oshwah (OS)

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

Nomination statement
I am applying for the CheckUser and Oversight permissions to extend my participation with Wikipedia in order to protect the privacy of users, and be available to help with processing the requests that I see frequently occur and go unanswered on IRC, as well as help with the backlog at SPI and ACC. I've been an administrator for a year, and have been consistently active and available to help with requests and urgent matters on IRC and other communication methods. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to ask me them and I'll be happy to answer.
Standard questions for all candidates
  1. Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
    My time has been mostly spent in recent changes patrolling and attempting to mentor and help new users on Wikipedia. I patrol recent changes and revert vandalism, respond to instances of long-term abuse, username violations, blatant sock puppetry, page protection requests, and (occasionally) AFD, AN3, and ANI. I'm also an ACC Tool Administrator on WP:ACC, and assist with processing account creation requests, as well as helping tool users with difficult or complex cases. I'm also highly active on IRC and I respond to requests for assistance and input from other users, and I respond to emergencies such as LTA, threats, blocking requests, revision deletion requests, and I make sure that the proper functionaries and channels are notified depending on the issue. I frequently request oversight as part of recent changes patrolling, and would use the tools to respond (both on the mailing list and IRC) to requests for oversight.
  2. Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.
    My current job frequently requires me to handle and process matters and requests that are highly confidential at the corporate level. This includes HR requests and the planning and conducting of employee termination and internal investigations regarding the breach and mishandling of data and terms of use policies by employees, major corporate decisions that are not announced to any employees (such as site closures and the "selling off" of company assets that affect employees and managers), and the safeguarding and controlling of access to HR and confidential corporate data (electronic employee files, background checks, personal and financial employee and company information, and other classified materials). I take any and all restricted data and its privacy as a top priority as part of my job, and I will reflect the same level of confidentiality and privacy of data on Wikipedia with the same priority.
  3. Do you hold advanced permissions (checkuser, oversight, bureaucrat, steward) on this or other WMF projects? If so, please list them. Also, do you have OTRS permissions? If so, to which queues?
    I do not have advanced permissions on other projects, and I currently do not have OTRS permissions (but that certainly can change).
Questions for this candidate
@Oshwah: I see that you frequently RevDel a user name of a blocked user from the creation log, but not the user's block log entry. I thee a reason for this? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:11, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a general comment, for anyone who doesn't know, abusive usernames should be reported to the oversight team or the stewards, either of whom can scrub it from all logs and page histories (including Special:ListUsers) in a single action. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:20, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Comments may also be submitted to the Arbitration Committee privately by emailing arbcom-en-c@lists.wikimedia.org. Please note that the candidate will be provided the opportunity to respond to a paraphrased version of any emailed comments; the sender's name will not be provided.
  • Support as OS. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There's nothing to explain. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 16:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Oshwah's work in preserving user privacy is excellent. He has been consistently active on IRC to handle urgent issues. I have no doubt he will use OS effectively. AlexEng(TALK) 16:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support would be extremely useful exactly for the reasons I opposed as CU. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I thought Oshwah already had this permission. No concerns. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Same as my vote for CU. Oshwah has the skills to determine when something requires OS per the policy. -- Dane talk 22:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support No concerns and a lot for the project to gain; thanks for offering to take this on, Oshwah. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't feel that given some of the concerns that Ritchie raised on the CU nomination, as well as some of the concerns expressed at the RFA, that granting both flags at this time would be appropriate - I would prefer to only see one granted, with a possibility of a future nomination. I don't generally look at the RFA for most nominations, but as in a lot of cases this round, the RFA is very recent. Anyway, with all of that being said, my concerns lie more towards the use of OS blocks, as while they are a lot more rare, they can quickly become controversial and I'm not confident as to how the candidate would handle such a situation. With a CU block, well, the technical data is there to back you up. --Rschen7754 06:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Oshwah is often available on IRC, and this will help respond quickly to situations that require use of the OS bit. I understand the concern presented by Rschen7754, but overall I'm not really concerned, because I think Oshwah has the capacity to admin mistakes and learn from them. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 21:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per the support comments above. I have no concerns with regards to Oshwah's use of delete/revdel functions, and I think he'd make a fine OS. Simplexity22 (talk) 05:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose I'm sorry, but the more I think about this the less confident I become, largely per Rschen7754 and HJ Mitchell. I'm no longer convinced Oshwah wouldn't over-use suppression, and I think it would be premature to grant him both permissions. As I said in my CU comment, I think he's a good admin, but I must oppose at this time given how sensitive this role is, and how little scrutiny there would be from the community. Simplexity22 (talk) 00:34, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, largely for the same reasons as I oppose the checkuser nomination but perhaps even more strongly. With checkuser you have technical data and peer review is normal on complex cases but oversight is often a delicate balancing act that can sometimes require a lot of attention for little result. For obvious cases of libel or inappropriate personal information, we'd be speeding up the process and reducing the oversight team's workload by cutting out the middle man and letting you suppress it yourself. But patiently explaining to an article subject that we can't suppress something that's widely reported in reliable sources, or to an editor being harassed that it's simply impossible to remove all trace of their real name, or providing a second opinion on the mailing list? That's often painful and requires a lot of tact and sensitivity. Moreover, I worry from some of your oversight requests (not just recent ones, I've been largely inactive for a few months and this was my impression before I went incognito) that you wouldn't be sufficiently careful with oversight, suppressing things that at a quick glance look like libel or inappropriate personal information but on closer examination turn out out to be something else, or not checking for other oversightable material. Mistakes like those would be damaging because there is very little scrutiny—because of the nature of what we do, the oversight team operates entirely behind the scenes, so the community needs to be able to trust that we're suppressing what we're supposed to and only what we're supposed to. Finally, Oshwah's checkuser nomination is attracting opposition which makes it tempting to see oversight as a 'consolation prize', but I would urge ArbCom not to fall into that trap. For what it's worth, I could see myself strongly supporting you in a few years, but not now. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Very helpful to new users and on IRC. On IRC, he already helps with issues needing revdel, so I am confident that he will do well in this position. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 21:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I was going to sit this one out, but Rschen7754 makes a good point above about oversight blocks. In those instances, you are blocking on non-public data that you cannot share, which is absolutely guaranteed to gain you enemies very quickly (example). Based on what we know about Oshwah's eagerness to please and enthusiasm of clearing admin logs, and on how many enemies he's accrued already, the first time he pulls a block like the one I linked to, he's probably going to get harrassed off the site. So in this case, my oppose is very much "this is for your own good". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I know this user from log RevDel; in this context, Oshwah frequently does a partial job - redacting a user creation log, but not the block log or a report at WP:UAA. Giving Oshwah the oversight ability means that there will be less of an ability to check the completeness of the job. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:03, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per HJ Mitchell and Ritchie333. Yintan  01:02, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Oshwah is experienced in revision deletion - this is simply the next step up for him. Patient Zerotalk 09:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per HJ Mitchell and Ritchie333. –Davey2010Talk 18:38, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Results

This section is an excerpt from Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 11 § 2017 Checkuser and Oversight appointments: Candidates appointed.[edit]

The Arbitration Committee is pleased to appoint the following users to the functionary team:

The Committee would like to thank the community and all the candidates for bringing this process to a successful conclusion. The Arbitration Committee also welcomes the following users back to the functionary team:

For the Arbitration Committee
GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:18, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 35#2017 Checkuser and Oversight appointments: Candidates appointed
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/CheckUser_and_Oversight/2017_CUOS_appointments&oldid=1114196857"