Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/2012 CUOS appointments

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut

The appointment process is now concluded, and the appointment motion has been published below.

The current time and date is 18:30, 26 May 2024 (UTC).
Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes


To improve existing workload distribution and continue to ensure timely responses to requests, the Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint additional people to the CheckUser and Oversight teams.

Accordingly, experienced editors are invited to apply for either or both of the permissions. Current holders of either permission are also invited to apply for the other. For an overview of the appointment process, see here. There is a particular need for Oversight candidates in this round of appointments.

Current demand for users with regional knowledge
Because of the increasing activity from the South Asian, Southeast Asian, or Middle Eastern regions, CheckUser applications are particularly sought from people who not only meet our general requirements but also are familiar with the ISPs and typical editing patterns of any of these regions.

Prospective candidates should be familiar with (i) the English Wikipedia CheckUser and Oversight policies; and (ii) the Wikimedia Foundation privacy policy and related documents. They will also have good communication skills and demonstrated ability to work collaboratively. Additionally, CheckUser candidates are expected to be familiar with basic technological issues and sockpuppet investigation tools and techniques. While not a requirement, previous experience with the Open-source Ticket Resource System (OTRS) is beneficial for Oversight candidates.

Applicants must also be:

  • available regularly to assist with the workload distribution;
  • familiar with Wikipedia processes, policies, and guidelines;
  • at least 18 years of age and have legal majority in their jurisdiction of residence;
  • willing to identify to the Wikimedia Foundation prior to receiving permissions.

Anyone considering applying should be aware that checkusers and oversighters (and candidates for these permissions) are subject to considerable internal and external scrutiny. The external scrutiny may include attempts to investigate on- and off-wiki activities, and has previously resulted in the personal details of candidates being revealed, and unwanted contact with employers, family, or others. Please be aware that the Arbitration Committee is unable to prevent such off-wiki activities from occurring or off-wiki distribution and discussion of personal information. This risk will continue if the candidate is successful in their candidacy.

Further details on the appointment process may be found below.

Appointment process[edit]

Dates are provisional and subject to change
  • Applications: 6 June to 15 June

    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. This should include a nomination statement, to a maximum of 250 words, for inclusion on the candidate's nomination sub-page(s).

  • Review period by the Arbitration Committee: 16 June to 19 June

    During this period, the Arbitration Committee will review applications, notify the candidates going forward for community consultation, and create candidate sub-pages as necessary. The pages will be transcluded to the Candidates section below prior to the community consultation period.

  • Community consultation: 20 June to 28 June

    The nomination statements are published and the candidates invited to answer standard questions and any additional questions the community may pose. Simultaneously, the community is invited to comment on the suitability or unsuitability of each candidate. These comments may either be posted publicly on the candidates' pages 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.

  • Appointments: by 11 July

    The committee shall review all the comments submitted and other relevant factors before finalizing an internal resolution, at which point the appointments will be published. The successful candidates will be required to identify to the Wikimedia Foundation prior to receiving the permissions.

Appointment motion[edit]

The Arbitration Committee has resolved to appoint four editors to the CheckUser team and eight editors to the Oversight team pursuant to the CheckUser and Oversight appointment procedures and following the 2012 CUOS appointments process.

Subject to the editors named below providing identification satisfactory to the Wikimedia Foundation (if they have not already done so), the Arbitration Committee hereby resolves to:

(a) appoint the following editors as checkusers:

(b) appoint the following editors as oversighters:

† Previously identified member of the Audit Subcommittee who will retain the specified permission(s) upon the conclusion of their terms.

The committee thanks the other candidates (Mlpearc, Tiptoety); those who applied but were not put forward as candidates; and the community in bringing this appointment process to a successful conclusion.

The committee also thanks LessHeard vanU (talk · contribs), who has recently resigned as an oversighter, for his longterm dedication to the project, and wishes him well in his future endeavours. As well, the committee thanks John Vandenberg (talk · contribs), who has also resigned his checkuser and oversight permissions, for his work as a checkuser, an oversighter, and for his work as an arbitrator; John continues to make contributions in multiple areas within the WMF projects and as an executive member of Wikimedia Australia.


Supporting: Casliber, Courcelles, David Fuchs, Hersfold, Jclemens, Kirill Lokshin, Newyorkbrad, PhilKnight, Risker, Roger Davies, SirFozzie.
Not voting/Inactive: AGK, SilkTork, Xeno

For the Arbitration Committee, Risker (talk) 02:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion

Candidates[edit]

CheckUser[edit]

DeltaQuad[edit]

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

Nomination statement (250 words max.)
  • Hello everyone. I am DeltaQuad, and i've been an administrator for just over a year now. I am applying for both the CheckUser and Oversight tools. I have been active in SPI for about two years now, and know the list of the Functionaries names almost off by heart. I am a UTRS (Unblock Ticket Request System) Developer, which was intended to bring block appeals from the mailing list (where I handled over 500 requests in about a 6 month period) to a ticket formatted system. I am also an ACC tool administrator, and have been for over half a year now. I also have info-en (f), permissions, and photosubmission queues on OTRS. I have also closed several RfCs including a few major ones, and at the time i'm writing this, I am still assisting in closing the Pending Changes RFC. I am applying for the tool to assist the community, in a way consistent with the policy they lay out, in connecting accounts and preventing abuse, but also in suppressing inappropriate non-public information and other related things from view. I am requesting the tools because of the frequent backlogs for CheckUser, both on and offwiki, and also help with fast suppression both through OTRS and private requests primarily through IRC.
Standard questions for all candidates[edit]
  1. Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
    As noted in my nomination statement, i've been active at SPI for about two years now, dealing with the results, but also declining and endorsing requests. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ)
  2. Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.
    I am currently pursuing a Bachelor of Information Technology Degree (Computer Networking specification), which will assist me in being able to make connections between accounts, or comment on why there is a lack thereof, and find proxies easier. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 02:48, 21 June 2012 (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?
    Checkuser@ipv6test.wmflabs, for testing purposes. I have info-en (f), permissions, photosubmission queues on OTRS. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ)
Questions for this candidate[edit]
  • Suppose that a law enforcement officer comes to you with a search warrant for a user's IP history, and orders you to use the CU tool and supply them with all information that it produces. What do you do? Pine✉ 01:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be extremely unlikely that an officer, especially since I am in Canada would come up and ask me to preform a CheckUser. They would have to find out some how that I, specifically am a CheckUser, which would be hard to find out, and by the time they found it out, the Wikimedia Foundation would be able to give them their answer ten times faster or more. If they did go through all the trouble of getting to me, and finding me, they have wasted their time, because I'm in the wrong jurisdiction to request that information and the information is not on a server I own, it's located in the United States, not Canada. So I would decline any request by law enforcement for a CheckUser by search warrant. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 19:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Greetings DeltaQuad. I am familiar with your manner and clue; and fully confident. I have but one notion to mend. You are currently quite active in several visible areas. Here you have requested both areas of responsibility. Why shouldn't I be concerned that your obligations might suffer for having too many commitments? My76Strat (talk) 00:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry about not seeing this. My most active area is SPI currently, hence the application for the CheckUser flags. I have recently finished from the Pending Changes RfC which has freed up some time. I look across all the projects I am a part of and I prioritize. Also, I'm not saying I would become permanently inactive in a project, but there are other people in most of the projects I'm involved in. Is there a particular project you have a concern for? -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 22:58, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you DQ. Your answer is sufficient for me. Regarding the project, I have become accustomed to seeing several bots under your maintenance become valued instruments. As for concern, that is solely reserved for the man behind the account. I would never desire another to know a stress I have known for simply trying too hard to give much to many. It compounds significantly if that person is comprised to also demand of himself that the giving be only the best of effort. I know you are of such comprise. You have my support in full measure; and admiration. Best - My76Strat (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments[edit]
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 Does good admin work; stays calm and doesn't cause drama. Nobody Ent 02:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. DeltaQuad is a trustworthy and active admin and has good experience with sockpuppet investigations already. Jafeluv (talk) 05:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support I've seen DQs work over at WP:OP, and having an experienced proxy checker such as him with CU will be a major asset to the project. Sailsbystars (talk) 12:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeltaQuad is highly active, easy to contact and will make a fine checkuser. Absolute support. Snowolf How can I help? 16:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - He's been training me as an SPI clerk and he'd be even more useful than he already is with the CU bit. Keilana|Parlez ici 00:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, DQ is a dependable and measured actor who I think could be a benefit with more tools. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know DeltaQuad very well through my interactions with him on SPI, UTRS, IRC, ACC and heaven knows how many more abbreviations! I fully and strongly support DeltaQuad's request for the CheckUser and Oversight tools, one more person to add to my mental black book. The Helpful One 21:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (First Choice) with full confidence. Certain arbs with longer memories should feel free to email me if this causes raised eyebrows. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I couldn't have picked a better person to !vote for; I've seen his work all around in SPIs, ACC, etc. Lynch7 15:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Extremely experienced. --Ankit MaityTalkContribs 15:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - would be of great benefit to the project. Mato (talk) 10:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - available, dependable and fully versed in SPI policies and operations. The checkuser flag is well-warranted here.
    ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 15:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support.Good Admin ,dependable and level headed and has done good work in SPI.He can be trusted.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Actually, I thought DQ had this tool already. Drmies (talk) 18:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - it's long overdue.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, clearly trustworthy. - filelakeshoe 12:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've seen DeltaQuad do good work at WP:SPI as a clerk and admin, and I think he'd be a good addition to the checkuser corps. No concerns, and as Drmies said, I actually thought DQ was already a checkuser. MastCell Talk 19:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=10592#p10592 – I'm not confident in DeltaQuad's ability to judge SPI evidence. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 03:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • With all due respect, that SPI was a very difficult case. I think I can be given a break that I didn't catch one sock. Even another clerk agreed with me that there was not enough behavioral evidence. I also did not comment on the case after your "smoking gun" evidence was posted, and it is not normal to google everything you see in an SPI to search for socks (If you did it would be very time consuming too). I also left it open for second and third reviews, and more if needed, and undeleted the first case when I disagreed with you, allowing you to peruse your case. I think that was fair considering my thoughts at the time. So if I did the same in the future, allowing review, we still are going to find the socks, unless everyone else disagrees. You are always welcome to get a second opinion on an SPI case, in fact if you think I'm in error I encourage it. So i'm not really sure how this would negatively impact my performance as a CheckUser, if I pass. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 19:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Seeing his work as WP:SPI, I think that he is a good man to hand out the tools. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 12:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Trusted candidate. Has the required experience for both CheckUser and Oversight permissions. TheGeneralUser (talk) 13:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Trustworthy, knowledgeable and experienced.--v/r - TP 13:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, yes please. I know his knowledge, which is always usable in SPI cases or ACC tickets where he checks proxies if they are open and thus should be declined or not. mabdul 21:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - StringdaBrokeda 00:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very trustworthy and experienced. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DoRD[edit]

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

Nomination statement (250 words max.)
  • Hello, I'm DoRD, formerly known as Department of Redundancy Department, and I am applying for access to the CheckUser toolset. I began actively editing in 2007 and passed RfA in 2008.

    In 2011, I started helping out at SPI as an admin patroller and assisting with the clerking of cases, and this March, I volunteered to be a trainee clerk. I have worked with the clerk and CheckUser teams to learn the processes and policies involved in sockpuppet investigations, have assisted with the training of other clerk trainees and was recently promoted to full clerk status. My work at SPI has made me familiar with how CheckUser works, when it can and can't be used and with the overriding privacy concerns.

    On the technical side, I am well-versed in IPv4 technology and terminology and am learning about IPv6. In addition to SPI, I am willing to help out at ACC, UTRS and elsewhere as needed. Thank you for your consideration.

Standard questions for all candidates[edit]

Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.

As mentioned in my statement above, I have been helping out at SPI for several months, recently having been promoted to a full clerk. While I don't have any official CU experience, I have a little familiarity with the tool from using the simulated version on TestWiki.

Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.

Well, I have a very dusty degree in computer science, but beyond that, I have been administering my employer's internal networks and connections to the outside world for many years. I have a good working knowledge of IPv4 technology and am familiar with User agent strings.

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 do not, but I have identified to the Foundation.
Questions for this candidate[edit]
  • Suppose that a law enforcement officer comes to you with a search warrant for a user's IP history, and orders you to use the CU tool and supply them with all information that it produces. What do you do? Pine✉ 01:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that, perhaps, you mean a subpoena rather than a search warrant, as they would be looking for something stored on a Wikimedia server rather than something in my possession. I can't imagine that I would be presented with either, but in the highly unlikely event that I was, I would refer them to the Foundation and their Legal Counsel. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 01:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments[edit]
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've run across DORD a few times and haven't seen anything that leads me to believe he would be unsuitable for the tools. MBisanz talk 03:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • DoRD has been volunteering his time as a clerk at SPI for only a brief amount of time now, but in that time he has shown a high level of dedication to that area of the project as well as a solid grasp of the bureaucratic process associated with SPI. I feel he would be a net positive to the CheckUser team. Best, Tiptoety talk 06:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • DoRD has my support as he just became a full clerk (I had promoted him) and showed a well versed knowledge of not only SPI, but critical policies in relation to the usage of the tool. He also seems to be able to adjust to any technical changes very fast. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 19:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • DoRD has been my "go to man" on technical issues. He has probably done more to train me at SPI than anyone, showing a balanced approach that is neither aggressive or too permissive, so I trust his judgment. I would feel very comfortable with him having the CU tools. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:38, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • My interactions with DoRD have been more recent and thus limited, but he has come across as level headed and clueful. Therefore, I am happy to support him for this request. The Helpful One 21:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Third choice Department of Redundancy Department (he'll always be that to me) is a much newer edition to the SPI clerk team than DQ or SG is, however nothing I have seen has been objectionable. Would probably (depending on who is running) be my first or second choice next round, with 6/12 more months of experience under his belt. (Note that this is not an oppose, but it's also not an explicit support) Sven Manguard Wha? 00:07, 25 June 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as one who knows the SPI workings very well and works reliably. Full confidence.
    ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I chime in with the others: DoRD is helpful and clueful and has my trust--as far as "trust" exists on the internet of course. Drmies (talk) 18:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Trusted candidate. Has all the basic experience required for the CheckUser permission. TheGeneralUser (talk) 14:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support after DQ he was the most helpful user related to SPI cases. mabdul 21:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ponyo[edit]

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

Nomination statement (250 words max.)
  • Hello, I'm Ponyo and I am nominating myself for both the Oversight and Checkuser permissions. I have been a Wikipedia editor for over five years and an admin since February 2011. You can usually find me helping with unblock reuqests on UTRS (where the CU tool is helpful) and helping article subjects in the Quality/BLP queue on OTRS (where oversight is a benefit). I'm a current member of the Audit Subcommittee so I am familiar with the use of both CU and OS tools as well as the Foundation's Privacy Policy. I would like to be able to retain the tools once my AUSC appointment expires in February 2013 in order to assist the functionaries on a more detailed and consistent basis.
Standard questions for all candidates[edit]

Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.

  • I have experience in dealing with some prolific sockmasters and their various accounts. I seem to have a certain knack for picking up on small queues that convey relationships between accounts, although in many cases master accounts tend to be rather unimaginative in choosing usernames and article targets. In addition to behavioural evidence I have also used available tools such as Editor Interaction Analyzer and also have the advanced CIDR/wildcard search gadget enabled in my preferences. As I currently have access to the CU tool I have also assisted in reviewing unblock requests that involve sockpuppetry.

Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.

  • My former “real world” career consisted of raw data analysis, interpretation and presentation.

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 have Checkuser and Oversight on en-wikipedia (as part of the Audit Subcommittee). I am also a member of the OTRS team where I have full info-en queue access (including the quality/BLP queue), as well as photsubmissions, permissions, and oversight queue access.
Questions for this candidate[edit]
  • Suppose that a law enforcement officer comes to you with a search warrant for a user's IP history, and orders you to use the CU tool and supply them with all information that it produces. What do you do? Pine✉ 01:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would never supply an outside agency with checkuser data without first consulting with the Foundation in order to a) ensure the request is legitimate and actionable and b) confirm how much data would need to be provided.
Comments[edit]
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.
  • Ponyo is also someone who is relatively new to me and overlooking the typo of photosubmissions above ;-), I'm happy to support her request to continue to have the ability to use the CheckUser and Oversight tools once her term on the AUSC expires, by which time I imagine she will have more than enough experience to be a very useful CheckUser and oversighter. The Helpful One 21:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fourth choice I cannot think of more than one time that I have ever seen Ponyo's name at SPI, which makes Ponyo uniquely under-qualified compared to the other three candidates, at least in my opinion. That being said, this isn't an oppose, but rather that Ponyo would be my fourth choice (yes, out of four). Sven Manguard Wha? 00:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • ArbCom have probably all but made their minds up who they're going to appoint, so this comment is more because I wouldn't want Ponyo to think she's less well thought-of than any of the candidates with lots of comments! ;) Less well-known, perhaps, but for the right reasons in my experience. You're supremely sensible, level-headed uncontroversial, and you have the ability to get shit done (and discretely when called for), so unless you've done something really stupid in the last few moths that I haven't seen, I think you're an ideal candidate. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 07:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Trusted candidate. Ponyo is already well experienced with the use of both Checkuser and Oversight permissions and i support them to continue to have access to both the user rights. TheGeneralUser (talk) 14:32, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This user has been part of Audit Subcommittee and has both Checkuser and Oversight permissions .Further would prefer a candidate who already has the tools over candidates without them when one has choose between two equally good candidates given the privacy concerns and find the candidate to be trustworthy as this position which is without community scrutiny and nearly impossible to audit.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:53, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Salvio giuliano[edit]

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

Nomination statement (250 words max.)
  • Hello everyone, I am Salvio giuliano, an editor, an administrator and a member of the Audit Subcommittee, here on Wikipedia. I am putting my name forward to keep the tools, I was granted in my capacity as an auditor, after the expiration of my term. While I originally thought I would not use these permissions while serving as a member of the Subcommittee, after noticing the various backlogs, I started doing some checks – mainly dealing with the uncontroversial cases or with the ones where a check is needed, such as account or UTRS unblock requests – and suppressing a couple of edits which contained clear privacy violations or self-disclosures by minors.

    I believe I have been a net positive, even though I have just dealt with the more uncontroversial cases – owing to my intention to avoid the ones that might end up before the Audit Subcommitee, in order not to place my fellow auditors in an awkward position – and I would like to keep doing this. That is why I’m asking the community and the Arbitration Committee to grant me both the checkuser and the oversight user rights on a permanent basis.


Standard questions for all candidates[edit]

Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.

I have been involved in various SPIs in the past, both as filer and as reviewing admin – and, since being granted the checkuser permission, in that capacity as well – and I’ve also blocked many more obvious ducks without filing SPIs when their quacking was particularly deafening. Furthermore, as many experienced users, I’ve become proficient at spotting certain repeat sockpuppeteers almost instantly.

Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.

To be honest, my technical expertise is somewhat limited, though I think I’m fairly computer literate. I can read and understand a WHOIS, geolocate an IP, determine an IP range and identify user agents. And I also have the benefit of having actually operated the checkuser extension and analysed its results.

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?

As an auditor, I hold both the oversight and checkuser user rights and I have access to the oversight-en-wp OTRS queue.
Questions for this candidate[edit]
  • Suppose that a law enforcement officer comes to you with a search warrant for a user's IP history, and orders you to use the CU tool and supply them with all information that it produces. What do you do? Pine✉ 01:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • While it is certainly possible that a checkuser may receive an external request for information, I believe that the likelihood of this happening is not really high — especially considering I live in Italy. However, in such a situation, I would first contact the Foundation to see if they can give me advice and, afterwards, I think I would also ask on the functionary mailing list, as I am sure the issue has already been discussed among them. I have never come across such a situation, so I apologise if my answer is not thorough.

      As a final note, I wish to point out that, under the Foundation's privacy policy, one of the cases where Wikimedia volunteers and staff are allowed to release personally identifiable information is in response to a valid subpoena or other compulsory request from law enforcement.


Comments[edit]
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 My past interactions and observations of Salvio have impressed me with his maturity, his patient demeanor when dealing with difficult subjects and/or editors. I think that he will do fine with these tools. GregJackP Boomer! 02:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support did good job clerking ArbCom civility enforcement case. Nobody Ent 03:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Basically one of the soundest folks around. Collect (talk) 20:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Has a head on his shoulders (and a cool username), which is already a lot.VolunteerMarek 21:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Honestly, I thought he already was CU. Certainly one of the most level headed admins here, with excellent judgment. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:32, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Salvio does good work at SPI and it makes sense that he should continue to have the tools to continue. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 00:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second Choice Solid work at SPI, close second behind DQ. Support. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't an inkling of apprehension. My76Strat (talk) 00:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clear Support Although we might not see more of Salvio's good work, because of his position on AUSC, he knows when to ask questions, and when to hold a solid foot, which is key in being a CheckUser. It means the difference between a block, and no block sometimes. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 02:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Reasonable in the past, I expect will be in the future :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support An admin with plenty of patience, clue and good judgement skill. I do like him to continue with these rights. --SMS Talk 15:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support He's too active at SPI (did he forget to sleep?)--Ankit MaityTalkContribs 15:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support In every arena of WP that I have interacted with or seen Salvio function, I have been impressed with his professionalism and I fully trust him with checkuser rights.
    ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Salvio is great at SPI. Drmies (talk) 18:36, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Have seen Salvio in action on a SPI and it was well handled across the board. Good skills. Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - trustworthy and competent - Alison ❤ 03:27, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Same as what I said for his oversight request. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 12:50, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This user has been part of Audit Subcommittee and has both Checkuser and Oversight permissions .Savio is level headed and and trustworthy.Further would prefer a candidate who already has the tools and is experienced over candidates without them when one has choose between two equally good candidates given the privacy concerns and find the candidate to be trustworthy as this position which is without community scrutiny and nearly impossible to audit.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:38, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Trusted candidate. Salvio guiliano is already a well experienced user having prior working experience with CheckUser and Oversight permissions and knows both the CheckUser and Oversight policies quite well regarding their usage. They have worked in the Audit Subcommittee of which they are it's current member. I support them to continue to have access to both the user rights. TheGeneralUser (talk) 23:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oversight[edit]

DeltaQuad[edit]

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

Nomination statement (250 words max.)
  • Hello everyone. I am DeltaQuad, and i've been an administrator for just over a year now. I am applying for both the CheckUser and Oversight tools. I have been active in SPI for about two years now, and know the list of the Functionaries names almost off by heart. I am a UTRS (Unblock Ticket Request System) Developer, which was intended to bring block appeals from the mailing list (where I handled over 500 requests in about a 6 month period) to a ticket formatted system. I am also an ACC tool administrator, and have been for over half a year now. I also have info-en (f), permissions, and photosubmission queues on OTRS. I have also closed several RfCs including a few major ones, and at the time i'm writing this, I am still assisting in closing the Pending Changes RFC. I am applying for the tool to assist the community, in a way consistent with the policy they lay out, in connecting accounts and preventing abuse, but also in suppressing inappropriate non-public information and other related things from view. I am requesting the tools because of the frequent backlogs for CheckUser, both on and offwiki, and also help with fast suppression both through OTRS and private requests primarily through IRC.
Standard questions for all candidates[edit]
  1. Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
    My only "experience" is requesting oversight for what I knew fell in to the oversight guidelines, and none have been turned down, that I can remember to this day. Otherwise, beyond revdel for administrators, I have no experience onwiki clicking the one extra check box. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 18:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.
    I have tested both oversight functions (revdel oversight, and true oversight) offwiki. More importantly, I have interacted with people on OTRS regarding sensitive nature tickets, and this is the best experience to help an oversighter handle requests where users can be very agitated, upset, angry, Et cetera. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ)
  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?
    Checkuser@ipv6test.wmflabs, for testing purposes. I have info-en (f), permissions, photosubmission queues on OTRS. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ)
Questions for this candidate[edit]
  1. Please describe your familiarity with the Wikimedia Privacy Policy, Meta Oversight Policy, ENWP Oversight policy, and ENWP Outing policy. Also, without breaching privacy, for each of these policies, give an example of a time that you have used the policy when evaluating a situation or taking action. Pine✉ 01:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The Meta oversight policy, in regards to what can be oversighted and the English Wikipedia Oversight policy overlap quite a bit, and the only difference on what can be oversighted is one additional item for extreme vandalism on the enwiki policy. The outing policy works in conjunction with the oversight policy, because the same items that would be considered outing, are subject to oversight. Now the Privacy Policy is the blanket that covers all other policies, and would be considered the policy of last resort. It governs what can and can't be released, governing what is oversighted and what is not. Now with all those connections drawn, with keeping privacy in mind, I have dealt with the outing policy directly, and had to read through it's wording specifically. With that, any sensitive information was requested for oversight. These policies match over each other, so with most requests you will hit most, if not all of those four policies. I have a good knowledge of the policies listed and can easily say which ones revisions would fall under. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 18:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments[edit]
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 See CU section. Nobody Ent 03:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know of no issues that would preclude DeltaQuad's appointment and he has been helpful in the few interactions I have had with him. MBisanz talk 03:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I began working with him recently at SPI, but noticed him some time prior to this, and have always found him to be trustworthy and adequately cautious in his actions, generally insightful and always helpful. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 03:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • DQ is highly available on IRC where CU and OS requests are frequently received. His professionalism and technical abilities make him a natural for both roles. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know DeltaQuad very well through my interactions with him on SPI, UTRS, IRC, ACC and heaven knows how many more abbreviations! I fully and strongly support DeltaQuad's request for the CheckUser and Oversight tools, one more person to add to my mental black book. The Helpful One 21:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. See my comment at the CU request. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support DQ and if he only qualifies for one flag, this is my first choice. My76Strat (talk) 01:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Extremely experienced. --Ankit MaityTalkContribs 15:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has proven himself a level headed competent admin, would expect the same as an OS. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Solid work all around and an excellent choice for the oversight team. Daniel Case (talk) 03:30, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per CU comment. Experienced and trustworthy. Mato (talk) 10:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per CU comment.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:37, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support also per CU comment.
    ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 17:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Excellent work done on SPI, easily to be trusted with this. Darkness Shines (talk) 04:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support EeBee (talk) 01:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeltaQuad is a reliable, active and easy to reach user, and I'm sure he will be a fine oversighter. Snowolf How can I help? 05:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Best choice after having a quick look at his work on WP:SPI. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 12:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Trusted candidate. Has the required experience for both CheckUser and Oversight permissions. TheGeneralUser (talk) 13:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Foxj[edit]

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

Nomination statement (250 words max.)
  • I have been an administrator for just over four years now and I have a fairly good idea of how things work behind-the-scenes at the English Wikipedia. After seeing that we are short on oversighters, I felt that my experience with moderately technical processes - such as revision deletion and knowledge of the policies behind that - would seat me fairly well for the position of Oversight. I am online for good periods of the day, which would also place me in a good position to respond swiftly to emailed/IRC requests. I have experience with other wiki-based websites, although not with this particular function. I hope to be a useful addition to the Oversight team.
Standard questions for all candidates[edit]

Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.

I have been using the revision deletion function for a good while now which, while obviously not the same thing, is probably a decent starting platform to learn the technical side of the role. On a number of occasions I have deleted pages/edits containing material covered by the Oversight policy in anticipation of having them oversighted. — foxj 12:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.

Since I have never used this function before, on Wikimedia sites or elsewhere, I can't say I have any technical experience with this particular function. — foxj 12:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 hold any advanced positions on WMF projects. I have OTRS permissions to the info-en-l queue. — foxj 12:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for this candidate[edit]
  • Please describe your familiarity with the Wikimedia Privacy Policy, Meta Oversight Policy, ENWP Oversight policy, and ENWP Outing policy. Also, without breaching privacy, for each of these policies, give an example of a time that you have used the policy when evaluating a situation or taking action. Pine✉ 01:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As a sysop much of my personal usage of Wikimedia's Privacy Policy has been while dealing with BLPs and attack pages. Given that particular policy is based mainly on common sense its usuage is pretty widespread, so much so that the number of occasions it has been used is too numerous to list. As for Meta's Oversight Policy, the most I have needed to deal with that thus far is knowing when to email the list - obviously in the role I am applying for it will govern my actions far more than it does at present. ENWP Oversight Policy is what it says on the tin. Again, I have never had to use this policy directly for obvious reasons, but have referred to it if I come across material breaching our privacy policy. WP:OUTING is another policy which should really be common sense. A threat to out a user is a personal attack, and actually outing a user is harassment. Suffice to say, such efforts need to be oversighted as soon as possible. — foxj 09:46, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments[edit]
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. From what I've seen of him, Foxj is careful and conscientious and would function well as an oversighter. Also in his favor are his IRC use (people's opinions of IRC notwithstanding, there are often more requests for oversight that come in via IRC than the oversighter-IRC regulars can easily handle, and more people to handle them would be great) and the fact that he's in a time zone significantly different than the bulk of the OS team, which will be very helpful in addressing requests that come in at non-standard times of day in a timely manner - something we sometimes have difficulty doing. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur with Fluffernutter. Foxj is calm, drama-free, fair-minded, experienced, friendly and trustworthy. I can see no reason why his candidacy for oversight work should raise any concerns. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Foxj is sure to make a fine oversighter if appointed. Snowolf How can I help? 16:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can only echo what has already been said above, and add that Fox's very frequent use of IRC will be an extra benefit for when there are people requesting oversight on #wikipedia, #wikipedia-en, #wikipedia-en-help and other IRC channels. The Helpful One 22:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Foxj has demonstrated substantial clue and excellent judgment in his use of the administrator tools, and I think he would use oversight in a careful manner (essentially per Fluffernutter). Steven Zhang Get involved in DR! 11:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Trusted candidate. User has the required experience and knows the policy well for the use of Oversight permission. TheGeneralUser (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, really we need more active Oversighters in IRC, and he i really helpful! mabdul 21:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mentifisto[edit]

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

Nomination statement (250 words max.)
  • As oversighters are said to be needed, and I do at times use the mailing list to get personal (usually crosswiki) information deleted, I wouldn't mind if I could assist in that area as well. It's not a complex task, but essential nonetheless.
I currently do administrative stuff whenever needed, with my editing normally connected to requests on info-en queues, and as a steward I use oversight on small wikis as necessary.
Thanks for your consideration.
Standard questions for all candidates[edit]

Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.

As above, I occasionally requested suppression of some edits throughout the years (which, if I remember correctly, were all acted upon). Other than that I'm familiar with admins' revdeletion policy and how it overlaps onto oversight.

Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.

None that is relevant, besides utilizing the tool on test wikis.

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?

Steward, checkuser on Simple English Wikipedia, and bureaucrat on Meta. I have access to the info-en, permissions, photosubmissions, and stewards queues (mostly work on info-en).
Questions for this candidate[edit]
  • Please describe your familiarity with the Wikimedia Privacy Policy, Meta Oversight Policy, ENWP Oversight policy, and ENWP Outing policy. Also, without breaching privacy, for each of these policies, give an example of a time that you have used the policy when evaluating a situation or taking action. Pine✉ 01:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I keep the policies in mind when dealing with sensitive issues either as a steward (where the privacy policy applies in most cases) or in replying to the public's emails. With regards to the oversight policy, I'm accustomed with the nuances of what is appropriately private or not, and realize enwp's may differ from those of other wikis. -- Mentifisto 13:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to Wikipedia:ADMINSTATS, in your just over three years as an admin, you have only made 8 revision deletions. I understand that it's quality over quantity, I've only got 76 revision deletions myself so far, but please can you explain how well truly understand and are familiar with the revision deletion/oversight policy on the English Wikipedia specifically, as I imagine there are concerns that 8 revision deletions is not sufficient to have a good enough grasp of the policies. The Helpful One 14:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that, generally, what is usually revdeleted relates back to the deletion policy (both of which are shown in the same log), and I utilized this over 7000 times - there are certainly edits that aren't deleted under the deletion policy, but both basically have the same purpose (e.g. with regards to content construed as an attack). Oversight, then, has more restricted targets, although I understand how this contrasts to local revdeletion based on crosswiki norms. -- Mentifisto 02:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments[edit]
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.
  • There are only two users on the OS list that I cannot remember ever coming across, and this is one of them. Normally this would mean precisely nothing, but in this case I find it exceptionally strange and a little bit worrying because this user is asking for a highly trusted position and I really don't have enough contact with the user to say to myself "I might not necessarily vouch for him, but I don't see red flags". Arbs should feel free to assign my comment minimal notice. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mentifisto has my trust and he certainly has experience of using the oversight tool as a steward.[1] That said, he hasn't been really active on enwiki for a long time (the last 500 edits go back over a year). That's an issue since high availability is a priority for oversighters. Jafeluv (talk) 08:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to note that I'm much more active in logged actions. -- Mentifisto 19:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, commenting here due to a relative dearth of comments, and again t disagree with lukewarm comments (sorry Sven, I'm not picking on you in particular!). In their functionary capacity, oversighters should be more concerned with their inbox and the relevant OTRS queue than with what goes on on-wiki, so I don't think it's a big deal that he doesn't edit that much. While I respect Sven, and while being familiar to the community is important for a functionary, that a particular editor has heard of the candidate isn't a prerequisite. I've come across Mentifisto many times through OTRS and in his steward capacity, and I have the utmost respect for him. He is probably the most qualified candidate here (and it's a strong field). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Trusted candidate. Mentifisto is a Steward which are highly trusted users, has all the basic required experience and knows the policies well for the use of Oversight permission. TheGeneralUser (talk) 18:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Mentifisto is a Steward and knows the project very well and has the necessary experience and hence the user can be trusted with Oversight.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mlpearc[edit]

Mlpearc (talk · contribs)

Nomination statement (250 words max.)
  • Hello, I'm Mlpearc, I have been with Wikipedia since 2008. My main area of involvement is ACC where I am an tool Administrator and channel operator for the ACC IRC channel and I also administrate the accounts-enwiki-l mailing list. I am normally available 8-12 hours a day. I am applying for Oversight, I'm a user with high integrity who already is handling personal information on a daily basis at account creations. I have extended availability and can handle request through the OTRS mailing list (queue) as I already do with ACC mailing list. I have off-wiki experience with OS on my project. I feel confident I can perform the tasks of Oversight and with my track record to stand for me I think the community will also.
Standard questions for all candidates[edit]

Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.

A: My on wiki experience is limited to requesting Oversight a couple times after editing while logged out. My feelings about the Oversight right is the user is volunteering for more work and no extra authority. I believe if the user has integrity, discretion, an understanding of the processes and a level head they should do fine with a couple extra buttons.

Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.

A: I have a four (4) wiki project, two (2) public and two (2) semi-private. In the beginning the main public wiki was being constantly attacked by SpamBots which created many accounts with obscene usernames, links, comments and images, from usernames to whole pages. Oversight was put into action very early in the project, and I quickly became acquainted with the functions.

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?

A: None at this time.
Questions for this candidate[edit]
  • Please describe your familiarity with the Wikimedia Privacy Policy, Meta Oversight Policy, ENWP Oversight policy, and ENWP Outing policy. Also, without breaching privacy, for each of these policies, give an example of a time that you have used the policy when evaluating a situation or taking action. Pine✉ 01:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


A: The privacy policy regulates what type of data can be gathered and/or retained. The policy also regulates who can access this information and the circumstances in which this information can be released.
Oversight is a tool in which defamatory, private information and/or copyright violations can be deleted or suppressed from normal view. The policy governs what information/edits qualify for such removal and to what extent.
Outing is a provision of the harassment policy, posting of personal information of an editor in which the editor has not publicly released themselves, example, addresses, phone numbers, occupation or birth dates is a form of harassment. If such information is posted or discovered community members should never confirm or deny the validity of the information and it should be carefully taken to the proper venue for assessment and resolution.
With the exception of a couple requests for Oversight to remove my IP after editing while logged out, I have not been in a situation on wiki where I've needed to confer these policies before acting on or in evaluation. I do believe though this is about to change. Mlpearc (powwow) 18:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being the only non-admin candidate for the oversighter tools, you are most likely to have the least experience and/or understanding of the revision deletion/oversight policy. Please can you describe what experience you do have with that policy, without giving personally identifying details: How many times have you requested revision deletion? Have you ever requested suppression of content? Have any of these requests ever been declined, and if so were they declined recently? The Helpful One 14:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


A: Yes, this is true but, as a non-admin, I think that revision deletion, which comes as part of the admin tools is mostly a "first response" action until an oversight decision and action is rendered or refused, so therefore the same understanding and decision making will be needed for each situation even if RevDelete has been used or not. As far as experience outside of what I've already stated above I feel that even if this were an RfA, experience has to start somewhere and be it revision delete or oversight, admin or oversighter I would and will seek counsel and guidance on any situation where I'm not confident, this is where experience with IRC and the use of email will be an asset. To the best of my recollection I have requested Oversight three maybe four times via both IRC and Special:EmailUser, all requests were fulfilled as requested. Mlpearc (powwow) 23:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments[edit]
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've worked long enough at ACC and seen every example of clue and masterful tact. If there was to be only one non-admin able to serve, and the choice was either him or me, I would recommend Mlpearc. And not because consensus consistently aligns to my opposite camp. My76Strat (talk) 01:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • ArbCom once appointed a non-admin to AUSC and he was at RfA virtually the next day. My concerns with that are twofold: that the functionary appointment becomes a stepping stone to adminship, and that a non-admin functionary is about as useful as a chocolate teapot (an analogy I have been told is too kind). Both prospects make me uncomfortable, and neither prospect is fair on the community (who are backed into a corner with a choice of promoting him so he can perform in the role he's been appointed to or going against ArbCom, having to make do with a chocolate teapot, and looking silly) nor the candidate (who looks like he is forcing the community into that corner). I think there was an element of ArbCom trying to prove a point last time, and I hope they will resist the urge this time. For the avoidance of doubt, I have nothing against the candidate, and I am not for a moment suggesting that he or any other non-admin functionary hopeful might have acted in bad faith. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The userright contains the necessary flags to do the job, correct? (since last time, an RfC was done to add those rights) So I don't see how the community can be backed into accepting ArbCom's appointment and forcing an RfA to be passed. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 20:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In comparison to hundreds of administrators and thousands of adminship candidacies, there has only been one successful non-administrator functionary RFA. The oversight right has been independent of adminship since April 2011. AGK [•] 00:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur that the latter concern is no longer an issue with the subsequent change to the oversight package. Moreover, the last thought in my mind is that Mlpearc's intent here is to place himself on a fast track to adminship. He should not be slighted simply because others may use the position that way. Upon meeting Mlpearc several weeks ago, I was struck by his authentic character; I have no doubt that he'll use the tools in the sincerest interests to help. NTox · talk 02:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not believe that a user should be entrusted with the oversighter package if he is unwilling to undergo community scrutiny to become an administrator or if the community is not willing to entrust them with that permission. The oversight permission is effectively an extension of the admin toolset, unlike checkuser, and should not (and to my knowledge it has never been) granted to users not already entrusted by the community with the simply admin toolset. Snowolf How can I help? 05:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the community at large entrusts Mlpearc with OS via this appointments round, then the community must trust him with it. Certain parts of the RfA-centric part of the community can be rather... sharp-tonged. RfA was stressful enough when I went through it in '08, but I can't think what it would be like now. I fully understand why almost nobody would want to subject themselves to RfA at the moment especially after a number of decent users who would have suited the tools found RfA way too stressful and retired. However, this is not a discussion about how RfA is broken. Technically speaking, +sysop is not a prerequisite to OS anyway. In my mind, if anybody is actually willing to go through RfA in it's current state, they are either a) incredibly brave b) incredibly thick-skinned, or c) insane. [stwalkerster|talk] 13:50, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry if that's a little "sharp-tongued" too, I don't mean to insult anyone, or anything like that - but my point stands. :) [stwalkerster|talk] 13:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Mlpearc holds many basic user rights on some Wiki's and seems like a fine candidate. But unfortunately if a user doesn't have the necessary experience with Wikipedia:Revision deletion which is a part of Administrator tools then it is quite difficult for me to evaluate them for this work which is very much related with the use of Oversight permission. At the same time i trust the user's good intentions and dedication to work for the betterment of the project and because of this i can neither support nor oppose the candidate for this. I'm sure and confident that the Arbitration Committee will make the right decision. All the best Mlpearc! TheGeneralUser (talk) 18:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, he has changed especially since he is ACC tool admin a clue and would use the tool only if it is really needed... mabdul 21:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Although I understand the concerns that have been raised with regards to a lack of experience, indeed I did ask this question myself, there is an agreement that the RFA process is broken, hopefully it will be fixed soon, but Mlpearc's answers reinforce my trust in him to learn the ropes very quickly if ArbCom will consider the appointment of a non-admin oversighter. The Helpful One 22:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NuclearWarfare[edit]

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

Nomination statement (250 words max.)
  • Hi, I’m NW. I’ve been an editor for about four and a half years and have been involved in editing a number of diverse topic areas across the encyclopedia. I have also been an administrator and OTRS volunteer for two or three years now and have tried to assist editors as best I can. I hope to continue that if I am appointed as an oversighter. Let me know if you have any questions and I’ll do my best to answer them.
Standard questions for all candidates[edit]

Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.

My statement above is brief, but should speak for itself. Briefly: I have administrated here and on Commons, served as a Arbitration Clerk, and done a fair amount of anti-vandalism that involved reporting matters for oversight. However, while experience is necessary, I feel that the role is more about trust than anything else. I would hope that I have most of the community's, and I would appreciate your comments. NW (Talk) 04:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.

I imagine that, as Ponyo says in her reply to this question, "the Oversight role does not so much require specific technical expertise as it does sound judgement and a firm grasp of what information falls under the Wikimedia Foundation's Oversight policy." NW (Talk) 04:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 yes, respectively. I have access to the Permissions, photosubmission (f), info-en (f), sister projects, and Donations queuse on OTRS. NW (Talk) 23:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for this candidate[edit]
  • Please describe your familiarity with the Wikimedia Privacy Policy, Meta Oversight Policy, ENWP Oversight policy, and ENWP Outing policy. Also, without breaching privacy, for each of these policies, give an example of a time that you have used the policy when evaluating a situation or taking action. Pine✉ 01:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The way I see it, the privacy and oversight policies are all fairly straightforward. They boil down to this: don't give out any information to 1) anyone who isn't authorized AND 2) does not need to know. As I am not a functionary, I have not had much interactions with either of them, so I don't think I can point to anything onwiki. And that really is how it should be—I have hardly discussed any of the OTRS work I have done onwiki (which isn't that substantial, but is worth mentioning) because I feel that it's better to avoid discussion of confidential matters onwiki.

    The outing policy is pretty straightforward too: any personal information that someone has not self-disclosed is off limits. This should not be construed in a manner endorsing the use of oversight to avoid scrutiny, but in general, the outing policy is designed to make editors focus on the edits, not the editor's identity. That's the principle I would try to abide by. NW (Talk) 01:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why did you choose "Nuclear Warfare" as an account name? Nobody Ent 02:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Any intention on following through with with rename you discussed at the time? Nobody Ent 23:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not. It came up a while back on my talk page (User talk:NuclearWarfare/Archive 25#Username), and nothing has really changed for me since then. NW (Talk) 23:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments[edit]
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.
  • Oppose I have concerns about granting NW additional tools that contain user's private information after he was involved in an incident that resulted in the outing of two Wiki editors. I will note that NW did not intentionally release information or provide personal information directly, but was involved in a series of discussions that led to the outings. I also note that NW was appalled at what happened, but I would feel more comfortable if the tools were in more seasoned hands. GregJackP Boomer! 02:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've known NuclearWarfare for most of the time he has been active on the project and have had a chance to see him work in difficult conditions as an arb clerk and admin. I have no doubt he will properly wield the oversight tool. MBisanz talk 02:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - some mixed feelings but overall I've seen this user do a good job along several dimensions (admin, clerk, editor, etc.)VolunteerMarek 21:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Support For the exact reasons stated by Gregjackp. I believe he needs more maturity and judgment before having these tools. Minor4th 21:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- I think the unfortunate previous incident served as a learning experience for NW, and he may now be even more vigilant about editors' personal information having seen the consequences of even a small privacy breach. I would like to hear NW's takeaway from the experience, and would consider striking my opposition depending on his response. My biggest reservation is that he is young and may not have the life experience to fully appreciate what's at stake for editors with jobs, families, business reputations, etc. Based on the nature of the previous incident, I have a concern that NW may be naive about others' malignant motives and willingness to exploit his access to information. Despite the previous incident, I acknowledge that NW has a lot of potential, and my comments are not a personal indictment against him. Minor4th 19:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure how much I can really reply to your or GJP's comments without revealing details of the incident. There are implications in GJP's statements that I think are misleading, but I am not willing to discuss it onwiki any further. (Most of?) ArbCom should know what I'm talking about; if they have any questions, I will of course be willing to discuss the matter with them. NW (Talk) 03:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your judgment regarding editors' privacy is pretty important, so I'd prefer that you discuss this out in the open and not behind closed doors. I think you can do that without compromising anyone's personal information. I think it's fair to summarize the incident as follows:
You had an off wiki chat with a then active wiki editor and with a banned editor who turned out to be Timothy Usher, a user previously banned for outing wiki editors. In the course of that conversation, you discussed speculation about whether two active editors had any real life connection with each other or whether they may be sock puppets. You had access to checkuser logs snd oversighted info about the two editors you were discussing. You disclosed information about those editors' locations to Timothy Usher and the other wiki editor you were chatting with. That information was used by Timothy Usher to assist his outing of the two editors. Timothy Usher contacted, among others, both of the editors via their real life email addresses and contacted at least one of the editors' employers. The editors' real identities and personal lives were then discussed on various internet sites known for harassing wiki editors. When you were made aware of what happened following your chat with Timothy Usher, you provided chat transcripts of the conversations to Arb and discussed the matter with the editors and Arb.
You said that you were unaware that the person you were chatting with was Timothy Usher. When you made the disclosures in the course of the chat, you did not perceive that you were violating editors' privacy, and you did not accurately perceive the motives or abilities of the people who were chatting with you about private information you had access to with your admin and clerk tools.
I think the community deserves a bit more transparency here. In my view, this privacy breach is something that should weigh heavily on the community's collective mind unless you can articulate what went wrong and how you will better protect editors' privacy in the future. I think you can speak to this in general and without disclosing any private details about anyone. I hope that you will take the opportunity to do so.Minor4th 05:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"You had access to checkuser logs and oversighted info about the two editors you were discussing." I can assure you that he did not - checkuser and oversight logs and data are never provided to anyone who does not have access to those tools, and are handled in accordance with the Foundation's Privacy Policy and our local wiki's policies regarding the use of those tools. As NW has never been a functionary, he has never had access to this data. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 15:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can assure you that he did have access to that information in this particular case. I don't know if he had direct access to the logs or if the information was shared with him by another checkuser, but there's no question he had the information, and he disclosed information about the editor' ip addresses and locations to Timothy Usher. I do not believe NW will deny that he had access to the data. I was under the impression that admins could view checkuser logs even if they don't have the tool. In any event, NW had access to the data in this instance. Minor4th 16:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are incorrect here, Minor4th; the editor in question revealed his own information on another Wikimedia project, by linking his username to his IP address, which was unusually specific in its geolocation; this information was removed from public view at the recommendation of English Wikipedia arbitrators when it was identified during the investigation of the complaint, but long after it had been collected by third parties. No checkuser data was provided to NuclearWarfare, only the general information that checkusers are permitted to share, even onwiki. Risker (talk) 17:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Risker, it may be true that one of the editors linked a username to an IP address, but the information NW disclosed was about two different editors. The fact remains, NW had the chat with Timothy Usher and disclosed information about two editors derived from checkuser results. Is it NW's position that such a disclosure is ok? If that's his position, then he should just say so. In my view, it is really irrelevant whether the banned editor would have ultimately made the right connections without confirming information through NW -- NW should have protected the information. Minor4th 21:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First off, it has been quite a while since this incident, so my memory may be faulty. I have looked back through a few emails, and they seemed to imply that the information I stated was along the lines of "According to Checkuser X, who I spoke with offwiki, User A and User B have logged onto Wikipedia from different workplace IP addresses repeatedly." I believe that if I were a checkuser and discovered such information, it would be permissible for me to state such if another Wikipedian were pursuing a sockpuppetry investigation.

Now would I? No. These days, a statement from me in those circumstances would be "I do not believe that User A and User B are the same editor Full Stop.

But this is as far as I am willing to discuss this matter onwiki. If the Arbitration Committee has additional concerns, they are welocme to contact me. NW (Talk) 00:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. That is all I was looking for - an indication from you that you would handle things differently if you were faced with those circumstances today. I am changing my oppose to support. Minor4th 00:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"quite a while" is how long ago? Gimmetoo (talk) 16:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
September 2010, plus or minus a few months. NW (Talk) 18:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To further clarify, checkuser logs are only visible to those with the checkuser right; they are not visible to administrators, and I think even stewards have to grant themselves checkuser locally in order to view the logs. In any event, these logs only indicate who checked what username or IP address and the stated reason for doing so (i.e. "18:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC) - Hersfold got IP addresses for User:Hersfold non-admin (obvious sock)"); individual log entries do not provide any private data. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 18:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - taking into the account the concerns about the accidental and unintended outing, I still strongly believe that NW is a net positive and will be a good addition to the oversight team. When someone makes a mistake and is "appalled" by it, I trust that they would be very careful to never make such a mistake again. We all learn from our mistakes and it is better that this mistake was made earlier (before being an OS) than later where if NW was an OS, he would be coming in contact with a lot more personal information. The Helpful One 14:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commeny - it concerns me that at the time, NW was both an admin and an Arbcom clerk, but he did not have the good judgment to avoid a conversation with a party to a case about another (opposing) party. The outing resulted in the other party losing his job due to off-Wiki harassment and a subsequent loss of over half of his annual income. As both an admin and a clerk, he should have completely avoided the situation. GregJackP Boomer! 18:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - all round good egg and trustworthy William M. Connolley (talk) 21:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As someone who is notoriously skittish about trust and privacy on the internet, it should mean something that there is no user I trust more than NW. I've felt this way for a rather long time, too. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hands more seasoned are no protection against a hand's ability to make a mistake; or arrive under hand. My first impression of NW was a reaction to his name. I remember thinking: "That's a damn strong name; I'll be keeping an eye out to see if your strong enough to carry it" He was; and is! I'll not trade what I know for the myth of seasoned hands. My76Strat (talk) 01:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support My experience with NW is that he is a very fair person with quite good judgment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support NW is trustworthy. As an arbcom clerk and at WP:AE his judgement has been sound, sometimes in tricky situations. Mathsci (talk) 14:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Has good judgement abilities (go find a job in the court).--Ankit MaityTalkContribs 15:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Experienced, level headed, has more than the usual allotment of "clue". KillerChihuahua?!? 16:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Clueful and trustworthy. Drmies (talk) 18:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Fair and reasonable, echoing much of the above. Tarc (talk) 13:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Good candidate. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 15:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Opposes doesn't convinces me much. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 12:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ambivalent. The issue above from September 2010 is significant - NW revealed info to a banned user that led to outing. Shortly before that, NW used administrative tools in an incident that showed NW had no understanding of real-live privacy issues [2]. NW apparently didn't learn from that one. It's nearly two years later, andI perhaps NW has learned from these experiences, but then again, perhaps not. If NW were going for CU I would oppose much more strongly. Gimmetoo (talk) 13:53, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Trusted candidate. Everyone here is a human being and everyone can and does make a mistake on many different occasions as nobody in this world is perfect. Nuclear Warfare is well experienced user and knows and understands the Oversight policies well enough for using the Oversight permission. TheGeneralUser (talk) 22:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ponyo[edit]

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

Nomination statement (250 words max.)
  • Hello, I'm Ponyo and I am nominating myself for both the Oversight and Checkuser permissions. I have been a Wikipedia editor for over five years and an admin since February 2011. You can usually find me helping with unblock reuqests on UTRS (where the CU tool is helpful) and helping article subjects in the Quality/BLP queue on OTRS (where oversight is a benefit). I'm a current member of the Audit Subcommittee so I am familiar with the use of both CU and OS tools as well as the Foundation's Privacy Policy. I would like to be able to retain the tools once my AUSC appointment expires in February 2013 in order to assist the functionaries on a more detailed and consistent basis.
Standard questions for all candidates[edit]

Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.

  • As an admin I use the rev-delete function when appropriate. I also have access to and have used the oversight function in cases of severe BLP violations and on userpages with overly identifying material on minors. I have access to the Oversight OTRS queue and am very familiar with the OTRS system.

Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.

  • I have found that the Oversight role does not so much require specific technical expertise as it does sound judgement and a firm grasp of what information falls under the Wikimedia Foundation's Oversight policy.

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 have Checkuser and Oversight on en-wikipedia (as part of the AUSC). I am also a member of the OTRS team where I have full info-en queue access (including the quality/BLP queue), as well as photsubmissions, permissions, and oversight queue access.
Questions for this candidate[edit]
  • Please describe your familiarity with the Wikimedia Privacy Policy, Meta Oversight Policy, ENWP Oversight policy, and ENWP Outing policy. Also, without breaching privacy, for each of these policies, give an example of a time that you have used the policy when evaluating a situation or taking action. Pine✉ 01:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that I have a firm grasp on the Wikimedia Privacy Policy as well as the policies governing the use of Oversight (as written at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Oversight). As a member of the Audit Subcommittee I have repeatedly reviewed these policies in order to investigate whether any breaches have occurred when concerns regarding improper use of the oversight and checkuser tools have been raised by the community. With regard to Wikipedia’s policy regarding outing, I understand what is considered outing as defined on EN-WP as well as its relation to the overall Foundation Privacy policy. Although I remain vigilant regarding outing when using the checkuser tools, I have yet to come across an instance where it has been specifically relevant while oversighting.
Comments[edit]
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 have seen Ponyo in a few situations and see nothing that indicates she would improperly apply the oversight tool as well as seeing much evidence that she is well respected by other editors. Full disclosure: If Ponyo is selected, I will become a member of WP:AUSC in her place as the current alternate member. MBisanz talk 02:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, should Ponyo and/or Salvio giuliano be appointed, their appointment will take effect at the end of their AUSC term, unless one or the other elects to resign from the AUSC. Risker (talk) 03:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ponyo is also someone who is relatively new to me and overlooking the typo of photosubmissions above ;-), I'm happy to support her request to continue to have the ability to use the CheckUser and Oversight tools once her term on the AUSC expires, by which time I imagine she will have more than enough experience to be a very useful CheckUser and oversighter. The Helpful One 22:00, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The comments I made on Ponyo's CU nomination are just as applicable here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Trusted candidate. Ponyo is already well experienced with the use of both Checkuser and Oversight permissions and i support them to continue to have access to both the user rights. TheGeneralUser (talk) 14:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This user has been part of Audit Subcommittee and has both Checkuser and Oversight permissions .Further would prefer a candidate who already has the tools and is experienced over candidates without them when one has choose between two equally good candidates given the privacy concerns and find the candidate to be trustworthy as this position which is without community scrutiny and nearly impossible to audit.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Salvio giuliano[edit]

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

Nomination statement (250 words max.)
  • Hello everyone, I am Salvio giuliano, an editor, an administrator and a member of the Audit Subcommittee, here on Wikipedia. I am putting my name forward to keep the tools, I was granted in my capacity as an auditor, after the expiration of my term. While I originally thought I would not use these permissions while serving as a member of the Subcommittee, after noticing the various backlogs, I started doing some checks – mainly dealing with the uncontroversial cases or with the ones where a check is needed, such as account or UTRS unblock requests – and suppressing a couple of edits which contained clear privacy violations or self-disclosures by minors.

    I believe I have been a net positive, even though I have just dealt with the more uncontroversial cases – owing to my intention to avoid the ones that might end up before the Audit Subcommitee, in order not to place my fellow auditors in an awkward position – and I would like to keep doing this. That is why I’m asking the community and the Arbitration Committee to grant me both the checkuser and the oversight user rights on a permanent basis.


Standard questions for all candidates[edit]

Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.

I have served as an auditor since February and I have also acted as an oversighter since then. Apart from that, I have often used the revdel tool and, before being granted the oversight user right, I made various requests that edits be suppressed and they were all accepted.

Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.

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?

As an auditor, I hold both the oversight and checkuser user rights and I have access to the oversight-en-wp OTRS queue.
Questions for this candidate[edit]
  • Please describe your familiarity with the Wikimedia Privacy Policy, Meta Oversight Policy, ENWP Oversight policy, and ENWP Outing policy. Also, without breaching privacy, for each of these policies, give an example of a time that you have used the policy when evaluating a situation or taking action. Pine✉ 01:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • As an auditor, I have familiarised myself with all these policies as I need to thoroughly know them to fulfill my duties — which is why I periodically re-read them to make sure I remember them correctly. That said, when acting as an oversighter, it is quite rare to have to deal with the Foundation's privacy policy or with the global oversight policy, because they are more general — in particular, the privacy policy regulates which private data are gathered, who can access them and when they can be released to third parties —. Oversighters usually have to interpret en.wiki's oversight policy, which builds upon these two policies, along with WP:OUTING, in certain cases, to determine whether one or more edits are eligible for suppression.

      Having acted as an oversighter since my appointment to the AUSC, I have had to evaluate whether an edit contained non-public personal information multiple times. And, as a consequence, I have suppressed various edits containing references to real names, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, along with the occasional self-disclosures by apparent minors.

  • How do you reconcile your use of "butthurtness" ([3] on 22nd June) to generally ridicule others expressing opinions in a user block discussion, along with the inflammatory description "disgraceful kangaroo court" with the exemplary civil and respectful behaviour our community requires of Oversight members? Thanks Fæ (talk) 07:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have scary psychic powers? As in, did you anticipate the last question back in March when you unblocked a fine editor who had been called a homophobe by Fae for losing his cool with Fae’s supporter, the currently banned user and Commons admin Russavia? Your prophetic comment at the time was “I'm taking a risk here, I hope this doesn't come back to bite me in the bum.” Fae couldn't resist butting in and left this gracious reply: “Salvio, I assume that you are fully aware of how a cosy wink in your above statement, and arbitrarily referencing bum, will appear to all onlookers in this background of homophobic allegations. Exactly what message are you giving out here by making such a joke?” Will there be less butts and more ifs ass time goes by? Must we remember that sometimes a butt is just a butt? Can you see a short, dark stranger casting a vote for you any minute now? DracoE 10:59, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm wondering if covert homophobia may account for some of those comments. Outright homophobia may be caught quickly here. Insinuations and code words allow jibes to be thrown while maintaining plausible deniability. In retrospect, do you think your handling of those matters would have been better without using the words you did which in this context would likely be perceived by gay people concerned with homophobia as being inflammatory.NewtonGeek (talk) 12:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In order to allay the concerns about homophobia, are you able to point to any examples of your using bum/butt/arse metaphors when none of the participants in the discussion were known by you to be gay and when the topic was not related to homophobia or other gay-realted subjects.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "To bite in the arse/ass/bum" is a common expression which has nothing to do with homophobia; Fae's concerns that my words could be interpreted as homophobic were dismissed rather quickly by the community, if you check the archived ANI discussion. "Butthurt" is a very common meme and, again, has nothing to do with homophobia — and, besides, neither of those expressions was used in relation to Fae. I refuse to search my contributions to find occurrences of "arse/ass/bum", because I don't intend to prove a negative and, if you pardon my bluntness, my time for Wikipedia is limited and I'd rather spend it in more useful ways. I am not a homophobe and I consider the implication that I may be one offensive. If you believe I am one, then prove it, but, as far I'm concerned, two common expressions are not enough to prove anything: they are merely that, common expressions. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sometimes an internet meme is not appropriate on WP, especially if it damages editors who are openly gay males. The rights you are asking for are very serious. You have not even reflected on the way an editor has expressed that you have made him feel singled out and uncomfortable here except to give the impression that you have no reason to answer to anybody for anything. This is not a good indication of how you would respond to increased power. I've included a quote at the end from an editor who posted it on Wikipediocracy. This editor is part of a coordinated group attacking Fae. Your promotion to a higher level of authority has been promoted at Wikipediocracy. Would you find anything in this quote objectionable if it were posted on Wikipedia? If yes, how do you think the writer should be dealt with on Wikipedia? Do you think there should be any serious repercussions for expressions such as this? "You'd never be able to chat to him about holidays in Cornwall, no talking about the nice little cottage, or where you had gone camping. Suppose it would be OK if you'd gone to France 'cos then you could describe the Gite, though he'd probably say you were misspelling GIT on purpose. Talking about food would be a drag, as you couldn't mention chicken, cod, nor fruit, and certainly not cakes on a dish in a basket, or plate." NewtonGeek (talk) 21:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have never had any problems explaining my actions, when asked, and above all I have never had any problems apologising; I have done so many times on Wikipedia. However, to imply that someone's actions may be due to covert homophobia or that they used code words [that] allow jibes to be thrown while maintaining plausible deniability, in my opinion, is not a way to solve a disagreement, but rather it only serves to inflame the situation. If I may be entirely honest, I consider your words a borderline personal attack. That said, due to my studies, I firmly believe that, in order to say that someone is acting abusively, there must be some sort of mens rea, of intention, on his part. Some times, the intention is in re ipsa, as is the case with the various throwaway accounts that harassed Fae on his talk page, whereas in other cases it's not so evident. In my case, my words were not homophobic because they had nothing to do with homosexuality and because I meant no abuse of Fae — or of any other LGBT editor, for that matter. I wasn't even thinking of Fae when I wrote those words, but rather of the situation, which the term "butthurt" described perfectly, as far as I were concerned. As you probably know, the term is a reference to the practice of spanking kids and has nothing to do with homosexuality. And, honestly, I don't believe you when you say that such a word "damages editors who are gay males" — as has been clearly acknowledged by Fae here. Generally speaking, as I have already stated, I am always willing to explain myself and to discuss any issue which may arise from my actions and I also have no problems apologising — just check my talk page archives —, when I realise I've made a mistake, but if an editor starts throwing serious accusations around — for something which is patently meant in an entirely different context —, then I admit I'll react accordingly: I'll just ignore him. And this is because, let me emphasise this again, I consider homophobia (and all other forms of bigotry) very serious. And, when it comes to disagreements, you are either interested in a clarification or you just want to stir up drama; if the latter, then I'll not oblige. Regarding Wikipediocracy, where you say my candidacy has been promoted, what do you expect me to say? I do not frequent the site and have never posted anything there; your mention of that factor seems to imply guilt by association on my part — and a very tenuous association, at that —. And, in all honesty, I don't think I may apply Wikipedia's standards to something written elsewhere, because you are asking me to decontextualise something and then evaluate it ignoring said context. Wikipedia has very peculiar rules; for one, we consider civility one of the founding pillars. Very few websites share such an approach. Don't misunderstand, I'm not saying I don't like this; in general, I believe this approach helps to create a professional environment, but, as I was saying, it is not possible to apply Wikipedia's standards to other sites, which is the reason why all our policies, except the one regarding harassment, do not apply to anything happening off-wiki. An editor writing those words here, however, would find him or herself dragged to ANI where he'd probably be blocked.

      P.S. I'd also like to point out a misconception: there is no power in being an oversight. I will not suddenly become more important because of that — honestly, being an admin is more "dangerous", considering sysops can (un)block people. Oversight is just a responsibility I'd like to take on to help all those whose privacy is threatened by something appearing on-wiki. Salvio Let's talk about it! 22:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      • Well, fuck, that's the last time I say anything nice (that's the gist of this idiotic "has been promoted at Wikipediocracy" crap) about anyone anywhere where anyone with a Wikipedia account may see it. It brings out the worst in people. My apologies Salvio.VolunteerMarek 22:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Volunteer Marek, your apology is appreciated but, as far as I'm concerned, it's really not needed: you did nothing you should apologise for. Salvio Let's talk about it! 22:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • While you focus on privacy concerns as a reason for wanting oversight abilities, I am curious about your attitude on BLPs, as this is another area where oversight duties come into play. I noticed in the discussion Wnt linked to below that you wanted an image deleted from Commons that was an artistic work created as part of the Santorum neologism campaign. You specifically cited its connection with that campaign, seeking to associate Santorum's name with a product of anal sex due to his attitudes on LGBT issues, as a reason why it should be deleted. My concern is that this may point to a much more restrictive attitude on BLPs here that may become an issue should you apply your oversight abilities in that area. If an editor illustrated the article on that subject with such a work would you try to have that insertion oversighted on a similar basis?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • In your question, you appear to be conflating various different issues, in my opinion. First of all, suppression and deletion are very different things: the former is only appropriate under very specific circumstances, which are listed in the oversight policy. This means that not all BLP-vios should be oversighted, rather only edits which contain possibly libellous material can be, ergo if such an image was added to our article on the subject, I would clearly not suppress it. In general, I do acknowledge that my approach to BLP is a tad stricter than that of the rest of the community and, to tell the truth, I personally believe that the article about the santorum controversy has no place in an encyclopaedia, but, then again, you do not see me deleting it, because, honestly, I am not out of touch with reality: I can recognise when consensus is against me and in those cases I do not use any of the tools at my disposal. More to the point, no matter what my opinions regarding BLP are, suppression is only meant for potentially libellous material — which means that there is a higher threshold to be met compared to "generic" BLP-vios — and I can separate my opinions as an editor from my actions as a sysop or functionary. Finally, don't forget that there also is a mailing list for functionaries who need second opinions — which I have recently used to discuss whether an edit could be oversighted —, and that, in the event I should go rogue and suppress such an image, I expect my actions would quickly end up before the Audit Subcommittee, whose purpose is to investigate misuse of tools, and be undone by a fellow oversighter. Salvio Let's talk about it! 06:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wrote, "The rights you are asking for are very serious." You wrote, "there is no power in being an oversight." I believe oversighters can hide actions permanently and that those actions may not be retrievable by anyone. Is that correct? How do you see that as not having no power?
Dude, you have 5 (five) edits to your account. Go back to whatever banned username you came from and quit trolling - since it's pretty self evident that this account was created with the sole purpose of trouble makin'.VolunteerMarek 01:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How is that apparent? I Have asked questions to someone you state your wrote flattering things about on Wikipediocracy. These elections are being discussed there. I would like this candidate to answer the questions before he is given a lifetime ability to do use tools that others at Wikipediocracy have pointed out have been abused in the past. You have now been swearing and calling me a troll. That seems like an overreaction to a candidate being asked to answer some questions. I'm especially concerned that he seems unaware of the way some at Wikipediocracy have pointed out that oversighting has been misused in the past. NewtonGeek (talk) 02:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As an oversighter myself, I'd just like to correct your comment on the point that oversight hides things 'permanently', and that 'those actions may not be retrievable by anyone'. Neither of these assertions are correct, and I just wish to clarify this here. Suppressed edits can be viewed by all other oversighters, and can be undone or reduced to revdel as necessary. Furthermore, we have the AUSC, who's job it is (amongst others) is to vet suppressed edits and their associated logs. It's not a permanent black-hole, by any means - Alison ❤ 03:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying you believe the oversighting tools have not been misused in the past? Are you saying that any misuse in the past has actually been undone? Was the oversighting at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Rogers_(journalist) done appropriately?NewtonGeek (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There have been inappropriate suppressions of edits, in the past — which is not surprising, considering all tools have the potential to be misused. The Audit Subcommittee has investigated them and taken the steps it deemed appropriate, which have varied depending on the circumstances of every single case. Regarding, Chris Rogers (journalist), there are no suppressed edits. Uncle G (talk · contribs), an administrator, deleted the old article and recreated a new version thereof. I don't know whether his actions were appropriate or not as I'm not familiar with the situation and, to tell you the truth, neither do I intend to familiarise myself with it only to reply to a question here. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Salvio, you have not responded to my serious concern above. You appear not to understand the level of responsibility that goes with being an oversighter. You wrote, "there is no power in being an oversight." How do you understand this position as one in which the person has "no power?" Also, Volunteer Marek and Alison are active on Wikipediocracy as are a number of others who have supported your candidacy. Do you believe pressure is being brought to bear there and by Wikipediocracy affiliated editors here in order to facilitate and seek to ensure that you obtain this position of oversighter which you may have equated with "no power?"NewtonGeek (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I fear I have to invite you to read my words once again, as you appear to have confused two very different concepts concepts: power and responsibilities. Never have I stated that the position of functionary is not one of trust and responsibility; I merely stated that there is no intrinsic power attached to being an oversighter. And I stand by that. Regarding Wikipediocracy, let me point out once again that what users do on that site has nothing to do with what I presently do or will do in the future, here, if appointed. Considering the fact that, to repeat myself, I have never posted anything on Wikipediocracy and that I do not frequent the website, I fail to understand what your "serious concern" is. I am already an oversighter — albeit only for a one-year term —, as presently I am a member of the Audit Subcommittee, the body which monitors how Functionaries use their tools, and, as such, I already have had access to private information. So, in short, what do you fear will happen if I am allowed to keep the tools after my term as an auditor has expired? Because, so far, all I've read from you is a generic "your candidacy has been supported by people who post on Wikipediocracy, ergo you must be dangerous and untrustworthy", which does not appear to be particularly impressive. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments[edit]
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 My past interactions and observations of Salvio have impressed me with his maturity, his patient demeanor when dealing with difficult subjects and/or editors. I think that he will do fine with these tools. GregJackP Boomer! 02:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support see CU section. Nobody Ent 02:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have seen Salvio a lot over the last year and have no doubt in his ability to properly apply the oversight policy. Full disclosure: If Salvio is selected, I will become a member of WP:AUSC in his place as the current alternate member. MBisanz talk 02:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • To clarify (and echo Risker's comments on Ponyo's page) should either Ponyo or Salvio be appointed, the appointment(s) would not take effect until the end of their AUSC term, unless the appointee(s) should choose to resign from AUSC. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 15:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support-He will use the tools for the good of the community.--Shrike (talk) 11:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - same reason as I gave for my Support for CU position. VolunteerMarek 21:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like everyone else, I see him as an exceptionally level headed individual who I would only expect to do good things with the extra tools. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:36, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support Salvio in both regards. If tools are limited and he could only do one, this constitutes my first choice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by My76Strat (talk • contribs) 01:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Man, are you available 24x7 on Wikipedia.--Ankit MaityTalkContribs 16:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Salvio has demonstrated that he has the maturity and judgement needed to handle thos task. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Usually very good, rarely impulsive. Better than expected performance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk • contribs) 18:02, 25 June 2012
  • Support Seems to have patience, integrity, and a finely tuned bs detector. DracoE 11:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per my comments in the CU candidacy.
    ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 18:02, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support My trust continues from the CU section. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 18:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rock solid admin, fully trustworthy. Darkness Shines (talk) 04:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Backs up his actions with solid thinking. I might not always agree with it, but I respect the thought behind it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as it has been more than 24 hours since my question, so it seems fair to assume that Salvio is not concerned about his use of "butthurtness" to ridicule other contributors in a consensus building discussion, and is likely to behave in a similar way in the future. --Fæ (talk) 10:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note In my question, I made no assumptions or accusations of homophobic language. My question related to the simple expectation of exemplary civility and mellowness (in Commons parlance) for people trusted as Oversight members. It is not obvious to me that "butthurt" counts as homophobic language, it is an internet meme, is only ever used offensively and in the wrong context any unnecessary use of apparent sexual related words may be both inflammatory or defamatory. On Commons Salvio did not use the word in any obvious LGBT context that I can see and neither was it especially directed at me personally, though given his past actions on LGBT related issues, I would have thought it wise for him to avoid being seen using language that can be so easily interpreted as intended to be inflammatory in that context. Not everything I write is intended to be read in an LGBT context just because I am openly gay. Putting aside the distracting questions from others, my original question with regard to civility remains unanswered and I see no indication that Salvio would not use "butthurt" or variations to deride and ridicule in the future. Fæ (talk) 13:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - 1. User appears to be trustworthy and competent form what I recall of their actions over the years. 2. the "butthurt" thing shows a general sense of humor and that he won't be a thin-skinned civility netcop. 3. To negate what is in IMO a very empty oppose above. Tarc (talk) 13:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tarc, could you please clarify how you heard about this !vote? Thanks Fæ (talk) 13:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why, sure, Fae; I read about it at the Wikipediocracy. I can assure you though that my vote was not canvassed, and that I read this page from top to bottom before forming my own opinion, as you know how those 'ocracy folk like to slant things sometimes. The primary thing is that the candidate is fully qualified, while addressing your extremely unfair vote about was a secondary concern. I hope this satisfies your curiosity. Tarc (talk) 13:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Addendum; I also just now read about it at your Arbcom workshop talk page as well. So to forestall some sort of futile and wrong-headed "canvassed off-wiki!" charges, I would have arrived here via the Workshop route if I had not read the 'ocracy post first. Six of one, half-dozen of the other, as they say. Tarc (talk) 13:53, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I witnessed Salvio as a very fair administrator always trying to keep the balance and explaining his actions well. JCAla (talk) 18:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I was deeply angered by Salvio Giulino's week-long block of User:Niabot for a mild jest "too old - do not want" [4], following a conversation in which he was so involved that he took time to respond to the ideological debate between the time when he blocked Niabot and when he notified Niabot of the block. Especially when this followed on the heels of his unblock, after mere hours, of User:Youreallycan for a very hostile edit accusing another editor of having a "gay agenda" and telling him to "Fuck off". (It's all explained in the section linked above). I am favorably disposed to believe User:Wikiwind's comment in that discussion that Giuliano is "always here to unblock his friends and block those who disagree with him. The worst administrator on the English Wikipedia." I note that several of the anti-Commons/Fae/Cirt faction are represented in the Support votes above. Indeed, this vote is presently being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Workshop, where I heard about it. I simply don't trust this administrator. Wnt (talk) 22:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Keeps cool even when addressing thorny situations. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per my many dealings over the years, I believe Salvio to be a fine candidate. Being bisexual and 'out' myself, homophobia would be a deal-breaker for me but I'm seriously not seeing it in this candidate here - Alison ❤ 03:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Salvio is one of the most trustworthy editors on English Wikipedia, and handing him some more buttons will be beneficial for the community. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 12:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Good candidate showing evidence of patience. Carrite (talk) 15:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I am satisfied with his history and his responses above that he would not misuse the tools.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per my comments in the CU section.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Trusted candidate. Salvio guiliano is already a well experienced user having prior working experience with CheckUser and Oversight permissions and knows both the CheckUser and Oversight policies quite well regarding their usage. They have worked in the Audit Subcommittee of which they are it's current member. I support them to continue to have access to both the user rights. TheGeneralUser (talk) 23:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Candidate has not responded with sensitivity and diplomacy in difficult situation regarding an editor's feelings. More importantly candidate's answers indicate candidate sees no connection between the extraordinary trust the community would be granting him and power. With power comes responsibility. I have no idea why the candidate skirted this straightforward issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewtonGeek (talk • contribs) 23:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snowolf[edit]

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

Nomination statement (250 words max.)
  • I'm Snowolf and I've had the pleasure of serving the English Wikipedia as one of its Administrators since late 2007, and the wider Wikimedia community as a Steward. I am now hoping to be able to make use of my high availability to help out as an Oversighter. I am fully familiar with the operations of both the new Suppression by means of RevDeletion (and related tools such as blockhide) and the old Oversight extension. I already serve, in my role as a Steward, as an oversighter for wikis without ones as well as performing global suppressions of abusive username accounts. It is in these roles that I've taken a closer look at the Enwiki Oversighter role, and thought that I could help provide more availability to the current team. I believe the main purpose of the role and the policy to be not only the protection of the community but of its individual members too, and I would be delighted to serve in this capacity if appointed. While I am currently in a period of significantly lower activity due to being out of the country on an extended holiday, I will be back in full force in September.
Standard questions for all candidates[edit]

Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.

My experience comes from my service as steward, who handle oversight requests on wikis without global stewards and global suppressions of abusive usernames. In particular, I've been involved in the latter, reviewing past suppressions to address a series of bugs and perform local suppressions when the global suppression tool did not perform it automatically as well as unsuppressing mistaken or outside of policy suppressions.

Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.

I do not believe I have any particular off-wiki/technical expertise pertaining to this role, beside being familiar with and having used the oversight toolset and having reported or looked into a number of bugs pertaining to it.

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?

The only advanced permission I hold is that of steward. I do have OTRS access to steward-l and info-en. Snowolf How can I help? 03:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for this candidate[edit]
  • Please describe your familiarity with the Wikimedia Privacy Policy, Meta Oversight Policy, ENWP Oversight policy, and ENWP Outing policy. Also, without breaching privacy, for each of these policies, give an example of a time that you have used the policy when evaluating a situation or taking action. Pine✉ 01:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As a steward, I am familiar with the Wikimedia Privacy and Oversight policy (the "Meta Oversight Policy" is actually merely hosted on Meta's mainspace, it would be better described as a Global Oversight Policy. Metawiki could, if it chose to do so, adopt a more specific policy just like Enwiki does) and have consulted them and acted on them many times. I have repeatedly consulted the English Wikipedia Oversight policy and I am familiar with it. Regarding the Outing policy, we don't have one but rather a subsection of the Harassment policy, but yes, I am fully familiar with it. I am not however willing to provide even abstract versions of real occurrences where I have used the policies. Snowolf How can I help? 16:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments[edit]
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 generally positive presence on ANI. Nobody Ent 02:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have worked with Snowolf as a member of BAG and as a Steward and he has an extensive understanding of policy and has shown responsibility in holding and using oversight-like tools. He would be a good addition. MBisanz talk 02:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowolf is obviously trusted and could probably make use of the oversight tool in crosswiki cases in addition to handling local OS requests. Not terribly active here lately, but has my support. Jafeluv (talk) 06:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowolf has been particularly helpful in a case recently where a young and not particularly competent user had some, uh, issues cross-wiki that required co-ordination between enwiki admins, oversighters and stewards/Metafolk. He's good tempered and helpful and would be able to combine experience on enwiki with issues that are occurring cross-wiki. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even tempered, could easily trust him with the extra tools. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would make a great oversighter despite relative inactivity. — foxj 08:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know Snowolf very well through my interactions with him as a steward and highly active IRC channel operator. He has a solid understanding of the oversight policy and his frequent online presence will be helpful for the growing number of oversight requests made through IRC. The Helpful One 14:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - obviously understands the policies and use of the tools from his Steward work. Trustworthy and very diligent in ensuring the right process is followed, policies adhered to, etc., when working on small projects so no reason not to trust he will be the same here QU TalkQu 16:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowolf is experienced and trustworthy, and I have found him to be very professional in his interactions with other users. His work as a Steward leave him well qualified for this role. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as an excellent candidate for the oversight tools.
    ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 18:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Worked with this user several times, I trust him. He's always active somewhere, rarely can I not get a hold of him, he would be a good Oversighter. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 18:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Trusted user part of BAG and a Steward and can make use of the tool in both crosswiki as well as local cases..Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Trusted candidate. Snowolf is a Steward which are highly trusted users, have most of the required experience and knows the policies well for the use of Oversight permission. TheGeneralUser (talk) 19:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: really we have not enough !OS and !CU in European/Asian countries, besides that fact he would do a really job! mabdul 21:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someguy1221[edit]

Someguy1221 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Nomination statement (250 words max.)
  • I have been a Wikipedia editor for 5 1/2 years, and an administrator for 3 years. My on-wiki activity mostly consists of handling false-positive reports for the edit filter, as well as handling miscellaneous issues at ANI and other boards. The bulk of my true contributions to Wikipedia is actually at OTRS, where this year I became particularly involved in handling the oldest, most difficult tickets (although for personal issues that have recently resolved themselves, not for the past two months). I was never a big article builder, but I quite enjoy (and I think I'm good at) responding to complaints about activity on Wikipedia. It is for this reason that I ask for permission to use the oversight privileges.


Standard questions for all candidates[edit]

Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.

In my capacity as an administrator I occasionally need to revision delete certain edits. In the past, when I was active at recent changes patrol, I occasionally needed to make requests for oversight via email.

Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.

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 hold advanced permissions on any WMF projects. I have OTRS permissions, specifically to queues info-en (f), Voicemail, photosubmission (f), and Donations.
Questions for this candidate[edit]
  • Please describe your familiarity with the Wikimedia Privacy Policy, Meta Oversight Policy, ENWP Oversight policy, and ENWP Outing policy. Also, without breaching privacy, for each of these policies, give an example of a time that you have used the policy when evaluating a situation or taking action. Pine✉ 01:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am extensively familiar with all such policies. While the Wikimedia Privacy policy is not required reading for OTRS volunteers, the general concept of privacy on Wiki(m|p)edia is something we are supposed to be well versed it. It's an issue that comes up on any OTRS ticket that requires actions on Wikipedia or communications with a third party. And so in my experience handling OTRS tickets (I don't know how many I have handled, as the system won't count beyond 2000), I constantly have to keep the privacy of our contactees in mind, many of whom are Wikipedia editors.
With regard the meta and ENWP oversight policies, I familiarized myself with those long ago so I would know what to request for oversight, and what was better handled with basic administrative tools (or nothing at all, for that matter). Tooting my own horn here, every request I made for oversight was fulfilled, which I take as a measure of my familiarity with the policy.
Finally, regarding outing, this is not an issue I typically involve myself with, outside of lurking ANI threads involving such issues. However, the need to avoid outing is something that anyone who patrols the info-en-quality queue on OTRS should be familiar with. Those tickets frequently require the responder to carry out on-wiki actions while, as always, not revealing any personal information contained within the ticket. In addition, some of the material I have requested oversight on could be construed as outing. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments[edit]
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.
  • There are only two users on the OS list that I cannot remember ever coming across, and this is one of them. Normally this would mean precisely nothing, but in this case I find it exceptionally strange and a little bit worrying because this user is asking for a highly trusted position and I really don't have enough contact with the user to say to myself "I might not necessarily vouch for him, but I don't see red flags". Arbs should feel free to assign my comment minimal notice. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a candidate myself, I wasn't planning on commenting on any other candidates' nominations. Since there is only one other comment for Someguy1221, I thought that I might make an exception. I have found him to be an excellent OTRS respondent, and I am confident that he would do an excellent job as an oversighter. I hope that the lack of public comments is not interpreted as a lack of confidence in him. NW (Talk) 22:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I agree with NW; lo-key doesn't mean non-existent. EeBee (talk) 01:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Trusted candidate. Someguy1221 has all the basic required experience and knows the policy well for the use of Oversight permission. TheGeneralUser (talk) 20:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Trusted candidate ,totally non controversial , low key and one without too many hats.Appears to be seeking tools only where he requires them.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:27, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tiptoety[edit]

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

Nomination statement (250 words max.)
  • Hi all. I've been an editor here at the English Wikipedia for a little over 5 years now and an administrator for around 4. I feel that my tenure here has proven my dedication to improving the project and serving the Wikimedia community as a whole. With regards to oversight, I am well versed in both the global and local oversight policies as well as the privacy policy, and have been a local oversighter on Commons since April of 2010. In my time as an oversighter on Commons I have made a goal of handling requests quickly and thoroughly, something I feel is important when dealing with oversight requests. Additionally, in my role as a CheckUser here on the English Wikipedia I have come across various situations where I would have been aided by having access to the oversight tools. Thanks for your consideration.
Standard questions for all candidates[edit]

Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.

  • As stated above, I am familiar with the use of the Oversight extension as I have had access to the tools on Commons since early 2010. Additionally, I have experience dealing with subjects of articles in my role as an OTRS team leader where often they feel that libelous content has been published about them on Wikipedia.

Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.

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?

  • English Wikipedia, CheckUser
  • Commons - CheckUser, Oversight.
  • Meta - Checkuser, Bureaucrat.
  • OTRS - Access to all queues in my role as an OTRS team leader (administrator).
  • Global - Global rollback, Global Sysop.
Questions for this candidate[edit]
  • Please describe your familiarity with the Wikimedia Privacy Policy, Meta Oversight Policy, ENWP Oversight policy, and ENWP Outing policy. Also, without breaching privacy, for each of these policies, give an example of a time that you have used the policy when evaluating a situation or taking action. Pine✉ 01:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Pine. As stated above, all of my actions as a CheckUser both here and on other projects as well as my actions as an Oversighter on Commons and as an OTRS team leader are governed by the Wikimedia Privacy Policy. Each and every time I look at processing a CheckUser request I ensure that I disseminate the least amount of information possible to ensure that I am complying with the Privacy Policy. An example of such can be found here where, given the long term nature of this sockpuppeteer I likely could have more specific information such as "same small ISP" (only an example) and I chose not to. As for the Meta Oversight Policy (which I refer to as the "Global" Oversight Policy), it governs the use and access to the tool on all foundation wikis. Given the Commons does not have its only Oversight Policy, I always refer to the Global Oversight Policy when reviewing a request for suppression. I am unable to provide a specific example as they are handled via email and contain information not available to "the public." The English Wikipedia Oversight Policy governs the use of Oversight only on this project. It provides rules for how the tools are accessed, used, and under what circumstances revdeletion should be used in lieu of Suppression (Oversight). Generally speaking, the only time I have used this policy was when I was trying to determine if I should just revdelete something or send an email to the Oversight list as well. Lastly the Outing Policy, which is a subsection of the Harassment Policy outlines prohibited actions associated with providing personal real life information about an editor. This can include, but is not limited to, phone numbers, real life names, addresses, social security cards, and dates of birth. An important factor in dealing with outing is to treat every post with personal information in it like it is real. Confirming or denying the accuracy of the information only adds flames to the fire. On a more personal note, I have been outed many times before and subject to real life harassment as a result of my activities here. As such, combating outing and ensuring a safe working environment here is very important to me. Tiptoety talk 05:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question about this edit [5]. If an editor comes in with a clear and obvious knowledge of a subject, but is banned, what do you do? You know, or you believe, that the editor is making unquestionably good contributions to the project. But you know he is breaking the rules. Do you follow the law? As you did in this case. Or something else, in case what? 86.182.14.133 (talk) 21:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)This IP is Nangparbat Darkness Shines (talk) 18:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see my oppose, below and the subsequent discussion with one of your supporters. As documented, you responded to a notification on your talk page with an indication that while you had taken no action with your tools you had nevertheless protected the article for a few days. You covered this in the article edit summary with "persistent sockpuppetry" as the reason. There were 2 unregistered users each with 1 edit on the article in question and no edits anywhere else. There was no recent or ongoing vandalism on the article. On reflection, examining the evidence, was it (a) appropriate to protect the article, (b) use "persistent sockpuppetry" as the reason, (c) not answer that specific question when requested by me on your talk page and at ANI (d) apparently use the privileged access you have to justify your non-specific, obtuse responses. Finally, do you agree that accurate edit summaries detailing Administrator actions are important and if granted with ability to Oversight how will you ensure that edit summaries adequately describe your actions while maintaining appropriate discretion? I had not intended to put these questions to you but the badgering of your supporter compels me to ask you to clear up matters. Leaky Caldron 16:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is late my time and I just got home from work. Just dropping a note here to say I will answer this tomorrow. Thanks for understanding, Tiptoety talk 05:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Leaky_caldron. Sorry it took me so long to reply. For one I had to go back and research in incident in question as it took place back in late November of 2011. As for the question: (a) Yes, I felt it was appropriate to protect the article. I will note that the protection was short. (b) While I will contend that the specific protection summary of "Persistent sockpuppetry" may not have been the best choice of words, I do not feel it missed the point all together. "Persistent sockpuppetry" is one of the drop-down templates in the protection interface and is commonly used when the article is protected due to socking. (c) I felt that I did answer your question to the best of my ability at AN/I, but given that I can not publicly link a user to an IP address I was and still am simply unable to go into specifics. Some specifics could include the sockmasters past which involves continued vandalism to targeted articles over a short period of time, the use of 4chan and other such sites to flood an article, or entering malicious code. (d) I think "c" answers this question. I am not trying to be obtuse. I am trying to respond to your inquiry to the extent that I am not violating a Foundation Policy. Best, Tiptoety talk 03:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the detailed reply. In as much as any of this is relevant to your application for Oversight, it is the use of a patently incorrect edit summary. If the interface does not provide a more appropriate notice, such as "protected pending sockpuppet investigation" then it could have been typed in. Otherwise I'm sure that you could get the options on the interface amended. When edit summaries are used by Admins on functions such as protection, blocking or oversight they absolutely must be accurate and not inadvertently misleading. Persistent means a pattern of habitual behaviour, and 2 IPs each making a single edit is more than stretching the description of "persistent". That said, we are only here due to the badgering of your supporter. Good luck if successful and if you can modify the protection edit summary interface that would be very helpful. Leaky Caldron 11:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments[edit]
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.
  • On April 24 Tiptoety blocked AndyTheGrump for "Slow moving edit warring at MonaVie." This was based on a total of 5 reverts over a period from 7 Feb to 19 April. As a result of extensive discussion on WP:ANI, Tiptoety's block was overturned as grossly negligent. The discussion can be reviewed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive748#What_are_legitimate_grounds_for_a_precipitate_block_for_edit_warring.3F. Appointing someone to a position that is nearly impossible to audit when they have a recent history of negligent use of existing tools is an error. Hipocrite (talk) 23:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support good admin work. Nobody Ent 02:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've known Tiptoety for a long time and seen his user of similar tools with Checkuser and OTRS-admin. I have no doubt of his ability to apply those skills to the oversight right and support this request. MBisanz talk 02:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Tiptoety is a trustworthy long-time admin who has good judgment and will likely put the OS tools to good use. Jafeluv (talk) 06:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Hipocrite. Cooking up bad blocks on IRC and then refusing to discuss their actions is behavior that should not be compatible with being a functionary. Skinwalker (talk) 13:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also opposed. Hipocrite's evidence does not leave me impressed with his judgment; furthermore, this exchange was pretty bad. Biting a non-admin for calling out a clear admin mistake (note; as a non-admin, Bedford did not have any way to know what was happening because he couldn't see deleted pages) is not desirable in those we give sensitive functions to; I don't see any reason to assume he won't be equally bitey with someone who questions his oversight usage. And stressing what is "required" of someone rather than getting the problem dealt with is just process wonking of which we need none. Heimstern:Away (talk) 00:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heim, Skinwalker, and Hipocrite: I don't want to comment either way on this candidacy at this stage, nor do I have the remotest inclination to influence your decision, but I do think we must consider that the sysop noticeboards have had a recurring problem with complainants not taking up concerns (in the first place) with the administrator in question. WP:NOTBUREAU may apply, but so too does the usual order of WP:GBU, as well as good manners and common courtesy. Hauling a contributor in front of the peanut gallery without first using a more low-key venue is rather rude, and at this I suspect every administrator has (at some point) shown annoyance. AGK [•] 10:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder, though, what's ruder - "peanut gallery without first using a more low-key venue," or blocking someone for "Slow moving edit warring at MonaVie," without nary a warning or comment after getting begged-to-block on IRC? Hipocrite (talk) 10:35, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under normal circumstances, yes, I agree that it should be handled that way. Deleting a long-standing article because you didn't bother to check if it had been vandalized is a case that needs immediate reversal and going directly to the adminboard to get eyes on it is an entirely sensible approach. Indeed, it was the deletion that was "rather rude", not the post on ANI. Heimstern:Away (talk) 10:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Naturally, and in trying to avoid prejudging the candidacy I did ignore the context. AGK [•] 11:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose essentially per Hipocrite.VolunteerMarek 21:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Hipocrite (I'd forgotten the King Bedford fubar). Nobody Ent 22:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose based on what I considered to be an inappropriate decision to semi-protect an article page using an inaccurate edit summary of "persistent sockpuppetry" when there was no evidence of persistent disruption. [6]. A debatable (though potentially correct) decision but justified by an inaccurate edit summary is concerning in the context of extending Oversight permissions to this Admin. Leaky Caldron 10:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Well, there can be no arguing that the block of AndyTheGrump was crap. I'm sure Tiptoety knows it though, and I reckon he's unlikely to repeat that. It's like that referee at a recent world cup who gave a footballer three yellow cards when he should have sent him off at the second: he lost his chance at refereeing the final, but in hindsight, would have been ideal in the sense that it's a mistake he would be extremely unlikely to repeat. I have always found Tiptoety willing to discuss his actions as a CheckUser, and he has been an ideal go-to person for a second opinion.
As for Leaky Cauldron's oppose, it was widely suspected and later reiterated by him that Tiptoety's decision rested on information which non-functionaries do not have access to, and he would be violating the privacy policy if he had revealed it. If one suspects an error in the context of functionary tools then it should be reported to the AUSC, but Tiptoey is absolutely justified in not expending another editor's privacy just so he can "win" a discussion with an uninvolved editor. WilliamH (talk) 13:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They recorded a misleading edit synopsis of "persistent sockpuppetry". Misleading/sloppy/inaccurate/incorrect/lazy edit summaries by Admins using tools is, in my opinion, unacceptable. He failed to answer that particular part of my concern. I was not at all concerned that the use of his covert tools may have identified socking, although the initial request from another editor and the Admin's response - see here [7] is also a bit casual for my liking. Since when is it ok to protect an article based only on un-investigated, circumstantial evidence and use a misleading edit summary to boot? I wanted to understand why the public record of the decision to semi-protect an article experiencing negligible disruption was "persistent sockpuppetry" when the recent history of the article indicated no such disruption. Why protect an article from no disruption but take no action against the alleged culprit? Leaky Caldron 15:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
His decision rested on information which you do not have access to. With all due respect, you are not in a position to comment on its legitimacy. WilliamH (talk) 15:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did not come here to make a "thing" out of this but you seem to wish to intentionally ridicule my oppose with a specious interpretation all of your own. Let me repeat, leaving an edit summary of "persistent sockpuppetry" as a justification for protecting an article where there was no evidence of persistent disruption and only 1 edit each by the 2 unregistered users concerned is neither "persistent" and quite possibly not "sockpuppetry". It was a knee-jerk response to a drive by request and documented in a cavalier manner. Since you've decided to challenge my opinion and effectively told me to mind my own business, let's see what the candidate has to say. I'll formulate a question. Leaky Caldron 16:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I was going to support but I couldn't decide after I saw the other comments. --Ankit MaityTalkContribs 16:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Experienced, reliable and trustworthy. Not overly convinced by the complaints of previous "bad behaviour" as I don't see it as germane to the use of the OS tools. QU TalkQu 20:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support We all make mistakes, he's had the Checkuser tools here since September 2010, and still stands. Has every action of other functionary been perfect 100%, no. We aren't gods. He's trustworthy and as far as I have been in contact with him always willing to explain things. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 18:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Good admin, can be trusted. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. c has an excellent long-standing history of service across several projects. That makes him an excellent choice for oversight tools.
    ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 18:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tiptoety has been a trusted checkuser for several years across several wikis, as well as holding the oversight permissions over on commons. In my dealings with him, I found him to be active, insightful and fair. Over one's time on Wiki*dia, mistakes and misjudgements are bound to happen, but in this case they do not, for me, affect the trust I have for this user, and I'm sure if appointed he will only be a positive influence. Snowolf How can I help? 05:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Seeing he is a checkuser and has the oversight rights on commons, he can be easily trusted for the same rights here. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 12:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Tiptoety is a trustworthy admin and experienced with checkuser and has the oversight rights tools across projects Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:04, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Trusted candidate. Tiptoety already has the required working experience with the CheckUser tool on Wikipedia and MetaWiki and Oversight tool on Wikimedia Commons. Everyone here is a human being and everyone can and does make a mistake on many different occasions as nobody in this world is perfect. User is quite experienced and knows the policy well on using the Oversight permission. TheGeneralUser (talk) 20:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Worm That Turned[edit]

Worm That Turned (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Nomination statement (250 words max.)
  • Hi! I'm Dave or Worm That Turned and I'm applying for the Oversight tool. I've been editing the encyclopedia since 2008, though I only really became active in 2010. I became an administrator this time last year, and whilst not the most active with the buttons I believe I have shown myself to have good judgement, thinking about the full consequences of my actions before acting. I spend much of my time on the site working with people, be it through mentorship, adopting new users, popping in to OTRS or answering help questions. In these roles I do find comments which sometimes need attending to, especially when working with young editors who unwittingly reveal too much information.
Standard questions for all candidates[edit]

Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.

I'm not the most prolific of administrators, but the tool I use most often is Revision Deletion. This often happens because my work in adoption leads to working with younger members of the community who can unwittingly put far too much information on their profile. I've request oversight a few times too.
 WormTT(talk)

Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.

  • I am a Java web developer by trade, with a Mathematics degree. I certainly have technical skills. However, more importantly, I have worked in a customer services complaints team for a financial company, where privacy and data security is a very important factor. Overall, I've got no direct experience in the role, but relevant experience which should help.
 WormTT(talk)

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 hold advanced permission on this or other WMF projects. I do hold OTRS permission to the "info-en" queues, though I have not been particularly active there of late.
 WormTT(talk)
Questions for this candidate[edit]
  • Please describe your familiarity with the Wikimedia Privacy Policy, Meta Oversight Policy, ENWP Oversight policy, and ENWP Outing policy. Also, without breaching privacy, for each of these policies, give an example of a time that you have used the policy when evaluating a situation or taking action. Pine✉ 01:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Familiarity, interesting choice of word. I am well read on all the policies referred to above, I took time out to familiarise myself with them when I became an OTRS member and when I ran for Arbitration Committee, and I have re-affirmed this knowledge when I decided to apply for Oversight. So yes, I am familiar with the policies. I've encountered specific uses of them infrequently, unless you count the general uses.

  • The Wikimedia Privacy Policy we encounter every day in every interaction. I'm referring to the difference between IP editors and registered editors. Registered editors enjoy a hidden IP address, and relative anonymity - but at the same time, they have to deal with pseudonymity - and the creation of a persona based on that pseudonym. It's much more difficult to like IP addresses to a persona, especially when they regularly change.
    As for a situation where I've specifically encountered it, I was plodding through the OTRS queue when I came across an email from someone I'd worked with on Wikipedia. It gave a significant amount of extra information about the person - non-public data. The fact that I didn't distribute the information (though I can't see any reason why I would) would fall under the Privacy policy. Of course, it's the same with all other OTRS requests, where I don't know the person in question.
  • As the Enwp oversight policy is an extention of the meta policy, I'd count my experiences of both in the same group. As I mentioned above in my statement, I've taken these into account when making revision deletions of non-public information, blatent attacks and so on. A few times I've contacted oversight on matters too. None of my RevDels nor my oversight requests have been questioned.
  • I've never been directly involved in an outing case. I've read around a number of cases, and sometimes offered advice or taken "being outed" into account as a mitigating factor for other issues - but never taken on-wiki action based on it. The closest example, would be my "not" outing of those cases I read on the OTRS queue.

I hope that answers your questions, please feel free to ask any follow ups! WormTT(talk) 10:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 WormTT(talk)
Comments[edit]
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 extremely positive influence on Wikipedia. Nobody Ent 02:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have seen nothing to indicate WTT is unqualified for this position. MBisanz talk 03:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Every experience I've had with Worm has been a positive one, even when we had different ideas. I think his calm, measured approach would be beneficial. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I trust the Worm. Kilopi (talk) 23:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am beyond trust; it is more akin to knowledge. For I know the Worm; and expect high standards. He has never shown less to my eyes. My76Strat (talk) 00:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest support - WTT has shown an ability to be clueful and his work with newer users clearly shows a need for the tool. No qualms here. Achowat (talk) 15:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Evolution of the worm: Farmers' friend (Worm v1.0 aka Worm) → Wikipedia's friend (Worm v2.0 aka Worm That Turned) --Ankit MaityTalkContribs 16:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Worm would obviously be a good addition to the OS team. While we have not always agreed, I have found him to be an unfailingly civil and thoughtful Wikipedian. it also sounds like he has RW experience that will help inform him for thit type of work. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Shows clue and complete trustworthiness.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 14:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Per K-Wolf. WTT being able to turn a nemesis into a supporter — and a guy who is paying attention, at that — is the very best testimonial possible. Carrite (talk) 18:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This user can be trusted for oversighting.Max Viwe | Viwe The Max 18:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. And outdent. Drmies (talk) 18:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Indent, outdent, shake-it-all-about-dent. WormTT(talk) 07:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support as the user uses pretty boxes in replying to questions on this page. (And he's a trustworthy admin who will make a fine oversighter :D) Snowolf How can I help? 05:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support WTT is again one of the most prolific administrators. He shall be a good oversighter. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 12:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ^^ --v/r - TP 14:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, trustworthy user. ⇒TAP 14:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Trusted candidate. Worm That Turned has a good required experience, their fine nomination statement, answers to all the questions and well knowledge of the all the Oversight policies regarding shows that the user will use the Oversight permission in the right manner. TheGeneralUser (talk) 21:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Couldn't support more Excellent user with an excellent history. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Results[edit]

This section is an excerpt from Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 8 § 2012 CheckUser and Oversight appointments & personnel changes.[edit]

The Arbitration Committee has resolved to appoint four editors to the CheckUser team and eight editors to the Oversight team pursuant to the CheckUser and Oversight appointment procedures and following the 2012 CUOS appointments process.

Subject to the editors named below providing identification satisfactory to the Wikimedia Foundation (if they have not already done so), the Arbitration Committee hereby resolves to:

(a) appoint the following editors as checkusers:

(b) appoint the following editors as oversighters:

† Previously identified member of the Audit Subcommittee who will retain the specified permission(s) upon the conclusion of their terms.

The committee thanks the other candidates (Mlpearc, Tiptoety); those who applied but were not put forward as candidates; and the community in bringing this appointment process to a successful conclusion.

The committee also thanks LessHeard vanU (talk · contribs), who has recently resigned as an oversighter, for his longterm dedication to the project, and wishes him well in his future endeavours. As well, the committee thanks John Vandenberg (talk · contribs), who has also resigned his checkuser and oversight permissions, for his work as a checkuser, an oversighter, and for his work as an arbitrator; John continues to make contributions in multiple areas within the WMF projects and as an executive member of Wikimedia Australia.

Supporting: Casliber, Courcelles, David Fuchs, Hersfold, Jclemens, Kirill Lokshin, Newyorkbrad, PhilKnight, Risker, Roger Davies, SirFozzie.
Not voting/Inactive: AGK, SilkTork, Xeno

For the Arbitration Committee, Risker (talk) 02:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/CheckUser_and_Oversight/2012_CUOS_appointments&oldid=1114197850"