Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/2013 CUOS appointments/OS

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

DoRD (OS)

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

Nomination statement
  • Hello, I'm DoRD, and I am applying to become an Oversighter. I have been an administrator since 2008 and a CheckUser for a year, and in that year, I have become one of the project's most active CheckUsers. I am typically online several hours per day, and frequently monitor a number Wikipedia-related IRC channels for CheckUser and revision deletion requests. I occasionally see unanswered Oversight requests and delayed responses, and I would like to be able to help. In my duties as a Checkuser, I occasionally come across oversightable material, and it would be best for privacy if I were able to deal with it myself. As a current CheckUser, I am very familiar with the Privacy policy. As an editor, I have made a number of Oversight requests, and have not, to my knowledge, had a request denied.
Standard questions for all candidates
  1. Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
    On a number of occasions, I have used revision deletion to hide privacy-related edits prior to passing them along to the OS team for suppression.
  2. Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.
    In my professional life, I am responsible for the security of quite a bit of private information.
  3. Do you hold advanced permissions (checkuser, oversight, bureaucrat, steward) on this or other WMF projects? If so, please list them. Also, do you have OTRS permissions? If so, to which queues?
    I am currently a CheckUser on this project, and I have access to the info-en OTRS queue.
Questions for this candidate
Please note that I will be traveling during the last three days of the community consultation period, so I apologize in advance for any delayed responses. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:25, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you think it is ever appropriate to simply close an OTRS ticket from the oversight queue without responding at all, or does every request require a direct response? Beeblebrox (talk) 17:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not having experienced the OS queue, I can't think of a situation where it would be appropriate to close a valid ticket with no response. However, if a ticket is not a valid request, such as spam or trolling, it should be handled accordingly. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:17, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Comments may also be submitted to the Arbitration Committee privately by emailing arbcom-en-c@lists.wikimedia.org. Please note that the candidate will be provided the opportunity to respond to a paraphrased version of any emailed comments; the sender's name will not be provided.
  • DorD is a highly active checkuser and I don't see why he shouldn't be entrusted with the OS tool, on the condition that he changes back to his original nick, of course :P Snowolf How can I help? 16:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The user is already a checkuser.The user does Revision deletions.Oversight will supplement this as some Revision deletions may need oversight which the user will be able to do himself rather than hiding oversightable material prior to Oversight and waiting for a oversighter.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Seems eminently sensible. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Already a checkuser and already works in an area where this would be useful. No reason to oppose. Kumioko (talk) 02:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support fully.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support don't see why not. --Rschen7754 04:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • He doesn't already have oversight? Kurtis (talk) 20:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Trusted and active user. If they want to take on more work, I can't see why not. Jafeluv (talk) 07:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Having worked with this user before, he has my full faith and confidence. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Will be a solid addition to the oversight team. Daniel Case (talk) 10:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • DoRD is another of the few that have my unequivocal support. My esteem rises to a level that makes me more likely to doubt myself than to enter a disagreement opposing his opinion. This is another appointment that if not ratified I would expect to find incompetence within the appointing body. :) John Cline (talk) 14:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, although he is not a candidate, seeing Daniel Case immediately above compels me to mention that he is another principled user that has earned my unconditional trust and I believe it is worthy of mention. :) John Cline (talk) 14:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elockid (OS)

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

Nomination statement
  • Hello everyone, I’m Elockid and I am applying to become an Oversighter. I have had the pleasure of serving the community as both an Administrator and CheckUser for the past couple years. I’ve been active in both roles, assisting in areas such as ACC, AIV and Sockpuppetry.
I have plenty of experience dealing with privacy and sensitive related matters. I also have experience working as a team serving as a Functionary and working with others who have advanced permissions on other Wikis. I believe that these qualities would be helpful in the role of an Oversighter.
Standard questions for all candidates
  1. Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
    As a user with advanced permissions, I'm already familiar with WMF's privacy policies. I've also had experience with the revision deletion tool, being one of the more active users in the area.
  2. Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.
    I don't believe that a high level of technical expertise is needed for the tool. Though I do believe that experience dealing with privacy related information off-wiki is necessary for this role. I've worked with private information (both through email and IRC), taking great care that information doesn't get disclosed outside of the involved parties.
  3. Do you hold advanced permissions (checkuser, oversight, bureaucrat, steward) on this or other WMF projects? If so, please list them. Also, do you have OTRS permissions? If so, to which queues?
    I am currently a CU on this project
Questions for this candidate
  • Since you are already familiar with "behind the scenes" work, where do you believe the boundaries lie between matters being discussed on the various mailing lists? Should suppression issues or checkuser cases be discussed on the broader functionaries list, or only on the specialized lists that are only open to those holding that specific permission? Have you seen discussions on a particular list which you believe were not appropriate? Beeblebrox (talk) 17:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being split into multiple lists in my opinion can decrease the amount of communication between other functionaries. For example, a functionary may be more familiar with a case but they're not subscribed in the list where the case is being discussed. Key input may have been missed at this point. It can also decrease the efficiency in expediting a request/necessary actions that need to be done. I believe that background or basic info should be discussed in the broader functionaries list to receive as much input as possible. In some cases I've seen, both CUs and OSs were needed to work together through a common channel in private related manners. I don't recall seeing any discussions being considered inappropriate but in one of the cases that I was working on, it was recommended that I discuss information about a user on the functionaries list instead of the CU list since it specifically dealt with English Wikipedia.
Comments
Comments may also be submitted to the Arbitration Committee privately by emailing arbcom-en-c@lists.wikimedia.org. Please note that the candidate will be provided the opportunity to respond to a paraphrased version of any emailed comments; the sender's name will not be provided.
  • Support A checkuser already in the Project and does Revision deletions regularly with 470+ Revision deletions .Oversight will supplement this as some Revision deletions may need oversight which the user will be able to do himself rather than hiding oversightable material prior to Oversight and waiting for a oversighter.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - As with DoRD, Elockid is a sensible, reasonable editor. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Speaking from the few times that I've dealt with Elockid, I have a lot of respect for him as an Adminstrator, and a CheckUser. I think he'll make an excellent Oversighter. Signalizing (talk) 19:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Don't really know anything about this user so I cannot see any reason to oppose. Kumioko (talk) 02:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this excellent candidate.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:46, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support don't see why not. --Rschen7754 04:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Already proved himself as a checkuser. Daniel Case (talk) 10:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Elockid has impressed me on numerous occasions with his uncanny ability to establish solutions in situations where no one else even realized there was a potential problem at hand. It's like he lives in a slightly future realm and I see his insight as tremendously beneficial to the project. :) John Cline (talk) 14:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GorillaWarfare (OS)

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

Nomination statement
  • Hi, I'm GorillaWarfare, and I'm applying for the oversight userright. I have been an administrator on the English Wikipedia for three years now, where I feel I've used the tools well. I am also an OTRS volunteer. I feel that I have the necessary judgment and experience to help with oversight. I am very frequently available, and tend to respond very quickly to emails and IRC messages, so I think this will be beneficial to people who need something oversighted very quickly.
Standard questions for all candidates
  1. Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
    I've been an administrator for three years, where I've had experience working with revision deletion. I've done a lot of anti-vandalism work, and I've found that through that I've been exposed to a good deal of oversightable content, so I'm pretty familiar with what should and should not be oversighted. I also work with OTRS, so I am familiar with dealing with sensitive information.
  2. Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.
    I have not had much off-wiki experience for this role, though I'm not really sure much "technical expertise" is required.
  3. Do you hold advanced permissions (checkuser, oversight, bureaucrat, steward) on this or other WMF projects? If so, please list them. Also, do you have OTRS permissions? If so, to which queues?
    I do not hold any advanced permissions on the WMF projects. I have access to the info-en (l), Permissions, and photosubmission (f) queues.
Questions for this candidate
  • Can you envision any situation where you would discuss material from an OTRS ticket on-wiki? Beeblebrox (talk) 17:09, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. I have in the past received questions about OTRS tickets, such as "Has the copyright owner of this photo I uploaded released permission for it yet?" In cases like that, a vague response such as "Yes," "No," or "It's being discussed" is acceptable. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Comments may also be submitted to the Arbitration Committee privately by emailing arbcom-en-c@lists.wikimedia.org. Please note that the candidate will be provided the opportunity to respond to a paraphrased version of any emailed comments; the sender's name will not be provided.
  • I've only seen good work out of GorillaWarfare and think she will make a fine addition to the team. I see a lot of time availability which is in my opinion the key characteristic of an oversighter. Snowolf How can I help? 20:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see no reason not to give GorillaWarfare the tools - she is very competent, and one of the nicest administrators I know. She understands policy well and I feel she also understands privacy well. She's available on IRC with a call of her name at insane hours sometimes, which is something that I feel we need more of (functionaries on IRC). Through her work in the IRC help channel I can feel confident she can be calm, cool, and collected when dealing with tough situations with people regarding OS decisions, and/or people complaining in the OS queue on OTRS if she so chooses to work there. ~Charmlet -talk- 03:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - She too is trustworthy. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • GorilaWarfare, despite the extreme contradictions in her username vs. real-life personality, is an eminently competent editor whose past history and work with OTRS proves that she can be trusted in the role. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a good impression of her through her serving as an op on some of the -en channels and have no concerns. --Rschen7754 04:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that she can be trusted with this tool and would do a good job.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:38, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Having worked with this user before, she has my full faith and confidence. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible support — Absolutely. I'm not aware of anyone whose enthusiasm for this site is more contagious than hers. GorillaWarfare is exceedingly bright, an independent thinker, and an expert in most things technical. To top it all off, she's extremely approachable and easy to get along with. I can hardly imagine anyone I'd support more strongly for oversight or any other position of trust than her, and I am very pleased that I've been given the opportunity to do so. It is a distinct privilege just to sign my name here. Kurtis (talk) 06:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was a time I would have secretly enjoyed tanking GW's endeavors for spite, at least I thought I would. However when rubber meets the road it is practically impossible for me to fabricate disdain and I am moreover glad to admit I had buried the secret hatchet some time ago. Even had I held animosity to this day, I would still have to align myself with truth and admit that she is a tremendous asset to the project, competent, and worthy of the highest level of trust; all of which recommend her for this position—as do I. :) John Cline (talk) 15:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As per Above and the User is a OTRS volunteer and the user has done 195 Revision deletions and as some Revision deletions may need oversight.Oversight right will helpful to the user and Project.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support All my encounters with her have done nothing but raise my faith with this admin. I'll be damned if she isn't around at some of the oddest hours, and that can be extremely helpful when it comes to oversighting. Gorilla is a calm, clueful editor who would make excellent use of the oversighting tools. --TKK! bark with me if you're my dog! 18:37, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guerillero (OS)

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

Nomination statement
  • Greetings I am Guerillero. I currently sit on the AUSC but I would like to keep my oversighter flag after my term is over in June of 2014. If you have any questions, please net me know.
Standard questions for all candidates
  1. Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
    I currently sit on the AUSC
  2. Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.
    I have worked with law enforcement sensitive data as a part of my real world job
  3. Do you hold advanced permissions (checkuser, oversight, bureaucrat, steward) on this or other WMF projects? If so, please list them. Also, do you have OTRS permissions? If so, to which queues?
    I am an ex officio checkuser and oversighter due to my role on the AUSC. I have access to info-en (f), Permissions, Sister projects (f), oversight on OTRS.
Questions for this candidate
  • As a member of AUSC you've already had a look "behind the looking glass" as it were. When oversighters are reviewing requests from the queue we have basically six standard answers: done, not done, more information needed, revdeleted, more discussion needed, and "are you sure you want to do this per the Streisand effect". Could you describe in general terms what types of situations would lead to use any of the last three options? Beeblebrox (talk) 16:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revdeleted: The diff in question does not fall within the strict OS criteria but falls under the, looser, RD criteria. For example, a diff isn't libel but is still grossly insulting.
  • Streisand effect: The diff contains information where pandora's box is already open, the diff was made by a group of high profile users, the diff targets a group of high profile users, the diff links to information published on a high profile site, the diff is the cause of or part of an AN/ANI/RfARB thread or an Arbcom case.
  • More discussion needed: The Streisand effect category and diffs that fall on the boarder between OS and RD. When in doubt, discuss. --Guerillero | My Talk 02:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider a case where an editor posts private information about another. There are 50+ edits in between the posting of such information and the removal and request for Oversight. What should be done? If your answer is "oversight" or "revdel", should a note be left somewhere (noticeboard, history, etc.) regarding the massive deletion/oversight of diffs (50+) from the history? ~Charmlet -talk- 23:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What sort of "personal information" was posted and is it an open secret? Part of the issue here is that any admin or OS action in this case can turn from bad to full Streisand effect if it isn't handed correctly. Posting a notice on a notice board would just enhance the Streisand effect. --Guerillero | My Talk 16:11, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Going along with the above in a way - a page has edits oversighted for whatever reason. Later, an editor in good standing asks you for diffs regarding a discussion that was ongoing and parts of which were caught in the Oversight (by virtue of the tool). How do you respond? ~Charmlet -talk- 23:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would deny their request and point them to the AUSC. If there is a strong need for the diffs, the AUSC can hear their case. --Guerillero | My Talk 16:11, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • To clarify - the parts of the discussion they're asking for diffs/information on were not, nor nowhere near, the reason the edits were oversighted (for example, a few edits on WP:AN may be oversighted, which takes out the diffs for a few replies on a discussion unrelated to the oversighting). ~Charmlet -talk- 23:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Comments may also be submitted to the Arbitration Committee privately by emailing arbcom-en-c@lists.wikimedia.org. Please note that the candidate will be provided the opportunity to respond to a paraphrased version of any emailed comments; the sender's name will not be provided.
  • I'm not entirely sure that "sitting on AUSC" is really that much of a qualification for an oversighter, especially as all current AUSC members seems to have adopted the position of not using their oversight rights during their term. It might be helpful to know whether the candidate has additional experiences that might relate to the role. Snowolf How can I help? 16:04, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree. From reading the internal correspondence and discussion of the OSers on functionaries-l, oversighters-l, and via OTRS, I gain some amount of meaningful experience that I would put towards the role of an OSer if I was selected. I am partly running for this appointment because I feel bad that I have the tools and am in IRC and the only person with the OS flag online or looking through OTRS for auditing purposes and I can't help editors who are looking for an edit to be removed because of a change to the policies earlier this year. (The term serious backlog has yet to be defined and time-sensitive situations is far to vague to even try to address any issues that I see as time-sensitive). As far as other experience goes, I am a admin here and I have RevDeleted edits for non-admins and removed diffs that I have come across that fall within the OS policy. My success rate of diffs I have sent to the OS team is at about 90% if I remember correctly --Guerillero | My Talk 02:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know, if I am not mistaken, early in your tenure on the AUSC you were wholly unfamiliar with the role of the Ombudsman commission which anybody that deals with the CU, OS and privacy policy should be required to know, which gives me the strong impression that no serious research was put into before applying for that role. I expect that candidates to any position do some serious research about it, and you were clearly lacking in that department. Given AUSC is a mostly passive role OS-wise, I fail to see how it gives me any assurances that you're willing to put in some research or pay much attention to what goes on. That you chose to limit your qualifications to "I currently sit on AUSC" strikes me the wrong way big time. I can't say that I think you are a good fit for the functionary team. Snowolf How can I help? 20:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Snowolf, I would like to clarify that the Arbitration Committee requires Guerillero and the other AUSC members to refrain from using the tools.[1] NW (Talk) 21:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wasn't up to date with that, but I see a "they are permitted to use the tools in order to develop a sufficient skill level to adequately assess the actions of Checkusers and Oversighters, and may assist in addressing time-sensitive situations, or serious backlogs." clause in the motion. I have stricken the relevant portion in my initial comment. Snowolf How can I help? 21:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Already on AUSC, so definitely trustworthy enough. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose - User is hotheaded and immature. Frequently acts rashly. I don't even think they should be an admin let alone have access to this. Kumioko (talk) 02:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you please provide supporting evidence for your statements? NW (Talk) 14:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes but I am not going to turn this into a long drawn out debate because one of the Arbs want to protect one of the Arbitration clerks. I voted how I felt and I'm not going to turn this into a circus just so one user can try and prove me wrong. Besides that, its not that hard to prove. Just look through his contributions and look at the comments he makes to other users. Kumioko (talk) 14:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, the main characteristic for an OSer is trust, and Guerillero has my trust. --Rschen7754 04:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)h[reply]
  • Support As per Rschen7754.User is trustworthy and experienced as a OTRS Response team member ,arbclerk and is a member of AUSC and currently holds Checkuser and Oversight which the user will hold atleast till 30 June 2014 when his term in AUSC ends.Hence feel Oversight permission can be extended beyond July 1st 2014.Further the user among the admins who are willing to handle Revision deletions and some of them may need to be oversighted.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Having worked with this user before, he has my full faith and confidence. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like Guerillero, trust him highly, and recognize his endeavors above and beyond the expected site norms. Unfortunately I hold knowledge of two specific examples where he demonstrated a lackadaisical approach in areas where he was practically obliged to act and therefore can not offer the unwavering support I require of myself in supporting. This however is not an oppose either; it is simply a regrettable inability to support at this time. :) John Cline (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Julia W (OS)

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

Nomination statement
  • Hello, my name is Julie and I've been an administrator on Wikipedia for several years. I'm primarily a content writer and photographer on Wikipedia and Commons and pride myself on being a calm and reserved editor with a great deal of patience and passion for the Wikimedia projects. I won't often be found commenting on any noticeboards dealing with internal conflicts but I lurk and am quietly familiar with all of the necessary policies. I was encouraged to apply for Oversight permissions by other users, and I consider myself a good candidate due to my consistent good history with all of the projects, my professional and friendly manner, and my real-life appreciation of confidentiality as part of my work. I believe Oversight is an important and quiet way I can serve the community and use my good judgement for the benefit of the project.
Standard questions for all candidates
  1. Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
    I've been an admin for four years, though my usage of the tool has mainly been for history merges. I'm familiar with the community and policies and have used revdel a handful of times.
  2. Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.
    I'm entrusted with a great deal of private information as part of my work in a medical laboratory and am well-accustomed to the principles of discretion and confidentiality.
  3. Do you hold advanced permissions (checkuser, oversight, bureaucrat, steward) on this or other WMF projects? If so, please list them. Also, do you have OTRS permissions? If so, to which queues?
    No. I've been considering becoming involved with a couple of queues for some time though. Julia\talk 16:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for this candidate
  • One of the most common situations that oversighters deal with is "self-outing by an apparent minor." Other than cases where the user openly states their age, how would you determine if this criterion was applicable to a suppression request? Beeblebrox (talk) 17:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously we can't act on such requests based on what may be considered immature or childish behaviour. But there are opportunities for minors who are editors to make their age group known without explicitly stating an age; such as, "I hate homework" user boxes, or stating that they attend secondary school, or complaining about being grounded by their parents. Such things may provide sufficient evidence to make suppression a wise choice—considering that the safety of a minor is what's at stake. One can always undo it if it turns out to be unnecessary. In such borderline cases I'd defer to the judgement of more experienced oversighters until I felt I had ample familiarity with the tool to make the decision myself. Julia\talk 20:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A page has edits oversighted for whatever reason. Later, an editor in good standing asks you for diffs regarding a discussion that was ongoing and parts of which were caught in the Oversight (by virtue of the tool). How do you respond? ~Charmlet -talk- 23:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC) Minor copyedit - removed part that somehow got copied in from the document I prepared these questions in ~Charmlet -talk- 00:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't completely understand your question the way you've worded it. It's not clear whether this hypothetical editor is asking for content directly related to the oversighted discussion, or another tangent/thread/section that happened to be deleted because of the way the oversight tool works. In either case, the answer is not described in policy, with good reason being that it would absolutely depend on the individual case. I'm pretty sure that it would be okay to say no the request, and not necessarily have to give a reason why, but if the content being requested is genuinely not related to the oversighted material, and represents some degree of time and/or effort and/or originality on the part of the requesting editor, I see no reason why it can't be provided. In this regard it perhaps is not dissimilar to providing a deleted article to a creator in his/her user space—which is widely done provided there is no particularly objectionable content. Without knowing what general rule is held by oversighters already, I would say in addition that the material should be restored openly on wiki and the requesting editor only gets what he himself has written. If that turns out to be overkill I can be corrected. Julia\talk 21:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at your recent monthly edit counts, you don't seem to have a lot of edits - do you think that you will be able to be active enough to be an effective oversighter? --Rschen7754 01:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. My recent low levels of editing have a few different explanations. One is that I've spent some time on other projects, such as Commons. The other is that my real life situation for the past half a year has been hectic—work overtime, race training, travelling, exams, moving, and personal relationship obligations. And that will continue for about another month, as I'm moving again in a few days and will be relying on terrible capped mobile internet for three weeks while I wait for a phone line to be 'activated' in my new flat. After that, though, I will have more free time. The third thing is that I've never really done anything on Wikipedia that rakes in the edit count. The history merges that I do, for example, take a long time and can be difficult, but for each one I get maybe one or two actual edits, and the rest is deleting, restoring, and pondering what the best solution is for each case. I'm around a lot more than my edit count suggests and, as I said, will be more free in the near future. Julia\talk 07:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Comments may also be submitted to the Arbitration Committee privately by emailing arbcom-en-c@lists.wikimedia.org. Please note that the candidate will be provided the opportunity to respond to a paraphrased version of any emailed comments; the sender's name will not be provided.
  • Support - Yet another intelligent, reasonable editor. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scrolling through the applicants here, I was going to say that I was shocked at running into a long-term, quality editor that I'd somehow never run into. Then I discovered that you changed your username. Anyway, I think Julia is a fine editor whose temperament and edit history jive well with the oversight permission. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I'll admit that the inactivity does bother me a little bit, as we really don't need more inactive oversighters, but there's a reasonable explanation, and I have no reason to think that she would misuse OS. --Rschen7754 04:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support everything I've seen from Julia is competent, calm, and trustworthy. --99of9 (talk) 13:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ks0stm (OS)

Ks0stm (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Nomination statement
  • I'll start this out with a dose of reality: I realize I am probably far from the most experienced candidate offering themselves up for CheckUser and Oversight. I am applying for CheckUser and Oversight mostly because there are a few specific areas where I feel I could be of use. First, I am active on IRC. There are occasions when requests made in the #wikipedia-en-revdel connect channel are more appropriate for oversight than RevDel, and the channel could always use more members with Oversight permissions. For similar reasons I am applying for CheckUser; while I am far from the most experienced in the area, I do have a limited amount of SPI experience and would be able to be active in the #wikipedia-en-admins connect and #wikimedia-checkuser connect channels. I also am an OTRS volunteer (permissions and info-en (f) queues), and could offer assistance there as needed.
Standard questions for all candidates
  1. Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
    As an administrator I have worked with the revision deletion tool. I also have experience dealing with sensitive information through my role as an OTRS agent. --Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 16:57, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.
    I do not believe that I have any off-wiki experience that is directly relevant to the role of oversighter. --Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 16:57, 3 August 2013 (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?
    I have OTRS access to the info-en(f) and permissions queues. I hold no advanced permissions on any WMF project. --Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 16:57, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for this candidate
  • Since you've worked with revision deletion, where is the line between vandalism that can just be reverted, "purely disruptiv material" that can be revdeleted, and libel that must be suppressed? Beeblebrox (talk) 17:20, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • While noting that each instance should be judged on a case by case basis, I would best describe the lines as revision deletion as "purely disruptive material" being for particularly malicious vandalism or harrassment of editors (the revdel policy sums it up better than I can), while libel that must be suppressed as being egregious violations of the BLP policy, whether the living person is an editor, subject of an article, or otherwise. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 18:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Comments may also be submitted to the Arbitration Committee privately by emailing arbcom-en-c@lists.wikimedia.org. Please note that the candidate will be provided the opportunity to respond to a paraphrased version of any emailed comments; the sender's name will not be provided.
  • Support - I can see this user being a decent oversighter. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support sensible user, don't have any concerns. --Rschen7754 04:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Trustworthy and the User is a OTRS Response team member ,arbclerk and the user is among the admins who are willing to handle Revision deletions some of which may need to be oversighted.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:14, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as he is ready for this responsibility.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LFaraone (OS)

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

Nomination statement
  • Hi there. I'm an administrator on the English Wikipedia and a member of the Volunteer Response Team. On-wiki, I generally work in process areas such as WP:AfD and other administrative backlogs. In OTRS, I help answer queries from subjects and others about Wikipedia, and assist them when applicable in ensuring that content on Wikipedia is compliant with relevant policies. I also help process the permissions queues on Wikimedia Commons, where license grants are validated and the rights to use images confirmed. Outside Wikipedia, I'm a member of Debian's FTP team, where we assess new software programs entering Debian for legality and policy correctness. Professionally, I am a software engineer, and help manage the operations of a small technology company. I believe my experience with handling sensitive matters via OTRS as well as my work elsewhere in legal compliance would make me an effective user of the Oversight permission.
Standard questions for all candidates
  1. Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
    I am familiar with the relevant policies, and have used administrative revision deletion in the past for both items to be hidden prior to oversight as well as for items that meet our criteria for redaction without requiring full Oversight.
  2. Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.
    I work for a network communications company where one of our focuses is managing access to information and allowing for revisions to the same.
  3. Do you hold advanced permissions (checkuser, oversight, bureaucrat, steward) on this or other WMF projects? If so, please list them. Also, do you have OTRS permissions? If so, to which queues?
    I am very active in OTRS, specifically info-en (f). I occasionally process the permissions-commons queue. I often handle sensitive tickets at the request of the WMF community team and others.
Questions for this candidate
  • We sometimes must strike a delicate balance between the project's interest and the interest of article subjects, who sometimes directly contact the suppression team. How would you evaluate a request that apprears to be from an article subject, requesting that certain negative details be removed from the article about them? Beeblebrox (talk) 17:25, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't remove content simply because it is negative, and even if it is unsourced or untrue we generally do not redact it from history. Administrative revision deletion of blatantly libellous content is reasonable, but oversighting (hiding it from other administrators) is generally unwarranted. LFaraone 23:09, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • LFaraone, could you go into more detail about where the line lies between revdelete and oversight? Your answer as you wrote it actually contradicts current policy, in that libelous information should be oversighted, not revdeleted, so I'm wondering if something got lost in translation between your mind and the screen here. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • From my reading of WP:OS#Policy, "consideration should be given to whether administrative revision deletion is an adequate response" to the bottom four OS criteria. However, I suspect that it is better to err on the side of caution and that the policy's leeway is intended to give flexibility to oversighters. LFaraone 15:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In what cases, if any, is it appropriate to release information/summaries of diffs that had been oversighted? To who? ~Charmlet -talk- 23:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would probably err on the side of caution, and not release such information unless approved by ArbCom. Some vague context may be permissible, however, like saying that "this user contributed content that was blatantly inappropriate (which met criteria 4 or 5)" when doing so does not compromise privacy. LFaraone 04:15, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Comments may also be submitted to the Arbitration Committee privately by emailing arbcom-en-c@lists.wikimedia.org. Please note that the candidate will be provided the opportunity to respond to a paraphrased version of any emailed comments; the sender's name will not be provided.
  • In my interactions with LFaraone, I've always noticed a marked willingness to learn and tread carefully, which is a very good trait in a functionary in my opinion. He is a very dedicated OTRS responder despite being relatively new to the team. I think he would most likely make a fine addition to the OS team. Snowolf How can I help? 16:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll admit I was a bit puzzled by the response to Fluffernutter's question, but overall I have a good impression of LFaraone from OTRS where he has handled sensitive matters well. --Rschen7754 16:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Imo, that comes mainly from the policy being a bit silly, we don't revdel libel despite the policy apparently inviting to consider whether it best to do so. Snowolf How can I help? 20:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support: Enough so that this is the only candidate I choose to comment on. Keegan (talk) 23:07, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • LFaraone is one of the users I am not sufficiently knowledgeable of to support or oppose; that being the reason for all of the candidates where I did not comment. Nevertheless I can not withhold mention of my tremendous respect for Keegan, nor the significant weight of his comment above. I can nearly support because of my confident knowledge of him, except that doing so would undermine my expectations of self. Nevertheless, his is a significant endorsement and I feel confident that his credibility is well known. LFaraone did just gain a new page watcher as he is clearly one worthy of knowing. :) John Cline (talk) 16:09, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/CheckUser_and_Oversight/2013_CUOS_appointments/OS&oldid=1136115675"