Shortcut

The Committee has appointed the new intake of Checkusers and Oversighters. Thank you to everybody who participated.

The current time and date is 18:25, 8 April 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.

Current demand for users with regional knowledge

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 (including some understanding of [or willingness to learn about] IPv6), sockpuppet investigation tools and techniques, and willing to help at account creation assistance. While not a requirement, previous experience with the Volunteer Response Team (OTRS) is beneficial for Oversight candidates.

Applicants must also be:

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.

Results (30 August 2013)[edit]

The following was announced today on the Committee noticeboard:

Following the 2013 CU/OS appointments process, the Arbitration Committee is appointing four (4) editors to the CheckUser team and seven (7) editors to the Oversight team (pursuant to the CU/OS appointment procedures).

Once they have satisfactorily identified to the Wikimedia Foundation, the Arbitration Committee hereby:

(a) appoints the following editors as CheckUsers:

(b) appoints the following editors as Oversighters:

† This editor is a community member of the Audit Subcommittee, who will retain the specified permission once their subcommittee term ends.

The committee sincerely thanks the other candidates who applied but who on this occasion were unsuccessful and also the community members who participated for their assistance.

The full announcement and other information is at the previously-linked section of the Noticeboard. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 00:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Appointment process[edit]

Dates are provisional and subject to change

Candidates[edit]

To comment on candidates, please use section edit buttons below

CheckUser

Ks0stm (CU)

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

Nomination statement
Standard questions for all candidates
  1. Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
    I have filed a some SPIs in the past (but am by no means a regular filer...I just don't come across socks all that often) and am familiar with behavioral evidence as it relates to sockpuppetry. --Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 16:44, 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 have a general knowledge of the way IP addresses work, but otherwise not a whole lot. I am willing to learn the ropes of the checkuser function and do the research necessary to bring my knowledge of user agents and other technical details up before diving in head first. --Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 16:44, 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) 16:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for this candidate
  • I believe the best way to describe it is that you need probable cause to perform a checkuser; in other words, there has to be some evidence that some sort of abusive sockpuppetry is going on before performing a checkuser. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 18:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Not on my own, by any means. As a new checkuser I would not feel comfortable handling such a prolific case on my own. I would be more than happy to assist another checkuser on the case, however.
  2. I don't see that a CheckUser is necessary in this case.
  3. Yes, I would run a check on this case. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 03:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm of the camp that it is very rarely be necessary to publicly release the IP address(es) of a user, so personally my bar would be very high. I feel the only time it would be necessary is for an abuse response case. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 03:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why am I checkusering this? "Behavioral...evidence makes you think that they may not be the same person" does not sound inviting of a checkuser. Assuming for answering's sake that I did a checkuser and found such evidence, I would mark it with  Inconclusive or  Unlikely (depending on my level of confidence that they are not related) and leave the closing to a clerk/patrolling admin. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 03:43, 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.

LFaraone (CU)

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

Nomination statement
Standard questions for all candidates

Some of the below is a repetition of the above. LFaraone 23:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
    I've made WP:SPI reports when it seemed relevant, and am used to handling abuse cases. I am particularly active in WP:AfD, where sockpuppeting or meatpuppetry is common.
  2. Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.
    In addition to my primary employment, I work for a university IT organisation assisting with residential networking, IP assignments, and campus IT policy compliance.
  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?
    info-en (f), permissions (f). I have processed applications via UTRS before.
Questions for this candidate
  • We shouldn't use CheckUser unless we have a reason to think abuse is occurring; it shouldn't be used without clear indications that two accounts are possibly linked. LFaraone 23:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The evidence in №1 is very weak, and №2 is even weaker: there appears to be no attempt to avoid scrutiny. In №3 however, the evidence is more clear that block evading is going on, and I would perform a check in that case. I'm pretty sure that Ottoniel110 is WP:QUACK, but the others might benefit from additional checking. LFaraone 14:57, 13 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.

Materialscientist (CU)

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

Nomination statement
Standard questions for all candidates
  1. Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
    I daily interpret ISP-related data and issue proxy blocks and rangeblocks. I have some knowledge of XFF, rDNS, IPv6, rangeblocks, autoblocks, Tors, proxy tunnels, how to verify an open proxy, and where to look for possible entry and exit ports. I set up and regularly monitor some edit filters (most importantly No. 464). Materialscientist (talk) 10:01, 4 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 performed the duties of system administrator in my research group (of ca. 20 people) between 2000 and 2005. Materialscientist (talk) 10:01, 4 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?
    No advanced or OTRS permissions. Materialscientist (talk) 10:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for this candidate
Those who come to my talk seeking to lift my block know that I am rather liberal in this regard. Given my frequency of blocks, such requests are very rare, and such requests from ACC people are extremely rare. We all make mistakes, and I always welcome feedback. There are simple answers to your concerns above, but all would be speculative without details. If you provide them, I'll gladly explain every individual case. Materialscientist (talk) 13:51, 9 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.

NativeForeigner (CU)

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

Nomination statement
Standard questions for all candidates
  1. Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
    I have been heavily involved at SPI as a clerk, and have worked with numerous checkusers. NativeForeigner Talk 22:16, 4 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 provide IT Services and have a strong background in CIDR and IPv4. I also work with an institution that is starting to try and roll out IPv6, and I have a good fundamental understanding of IPv6. NativeForeigner Talk 22:16, 4 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 do not hold any advanced permissions on any WMF projects. I do have OTRS permissions on the info-en (l) and permissions queues. NativeForeigner Talk 22:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for this candidate
  • Definitely. It's not my main focus right now but I've seen the backlog listed at SPI for some time now, and it's something I'd be willing to learn and participate in should I receive CheckUser. NativeForeigner Talk 08:53, 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.

Reaper Eternal (CU)

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

Nomination statement
Standard questions for all candidates
  1. Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
    I'm an active SPI clerk and active in the request-an-account process. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:02, 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 am an engineering intern student at the University of Cincinnati. I am familiar with programming, since that is my full-time job, and I develop software, like IRC bots, on my own time. Some of the programs I have written are networked, which requires a fundamental understanding of TCP/UDP/ICMP. (And yes, I know ICMP isn't a data transport technology like the other two; it's used to relay error messages and other queries.) I am familiar with the basics of IPv4 and IPv6 addressing largely through my own personal research into the topic, since I'm not in an IT degree. In short, I believe I have sufficient knowledge gained through personal research and testing and sufficient "real-world" experience gained through my full-time job for this task. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:02, 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?
    No and no. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:02, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for this candidate
About the only thing that could prompt me to actually publicly release the IP information would be extreme abuse on the level of Morning277, who (plural; "he" is a group of paid sockpuppeteers) regularly abuses both accounts and IPs, including webhosts, to add promotional content to Wikipedia.
Of course, some abusive users' IPs are inadvertently released by checkusers placing IP blocks. Anybody can see a checkuser noting  IP blocked on an SPI case and look at the block log. If a random IP receives a ((checkuserblock)) around the same time, it's a good indication to others that the accounts and IP were related. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me to answer with a question of my own: Why would I be checking these users in the first place? If Justanothereditor publicly claimed an IP editor to be himself, then no violation of the sockpuppetry policy has occurred, and there would be no need for checkuser in any event. If behavioral evidence does not link Sock and Justanothereditor, then I would also never be checking.
If, by fluke, I happened to notice the shared IP (for example, I might be checking a range to investigate the damage of a hard rangeblock), I would still do nothing since no evidence of sockpuppetry has been provided.
Even if they were the same editor, editing with two different accounts in different areas of Wikipedia is not a violation of WP:ILLEGIT.
Thus, if this were an SPI case, I would close it as "no evidence of abusive sockpuppetry provided". I've done that several times already, even not being a checkuser. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:12, 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.
 Comment: I fully understand your point, still I beg to note that the role of a CheckUser does not really require any dispute resolution and diplomacy skills ;) kashmiri TALK 20:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) "he made numerous personal attacks" Uh, no. I really only made one insult ("fuck you"), which I later redacted and apologized for. Russavia's actions were blatant trolling of Jimbo Wales, so calling him out on it ("obvious trolling is obvious") isn't a personal attack. Saying that he disgusts me for those action, while rude, is also not a personal attack. I don't see how one episode of losing my cool against a person who was abusing commons to grossly attack another person demonstrates a pattern of personal attacks. "My observations of his interactions on IRC suggest that he might repeat this in the future." Any evidence of this? "I cannot support trusting him with my private information." So I'm untrustworthy? I work with the military.... Anyway, I wouldn't be checking you since I consider myself involved with respect to you following my strong opposition to your RFA. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If getting along well with Russavia is a requirement for functionary status, we'll have very few qualified candidates... Mark Arsten (talk) 21:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You should be able to get along with any user if you're a functionary. Whether these are real PAs or not, I consider them wholly below the standards I have for functionaries. I believe Reaper's comment here is rather impatient, but this is based only on my gut feeling about his comments (on IRC and on-wiki). It's not a pattern, but to me it's the most obvious example of my gut feeling that he lacks patience (the RfA oppose is one example, in my opinion, but he's free to express his own opinions).
I won't go into the details because I know they would really frustrate him. But, I see no reason to ever show that Reaper lost his cool on-wiki like on Commons, however bad he thinks the other user is acting. You should know better than to call an established user a troll in such a manner, even if you might be right, when that's not the overall opinion of the local community. If you did this when you had CheckUser access, think of how that reflects on our community as a whole. I will retract this opposition if Reaper promises that this kind of outburst will never ever happen again, regardless of how contentious a situation is.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry Jasper, but some of the comments Russavia made were blatant trolling. As Mark says, if this is how high your bar for functionary status is (perfection times 2), we'd have nobody with the permissions at all. ~Charmlet -talk- 03:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While I very much support strong civility enforcement, I can't say that I'm troubled by the comments. I'm pretty sure no such comments will ever be made by RE on this project, the functionaries mailing list, the CU mailing list or the CU irc channel, and so I'm much more interested in getting what is likely to be an excellent checkuser (and imo the most qualified candidate here) than discuss some heated discussions related to the Pricasso nonsense over on commons. That is obviously only my personal opinion, and Jasper is entitled to his, and Arbcom listens and reads all :) Snowolf How can I help? 20:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would however suggest that nowhere we've ever decided that somebody in the militar'y makes them inherently trustworthy, and I fail to see the relevance on that here (in the reply to Jasper). Likewise, I would suggest that this section is comments and not a vote, and there's no need to write "strong oppose" or "support", as what I would assume Arbcom is mostly looking for is actual information and opinions about the candidates. I would think it might be worth considering this as a way to lower temperature :) We're all just feeding opinions to the Arbs to work on :) Snowolf How can I help? 20:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that working for the military makes me trustworthy. I'm saying that I'm already entrusted with sensitive information and am familiar with working with it. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that mostly irrelevant tho? We've had people that apparently are entrusted with sensitive information IRL leak stuff before, and we've had people make claims about their RL occupations that turned out to be slightly exaggerated before. On-wiki behavior is, imo, the best indicator of on-wiki behavior. Snowolf How can I help? 12:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Drive-by comments, tangentially related) I think it's quite common for English Wikipedia admins to make a bit of a faux pas when they go to other wikis - I know I did back in 2009 on the English Wikinews. It's a problem that needs to be solved, but obviously that's not something to be discussed here. That being said, the ability to work with CUs from other wikis, especially Commons, is necessary as I know the CUs from here do have to ask favors from them. Focusing on the presence of this particular ability seems more useful to me, in my opinion. --Rschen7754 04:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a clear seems to me to be a revenge !vote from Jasper for Reaper torpedoing his RfA back in March. Like Reaper has already pointed out, I don't see how one entirely justified outburst on a different wiki is indicative of a pattern of problems here. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 10:16, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How is it a clear revenge vote? Jasper has raised serious issues, whether we disagree with his view or not is another matter, and there are some who take civility very seriously. Please withdraw this uncalled for assumption of bad faith on Jasper's motivation. Snowolf How can I help? 22:31, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just calling it how I see it Snowolf, we're all entitled to an opinion. However, in light of your concerns, I have adjusted my comment to more overtly reflect the fact that it is merely my own observation. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 14:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Concur w/ Basalisk. (Reaper's critique of Jasper was pretty stinging at that RfA, I'm sure it wasn't easy to forget! The "Strong oppose" here screams attempted retaliation.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any evidence to back this up? I can provide many examples (those just from today) of me showing good faith. As regards "rush[ing] to adverse judgement", I don't have a clue what you mean. Very rarely has my judgement even been questioned. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:38, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rschen7754 (CU)

Rschen7754 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Nomination statement

Note: I will be on vacation from August 6 through 13, and while I will make every effort to reply to questions promptly, there may be delays. --Rschen7754 17:16, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Standard questions for all candidates
  1. Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
    I have been a SPI clerk since January 2013, and a full clerk since March. I have had very few clerk endorsements overturned out of the many that I have endorsed, and feel that I have a good grasp on when checks should be run. I am also very familiar with crosswiki issues and policies, as a member of the Small Wikis Monitoring Team and as an admin on Meta, Wikidata, and the English Wikivoyage. I have a working relationship with many of the active stewards and English Wikipedia CUs, and I have also filed requests for CU on Commons, Meta, Wikidata, and the English Wikivoyage which were subsequently run by either local CUs or stewards.
  2. Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.
    I am a graduate student in computer science, and have taken networking classes - I'm definitely not an expert, but I understand the basics of IPv4 and IPv6, including rangeblocks, open proxies, shared VPS, etc.
  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 info-en (f), permissions, photosubmissions (f), and sister projects (f).
    I am a bureaucrat on Outreach Wiki (outreach.wikimedia.org) because I kept asking Ktr101 to give trusted users such as stewards and global sysops userrights, and he gave me the bureaucrat right in July 2013. All flags there are given on an ad-hoc basis, reflecting one's global record. [1]
    I am an oversighter (in name only) on Wikidata (d:Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Oversight/Rschen7754) as of May 2013. Following a rash of suppressions, a portion of the Wikidata community decided to elect oversighters. The global oversight policy requires a minimum of 25 supports, and mandates that either 2+ oversighters or no oversighters at all are given the oversight flag on a wiki, so that one can audit the other's actions. However, while I passed with 36 supports and 100% support/oppose ratio, none of the other 6 candidates passed - the next highest candidates got 20 supports (Sven Manguard and Courcelles). Nobody else has been brave enough to run (again), especially since the month after that, there were much fewer suppressions. I will be granted the rights upon election of a second oversighter, whenever that is. --Rschen7754 18:27, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for this candidate
  • Yes. I was sanctioned in Highways (July 2006) with probation, which was subsequently lifted in March 2007. --Rschen7754 19:39, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sanction was over seven years ago, when I had been editing for just over a year. At that time I was a lot less mature, onwiki and in real life, and I would not handle things the same way again. As for the case itself, I doubt that giving probation to all of the principal parties was the best solution (as some arbitrators had expressed in the voting for the proposed decision), but I accept that simply moving the hundreds of pages back after they had been moved already was just as disruptive as the initial moves done without consensus in the first place, and I know how to handle such disputes more effectively and diplomatically now. Finally, I believe that I have shown professionalism and trustworthiness in the additional responsibilities that I have acquired since then, including OTRS, SPI clerk, and adminship on other wikis. --Rschen7754 19:39, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I know some CUs use a more relaxed standard, I fall into the camp of making efforts to protect editors from having their IP addresses released, even though the privacy policy does permit it in certain circumstances. There's direct release of this information (posting explicitly on, say, a SPI that User = IP address) and indirect release of this information (the same CU hardblocking an IP after blocking the associated named account). Direct release is almost never acceptable, and indirect release should be avoided whenever possible. However, in certain circumstances, that may have to be done to stop serious abuse from occurring (in complexity, like the Morning277 case noted by ReaperEternal, or time-sensitive matters where a rangeblock needs to be done against an IP-hopping determined vandal), and is allowed by the wmf:Privacy policy. I don't believe that the use of open proxies needs to be hidden, and neither do shared VPS serverfarms; also, spambots are not people and the IP addresses are usually zombie computers / open proxies / shared VPS anyway. I have proposed a similar philosophy at d:Wikidata:Requests for comment/Defining CheckUser#Disclosure for the Wikidata project, even though we will not be having local CheckUsers anytime soon. Also for the record, note Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 7#Checkuser practice regarding the association of IP addresses to accounts. --Rschen7754 01:05, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, with the exception of cases that are pretty clear-cut, CUs generally do not close cases; they get left to a clerk to handle, so that there's another set of eyes looking at the behavioral evidence again. And the basis for doing a CU in this case is questionable at best, with no evidence of multiple accounts. But if you're asking about a scenario where it is found that two editors share an IP yet are quite distinct... in this case there would be no grounds to publicly disclose a connection. --Rschen7754 01:28, 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.
  • Could you please provide supporting evidence for your statement? NW (Talk) 14:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, I am not going to turn this into a circus because I dared to oppose. It doesn't look like its going to matter anyway judging by the other support votes. Kumioko (talk) 14:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no opposes or supports here, it's not a vote. It's commenting for the benefit of Arbcom which will then review the comments and take them into account in the decisions, so either you're interested in that, or it's pointless to make a statement and then when arbcom is trying to take it into account refuse to offer diffs to help them do that.... Snowolf How can I help? 16:46, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noted and I understand that. As I noted on NW's talk page offline from this discussion, I do not have any faith that my comments would be used or taken seriously anyway and I believe this "election" is just more or less a show for the sake of it. Additially, my oppose, for whatever reason I gave should be given just as much weight as the Support's because he's a good guy! If your not looking for further clarification of why people are supporting these candidates then frankly all this argumentation and badgering for my oppose is inappropriate. Me and this user both, mutually, feel the other is ill-suited to certain tasks. I voted here and I expect if I run for something this editor will vote their conscience in my election. You and the other Arb's do not have to like it or even acknoledge it. You don't even have to consider it. But I do not feel this user should have the tools. I should not need to spend the next 3 months writing an arbitration brief because of my lack of confidence in this editor. Kumioko (talk) 17:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everyone will review the comments here before casting their final votes on appointments. What would be useful is not an 'arbitration brief', what would be highly useful is a few diffs that provide evidence of the candidate acting "rashly and innaproprately towards other editors". That statement won't persuade anyone to oppose an appointment, but a few clear diffs very easily could. Evidence-less comments on either side are not particularly useful. Courcelles 15:58, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the Arbcom is just going to hound opposers for justification and just let supporters give their opinions then there is no point in bothering to oppose. Do whatever you want with my comments. So far it seems like their minds are already pretty much made up anyway. Kumioko (talk) 16:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have been asked three times to explain your opposition, and have had it explained two times why a simple yes or no vote is useless to us. Bearing that in mind, your understanding of what it "seems like" is laughable. AGK [•] 21:46, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AGK, I am going to stray a little ways from civil here and tell you that these days, Arbcom is laughable to about 90% of the community that knows what Arbcom is and what it does. It has gone so far off its mandate its unrecognizable. Arbcom is a joke, so if you feel that my comments about my lack of confidence and trust in this admin is laughabe, then that's completely up to you. As I said above, this process of screening candidates is basically a joke and you and I both know that the Arbcom has all but made up their minds which candidates are going to be selected. This process is just a front and the Arbcom is nothing more than a kangaroo court. So since you have posted your feelings and I have posted mine. I don't care if every other editor trusts him or if Arbcom thinks he is a shoe in. I do not trust him to have access to the information he will have access too and I think he will abuse it due to the wide latitude and discretion given to those who have access to this tools set. Since you and your pals insist on pressing the matter here: Ever since Rschen began editing he has had problems. Starting way way back when they first started editing in 2006. It is represented in his affiliations with the US roads project and it continues on through to today. I'm not going to document every single instance but will point out some in the beginning and some in more recent times to show a pattern of misconduct that has followed the user. Since Rschen is an admin, that status offers him significant protection from prosecution.

He got off to a rough start in 2006
  1. 19 March 2006 - User blocked for 24 hours for violating 3RR
  2. July 2006 - User was sanctioned by the Arbcom. That sanction was lifted in March 2007. This has particular importance because he continues to affiliate with US roads to this day and that project has a long and sordid history. Several of the Arbcom members are aware of this and you all can discuss that projects issues amongst yourselves.
  3. August 2006 - Blocked for making disruptive edits
  4. 2006 - More of the same here.
  5. Etc. etc all the way through to the current day.
General
  1. I have myself been the target of his comments.
  2. User started and is closely affiliated to WikiProject U.S. Roads. A WikiProject widely known to act aggressively to non members of the project who work or try and do anything with or too articles in that project.
  3. He has been brought to AN/ANI/3RR and other venues multiple times. Some have been pointless bickering by vandals and the like but several had merit. They were dismissed as warnings or someone felt the need to justify his actions because he was an "admin". You can look through his talk page, through his congtributions, look through his actions on the sister wikis, etc.

Now there is a lot more than that, but as I stated before I believe the Arbcom already has their mind made up so I am not going to invest a bunch of extra time to research and do the Arbcom's job of due diligence knowing they don't care about my opinions. Especially when I don't have access to the Admin tools to do the job properly because I am not allowed to help the project and knuckleheads like Rschen are. So, if you want to find out if the candidate is worth their salt, you have access to all the tools and can see way more than I can. So you'll excuse me if I am less than impressed with your stupid insults and badgering of my oppose. Especially when you allow all the supports to stand without so much as a single clarifying question. Now you can go ahead and make insinuations, dismiss my comments, justify why they are a good candidate and promote them as you already intended to do. Same as Guerrillo. Kumioko (talk) 22:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I discussed the Highways ArbCom case with ArbCom in my application and disclosed it in my nomination above. I have been open with the Arbitration Committee about my editing history, even past what I believe they would have found on their own, considering that I became an admin long before some of them started editing at all. Finally, all you have done is prove that I had problems in 2006, which I freely admit. --Rschen7754 21:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And if Arbcom overlooks it then that's on them. But I still don't trust you with these tools and don't think you should have them. Additionally, this isn't all of it, there are still problems with your actions and attitude in the current times. I'm just not going to go digging and wasting my time when I don't beleive that any amount of time, effort or research is going to do anything. As I told the I levied y oppose and all the badgering for my oppose frankly, was complete and utter bullshit from people who should know better and are supposed to be setting the standards. It just proves how far fro grace the current day Arbcom has fallen. Kumioko (talk) 02:24, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because this is not a vote, as you've been told. You are submitting a comment to aid the Arbitration Committee's decisions. If you do not wish to do so, there's no point in commenting here. I add that people on Arbcom might take you more seriously if you provided proofs instead of vaguely pointing in the directions of some stuff in 2006 and implying guilt by association with a wikiproject. I'm sorry, but it all looks very petty, and your repeated and loud assertions that arbcom doesn't care don't justify your refusal to back up your claims. Snowolf How can I help? 09:28, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I know that the promotion lies solely in the hands of the Arbcom and nothing we as editors say matters. And it looks equally if not more petty..and innappropriate that members of Arbcom are only badgering opposition of the user getting the tools. My reasoning is above but her it is again. I do not trust him, I do not think he should have the tools. Rschen is unnecessarily antagonistic in discussions, votes for things like RFA. It obvious the Arbcom is intent on doing anything to strike my oppose and my comments. I'm not going to do it because I have enough moral integrity to vote how I feel not how everyone else feels or how the Arbcom wants to vote. That gives you few options. You can keep badgering me and hope I change my mind, you can block me and remove it using that as the justification or you can simply ignore it and promote him anyway. Kumioko (talk) 13:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"You are stupid and I know something but won't tell you". Sorry, that borders TROLLING, on top of unsubstantiated charges and personal attacks. I strongly recommend EOT. kashmiri TALK 13:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I didn't say they were stupid. Actually I said they were technically proficient...but I don't trust him. This rememinds me of a time in Wikpedia when people were allowed to levy their comment and vote their conscience in venues like this. Now it seems even Arbcom and their supporters bully editors who oppose a candidate getting a higher permission. I miss those old times when not only would Arbcom not do this behavior but if they did their conduct would not only be frowned on, but would be addressed and dealt with. I also did tell them some, but I don't have the admin toolset or the other tools necessary to do the task. Additionally, this user is active in multiple wiki's and IRC which I don't work with much. Add to all that the indications that Arbco not only doesn't care about my comments but seem intent on forcing me to change them. I simply am not willing to waste my time researching and providing more comments when they don't want to hear it. Kumioko (talk) 13:49, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You did not bother being decent enough to offer a single diff to substantiate your claims, instead keep lashing out at the ArbCom and one of the nominees, para after para. If you want to whine about ArbCom, you are in the wrong place: this page is only for discussing the 2013 CU candidacies. So, either give substance to your claims, which will be appreciated, or just stop trolling please. kashmiri TALK 16:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's how things are here in wiki these days I guess. You oppose a user getting access to sensitive information and your called a troll. You didn't even vote here Kashmiri, your the one trolling. Someone should remove everything from your post down. I would do it myself but some might view that as a POV action on my part....and rightly so. Kumioko (talk) 17:22, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have you ever thought, Kumioko, that if multiple users are telling you to stop doing something, including one that hasn't commented here and is thus neutral, that maybe you should just stop? You have given absolutely no evidence to support your claims except for pointing out some stuff seven years ago that the candidate already pointed out himself above. Multiple users have told you this, yet you refuse to support your claims any further. TCN7JM 20:49, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's because I do not have ay faith or believe that if I spent my time doing it, that it would matter anyway I did the above because frankly it was extremely easy to find. Its obvious. Its so obvious that if I dig, or anyone digs, then they are going to find stuff. Im sorry I am not willing to spend my time digging up information on a user I don't trust because the Arbcom and a few of that editors fan club feels like hounding me and harrassing me for opposing. I don't really care if 50 or 100 editors tell me my opinion doesn't count. I don't trust him and I wanted to voice that. I don't care if Arbcom or anyone else listens or even agrees but that is how I feel. You and the others may not like or care about my opinion but one thing no one can see is that I didn't take time or care about the issue enough to levy n opinion. If someone wants to oppose they should have the same right to do so as the supporters without being hounded and harassed. If you guys don't want any opposes then remove them, but I am not going to do it because I do not feel he is suited for this task. No matter how experienced he is or how much he does SPI. Now for all here I am done arguing about this here. If you want to drop a note on my talk page and discuss it there that's fine but this hounding, trolling and harassment here have gone on too long already and I am stopping it right now. Kumioko (talk) 23:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll select a different example. In March, Rschen was involved in a dispute at WP:DRN. After Mark Miller (talk · contribs) reverted his comments ([2]), Rschen reverted them back ([3]), which culminated in Mark warning Rschen that if he continued, formal arbitration would be suggested. ([4], [5]). Rschen took exception to this ([6]) which resulted in a second warning from Mark ([7]). Guy Macon (talk · contribs) subsequently struck some of Rschen's comments ([8]), TransporterMan001 (talk · contribs) called Rschen "a major participant in this dispute" ([9]). Rschen's response was to nominate WP:DRN for deletion ([10], [11]). I'll leave it up to the community to decide whether this behaviour would cause concern for granting him checkuser rights. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah.....I do have to say, that really effected me a great deal in a very negative way. I also know that it had a great deal of effect on DR/N. So much in fact that Steven Zhang has taken steps to restructure DR/N and many changes are hoped to be improvements. But not all of it was received well and there has been a lot of work, some missteps, and DR/N has actually stalled from the entire fiasco. It put editor's reputations in question, it disrupted the board and the community and pitted editors against each other of the reaction of someone who thought they were defending the Wiki but were in fact just Don Quixote tilting at wind mills. I think I understand because I have made mistakes that were insensitive and I believe I have learned from them. My concern is that there was no lesson learned from that situation by Rschen and that perhaps they felt right in their aggressive handling of others who were trying to help them. I think he was hooked and couldn't stop and just kept going...and I understand that as well.
If Rschen can assure the community that he learned something from that situation that would at least lead some of us to know that what he did was wrong and for what reasons or if he thinks he is still right for that situation. I am not going to participate in the !vote as I am not trying to persuade or even judge Rschen here. If he can give a sincere explanation as to anything he comes away with from that experience that will help explain it and satisfy the above query, it would at least be of interest to me.--Mark 09:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"What this noticeboard is not:
It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct."
(Emphasis in original).
In Rschen7754's opening comments[12], he made several comments about user conduct, and a DRN volunteer collapsed his comments with the message "DR/N is not for discussing other editors or editor behavior. Please re-make this opening without discussing individual editors."[13]
Rschen7754 reverted the DRN volunteer[14] The volunteer placed a warning on the case[15][16] and deleted those portions of Rschen7754's comments that violated the DRN guidelines[17] Rschen7754 reverted the volunteer again[18] and was warned again.[19] Rschen7754 then hatted his comments with the message "I decline to participate."
Rschen7754 then nominated the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard for deletion.[20][21]
This concerns me greatly. I believe that in the above actions Rschen7754 has shown that when he disagrees with the rules of a noticeboard, he thinks that means that the rules don't apply to him. Why should we believe that he will treat the rules for using checkuser any differently? I also am concerned that is treatment of me and the other DRN volunteers demonstrates an unwillingness to handle disagreements in a calm, rational manner. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to paste what I wrote in my application about this, as I think it explains this very well.
After a shockingly bad experience following a DRN involving aggressive clerking, editing of my own comments, and refusal for a "volunteer" to recuse due to past negative interactions, and subsequent comments about similar bad experiences on my talkpage (w:en:User talk:Rschen7754/Archive 19#Notice of Dispute resolution discussion), I decided to be BOLD and nominate DRN for MFD (w:en:Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard), taking a page from the 2008-era BAG MFDs (w:en:Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group (3rd nomination)). Following an IRC conversation with Steven Zhang, who made clear that he understood my concerns and would work to make sure that such horrible incidents would not happen again, and Amadscientist's subsequent attempts to reconcile the matter, I dropped the MFD in good faith after only a few hours.
I've thought about this one over the last few months - I don't get the feeling that it was the best that I could have done, and I probably was a bit more confrontational than necessary in my original response, but I'm still not entirely sure what the "best" way to resolve the issue was. If I had known that Steven Zhang would have been so responsive, I might have been able to skip the MFD, but at the time I highly doubted that a RFC would bring sufficient attention to the issues. I'm a person who believes in structure and stability, but I also believe in being fair, and a dispute resolution noticeboard that did not appear to seek to resolve content disputes fairly, and served to get people into additional disputes over the procedures of DRN, was a huge red flag for me. I do tend to go with the flow and not challenge established structure or "rock the boat", but when necessary, I am not afraid to take bold actions and speak up when the "structure" or "way of doing things" is completely wrong.
In the end, some good discussions were held that I do believe led to some improvements, or at least greater care when resolving disputes. Unfortunately, Guy Macon continued to tell his side of the story at w:en:WT:DRN for a few weeks afterward, but I disengaged and went on with work elsewhere. --Rschen7754 13:32, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That does indeed sound like you are saying you were right in you actions and accusations. For example, (regardless that the guideline stated recusal for strong interaction) you state I was in conflict of interest with you and that was the reason I had to recuse myself at your demand. The "conflict" was interaction on my talk page months before over a completely different issue. I didn't remember you, yet you accused me of retaliating over a GA Review I had too many contributions to do, that you commented on.
Sounds exactly as if you are still blaming that entirely on me and taking no responsibility for any of your aggressive actions and simply believe there was something needing to be fixed at all cost. This is Wikipedia...everything can be "fixed" with any perception of flaw. What you did was to force your will in a spectacular display of battle ground mentality tilting at windmills. DR/N has been badly effected by the incident and regardless of the positive improvements made the backlog is getting out of hand and volunteers are few and far between. I guess the demoralizing aspects of your technique with others should probably be addressed at some point.--Mark 20:19, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not what I am saying. My original post on that day was a bit inflammatory; I accept that responsibility full well. What was also inappropriate were the "volunteer"s' responses to that, which included warning me that I would be asked to leave the board. I think that it is troubling to blame me for everything that is happening to DRN; comments like this do not help. But this isn't WT:DRN, so I will leave it at that. Finally, I was not "forcing" anyone to do anything; the community could have rejected that MFD entirely and said I was completely wrong, and nothing would have happened. --Rschen7754 00:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Rschen7754, the above response raises some questions in my mind.
  • You have indicated[22]that you disagree with DRN's "Avoid discussing editor behavior or conduct, just content please" rule,[23] and you chose to violate DRN's rule and used multiple reverts to keep your discussion about user conduct at DRN despite multiple DRN volunteers telling you not to do that. Do you believe that this was correct behavior? Do you believe that the DRN guidelines apply to you?
  • You have indicated[24] that you "don't actually want to see DRN shut down, but if there is no willingness to reform, then it should be shut down", later citing[25] a five-year-old MfD,[26] but the result of that MfD was "Please take concerns to talk page for 'reform'." and "there is no reason to just delete the process", not an endorsement of nominating noticeboards for deletion because you believe that they need "reform". Do you believe that this was correct behavior and conforms with Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion? Was this a good-faith deletion request or was it done to illustrate a point? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:19, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • My explanation was an explanation of why it was a conduct dispute. I do admit that I could have worded that particular post better, but otherwise I don't see any point in rehashing what happened months ago any further. I do need to say that the 2008 BAG MFD was co-nominated by an editor who is now a sitting arbitrator, so it couldn't have been all that bad; furthermore, I believe Wikipedia processes have actually been shut down through MFDs. Finally, I believe that programs that damage the encyclopedia should be shut down if they cannot be fixed. We make efforts to fix new articles before deleting them; why not do that with Wikipedia processes? A dispute resolution process that gets you in another dispute on top of the original is destructive to the encyclopedia. And I am not sure how relevant this is to the CU tool, its use, or the privacy policy. --Rschen7754 00:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My my count, your answers were as follows. Please feel free to correct me if I got any wrong.
Q: Was nominating DRN for deletion correct behavior?
A: Yes.
Q: Was DRN nominated to illustrate a point?
A: Yes. It is correct behavior to nominate DRN for deletion to illustrate a point if the point is "I believe that DRN damages the encyclopedia and cannot be fixed."
Q: Was repeatedly violating DRN's "Avoid discussing editor behavior or conduct, just content please" guideline correct behavior?
A: Yes. Violating DRN guidelines was correct behavior, because explaining why I thought it was a conduct dispute required me to violate DRN guidelines.
Needless to say, I disagree with all of the above.
Correct behavior is to follow guidelines whether you agree with them or not, and to try to change them through consensus if you disagree with them strongly enough. If you had simply followed our consensus policy, we would not be having this conversation.
Correct behavior if you think that a DRN case is a content dispute is to say that in your opening statement without discussing the specific conduct of other editors. Having participated in three DRN cases,[27][28][29] all of this this should be familiar to you.
Correct behavior when multiple DRN volunteers tell you to stop doing something is to stop doing it and discuss why you believe they are wrong on the DRN talk page.
Correct behavior if you believe that DRN or any other page damages the encyclopedia and cannot be fixed is to start by saying exactly that on the article talk page. Even if you are convinced that there is a clear and urgent danger that cannot wait, you should take immediate steps to remove the harmful material, not start a long MfD discussion about removing it.
Nominating an active noticeboard for deletion while freely admitting that you do not wish the noticeboard to be deleted is disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point.
You have given me no reason to believe that you will treat the guidelines for checkuser use any differently than you have treated the DRN guidelines or our consensus policy.
I believe that I have made my point and that further comments by me would be beating a dead horse, so I am going to stop commenting, let you have the last word, and leave this in other, more capable hands. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to add to this that if I believed that the majority of the English Wikipedia CheckUsers were violating the privacy policy, this incident shows that I would speak up and report this to the appropriate venues (AUSC, Ombudsman Commission) rather than just going with the flow. --Rschen7754 13:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That said, I don't see how these character traits could realistically affect his day-to-day work as a CheckUser where an ability to keep calm is – let's admit that – of less importance than certain technical skills and knowledge (like, understanding of IP addressing). That of course with an understanding that Rschen will refrain from using the CU tools at his disposal to his advantage in any content dispute.
Hence, neutral kashmiri TALK 21:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, it was not my intention to belittle anyone; my statement was reflecting the reality that arbitrators cannot go through all of the candidates' contributions, while carrying the normal caseload of an arbitrator. In addition to this, personally I find it disorienting to try and research something that happened before I even started editing, and I am sure that arbitrators, as well as any other editor, would find it difficult too. --Rschen7754 00:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It isn't about the battleground mentality. It is about the willful violation of Wikipedia guidelines and the question of whether he will treat the checkuser guidelines the same way. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if I plead guilty to the charges (which I am definitely not), there's a huge difference between DRN guidelines and the m:CheckUser policy and wmf:Privacy policy, which all Wikimedia projects are bound by, and which I will already be bound by (along with the m:Oversight policy) when I assume my status as a Wikidata oversighter. I have never violated SPI guidelines in my role as a SPI clerk; if I made a habit of it, I would have been quickly removed as a trainee clerk. --Rschen7754 04:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are no charges. This is what happened and I made my comments and I really am neutral about you getting Check User. I disagree with Guy only in that, on top of what he says, you do have a battleground mentality and you do get hooked and you can't let go. Heck...maybe that's good for check user. Personally, I think you would use it in some unique way to push the envelope. I think you have in no way explained why you latched onto DR/N over a dispute you were involved with. I don't think you are disinterested. I think you take things very personally, go too far and have no true perspective of your actions. But that is just my opinion.--Mark 05:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is a bit dismissive. I hold no grudge. I was pinged to this discussion and will not !vote one way or another. I have sad my piece and am finished.--Mark 08:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oversight

DoRD (OS)

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

Nomination statement
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]
  • 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.

Elockid (OS)

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

Nomination statement
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
  • 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.

GorillaWarfare (OS)

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

Nomination statement
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
  • 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.

Guerillero (OS)

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

Nomination statement
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
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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.
  • 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]

Julia W (OS)

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

Nomination statement
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
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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.

Ks0stm (OS)

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

Nomination statement
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
  • 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.

LFaraone (OS)

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

Nomination statement
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 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]
  • 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.

Results[edit]

Following the 2013 CU/OS appointments process, the Arbitration Committee is appointing four (4) editors to the CheckUser team and seven (7) editors to the Oversight team (pursuant to the CU/OS appointment procedures).

Once they have satisfactorily identified to the Wikimedia Foundation, the Arbitration Committee hereby:

(a) appoints the following editors as CheckUsers:

(b) appoints the following editors as Oversighters:

† This editor is a community member of the Audit Subcommittee, who will retain the specified permission once their subcommittee term ends.

The committee sincerely thanks the other candidates who applied but who on this occasion were unsuccessful and also the community members who participated for their assistance.

The committee also notes inactivity by Elen of the Roads (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) as a CheckUser and Oversighter, who has not edited since March 2013. Following several attempts to contact Elen, the Committee is removing her access to the CheckUser and Oversight permissions (and access to the checkuser-l and oversight-l mailing lists, CheckUser wiki, and oversight-en OTRS queue) in line with the functionary inactivity procedures.

Supporting motion‡: NuclearWarfare, T. Canens, Courcelles, AGK, WormThatTurned, Roger Davies, David Fuchs, Risker, and Kirill Lokshin
Not voting: Salvio giuliano, Newyorkbrad
Inactive: Carcharoth
Abstaining: SilkTork

‡ These arbitrators supported the motion above. Individual Arbitrators may have supported candidates who did not pass, or opposed candidates who did pass.

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 23:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion
More