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

DeltaQuad

 * Nomination statement (250 words max.)
 * Hello everyone. I am DeltaQuad, and i've been an administrator for just over a year now. I am applying for both the CheckUser and Oversight tools. I have been active in SPI for about two years now, and know the list of the Functionaries names almost off by heart. I am a UTRS (Unblock Ticket Request System) Developer, which was intended to bring block appeals from the mailing list (where I handled over 500 requests in about a 6 month period) to a ticket formatted system. I am also an ACC tool administrator, and have been for over half a year now. I also have info-en (f), permissions, and photosubmission queues on OTRS. I have also closed several RfCs including a few major ones, and at the time i'm writing this, I am still assisting in closing the Pending Changes RFC. I am applying for the tool to assist the community, in a way consistent with the policy they lay out, in connecting accounts and preventing abuse, but also in suppressing inappropriate non-public information and other related things from view. I am requesting the tools because of the frequent backlogs for CheckUser, both on and offwiki, and also help with fast suppression both through OTRS and private requests primarily through IRC.

Standard questions for all candidates

 * 1) Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
 * As noted in my nomination statement, i've been active at SPI for about two years now, dealing with the results, but also declining and endorsing requests. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)
 * 1) Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.
 * I am currently pursuing a Bachelor of Information Technology Degree (Computer Networking specification), which will assist me in being able to make connections between accounts, or comment on why there is a lack thereof, and find proxies easier. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  02:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Do you hold advanced permissions (checkuser, oversight, bureaucrat, steward) on this or other WMF projects? If so, please list them. Also, do you have OTRS permissions? If so, to which queues?
 * Checkuser@ipv6test.wmflabs, for testing purposes. I have info-en (f), permissions, photosubmission queues on OTRS. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)

Questions for this candidate

 * Suppose that a law enforcement officer comes to you with a search warrant for a user's IP history, and orders you to use the CU tool and supply them with all information that it produces. What do you do?  Pine ✉  01:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be extremely unlikely that an officer, especially since I am in Canada would come up and ask me to preform a CheckUser. They would have to find out some how that I, specifically am a CheckUser, which would be hard to find out, and by the time they found it out, the Wikimedia Foundation would be able to give them their answer ten times faster or more. If they did go through all the trouble of getting to me, and finding me, they have wasted their time, because I'm in the wrong jurisdiction to request that information and the information is not on a server I own, it's located in the United States, not Canada. So I would decline any request by law enforcement for a CheckUser by search warrant. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  19:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Greetings DeltaQuad. I am familiar with your manner and clue; and fully confident. I have but one notion to mend. You are currently quite active in several visible areas. Here you have requested both areas of responsibility. Why shouldn't I be concerned that your obligations might suffer for having too many commitments? My76Strat (talk) 00:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry about not seeing this. My most active area is SPI currently, hence the application for the CheckUser flags. I have recently finished from the Pending Changes RfC which has freed up some time. I look across all the projects I am a part of and I prioritize. Also, I'm not saying I would become permanently inactive in a project, but there are other people in most of the projects I'm involved in. Is there a particular project you have a concern for? -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  22:58, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you DQ. Your answer is sufficient for me. Regarding the project, I have become accustomed to seeing several bots under your maintenance become valued instruments. As for concern, that is solely reserved for the man behind the account. I would never desire another to know a stress I have known for simply trying too hard to give much to many. It compounds significantly if that person is comprised to also demand of himself that the giving be only the best of effort. I know you are of such comprise. You have my support in full measure; and admiration. Best - My76Strat (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments

 * Comments may also be submitted to the Arbitration Committee privately by emailing . Please note that the candidate will be provided the opportunity to respond to a paraphrased version of any emailed comments; the sender's name will not be provided.


 * Support Does good admin work; stays calm and doesn't cause drama. Nobody Ent 02:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. DeltaQuad is a trustworthy and active admin and has good experience with sockpuppet investigations already. Jafeluv (talk) 05:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong support I've seen DQs work over at WP:OP, and having an experienced proxy checker such as him with CU will be a major asset to the project. Sailsbystars (talk) 12:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * DeltaQuad is highly active, easy to contact and will make a fine checkuser. Absolute support.  Snowolf How can I help? 16:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - He's been training me as an SPI clerk and he'd be even more useful than he already is with the CU bit. Keilana&#124;Parlez ici 00:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, DQ is a dependable and measured actor who I think could be a benefit with more tools. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  00:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I know DeltaQuad very well through my interactions with him on SPI, UTRS, IRC, ACC and heaven knows how many more abbreviations! I fully and strongly support DeltaQuad's request for the CheckUser and Oversight tools, one more person to add to my mental black book. The  Helpful  One  21:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support (First Choice) with full confidence. Certain arbs with longer memories should feel free to email me if this causes raised eyebrows. S ven M anguard   Wha?  23:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. I couldn't have picked a better person to !vote for; I've seen his work all around in SPIs, ACC, etc.  Lynch 7  15:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Extremely experienced. -- Ankit Maity Talk Contribs 15:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - would be of great benefit to the project. Mato (talk) 10:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - available, dependable and fully versed in SPI policies and operations. The checkuser flag is well-warranted here. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  15:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support.Good Admin ,dependable and level headed and has done good work in SPI.He can be trusted.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Actually, I thought DQ had this tool already. Drmies (talk) 18:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - it's long overdue.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, clearly trustworthy. - filelake shoe  &#xF0F6;   12:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've seen DeltaQuad do good work at WP:SPI as a clerk and admin, and I think he'd be a good addition to the checkuser corps. No concerns, and as Drmies said, I actually thought DQ was already a checkuser. MastCell Talk 19:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment – http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=10592#p10592 – I'm not confident in DeltaQuad's ability to judge SPI evidence. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 03:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, that SPI was a very difficult case. I think I can be given a break that I didn't catch one sock. Even another clerk agreed with me that there was not enough behavioral evidence. I also did not comment on the case after your "smoking gun" evidence was posted, and it is not normal to google everything you see in an SPI to search for socks (If you did it would be very time consuming too). I also left it open for second and third reviews, and more if needed, and undeleted the first case when I disagreed with you, allowing you to peruse your case. I think that was fair considering my thoughts at the time. So if I did the same in the future, allowing review, we still are going to find the socks, unless everyone else disagrees. You are always welcome to get a second opinion on an SPI case, in fact if you think I'm in error I encourage it. So i'm not really sure how this would negatively impact my performance as a CheckUser, if I pass. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  19:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Seeing his work as WP:SPI, I think that he is a good man to hand out the tools. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 12:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Trusted candidate. Has the required experience for both CheckUser and Oversight permissions. TheGeneralUser (talk) 13:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Trustworthy, knowledgeable and experienced.--v/r - TP 13:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, yes please. I know his knowledge, which is always usable in SPI cases or ACC tickets where he checks proxies if they are open and thus should be declined or not. mabdul 21:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - StringdaBrokeda 00:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Very trustworthy and experienced. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC)