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

DoRD

 * Nomination statement (250 words max.)
 * Hello, I'm DoRD, formerly known as Department of Redundancy Department, and I am applying for access to the CheckUser toolset. I began actively editing in 2007 and passed RfA in 2008. In 2011, I started helping out at SPI as an admin patroller and assisting with the clerking of cases, and this March, I volunteered to be a trainee clerk. I have worked with the clerk and CheckUser teams to learn the processes and policies involved in sockpuppet investigations, have assisted with the training of other clerk trainees and was recently promoted to full clerk status. My work at SPI has made me familiar with how CheckUser works, when it can and can't be used and with the overriding privacy concerns. On the technical side, I am well-versed in IPv4 technology and terminology and am learning about IPv6. In addition to SPI, I am willing to help out at ACC, UTRS and elsewhere as needed. Thank you for your consideration.

Standard questions for all candidates
Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
 * As mentioned in my statement above, I have been helping out at SPI for several months, recently having been promoted to a full clerk. While I don't have any official CU experience, I have a little familiarity with the tool from using the simulated version on TestWiki.

Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.
 * Well, I have a very dusty degree in computer science, but beyond that, I have been administering my employer's internal networks and connections to the outside world for many years. I have a good working knowledge of IPv4 technology and am familiar with User agent strings.

Do you hold advanced permissions (checkuser, oversight, bureaucrat, steward) on this or other WMF projects? If so, please list them. Also, do you have OTRS permissions? If so, to which queues?
 * No, I do not, but I have identified to the Foundation.

Questions for this candidate

 * Suppose that a law enforcement officer comes to you with a search warrant for a user's IP history, and orders you to use the CU tool and supply them with all information that it produces. What do you do? Pine✉ 01:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that, perhaps, you mean a subpoena rather than a search warrant, as they would be looking for something stored on a Wikimedia server rather than something in my possession. I can't imagine that I would be presented with either, but in the highly unlikely event that I was, I would refer them to the Foundation and their Legal Counsel. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 01:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

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.


 * I've run across DORD a few times and haven't seen anything that leads me to believe he would be unsuitable for the tools.  MBisanz  talk 03:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * DoRD has been volunteering his time as a clerk at SPI for only a brief amount of time now, but in that time he has shown a high level of dedication to that area of the project as well as a solid grasp of the bureaucratic process associated with SPI. I feel he would be a net positive to the CheckUser team. Best, Tiptoety  talk 06:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * DoRD has my support as he just became a full clerk (I had promoted him) and showed a well versed knowledge of not only SPI, but critical policies in relation to the usage of the tool. He also seems to be able to adjust to any technical changes very fast. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  19:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * DoRD has been my "go to man" on technical issues. He has probably done more to train me at SPI than anyone, showing a balanced approach that is neither aggressive or too permissive, so I trust his judgment.  I would feel very comfortable with him having the CU tools. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  00:38, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * My interactions with DoRD have been more recent and thus limited, but he has come across as level headed and clueful. Therefore, I am happy to support him for this request. The  Helpful  One  21:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Third choice Department of Redundancy Department (he'll always be that to me) is a much newer edition to the SPI clerk team than DQ or SG is, however nothing I have seen has been objectionable. Would probably (depending on who is running) be my first or second choice next round, with 6/12 more months of experience under his belt. (Note that this is not an oppose, but it's also not an explicit support)  S ven M anguard   Wha?  00:07, 25 June 2012‎ (UTC)
 * Support as one who knows the SPI workings very well and works reliably. Full confidence. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  16:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. I chime in with the others: DoRD is helpful and clueful and has my trust--as far as "trust" exists on the internet of course. Drmies (talk) 18:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Trusted candidate. Has all the basic experience required for the CheckUser permission. TheGeneralUser (talk) 14:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support after DQ he was the most helpful user related to SPI cases. mabdul 21:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)