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

Ponyo

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

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

Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.
 * My former “real world” career consisted of raw data analysis, interpretation and presentation.

Do you hold advanced permissions (checkuser, oversight, bureaucrat, steward) on this or other WMF projects? If so, please list them. Also, do you have OTRS permissions? If so, to which queues?
 * I have Checkuser and Oversight on en-wikipedia (as part of the Audit Subcommittee). I am also a member of the OTRS team where I have full info-en queue access (including the quality/BLP queue), as well as photsubmissions, permissions, and oversight queue access.

Questions for this candidate

 * 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 would never supply an outside agency with checkuser data without first consulting with the Foundation in order to a) ensure the request is legitimate and actionable and b) confirm how much data would need to be provided.

Comments

 * 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.


 * Ponyo is also someone who is relatively new to me and overlooking the typo of photosubmissions above ;-), I'm happy to support her request to continue to have the ability to use the CheckUser and Oversight tools once her term on the AUSC expires, by which time I imagine she will have more than enough experience to be a very useful CheckUser and oversighter. The  Helpful  One  21:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Fourth choice I cannot think of more than one time that I have ever seen Ponyo's name at SPI, which makes Ponyo uniquely under-qualified compared to the other three candidates, at least in my opinion. That being said, this isn't an oppose, but rather that Ponyo would be my fourth choice (yes, out of four).  S ven M anguard   Wha?  00:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ArbCom have probably all but made their minds up who they're going to appoint, so this comment is more because I wouldn't want Ponyo to think she's less well thought-of than any of the candidates with lots of comments! ;) Less well-known, perhaps, but for the right reasons in my experience. You're supremely sensible, level-headed uncontroversial, and you have the ability to get shit done (and discretely when called for), so unless you've done something really stupid in the last few moths that I haven't seen, I think you're an ideal candidate. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  07:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Trusted candidate. Ponyo is already well experienced with the use of both Checkuser and Oversight permissions and i support them to continue to have access to both the user rights. TheGeneralUser (talk) 14:32, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support This user has been part of  Audit Subcommittee and  has both Checkuser and Oversight permissions .Further would prefer a candidate who already has the tools over  candidates without them when one has choose between two equally good candidates given the privacy concerns and find the candidate to be trustworthy  as this position which is  without community scrutiny and  nearly impossible to audit.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:53, 28 June 2012 (UTC)