Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/2012 CUOS appointments/OS/Foxj

Foxj

 * Nomination statement (250 words max.)
 * I have been an administrator for just over four years now and I have a fairly good idea of how things work behind-the-scenes at the English Wikipedia. After seeing that we are short on oversighters, I felt that my experience with moderately technical processes - such as revision deletion and knowledge of the policies behind that - would seat me fairly well for the position of Oversight. I am online for good periods of the day, which would also place me in a good position to respond swiftly to emailed/IRC requests. I have experience with other wiki-based websites, although not with this particular function. I hope to be a useful addition to the Oversight team.

Standard questions for all candidates
Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
 * I have been using the revision deletion function for a good while now which, while obviously not the same thing, is probably a decent starting platform to learn the technical side of the role. On a number of occasions I have deleted pages/edits containing material covered by the Oversight policy in anticipation of having them oversighted. — foxj 12:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.
 * Since I have never used this function before, on Wikimedia sites or elsewhere, I can't say I have any technical experience with this particular function. — foxj 12:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

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 positions on WMF projects. I have OTRS permissions to the info-en-l queue. — foxj 12:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Questions for this candidate

 * Please describe your familiarity with the Wikimedia Privacy Policy, Meta Oversight Policy, ENWP Oversight policy, and ENWP Outing policy. Also, without breaching privacy, for each of these policies, give an example of a time that you have used the policy when evaluating a situation or taking action. Pine✉ 01:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As a sysop much of my personal usage of Wikimedia's Privacy Policy has been while dealing with BLPs and attack pages. Given that particular policy is based mainly on common sense its usuage is pretty widespread, so much so that the number of occasions it has been used is too numerous to list. As for Meta's Oversight Policy, the most I have needed to deal with that thus far is knowing when to email the list - obviously in the role I am applying for it will govern my actions far more than it does at present. ENWP Oversight Policy is what it says on the tin. Again, I have never had to use this policy directly for obvious reasons, but have referred to it if I come across material breaching our privacy policy. WP:OUTING is another policy which should really be common sense. A threat to out a user is a personal attack, and actually outing a user is harassment. Suffice to say, such efforts need to be oversighted as soon as possible. — foxj 09:46, 23 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. From what I've seen of him, Foxj is careful and conscientious and would function well as an oversighter. Also in his favor are his IRC use (people's opinions of IRC notwithstanding, there are often more requests for oversight that come in via IRC than the oversighter-IRC regulars can easily handle, and more people to handle them would be great) and the fact that he's in a time zone significantly different than the bulk of the OS team, which will be very helpful in addressing requests that come in at non-standard times of day in a timely manner - something we sometimes have difficulty doing. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I concur with Fluffernutter. Foxj is calm, drama-free, fair-minded, experienced, friendly and trustworthy. I can see no reason why his candidacy for oversight work should raise any concerns. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Foxj is sure to make a fine oversighter if appointed.  Snowolf How can I help? 16:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I can only echo what has already been said above, and add that Fox's very frequent use of IRC will be an extra benefit for when there are people requesting oversight on #wikipedia, #wikipedia-en, #wikipedia-en-help and other IRC channels. The  Helpful  One  22:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Foxj has demonstrated substantial clue and excellent judgment in his use of the administrator tools, and I think he would use oversight in a careful manner (essentially per Fluffernutter). Steven   Zhang  Get involved in DR!  11:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Trusted candidate. User has the required experience and knows the policy well for the use of Oversight permission. TheGeneralUser (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, really we need more active Oversighters in IRC, and he i really helpful! mabdul 21:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)