Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/2015 CUOS appointments/OS

Bbb23 (OS)

 * Nomination statement
 * I am applying for both the checkuser and the oversight tools. My principal interest is in the checkuser tool. I don’t think I’ll use the oversight tool much, but that could change over time. Obviously, I would respond to an editor who makes a request to me for suppression.
 * My interest in the CU tool stems from my experience as an SPI clerk and my overall interest in understanding how a checkuser is actually performed. I believe I have the requisite experience as an active clerk to use the tool and to use it prudently. CUs have discretion as to when to perform a checkuser, and I would approach the tool, as I do with any new tool, cautiously at the beginning as I learn the ropes,seeking guidance, as necessary, from more experienced checkusers.

Standard questions for all candidates

 * 1) Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
 * As an administrator doing rev/deletes, which I don't even do that often.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.
 * None except one small thing that would breach my personal privacy. Wouldn't change the answer much, anyway.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:19, 5 March 2015 (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?
 * No to all.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Questions for this candidate

 * The global OS policy states that the oversight tool can be used for the "removal of potentially libelous information either: a) on the advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel or b) when the case is clear, and there is no editorial reason to keep the revision." What does this mean to you? --Rschen7754 06:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The short answer is I'd probably use (a) as much as possible as it's safer. With respect to (b), the policy links "libelous" to our article on Defamation. As the article notes, libel law depends on the jurisdiction. I believe generally we apply American law. Nonetheless, it still requires a legal analysis (another reason to stick with (a) and let a Foundation lawyer decide), but if I were going to apply (b), the libel would have to be blatant. Thus, if someone said that x (a living person) is a criminal and killed his mother a year go, that to me is blatant. Truth, of course, is a defense to libel, but I wouldn't feel comfortable deciding whether there was a defense but would "err" on the side of suppressing the material. Also, as in probably all suppressions initially, I'd consult with at least one other OS before making a decision if I felt the decision was not obvious. My apologies for the long-winded answer, but I've never thought about this before.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:32, 5 March 2015 (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 as above. BMK (talk) 12:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support — Ched : ?  18:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support will be net positive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per "I don’t think I’ll use the oversight tool much". NE Ent 23:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * (Addressing Ponyo's comment below): CheckUser says the permission is to be granted "exceedingly rarely." If you wish to bundle the rights you raise the appropriate RFC. Current CUs Coren, Jpgordon, Materialscientist, Reaper Eternal, Tiptoety, Versageek don't have the OS privilege so apparently it's possible to function without it. NE Ent 00:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * At no point in my comment below did I write or even imply that it's not "possible to function without it" and have no intention of suggesting the two be bundled in the future. I specifically noted my personal experience with both set of tools and my suggestion to Bbb23 that if he thought his experience would be similar to mine to consider requesting both permissions as opposed to waiting a year (or more) for the next appointments. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it would be best to only grant CU now, without prejudice to granting OS at a later date, per NE Ent and because CU is not easy to learn, and neither is using all the modes of communication that come with it (CU wiki, CU-l...) --Rschen7754 03:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support with pleasure. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 10:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note I'd like to note that I actually encouraged Bbb23 to apply for OS if he was going to seek CU permissions. I've found it very helpful in my CU work to have the Oversight permissions as there are instances where OS is necessary when dealing with some of our more disruptive and abusive LTA sock accounts. Perhaps he would not use it daily, however I have no doubt when oversight would be used it would be done thoughtfully and completely within policy in an effort to protect the project and its editors; in other words, in the same manner that he conducts himself as an admin. I would hate for my advice to Bbb23 to somehow be used against him and fully support his candidacy for both roles.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 17:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support--John Cline (talk) 22:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support CU; oppose oversight per NE Ent and Rschen7754. It doesn't seem like oversight is really needed and that Bbb23 could seek help oversighting from another oversighter. Bbb23 has demonstrated increasingly good judgement overall, and their experience at SPI further supports the need and ability to use CU wisely.- MrX 12:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per NE Ent. Gamaliel  ( talk ) 00:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support For some types of SPI having access to both suppressed material and CU tools makes it easier to come to a conclusion. Plus, when dealing with vandals the ability to suppress material might come in handy on some occasions when speed of zapping edits is important. Sydney Poore/FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 14:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Martinevans123 (talk) 19:39, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose There's no need for the tool here. It looks like Bbb23 didn't even know OS existed prior to his application for CU, as shown by his answers, and just thought "might as well get this hat while I'm finally getting my CU". And yes, it seems giving him CU will be OK though I'm always wary of people who want advanced permissions because they're curious how they work, but OS? He recognises the obvious need for acting swiftly and erring on the side of suppressing yet claims he'll be consulting his actions with other oversighters before performing them which doesn't even make sense logically. Plus, OS has no backlogs, we don't need new oversighters. That means we can apply higher standards to the candidates than we would've otherwise. Bbb23 doesn't meet these high standards, and openly admits he rarely even uses revdel. Sorry, but not this time. Weak support for CU, strong oppose to OS from me. 78.22.109.8 (talk) 19:29, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support based on comments by Ponyo above. John Carter (talk) 22:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support; oh my, yes! Bbb23 is one of the most excellent administrators we have, they have my full trust and support after seeing many excellent judgment calls. Dreadstar  ☥   01:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Callanecc (OS)

 * Nomination statement
 * Hi all, I'm Callanecc and I'm applying for the Oversight tool (that is, to retain it after my term on AUSC). I've been an admin for around a year and an OTRS agent since before then. I am currently serving as a community appointee on the Audit Subcommittee (so have used both CheckUser and Oversight) through which I've developed a reasonably in depth knowledge of the global and local policies governing the use of the tools. As I'm online when a number of other Oversighters aren't (due to my timezone) I've come across a number of requests (through OTRS) which are simple and relatively uncontroversial (like editing logged out and self-disclosures by minors) and have been able to deal with them straight away. I also lurk in the -revdel and -admins IRC channels so am sometimes around when requests which need to be oversighted come in. I've made a number of Oversight requests, including since I've had the permission for a second opinion, and from memory none of them has been declined.
 * Please feel free to ask questions here, on my talk page or via email. Kind regards, Callanecc.
 * Please feel free to ask questions here, on my talk page or via email. Kind regards, Callanecc.

Standard questions for all candidates

 * I've just given quick responses to these for now, I'll come back to them later and clean up my responses and provide more info as needed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * 1) Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
 * I think I've answered this in my nomination statement so I won't repeat myself. Happy to give some more info if people would like it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.
 * The main off-wiki experience I have here is keeping information confidential and needing to decide whether certain pieces of information need to be kept confidential according to certain criteria (the comparison being whether to suppress something or not). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:24, 4 March 2015 (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?
 * I have both CU and OS on enwiki as a community member of AUSC, none of the other permissions on other projects. On OTRS, I have access to the Commons, Info-en (f), Permissions, Wikidata (and oversight-en-wp) queues. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Questions for this candidate

 * The global OS policy states that the oversight tool can be used for the "removal of potentially libelous information either: a) on the advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel or b) when the case is clear, and there is no editorial reason to keep the revision." What does this mean to you? --Rschen7754 06:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think I've changed my view on this since you asked when I nominated for the AUSC, so I'll copy my answer there to here:
 * I think it's important to consider that the local WP:OS policy is slightly more restrictive as it asks OSers to consider whether RevDel is more appropriate rather than it just being approved for use. The first phrase (a) seems to be there to allow OSers to act on advice of the counsel (perhaps so they can do it themselves or request a community OS to do it for them). The second phrase (b) states that it must be clear that the information is (potentially) libelous and that there is no reason to keep the revision available to admins (since it would meet RevDel criteria). An example I could think of (regarding a reason to keep the edit just RevDel'd) would be if a sockpuppeteer continues to insert the same information which allows their socks to be easily identified. It makes sense to keep the master's edits viewable to admins (and non-OS CUs) so that they can identify socks. Another reason could be revisions on a widely used discussion board or talk page (where a large number of revisions would need to be hidden) where OS would disrupt editors' ability to follow discussions and look up past revisions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:24, 4 March 2015 (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 as above. BMK (talk)
 * Support will be net positive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support as above. --Rschen7754 05:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support; demonstrated record of level headed service as AC clerk. NE Ent 23:28, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support with pleasure. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 10:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong support Jianhui67T ★ C 14:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support I am familiar with this editor and have no concerns. Mkdw talk 18:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support--John Cline (talk) 22:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - There's every reason to continue trusting Callanecc with the oversight tool.- MrX 12:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Gamaliel  ( talk ) 00:30, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support ///Euro Car  GT  19:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 18:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support because it's hard to imagine a more trustworthy individual. John Carter (talk) 22:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support as above. DaveApter (talk) 10:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support as above--5 albert square (talk) 15:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support; yea, total support for this wonderful and thoughtful admin. A thousand times yes.  Dreadstar  ☥   01:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: Have seen good things from this admin, solid credentials, good judgement.   Montanabw (talk)  04:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

GB fan (OS)

 * Nomination statement
 * Hello, I’m GB fan and I am applying to become an Oversighter. I have served the community as an Administrator since 2009 and am a OTRS volunteer. I have experience dealing with privacy and sensitive related matters. As a former member of the US military I routinely handled private information. I routinely Rev Del information when appropriate and pass along those items that require suppression, all of which have been suppressed. I believe that these qualities would be helpful in the role of an Oversighter.
 * Hello, I’m GB fan and I am applying to become an Oversighter. I have served the community as an Administrator since 2009 and am a OTRS volunteer. I have experience dealing with privacy and sensitive related matters. As a former member of the US military I routinely handled private information. I routinely Rev Del information when appropriate and pass along those items that require suppression, all of which have been suppressed. 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.
 * I have been an Admin since 2009 and use Revision Deletion on a regular basis. No one has ever questioned my use of the tool.   I have contacted the oversight team in the past about problems edits, in each instance the revisions were suppressed by the oversight team.
 * 1) Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.
 * In my current and previous job, I have/had access to personal information that would be oversightable if entered into Wikipedia, including personally identifiable information and medical data.
 * 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?
 * I do not hold any advanced permissions other than administrator on this Wikipedia. I do have OTRS permissions in the info and permissions ques.

Questions for this candidate

 * The global OS policy states that the oversight tool can be used for the "removal of potentially libelous information either: a) on the advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel or b) when the case is clear, and there is no editorial reason to keep the revision." What does this mean to you? --Rschen7754 06:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The first part is simple and does not require much judgement, if the Wikimedia Foundation Counsel determines that edits must be removed to reduce liability to the Foundation it is oversighted. The second part is where judgement comes in.  First we would need to determine if the edit is a clear case of potential libel. If it is, then the next section is there some reason for admins to have access to it?  Was it initially missed and many edits would need to be suppressed to clear it out of the history?  Is there sockpuppetry going on where the writing style/content would be useful to help identify future sockpuppets?  To sum it up, the edit would have to by clear that it is potentially libelous and there is no editorial reason to keep it.  This would make most things ineligible for for oversight under this criterion.  -- GB fan 14:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What is your experience with collaborating and coming to a consensus with editors of different opinions and philosophies? What have you learned from these experiences? --Rschen7754 06:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not a prolific content creator, but have quite a bit of experience as an administrator discussing why articles were deleted and working towards an agreement.  It does not not always work that you can come to an agreement because sometimes people get entrenched in their opinions and can not be swayed.  I have been accused of entrenched in my opinion.  I realize it can happen and try to step back when it looks like I am doing that.  It is important to listen to all opinions.  No one person can ever have the best solution since everyone looks at things differently.  The best solution is usually a hybrid of the ideas from multiple people. -- GB fan 14:05, 5 March 2015 (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 will most likely be net positive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't find anything concerning in my research or from my recollections, though the answer to my OS question gives me a bit of pause. --Rschen7754 03:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support; solid track record as low drama admin. NE Ent 23:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support- no problems, solid admin. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 10:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support--John Cline (talk) 22:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support No problem. Jianhui67T ★ C 11:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support 18K admin actions including over 17000 Deletions and over 200 Revision Deletions and hence would require oversight and has been admin since 2011 and OTRS volunteer with excellent policy knowledge and judgement shown over the large number of admin actions.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support ///Euro Car  GT  19:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell (OS)

 * Nomination statement
 * Of the two functionary positions, oversight is the one I am most interested in due to the urgency involved—most oversight-grade material has the potential to cause serious harm, so the sooner it's removed the better. I've noticed some delays in processing oversight requests, so I'd like to help by making sure that harmful material is removed as quickly as possible, while deferring borderline cases for discussion.
 * Of the two functionary positions, oversight is the one I am most interested in due to the urgency involved—most oversight-grade material has the potential to cause serious harm, so the sooner it's removed the better. I've noticed some delays in processing oversight requests, so I'd like to help by making sure that harmful material is removed as quickly as possible, while deferring borderline cases for discussion.


 * I feel I am well-placed to help here. Of necessity, given the nature of my admin work, I am one of the most prolific users of revision deletion and I frequently request the assistance of the oversight team. I'm used to getting RevDel requests by email (and to saying "no" and explaining the criteria if appropriate) and I've had OTRS access for several years. While I believe I would make good and efficient use of the checkuser tools, whether separately or in conjunction with oversight, the latter would fit seamlessly into my admin and OTRS work. Of course, oversight also comes with access to all manner of sensitive material, which is why it's given out carefully, but I believe I've proven over the years that I can handle these things with the requisite discretion.

Standard questions for all candidates

 * 1) Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
 * I've been an admin for nearly five years,and I've used RevDel many, many times. I take a narrower interpretation of the criteria than some admins, but I'm still one of the more prolific users of it. I frequently email the oversight team to request suppression of harmful material that I've come across or been alerted to. I often get requests for RevDel by email and I already have OTRS access so oversight fits in quite nicely with those roles.
 * 1) Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.
 * Technical expertise relevant to oversight? Not much. But, unlike checkuser, oversight doesn't require any real technical expertise—as I understand it, it's an extra box that can be ticked in the revision deletion interface (and a couple of other boxes in other places) and another OTRS queue. The reason it's restricted is the sensitivity of the information oversighters deal with. As mentioned under my CU candidacy, I have experience of handling private information in "real life", and I've signed NDAs in the past. I hope I've proven my discretion through my admin work; protecting privacy is something I take extremely seriously, and is the reason I'm applying for oversight permissions.
 * 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?
 * As above, no advanced permissions but I'm an admin on Commons. I have access to the WMUK, info-en (full), Commons, permissions, photosubmission, and Wiki Loves Monuments queues.

Questions for this candidate

 * The global OS policy states that the oversight tool can be used for the "removal of potentially libelous information either: a) on the advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel or b) when the case is clear, and there is no editorial reason to keep the revision." What does this mean to you? --Rschen7754 06:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It means that oversighters are expected to exercise judgement. Obviously if the WMF's lawyers advise that something should be suppressed, there would need to be an extraordinary reason for it not to be suppressed. The second clause requires the oversighter to be satisfied that the material is indeed libellous (in effect, that the statement in question could cause the subject harm)—so juvenile name-calling and run-of-the-mill vandalism of the sort we all see every day would not qualify—and that there is no good reason to keep it. A good reason to keep it (or to decline to upgrade RevDel to suppression) might be that the claim is widely repeated outside of Wikipedia to the extent that somebody stumbling across the diff would probably have heard the claim before, or that it appears in so many revisions of a busy page (like ANI, for example) that removing it would severely affect the page history or risk triggering the Streisand effect. For an example of the sort of libel that's worthy of suppression, a few months ago I came across an editor repeatedly adding a claim that a television presenter had been involved in a sexual abuse scandal in an earlier career; the claim was unsourced and a quick Google search didn't bear it out, so I requested suppression (which was granted).
 * Do you believe that your role as the arbitration reporter for the Signpost will cause any conflicts of interest with serving as an oversighter? --Rschen7754 17:33, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In a word: nah. To elaborate slightly, anything that might come to my knowledge in my functionary capacity would have no business being published in the Signpost, and I'm quite sure the editors-in-chief wouldn't allow it (the same would apply for confidential or private information that came into my possession as an admin). They also scrutinise the article for impartiality prior to publication. I see my role with the Signpost as shedding more light on ArbCom's work; the exposés and investigative journalism I leave to those who have the interest and the talent for it. Of necessity, most active admins wear multiple hats; it's not a problem—we just have to remember which hat we're wearing at any given time. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  00:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Assume you received a valid request for oversight for BLP violation; after oversighting the edit, which action, if any, would you take vis-à-vis the editor who added the material? NE Ent 02:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It would depend on the nature of the edit and of the editor. A throwaway account created to attack a BLP subject should be indef'd and forgotten; an experienced editor who added it in good faith, unaware that they'd just stuck their hand in a hornets' nest, would likely be quite upset that their edit was oversighted (suppressed) and should be given informal advice. Closer to the middle of the spectrum is a judgement call, but I'd only block if there was malice aforethought or there was no other way to get the editor to stop posting it. I did once block an editor for repeatedly drawing attention to oversighted material (among other things by starting threads challenging the oversight on every noticeboard they could find) and unblocked them a few days later when they agreed to stop. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  01:14, 18 March 2015 (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.


 * Oppose. HJ is too quick with the block button.  Functionaries need to be exceptionally level headed. Jehochman Talk 13:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC) (added)
 * I respectfully disagree, as I've explained under my CU candidacy, but I do appreciate your comments. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  18:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Could you provide examples? AGK  [•] 01:55, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have a bunch of deadlines this week and probably won't be able to go diff diving any time soon. If ops are granted, I will wish HJ well and trust that he will consider the feedback in this thread. Jehochman Talk 02:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm struggling with this one. On the one hand, HJ's throughput is huge, and his administrative decisions are, while sometimes arguable, rarely completely out to lunch. The OS team could definitely use someone who's able to regularly dedicate large amounts of time to admin/OS work and whose judgments are usually well within the bounds of reason. On the other hand, while his decisions are rarely off-kilter, his interactions sometimes are. Especially in projectspace areas, at times we see HJ being accusatory, biting, dismissive, or generally just inflammatory. That's not terribly uncommon for Wikipedians in general, but my concern is this: a well-done oversight is one that goes mostly (or, ideally, completely) unnoticed, even in heated circumstances. Oversighters deal regularly with angry, upset, and legally-threatening people. We might have to suppress a hundred edits at once on ANI or Jimbo's talk. We get blunt questions demanding we justify why X action was taken, sometimes followed by accusations of tool misuse when our answers don't please the asker. Part of our job is to de-escalate those public situations to keep them from becoming spectacles that draw more attention to the thing we were trying to suppress; another part is dealing sensitively with private correspondents who may be overly emotional, doggedly demanding, or just not very likeable. We expect functionaries to be able to discuss borderline cases among themselves calmly and productively, rather than by shouting or accusing. Right now, based on activity like those diffs, I'm not entirely sure HJ is capable of consistently doing those all things. Most of the time? Sure. And for most tasks Wikipedians do, "most of the time" is ok. But I'm not sure I'm convinced that "most of the time" cuts it in a job where we're juggling content that affects people's real lives, and I can't find anything in his statements here that indicates that he recognizes that sensitivity, or at least tact, needs to be an "all the time" thing. It could very well be that Oversighter HJ wouldn't have the slightest problem with that...but I guess I'm looking for some explicit assurance that the oversight team would be getting the 100% tactful HJ rather than the 80%-tact-except-when-annoyed-at-which-point-all-bets-are-off one. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a fair comment. I could argue on the specifics of the diffs—certainly I don't feel the the first one was "accusatory"; I was dealing with an editor who was being extremely disingenuous and a less patient admin might have blocked, (in fact one later did for a similar incident) so I felt that the tone was appropriate to get them to stop. I'm loathe to block somebody if something else might work, and sometimes that something else is "a robust verbal chastisement"; in situations like that, a friendly chat simply wouldn't adequately get the message across. But to your general point, yes, sometimes I can be rather strident, sometimes perhaps too much or unnecessarily so, but (with some exceptions) I generally know when stridency is appropriate. I certainly think I know when to tone it down it down, for example when responding to emails on OTRS or doing arbitration enforcement work, and would do so when acting as a functionary. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  16:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Level-headed and significantly prone to random acts of good judgment, which are precisely what we need in this sort of position. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support as above. BMK (talk) 12:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support as above. Also, in my opinion, Fluffernutter's diffs show HJ Mitchell's common sense and robustness more than any impropriety. BethNaught (talk) 08:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support — Ched : ?  18:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Per above and User has done over 14000 Deletions and over 1300 Revision Deletions some of which may need to be Oversighted Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I can be a little brusque sometimes when dealing with problematic users. It hasn't hampered my ability to be an effective member of the oversight team for the past four years. I have every confidence that Harry would ba a positive addition to the functionaries, and our workload would be automatically reduced if he were able to oversight all the stuff he currently refers to us. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Oppose per Jehochman.--Catlemur (talk) 19:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support I've seen a couple of cases people complaining about Oversighters not being quick enough to get rid of private material, and experienced the long wait the one time I sent in a request for oversight. The Oversight team requires a heavily active admin like Harry, who will be able to quickly respond to requests. Doesnt seem to have done anything too dodgy in the grand scheme of things. Bosstopher (talk) 19:48, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support will be net positive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose - We don't need functionaries who call other users "you fucking morons" (this was directed at 28 experienced contributors, among them several admins and an ex-arb). Kraxler (talk) 22:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support – An excellent administrator and a trusted hardworking user. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 22:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * My support continues; however, I feel that the possible conflict of interest may need more exploring (I can think of one case where seeing CU/OS information would probably have changed one's impression of how it was handled, though I obviously won't say which one). I certainly understand Kraxler's concerns, but for me this seems to be a one-off incident (though of course once on the functionary side of things, that would be a serious issue). --Rschen7754 03:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose due to concerns about tact. Not good when people are intimidated out of approaching functionaries on the site, especially when concerns involve real-life impacts. That said, very much appreciate the ongoing, dedicated efforts at vandal fighting to keep things civilized. --Djembayz (talk) 03:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess this would be an oppose, see comments on CU request. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 10:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Neutral, but be careful with the tools if you get them. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 04:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Support--John Cline (talk) 22:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I hate to oppose an editor whose contributions are overwhelmingly positive, but like A fluffernutter is a sandwich!, I have witnessed some comments and outbursts that give me pause. This is a deal killer for me, and I'm not aware that there was a retraction and apology to the editors who opposed Thomas.W's adminship in good faith.- MrX 12:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * For whatever it's worth, I apologised on my talk page and in this thread and probably in other places. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  19:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. I stopped watching your user talk page about a week before you posted the apology, so I missed it.- MrX 20:53, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. I have no reservations whatever in trusting HJ with either of these tools. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per this quote from Mr. Mitchell under Oppose #9 at the Thomas.W RFA: "if people think it's more important for editors to be nice to each other on talk pages than to write the encyclopaedia (or in this case defend it from socks, trolls, vandals, and spammers), we'll just have to agree to disagree." I can be a little abrasive myself sometimes, I've been told, but I strongly believe the people who write this project are more important than the project itself, and I think these priorities are very important. Since Mr. Mitchell disagrees, I do not believe he should hold positions of heightened responsibility here. Townlake (talk) 20:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, basically per Beeblebrox's comments above. 28bytes (talk) 21:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per comments above.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 00:30, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - from my own observations. One outburst can be forgiven. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé !  09:19, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per my comment on the CU candidacy. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 16:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - have found HJ Mitchell to be generally pretty sensible. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Same here - overall good judgment --Hafspajen (talk) 03:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Sensible and fair all-around. Tarc (talk) 02:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Oversighters protect editor's privacy, so I see having an individual who is quick and decisive as more of virtue than a fault in an oversighter; something can be un-oversighted if later consensus later determines it was inappropriate, but an editor can't be "undoxed" if there name gets out because of a limited number of volunteer oversighters. NE Ent 01:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per NE Ent. If Harry does have a quick trigger, and I'm far from certain he does, this is probably the best place for that characteristic to be displayed. John Carter (talk) 22:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support One of the best admins I know and always willing to help--5 albert square (talk) 15:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, HJ has extraordinarily good judgment and is one of the finest administrators we have. Yes, sometimes he may be 'quick' to block, but those blocks are always the right calls - we're blessed to have someone who can make quick and correct judgment calls that protect the project. HJ is trustworthy and I would be happy to place my own privacy in his hands.  Dreadstar  ☥   01:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: Have found HJ Mitchell to be well-versed in WP policy, reasonable and uses good judgement. We need more grownups here who can cut through the bullshit and spot the trolls before they waste endless bandwidth on useless drama, he's one of them.   Montanabw (talk)  04:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak support <b style="color:#0E0">Jianhui67</b><b style="color:#1E90FF">T</b> ★ <b style="color:#1E90FF">C</b> 10:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Same as what I said here. Acalamari 20:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - I don't see why not. Most of the opposes seem centered around one outburst, which is ridiculous. Other opposes center around overall brusqueness, which might be a problem if he were running for arbitrator, but has very little effect on CU/OS. Most checkuser investigations are frankly boring comparisons of technical data, followed sometimes by blocking a bazillion trolling accounts. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Lankiveil (OS)

 * Nomination statement
 * My username is “Lankiveil”, and I am a long term contributor to the English Wikipedia, with over 20,000 edits, the administrator flag since 2008, a clean block log, service as an ArbCom clerk, and being in my fourth term on the management committee of my local Wikimedia chapter. I also ran for the Oversight position in the 2010 elections, receiving a support rate in excess of 65%, the highest of any candidate, but also insufficient under the rules of the election to be appointed.
 * My username is “Lankiveil”, and I am a long term contributor to the English Wikipedia, with over 20,000 edits, the administrator flag since 2008, a clean block log, service as an ArbCom clerk, and being in my fourth term on the management committee of my local Wikimedia chapter. I also ran for the Oversight position in the 2010 elections, receiving a support rate in excess of 65%, the highest of any candidate, but also insufficient under the rules of the election to be appointed.


 * I believe that as a longstanding Wikipedian who has managed to avoid much in the way of drama over my ten years on the project, I would make an excellent addition to the Oversight team. I see myself as a “safe pair of hands”, who can be trusted to deal with sensitive situations in a discreet and common sense manner. My day job involves access to sensitive information, and I am well aware of good practice when it comes to handling private and confidential information.

Standard questions for all candidates

 * 1) Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
 * I've been an administrator since 2008, and have focused a fair bit on deletion and BLP issues (including dropping by WP:BLPN regularly). I am also an OTRS agent.
 * 1) Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.
 * Wiki experience aside, I've held jobs in the real world as a paymaster for large organisations, where I had access to sensitive personal information. I know how to handle confidential data and relevant best practice in the field.
 * 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?
 * No, although for what it's worth I have rollback on Commons.

Questions for this candidate

 * The global OS policy states that the oversight tool can be used for the "removal of potentially libelous information either: a) on the advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel or b) when the case is clear, and there is no editorial reason to keep the revision." What does this mean to you? --Rschen7754 06:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As a general rule, I would imagine that requests to oversight something that come from WMF legal would be actioned by WMF employees as office actions, rather than thrown to volunteer oversighters to look at. Obviously anything that a qualified legal expert says has to go, has to go, so I don’t have a problem with that.


 * To answer (b), my view is that Oversight should only be used in cases where plain old revision deletion isn’t good enough. As far as libel goes, that means its use should be restricted to cases so egregious that even leaving it visible to the ~1400 administrator accounts would be problematic.   Much libel that isn’t so terrible as to warrant being sent down the oversight memory hole is probably still an excellent candidate for revision deletion.


 * What is your experience with collaborating and coming to a consensus with editors of different opinions and philosophies? What have you learned from these experiences? --Rschen7754 06:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * At the risk of sounding trite, Wikipedia is a phenomenally diverse workplace, and sticking around for any length of time, particularly for people with an interest in the administrative side of the project, pretty much requires one to be able to empathise with people with different situations from one’s own. In particular, one potentially hot area that I have found myself engaged in recently is closing AFD discussions that nobody else will bring the proverbial bargepole near; I won’t say my calls haven’t been challenged from time to time, but I think I’ve been able to act in an even handed and understanding manner that has kept any disagreements from getting personal.

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 been around a long time. sensible. will be net positive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I probably would have opposed a few years ago, but going through their recent contributions I don't see any issues, so support. --Rschen7754 04:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support NE Ent 23:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Helpful admin with no problems. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 10:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support as I share Lankiveil's belief that he would be an excellent addition to the functionaries team, although I presume you may have meant to use the word "empathise" instead of "emphasise" in your last answer? Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:37, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I meant. Thanks for the pickup!  Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support ///Euro Car  GT  19:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support no particular reservations. John Carter (talk) 22:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Keilana (OS)

 * Nomination statement
 * Hi, I’m Emily (aka Keilana), and I’m applying for oversight. I’ve been an admin since November 2007 and have worked in a bunch of areas, lately medicine. I’ve got 8 FAs and a handful of other recognized content. I consider myself primarily a content admin. I am experienced with policy and the use of tools.
 * Hi, I’m Emily (aka Keilana), and I’m applying for oversight. I’ve been an admin since November 2007 and have worked in a bunch of areas, lately medicine. I’ve got 8 FAs and a handful of other recognized content. I consider myself primarily a content admin. I am experienced with policy and the use of tools.

Standard questions for all candidates

 * 1) Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
 * I have been an administrator for almost 8 years, and have a good knowledge of how to use the RevDel tool and of all the relevant policies. Keilana&#124;Parlez ici 05:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.
 * I don't have much off-wiki expertise but I imagine it's not terribly different to using RevDel. I do have extensive real-life experience handling private information with regards to health care records. Keilana&#124;Parlez ici 05:28, 5 March 2015 (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?
 * I do not have advanced permissions but I do have OTRS access to info-en. Keilana&#124;Parlez ici 05:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Questions for this candidate

 * The global OS policy states that the oversight tool can be used for the "removal of potentially libelous information either: a) on the advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel or b) when the case is clear, and there is no editorial reason to keep the revision." What does this mean to you? --Rschen7754 06:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Part A is pretty clear cut - if WMF counsel advises the OS team that an edit should legally be removed, that's a valid reason to oversight something. Part B covers blatant libel, and here the local OS policy comes into play - the "Suppression may be occasionally used to remove vandalism for which removal by normal administrative measures is insufficient. " part in particular. The question is whether or not something can be merely revision deleted, i.e., should all admins have access to the information. It's also a situation where I'd try to consult a more experienced oversighter for a second opinion, at least the first few times. Keilana&#124;Parlez ici 05:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What is your experience with collaborating and coming to a consensus with editors of different opinions and philosophies? What have you learned from these experiences? --Rschen7754 06:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I was extensively involved in closing two of the most contentious RFCs ever, the Jerusalem RfC and Muhammad images RfC, which required collaboration with two other admins each time. We discussed extensively and came to a consensus though we did not initially come from the same perspective. It was a very valuable experience and I'm still proud of the result. Keilana&#124;Parlez ici 05:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * While your content work is extensive, your use of administrative tools is somewhat more limited; your last five logged administrative actions date back to November 2014. Part of the reason the OS team is looking for more personpower is that many of our current team members perform very few suppressions. If you become an oversighter, do you see yourself actively using the tool, including regularly responding to OTRS queue requests and handling requests made via IRC or private email, or do you see yourself using it more in a "if I happen to come across something that needs to be suppressed, I'll use my tools to handle it" style? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I see myself using the OS tools pretty actively, especially since I tend to be more responsive to emails (thanks, Pavlov). There is also more urgency with OS requests that there generally isn't with admin work. Keilana&#124;Parlez ici 05:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In a past ArbCom election where you were a candidate, concerns were raised regarding your support of Jack Merridew, a since community-banned editor. (Disclaimer: I certainly don't endorse everything that was said in the guide I linked). Looking back at that two years later, what are your thoughts on matters like this? --Rschen7754 03:57, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's particularly relevant to oversight privileges. Keilana&#124;Parlez ici 05:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, perhaps I will rephrase this then: a well-established content editor makes posts that have to be oversighted. They keep doing it again after being told not to. How do you handle this? --Rschen7754 05:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It depends. If I'm involved in some non-admin/OS way or know I'm biased, I won't act. There are enough people on the OS team to make a decision in that case. If I'm not involved/biased, then I'd consider that grounds for a block, since it's disruptive to the project to keep making oversightable edits. It may be because it's past 2 AM here and I've been sciencing all day, but I can't think of a situation where this has actually happened. Keilana&#124;Parlez ici 08:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What relevance does the number of FAs you've been recognized for have to do with whether you should be granted Oversight user access level? NE Ent 17:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not terribly relevant beyond the fact that it's a big part of my work here and that I spend a lot of time on the content side of things. Keilana&#124;Parlez ici 15:53, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you; follow-up: the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete/Keilana&offset=&limit=500&type=delete&user=Keilana deletion log] shows little recent deletion or rev-del activity -- why the interest in Oversight? NE Ent 18:48, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I heard we needed oversighters and I have good knowledge of policy, so I figured I'd throw my name in to see if ArbCom wanted me to help out. Keilana&#124;Parlez ici 13:50, 10 March 2015 (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 — Ched : ?  18:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support will be net positive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Having an oversighter on hand with expertise on how PII is handled in the health care sector brings a needed perspective to the mix. --Djembayz (talk) 03:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support NE Ent 23:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Not really sure what to think about this candidacy. On one hand, I think Keilana would bring a perspective supporting collaboration among functionaries as well as being grounded in content, what Wikimedia is all about. On the other, well, I'm a bit concerned by a lack of experience/activity in the area (not very active in OTRS lately, lack of RevDel, and not aware of past incidents related to OS - see my question above), and I wonder if in 6 months she would find it a distraction from creating content and thus not be very active in the OS team. --Rschen7754 03:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * On the fence. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 10:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support -- I've known of this user for a very long time and never felt anything but confidence and trust in her activities. Jehochman Talk 13:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Always helpful and very knowledgeable. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 17:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong support Quite qualified. At least one of the questions seems highly ill-advised. If Rschen has information that the candidate would not abide by policy, far better to bring it up, than to say in an accusatory manner, "you supported Jack Merridew", however phrased. A read of the so-called election  guide in question shows that many of the recommendations are based on whether or not the candidate supported Pumpkin Sky, Raul654, or Jack Merridew, with only the second one being worthy of support.  Bringing such partisan dreck into a matter three years later makes me question Rschen's judgment.  I would counsel him that bringing up old grudges is very ill-advised, and does nothing to let past matters pass.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you have strong feelings on the matter, so you are seeing things in a different light. Regardless, I have a track record across similar requests on many different wikis of raising activity concerns, and this is no exception. --Rschen7754 13:52, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not question your word, but the irrelevancy of the issue should be obvious. As it is so, I'll let it go at that.  Should a more relevant thread occur where I believe the related issue needs to be raised, I will do so and of course, after hearing from you, form a fair judgment.  But the topic has no place here.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * While the issue seems irrelevant in my view also, I'm not convinced that your endorsement for this candidate needed to be so harsh regarding Rschen7754 asking his desired questions in this instance. Keilana's response to the questions seem to resolve the underlying concern anyway. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Keilana has been a trusted editor and administrator for an amazingly long time, and from what I've seen she would make a valuable addition to the oversight team. 28bytes (talk) 21:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Keilana's large amount of outreach work in addition to her excellent on wiki content creation makes her accessible to a broader group of people than the average user. It will be a great asset for Wikipedia English for her to educate people from her first hand experience about the use of these tools, as well as assisting people by doing oversight requests. Sydney Poore/FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 15:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * CommentUnfortunately, many people don't know that it is possible to suppress edits. Keilana's participation will increase the reach of oversight to more people. Sydney Poore/FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 15:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. No reservations at all. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support ///Euro Car  GT  19:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Long Term Admin since 2007 with 3000 admin actions and very highly committed to the Project.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support based on experience as admin and knowledge of what this position requires. John Carter (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, having watched this admin for years, there is no doubt in my mind that Keilana is a fantastic asset for the project; this editor and admin has my ultimate trust and support - we can't do better than Kei. Dreadstar  ☥   01:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong support: Level head, strong skills, very good at what she does, also have met her IRL and know she's a really great person.  Experienced, level-headed, intelligent and thoughful.  We need  Keilana and more like her on wiki.   Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  04:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support <b style="color:#0E0">Jianhui67</b><b style="color:#1E90FF">T</b> ★ <b style="color:#1E90FF">C</b> 10:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've known Keilana for many years and am familiar with her on and off-wiki. She has always had my confidence in her and her abilities. Acalamari 20:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Reasonable person. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Kelapstick (OS)

 * Nomination statement
 * I wish to put myself forth for Oversight permission, I have been an active editor here since 2007, and an administrator since 2012. Since being an administrator I have completed the typical administrative duties, and think I could help out additionally with Oversight. I have OTRS access to en-info and permissions (although admittedly I am less active there than I would like to be). I do know my way around Wikipedia policies, and believe that with the Oversight flag I would be able to help out in that regard.
 * I wish to put myself forth for Oversight permission, I have been an active editor here since 2007, and an administrator since 2012. Since being an administrator I have completed the typical administrative duties, and think I could help out additionally with Oversight. I have OTRS access to en-info and permissions (although admittedly I am less active there than I would like to be). I do know my way around Wikipedia policies, and believe that with the Oversight flag I would be able to help out in that regard.

Standard questions for all candidates

 * 1) Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
 * As an administrator I am familiar with deletion of material. This includes revision deletion prior to my requesting material be removed by oversight.
 * 1) Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.
 * I don't know of any off-wiki technical experience that would be helpful with oversight. Most of the sensitive information I deal with off-wiki is not personal in nature, rather financial (for publicly traded companies), so I have had to sign off on confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements in past.
 * 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?
 * I do not hold any advanced permissions, but I have access to permissions and info-en queue on OTRS.

Questions for this candidate

 * The global OS policy states that the oversight tool can be used for the "removal of potentially libelous information either: a) on the advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel or b) when the case is clear, and there is no editorial reason to keep the revision." What does this mean to you? --Rschen7754 06:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * For part A, as council would be involved, it would have potential to harm the foundation legally (for example, there would be potential for a lawsuit). It is thus a formal request to remove in order to prevent harm to the foundation. For part B, an oversighter would have to determine on his or her own if suppression was a better course of action than reverting or revision deletion. For example if someone put into someone's article This person is a bit of an arse hole would be fine with garden variety reverting, where as one that says This person does naughty things to animals in his van down by the river would be better off suppressed. In the latter example it is pretty clear cut there is no editorial reason to keep that sort of revision, as (at best) it is outright vandalism. I understand that these are rather simplistic examples, so let me know if you want expansion on anything.--kelapstick(bainuu) 18:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What is your experience with collaborating and coming to a consensus with editors of different opinions and philosophies? What have you learned from these experiences? --Rschen7754 06:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, all of Wikipedia is based on collaboration and consensus, including all the articles I have taken part in writing and all the discussions that I have taken part in. I am sure (and thankful) that not everyone shares my opinions and philosophies, and I really do take notice of how I have changed over the last eight years since I started editing here. Since we are given such a diverse group of people to work with here, it has really opened my eyes (and mind) to a lot around the world. Since I started editing I have lived/worked in four countries (including my own), and I believe that my editing and interactions here helped me adapt a lot easier.--kelapstick(bainuu) 02:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What was the reason for the revdel on Zaha Hadid [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Zaha+Hadid]? NE Ent 18:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I should have picked R2 rather than R5, it was BLP violation.--kelapstick(bainuu) 18:52, 8 March 2015 (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 — Ched : ?  18:07, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support will be net positive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support found nothing of concern. --Rschen7754 04:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support NE Ent 23:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support- solid admin, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 10:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 'Support''' indeed. &mdash; <font face="Palatino Linotype" color="#000000">kikichugirl <font color="#8A37F0">oh hello! 00:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support <b style="color:#0E0">Jianhui67</b><b style="color:#1E90FF">T</b> ★ <b style="color:#1E90FF">C</b> 11:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Hafspajen (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Martinevans123 (talk) 19:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support ///Euro Car  GT  19:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Mike V (OS)

 * Nomination statement
 * Hello, I’m Mike V and I’m applying for the checkuser and oversight permissions. I’m active as a member of the OTRS team, a clerk for SPI, a member of the account creation team, as well as serving as an election commissioner for the 2014 arbitration election. In my role as a SPI clerk and as a commissioner, I’ve gained a strong familiarity with the duties of a checkuser and the responsibilities of handling the data appropriately. I’m requesting access to the checkuser permission so that I can assist further with the SPI case load, process checkuser requests for account creation, and lend a hand on UTRS. Through my on-wiki work and as an OTRS volunteer, I often encounter situations where having access to the oversight tools would be beneficial. I’m often readily available through IRC, which will allow me to respond to community requests quickly. Thank you for your consideration.

Standard questions for all candidates

 * 1) Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
 * In a number of situations I have contacted the oversight team to request content suppression. I have experience using the revision deletion tool and responding to deletion requests privately and through the IRC channel.
 * 1) Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.
 * Through both past and present employment, I have been entrusted with access to a database of sensitive information. I have also responded to situations where a swift and discreet response is necessary.
 * 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?
 * I was an election commissioner for the 2014 Arbitration Committee elections on the English Wikipedia. Through this role I had access to checkuser-like data of the voters. I am a member of the OTRS team and currently have access to info-en (full), photosubmissions, permissions, and sister projects (Commons).

Questions for this candidate

 * The global OS policy states that the oversight tool can be used for the "removal of potentially libelous information either: a) on the advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel or b) when the case is clear, and there is no editorial reason to keep the revision." What does this mean to you? --Rschen7754 06:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Part A allows the community to oversight material when WMF legal has reason to believe that certain material within the encyclopedia is harmful to an individual or organization and should not be visible to the community or its readers. For instance, this may occur when the subject or their representative contacts the Foundation directly to request removal of the content. In regards to point B, this allows one to oversight the material if they reasonably believe the offending content is unsupported and would cause harm by allowing it to persist.


 * If Template:SockBlock had a parameter for giving the reason for a block, would you use it in cases such as Bucal, Calamba, and what would you write? &mdash; Sebastian 00:42, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If there was a parameter, yes. I would provide an explanation that details how the account is related to the master account. This would include a link to the sockpuppetry case which shows the established behavior. In addition, I'd provide diffs that illustrates the same behavior so that the connection is clear to all.

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 will be net positive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support as above. --Rschen7754 06:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Handled contentious SPI issues surrounding GGTF well. NE Ent 23:34, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support with pleasure, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 10:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - A wonderful editor, and a helpful and responsible admin. Always willing to respond to urgent requests on IRC, too. Cleaned up BLP vio really quickly just the other day when I told him, too. &mdash; <font face="Palatino Linotype" color="#000000">kikichugirl <font color="#8A37F0">oh hello! 00:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - A very sensible and trustworthy candidate.- MrX 11:54, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Gamaliel  ( talk ) 00:31, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Largely repeating my earlier comment that I'm surprised MikeV hasn't been appointed yet - but just as well I can add my support then. I have full confidence about the community benefit from his appointment, and I have no reservations that he would be an excellent fit for the functionaries team too. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. The only time I have seen Mike in action was in the situation mentioned at user talk:Mike V, where he blocked a user without any trace of information in a situation that did not require secrecy, which makes me feel uncomfortable with giving more power to him. &mdash; Sebastian 15:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi SebastianHelm, I’m sorry that my block may have come off as obscure. It appears you left your first message after I stepped away from Wikipedia for the night and left your second message before I started the next day. (1) When I read your second message it seemed to me that you were satisfied with my blocking rationale after comparing the user’s contributions to those of the master account. I’m always willing to elaborate on my SPI blocking rationale and have done so when requested. (For example: 2, 3, 4) I try my best to be as transparent as possible, but if my actions are ever unclear I would be more than happy to elaborate. Best, <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 16:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I believe that you would have elaborated, had I not cancelled that request, which is one reason why my oppose was only weak. My concern was only with your original action, and the fact that you didn't reply to my request for using  on your talk page. But let's discuss that on your talk page, so we can keep that topic in one place. &mdash; Sebastian 18:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC) amended 18:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Support ///Euro Car  GT  19:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support based on lack of any significant reservations on my part. John Carter (talk) 22:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support <b style="color:#0E0">Jianhui67</b><b style="color:#1E90FF">T</b> ★ <b style="color:#1E90FF">C</b> 13:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Ronhjones (OS)

 * Nomination statement
 * Hi, I'm Ronhjones, and I'm applying for the oversight user-right. I have been editing on Wikipedia/Wikimedia for almost 7 years, and I have been an en-Wiki admin for just over 5 years, a commons admin for 2 years and an OTRS volunteer for 3 years. I feel that I have the necessary judgement and experience to help with oversight. I am very usually available most week day evenings (in UK).

Standard questions for all candidates

 * 1) Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
 * There have been a few occasions, when I have used revision deletion to hide privacy-related edits, and I have then passed them to the Oversighters for suppression.
 * 1) Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.
 * I don't think that there is much technical expertise required here for oversight (unlike checkuser). As for privacy, then as someone who makes custom chemicals to other companies recipes (under a non-disclosure agreement), the need for privacy is well exercised, plus the work at OTRS also have a strong privacy requirement.
 * 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?
 * Nothing advanced, although also a admin on commons, and on OTRS - Queues: Commons, info-en (f), Permissions, Photosubmission.

Questions for this candidate

 * The global OS policy states that the oversight tool can be used for the "removal of potentially libelous information either: a) on the advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel or b) when the case is clear, and there is no editorial reason to keep the revision." What does this mean to you? --Rschen7754 06:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That is Item No. 2 of the OS policy - which is preceded by "In the following cases, revision and/or log suppression may be used when justified by the circumstances. However, consideration should be given to whether administrative revision deletion is an adequate response". Thus one should look at the request and decide if suppression or oversight is the best solution. I would hope that in case (a) that the Wikimedia Foundation counsel would know exactly what was required and any action from myself would just be a "rubber stamp", but we still need to evaluate first. As for (b) then one has to make the decision to suppress RevDel or oversight on one's own - a bit of name calling would go for suppression RevDel, but if someone starts making invalid criminal accusations then we need to oversight. <b style="border:1px solid #dfdfdf;color:green; padding:1px 3px;background:#FFD">Ron h jones </b>(Talk) 21:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * What is your experience with collaborating and coming to a consensus with editors of different opinions and philosophies? What have you learned from these experiences? --Rschen7754 06:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * When you are an admin, you will often often start up Wikipedia and there will be some irate editor complaining about some action done which they don't agree with (and the same with OTRS e-mails). I try to explain my view with regard to the policies and guidelines, and try to make suggestions about how to go forward. Hopefully we can (and usually do) come to an agreement. Of course, there will be the odd occasion where one has to agree to disagree, and there will be a natural time to drop the stick and maybe try to get someone else to take over. You cannot please all the people all of the time. <b style="border:1px solid #dfdfdf;color:green; padding:1px 3px;background:#FFD">Ron h jones </b>(Talk) 21:32, 4 March 2015 (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 57K admin actions with over 6300 Revision Deletions and hence would require Oversight well versed in policy and judgement and has been admin since 2009 and ORTS Volunteer .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I will be honest, and let others note, that the majority of the RevDels will be hiding non-free files with orphaned versions using Legotkm's revision deletion tool <b style="border:1px solid #dfdfdf;color:green; padding:1px 3px;background:#FFD">Ron h jones </b>(Talk) 16:33, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support will be net positive. especially when combined with OTRS. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Didn't find anything of concern in my research. (FWIW, "suppression" usually refers to the use of OS, not RevDel). --Rschen7754 03:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, well we both knew what I meant to say! I've adjusted the text so that everyone is clear. We really need a better word for RevDel - it's rather an ugly neologism :-) <b style="border:1px solid #dfdfdf;color:green; padding:1px 3px;background:#FFD">Ron h jones </b>(Talk) 23:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support NE Ent 23:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support with pleasure, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 10:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support--John Cline (talk) 22:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - I have often seen him when working with the various image processes. His knowledge of the rules and his competence to use the tools are always evident. --B (talk) 21:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, although I think it would have been more apt to call it "voluntary disclosure" than being "honest" when he replied to Pharoah of the Wizards in this comments section. But that's semantics in this case as I expect he'd be honest either way. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That will be the Londoner in me - 'onest Ron... :-) <b style="border:1px solid #dfdfdf;color:green; padding:1px 3px;background:#FFD">Ron h jones </b>(Talk) 20:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support definitely one great candidate. ///Euro Car  GT  19:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support <b style="color:#0E0">Jianhui67</b><b style="color:#1E90FF">T</b> ★ <b style="color:#1E90FF">C</b> 10:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)