Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/2017 CUOS appointments/OS

There'sNoTime (OS)

 * Nomination statement
 * Hi, I'm There'sNoTime - I've been an administrator here since December of last year, and have decided to apply to be considered for checkuser and oversight due to my technical background and desire to be of further use to the community. I believe, through my real-life work in healthcare IT, I have the technical ability to use this access to help track down sockpuppets and prevent abuse on our project. Working in the healthcare IT industry, privacy is paramount. It instils a strong belief that data should remain private and is a fundamental part of my day-to-day activities. My work on Wikipedia shows the commitment to and understanding of the policies which guide our contributions, and if granted these tools I would use them to help protect and maintain this project. Thank you.

Standard questions for all candidates

 * 1) Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
 * Through my work as an administrator, I have come across multiple instances of content needing revision deletion or suppression - when this occurs, I've always acted quickly to minimise the damage such content can cause. I believe Oversight is a role where the only helpful, on-wiki experience you can have is primarily requesting oversight and not getting it denied. To be best of my knowledge, all my requests have been actioned.
 * 1) Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.
 * As I mention in my nomination statement, I work in an IT sector where privacy and abidance to regulations is a must. I believe this experience has helped my thorough understanding of the oversight policy.
 * 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 currently hold these advanced permissions on this or any other WMF project. I have OTRS access to info-en

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 TNT has the technical skills, appreciation for privacy, and respect of the community. One of our best admins and someone who appreciates how Wikipedia can impact the real world. I said in my support of SoWhy I thought he was probably the best candidate we have for oversight, and I'll same the same about TNT for CU (and he's a very close second on oversight as well .) TonyBallioni (talk) 04:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd encourage anyone thinking of commenting on this to read TNT's answer to some of the CU questions. I think it shows why he is such a good choice for either of the functionary roles. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * support* ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 16:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Couldn't think of anyone I'd trust more with the tool! TNT has a respect for user's privacy and I think he will be a great fit for the OS team. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 21:47, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - Same as my CU endorsement. TNT would do great with OS rights. --  Dane  talk  02:12, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support No concerns. Simplexity22 (talk) 05:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support No reason for opposing. — usernamekiran (talk)  07:30, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support no concerns on the OS side. --Rschen7754 07:33, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - What I said in my support for TNT getting CU. RileyBugz 会話 投稿記録  21:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Again, I'll be alone here per my comments at the CU nomination. Comfycozybeds (talk) 18:10, 24 September 2017 (UTC) Confirmed sockpuppet ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per comments at CU. Patient Zerotalk 09:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Sphilbrick (OS)

 * Nomination statement
 * I am applying for Oversight, not CU. I have almost 10 years of experience as a Wikipedia editor. Over my Wikimedia career, I started with Wikipedia, expanded into contributions to Commons, then active involvement as an OTRS agent, and modest contributions to Wikidata. I have been appointed an admin at the English Wikipedia, Commons and OTRS. I briefly served as an arbcom clerk (mainly to help me decide whether I should run for arbcom which persuaded me, at least at the time, that I should not, but that may change in the future). I enjoy helping, so I've been active at the help desk, and at Request for Feedback (a predecessor to the teahouse). I enjoy being part of this community, so I've attended Wikimania events in DC and Montréal as well as Wikimedia USA events in New York and DC. I've been active with copyright issues, so have a fair bit of experience with revision deletion. I'm one of the more active OTRS agents (closed 1008 tickets in last month, not counting spam removals), where I have fielded many requests for removal of information, some of which result in polite explanations why it cannot be removed, some of which result in simple removal, some of which result in revision deletion, and some of which have been forwarded on to oversight for possible suppression.

Standard questions for all candidates

 * 1) Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
 * I try to start out each day doing some copyright work at Copypatrol. According to the leaderboard, I've closed about 3500 potential copyright issues. When violation are identified, they are typically revision deleted, so I have substantial experience with revision deletion.
 * I am one of the more active OTRS agents, fielding emails from the public, including readers with questions, subjects of articles with complaints, and brand-new editors who don't know where else to turn. The second of those groups is most relevant to OS - many people write in asking for some material to be removed from an article about them. Responding to these questions requires close attention to our policies, especially WP:BLPPRIVACY. We need to balance the desire to be an informative encyclopedia with the desires of people to protect their privacy. A typical review requires an assessment of what can and cannot be removed per policy, and whether it can be "simply" removed as an editor, or requires more advanced removal such as revision deletion or suppression. As an admin, I can carry out simple removal and revision deletion, and in cases where suppression should be considered, I file a request with Oversight.
 * In addition to carrying out removal, I often have to reject some aspect of the request, and I try to provide a tactful explanation when I feel that removal is not warranted. If I receive this appointment, my activity in OTRS will largely remain the same, except that I will be able to carry our suppression, if that is warranted. My intention is to do this in consultation with other functionaries, in order to make sure my assessments remain in line with the community. I don't intend to be limited to OTRS related issues, if appointed, I will be an active participant in general issue sent in to Oversight.
 * 1) Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.
 * I am currently the President of a local charitable organization, as well as a member of its Board of Directors. While it is a modest-sized organization, we do have access to private information and we have to comply with local, state, and national guidelines for the handling of non-public information. I have previously served as a member of the Board of Directors of a national professional organization (one notable enough to have a Wikipedia article about them), and in a more significant way, was trusted with material non-public information. I spent a number of years as a financial consultant, and often had access to non-public material, especially when consulting in legal cases, and in merger and acquisition work.
 * 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 on this or other projects. I am an OTRS agent, and recently became an OTRS administrator. My queue access lists is:
 * OTRS admins, info-en, info-queues, permissions, Wikibooks, Commons

Questions for this candidate

 * While not formally expressed as a question, Rob noted my lack of involvement in IRC. My hope is to persuade people that Teamspeak is better but failing that, I will commit to becoming active in IRC again.
 * While not formally expressed as a question, Rob noted my lack of involvement in IRC. My hope is to persuade people that Teamspeak is better but failing that, I will commit to becoming active in IRC again.

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 Well-trusted here and globally (OTRS/commons), and can be trusted with sensitive information, including complete access to OTRS. --Rschen7754 03:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Trustworthy, experienced in the right areas, sensible and level-headed. This candidate's appointment would benefit us. -- Begoon 03:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Per two supports above me. NativeForeigner Talk 03:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - candidate has a wide range of experience and is trusted in multiple areas of the Wikimedia movement. I trust that the candidate will properly apply the OS policy if appointed. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 04:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Have had the opportunity to speak with Sphilbrick on this topic at Wikimania. His OS requests show a good understanding of the parameters within which oversight is appropriate. Mature, experienced, sensible candidate.  Risker (talk) 05:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Sphilbrick is a very trustworthy admin, and with the long tenure and high activity with OTRS, is fully qualified for access to OS. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Clearly trusted. The only downside is that Sphilbrick does not regularly use IRC, which is quite important for OS, but he's on OTRS enough that he will be able to deal with requests that come in through that venue quickly. ~ Rob 13 Talk 12:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * As a side note, I helped Sphilbrick get set up with IRC, so my one reservation is no longer applicable. ~ Rob 13 Talk 23:49, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - probably one of the most qualified candidates we've had for OS in recent years and clearly has a need for the use of the tool. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Sphilbrick is very well experienced, completely trustworthy, and is a very strong candidate for OS. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. I've met Stephen at Wikimania and can trust him to handle the sensitive task of oversighting. Deryck C. 13:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Probably the best OTRS agent we have Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support User has done over 55000 Rev Del and hence the oversight tool will be useful as some of these REV Del may need Suppression .In addition to over 147000 deletions.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Never seen Sphlbrick be anything but fastidious and fair, with the best interests of the project in focus. Crow  Caw  23:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Experienced and trustworthy, will be a model oversighter. Alex ShihTalk 08:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Yes. Widr (talk) 12:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Trusted & a plus to the project. Shearonink (talk) 01:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Per the above. I have no concerns. Simplexity22 (talk) 05:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support User is trusted by community and I've seen them around sensitive areas. Makes sense. -- QEDK ( 愛  •  海 ) 15:49, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support -- Avi (talk) 08:42, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per comments above. Comfycozybeds (talk) 18:12, 24 September 2017 (UTC) Confirmed sockpuppet ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - a trustworthy candidate. No concerns. Patient Zerotalk 09:47, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support as trusted and experienced editor. – Davey 2010 Talk 18:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong support--Per Rschen. Winged Blades of Godric On leave 09:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

SoWhy (OS)

 * Nomination statement
 * Hi everyone,


 * as many of you know, my main area of admin activity is deletion (speedy deletion and AFD). In course of my work there, I have come across multiple pages with information that needed to be oversighted and all my requests were granted. I also believe most users have come to know me as a calm, civil and communicative person when dealing with any issue, even when things get heated and people disagree with me.


 * In real life, I am 33 year old lawyer from a small town east of Munich, Germany, which makes my time zone CET/CEST (UTC+1/+2). My online time varies but I am usually quick to respond to mails which I monitor at any time I am at work or at home.


 * Last but not least, I wish to repeat something I wrote the last time I stood for OS 8 years ago which is as true today as it was back then: If you oppose my candidacy, please take the time to elaborate why .After all, if any mistakes I made or make made you vote in such a way, I can only seek to address and learn from them if I know what they are.


 * Regards  So Why 

Standard questions for all candidates

 * 1) Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
 * I think I said it all in my nom statement. If you have any questions, feel free to ask.
 * 1) Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.
 * As I mentioned above, I'm a lawyer IRL, so dealing with private data is my daily bread.
 * 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.

Questions for this candidate

 * The global OS policy states that the oversight tool can be used for the "removal of potentially libelous information either: ... b) when the case is clear, and there is no editorial reason to keep the revision." What does this mean to you? --Rschen7754 05:30, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think this part of the policy is reserved for addition of material that has no reason whatsoever to be here, like someone randomly inserting "John Doe is a child molester" into various articles without any reason to assume that this might possibly be true or relevant to any article.
 * I was hoping that you would go into more of what you would consider "potentially libelous" - could you clarify? --Rschen7754 07:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I will try but since our policy merely circle-defines "libelous" as whatever is written in defamation, I'm mostly quoting from there. Libelous means that a statement is a) false, b) caused harm (either in itself (e.g. "murderer", "rapist" etc.) or in context and c) was made without adequately researching the truthfulness. "Potentially libelous" encompasses any statement that - if false - may cause harm (e.g. "John Doe is a child molester"). If the material was clearly inserted solely to defame the person in question and not in any way potentially correct, there is no editorial reason to keep it. If, on the other hand, the material alleges that it might be correct, it should - at most - be handled by revision deletion or - usually - by reverting, at least until factual correctness can clearly be ruled out. As with many things, I assume this is something that one learns on a case-by-case basis and something I, if I am granted access to the OS tool, would definitely discuss with other, more experienced oversighters before rushing into it. Regards  So Why  09:06, 20 September 2017 (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 SoWhy and I are frequent sparring partners on policy discussions, and I opposed his recent RfB based on concerns based on how we disagree on the evaluation of consensus. That being said, I honestly can't think of someone this round who would be a better oversighter. I think his legal background would be useful since it deals with privacy concerns, and he is exceptionally unlikely to use the tools or access to private information to further his own interests either on-wiki or off-wiki. I strongly urge the committee to make SoWhy an oversighter in this round of appointments. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:37, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support A trusted administrator, opposes at his recent RfB demonstrate that the worst objections to SoWhy as a bureaucrat make him an exemplary OS candidate. Jclemens (talk) 08:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. My experience of SoWhy, and the comments at his recent RfB, indicate that they are often very literal and rigid in their interpretation of policies. Oversight is a role that requires dealing with a great many edge cases and situations where the intent of the policies and the sometimes complex facts of the individual case need interpreting and analysing. Thryduulf (talk) 10:32, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Could you maybe provide one or two fictional(ized) examples of such "edge cases" that you think are not covered by a literal interpretation of policy? Obviously, I would have preferred if you had given me the chance to alleviate your concerns prior to making this comment but nonetheless, I am genuinely interested what these "edge cases" would look like. Regards  So Why  11:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The most common situations are probably related to the Streisand effect. Thryduulf (talk) 12:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Please forgive my continued ignorance. I'm aware of the Streisand effect but I don't see the connection. Since you are an Oversighter yourself, maybe you can provide one or two examples from your experience where you felt a literal interpretation of policy would have been incorrect? Regards  So Why  06:26, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't have time right now to look for a suitable example, but this is the key paragraph from the boilerplate response we can send when there is a concern re the Streisand effect, which usually applies to older edits (e.g. a few days ago someone requested we oversight their real name and/or email address from the userpage of a user they had abandoned in circa 2010; many are not as clear as that) "All Wikipedia content that is in a public log, such as a page history, is available in periodic database "dumps" which are free for downloading to anyone. With the age of your request this means that while we can remove it from the live version of Wikipedia, we cannot remove the edit from the internet entirely.  The consequence of this is that if you have a serious concern over someone trying to invade your privacy, often times removing the edit, IP address or username has the potential to escalate the problem since the information is available elsewhere and may cause a greater concern for privacy than you had in the beginning." Thryduulf (talk) 09:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Ahh, now I understand. Yes, that response makes perfect sense in such situations and it is actually in line with my thinking not to act hasty when something has existed for years (which is also why I regularly deny requests for speedy deletion of pages that existed for 10+ years even if the criteria match, see also WP:SILENCE). Thanks for taking the time to explain and I can assure you that if I am granted OS, I will consider the circumstances of each request carefully. After all, as you say, what's the point of suppression if the act of suppression itself is the one that draws people to the information in the first place? Regards  So Why  11:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. SoWhy's strict adherence to policy and not allowing gut feeling to interfere with his assessment of a situation actually makes him particularly well suited to the use of the OS tool. It would be most unusual for him to make any controversial decisions over edge cases. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support--Essentially per and .I agree that he is the prob. the best of the lot. Winged Blades of Godric On leave 13:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. I wasn't really intending to comment here, but I'm moved to by Thryduulf's oppose. Oversight/suppression has some of the most clearly delineated criteria of the project, with less room for "fuzzy" judgment than most. If an editor disagrees with a decline for OS, they can always nominate it again and ask for someone else to review - and it's backed up by the wider criteria for revision deletion, which minimizes any possible fallout from possibly marginal cases. I see SoWhy as possibly the strongest candidate running for OS this time. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Absolutely Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support No concerns ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 16:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Extremely well qualified both on-wiki and off.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support I opposed the bureaucrat candidacy because of the inflexibility and rigidity shown towards CSD. However, OS requires a different kind of judgement which I believe SW possesses. With the RfB, there were alarm bells ringing as there had been too many controversial opposes. With this I can't see what can go wrong, but I can see what could go right. Aiken D 18:47, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - Oversight requires the skillset that the candidate possess. I think he would perform well in this role. --  Dane  talk  22:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support SoWhy has the experience and judgement to make good use of OS. I have no concerns whatsoever about this candidacy, and his appointment would benefit the community. -- Begoon 00:46, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Per TonyBallioni and Kudpung, has a need for the tool, and I find the answer to Thryduulf's comment to be acceptable. Simplexity22 (talk) 05:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support A lot familiar with SoWhy's activity, I also skimmed it a good deal during his RfB. He would be very good with OS tool. — usernamekiran (talk)  07:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support The expertise and strict approach are excellent qualities for oversight. Alex ShihTalk 07:53, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support I'm satisfied with the response above. --Rschen7754 02:16, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. I don't see anything wrong here, and the response to the (only) oppose vote was quite good.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )  10:21, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong support Most definitely. This user was almost granted bureaucratship and failed at the last minute, which shows his trustworthiness. Comfycozybeds (talk) 18:12, 24 September 2017 (UTC) Confirmed sockpuppet ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * support. I am certain that he won't misuse the access and I don't find his potential inflexibility that was mentioned at RfB as a problem here --Kostas20142 (talk) 11:28, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. No issues here, I trust SoWhy.  Y intan  01:05, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - if anything, I think a literal, black-and-white minded approach is ideal for this permission - ergo, SoWhy is an ideal candidate. Patient Zerotalk 09:49, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - I don't see any concerns here, – Davey 2010 Talk 18:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Primefac (OS)

 * Nomination statement
 * I am applying for the oversight position because I appreciate the importance of handling situations promptly and am often online. I currently handle many revision deletion requests per week, mainly for copyright violations, but also via email and IRC. I see many oversight requests in IRC, and I think having another set of eyes to speed up the OS process, even if by only a small amount, will help keep Wikipedia a safe and collaborative space. As an educator in secondary schools, I understand the vital nature of keeping personal information private (both from a "putting things out there" perspective as well as the "keeping things private" standpoint) as well as the necessity of keeping libellous and harmful material out of public spaces.

Standard questions for all candidates

 * 1) Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
 * I regularly patrol the CSD-tagged pages, in particular the copyright violations, and perform a lot of revdel's during the course of those patrols. Often an WP:A10 page will need a revdel or oversight. In addition I frequently see help me and/or AFC posts that reveal personal information, which I revdel followed by a request to oversight. I am regularly present in the IRC help channels, and occasionally receive revdel requests from non-admins regarding questionable content they've found during their travels around Wikipedia.
 * 1) Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.
 * I've been teaching (in one form or another) since 2014, which generally involves the handling of sensitive information. Most are mundane things like allergies, but there are serious things like behavioural history and psychological profiles as well. These issues are not to be spread around, and student behaviour during school is also considered sensitive and not-to-be-discussed outside of work itself.
 * 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 advanced permissions (just the mop), but I do have OTRS access (info-en and permissions-en queues)

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 - I have experience with Primefac's RevDel usage and familiarity with the oversight policy. I think he will do great as an oversighter. --  Dane  talk  03:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - Trusted admin (and I voted against their RfA). Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support--Quite competent and trust-worthy at RevDel(s) and the like. Winged Blades of Godric On leave 13:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Extremely competent admin who is very active on IRC. No concerns with them having access to this tool. ~ Rob 13 Talk 15:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support opposing his RfA was one of the biggest mistakes I've made over the past year. Trusted admin who I'd feel comfortable giving the OS tool to. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support I have communicated with Primefac on a few occasions, but I am very well familiar with his activity already. No concerns at all. — <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">usernamekiran (talk)  07:35, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support no issues. --Rschen7754 02:18, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support No concerns. Simplexity22 (talk) 02:41, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Trusted & Competent, they are more than capable as an admin, and would make an excellent functionary. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 16:41, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per comments above. Comfycozybeds (talk) 18:12, 24 September 2017 (UTC) Confirmed sockpuppet ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - having seen Primefac around, I can safely say I have no concerns. Patient Zerotalk 09:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - Extremely competent and trusted user, No concerns. – Davey 2010 Talk 21:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Oshwah (OS)

 * Nomination statement
 * I am applying for the CheckUser and Oversight permissions to extend my participation with Wikipedia in order to protect the privacy of users, and be available to help with processing the requests that I see frequently occur and go unanswered on IRC, as well as help with the backlog at SPI and ACC. I've been an administrator for a year, and have been consistently active and available to help with requests and urgent matters on IRC and other communication methods. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to ask me them and I'll be happy to answer.

Standard questions for all candidates

 * 1) Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
 * My time has been mostly spent in recent changes patrolling and attempting to mentor and help new users on Wikipedia. I patrol recent changes and revert vandalism, respond to instances of long-term abuse, username violations, blatant sock puppetry, page protection requests, and (occasionally) AFD, AN3, and ANI. I'm also an ACC Tool Administrator on WP:ACC, and assist with processing account creation requests, as well as helping tool users with difficult or complex cases. I'm also highly active on IRC and I respond to requests for assistance and input from other users, and I respond to emergencies such as LTA, threats, blocking requests, revision deletion requests, and I make sure that the proper functionaries and channels are notified depending on the issue. I frequently request oversight as part of recent changes patrolling, and would use the tools to respond (both on the mailing list and IRC) to requests for oversight.
 * 1) Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.
 * My current job frequently requires me to handle and process matters and requests that are highly confidential at the corporate level. This includes HR requests and the planning and conducting of employee termination and internal investigations regarding the breach and mishandling of data and terms of use policies by employees, major corporate decisions that are not announced to any employees (such as site closures and the "selling off" of company assets that affect employees and managers), and the safeguarding and controlling of access to HR and confidential corporate data (electronic employee files, background checks, personal and financial employee and company information, and other classified materials). I take any and all restricted data and its privacy as a top priority as part of my job, and I will reflect the same level of confidentiality and privacy of data on Wikipedia with the same priority.
 * 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 on other projects, and I currently do not have OTRS permissions (but that certainly can change).

Questions for this candidate

 * I see that you frequently RevDel a user name of a blocked user from the creation log, but not the user's block log entry. I thee a reason for this? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:11, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Just as a general comment, for anyone who doesn't know, abusive usernames should be reported to the oversight team or the stewards, either of whom can scrub it from all logs and page histories (including Special:ListUsers) in a single action. HJ Mitchell  &#124; <span style="color:Navy; font-family:Times New Roman;" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts?  12:20, 29 September 2017 (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 OS. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support There's nothing to explain. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 16:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Oshwah's work in preserving user privacy is excellent. He has been consistently active on IRC to handle urgent issues. I have no doubt he will use OS effectively. Alex Eng <small style="font-size:80%;">( TALK ) 16:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support would be extremely useful exactly for the reasons I opposed as CU. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Striking per the concerns raised by Od Mishehu below. Not opposing, but enough for me to withdraw support at this time. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:16, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - I thought Oshwah already had this permission. No concerns. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - Same as my vote for CU. Oshwah has the skills to determine when something requires OS per the policy. --  Dane  talk  22:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support No concerns and a lot for the project to gain; thanks for offering to take this on, Oshwah. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't feel that given some of the concerns that Ritchie raised on the CU nomination, as well as some of the concerns expressed at the RFA, that granting both flags at this time would be appropriate - I would prefer to only see one granted, with a possibility of a future nomination. I don't generally look at the RFA for most nominations, but as in a lot of cases this round, the RFA is very recent. Anyway, with all of that being said, my concerns lie more towards the use of OS blocks, as while they are a lot more rare, they can quickly become controversial and I'm not confident as to how the candidate would handle such a situation. With a CU block, well, the technical data is there to back you up. --Rschen7754 06:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - Oshwah is often available on IRC, and this will help respond quickly to situations that require use of the OS bit. I understand the concern presented by Rschen7754, but overall I'm not really concerned, because I think Oshwah has the capacity to admin mistakes and learn from them. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 21:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Per the support comments above. I have no concerns with regards to Oshwah's use of delete/revdel functions, and I think he'd make a fine OS. Simplexity22 (talk) 05:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm sorry, but the more I think about this the less confident I become, largely per Rschen7754 and HJ Mitchell. I'm no longer convinced Oshwah wouldn't over-use suppression, and I think it would be premature to grant him both permissions. As I said in my CU comment, I think he's a good admin, but I must oppose at this time given how sensitive this role is, and how little scrutiny there would be from the community. Simplexity22 (talk) 00:34, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose, largely for the same reasons as I oppose the checkuser nomination but perhaps even more strongly. With checkuser you have technical data and peer review is normal on complex cases but oversight is often a delicate balancing act that can sometimes require a lot of attention for little result. For obvious cases of libel or inappropriate personal information, we'd be speeding up the process and reducing the oversight team's workload by cutting out the middle man and letting you suppress it yourself. But patiently explaining to an article subject that we can't suppress something that's widely reported in reliable sources, or to an editor being harassed that it's simply impossible to remove all trace of their real name, or providing a second opinion on the mailing list? That's often painful and requires a lot of tact and sensitivity. Moreover, I worry from some of your oversight requests (not just recent ones, I've been largely inactive for a few months and this was my impression before I went incognito) that you wouldn't be sufficiently careful with oversight, suppressing things that at a quick glance look like libel or inappropriate personal information but on closer examination turn out out to be something else, or not checking for other oversightable material. Mistakes like those would be damaging because there is very little scrutiny—because of the nature of what we do, the oversight team operates entirely behind the scenes, so the community needs to be able to trust that we're suppressing what we're supposed to and only what we're supposed to. Finally, Oshwah's checkuser nomination is attracting opposition which makes it tempting to see oversight as a 'consolation prize', but I would urge ArbCom not to fall into that trap. For what it's worth, I could see myself strongly supporting you in a few years, but not now. HJ Mitchell  &#124; <span style="color:Navy; font-family:Times New Roman;" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts?  14:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - Very helpful to new users and on IRC. On IRC, he already helps with issues needing revdel, so I am confident that he will do well in this position. RileyBugz <sup style="color:#D7000B;">会話 <sub style="color:#D7000B;">投稿記録  21:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I was going to sit this one out, but Rschen7754 makes a good point above about oversight blocks. In those instances, you are blocking on non-public data that you cannot share, which is absolutely guaranteed to gain you enemies very quickly (example). Based on what we know about Oshwah's eagerness to please and enthusiasm of clearing admin logs, and on how many enemies he's accrued already, the first time he pulls a block like the one I linked to, he's probably going to get harrassed off the site. So in this case, my oppose is very much "this is for your own good". <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  10:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I know this user from log RevDel; in this context, Oshwah frequently does a partial job - redacting a user creation log, but not the block log or a report at WP:UAA. Giving Oshwah the oversight ability means that there will be less of an ability to check the completeness of the job. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:03, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per HJ Mitchell and Ritchie333.  Y intan  01:02, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - Oshwah is experienced in revision deletion - this is simply the next step up for him. Patient Zerotalk 09:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per HJ Mitchell and Ritchie333. – Davey 2010 Talk 18:38, 28 September 2017 (UTC)