Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/2018 CUOS appointments/OS

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 put a stop to disruption. I'll be available to help with processing requests that I see go unanswered on IRC, as well as help with the backlog at SPI and ACC. I've been an administrator for two years, and have been consistently active and available to help with requests as well as urgent matters on IRC and other communication methods. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to ask and I'll be happy to answer them.

Standard questions for all candidates

 * 1) Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
 * Patrolling recent changes for vandalism and disruption often leads me to run across instances of attempted outing as well as information posted by minors about themselves. I'm also occasionally emailed by new users who aren't aware of Oversight and who have accidentally edited while logged out and asking me for assistance in this area. Each of the requests I've submitted for suppression to the Oversight team have all resulted in the revisions being suppressed - including revisions I've run into that were missed. I'm active in the IRC -revdel channel for Wikipedia, and I'm available to assist with suppression requests that come in and during the times where the availability of oversighters is very short.
 * 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 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 am an active ACC tool administrator. I don't have OTRS permissions, but that of course can change no problem if this is an issue.

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 No concern Hhkohh (talk) 05:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support I've personally experienced his judgement calls; trust his command over understanding what to OS and not. Lourdes  11:43, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, yes, would be fine. Fish +Karate 12:51, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Oshwah is easily among the most active and responsive recent change patrollers, and the project will benefit greatly from his ability to respond to sensitive requests quickly. In his last application some raised concerns that he might be too quick to oversight material, but in my own communication with him (off-wiki, due to the sensitive nature of the request) he has explained, in a patient and friendly way when I was newer editor, why a case where I asked for a revdel didn't meet the criteria, and the standards used for suppressing material. MarginalCost (talk) 14:54, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support No obvious problems. SemiHypercube ✎ 15:41, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support – based on my past interactions with Oshwah, where he came across as careful and willing to respect the policies/guidelines. Can be trusted on privacy/revdel/OS judgment calls. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Over 42000 admin action with over 3883 Revision deletions and having oversight will be useful to oversight when required.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:07, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Trusted admin with good judgment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:54, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support-One of the most frequent users of the RD tool-set and I trust his judgement as to whether a diff is oversight-able or not. &#x222F; WBG converse 13:22, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per my comment in CU section. I basically believe all CUs should've OS right by default. –Ammarpad (talk) 13:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Qualified and experienced admin in this area. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:42, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per everyone Vermont (talk) 16:22, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Highly qualified, experienced and trustworthy, one of our finest.  𝖘 𝔴𝔞𝔯𝔪  𝔛 16:58, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support -- Begoon 23:54, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Same as for CU; qualified user who would benefit from this tool. --  Dane talk  03:57, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support — Per my oppose at his CU request; no concerns about his understanding of policy. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 09:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Trustworthy and acts with good judgement. No reservations whatsoever. EclipseDude (talk) 00:36, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support No concerns. Simplexity22 (talk) 05:02, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/2018 CUOS appointments/CU. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 19:57, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per Godsy. —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap sh*t room 10:58, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Yes of course. talk to ! dave 12:59, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support I though you already had it? 💵Money💵emoji💵 💸 19:13, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. No concerns at all. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:15, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support: Oshwah has shown over the years that he has an incredible amount of respect for privacy and for the reputation of others. I've worked with him extensively at ACC, where sensitive information is handled routinely. I've never known him to handle the responsibility with anything less than the utmost care and respect. He clearly understands when OS should and shouldn't be used, and how important this role is for protecting Wikipedia, the subjects of Wikipedia articles, and all Wikipedia editors. Waggie (talk) 03:13, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support No issues, can be trusted with the tool . Kpg  jhp  jm  04:05, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support RH cosm   (talk)  09:46, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support No worries. --regentspark (comment) 11:43, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support I've seen the user do enough revdels to know they have a solid head on their shoulders, and a real concern for the privacy of individuals, both WP users and the general public. We'd benefit from them having the tool. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 20:00, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per everyone above, Trusted admin, As there job involves sensitive privacy stuff this is a no-brainer tbh. – Davey 2010 Talk 21:53, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Oshwah has the experience to use the tool properly. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:36, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Vanamonde93 (OS)

 * Nomination statement


 * My primary purpose on Wikipedia has been and will remain content work. I requested the administrator tool set two years as a means of facilitating content work, occasionally for myself, but primarily for other editors. I am requesting Oversight permission in the same spirit. ARBCOM has asked for more people to fill that role: I believe I would be able to do so, and so I am throwing my hat into the ring. As such, I do not particularly want the role; if the community feels others would fill it better, I am quite content. I do not have special qualifications for this position, but I believe I have demonstrated good judgement and an ability to work collaboratively over the last several years. I have very variable working hours, as a result of which I am frequently on-wiki at times when few others are. I am comfortably beyond the age of majority where I live. I have read the policy on access to non-public information and the confidentiality agreement, and will sign the confidentiality agreement if and when I am appointed and before I receive access. Thanks for your consideration.

Standard questions for all candidates

 * 1) Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
 * I have been an administrator for nearly two years now (my RFA was over two years ago; I took a brief break from adminship for off-wiki reasons). During that time I have made regular use of the revdel tool. I also am frequently active between 0400 and 1200 UTC. Aside from that, I do not have any special qualifications, but I believe I have demonstrated the judgement necessary to fill this role appropriately.
 * 1) Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.
 * I worked for three years in a position that required me to deal regularly with private information, including information on personal health, sexual misconduct, and academic performance. My work included making frequent decisions about how and when private information needed to be shared, and how and when it needed to be kept private.
 * 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 at this time.

Questions for this candidate

 * Refer to the link of first Oppose comment, please why do you think comments of Wikipedia-documented LTA shouldn't be removed and what's your view of WP:DENY? I know it is an essay but we can't deny that it is viewed favorably by the community. Does that mean you've a higher bar than the community when it comes to what should be removed or redacted? –Ammarpad (talk) 19:17, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I am firmly in agreement with the basic principles expressed at WP:DENY. In general, socks may be reverted on sight once confirmed to be socking, or if they are so obviously a sock that no other reasonable conclusion is possible. The conflict linked to by Capitals00 (and it's a long-running one) is complicated. Capitals00 and several others have been harassed by socks of Wikiexplorer13, and I have largely had no problem with the edits of this sock being removed; I've even reverted and blocked them myself, on occasion. I have, however, disagreed with how Capitals00 (and others) have interpreted WP:DENY in some cases. For instance, I believe that when reverting a sock, editors should leave an edit-summary describing why they are doing what they are doing: Capitals00 has not taken kindly to my requests for them to do so. In the case linked above, a sock filed an ANI report  against Capitals00, during which he went around striking the sock's comments, and also removing them at SPI. He was reverted by several editors, including  and . All of which led to this lengthy discussion, involving five admins, the outcome of which I will leave you to judge.  If that was a bit long, here's the TL:DR version: in general, socks should be reverted and ignored per WP:DENY; however, there are some common sense steps that should be followed (edit-summaries explaining the revert, for instance) and circumstances wherein the reverting is best left to others (such as at SPI, or at an ANI discussion about oneself).  So, is my bar for oversight higher than that of the community? No, it isn't. Wikiexplorer's edits were disruptive, and some were offensive; none that I am aware of were disclosing non-public personal information, and I certainly would not hesitate to revert, oversight, and block, if such a case comes to my attention. I hope that answers your question; feel free to ask me for clarification. Vanamonde (talk) 21:20, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This is OK actually. After I asked this I went over the diffs to understand them more and I found your actions reasonable. –Ammarpad (talk) 21:32, 20 September 2018 (UTC)


 * How did you inquire about the blocks of Raymond3023? Consider giving the diffs if the discussion took place on-wiki. Anatoliatheo (talk) 12:17, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It was over email, I'm afraid, and that was my understanding of how things stood. Following further conversation, it is now my understanding that the second block, at least, was judged to be incorrect following an appeal: I do not know about the first, except that it was lifted as the result of a successful appeal. Vanamonde (talk) 14:41, 21 September 2018 (UTC)


 * As Capitals00 has linked to, (in his second comment), you did not revision-delete a certain edit, that quite nicely fitted the RD criterion, in my opinion. Whilst anything sort of WP:OVERSIGHTACCT isn't applicable in this case (you are not under any responsibility for tending to every rev-delable content and neither you have actively refused to rev-delete the content), community expectations dictate (IMHO) that anybody with the mop, coming across such cases, need to be cautious enough to suppress it. Do you classify your actions (or rather the lack of it) as a mere overlook or did it stem from some other reasons (might be that you did not think the content to fit the RD criterion et al)? &#x222F; WBG converse 12:07, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I cannot remember the circumstances of the original edit, but looking back at my contributions during that time, I seem to have come across the IPs edits at the end of an editing session. I reverted and blocked them, and then made only a couple of edits in the next 48 hours. It is likely that I intended to revisit those edits, and didn't find the time. As to why I didn't revdel the comment after it was linked here: given that it wasn't a question, wasn't an explicit request, and given the history of conflict between me and Capitals00, I simply didn't click through all of the links provided. I certainly was not expecting a trick question disguised as an oppose comment: I suspect that most requests for oversight will be rather more explicit. I would have revdelled, under RD2, had I seen it. Vanamonde (talk) 15:08, 22 September 2018 (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 Strong oppose. The duty of an OS is to deal with issues including removal of "defamatory material" from Wikipedia and your performance in dealing therewith has been far from satisfactory. For example, when long term abuser  was harassing multiple editors as a part of his daily routine, you repeatedly claimed that comments of socks are not removed on noticeboards or any talk pages, though that is definitely against the established tradition of denying recognition and we are seeing that as recently as today. You failed to recognize that all types sock comments can be struck/removed by anybody from anywhere. Later on, Wikiexplorer13 left an offensive note on a user's talk page which was reverted by you, but apparently you were not reverting him elsewhere, including the articles where he carried out BLP vandalism despite the fact that you were largely aware of this LTA's history and BLP vandalism had to be reverted anyway. Then there is another case involving another serial sockpuppeteer,, who left a disparaging note containing misleading accusations of vandalism regarding a rival editor on your talk page, and it was reverted by an admin as per tradition of reverting socks, yet you reverted that admin on your talk page only for telling that sockpuppeteer about the things that he is already aware of. Given these incidents, I am confident that you are going to have a great difficultly in understanding what needs to be removed/suppressed whenever requests for OS would be brought to you. Capitals00 (talk) 08:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I linked a diff above, and attributed it as "offensive note" that had to be already deleted under WP:RD2 criteria. By linking it, I was testing your judgement of WP:REVDEL and you failed. First time you failed to delete the diffs when you had made the revert, and second time you failed delete after I had linked it above. Just now I had requested deletion of the diffs since more than 30 hours elapsed after I had posted here. Given your performance right here, I am more confident with my above comment and have changed the !vote accordingly. Capitals00 (talk) 16:58, 19 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Revdel experience and associated overall experience is a plus; no red flags. Lourdes  11:42, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support I fully trust the candidate with the ability to distinguish between what needs to be suppressed and their discretion in handling sensitive information based on my interaction with them. Alex Shih (talk) 13:55, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - I've had one or two private conversations with this candidate in the past and it's evident they're capable of handling private information in a respectful way. 100% confident their use of this tool will benefit Wikipedia. The comment above about reverting ban evasion seems to be missing the point of what oversighters do. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:11, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Not a jerk, has clue, writes content. Simples. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:43, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Talking about dealing with non-public information, you had misrepresented my block log when you claimed that "an arb told me that the first was a successful appeal, the second a benefit of the doubt..." Your statement was completely misleading like I had mentioned at that time, and you never retracted it. There was no "benefit of doubt" involved and the block was overturned because it was false and there had been no arguments over that as Arbcom had simply unblocked after one email about the block being wrong. This was after your SPI didn't worked and you were involved in numerous content related disputes with me.You still evidently hold grudges against a number of editors as recently observed in a Crat-chat where you went to ask Bureaucrats to discount votes of editors(including me) that have been involved in disputes with you.Not to forget the AfD on Zahid Ali about 4 days ago, where you criticized the participants solely for their participation, and went to complain about it to an admin only because you saw some familiar editors on this AfD. The admin then closed the AfD as Keep by citing your comment, and this resulted in extensive debate about the validity of your comment as well as the notability of the subject. The AfD closure was self-reverted by the admin, and then the article was deleted by another admin.Since your on-wiki actions have caused significant trouble even in recent times, I have no reason to deny that you cannot be trusted with OS that significantly deals with off-wiki requests. Raymond3023 (talk) 17:17, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * , Or that his participation at the fated AE thread, resulted in you being quite-rightfully topic-banned from the locus of INDO-PAK conflicts.Cheers:-) &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 13:31, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support – based on my numerous interactions with Vanamonde, I believe he will be a plus in wikipedia's oversight effort to "protect privacy, remove defamatory material and remove serious copyright violations, from any page or log entry". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:22, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - per supporters above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:55, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, meant to when I supported the others. Another suitably suitable suitor. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em"><u style="text-decoration:none;color:#38a">Fish +<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#B44">Karate  08:17, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Appropriate experience and judgement in this area. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:42, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Vanamonde is a really good admin.  𝖘 𝔴𝔞𝔯𝔪  𝔛 17:04, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong Support -- Begoon 23:54, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support — From what I have seen of him/her, Vanamonde93 seems to be a good administrator. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 09:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Qualified. –Ammarpad (talk) 21:16, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Trusted, unconvinced by the opposers. --Rschen7754 01:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Insufficient ability to detect what needs to be rev deleted as evidenced here. Knox490 (talk) 02:08, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per our interactions and my observations. Widr (talk) 05:11, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per answer to my question. I don't find it justifiable. Vanamonde93 inquired privately about blocks of Raymond3023 even after they already had their doubts cleared in the SPI that the user is not socking. Vanamonde93 later reported Raymond3023 for their general editing and it was nothing more than humiliation when they revealed the non-public information about Raymond's blocks with which Raymond vehemently disagreed. Vanamonde's current understanding of those blocks is different than what it used to be as their above answer seems to be echoing the comments of Raymond3023 to be more correct. I consider this whole approach to be really unsuitable for OS or admin as a whole. One needs to be careful when dealing with non-public information. Anatoliatheo (talk) 12:41, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose While the issues regarding the handling of revision deletion and non-public data have been already mentioned, I would like to mention that your understanding of copyrights has been contrary to the policy. Your statements or justifications of the copyright violations that occurred on History of Balochistan were misleading since the use of over 15,000 bytes of quotes was clearly excessive and it was also not "largely a matter of judgement" like you were saying, but it was an obvious copyright violation that the diffs had to be already suppressed under WP:RD1. I am not expecting perfection but these matters only required a general understanding of the policies and your actions don't give good reason to support this appointment.  Razer ( talk ) 18:55, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support as one of the few content creators on this tranche. —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap sh*t room 10:56, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Trustworthy and active. The opposes strike me as grudges. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:16, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support No concerns, I agree with Tryptofish on the oppose votes .  Kpg  jhp  jm  04:07, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I can't say for certain if these values may still be applicable after two years but opposers in his RFA made some legit points about wikistalking, partisan bias and his inability to discern between good faith edits and vandalism. Looking at the opposes here, it is possible for these values to be true. I'm confident that not giving them the tool is beneficial to the project, as oversighting is something that can easily be abused (e.g. oversighting legitimate contributions of editors they're possibly biased against, oversighting material inappropriately, etc). <u style="font:1.1em/1em Arial Black"><u style="color:#7f2ed1">Flooded <u style="color:#bfa6d8"> with them <u style="color:#7f2ed1">hundreds 10:34, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support RH cosm   (talk)  09:47, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Trustworthy editor. I agree with Tryptofish about the oppose votes being grudge driven. --regentspark (comment) 11:45, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Trusted editor, No concerns here. – Davey 2010 Talk 21:57, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Amorymeltzer (OS)

 * Nomination statement


 * Hi, I'm Amorymeltzer, and I've put my name forward for Oversight. I have made a number of reports to the Oversight mailing list, all of which have been successfully acted upon, so I figured I should offer to be more useful and help the team out.  I use revision delete fairly regularly so I am quite familiar with the tool.  In my personal life I have been trusted with handling and reviewing confidential medical and personnel information, so I am experienced in keeping private information private.  I have worn a number of different hats here over the years, and I hope my experience and tenure as an editor has shown that I can be trusted to use the tools for the betterment of the project.  Thank you for your consideration.

Standard questions for all candidates

 * 1) Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
 * I do a fair number of revision deletions, and am somewhat active at copypatrol, so I am quite familiar with the revdel tool. One thing I regularly do (ideally every week or so) is patrol the page creation log; from what I can tell, I think I'm the only one doing so.  I regularly revdel and make Oversight requests when appropriate for anything I come across, and to the best of my knowledge all my requests have been acted on, so I think I have a good sense of when to use the tool. ~  Amory <small style="color:#555"> (u • t • c) 14:51, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.
 * Most relevantly, I am a graduate student studying genetics and immunology, and one part of my current research involves access to confidential data for large numbers of parents and their children. I have also held a few supervisory and committee positions that included handling confidential personnel and budget information and making hiring/firing decisions, including serving on the Board of Directors of a nonprofit.  I was also a substitute teacher for fifth through eighth grades for about two years. ~  Amory <small style="color:#555"> (u • t • c) 14:51, 18 September 2018 (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 am an interface-admin here, granted temporarily during the initial procedure for six stopgap users. I also have sysop and int-admin on the test wiki, for whatever that's worth.  As for OTRS, I am not currently a member.  From 2009 to 2010, I had -en access stemming from a statistics project run by Cary aka Bastique; I handled some tickets as well. ~  Amory <small style="color:#555"> (u • t • c) 14:51, 18 September 2018 (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 No concern Hhkohh (talk) 05:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Competent and trusted. Well-versed in policy knowledge plus sound judgement. Amory will surely be net addition to the OS team. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:38, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support – Trustworthy to the core. Lourdes  11:40, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support – no concerns. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em"><u style="text-decoration:none;color:#38a">Fish +<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#B44">Karate 12:51, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Without waiting for answers to the standard questions, I have always find Amory to be one of the more approachable administrators, with good judgement and sensibilities. Should be a great addition to the Oversight team on top of any ArbCom clerk work that they have been doing. Alex Shih (talk) 14:01, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Civil, clueful, polite, respectful, proud parent. No issues. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support – While I have had no interactions with Amory, the answers above suggest Amory is qualified to serve in wikipedia's oversight effort to "protect privacy, remove defamatory material, and sometimes to remove serious copyright violations, from any page or log entry". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Over 22000 admin action with over 526 Revision deletions and having oversight will be useful to oversight when required.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - per the supporters above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:57, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Has clue, been around. Does good stuff without making a spectacle of themself, which is rare these days. Widr (talk) 07:35, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support-Competent from all spheres. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 13:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Qualified clueful admin in this area. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:43, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support -- Begoon 23:54, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support — Competent and trusted user. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 09:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support would certainly do a good job Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:59, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support long-term and trusted admin. --Rschen7754 01:17, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support No concerns. Knox490 (talk) 02:10, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support No concerns. Simplexity22 (talk) 05:04, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per those above. — Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 19:57, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per Godsy. —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap sh*t room 10:54, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support No concerns. Vanamonde (talk) 16:49, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Definitely. Not seeing any issues here, and obviously trusted and competent. No reason to think that they would abuse the tools in any way.-- SkyGazer 512 <span style="background: linear-gradient(aqua, #d580ff);">Oh no, what did I do this time? 15:33, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. No concerns at all. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:18, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 *  Support Per everybody above . Kpg  jhp  jm  04:08, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support RH cosm   (talk)  09:47, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * 110% Support per each and every Support above, Trusted, Competent and Clueful admin - Easiest support of the year!. – Davey 2010 Talk 21:58, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

TonyBallioni (OS)

 * Nomination statement


 * Hi, I'm Tony, and I'm applying for the oversight permission. Like I mentioned in my CheckUser application, I've been an administrator for around a year, and I also hold the global renamer flag and have access to OTRS. I'm applying for the oversight permission, because I'm generally active late at night in the United States, when many oversighters are not online, and I feel I have a strong grasp of the oversight policy and appreciation for our project and movement's principles regarding privacy and respect for human persons, which is at the core of the oversight policy. I'm one of the most active admins in and I frequently have to message oversighters to suppress revisions. I think I would bring additional manpower to the team and that I'm competent enough to handle the tool, so I'm volunteering myself to the community.

Standard questions for all candidates

 * 1) Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
 * One of the main reasons I actually went for RfA was because I came across a lot of private information of minors in the new pages feed that needed oversight and it was staying there for hours at a time because an oversighter wasn't available. That's less of an issue than it was now with ACPERM in place, but I'm broadly familiar with the requirements and discussions as to what qualifies for suppressing private information of a minor. Additionally, as I mentioned above, I'm very active in the revdel IRC channel, and often given second opinions to other administrators on the revision deletion criteria, sometimes even pinging an oversighter when I spot something that was initially missed. I think I have a pretty good grasp of the suppression criteria, and would be able to provide additional resources to the oversight team. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.
 * Slightly different from the answer above, but all the roles I have held in real life have involved access to sensitive personal information of some sort: whether it be details about individuals financial status, to private financials, or even personnel files of individuals. I have a strong belief in individual privacy and protecting people's rights to it, and feel that I would be able to maintain this as an oversighter. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:48, 18 September 2018 (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'm a global renamer and also an OTRS member. I'm less active on OTRS than I used to be, but I have access to info-en and several of its subfeeds, including the quality one, as well as the permissions feed. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Questions for this candidate
Tony, you only succeeded your RfA last year, why did you apply for OS now? Hhkohh (talk) 05:11, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * See my answer to CU: I have been encouraged to apply by several people, and I think I'll add value to the team. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:57, 18 September 2018 (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. Vanamonde (talk) 04:38, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support as per my comments at the CU nom. Lourdes  11:39, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per CU vote — python coder (talk &#124; contribs) 12:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support no issues in this tool Hhkohh (talk) 12:34, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, eminently suitable for this role. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em"><u style="text-decoration:none;color:#38a">Fish +<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#B44">Karate 12:50, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, trustworthy and judicious admin. GABgab 14:34, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per my comment in the CU section. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per what I said for CU. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per CU section Mz7 (talk) 16:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per CU support, but qualified by the fact Tony often requests OS, and I think we've only disagreed once on if something was actually oversightable. And I was wrong in that case TNTPublic (talk) 17:41, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support over 7100 admin actions and has done 884 Revision deletions in 1 year and having oversight will be useful to oversight when required.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Trusted admin with excellent judgment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support -Per above. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 13:35, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * There's less likelihood of far-reaching damage here and OS deals with zilch or less technical niceties. Going forward, It will still be prudent and in their interest to take the substance of advice/feedback manifest here and on the other page.  –Ammarpad (talk) 13:36, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Qualified and will be helpful to the project in his use. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:41, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I just want to echo 's point below that some number of CU opposes reasons, including my own, don't apply to OS and would ask that ArbCom will take that into consideration in any decision. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:54, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Qualified, responsible, and trustworthy. Vermont (talk) 16:22, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support — Per my oppose for Tony's CU request; has a somewhat demonstrated need for the tools and is extremely well-versed with Wikipedia's policies. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 09:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not suitable for advanced positions of trust. Widr (talk) 19:36, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Erm, based on what? CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  19:46, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Based on my own observations, not so much on interactions (more on the CU section). Widr (talk) 20:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The only interaction I can think of with Widr is this one, where I opposed a block he made of an IP at AIV that I was about to decline as a bad report. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose per the opposers on the CU page regarding the candidate's authoritarian attitude. <u style="font:1.1em/1em Arial Black"><u style="color:#7f2ed1">Flooded <u style="color:#bfa6d8"> with them <u style="color:#7f2ed1">hundreds 20:33, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per my comments on the CU page, while noting that some of the negative ones are not as relevant to the OS role. --Rschen7754 01:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Trustworthy and responsible. The concerns at CU do not seem very relevant to the OS role. EclipseDude (talk) 03:40, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - I opposed Tony as CU above. I've given this some consideration and, while I take Rschen7754's point that some of the concerns there are not as relevant to the OS role, I'm still left thinking that it would probably be a good thing to slow down the rapid collection of hats whilst it is ascertained whether the 'authoritarian' approach will mellow. Too soon to know, in my opinion, so, while I'm not 'bolding' an opposition here, that's the way I'd lean, if pushed. -- Begoon 03:58, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - I've interacted with Tony quite a bit and I do not have any concerns about him acquiring the OS tool. --  Dane <b style="color: #00AC1D;">talk </b> 05:10, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/2018 CUOS appointments/CU. — Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 19:53, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per Godsy. —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap sh*t room 10:53, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support I still have reservations about hat-collecting here, but this is not too much of a big deal in comparison to CU. talk to ! dave 13:14, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Widr and the hat-collecting. Nihlus  05:31, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Entirely trustworthy, and the oppose rationales are unconvincing. I think that any concerns that were raised over CHU are irrelevant here at OS. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:20, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support: I have seen that TonyBallioni believes very strongly in respecting privacy and protecting BLPs from defamatory material. While I don't always agree with him in some areas, I feel that he would be excellently suited for this userright. He clearly can be trusted and it is obvious to me that he will treat the responsibility with the weight and care it deserves. Waggie (talk) 03:15, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per general oppose reasons (same reasons as in CheckUser section.) <b style="color:#090">Semi</b><b style="color:#099">Hypercube</b> ✎ 22:48, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per CU, approaches situations looking for trouble and then imposes his immutable viewpoint. Stephen 06:50, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support RH cosm   (talk)  09:48, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - I trust Tony, and the charges of "authoritarianism" seem rather over-wrought. GABgab 15:38, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 *  Support Good candidate.  Kpg  jhp  jm  16:56, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support as per everyone above - Trusted, clueful and competent admin who would make a great Oversighter, Easy support. – Davey 2010 Talk 22:00, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support as per everyone above - Trusted, clueful and competent admin who would make a great Oversighter, Easy support. – Davey 2010 Talk 22:00, 28 September 2018 (UTC)