Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/2020 CUOS appointments/OS

Cabayi

 * Nomination statement


 * I'm applying for Checkuser, and willing to serve as an Oversighter if wanted or needed. My experience includes having been an active reporter at SPI since 2014 which started from seeing "visited" links in my browser when viewing w:Special:NewPages. I've been an SPI clerk for 18 months (full ticket for 12 months), and an admin for 6 months. The SPI work has been the focus of my wiki-activity for a long while and I'd welcome the opportunity to build on that.
 * I've revdeleted, mostly for copyvio & personal attacks, and requested oversight, mostly for kids oversharing personal info. If I'm to keep IRC/email open for CU work I may as well offer to do so for OS work also.
 * I'm semi-active on OTRS (and signed the confidentiality agreement), active on UTRS, and usually have IRC running in the background.

Standard questions for all candidates (Cabayi)

 * 1) Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
 * Since becoming an admin 6 months ago I've revdeleted (mostly copyvios) and requested oversight (mostly children's personal info).
 * 1) Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.
 * I'm a former database administrator with experience of HR & payroll systems including a payroll migration project. I'm well used to respecting the confidentiality of personal 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'm a global renamer with access to OTRS queues info-en & renamers.

Questions for this candidate (Cabayi)

 * Editors may ask a maximum of two questions per candidate.
 * Sometimes the oversight and revision deletion policies appear to overlap. For example lots of BLP violations (RD2) are also potentially libelous (OS2), and really gross abuse is often deleted under RD3/OS5. As an oversighter, how would you evaluate such decisions? -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:10, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The dividing line between RD & OS would vary according to a number of factors, the public figure vs private individual, personal info of underage individuals (under 16), the gross-ness of the abuse on the page, the criminality of any alleged behaviour which isn't supported by sources.
 * For example, on an article about (X) - "public figure (X) indulged in perversion (Y)", would be RD material as a commonplace slur, unless the description of perversion (Y) were graphic enough to push it over the line into OS. If it continued "...(Y) with individual (Z)" it would be oversightable if (Z) were a private individual being libelled, or an under-16. The cutoff may shift slightly but, in general, the wiki's strategy is to default to the lowest level of removal (and highest level of scrutiny) commensurate with the material being removed. Cabayi (talk) 15:38, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Comments (Cabayi)

 * 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.


 * Per what I said at his CU candidacy, give it just one more year of consistent activity and I will be more than happy to support. Kurtis (talk) 19:18, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Anarchyte

 * Nomination statement


 * Hello, I’m Anarchyte, and I am applying for Oversight. Over the last few years I’ve had quite a few of my suppression requests accepted and having been an admin for three years, I believe I now understand the requirements. I am familiar with how RevDel works, having used it countless times over my tenure as admin. I hope that through editing in an Australian time zone I can decrease some of the strain currently placed on Oversighters. Please note that I will be away from my computer for the first four days of the community consolation period (until 1 Oct). I will still try to respond to any questions raised during this time.

Standard questions for all candidates (Anarchyte)

 * 1) Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
 * During my time as an admin I have focused on deletion and protection. This means I've had a great deal of experience dealing with vandalism, resulting in having to RevDel content on many occasions. I also patrol the copyright RevDel request category every so often which also requires knowledgeable use of the tool.
 * 1) Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.
 * I do not have any explicit off-wiki experience in this area, but my area of study does put an emphasis on confidentiality. I understand this is less than the examples other candidates have given, though I am confident this will not inhibit my use of the Oversight tools.
 * 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 (Anarchyte)

 * Editors may ask a maximum of two questions per candidate.
 * Sometimes the oversight and revision deletion policies appear to overlap. For example lots of BLP violations (RD2) are also potentially libelous (OS2), and really gross abuse is often deleted under RD3/OS5. As an oversighter, how would you evaluate such decisions? -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:10, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the question and I apologise for the delay. In these cases, it is important to recognise that libel is a legal term, meaning any decisions surrounding it must consider this. When RevDeling a miscellaneous BLP violation, e.g. "x is [slur]", the degree of incivility does not usually rise to the level of libel, regardless of whether it's false or hurtful. Libel requires an attack on a character to the point where it would harm their reputation in a broader sense. This means that an IP coming along and adding something "mean" to a BLP would likely not rise to the level of libel unless it meets these legal connotations, as indicated by 2a ("on the advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel"). Indeed, this would all be subjective and I'm sure that attacks on minors would be treated more conscientiously, with additional care and diligence. I hope this sufficiently answers your question.  Anarchyte  ( talk &#8226;  work ) 11:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments (Anarchyte)

 * 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.


 * Anarchyte is eminently qualified for oversight permissions. Besides, we can always use an extra hand in the land down under. ;) Kurtis (talk) 19:37, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

JGHowes

 * Nomination statement


 * I am applying for Oversight only, at this time. I began editing on en-Wikipedia in 2004 and became an admin in 2008 and a Commons admin a year later, in 2009. I've been an OTRS team member since 2017. Having been around for a long time in these roles, I am quite familiar with Wikipedia processes, policies, and guidelines. As an oversighter, I would use sensitivity and mature judgment to determine when suppression is warranted.

Standard questions for all candidates (JGHowes)

 * 1) Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
 * Have changed visibility where a user has disclosed real-world name or phone numbers of themselves or others.
 * 1) Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.
 * Having a professional career at an executive-level in the aviation industry, I have had considerable experience working with law enforcement data and background investigations for hiring decision-making. As a former Air Force officer, I had security clearances.
 * 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 not previously requested those advanced permissions, but do have OTRS permissions (commons, info-en, photosubmissions, and permissions queues)

Questions for this candidate (JGHowes)

 * Editors may ask a maximum of two questions per candidate.


 * Should the oversight policy be interpreted broadly or narrowly, and what is your reasoning for this? TonyBallioni (talk) 06:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * As I see it, OS by its nature is to be narrowly applied. In most cases, revdel or normal editing suffices for run-of-the-mill copyvios or disruptive/insulting edits. OSPOL is very clear on the specific, limited instances when suppression is called for.  JGHowes   talk  13:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Sometimes the oversight and revision deletion policies appear to overlap. For example lots of BLP violations (RD2) are also potentially libelous (OS2), and really gross abuse is often deleted under RD3/OS5. As an oversighter, how would you evaluate such decisions? -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:10, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Evaluating BLP violations for revdel or OS should consider: is the person a private or public figure? a minor? the severity of the calumny, e.g., unsourced allegation of a felony, etc.   JGHowes   talk  21:49, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You deleted some page revisions ((a), (b)) with the logged reason being (alt account request). You also deleted some user talk revisions ((c), (d)) claiming that they were WP:CRD deletions.  These don't seem to be ordinary redaction reasons for these cases, can you explain how these reasons are aligned with the deletion policy for these specific deletions? —  xaosflux  Talk 00:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not believe the specifics of those two cases should be revealed publicly, but would be happy to explain in detail privately. The reason I simply said R6 as the reason for (c) and (d) was because the specific reason would disclose private info. For further detail, should I email my answer to arbcom-en-c@wikimedia.org?  JGHowes   talk  01:10, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not on ArbCom, but you can use that to tell them (as they are the deciders here anyway). To be clear, I was not asking for information on the deletion content, but for why your logged reason for the deletions was used as these reasons don't appear to be covered by the deletion policy. While admins deletions can be reviewed by the entire admin corps, suppression reviews have much less volunteers to review and being able to verify that a removal meets the logged criteria is important when the content doesn't easily speak for itself (as in this case). Aside, if these removals contain private information and should actually be suppressed for other reasons, please refer them to the OS team for review. —  xaosflux  Talk 11:15, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Comments (JGHowes)

 * 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.


 * I trust JGHowes's judgement. He'd make a great oversighter. Kurtis (talk) 19:26, 2 October 2020 (UTC)