Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/February 2009 election/Oversight/EdJohnston

EdJohnston

 * I appreciate being considered for this role, and believe that everyone else on the list could do the job well too. I've been an active user on enwiki since September of 2006 and an admin since Feb. 2008. Before adminship, besides gnome and article work, I helped with informal mediation of a few messy conflicts. Since becoming admin I've spent considerable time at the 3RR board, WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard and occasionally at the sockpuppet board. Due to my work at WP:COIN I've become aware of some of the issues around revealing personal identity. Since oversight requests could come from people inexperienced with Wikipedia, I imagine that oversighters are expected to have sympathy with the issues that new users could face. So this is in part a 'customer service' role.


 * The job of oversight seems likely to involve some judgment calls, where requests for removal may possibly conflict with policy. The fact that oversight decisions are made in private means that fewer people will be in a position to review what is done. I assume that oversighters who want to sound out others' opinions on any hard questions would ask on the oversight mailing list. (Posting your question at WP:AN for review would not be an option). EdJohnston (talk) 15:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments and questions for EdJohnston

 * Ed absolutely gets the importance of privacy and WP:OUTING, and knows when The Line has been crossed. He'll be an excellent Oversighter. Arakunem Talk 00:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Arakunem puts it well. I see no reason not to trust Ed.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 02:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we all know that policy doesn't cover every type of situation that may arise, and sometimes policies conflict with each other. How would you handle requests for oversight that fall into one of these grey areas? That is to say, if policy is unclear on a matter, would you tend to interpret policy broadly or narrowly? Firestorm (talk) 02:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Since I've read nothing to the contrary, I assume that the community owns Oversight policy. Should the community become concerned about how oversight is being handled, they could open an inquiry. Without the give-and-take of actual discussion, and actual cases, it is hard to be sure what policy requires in borderline cases. I'd be unlikely to take on the role of the sole decider in a borderline case. If oversight-l is not a wide enough venue to get feedback, other ideas could be explored. Arbcom's opinion could be sought. EdJohnston (talk) 02:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * So, what you're saying is that in a borderline case, you would consult others who have more experience in these matters? Just to make sure i'm parsing your response correctly. Firestorm (talk) 03:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I'm seeing a need for the type of consensus that needs a 'discussion thread' to determine. For admin matters, the discussion thread can happen at WP:AN. For oversight, the discussion can't appear in public, so I think oversight-l is the appropriate venue. EdJohnston (talk) 03:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, that's good enough for me. I think you'll do a great job as an oversighter. Firestorm (talk) 12:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why the candidate even needs the new tool since his admin-role area is mainly in the edit warring board. --Caspian blue 03:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * See WP:COIN and it's associated talk page, where Ed is a fixture. All too often, COI is used by participants in edit wars to try to get their opposition removed. Many times, this also involves outing the other party to "prove" the COI exists. Oversight is a natural follow-on tool for such an admin to have. Arakunem Talk 21:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Generic question: Under what circumstances, if any, would you oversight an edit at the request of the user who made the edit? — CharlotteWebb 15:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If it is not a bona-fide privacy issue, there ought to be a discussion somewhere before removing such an edit. If the user revealed his address or phone number, or something about his own life that most people wouldn't reveal, it might not be a hard call. Anything besides that, the opinions of others should be sought, perhaps on the oversight mailing list. If someone posts their email address, I've noticed that simply reverting the edit is often considered to be a sufficient response. EdJohnston (talk) 02:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of things about one's own life that "most people wouldn't reveal". Aside from information which identifies the user (or makes it more easy to discern the user's identity or whereabouts), could you give some examples of other material you would be willing to remove? — CharlotteWebb 03:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Offhand, I don't see WP:OVERSIGHT as mandating anything beyond personally identifying information. Can you think of anything else? The policy speaks of information such as phone numbers, home addresses, workplaces or identities of pseudonymous or anonymous individuals who have not made their identity public. This includes hiding revisions made by editors who were accidentally logged out and thus inadvertently revealed their own IP addresses. EdJohnston (talk) 03:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I wasn't clear on this. I'm not trying to brainstorm anything, I'm specifically asking what you meant by "something about his own life that most people wouldn't reveal" which seems pretty open-ended, and the way you said "his own life" made me wonder if you had a specific user in mind. — CharlotteWebb 03:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that should have been 'his or her'. I was not thinking of any specific case. EdJohnston (talk) 00:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine, back to original the question. There are literally thousands of details which "most people wouldn't reveal" about themselves. Real name and location are only a tiny subset of this. Where would you draw the line, and what standard would you use in balancing the letter of the policy with the safety concerns of the user who says "it was negligent of me to reveal this, please make it go away"? In which cases would you oversight without hesitation, or say "forget it", or just consider it on a case-by-case basis? — CharlotteWebb 02:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds like this is moving toward a policy discussion. I'd be willing to discuss policy, but if your thinking is that current policy does not do enough to protect users who may possible be harasssed, then you'd need to persuade the community to change the oversight instructions. The phrase 'balancing the letter of policy with...' is the clue to me that you may actually want to change policy. (Oversighters are expected to follow policy, not make up the rules on their own). Clause 1 of WP:OVERSIGHT seems like it is most natural to read it narrowly (phone numbers, home addresses, workplaces or identities). If I misunderstood your question, then please respond. If you have a specific policy change in mind, it should be discussed further. EdJohnston (talk) 20:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You said "address or phone number, or something about [the user's] own life that most people wouldn't reveal", so I wanted to know what sort of personal information would be at the outer edge of your interpretation of policy as currently written. Sorry, I'm not trying to discuss a policy change. Actually when I said "the letter" I was alluding where it says "such as" followed by a paucity of examples, requiring the operator to estimate what other types of data would be comparable to these examples and thus removable based on "the spirit" of the policy. And, regardless of this, can you foresee cases where applicability of policy would be outweighed by genuine concern for the safety of the user? (I'm not concerned "normal deletion" would cut it in a serious case; apparently we have 1,623 admins—I'd personally be a fool to trust more than ten of them). — CharlotteWebb 19:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thinks clearly and is careful but decisive. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 13:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * See User:Acalamari/CU-OV February 2009‎. Acalamari 19:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Votes in support of EdJohnston

 * 1) Support Arakunem Talk 00:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) -- Kanonkas :  Talk  00:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Support -- Euryalus (talk) 00:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) &mdash;  neuro  (talk)  01:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 5)  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 02:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Noroton (talk) 02:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 03:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. MER-C 08:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 08:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 10)  Peter Symonds ( talk ) 09:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) —  Aitias   // discussion 13:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 13) ++Lar: t/c 18:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 14) Davewild (talk) 20:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 15)  MBisanz  talk 21:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 16)  SF3  (talk!) 21:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 17)  Little Mountain  5   23:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 18) Biophys (talk) 05:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 19) Support. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 11:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 20) Support - Sumoeagle179 (talk) 12:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 21) –Juliancolton  Tropical   Cyclone  15:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 22) arimareiji (talk) 19:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 23) --Elonka 19:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 24) Support.  — Athaenara  ✉  21:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 25) Kafka Liz (talk) 22:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 26) Giggy (talk) 01:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 27) betsythedevine (talk) 02:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 28) -- Versa geek  18:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 29) Wasted Time R (talk) 18:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 30) r ʨ anaɢ (formerly Politizer) talk/contribs 23:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 31) Malinaccier (talk) 00:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 32) – wodup – 10:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 33) Support--BozMo talk 13:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 34) Support Firestorm (talk) 12:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 35) Support Mayalld (talk) 16:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 36) Support - Scarian  Call me Pat!  22:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 37) Support ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 13:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 38) Secret account 17:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 39) Support Rje (talk) 21:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 40) Support --Tikiwont (talk) 15:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 41) Support McJeff (talk) 18:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 42) Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 43) Support Graham 87 23:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Graham 87 23:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Votes in opposition to EdJohnston

 * 1) Oppose-- Iamawesome800  Talk to Me   00:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Gurch (talk) 01:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) RMHED . 01:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Mr.Z-man 01:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) rootology  ( C )( T ) 02:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 *  Majorly  talk  15:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) --Caspian blue 03:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Rjd0060 (talk) 03:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Secret account 14:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) --B (talk) 23:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Xasodfuih (talk) 01:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 3)  Tiptoety  talk 21:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose, Dreadstar  †  19:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Fritzpoll (talk) 16:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 6)  Maxim (talk)  01:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 7)  Prodego  talk 19:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1)  Prodego  talk 19:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)