Mazca (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Nomination statement

I've been an administrator since 2009, active in several areas that could benefit from the additional information CheckUser can provide. I plan to use it to continue to assist at SPI, and there are many long-term abusers that I've run into in regular AIV and article patrol that I feel I could be more effective against with the ability to confidently know the activity on certain IP ranges.

I've always felt bad about adding to the backlog at certain areas when I'm confident in my own ability to perform the task in question, and could instead be working to reduce those backlogs - I deal with network routing, and identification of abusive IP addresses in my regular job, and I've already made use of those skills to perform range-blocks and identify likely patterns of abuse. I've always shied away from requesting additional permissions unless I think that we need more people doing that thing, and that I'm well suited to it - and I think I'd make effective use of the CheckUser tool. ~ mazca ^talk 00:55, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1. Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.

   I'm regularly active at AIV and comfortable making rangeblocks both on IPv4 and IPv6 - I'm familiar with what ranges represent individual users and how a lot of ISPs assign things. I've helped out at SPI as a patrolling admin and there are a good number of regular sockmasters that I've become very familiar with, and I understand how behaviour is analysed and the standards of evidence CheckUsers ask for to comply with policy.

2. Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.

   I've done a lot of real-life work in IT support, and deal regularly with general network and internet connection analysis and troubleshooting - a large percentage of my workload involves network connection and router setup, and I've worked on blocking Russian and South Asian DDOS attacks using IP range and user agent information. I'm generally comfortable with most of the technical aspects involved here and I'm hopeful I can apply them to protecting the wiki. Earlier in my career I also trained as a financial auditor and accountant; dealing regularly with confidential and sensitive data without issues, so I'm confident I can deal responsibly with anything sensitive that may come up.

3. 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, this is my first foray into requesting permissions beyond administrator. I've considered an RfB in the past but it didn't feel like we actually needed more bureaucrats; I don't want to go through the mill of acquiring extra permissions just for the sake of having them, if I don't think I could get significant use. I feel CheckUser is a good example of one I could be significantly more helpful with.

Editors may ask a maximum of two questions per candidate.

1. When is it appropriate to run a CU on an editor? What are the standards that you would use to determine this? --Rschen7754 01:15, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

   To summarise it as briefly as possible - both (a) some significant identifiable misbehaviour and (b) a reasonable expectation that the CheckUser tool may help further in preventing it.

   It's got to be both of those to be a justified check, and the more one of those pillars is questionable, the stronger the other one needs to be. Checking a random low-level unhelpful editor is likely excessive, but if the behaviour specifically suggests the involvement of a sockmaster or long-term abuser, then a check is more likely to be justified. Swapping the severity around, if a particular single vandal is particularly disruptive, then use of CheckUser is again more likely to be justifiable in the interests of maximising the chance of preventing further damage in future, perhaps via a rangeblock.

   The basic standard is that every check, I want to be able to answer a query about why I made it, with a specific, articulable problem that I was hoping to be able to solve with it. "I was wondering if that guy was up to something" won't cut it, but "That user's behaviour was noticeably similar to Sockmaster67" should. ~ mazca ^talk 17:17, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments may also be submitted to the Arbitration Committee privately by emailing arbcom-en-cwikimedia.org. 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 supported Mazca's successful RfA all the way back in 2009 (#41, under my old username "Master&Expert"—and as before, please pardon my French 😉). In fact, I had previously encouraged him to submit an RfA in December 2008. Needless to say, I've been familiar with Mazca for a long time. And based on what I have seen, there is absolutely no doubt that he can be trusted with checkuser permissions. The real question is whether or not he'll use them.
  Barring the occasional burst of editing, Mazca was all but completely inactive from January 2011 all the way up until December 2019—less than a year ago. Since then, he has consistently made over 150 edits per month (aside from March, when he only made 89), and as far as I'm concerned, that is plenty involved enough to be a checkuser. In other words, it's not a matter of if Mazca is active; it's whether or not he stays active. Will Mazca maintain the same level of engagement over the course of 2021 as he has managed throughout 2020?
  I feel like a checkuser should be someone who you can reasonably expect to be active for a long time to come—at least a year or so following their appointment, during which time they can consistently put the checkuser tool to good use. I'm not sure if Mazca will still be making hundreds of edits per month by this time next year, or if his activity will start to trail off again, at which point he could wind up becoming a checkuser in name only. I am not opposed to Mazca's candidacy because I do trust him, and I think he'd do well if he were appointed, but I would feel more enthusiastic about supporting with even just one more year of consistent engagement with the project. Kurtis ^(talk) 23:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JJMC89 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Nomination statement

I am volunteering to become a CheckUser. I have been editing here since 2015 and became an admin at the beginning of 2019. I am an ACC tool admin, OTRS agent, SPI clerk, and UTRS tool admin. Working in these areas, I am already familiar with the relevant policies and privacy considerations and have signed the relevant agreements. ACC, SPI, and UTRS are often (or always) in need of additional CheckUser assistance, which I can help with.

1. Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.

   I've been a member of the ACC team since May 2016 and became a tool admin in August 2017. I have been an SPI clerk since May 2020 (trainee from October 2019). Before clerking I was involved as an admin acting on behavioral evidence.

2. Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.

   I am experienced with CheckUser, which I use regularly outside of Wikimedia projects. Professionally, I analyze private patient data in a highly regulated environment, including various data privacy regulations (e.g. GDPR).

3. 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 advanced permission on any (real) WMF projects. (I am a steward on the beta cluster.) I am an OTRS agent with access to commons, info-en, and permissions.

Editors may ask a maximum of two questions per candidate.

Comments may also be submitted to the Arbitration Committee privately by emailing arbcom-en-cwikimedia.org. 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.

• Excellent candidate has perfomed over 110000 admin actions.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:52, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• The overall impression I get from JJMC89 is that he is a dedicated, hard-working volunteer and administrator who always does what he feels is best for Wikipedia. For that, he deserves to be commended. However, I also think that there is some room for growth. A quick perusal of his talk page (and the archived discussions from this past September—I didn't go back further than that) tells me that JJMC89 is often very abrupt in manner, which can sometimes come across as dismissiveness in the eyes of others. Now, I am confident that this is not JJMC89's intent, and I have absolutely no doubts about his passion for making Wikipedia a better place. That's why I think a good suggestion for him would be to take extra care when replying to other people's comments, and to really take the time to consider how his response could be interpreted before hitting the save button. An administrator—and by extension, a checkuser—will be much more effective at helping to foster a productive editing environment when they exude patience and understanding, and are willing to take the time to engage with others in the event of a misunderstanding.
  I'm not going to say that I oppose granting JJMC89 checkuser permissions, and I think he would ultimately do a good job. He is both diligent and knowledgeable enough to handle that responsibility well. I just think that if he took the time to moderate his tone a little bit more, he'd be even better. It's something that I encourage him to try and keep in mind, particularly if he does become a checkuser.
  @JJMC89: You're doing a great job as an editor and administrator. Best of luck to you—keep up the good work! Kurtis ^(talk) 19:12, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yamla (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Nomination statement

I am applying for the Checkuser tool. I have a deep love of Wikipedia. Checkusers are always in short supply and this would open up more areas for me to help out in. I rather enjoy technical work like this. I regularly patrol CAT:UNBLOCK, help out in WP:UTRS, and watch a number of pages (and user talk pages), looking out for vandalism.

1. Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.

   I've been an admin since 2006. For quite some time, I've focused on patrolling CAT:UNBLOCK. More recently, I started helping out on WP:UTRS. I have more than 100,000 edits, the vast majority of which are reverting vandalism or replying to unblock requests; more than half my edits are to the User talk namespace. I really enjoy this sort of work and am particularly happy when I get to request that a blocking admin lift their block.

2. Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.

   I work on the Application Security team at my company. This involves dealing with, and placing restrictions around, private data. The specific data in question involves client information for criminal and civil law cases. To a lesser extent, I deal with technical and networking data, too. For example, when I investigate an attack on our servers, I need to understand net blocks, proxies, cloud services, etc. I work with our compliance officer to ensure we comply with specific laws such as GDPR and HIPAA.

3. 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 hold global renamer rights and help out on WP:UTRS. I do not have OTRS permissions at this time.

Editors may ask a maximum of two questions per candidate.

1. This isn't a criticism so much as an observation; often when I look at an unblock request I see you declining an appeal with a pro forma template. Can you give me a rough idea of the proportion of unblock requests you have accepted? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:39, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

   Looking at my logs, I see 38 unblocks since 2020-07-06. Most of these are straight-forward cases; user was only blocked for an inappropriate username, they requested a new username, so I processed the rename (if it hadn't already happened) and lifted the block. I'd love to lift more blocks but in my experience, most blocks are appropriate. I can't immediately estimate my ratio of unblock accepts vs declines, but the significant majority of my reviews would be declines. Given your statement below, I think you might be interested in the following two specific cases. A user raised a concern with me about zscaler proxies so I took the point to WP:AN. You can read the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive324#zscaler_proxies. There, I sought out the opinions of people I expected would disagree with me and I'm happy with the result. On another topic, I also lifted El C's block on Maryphillips1952. That was a long, drawn-out discussion in UTRS; see UTRS appeal #34499. I of course also consulted with the blocking admin, see User_talk:El_C#maryphillips1952. I remain cautiously hopeful on this one, but I would not call this unblock an unqualified success at this point in time. I'm happy this user has now taken the time to read our policies and guidelines and go through at least part of the "welcome" process and is now refraining from WP:COI. Still, a few of us have had to put in more time and effort than I expected, though frankly I should have been able to predict that. I give this as an example where you can easily debate whether this was a success. --Yamla (talk) 13:41, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments may also be submitted to the Arbitration Committee privately by emailing arbcom-en-cwikimedia.org. 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.

• Yamla has been a Wikipedian for almost sixteen years, and an administrator since the beginning of 2006. In the five years since he returned from an extended hiatus, Yamla has consistently been diligent and hard-working, often involving himself in some of the more thankless tasks that come with being an administrator. His experience, dedication, and overall disposition make him one of the most qualified editors to hold checkuser permissions. Kurtis ^(talk) 03:35, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I concur with Kurtis. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:26, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I strongly agree with Kurtis as well. I've worked with Yamla at RFU, and trust him. SQL^{Query me!} 20:51, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• In the light of the removal of Bbb23's checkuser privileges, I would like to see evidence of all potential checkuser's communication skills before approving them, hence my question. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:20, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: Wow, I got a sore head from reading that case study on Maryphillips1952; I pored over it for about 20 minutes wondering if an inexperienced user would genuinely say all of that, whether it was somebody who didn't have English as a first language try and edit here, or whether it was somebody trying to pull the wool over our eyes ... and I can see good-faith explanations for all three of those. However the TLDR summary is I agree it was an appropriate block and your unblock was a nice extension of good faith. So, thanks for answering that question in good and sufficient detail. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:02, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Per Kurtis and has perfomed over 16000 admin actions.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:55, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I would thoroughly trust Yamla with checkuser privileges. Yamla has been an excellent editor and admin for many years. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lofty abyss (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Nomination statement

In my handling of AIV I come across diffs that may require either revdel or suppression, which I could do since 2012, but I also at times encounter (mostly obvious) socks, of either previously blocked accounts or historical ones; occasionally a few accounts also disrupt at the same time, and while it's easy to block them or protect the page it could be useful to check for others that may not necessarily be targeting the same page.

It is for this reason I think it might be more efficacious to handle it myself instead of waiting for another regular handler of vandalism reports or to file a sockpuppetry report (as these mainly concern duck cases, and so not exactly the typical investigative necessity).

1. Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.

   I mainly handle AIV as previously mentioned, and have for about a decade tackled thousands of reports, some of which checkuser could have been useful for (like long-term abusers (see below for examples), or others who are already apparently using multiple accounts within the same page, in case they're targeting other places).

2. Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.

   In the past I mainly dealt with spambots, so not necessarily socks in the conventional sense, but farms still resided within the same range often.

   I usually use calculators to establish the CIDR, to make range blocks, which works with v6 too (I understand it's hexadecimal, but beyond the surface didn't seem as necessary, probably due to an over-reliance on calculators, but also not often needing to do range blocks, although visually v4 was more accessible, admittedly). User agents are generally used to distinguish between different users on the same address, with more certainty added when the browser version numbers match usually. With regards to specific geographical networks I haven't quite memorized it, but whether I'm dealing with dynamic or static addresses (as is a factor with blocks, which whois data may also reveal) reference lists are available, so as to not block innocent users unnecessarily.

3. 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?

   oversight on enwiki, checkuser on simplewiki, bureaucrat on meta (not now), steward from 2011-2019. With regards to queues info-en mainly, oversight-en-wp too.

Editors may ask a maximum of two questions per candidate.

1. Could you please give some examples of times where you've been involved in investigating or blocking sockpuppetry? GeneralNotability (talk) 19:12, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've mainly blocked obvious socks of long-term abusers, e.g. 1, 2, 3 - this is generally an extension from vandalism reports, which do not typically require extensive investigations or such, but would be useful to know of any sleepers or such. Lofty abyss 02:57, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1. In 2019 and 2020 several editors raised concerns about a perceived tendency to hold advanced rights and then just make the minimum number of actions to keep the rights: m:Stewards/Confirm/2019/Mentifisto, m:Stewards/Elections 2020/Votes/Lofty abyss. How would you respond to this? --Rschen7754 20:03, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned back then that was mainly due to missing the creation of a tool meant for efficiency, and so relatively and comparatively I seemed to have been much less active (and so more of a mistake, which I admitted to, than intentional), but with regards to enwiki I do not think I've missed anything and do not do any minimum numbers (over the years having handled thousands of vandalism reports). Lofty abyss 02:57, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1. Could you please share your interpretation of WP:NOTFISHING, specifically when it permits you to checkuser an editor? GeneralNotability (talk) 23:47, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the tool should only be used when absolutely necessarily, as a lack of reasonable suspicions results in fishing. This is like a hypothesis before a scientific experiment is conducted, which is meant to seek evidence, but not intended to justify biases. Lofty abyss 02:57, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1. Do you feel that the role of functionary is a leadership role within the enwiki community? If so how? If not why? Thanks and best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:27, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think of these tools as mostly just tools, with the community setting the standard on their usage, but whether e.g. an edit is suppressed or not is, mainly, another change to the database. Lofty abyss 14:16, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments may also be submitted to the Arbitration Committee privately by emailing arbcom-en-cwikimedia.org. 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.

• It's good to see Lofty Abyss becoming more active again, and I hope he sticks around. When it comes to granting checkuser permissions, though, I'm hesitant. As much as I think Lofty Abyss is an asset when he's available, I couldn't help but develop the overall impression that he is mostly interested in advanced permissions for the sake of advanced permissions. Case in point, his tenure as a steward. He was intermittently active, doing just enough to retain his stewardship for years. This lasted until 2019, and his unsuccessful reconfirmation was... well, let's just say that it didn't inspire a whole lot of confidence. I also note that Ajraddatz and Rschen7754 have both alluded to improper use unproductive uses of checkuser or other advanced permissions (the former at the 2019 reconfirmation, the latter at the 2020 candidacy), none of which were addressed here. It leads me to wonder if Lofty Abyss has learned from past concerns, and how he would handle himself if he were to be entrusted with checkuser once again. Kurtis ^(talk) 23:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify, it wasn't necessarily misuse so much as technically allowed actions that were essentially a waste of time. --Rschen7754 00:02, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for letting me know. I've fixed it. :) Kurtis ^(talk) 03:10, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't think Lofty is a good candidate for CU. At least in the context of enwiki, I see minimal experience with socks (by their own admission, mainly blocked obvious socks of long-term abusers - BMX on Wheels and Wacky Wars aren't the kind of complex cases I'd expect a potential CU to have dealt with) and almost no participation at SPI. General lack of familiarity with the technical aspects from their answer to Q2. My biggest concern, though, is their answer to Q1, since that to me sounds like a fairly casual attitude toward fishing. On the whole, I don't see the technical expertise to use CU, the policy familiarity to use it correctly, or a demonstrated need for it. GeneralNotability (talk) 15:25, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I have commented extensively about concerns regarding having a lot of advanced rights and making just the minimum number of actions to retain a right. Recent activity is not so horrible - though not outstanding, and peaking around the February 2020 steward elections - so I wonder if this will be sustained long-term. --Rschen7754 18:25, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I too share the concerns with this user's prioritization of status over any actual need. In the aforementioned Steward reconfirmation, the issues were fairly straightforward; the user was just an inactive Steward, and yet they showed an inability to reasonably understand and accept this and aggressively badgered many users with a bizarre, gaslighting argumentativeness that fell far below any expected behavioral standard for a Steward. In 2020 they were back again, with a new username, and a deceptive statement that failed to mention their de-stewardship from the previous year and an implication that they had become significantly active, which was patently false, as the user was not only not active globally, but they were not even significantly active here. At best, they were hanging out at AIV and blocking a few vandals here and there, which they tried to frame as making them a cross-wiki vandal fighter. After that request failed, their already-low activity levels dropped off again. Now here they are again, a user with minimal activity levels going back more than a decade, no involvement with the community to speak of, no apparent experience or interest in SPI work to speak of, asking for CU, a highly sensitive, highly restricted tool, because they "deal with socks at AIV". This is more gaslighting, anyone who works AIV knows that dealing with socks isn't an obvious, normal part of handling these reports, just like dealing with cross-wiki vandalism isn't a normal part of AIV work. It's a bluff, a shallow, shameless bluff that doesn't withstand the slightest bit of scrutiny. This request should not even be humored. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 07:49, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oshwah (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Nomination statement

I am applying for the CheckUser permissions in order to extend my participation on Wikipedia and to help do my part to put a stop to sock puppetry, disruption, and abuse of the project. 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 editor for 13 years, an administrator for four years, and an oversighter for two years - and I've been consistently active, available, and happy to help with requests and urgent matters in order to serve and improve the project. I have high technical knowledge in networking, IP addressing, networks, and ranges, and have a high amount of experience in identifying and handling sock puppetry and abuse on Wikipedia. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to ask and I'll be happy to answer them.

1. Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.

   My time has been mostly spent in recent changes patrolling, log patrolling, and working in projects, noticeboards, and discussions in order to combat and stop vandalism, disruption, and abuse to the project. This includes LTA abuse, harassment, threats, and attempts at outing editors by publishing their personal and private information to the project. I patrol custom user-defined and user-filtered logs in the recent changes, new user, abuse filter, and other logs to monitor, locate, and revert vandalism, disruption, and abuse (including long-term abuse), and I also regularly patrol and check on relevant noticeboards in order to handle reports of vandalism (AIV), username violations (UAA), sock puppetry (SPI), page protection requests (RFPP), and other behavioral issues (AN, ANI, etc).

I own and maintain two edit filter logs that are frequently referenced and used to stop abuse (#51 and #53), and I'm working to get a request started on phab to update cnorm and ccnorm to include many more symbols and letters in order to improve their purpose, which will help to stop additional LTA abuse. Right now, I don't use those functions because, in my experience, they haven't caught all of the different symbols that LTA users have used to try and get around the edit filters when they create abusively-named accounts and make abusive edits. If you look at my code for these filters, that's why they're so messy-looking and ridiculously huge. I'm also a full SPI clerk and regularly assist with the current list of SPI reports by reviewing new SPI cases and either endorsing or declining the submitter's request for CU, as well as assisting with SPI reports that need SPI clerk assistance from checkusers, admins, and other clerks.

I also spend a significant portion of my time attempting to respond to questions and requests for help from other editors, and I spend a significant amount of time attempting to help, educate, and mentor new and novice users on Wikipedia (many of which have had a bad start on Wikipedia), and help steer them down the correct paths so that they avoid the typical pitfalls that new users find themselves into. This includes patrolling the different administrative noticeboards (such as AN, ANI, and AN3) so that I can respond to discussions where new users are involved and spend time offering assistance and providing solutions to the underlying issues and problems in good faith, and hopefully before these new users find themselves cornered and/or feeling bitten by those who've responded, and wanting to give up or leave the project.

I'm also an ACC Tool Administrator on WP:ACC, and I assist with processing account creation requests, helping ACC tool users with their questions and requests for assistance over policies and the ACC guide and/or complex tickets or cases, and the creation and implementation of improvements and changes to the ACC process in order to deflect the creation of new requests and increase internal productivity and ease-of-use of the ACC tool.

I'm also highly active on IRC and regularly respond to requests for input and help from other users, administrators, and functionaries, as well as requests for administrator assistance, intervention, and action by users and other administrators (who sometimes have questions or need input or help with an issue or report), and requests for suppression as an oversighter. These requests range widely depending on the user and the situation, but they generally include requests for help with edits, disputes and disagreements, defusing heated discussions and bringing things back down to a calm and peaceful level, incivility and NPA issues, block requests, requests for page protection, sock puppet accounts and users suspicions and filing reports at SPI, LTA activity, threats of harm (which includes verifying that the WMF emergency team is contacted), harassment and abuse, legal threats, revision-deletion and oversight requests, and others.

1. Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.

   I've grown up around computers and my IT-related experience goes very far back. I performed computer and network administration throughout my youth starting in Middle School and all throughout High School, and held jobs in IT-related areas ever since. I have a BS in Computer Software Engineering Technology and a Minor in Applied Mathematics. I have extensive IPv4 and IPv6 experience that I actively use during my daily tasks in my career, including networking, traffic routing, VPN, encryption, and security. I also have basic and advanced certification with Dell SonicWall firewalls and have written packet sniffing, ARP, and ICMP software GUIs and tools using C++, Win32, and the WinPcap library. I understand and conduct range blocks frequently and I understand CIDR ranges and how they work at the bit level. I've explained how CIDR ranges work here, here, and here if you're interested.

My job also frequently requires me to handle and process matters and requests that are highly confidential. This includes HR requests and the planning and conducting of employee terminations, as well as internal investigations regarding the breach and mishandling of data by employees. I also ensure the safeguarding and controlling of access to HR and confidential data (electronic employee personnel files, background checks, personal and financial employee and company information, and other such materials). I take any and all restricted data and its privacy as a top priority as part of my job, and I will do the same on Wikipedia if appointed as a Checkuser.

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?

English Wikipedia (Oversight), Test Wikipedia (Bureaucrat), Beta WMF Project (Steward), Account Creation Tool (ACC Tool Administrator). I have access to OTRS oversight queues.

Editors may ask a maximum of two questions per candidate.

1. This is your third (I think?) candidacy for CU. What makes this candidacy different? --Rschen7754 19:59, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Upon getting feedback from last year's appointments, I was told that the conversation went mostly well, and that they wanted to see more good work in SPI and as an administrator and functionary. I hope that my contributions since then have shown more growth, experience, and good work as an administrator and functionary. I understand 100% that the Checkuser tool is very important, and I hope that my work and the time I've spent on Wikipedia show that I will take this user right seriously. I will ask questions before taking action, I will make sure that I am thoroughly sufficient with the tool and its use before I proceed to use it, and I will demonstrate excellence, reserve, and respect with all aspects of its use. I will not be naive; I will take the data that I receive with the tool and use that information appropriately to make decisions. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:41, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2. On July 11, 2020, you posted this message in support of an editor who abused his/her CheckUser access on an industrial scale (thousands of rogue checks) and was consequently expelled from the CU team. Please explain why this shouldn't be of concern to the Committee as they evaluate your fitness to serve as a CU. Iaritmioawp (talk) 02:19, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The message wasn't intended to support the editor's behavior, but to support the editor as a member of the community. It's always sad to see anybody go, and just because this user was removed as a CheckUser doesn't mean that they should be assumed to be bad at everything else. Just like with many editors that are topic banned, or have a history of being blocked - they still contribute positively to Wikipedia in areas that don't involve the areas that they were sanctioned for. I felt that the user could still be a positive contributor to the project, which is why I wished the user well and hoped that he would someday return. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:02, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments may also be submitted to the Arbitration Committee privately by emailing arbcom-en-cwikimedia.org. 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 have no problems with Oshwah becoming a checkuser and hope that this year it works out. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:44, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I have been critical of Oshwah in the past, but I have also observed he has got better over time; as evidenced by his answer to Q2, he is reflective, able to admit fault, and encourages people's strengths where necessary. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:25, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Excellent candidate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:09, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Excellent candidate with over 68000 admin actions.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Every time I see Oshwah, I am always impressed by his patient and compassionate demeanor. He is an intelligent, considerate, and fair administrator. I trust him completely with checkuser permissions. Kurtis ^(talk) 22:06, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• No concerns. It should be pointed out that Q2 came from an editor with a clear axe to grind against said ex-CU.-- P-K3 (talk) 19:28, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• For what it's worth I think it is remarkable that Oshwah has continued as a SPI clerk despite being rejected for CU 3 times and with no public explanation being given by ArbCom as to why. I can't say I would have done the same. --Rschen7754 20:47, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• It will be a cold day in hell if I ever find a single bad thing to say about Oshwah. I can't comprehend why he would have been rejected for CU once, much less multiple times. It boggles the mind. Oshwah is a highly-skilled, highly technically competent, insanely-dedicated user, whose kindness and good faith seem to know no bounds. He's experienced with SPI, and he's already trusted with many other high-level, highly-restrictive, post-admin permissions, including OS granted by Arbcom itself! Clearly there's no trust issue when you've granted him OS. Clearly there's no experience issue when the guy is an SPI clerk and in the top 50 Wikipedians of all time. Clearly there's no technical expertise issue when the guy is an interface administrator. Clearly there's no personality issue when the guy is one of the nicest editors you will ever come across. I don't know how you rationalized turning him down previously. But I honestly don't see why you could possibly want to turn him down again. There's no reason you don't want this guy on the team. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 08:06, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Nomination statement

With 12 years of experience as a regular admin I am mostly devoted to resolving disputes. While enforcing policy at various noticeboards such as WP:3RR, I become aware of sock situations, and often get reports on my own talk page. Though such reports are not always justified, with access to the checkuser tool I could do better quality research into possible socking, and take whatever action is allowed by policy. In addition to my work on edit warring, I also patrolled the WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard for about seven years. I have some experience in distinguishing good faith from abusive editing in cases where COI is suspected. My experience should qualify me to investigate complaints of paid editing. I have made about 300 edits at WP:Sockpuppet investigations over the years and have witnessed the interplay of behavioral and technical evidence. I'm aware that checks aren't allowed unless there is genuine suspicion of abuse. Submitting good reports at SPI is an art and the editors who submit them don’t always have the patience.

1. Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.

   Editor since 2006, admin since 2008. Mostly active as an admin, with 73,000 edits. I have done about 4,000 blocks and 2,400 protections, mostly per WP:AN3 and WP:RFPP. One of my objectives when adminning is to never lose my temper. The single admin board where I am most active is the edit warring noticeboard. I was also quite active at the WP:Conflict of interest noticeboard from its beginning in February 2007 and continuing till 2014. Have done work at WP:Arbitration enforcement since 2009. For a while I was a regular in closing move discussions and in handling requests at WP:Requested moves/Technical requests. I have done history merges and revision deletions. Worked as an account creator per WP:ACC from fall 2011 through July 2012. During my time at ACC there was often a backlog of requests that needed the attention of checkusers: the typical reason was to allow creation of accounts from certain ranges. I have dealt with unblock requests at CAT:UNB and done some updates at WP:UTRS. In terms of range blocks, I do about eight such blocks per month, both IPv4 and IPv6 ranges.

2. Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.

   Career as a software engineer. I have done compiler development and embedded computing, with some hardware design.

3. 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.

Editors may ask a maximum of two questions per candidate.

Comments may also be submitted to the Arbitration Committee privately by emailing arbcom-en-cwikimedia.org. 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.

• What impresses me the most about Ed is the fact that he not only clearly establishes his suitability for holding checkuser permissions–taking into account both his long tenure as an editor and administrator, as well as his real-life credentials as a software engineer–but he's also taken the time to outline how becoming a checkuser would be beneficial to his on-wiki activities. He might not hang around at SPI every hour of every day, but I trust him and I have no doubt that he'll put the tool to good use. Kurtis ^(talk) 22:29, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Given recent discussions about undisclosed paid editing, I believe we would benefit from Ed's planned use of the tools outside of SPI, even if this is not the prototypical use case. — Wug·a·po·des​ 04:38, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Excellent candidate with over 11000 admin actions.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cabayi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

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 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.

1. Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.

   I've been active at SPI since 2014, an SPI clerk for 18 months (full ticket for 12 months), and an admin for 6 months. SPI work has been my base wiki-activity for a long while.

2. 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 telecoms systems, well acquainted with IPv4 & to a lesser extent with IPv6.

3. 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.

Editors may ask a maximum of two questions per candidate.

Comments may also be submitted to the Arbitration Committee privately by emailing arbcom-en-cwikimedia.org. 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.

• While it's nice to see people stepping up to take on a role, I really don't think Cabayi has the experience yet to take on checkuser. As well as my comments in his RfA earlier this year, I also see this thread, where he admits to reverting an edit because of who made it, rather than whether or not it improved the encyclopedia. This gives me concern he would stick too close to the rules and not use discretion. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:25, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333, there are 6 or 7 active SPI clerks I'd rather see moved to Checkuser ahead of me - but the process doesn't allow a sneak peek at who else has offered to serve before the nominations are announced. Unfortunately only 2 of those SPI clerks have put themselves forward. Had another 2 done so I'd have spent Sunday frantically looking for a graceful way to withdraw.

You mentioned (on another nom) Bbb23's removal from the CU corps. Obviously he needs replacing. I'd hope he's replaced by a few pairs of hands to spread the workload & experience and to minimise the impact on the process caused by the loss of one member - but that would be double guessing what the functionnaries are looking to recruit. Cabayi (talk) 13:15, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Nothing personally against Cabayi but I would be hesitant to give a relatively new admin both CU and OS at once. --Rschen7754 18:27, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• This comes far too hard on the heels of an RfA which although successful, garnered significant opposition from experienced and respected editors. A couple more years with some solid admin work should be a minimum prerequisite for these advanced permissions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• While I definitely trust him overall, I do think that Cabayi would benefit from getting a bit more experience as an administrator before taking on checkuser and oversight responsibilities. Give it another year, and I'll probably support granting CU/OS. Kurtis ^(talk) 22:43, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cabayi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

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.

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).

2. 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.

3. 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.

Editors may ask a maximum of two questions per candidate.

1. 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)[reply]
   • 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)[reply]

Comments may also be submitted to the Arbitration Committee privately by emailing arbcom-en-cwikimedia.org. 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)[reply]

Anarchyte (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

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.

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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

Editors may ask a maximum of two questions per candidate.

1. 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)[reply]

@Zzuuzz: 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 • work) 11:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments may also be submitted to the Arbitration Committee privately by emailing arbcom-en-cwikimedia.org. 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)[reply]

JGHowes (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

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.

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.

2. 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.

3. 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)

Editors may ask a maximum of two questions per candidate.

1. Should the oversight policy be interpreted broadly or narrowly, and what is your reasoning for this? TonyBallioni (talk) 06:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

   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)[reply]

2. 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)[reply]

   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)[reply]

3. 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#R6 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)[reply]

   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)[reply]

   @JGHowes: 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)[reply]

Comments may also be submitted to the Arbitration Committee privately by emailing arbcom-en-cwikimedia.org. 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)[reply]