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

BU Rob13 (CU)

BU Rob13 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Nomination statement

I'd like to nominate myself for the CheckUser user right.

For the past year, I've been involved significantly in combating sockpuppetry. I've been especially active in handling certain long-term abuse cases (Nikita, Orchomen) and identifying sleeper accounts before they obtain user rights such as autoconfirmed or extended confirmed. I request at least a half-dozen checks be run each week in connection with these activities, often more, and I'm quite sure the CheckUsers that frequent IRC are getting tired of me. It would be helpful to take on some of the CU work associated with my activities myself so I'm not poking existing CheckUsers so frequently. I could also help others on IRC who identify a potential sock, especially ones associated with prolific and destructive sockmasters.

I would consider myself one of the more technical editors on the project. I have a familiarity with IPv6, IP ranges, whois reports, and other technical details relevant to CheckUser. I've handled SPI cases from an administrative perspective often when the process has run a backlog and have developed a familiarity with patterns of sockpuppetry. I have a strong belief in mentoring and would be happy to mentor SPI clerks in the future.

Standard questions for all candidates

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

   I've handled SPI cases as an administrator for quite a while. I also have handled figuring out the SNAFU that is paid editing sock rings on multiple occasions, most recently with regard to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TiffanyTinnell. I've also helped set up edit filters to deal with multiple sockmasters.

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

   I previously worked on a large website (8 million registered accounts) handling ban evasion investigations. This is where I acquired my basic knowledge of IPs, ranges, etc. The rest of my knowledge has come from working with CheckUsers in the past, especially Amanda. My knowledge comes from experience, not from formal study. I work with private data on OTRS, and I have a strong appreciation for confidentiality.

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 an admin and active edit filter manager. I'm an OTRS agent, and I have access to info-en, permissions-en, and multiple queues related to sister projects.

Questions for this candidate

Comments

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

• Support – BU Rob13 is one of those administrators whom I have interacted with and observed doing good things so often that whenever I see his signature, I can expect to see well-reasoned judgment. He has the experience, the knowledge, and the skillset, and there's no doubt in my mind he'd be a plus to the project as a CheckUser. Mz7 (talk) 03:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support No question in my mind Rob would handle the responsibility with utmost sensitivity and restraint. Thanks for offering to take on the work. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support active at SPI, and I've been impressed with their thoughtfulness in recent months. --Rschen7754 04:49, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Fine admin, trustworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beyond My Ken (talk • contribs) 07:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Trustworthy and competent. Tazerdadog (talk) 09:45, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support highly trustworthy. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 12:47, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--Why not? Highly competent and trustworthy user.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 13:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I have always respected BU Rob13's judgment. Malinaccier (talk) 13:43, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. BU Rob13 has excellent judgement and I have zero concerns about trusting him with these tools. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support His head is screwed on right. I would be stunned if he ever misused tools. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - clearly knows what he's doing with technical ... stuff. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Trusted administrator, who has the technical skills to do the job. Rob also has showen a respect for user privacy based on his work at OTRS. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 21:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, the CU bit would make him an even greater asset. Very good work at SPI. GAB^gab 22:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Absolutely, a highly technical and dedicated Wikipedian. The CU tool can only complement his current work at EF and SPI. Crow^Caw 23:27, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - One of our finest! Swarm ♠ 06:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support No questions asked. Fine admin, very helpful and very trustworthy. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 14:09, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I have interacted with BU Rob13 on OTRS and he is a competent and trustworthy editor.  FITINDIA  17:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - good work done at SPI, general competence, and a desire to work with people rather than around them are all good qualities for a CheckUser to have. And all are demonstrated here :-) -- Ajraddatz (talk) 21:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I think Rob would BU Rob13 would do great in those role. His on-wiki experience (including at SPI) speaks for itself. -- Dane ^talk 23:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I have interacted with the candidate on few occasions, have seen his contrib history, is trustworthy enough. I have no doubt/issues whatsoever. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Active in fighting sockpuppetry, work at SPI demonstrates competence. Would make for a fantastic CU. Simplexity22 (talk) 04:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support on the grounds of his excellent work at SPI demonstrating all the competence one would want. Double sharp (talk) 06:45, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support Trusted user, regularly active, has the necessary background and skills for this position. --MelanieN (talk) 16:22, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Cold minded. Good reasoning. Hard worker. --Osplace 14:17, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support - Obviously! Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:00, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Support per comments above. Comfycozybeds (talk) 17:57, 24 September 2017 (UTC) Confirmed sockpuppet ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Good candidate.
  parlez moi 02:17, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support: Cool, calm, logical, and has the right skill set. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:08, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as trustworthy, technical and knowledgeable admin - Would make a great CU. –Davey2010^Talk 18:15, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support No concerns and we need more CUs Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:50, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Perfect background and experience for the job. Yintan  01:11, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - an ideal and experienced candidate. Patient Zero^talk 09:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Miniapolis (CU)

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

Nomination statement

I think I'd be a beneficial addition to the checkuser corps as an experienced, trusted user with good judgment and time available to help out. I began editing Wikipedia in early 2008 (although I registered about a year earlier as a gesture of support for the project), became more active as an editor in late 2010 and have been around consistently ever since. I became an administrator in early 2013, and have been an Arbitration Committee clerk for about two years. My schedule is such that I’m around pretty consistently most days.

Until now I’ve looked in on SPI from time to time and my mop-wielding is primarily on other administrative backlogs, but my primary interest is in article improvement. However, sockpuppetry threatens the integrity of Wikipedia and I’m happy to do whatever I can to counter it. I’m a quick study, and would never misuse the checkuser tool for any reason (if for no other reason than SPI isn’t my primary activity here).

Although I’m a cautious admin, one of the things I enjoy most about Wikipedia is its opportunity to acquire new skills. I hope the community sees fit to trust me with the flag, but am certain that whoever is selected will ultimately benefit the encyclopedia.

Standard questions for all candidates

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

   I've been an admin since early 2013 and an ArbCom clerk for about two years. As a coordinator for the

   Guild of Copy Editors

   for the past few years, I have extensive experience interacting with other editors.

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

   I've been employed in positions of trust which require a background check.

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 advanced permissions, although I have access to UTRS and the OTRS en-permissions queue.

Questions for this candidate

• As far as I can tell, you have not made any edit to any SPI in 2017, and your last issued block for sockpuppetry was in September 2016. In the last 12 months, you have only made 7 blocks (for anything). So the question or questions, I have to ask, are: why CU as opposed to, say, OS? As a CU, you would be making a lot more blocks against users, a lot of whom are not very nice, to say the least. Is this something that you are okay with? Do you think that this would be a cause for burnout several months into the role? --Rschen7754 04:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel qualified for OS at this time, and most oversighters seem to have been checkusers first (although I haven't considered OS and haven't researched this). As an admin I've dealt with irate editors, and as a continuously-active editor for almost seven years I know when it's time to step back. Since my editing is

voluntary

, I don't see burnout as a problem and consider that not being a "block-happy admin" may be beneficial to the project.

• CU necessarily entails involvement in SPI; good thing, too, since we desperately need more CUs to cut into the backlog. What is your procedure when investigating sockpuppetry, whether "in the wild" or at an SPI? What do you look for? Under what conditions would you run a check? GAB^gab 22:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I rely on behavioral evidence and account overlap, and would run a check only if I heard

quacking

.

Comments

Comments may also be submitted to the Arbitration Committee privately by emailing arbcom-en-clists.wikimedia.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'm not convinced that this is a good fit, with little claimed technical experience, not much relevant activity, and not much understanding of the realities of being a CU. There is a steep learning curve for the tool, unlike OS, and unlike "irate editors", the banned trolls that you would be checking (and would have to block) create accounts mentioning some violent/sexual thing they want to do to some other editor and ClueBot, without batting an eye. If this was an OS nomination I might think differently. --Rschen7754 03:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Postscript: generally
    WP:DUCK by itself is a bad reason to run a check, because if it's so obvious to not need a CU check, there's no need for the extra privacy violation. Unfortunately this is very concerning and would lead me to Oppose. --Rschen7754 05:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Oppose per the small amount of work done to fight sockpuppetry in the past and Rschen7754's concerns regarding the candidate's understanding on when a check is appropriate. Double sharp (talk) 06:48, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose--Sorry that was a bad answer to GAB's question.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 16:33, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not enough experience in areas where CU would be beneficial, also per Rschen7754. Simplexity22 (talk) 21:30, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose "would run a check only if I heard quacking"- quacking implies its obvious. Being a CU sometimes requires judgement calls based on the finest of evidence or complicated weaving of behavior that might not appear obvious at first but only as part of a bigger picture, where suspicions might arise. jcc (tea and biscuits) 12:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Opppose lack of experience on socking. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 15:32, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Strong oppose The comment about running a check if they heard quacking is a deal breaker for me. I'm already mildly concerned that some existing CheckUsers may be overusing the rights, and I don't want to add on to that list. Sorry, maybe in the future. Comfycozybeds (talk) 17:58, 24 September 2017 (UTC) Confirmed sockpuppet ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per above - Not entirely happy with the answers provided (the last answer is a main concern) and as noted they don't really have much experience with SPI anyway. –Davey2010^Talk 18:19, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - sorry, not at this time - too little experience. Patient Zero^talk 13:18, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dane (CU)

Dane (talk · contribs · rights · RfA)

Nomination statement

I am applying for the CheckUser tool primarily as a need to overcome the queues which often reach several weeks at

ACC

where I am a tool admin. I believe enabling users to gain access to the encyclopedia is key to our goals and when CU queues are backed up, it prevents these new users from being able to edit. Additionally, I would like to be able to contribute to this area of SPI investigations. I would use the tool cautiously in the beginning as I look for guidance while I learn the ropes of operating the tool. I am always available on IRC (pings get sent to my mobile devices) and I respond to emails and requests for my attention pretty quickly. I believe the combination of my experience on-wiki and off-wiki makes me an ideal candidate for this functionary position.

Standard questions for all candidates

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

   I have contributed several SPI's, however my largest contribution to SPI to date is for

   RFPP

   .

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

   I regularly work with networking in my day job and am familiar with the addressing protocols. I also am regularly resolving and mitigating outages and technical issues as well as performing pings, traceroutes, geolocates, etc. and interpreting the resulting data. I currently work with several types of private data in my day job when investigating issues requested by local law enforcement. I also regularly work with private data in ACC for Wikipedia, where I am primarily looking to use the CU tool to clear that queue.

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 currently hold any advanced permissions on this or any other WMF project and I do not currently have OTRS permissions.

Questions for this candidate

• I will not be expressing an opinion on this candidacy since I'm also applying for the same right, but I would like to ask how you see CheckUser blocks working with a non-admin CU? An arbitrator is welcome to step in to answer this instead of the candidate. Specifically, would admins make CU blocks at the direction of a non-admin CU? Would they have to hand off any SPI that requires a CU range block to another CU? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:38, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be curious what Dane has to say for how he would handle it, but speaking as an arb more in my personal capacity than on behalf of the committee, personally I would have no problem if Dane were to hand off CU blocks to an admin, who could make the block rationale something like {{checkuserblock-account}} <!-- Per request by CU [[User:Dane|Dane]] -->. For IPs and ranges it might get a bit more touchy, but I still would not mind him handing them off to regular admins so long as he didn't hand the same admin both accounts and their related IPs (though doing so to another CU would be fine). However, assuming he uses the bit primarily for the prodigious CU queue backlogs at ACC, I forsee his needing to request CU blocks being rather rare. I've done a smattering of work at ACC, and I've made at most one or two CU blocks as a result of my work there.
    E) 18:45, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • I intend to mainly use this right to clear the regular CU backlog on
      ACC, which would free up other CU's to perform tasks such as SPI's. As such, I don't foresee myself requiring the need to request a "block" on anything except for in the rarest of cases, where I would attempt to reach another CU who's an administrator to perform the block, similar to what Ks0stm said above. I would aim to use another CU as it would be easiest due to the sensitive nature of CU blocks. -- Dane ^talk 22:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
      ]

• I was under the impression that non-administrators who are not arbitrators could not become CU/OS on this project because this is not considered a community election. Unless this has changed within the last year, WMF will likely object to this. --Rschen7754 02:45, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems that WMF has changed their stance - [2] --Rschen7754 02:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose even if the WMF is fine with a non-admin being able to be a CU, they would lack one of the critical parts of the toolkit: the block button. I like Dane, and I believe he was treated unfairly at RfA and should have passed, and I would gladly support him a second time. That being said, I don't think we should appoint CUs without the ability to block users. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I respect that rationale. I do want to clarify my main intent is to have CU in order to work the backlog at ACC which requires me to be able to check for socks in ACC requests that show evidence of puppetry. -- Dane ^talk 04:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. I get that, and I don't have any concerns that you would abuse the tools, and I think I've said on-wiki before that I think your RfA was one of the lowpoints of recent RfAs. I get that ACC there is a need for it, but we also have a huge need currently at SPI, which really is the primary place CUs work (that and arbcom having to look at it for block appeals, etc.) I'd want any CUs appointed in this round to be able to pick up some of the slack left by Bbb23's recenr wikibreak. While you could just give CU results, I still think the ability to block is essential here. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• For what it's worth, there is often a large backlog of ACC requests needing CU attention, and even if Dane were to limit use of the tool to ACC, it would lighten the load on other CUs, freeing them to work more SPI cases. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I'm going to set aside the question of whether any non-admin should be a CU/OS holder, although I've spoken about that before - theoretically, the candidate could use CU solely in ACC, though I will come back to that. In this particular case, the candidate ran at RFA less than 6 months ago, with a closing percentage of around 56%. That does not show a lot of support from the community, and the rationale is valid (CSD concerns). For me, that certainly is valid here (if the candidate doesn't show an understanding of that, what does it say about how they will apply more consequential policies)? As far as the role at ACC, I do not feel that it substitutes for the demonstration of trust. Over several years I have gotten the impression that ACC operates in its own sphere, and does not face the necessary community scrutiny/oversight that it should, for both the vetting of applicants and for those who are later promoted to admin. And at that, Dane has been an admin there for less than a month, and on the system for less than a year [3]. I suppose some might suggest a voluntary restriction to ACC, like how some make similar suggestions at RFA, but I think that is a bad precedent to set at both venues since there is no technical way of enforcing this (for example, all CUs have access to the CU log, mailing list, and wiki). I would suggest addressing the criticisms from that RFA and running again in the future. --Rschen7754 04:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other here. I think that in general, I would be happy to see a non-admin appointed as a CU if they were going to be active with ACC. Normally I think that the sysop bit is pretty well essential to using the CU tools, unless we want some extra bureaucracy like on dewiki. About the candidate in particular, the recently-failed RfA is worrying, though I have checked through his contributions and the civility issue does not seem to be a problem anymore. The CSD issue isn't really related to using the CU tool, especially since he would be using CU in an area where he has experience. I'm still on the fence about this, because as Rschen7754 says ACC is very withdrawn from enwiki as a whole and trust there may not indicate trust to use this right across the entire site. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 04:32, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - CU is too sensitive for a non-admin. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your !vote
  WP:ACC) So I have a bit of experience with handling this type of sensitive data on-wiki. The additional tool would allow me to identify potential socks for the ACC CU queue where there is a reasonable suspicion based on evidence or existing block. -- Dane ^talk 12:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• "I did want to clarify that ACC already uses comparable data that CU uses" -> yes, but generally for very new editors (who have no account and need one), not for established accounts. --Rschen7754 18:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I firmly believe that functionary positions require the knowledge that is required of admins. Without a successful RfA, while that knowledge may exist, it has not necessarily been demonstrated by a candidate. In this particular case, I believe the call for CUs is probably more related to the serious backlog at SPI where in my own experience, some cases are left waiting for several days for a CU. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @
    E) 18:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

As Aiken drum states below: 'RfA is the method we have to show a user is entrusted with advanced permission'. I was just also pointing out that from my perspective, I would prefer those entrusted with the CU tools to be prepared to use them in all the situations that require it. I consider SPI and COIN to be by far the most serious issues and it's problematic and discouraging having to ask two or three functionaries before we can get a SPI closed. Just my opinion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose--I am an ACC interface-user and certainly know the extreme scrutiny we are subject to. That being said, I am not comfortable with a non-admin CU.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 13:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I would want any CU's to be sysop's first; they would not otherwise be able to carry out all of the functions of the position. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Try again at RfA The RfA failed for spurious reasons, and in a different time would have been a shoe-in. However, I cannot give support to this, because while I have no doubts about your technical ability, like it or not, RfA is the method we have to show a user is entrusted with advanced permissions. Until you have that, there's little to say unfortunately, and as these are just advisory comments, ArbCom would need more to go on. Aiken D 18:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose exclusively because you're not an admin, I would support otherwise. We went through this non-admins with access to private data thing (last year I think) in the Arbcom elections, and while I think we determined it was permissible and not technically impossible, my feeling is that this is effectively an unbundling, and the community repeatedly rejects unbundling proposals. I guess I agree with Kudpung that functionaries should have admin experience, if only because of the abuse you'll have to put up with once you gain the ability to block accounts (even if it's not you pushing the button). I do hope to see you at RfA again. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - because as Aiken drum said, RfA is our way of knowing someone is able to handle advanced user rights, and besides, as others have stated, not having the admin bit prevents CUs from being able to do a crucial function of their job: blocking the socks and sockmasters. Furthermore, Dane has only been an active editor for a little over a year, and I after three years feel nowhere near ready to take on CU or oversight rights. Someone who has been active for this amount of time generally wouldn't even pass RfA on grounds of lack of experience (and I did oppose your RfA for lack of experience and concerns about CSD tagging), so I see no way someone with this level of experience could handle sensitive areas like, indeed, CU privileges. 65HCA7 21:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Dane has the right temperament, technical skills and tact for the roles. Looking through his RfA, it was a travesty of justice to be quite honest. I am unaware of any WMF rules about non-admins having access to private data (indeed, Dane already does in his capacity as an account creator) but if this is the case they I'll have to change to a procedural oppose. CU-block-wise, it's gonna be difficult. Admin assistance will be needed. But it's never been tried before: give it a go. We shouldn't shy away from choosing suitable candidates because it's easy, we should select the candidates with the best qualities even if it is hard. DrStrauss talk 22:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose A fine editor, I'm just not comfortable with a non-admin functionary; I'd like to see good use of admin tools before I can trust someone with such a sensitive role. Simplexity22 (talk) 04:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Rschen7754. Double sharp (talk) 06:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Per oppose at above, you have to be entrusted on RfA before you can have the specialized tool on that privilege users group. SA 13 Bro (talk) 18:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Neutral I'm not 100% confidant about having a non-admin CU, but I do see the user's reasoning about clearing the backlog at ACC. Also, sometimes the backlog for CU at SPI will result in multiple cases turning up  Unrelated or  Unlikely, in which cases no CheckUser blocks would be needed. Comfycozybeds (talk) 18:00, 24 September 2017 (UTC) Confirmed sockpuppet ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Regardless what WMF says I could never support a non-admin to use CU, Dane is a trusted user no doubt about it and I'm not saying I don't trust them but for me I simply cannot support a non-admin to have or use CU. –Davey2010^Talk 18:25, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - sorry, not at this time. I, like many others here, cannot support a non-admin CU - it is a highly sensitive field to work in. It is evident that Dane does not have the community's trust, having recently failed his RFA. Patient Zero^talk 09:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NinjaRobotPirate (CU)

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

Nomination statement

Hello. I'm NinjaRobotPirate, an administrator for a little over eight months now, and I'm applying for checkuser access. This is earlier than I had intended, but I believe we need more checkusers. Several checkusers have retired lately, and the backlog at SPI has gotten worse. I have a history of patrolling SPI, performing range blocks, and investigating LTA cases. I think this gives me the experience necessary to be a checkuser. You can see some of what I've been working on at User:NinjaRobotPirate/Socks, which collects many LTA vandals and sock puppets. I would use the checkuser tool to continue this work, both at SPI and as part of my regular sockhunting.

Standard questions for all candidates

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

   As above, I'm familiar with the SPI process, and I've been actively patrolling SPI cases since I became an admin. My watchlist is engineered to catch several prolific sockmasters and LTA vandals, and it's fairly common for me to block socks as I find them. I've also written a couple LTA reports.

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

   I'm an IT worker and have performed UNIX system administration. This gives me a pretty solid understanding of the technical issues, including range blocks.

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, I hold no other permissions.

Questions for this candidate

Comments

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

• Support - NinjaRobotPirate is active in anti-socking efforts, and has displayed both competence and civility whenever I've interacted with him. He also engages on Meta when dealing with cases that have cross-wiki implications, which is nice to see in a CU candidate, and suggests that he'll be able to work well with others on the CU mailing list and wiki. Overall a good candidate, even with his relative lack of experience with the sysop bit. And giving him CheckUser wiki access would allow him to get that Socks page
  out of the public eye... -- Ajraddatz (talk) 04:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support per Ajraddatz. --Rschen7754 04:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I trust NRP. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I second Beyond My Ken. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--Mainly seen his efforts with range-blocks et al.Competent.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 13:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, solid judgment and has been a real help blocking socks at SPI. GAB^gab 22:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good work at SPI, competent, trustworthy. Simplexity22 (talk) 04:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Ajraddatz. Double sharp (talk) 06:55, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Competent, civil and trustworthy. Would be an asset as CU -- Begoon 13:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Trusted user, understands policy well. Has been very helpful to me with regard to rangeblocks, this seems like a natural extension of that work. --MelanieN (talk) 16:28, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support from what I've seen at SPI they appear competent and their answers to the questions show understanding of what's needed to be a CU. Given the SPI backlog, we need more CUs and NRP would make a good one (and ArbCom, please don't only accept one or two candidates) jcc (tea and biscuits) 12:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 15:32, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - So many reasons! Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Weak support I think that the user would make a good CheckUser, although I'm slightly concerned about some range blocks that the user has made, where they have blocked entire communities or even entire networks that could be shared by hundreds if not thousands of users. Comfycozybeds (talk) 18:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC) Confirmed sockpuppet ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support:Works well with others, competent, trustworthy. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:13, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Something I have noticed about NRP is that he or she never seems to be swayed by emotion but rather goes wherever the evidence leads. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:06, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as a trusted editor. –Davey2010^Talk 18:29, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support We need more CUs. No concerns. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - NRP is experienced in this field. Despite the fact that their tenure as an administrator has been rather short thus far, I have no concerns. Patient Zero^talk 09:32, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oshwah (CU)

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

Nomination statement

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

Standard questions for all candidates

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

   My time has been mostly spent in recent changes patrolling and attempting to mentor and help new users on Wikipedia. I patrol recent changes and revert vandalism, respond to instances of long-term abuse, username violations, blatant sock puppetry, page protection requests, and (occasionally) AFD, AN3, and ANI. I'm also an ACC Tool Administrator on WP:ACC, and assist with processing account creation requests, as well as helping tool users with difficult or complex cases. I would use the tools to help with investigating and conducting checks in SPI and to respond to checkuser requests in ACC.

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

   My user page explains the extent of my background in a nutshell - I've grown up around computers and my IT-related experience goes very far back. I performed computer and network administration throughout my youth while in 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 at my current job, 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.

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 have advanced permissions on other projects, and I currently do not have OTRS permissions (but that certainly can change).

Questions for this candidate

Comments

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

• Support - Trustworthy and competent. Tazerdadog (talk) 09:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--One of the sysops one could truly look up to! Full steam ahead!Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 13:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. My recent interaction with Oshwah leaves me with no doubt that he will be a competent Checkuser. Malinaccier (talk) 13:45, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - While I'm sure Oshwah
  WP:ADMINACCT. The problem here is that Oshwah would be able to do checkuser blocks, which "ordinary" admins are powerless to criticise and overturn. Based on the problematic blocks and warnings here, I feel granting checkuser would be too much of a risk. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Hi, Ritchie333, in the 2nd case (Username block), did Oshwah had any genuine chance to understand that it was an username generated by some-one involved with WP and may have been in good-faith?Also, I personally feel Oshwah to be one of our most user-friendly and civil sysop and fail to spot examples of failing AdminAcct. All question(s) need not be answered.Regards:)Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 14:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to

the username policy, "Users who adopt such usernames, but who are not editing problematically in related articles, should not be blocked. Instead, they should be gently encouraged to change their username." At the point Oshwah blocked, the account had 0 edits. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Wholly agreed.But, then again, interpretations and executions of the policy vary. And I have seen soft-blocks at zero edits fairly commonly.Regards:)Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 14:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per the first three supports. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Regretful Oppose Oshwah is really great and I like him quite a lot. He is very helpful on IRC and is probably the most active admin on it. I frequently ask him for his support in dealing with copyright revision deletions when I need it done quick and its too complicated to make the template useful. That being said, I my fear here is that the usage of the CU tool would rely too much on off-wiki communication. Yes, there are times when it does need to be done in private (I've contacted CU privately many times before), but at the same time CUs need to understand the primacy of on-wiki communication compared to off-wiki unless there is a good reason otherwise. My fear here is this: not that Oshwah would abuse the tools, I think its pretty clear he wouldn't, but that some people would use his good nature as a way to skip cases that should be handled via SPI so that there is public scrutiny and an on-wiki record. There's a fine line between when it is appropriate to contact a CU off-wiki and when its preferable to do it in publicly in an SPI, and unfortunately I think Oshwah being appointed would lead to too many other users taking action off-wiki that should be done on-wiki. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Overstepped his authority by blocking an editor for socking based on flimsy behavioral evidence, without citing an investigation in his rationale for the block. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Irannejad90. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Has the technical skills, and the requesit respect for privacy. Trustworthy admin who is aware of the
  blocking policy. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 21:32, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support - Oshwah has the technical knowledge for sure as well as a solid grasp of the policies. I do not share the concerns about his ability to differentiate when something needs to be "on-wiki" vs. "off-wiki" and I am confident he would redirect requestors as necessary and appropriate. -- Dane ^talk 22:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've just given one case where he flat out violated policy above. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt his knowledge of when to ask something off-wiki or on-wiki. I doubt the judgement of the contingent we have who think IRC is equivalent to Wikipedia. I'm confident if Oshwah were to get the CU flag, we'd have a lot of Well Oshwah is so helpful, let me just get him to run this, when it should be an SPI rather than an off-wiki request. It puts him in a very bad situation because as the most active admin on #wikipedia-en, he will be flooded with these types of requests, which increases the odds of him making a poor judgement call entirely in good faith. Unlike oversight, being overly accessible on CU has the potential to cause problems if the request should be made at SPI, and again, I've asked for CUs off-wiki plenty of times, so this isn't a everything must be on-wiki oppose. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:12, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: an editor recently posted sensitive information on my user page, there were no available oversighters on IRC, Oshwah had it revdel'd as soon as I mentioned it to him and it was suppressed quickly thereafter. No concerns whatsoever. DrStrauss talk 22:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support One of the most helpful admins I've come across in my time editing here. As for his technical abilities, the answer to the second standard question is enough to judge his understanding of IP addresses and network-related areas. The concerns raised by TonyBallioni are valid, but I don't doubt Oshwah's ability to discern what should and should not be done with the tools he's been given based on how well he has handled his current admin tools so far.
  talk • contributions • 23:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support I have no concerns. Oshwah has consistently shown excellent judgment, and I see no reason not to trust him with CU. AlexEng^(TALK) 01:22, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I also have no concerns. Great to talk to on IRC, and is very helpful. I think of him as my go-to-guy for any questions I might have of WP. I think of him as a really great guy in general. Yoshi24517^Chat _{On Wikibreak} 05:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I've gone through some of the SPIs they have handled in the past and they've been okay, and I strongly disagree with wbm1058's assessment of that particular SPI. I've read through Ritchie's links, but I don't think they are relevant in this context and/or are pretty old (but also see my comments on the OS nomination). --Rschen7754 06:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I've been happy to see Oshwah turn out to be a pretty decent admin, devoid of controversy, drama, or incivility, and genuinely wanting to help others. Oshwah has proven to be a real crowdpleaser of an admin. The uncontroversial admin grinding is awesome. However, I don't think this user has firmly established themselves among the ranks of the most trusted and consistent members of this project who are typically granted these highly exclusive and sensitive rights. For one, I think their talk page conduct falls short of the expected standard of professionalism for administrators. Sorry. I really do appreciate Oshwah's niceness, but relative to other administrators and any other user I've encountered, they're too social/
  username policy. I really don't. In this context, it's hard to simply look past this, where they blocked a user without even knowing how or why. In my 6 years of being an admin, I never just happened to stumble upon some random new user and accidentally block them for absolutely no reason. Farhadfarhadxex? AriseMyLove? Perhaps there's something I'm just missing here. However this user comes off as either overzealous or reckless. I'm left with concerns about experience, judgment and maturity. Swarm ♠ 08:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support. I firmly believe that a friendly disposition and ability to interact with other editors is important. I am yet to see any sysop that hasn't completed screwed something up at some point so the comments about 'accidents' do not affect my opinion. Despite the comments here about about him being 'too friendly' and 'an absolute joy' to the point of lacking professionalism, I find it hard to see that as a negative, you could literally have a robot Cluebot do this job otherwise.
  Message) -  13:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I think that Oshwah would be a good candidate for oversighter, but less so with CheckUser. Some of the examples above demonstrate overzealousness and I worry about how that would apply to his use of the CU tool, which should be used sparingly and only with good justification. But I won't oppose here, because I bet that Oshwah would still be able to use the tools well. I'm also not impressed by some of the oppose reasons above, specifically relating to his demeanour and whether he would respond to requests for CU on the IRC. A good demeanour can be very useful for a CheckUser, especially a new one who will rely on the help of his/her peers at the start. Most cross-wiki coordination is done through IRC, the mailing list, or the wiki, so it's a good thing to have a CU who is on IRC and able to respond in these cases. The bureaucracy at SPI doesn't need to be followed for all requests. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 21:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. While the concerns that the opposers have made are valid, I don't feel like they are significant enough to overshadow how well Oshwah has done as an admin and I think him having CU would only be a benefit to Wikipedia. The concerns about occasional overzealousness are valid and if granted CU he would need to ensure he isn't overzealous with it, but I don't think that alone disqualifies him. timawesomeness ⟨talk⟩ 03:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support I'm a bit conflicted about this. On the one hand, I've always personally found Oshwah to be a good admin, I don't have any doubts he can be trusted with non-public info, and he seems technically competent. I disagree with the concerns about IRC, as I think Oshwah has good enough judgement to know when he should open and close a "for the record" SPI (recent example). On the other hand, the examples provided by Ritchie333 and Swarm are a cause for concern and leads me to believe he may be a bit too eager with his use of tools on occasion. However, these examples seem, to me, like a drop in an ocean when compared to the vast number of proper blocks Oshwah makes, and I've never seen bad work from him when dealing with sockpuppets. Simplexity22 (talk) 04:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Ritchie, and Swarm have good arguments. But I am comfortable with supporting him, because he acts in goodfatith, with or without intentions, he is a good example of
  WP:OFWV. Everybody makes mistakes, how can Oshwah be an exception to this? But fortunately he is willing to learn from his mistakes, and "trying not to repeat a mistake" is important, which he does. Yes, his talkpage is a little off-the-topic, his communication is a lot on the side of informal/casual. But he has a very good understanding of enwiki policies, and he behaves accordingly. There were one or two hiccups, but we all have done something stupid here. I have not seen any major mistake, or misuse of any tool that would merit him an oppose. —usernamekiran(talk) 07:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose. Oshwah is a great guy and a good admin. With time, he could easily become one of our best and most respected admins and a great functionary but right now this is premature and these positions are too sensitive to be decided on the basis of popularity. Oshwah is trying to be everywhere all the time and all things to all people. He lacks focus, which means he does lots of things very quickly but doesn't have time to get into the details. He sees something, reacts, then moves on to the next thing demanding his attention. That's great for front-line firefighting, but checkuser and oversight require a level of detachment (to continue a bad metaphor, checkusers and oversighters are more like arson investigators than firefighters) to investigate the whole situation. In the case of checkuser, you might have to spend several hours untangling a web of sockpuppets, or you might spend just as long investigating ranges to eliminate false positives or triple check your conclusions to make sure you don't accidentally vilify a good editor or block an entire country. Sorry, Oshwah, I'm not questioning your skill or your motives, I just haven't seen that level of patience or detachment from you yet. You've only been an admin for a year and most checkusers are long-experienced admins and I can't see any reason you wouldn't make a fantastic checkuser in a few years. I just think it's premature now. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I endorse Oshwah have the tool to deal for catching up those vandal sock accounts, but the privilege right have to grant by community users consensus trusted. SA 13 Bro (talk) 18:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose from what I've seen of Oshwah, they've been spreading themselves too thinly, and can only echo HJ Mitchell's sentiments above. I've stumbled upon their user talk page a few times now since they became an admin, and I've seen unreplied to comments from new users- the very users we should be trying to keep onboard, but also people treating Oshwah as some sort of forum shop, or way to circumvent the normal system/processes we have in place. jcc (tea and biscuits) 13:24, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support - I like the hair! :D Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I love the hair, but it tells me nothing about how Oshwah would do as a checkuser. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:15, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Regretful oppose (and without prejudice to a future appointment), mainly as per HJ Mitchell rather than any one individual mistake or misjudgment. I'm very sorry, but I can't help but agree with the opposition's concerns, even as I echo some of the positive points of supporters. GAB^gab 22:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Regretful oppose per Ritchie and HJ - The blocks are concerning and unfortunately at this time is something I cannot support, We all make mistakes but when you're a CU there can't be any room for errors and mistakes, Sorry. –Davey2010^Talk 18:42, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Swarm and HJ Mitchell. Yintan  01:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - the issues brought up previously are valid, but I do not see these as obstacles. Oshwah is experienced in matters involving IP addresses, and therefore I do think he can and should be trusted with the sensitive information that is part and parcel of being a CheckUser. Patient Zero^talk 09:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongest support possible Oshwah has been a great admin and would be an incredible asset as a CU! CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:15, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I read the comments from those in opposition and took special note of what HJ Mitchell and Jcc said. They might be right. Regardless, I've been stalking Oshwah's talk page for some time and this is one bull I'd be pleased to unleash in the china shop. I think Wikipedia needs Oshwah's activity as CU more than it needs to forgo help in an effort to be careful or diplomatic. If Oshwah screws up and causes problems I'd be willing to admit I'm wrong, but Wikipedia has bigger fish to fry. give Oshwah more trust and let's see what happens. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Berean Hunter (CU)

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

Nomination statement

I'm applying for the checkuser tool so that I may assist further with sockpuppet investigations.

• I have been a SPI clerk and administrator since 2012.
• I enjoy investigating cases, helping editors and working with the SPI team of clerks and checkusers.
• I have a working knowledge of the sockpuppet, checkuser and privacy policies that pertain to the investigations.
• I regularly evaluate behavioral evidence.
• I have participated at varying levels in SPI cases for just over 1000 distinct sockmasters.
• I understand IPv4 and IPv6 addressing and can make rangeblocks.

I learned GNU/Linux, system administration and networking when you had to build and compile the operating system yourself. These were additional technical roles and not my primary career. After several years of hands-on experience, I chose to formalize with educational capstones and completed both Cisco Academy and Red Hat Academy for Network Administration. I understand networking protocols, addressing (IPv4 and IPv6) and addressing concepts such as supernetting and subnetting required for mapping ISP topologies and understanding whois reports. I can use command line networking security tools as well as GUI tools.

Thank you for your consideration, Berean Hunter

Standard questions for all candidates

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

   As described above in my nomination statement.

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

   Same as above.

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 to all

Questions for this candidate

• From my recollection, you've had some lengthy periods of inactivity since 2012. Do you think this will affect your ability to be an active functionary? --Rschen7754 02:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure how my previous inactivity would affect my current ability to be an active functionary. My inactivity last year centered primarily around family crisis and loss of loved ones. I hope that I'm done with that for a good, long while.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

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

• Support. Berean Hunter is an uncontroversial SPI clerk of a half-decade with strong technical knowledge compatible with the CheckUser tool. Need I say more? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I'm satisfied with the answer regarding activity. Otherwise, a long-term SPI clerk who would use the tools well. --Rschen7754 04:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I have observed competence and civility from Berean Hunter when he handles SPI cases, which is really the two most important things that I expect in candidates for CheckUser. Seems like a good candidate who will be able to quickly adapt to using the CheckUser tool. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 04:27, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support due to CU clerk experience. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Widr (talk) 08:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I have worked with Berean Hunter for several years at SPI and have watched him develop into a superb SPI clerk. He is a careful and conscientious admin who consistently makes good decisions while knowing when to ask for assistance. He has my full confidence. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--Superb SPI clerk.Give him the tools!Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 13:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Long term editor that I trust with the Checkuser tool. Malinaccier (talk) 13:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I have been impressed with Berean Hunter's conduct and diligence in identifying persistently abusive editors, not least Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per everyone above. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good work in SPI.Long-term SPI clerk who would use the tools well.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support an excellent SPI clerk, I'm sure he will make an equally good CheckUser. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support 100%. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, he's one of the very best clerks we've got. GAB^gab 22:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Highly trustworthy. Swarm ♠ 07:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per all the above. Outstanding and dedicated SPI clerk whose experience would be well used in this role. -- Begoon 08:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Absolutely. One of the best SPI clerks. Alex Shih^Talk 08:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Does good work in SPI. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:12, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per the above, great work as an SPI clerk. Simplexity22 (talk) 04:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - an excellent clerk. Precise and reliable. Should have been a CU a long time ago. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:59, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support What Kudpung said. Trusted, experienced, knows the job backwards and forwards. --MelanieN (talk) 16:39, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support BH is around the block lately and they've shown their experience so far. --QEDK (愛 • 海) 15:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ideal candidate. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  15:30, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 15:29, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Why ever not? Double sharp (talk) 15:46, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Good candidate.
  parlez moi 02:20, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support: Per Rschen7754. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:11, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - 110%, Great (and highly trusted) candidate. –Davey2010^Talk 18:45, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent candidate. No concerns. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:17, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Outstanding work in SPI cases. Highly qualified and active clerk. An exemplar candidate for CU tools.
  talk • contributions • 21:31, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• support Trustworthy candidate with outstanding work in SPI. No concerns --
  talk) 12:55, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support - Berean Hunter has a lot of experience in this field and is therefore an ideal candidate. No concerns. Patient Zero^talk 09:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support'. Sufficient experience, very good admin. No concerns whatsoever. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zzuuzz (CU)

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

Nomination statement

Hello. I am applying for CheckUser permissions. I've been editing since 2005 and an administrator since 2007. I spend a lot of my time dealing with vandalism, harassment, long term abuse, and some of the more obvious and prolific sockpuppeteers. I am applying for the tool in order to better help the community with what I already do, and to take some load from other CheckUsers and other users both at the front line of recent changes and secondary areas such as SPI, admin boards, mailing lists, ACC, unblock requests and UTRS.

I have a good understanding of relevant policy, as well as the technical aspects of networks and website requests. I have a lot of experience investigating and blocking IP addresses and ranges of all types from all parts of the world, both IPv4 and IPv6. I also have a lot of experience with proxies (open, anonymising, or otherwise). I take a particular interest in making blocks which are proportionate and with minimal collateral, and I will apply these principles to the CheckUser tool if this application is successful. Thank you for your consideration.

Standard questions for all candidates

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

   I'd describe myself as quite an experienced admin with over 21,000 blocks, most for either vandalism or abuse of multiple accounts. A lot of the blocks are for long term abuse cases and vandal sockpuppets, many of which aren't necessarily listed at SPI, but often involve checkusers nonetheless. I've also helped out quite a lot with

   WP:OP

   Wikiproject and investigating open proxies.

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

   My off-wiki experience includes years of being paid to manage IT security, networks, firewalls, routing, DHCP, DNS, web servers, websites, VPNs and other proxies. This includes things like investigating users attempting to evade bans, as well as handling private 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?

   No, none, never have.

Questions for this candidate

Comments

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

• Support Active in fighting LTAs and the tools would be useful in this area. --Rschen7754 05:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Beyond My Ken (talk)
• Support About time. Widr (talk) 07:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support With years of experience combatting vandalism, sockpuppetry, and other disruption, Zzuuzz is more than qualified. Along with Berean Hunter, Zzuuzz has my complete confidence, and probably stands to benefit the project the most if granted acces to CU. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:45, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I have always respected Zzuuzz's edits and judgment. Malinaccier (talk) 13:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Dord.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, eminently qualified for the job. GAB^gab 22:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This will complement well Z's work with Edit Filters, and from my interactions there's no problem at all with trust with the tool. Crow^Caw 23:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Outstanding work in combatting vandalism and sockpuppetry. His work
  talk • contributions • 23:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support Would be a great asset as a CU. Active in fighting LTAs and general vandals, is competent and trustworthy. Simplexity22 (talk) 04:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support a trustworthy user. I dont see any issues. —usernamekiran(talk) 07:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I don't support editors if I have even a bit of qualms and although I've not seen them much around, I have seen a sufficient level of level-headedness and expertise in other occasions. --QEDK (愛 • 海) 15:48, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support no concerns here. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  15:31, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I see this editor around quite a lot, and not once have I seen them do anything questionable. Completely trustworthy. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:35, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Awesome contributor! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adityavagarwal (talk • contribs) 16:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Good candidate.
  parlez moi 02:20, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support – Having seen
  WP:OP, I think his appointment as a checkuser would be beneficial. EdJohnston (talk) 16:02, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support: Just the kind of person we need for CU-related tasks. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:13, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support No concerns and we need more CUs Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:48, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• support. More CU's are always welcome as long as the can be trusted with the tool. And this candidate most definitely can be. --
  talk) 12:58, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support- No reservations whatsoever.   Aloha27  talk  03:13, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Zzuuzz is a suitable and trustworthy candidate. Patient Zero^talk 09:28, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Smartse (CU)

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

Nomination statement

I am Smartse and am requesting access to the CheckUser tool. I began editing in 2009 and bccame an administrator in 2011. My primary area of administrative work relates to dealing with conflicts of interest and undisclosed paid editing (UPE). In the course of this, I have often come across groups of suspected sockpuppets and initiated investigations to confirm this. Some recent examples include HemantDas34 (initiated here), Earflaps/MusicLover650 and Jbuffkin. Evidence I provided also led to the community ban of FoCuSandLeArN. These investigations demonstrate my ability to investigate the contributions of users and determine both whether they are disruptive and whether sockpuppetry is likely. I request access primarily to assist in investigations into sockfarms operated by UPEs but would also deal with straightforward SPIs and hopefully gain the experience to assist in other areas. I believe that the length of time that I have contributed to what is a controversial subject, with little or no conflict with the community, demonstrates my ability to follow policy to the letter. I have always erred on the side of caution when dealing with personal information and this would continue were I granted the permission. I am acutely aware of the considerable responsibility entrusted to checkusers and can confidently state that I would only use it to prevent disruption to the project. At present I admit to having little knowledge of networking technologies but am more than willing to learn and am certain of my ability to make use of the tools.

Standard questions for all candidates

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

   I think this is adequately covered above. SmartSE (talk) 18:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

   Seeing the other nominations I do feel rather unqualified for the job. I freely admit to having little knowledge of networking as I haven't had a reason to know anything. My work is very analytical however which I assume will be helpful if I am granted the tools. In addition I am always eager to learn new things so feel I will be able to pick up the ropes soon enough if I gain access to the information. SmartSE (talk) 18:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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 and no. SmartSE (talk) 18:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for this candidate

• Could you explain what your personal criteria would be to perform a check on someone you suspect of undisclosed paid editing? Specifically, what would cause you not to run a check, if anything? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @BU Rob13: There needs to be a reasonable suspicion that sockpuppetry is occurring to run a CU. Normally that would mean that we need subject crossover and/or behavioural similarities to link accounts together. This current case at COIN (and subsequent SPI) is an example of where I think it is justified, even when though the evidence directly linking the non-stale editors is fairly flaky, because altogether I think there is clear evidence of something suspect going on between all of the accounts. In other cases though, what constitutes reasonable suspicion is up for debate and I admit to having been slightly frustrated at times with the ad hoc nature of requesting CU on individual suspicious users and the lack of clarity on what evidence is required to do so. The HermantDas34 case began when I spotted a user creating an obviously spammy article after first creating it as a redirect. That isn't the behaviour of a true new user so a CU was justified even without any other user to compare against. Personally I thought that a CU was justified in this case where we know the Upwork user has socked before, but has since made their profile private so we can't know how many jobs they have taken on. If I am given access to the tools, in borderline cases I would continue to defer to other CUs as to whether a CU should be performed, and then do the leg work after that. In terms of not running a check, if there were cases like Earflaps (but with no link to a previous account) or FoCuSandLeArN where established users are determined to be UPE but there is no evidence of socking, then I would not run a check. SmartSE (talk) 20:56, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• FoCuSandLeArN was from the company Wikipediawriters per some of the subjects in question and is know know to have been operating socks. Would you take those sorts of details into account when decided on a CU? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Doc James: I hadn't been aware of that link to FaL until you posted at COIN last week. If evidence was presented that linked an established user to a company such as that and they were confirmed to use socks in the past, then I would take that into account and in this case at least, a check would be justified. SmartSE (talk) 19:47, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• One can based the similarities on behavioral evidence alone. However would you accept emails as evidence? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:06, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Doc James: Yes I would accept emails and would like to make it clearer that evidence related to UPE can be sent that way. SmartSE (talk) 19:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Perfect thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you think it appropriate to check a disclosed paid editor on that basis alone? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• No definitely not. SmartSE (talk) 20:56, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

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

• Support I've gone through a few of the recent SPIs and I liked what I saw. They've also started to look at the effects of cross-wiki paid editors and while not perfect, they've demonstrated cluefulness and a willingness to look at the whole picture, which is important for the cross-wiki issues CUs (at least should) be involved in. --Rschen7754 05:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--Will mainly help in combating paid editing (a job he has been doing quite superbly!) and related cross-wiki-efforts.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 13:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support great institutional memory- dive through SPI, and you'll see that SmartSE is often the person SPI clerks call on to distinguish between the myriad of similar-but subtly different UPE sockfarms we have. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:59, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support good user experienced and knowledgeable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:37, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support would be an asset as a CU. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I have interacted with the candidate on one occasion, but I have seen his contrib history, is trustworthy enough. I have no doubt/issues whatsoever. Also, per tea and biscuits —usernamekiran(talk) 23:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The project would certainly benefit from more CUs that are involved in containing the mess that is paid-editing sockfarms. I have no concerns. Simplexity22 (talk) 04:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I was somewhat concerned that Smartse was perhaps a "paid editor extremist". There are quite a few well-established editors at the moment who prioritize paid editing concerns squarely above privacy concerns to the extent that they're fine with substantial collateral damage so long as we catch a few paid editors in the process. I asked my questions above to probe that, and the answers were satisfactory. I share Smartse's concerns about how we process individually suspicious accounts, and this is something I'd hope we could address together if we both were to join the CU team. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:10, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  @BU Rob13: I assume you mean "paid" rather than "unpaid" ;) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  @MSGJ: Yes, of course. I've fixed it. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 09:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Nice to have them around at SPI. Good judgement, as far as I've observed. --QEDK (愛 • 海) 15:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Sure is a competent editor and has a great judgement. Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:05, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support We need more CUs Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:30, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, CUs with experience tackling COI/UPE are real assets. GAB^gab 03:18, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]