Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/2022 CUOS appointments/CU: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Tag: Reverted |
m Protected "Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/2022 CUOS appointments/CU": community consult phase closed ([Edit=Require administrator access] (indefinite) [Move=Require administrator access] (indefinite)) |
||
| (45 intermediate revisions by 22 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
<!-- Sections created with [[Template:CUOS appointments]] -->
{{atop|The community consultation phase has ended. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 08:18, 6 October 2022 (UTC)}}
====Blablubbs====
{{admin|Blablubbs}}
Line 21 ⟶ 23:
:#Since you block a large number of proxies, colos, etc, I'm interested to know how you handle associated collateral. As a checkuser I'm certain you'll see a whole lot more. Can you provide some examples of potential collateral and how you've dealt with it? -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] <sup>[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]</sup> 15:21, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
:#*Generally speaking, I do my best to limit potential collateral of webhostblocks by querying for underlying ranges that may not be assigned to the same provider ({{code|whois -aM $RANGE}}) and looking for specific indicators of hosting activity with Shodan range queries whenever I'm uncertain. I also frequently soften bot-proxyblocks when I see evidence of CGNAT use. A specific example of collateral mitigation that comes to mind is when a steward reached out because he had verified that [[special:contribs/213.202.232.64/28|213.202.232.64/28]], a subrange of the then-hardblocked hosting range 213.202.232.0/21, was being used by a school. I didn't want to lift the block entirely because the underlying range [https://www.shodan.io/search?query=net%3A213.202.232.0%2F21 does have lots of hosting on it], so we worked out how to reblock the entire range in [https://meta.toolforge.org/stalktoy/213.202.232.0%2F21 small increments] and dropped the /28 down to a softblock. --[[User:Blablubbs|Blablubbs]] ([[User talk:Blablubbs|talk]]) 17:04, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
:#You mention that you are active in UPE work, what is the line between investigating UPE and investigating socks with CheckUser in your mind? -- [[User talk:AmandaNP|<span style="color:white;background-color:#8A2DB8"><b>Amanda</b> (she/her)</span>]] 05:47, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
:#* Just a quick note to acknowledge that I have seen this and hope to answer tomorrow. Apologies for the delay. --[[User:Blablubbs|Blablubbs]] ([[User talk:Blablubbs|talk]]) 20:18, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
:#* The two issues are of course distinct in that proving them individually works very differently: CU shows IPs, but it can't reveal intent, and is accordingly not very useful for proving UPE. However, a huge chunk of moderately sophisticated UPE activity{{efn|By which I mean things like PR operations or individuals that offer black-hat Wikipedia "services" and consciously try to violate the TOU and exploit Wikipedia's open nature, as opposed to company interns who are asked to copy-paste their latest marketing brochure into the article about the company, small business owners who try to push an article about their one-man tyre repair operation into mainspace, and similar kinds of misguided-but-not-inherently-malicious actor.}} entails socking of one kind or another, be it through block evasion or concurrent use of multiple accounts. In those cases, the line softens: If, in the course of investigating an account for UPE, credible suspicions of illegitimate use of multiple accounts surface, it can still be appropriate to run a check and take action based on the results{{snd}}a caveat being that CU is often of limited usefulness in UPE cases because of proxy use, "decentralised" meatpuppetry, or difficult ranges. --[[User:Blablubbs|Blablubbs]] ([[User talk:Blablubbs|talk]]) 15:47, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
:#What is your take on blocking IPs and accounts using the {{tl|checkuserblock}}? A lot of these are often applied as indefs or large rangeblocks that often last years at a time and often deny large mobile IP ranges due to a vandalism. Should these be treated as arbcom decisions or [[WP:OFFICE|office actions]] where other administrators can't undo or should these be done by consensus? [[User:NYC Guru|NYC Guru]] ([[User talk:NYC Guru|talk]]) 11:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
:#* I think regulation-wise, the status quo is fine: CU blocks are blocks based primarily on CU data, and so they shouldn't be loosened by people who do not have access to that data. It is impossible, for example, for a non-CU to tell whether a hardblock of an IP that has never made anonymous edits is appropriate or excessive, because there is no way to tell what registered users on that IP are up to, and it would be an NDA violation to publicly disclose that information{{snd}}and so having anyone but a CU or arbcom review that block would seem somewhat pointless. This makes CU blocks ''somewhat'' similar to arbcom blocks and office actions in that the group of people who have enough information to review an appeal is limited, but since CU blocks may be overturned by any individual checkuser (and we have far more of those than we have arbs or [[m:Trust and Safety/Case Review Committee|case review committee members]]), appeals are substantially quicker and easier. Broad peer review is of course a good thing though, so I would err on the side of preferring "regular" admin actions over CU blocks whenever I believe that publicly available information is sufficient for any admin to make an informed decision about its appropriateness. I'm afraid I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "consensus" in your question above{{snd}}if you are referring to a system where any CU block has to be pre-approved (or immediately reviewed) on the checkuser mailing list (if memory serves, Oversight blocks are usually handled this way), then I would be inclined to oppose such a system on the grounds that CU blocks are very common, and requiring panel review of each and every one of them would likely take up an inordinate amount of people's time. --[[User:Blablubbs|Blablubbs]] ([[User talk:Blablubbs|talk]]) 16:50, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
{{notelist-talk}}
=====Comments (Blablubbs)=====
Line 36 ⟶ 41:
* Full support from me. [[User:Dreamy Jazz|Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">'''Jazz'''</i>]] <sup>''[[User talk:Dreamy Jazz|talk to me]]'' | ''[[Special:Contribs/Dreamy Jazz|my contributions]]''</sup> 20:41, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
* Full support. I think Blablubbs would be a great help with the paid-en queue, which is chronically understaffed. – [[User:Joe Roe|Joe]] <small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 05:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
* Late to the party here, but just publicly stating what I've said elsewhere - Blablubbs has my full confidence, and would be an asset to the team. I'm not commenting on the other candidates - please don't read that as opposition, I just haven't worked with them so much. [[User:Girth Summit|<span style="font-family:Impact;color:#006400;">Girth</span> <span style="font-family:Impact;color:#4B0082;">Summit</span>]][[User talk:Girth Summit|<sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)</sub>]] 11:48, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
* Support. Blablubbs has been a pleasure to work with. --[[User:Malcolmxl5|Malcolmxl5]] ([[User talk:Malcolmxl5|talk]]) 11:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
* I somehow forgot that Blablubbs isn't a checkuser already. Trusted, competent. [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 12:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
* Just echoing the support and endorsements above. Based on Blablubbs' work at SPI/ACC/[[WP:OP|OP]], I believe he will be a great addition to the CU team. -- '''[[User:LuK3|<span style="color:#DC143C"><span style="font-family:Verdana">LuK3</span></span>]] [[User_talk:LuK3|<span style="color:#000080"><span style="font-family:Verdana">(Talk)</span></span>]]''' 14:08, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
* No reservations from me. Blablubbs has shown himself to be competent with the relevant activities, with a suitable grasp of nuance. I'm sure he'll do fine. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] <sup>[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]</sup> 11:01, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
----
Line 72 ⟶ 82:
:''Comments may also be submitted to the Arbitration Committee privately by emailing {{NoSpam|arbcom-en-c|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.''
* The questions I would have asked have been asked above, but I would like for the questions to be answered before providing some thoughts. [[User:Dreamy Jazz|Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">'''Jazz'''</i>]] <sup>''[[User talk:Dreamy Jazz|talk to me]]'' | ''[[Special:Contribs/Dreamy Jazz|my contributions]]''</sup> 20:38, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
*:Based on their answers above I would support appointment. However, I'm not sure that holding the CU right and being an OC goes well together. While I trust that JJMC89 would keep usage of CU to a minimum, I am concerned that a user who is looking to report CU tool abuse may be put off if one of the OC's members holds the CU right. Most users probably don't know about [[WP:AUDIT/STATS]] to see if a CU has made checks, and so there may be a perceived issue that there is a conflict of interest. I would have a better support once JJMC89 is off the OC. [[User:Dreamy Jazz|Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">'''Jazz'''</i>]] <sup>''[[User talk:Dreamy Jazz|talk to me]]'' | ''[[Special:Contribs/Dreamy Jazz|my contributions]]''</sup> 08:29, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
*::We have had CUs who are also on the OC (AGK, AmandaNP, to name the most recent two). Genuinely out of curiosity (so I can make a more informed decision), what makes JJMC89 different from these previous editors, or would you have not liked them being on the OC while being CUs either? [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 08:37, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
*:::My concern is not specific to any one editor, and in my opinion any OC holding the CU right is not okay. The OC needs to be able to make difficult and possibly controversial decisions about CUs. Of course I trust that any CU would while on the OC would ensure that they focus on the OC, but I think it entirely reasonable for a user reporting abuse of the CU tool to not feel confident in the process if a user part of the OC has CU rights, especially on the wiki the problem occurred on, due to the perceived conflict of interest. [[User:Dreamy Jazz|Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">'''Jazz'''</i>]] <sup>''[[User talk:Dreamy Jazz|talk to me]]'' | ''[[Special:Contribs/Dreamy Jazz|my contributions]]''</sup> 08:46, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
*::::Thanks for the reply. For what it is worth, I believe this is why we exempt OC members from the normal activity requirements, as we do not ''expect'' them to be acting on enWiki whilst being on the OC. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 08:50, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
*::::I'm just curious to how this model operates then if we extend Dreamy's line of thinking. If we had it so that no one with the CU flag could be part of the OC on '''any''' wiki, then we would have an inexperienced and potentially tone deaf like a certain 2016 decision that was handed down. We need people who are experienced using the tools in the first place to provide the viewpoint of a checkuser. Of course, i'm not speaking when the homewiki applies. Before the OC really became a thing, ArbCom had [[WP:AUSC|AUSC]] which was set to review our own checkusers and functionaries. It was formed of 3 community members and 3 arbs (with CU). Now, with AUSC gone, ArbCom returned that right back to itself. As much as I hate to say it, there have been times, without drudging up any names, where a local oversight committee has benefited the community over having the Ombuds look into a case. Do I respect some people may have reservations about emailing for the appearance that they might leak the case or be involved even when they shouldn't be? Yes. But that is where the selection process handled by the WMF is particularly important to get people who will keep their integrity. So I think it's particularly counter-productive to take aim at being on the OC as a CU, because in reality, outside of recusals, it's enhancing the OC. -- [[User talk:AmandaNP|<span style="color:white;background-color:#8A2DB8"><b>Amanda</b> (she/her)</span>]] 12:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
*:::::The way that I see it is that the OC needs to have a clearly visible view that all their members are separated from any case that could come before them. Of course people who go and join the OC won't change their opinions on people based on whether or not they hold CU rights, but from my point of view if I was a new user I would want to see "separation of powers" even if this is just a perception thing.
*:::::However, this is just a minor concern and not a reason I would use to oppose anyone outright; While I wouldn't hold CU/OS while being a OC, I wouldn't be particularly bothered if someone else did. [[User:Dreamy Jazz|Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">'''Jazz'''</i>]] <sup>''[[User talk:Dreamy Jazz|talk to me]]'' | ''[[Special:Contribs/Dreamy Jazz|my contributions]]''</sup> 14:11, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
*:::::Having OC not include active functionaries would not necessarily lead to {{tq|inexperienced and potentially tone deaf}} members as it could still certainly contain '''former''' functionaries, including ones that become former functionaries the day they joined the OC. And of course the reasons why communities with CUOS's are required to have multiple CUOS's is so that the first line of audit is the other CUOS's - which is not dependent on the existence of any committees. — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 15:57, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
* I've worked with JJMC89 on various technical things, including [[mw:Pywikibot|Pywikibot]], they're knowledgeable, collegial and in general, it's always a pleasure to work with them. [[User:Legoktm|Legoktm]] ([[User talk:Legoktm|talk]]) 00:12, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
* Although there was not a "bad" response to by question answered above, I still have reservations about COI with OC members. I think there should be an arms-length break there, so this should be either/or. — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 20:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
*:{{u|Xaosflux}}, same question I asked {{u|Dreamy Jazz}} above. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 08:37, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
*::@[[User:Primefac|Primefac]] as the number of functionaries is rightfully limited, adding a functionary whose appointment will limit their ability to exercise their ability (either here ''for'' our community, or in their capacity as oversight ''of'' our community). I also don't think the prior examples were appropriate; the OC is '''very limited''' in capacity and setting up a situation where they are less effective in the audit of actions in our community is something I see as a negative. None of this reservation is specific to the candidate. WP:CUOS is an arbitrary process from the enwiki communities perspective, so there is no reason it has to happen "now". A possible workaround would be that arbcom can appoint this candidate when they are no longer elsewise engaged in the OC. I would also prefer that existing functionaries that want to join the OC in the future resign from being local functionaries during their term, specifically so they don't have to recuse from potential conflicts and can better serve the communities. — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 09:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
*:::I'm a little surprised by this. Resigning your bits doesn't make you impartial. As a steward, for example, just because we hang up our bits at our homewiki, it doesn't make us impartial from the situation and magically we can operate in that territory. We have already formed opinions on members of the community and that will be reflective in the work that is done. The reason why we have to recuse from our homewiki is because of the relationships, not the bits. Further, the idea that self-recusal from the OC would somehow lose effectiveness or ability because one member has to step out is misguided. The operation of the OC is meant to extend the right of review to all wikis, not just enwiki. The number of cases that I saw affecting an enwiki functionary during my OC term vs. the rest of our case load was a fraction. Enwiki is not the be all, end all of wikis, there is still plenty of other work to be doing on the OC in the meantime while you sit out a homewiki case. -- [[User talk:AmandaNP|<span style="color:white;background-color:#8A2DB8"><b>Amanda</b> (she/her)</span>]] 12:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
*::::The part where this candidate said they will be avoiding acting '''here''' because of their own conflict with OC is my primary concern; that the candidate is volunteering to do a job that they then say they won't do. They said they would do it later, so I think they should volunteer again when they aren't conflicted. Like most things here, there are no deadlines. — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 12:25, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
*:::::My impression was similar to Amanda's, FWIW. --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rs]][[User talk:Rschen7754|chen]][[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|7754]]''' 04:09, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
*For what it's worth, my experience with JJMC89 in their Ombuds capacity has been overwhelmingly positive, and I believe that they would make a great addition to the English Wikipedia's CheckUser team. And in reading the above discussion...I am concerned that there seems to be an idea that the Ombuds Commission shouldn't include active functionaries. The reason the Ombuds Commission has capacity and accuracy issues, to a large extent, is ''because'' it has so few experienced functionaries. Recusal or mixed responsibilities is minimal and does not affect capacity to the extent described above, especially in view of the added experience and understanding of CU processes that can benefit both the OC's function and enwiki's CU-ing. I also want to note, as it isn't stated clearly above, that the concerns discussed seem exclusively to be on the idea of functionaries being on the OC, rather than any specific feedback on JJMC89. Best, [[User:Vermont|Vermont]] ([[User talk:Vermont|🐿️]]—[[Special:Contributions/Vermont|🏳️🌈]]) 04:06, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
*:Thank you for your comment, {{u|Vermont}}. I won't address JJMC89's candidacy (or that of other candidates) because I have not worked closely enough with any of the candidates to formulate a useful opinion on their qualification for the role. I will, however, address the issue of the OC. I agree that it is a good thing for experienced functionaries to be part of the Ombuds Commission; in fact, I don't think the OC could function without them. I think if I was to express any concern, it would be that newly appointed English Wikipedia functionaries are expected to focus considerable time and energy on learning their new roles, and that could adversely affect their other roles, including membership on the OC. It is very important that English Wikipedia be well-represented on the OC, because our functionaries are collectively the heaviest users of CU and OS on any individual project; in fact, for most of the history of Wikimedia, English Wikipedia has been responsible for more than half of the CU and OS activities throughout the Wikimedia projects. (This isn't a sign of misuse, but is a reflection of the reality that this project is much more heavily targeted with abuse and problem editing compared to most other projects.) I find it somewhat reassuring that, despite the heavy use of tools on this project (comparatively speaking), AmandaNP reports that most OC matters do *not* involve English Wikipedia. <p>From my personal perspective, I think it's important for the health of the English Wikipedia project and community that JJMC89 remains an active part of the OC, if for no other reason than to provide some wiki-specific cultural background to the rest of the Ombuds when they are reviewing a case - something that is still possible even though recused. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 05:28, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
*My following comment is made regarding some concerns I've had regarding problematic responsiveness and nuance by the Ombuds commission, especially in the opening months of this year. Now, as an individual member of the OC, JJMC shares a personal but reduced aspect there (that is, where no-one handles an issue, all members should have, but don't bear all the responsibility for such) - and comments from those with full vision, such as Vermont above, should certainly weight against the previous concern. However, I did believe it worth noting. Separately, I also accept Risker's points directly above. [[User:Nosebagbear|Nosebagbear]] ([[User talk:Nosebagbear|talk]]) 17:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
*Normally, I'd have no hesitation in saying that I'd support JJMC89 as CU, which I probably did last time. This time, there's been a couple of things to consider. We must first mention the /28 block which was in place near the start of the process. It's almost impossible to block a /28 with due diligence, and it should have raised a red flag if not immediately then with the first talk page comment about it. However, the explanation (a lack of diligence) was reasonable even if it wasn't desirable, the end result was satisfactory, and I'm not aware of this being a repeat problem. We also need to mention that Q6 was actually answered elsewhere, for some reason, and not above. Unlike some others, I don't see a properly managed COI on the OC as being any kind of problem. That COI needs to be worried about by the OC anyway, and not by us. On the plus side, JJMC89 has been clerking at SPI, and has been active at ACC since forever. I still lean towards support. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] <sup>[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]</sup> 11:24, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
----
Line 98 ⟶ 126:
:#:Absolutely. I would definitely look to assist with the CU VRT queues as I know these are often under-staffed and rely on one or two people. [[User:Firefly|<span style="color:#850808;">firefly</span>]] <small>( [[User talk:Firefly|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Firefly|c]] )</small> 21:01, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
:#You mention that you are active in UPE work, what is the line between investigating UPE and investigating socks with CheckUser in your mind? -- [[User talk:AmandaNP|<span style="color:white;background-color:#8A2DB8"><b>Amanda</b> (she/her)</span>]] 05:48, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
:#:Thanks for the question Amanda. Undisclosed paid editing does not have to involve sockpuppetry, but in practice almost always does - in the simplest case, as there is a financial motive behind whatever editing the operator of the account is trying to achieve, they will try to evade a block in order to achieve their ends and get payment. However a fair amount of UPE is more sophisticated, involving whole farms of accounts operated by multiple people that are 'aged' to make them seem more legitimate (for a particularly complex example we have [[Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Orangemoody|the Orangemoody case]]). In these cases CheckUser can be of limited utility, as the operators will often use novel proxies and/or work from disparate locations. There may well still be technical "tells" that can be used to connect accounts that are behaviourally linked, but it requires more work than simple sockpuppetry.
:#:I think all this ultimately distills down to: if a case involves a suspected undisclosed paid editing operation, weight behavioural evidence more highly and bear in mind the potential setup of such organisations when reviewing technical evidence. Conferring with CheckUsers experienced in detecting UPE would also be a solid idea. [[User:Firefly|<span style="color:#850808;">firefly</span>]] <small>( [[User talk:Firefly|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Firefly|c]] )</small> 08:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
:#Aside from suspecting sockpuppetry, what do you believe are standard criteria for applying an indef {{tl|checkuserblock}} to an established user or long term multi-year {{tl|checkuserblock}} to a busy mobile range? [[User:NYC Guru|NYC Guru]] ([[User talk:NYC Guru|talk]]) 05:11, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
:#:<small>I think you mean {{tl|checkuserblock-account}} for the account, but it's a minor difference for your question.</small> -- [[User talk:AmandaNP|<span style="color:white;background-color:#8A2DB8"><b>Amanda</b> (she/her)</span>]] 08:21, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
:#:The {{tlx|checkuserblock}} series templates should be used where private technical evidence is used as the basis for a block. It marks that block as one that administrators should not loosen without consulting a CheckUser as they will not have access to the information used to place it (e.g. a range that looks completely unused anonymously may have multiple abusive sockpuppets using it). When blocking wide or busy ranges extreme care must be taken to avoid or limit [[WP:COLLATERAL|collateral damage]]. In some cases it may be unavoidable - in such cases assigning [[WP:IPBE|the IP block exempt]] permission to affected users may be a solution. [[User:Firefly|<span style="color:#850808;">firefly</span>]] <small>( [[User talk:Firefly|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Firefly|c]] )</small> 10:37, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
:#I hope you'll excuse the outing, but [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEMBBI4l2JE I see you've launched]. Can you talk briefly about how being in orbit will affect your checkuser experience, particularly regarding off-wiki and off-planet evidence? -- [[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] [[User Talk:RoySmith|(talk)]] 22:20, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
:#:Well I imagine that it'll be harder to keep track of the multiple browser tabs required for a check while being distracted by the views of the Earth from space, but I'll manage somehow. I'm not sure the Privacy Policy directly covers evidence derived from off-planet sources, such as that beamed into peoples' heads by telepathic aliens, but absent any specific guidance I think it should be treated in the same way as any other non-public information. We should probably find a way to document it however, perhaps [[Star Trek: Voyager|using a memory engram recorder]] extension for cuwiki... [[User:Firefly|<span style="color:#850808;">firefly</span>]] <small>( [[User talk:Firefly|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Firefly|c]] )</small> 10:37, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
=====Comments (Firefly)=====
Line 112 ⟶ 147:
*firefly's activities on (public) off-wiki discussion forums have convinced me that he has neither the temperament nor the tact to handle nonpublic information about other editors, and moreover that he might be careless in considering who can read what he writes. He might be an okay admin, but playground cliquishness has no place in closed and privacy-sensitive functionary work, in my opinion. I don't like to cast aspersions, but a [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_169#Discord_logs|recent policy change]] prevents me from giving any details. In the functs discussion, several people (rightly) disclosed that their support for firefly was based on personal friendship built in the same off-wiki cliques, so I'm disappointed to see that they haven't been as open about that here. – [[User:Joe Roe|Joe]] <small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 06:04, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
:*{{tq|Cliques, Cabals,}} you're on a roll. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 13:18, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
*Noting that my experiences with Firefly have been very positive, and I believe they would make a good addition to the CU team. In regards to Joe's comment above, I think Joe's description of his own comment as casting aspersions without evidence is accurate. Best, [[User:Vermont|Vermont]] ([[User talk:Vermont|🐿️]]—[[Special:Contributions/Vermont|🏳️🌈]]) 04:16, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
*I likewise have strong concerns about Firefly's perennial friendliness, helpfulness, and openness to critique. Checkusers should strive to be aloof and standoffish whenever possible. {{tind|s}} <span class="nowrap"> <span style="font-family:courier">-- [[User:Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A;">Tamzin</span>]]</span><sup>[''[[User talk:Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A;">cetacean needed</span>]]'']</sup> (she|they|xe)</span> 08:23, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
* I have limited experience with Firefly but I’ve seen them around using their admin tools and they've done good work. P.S. I’m not on Discord nor part of any off-wiki cliches, thank you. --[[User:Malcolmxl5|Malcolmxl5]] ([[User talk:Malcolmxl5|talk]]) 12:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
*:<small>@[[User:Malcolmxl5|Malcolmxl5]] even being an on-wiki cliche is pretty fun, if you're willing to think outside of the box [[User:Nosebagbear|Nosebagbear]] ([[User talk:Nosebagbear|talk]]) 23:06, 5 October 2022 (UTC) </small>
*I believe Firefly has the right stuff and will do well. Being a relatively new admin is not so much of a barrier, as long as they're prepared to learn, which I think is likely. I can't comment on any allegations of off-wiki shenanigans; I trust Arbcom will look at that. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] <sup>[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]</sup> 11:02, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
----
{{abot}}
| |||