Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/2022 CUOS appointments/CU: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 22:21, 1 October 2022

Latest revision as of 08:18, 6 October 2022

(13 intermediate revisions by 8 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 40 ⟶ 42:

* Full support. I think Blablubbs would be a great help with the paid-en queue, which is chronically understaffed. &ndash;&#8239;[[User:Joe Roe|Joe]]&nbsp;<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>&nbsp;<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]] ^{[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]} 11:01, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

----

Line 93 ⟶ 99:

*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]] ^{[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]} 11:24, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

----

Line 122 ⟶ 130:

:#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 138 ⟶ 148:

:*{{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>^{[''[[User talk:Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A;">cetacean needed</span>]]'']} (she&#124;they&#124;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]] ^{[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]} 11:02, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

----

{{abot}}