Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/2022 CUOS appointments/CU: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
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)) |
|||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 3 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 99 ⟶ 100:
*: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 148 ⟶ 150:
*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}}
| |||