Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/2022 CUOS appointments/CU: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Questions for this candidate (Blablubbs): answer to question 4 |
→Blablubbs: oppose Tag: Reverted |
||
Line 39:
* 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)
* Obviously I'm biased, but I can't support someone who [[Special:Diff/1060169275|publicly accused me of socking and threatened to block me]] without providing a shred of non-circumstantial evidence to support these claims. These allegations essentially amounted to libel (not intended as a legal threat, just stating the facts) and could've destroyed my wiki career and reputation. This incident is what led me to retire shortly thereafter and at the time I never thought that I would return. I'm concerned that this user would be too trigger-happy with the "checkuser block" button/template, and I don't feel that a user who is unable to provide public convincing evidence to support public allegations should have access to private evidence that ''can't'' be shared publicly. You need to be able to demonstrate a proficient ability to back up any allegations you make publicly with hard evidence that is also public before you should have access to non-public evidence, IMO. Someone who can't or won't publicly state their basis for making a series allegation cannot be trusted with private evidence where the number of people who can confirm that the evidence is in fact legitimate are much fewer. [[User:Taking Out The Trash|Taking Out The Trash]] ([[User talk:Taking Out The Trash|talk]]) 22:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
----
| |||