View source for Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/2016 CUOS appointments/CU

<noinclude>{{pp-sock|small=yes}}</noinclude>
{{archive top|The community comments phase is closed. [[User:Opabinia regalis|Opabinia regalis]] ([[User talk:Opabinia regalis|talk]]) 01:37, 9 October 2016 (UTC)}}
====KrakatoaKatie (CU)====

{{admin|KrakatoaKatie}} 

;Nomination statement
* I'm applying for both CheckUser and Oversight permissions. I've been an administrator since 2007, and I'm active on UTRS and ACC. I also pitch in as a patrolling admin at SPI. 
:* I'm interested in the CheckUser tool due to my work at UTRS and ACC, which often have CU queues that need attention. I'll also help at SPI. As an RN, I routinely handle sensitive and private information; I handle RevisionDeletion requests often and to my knowledge I've never had an Oversight request declined. 
:* Please feel free to ask any questions here. I'm traveling from September 21 to October 1, but I'll answer as quickly as I can. Thanks. :-) <span style="color: #9932CC">[[:User:KrakatoaKatie|Katie]]<sup>[[User talk:KrakatoaKatie|talk]]</sup></span> 03:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC) 

=====Standard questions for all candidates=====

#Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role. 
#: I am a fixture at AIV and RFPP, and I am a patrolling admin at SPI, which has been most educational and gives me a great appreciation for the clerks and CheckUsers who do yeoman work there. I'm familiar with network addressing protocols (had to teach myself years ago to get around [[BitTorrent]] restrictions from an old ISP); I routinely make both IPv4 and IPv6 rangeblocks. 
#Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.
#:I'm an RN, so I've handled confidential health information and kept confidences throughout my career. I feel this prepares me well to keep the private information private, and to use the CheckUser tool judiciously. I've also edited a Mac technical journal, and I'm familiar with Unix and the command line.  I'm a voracious reader and researcher; once I dig into something I like to learn all I can about it, and that's how I learned about network addressing and port forwarding. 
#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. I intend to apply at OTRS after my travel in October is over, regardless of the outcome of this process.

=====Questions for this candidate=====
*Describe how you would assess IPv6 collateral damage differently from IPv4.--[[User:Jasper Deng|Jasper Deng]] [[User talk:Jasper Deng|(talk)]] 04:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
:* Sure. We don't currently have an IPv6 range contribs tool, but it's really not that complex. This is a very basic, generalized statement so don't hammer me too hard on it, but the first hexadecimal block of an IPv6 address is a continent code (think ARIN or RIPE), the second is an ISP, and the third is an organization. If the /64 is the same (the first four blocks of hexadecimals), it's really, really, really, ''really'' likely we're dealing with one end user, even though there are still thousands of possible addresses in that /64 block. It can be broken down further into a /128, but that's not done very often and only under special circumstances. The CheckUser tool gives more information than just the IP address, though, and that will be very helpful in deciding when and how to place larger IPv6 rangeblocks. We don't have to do a lot of IPv6 rangeblocks larger than a /64 – I think I did a /47 once, which is an organization-level block, and I'm pretty sure that was the largest I've made. 
:: As to the collateral damage question for IPv4 ranges, I usually take a look at the last 30 to 45 days, sometimes a little less. If I see that 80-85% of the edits from that range are disruptive, I'll place the block. There are other factors I consider, including the history of the problem (there's a particularly troublesome LTA case that drives MILHIST crazy, and I've made a pretty big block for a pretty long period for that guy), how big the range is, and what kind of disruption it is (LTA vs. simple annoying vandalism vs BLP violations vs something else). <span style="color: #9932CC">[[:User:KrakatoaKatie|Katie]]<sup>[[User talk:KrakatoaKatie|talk]]</sup></span> 13:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC) 
*<s>Given that checkuser only proves which IP addresses an edit comes from and with the advent of shared IPs, what red flags would you be willing to look before in issuing a CU block or rangeblock that is clearly a hotspot?   [[User:SMBLakitu|SMBLakitu]] ([[User talk:SMBLakitu|talk]]) 05:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)</s>
:* I don't want to sound evasive, but I don't know when exactly to place a {{tl|Checkuser block}} yet, so I don't really want to go there. As I said above, the CheckUser tool gives the [[user agent string]] as well, and that's going to be quite helpful in determining how to deal with shared IPs and IPv6 blocks. <span style="color: #9932CC">[[:User:KrakatoaKatie|Katie]]<sup>[[User talk:KrakatoaKatie|talk]]</sup></span> 13:17, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

=====Comments=====
:''Comments may also be submitted to the Arbitration Committee privately by emailing {{NoSpam|arbcom-en-c|lists.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've crossed paths with Katie a number of times, and can attest to her commitment to both the project and the policies which guide it. She has demonstrated in a number of places the technical prowess which lends itself to CUing. I see no issues with this user being granted these much needed tools --  [[User:Samtar|'''sam'''''tar'']] <sup><small>[[User_talk:Samtar|talk]] or [[Special:Contributions/Samtar|stalk]]</small></sup> 14:32, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
*Very sensible and trustworthy, and has the needed background, so she has my strong support. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 17:44, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
*No worries at all.  [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2&cent;</b>]] 17:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
*Seems to be a good candidate. A lot of contributions to ANI, but they all seem to be directed at resolving cases rather than contributing to the drama. Other than that, active in admin areas and could probably be trusted with the rights. -- [[User:Ajraddatz|Ajraddatz]] ([[User Talk:Ajraddatz|talk]]) 18:54, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
*Looks good. [[User:SSTflyer|<span style="color:Black">SST</span>]][[User talk:SSTflyer|<span style="color:DarkRed">flyer</span>]] 01:21, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' no concerns. --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rs]][[User talk:Rschen7754|chen]][[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|7754]]''' 05:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
*Very trustworthy and knowledgeable, and I see no problems at all with granting CU and OS permissions. [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] ([[User talk:Boing! said Zebedee|talk]]) 09:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - no concerns whatsoever. I believe Katie will benefit from these tools. [[User:Patient Zero|'''Patient Zero''']]<sup>[[User talk:Patient Zero|'''talk''']]</sup> 14:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. [[User:Ms Sarah Welch|Ms Sarah Welch]] ([[User talk:Ms Sarah Welch|talk]]) 14:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC) 
*'''Support''' [[User:De728631|De728631]] ([[User talk:De728631|talk]]) 18:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - experienced in the right areas (especially those pertinent to CU), a very solid candidate overall. [[User:GeneralizationsAreBad|GAB]]<sup>[[User talk:GeneralizationsAreBad|gab]]</sup> 18:57, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. A competent and trustworthy user; no reason to oppose. [[User:Colonel Wilhelm Klink|Colonel Wilhelm Klink]] (<sup>[[User talk:Colonel Wilhelm Klink|Complaints]]</sup>&#124;<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Colonel_Wilhelm_Klink|Mistakes]]</sub>) 23:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' strongly. --[[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] ([[User talk:MelanieN|talk]]) 00:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' With no concerns at all. A good fit IMO. <span style="border:1px solid #FFFFFF">[[User:Aloha27|<span style="color:#2B65EC;background:#FFFFFF">'''&nbsp; Aloha27'''</span>]] [[User talk:Aloha27|<span style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#2B65EC">&nbsp;<small>talk</small>&nbsp;</span>]]</span> 11:31, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
*'''Neutral''' Overall a pretty strong candidate, but the answer to my question wasn't exactly what I was looking for. "/64 implies same user" is not true as often as one would think it is, because webhosts, offices, mobile networks, and schools may have large number of hosts under the same /64 prefix (due to physical proximity) - these have to be handled on a case by case basis by checking WHOIS. Also, not every organization receives their allocation from an ISP (the US Department of Defense has an aggregate equivalent to roughly one /13!) and one should be ready to make large rangeblocks (on the order of /32) for webhosts. The largest non-webhost IPv6 rangeblock I've seen is a /38 currently in place against some mobile ranges. CheckUsers [https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/203679/ are permitted to check up to /32] for a reason.--[[User:Jasper Deng|Jasper Deng]] [[User talk:Jasper Deng|(talk)]] 16:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' strongly.  Highly competent and trustworthy. - <font face="Century Schoolbook">'''[[User:Julietdeltalima|<span style="color: green">Julietdeltalima</span>]]''' '' [[User talk:Julietdeltalima|<span style="color: green">(talk)</span>]]''</font> 20:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Katie having CU will definitely help the project. --[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 00:41, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' --<span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#004d80;"> [[User talk:Begoon|Begoon]]</span> 06:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support:''' {{edit conflict}} No issues here. [[User:KGirlTrucker81|KGirlTrucker81]]<sup> [[User talk:KGirlTrucker81|huh?]] [[Special:Contributions/KGirlTrucker81|what I'm been doing]]</sup>  06:39, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Good admin [[User:Ritchie333|<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b>]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)</sup>]] 09:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' The overriding quality required in this permission is, I think I am right in saying, trust, which KK demonstrably has off the community in spades. [[User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|<sub style="color:green;>'''Muffled'''</sub>]] '''''[[User talk:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|<sup style="color:red;">Pocketed</sup>]]''''' 09:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' [[User:BethNaught|BethNaught]] ([[User talk:BethNaught|talk]]) 14:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' – Fully qualified candidate. [[User:Mz7|Mz7]] ([[User talk:Mz7|talk]]) 14:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Katie has shown that she can have the trust of the community. [[User:RickinBaltimore|RickinBaltimore]] ([[User talk:RickinBaltimore|talk]]) 14:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Has proven to be trusted by the community. <span style="font-family:sans-serif; color:red">&mdash; <span style="font-weight:bold">[[User:Music1201|<span style="color:green"> Music1201</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Music1201|<span style="color:red">talk</span>]]</sup></span></span> 19:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''', I'm very satisfied with the answers and your background will be useful for CU and OS! -- [[User:Luk|<span style="color:#002BB8;">Luk</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Luk|<span style="color:#0066FF;">talk</span>]]</sup> 11:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' She has done a lot of great work for enwiki, and would love to see even more of it! [[User:TJH2018|<span style="color: orange">TJH2018</span>]][[User talk:TJH2018|<span style="color: blue"><small>talk</small></span>]] 01:05, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - seems a strong and sensible candidate. [[User:Chiswick Chap|Chiswick Chap]] ([[User talk:Chiswick Chap|talk]]) 18:20, 6 October 2016 (UTC) 
*'''Support''' KK is a valuable admin in dealing with vandals and socks. This will only increase that. [[User:MarnetteD|MarnetteD]]&#124;[[User talk:MarnetteD|Talk]] 19:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Trusted, experienced, capable user, has CLUE, will benefit from this extra tool. [[User:Keri|Keri]] ([[User talk:Keri|talk]]) 20:47, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Is experienced and qualified enough to fight the socks. [[User:Jjjjjjdddddd|Jjjjjjdddddd]] ([[User talk:Jjjjjjdddddd|talk]]) 05:09, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - experienced and trustworthy. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 12:25, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' this is an easy choice, Katie has been here forever and is obviously capable of using this tool. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 23:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - we're at the pile-on stage, but why not - an excellent candidate who can obviously be trusted with the CU tool. -- [[User:Euryalus|Euryalus]] ([[User talk:Euryalus|talk]]) 07:25, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - May I pile on too ? I remain  only a minion, but my experiences of the candidate have all been very positive and helpful. I have neither seen nor experienced any actions or comments that would give me any qualms about assigning more responsibilities. <span style="background-color:lightblue">'''''&nbsp;[[User:Velella|Velella]]&nbsp;'''''</span><span style="background-color:lightblue">&nbsp;<sup>''[[User talk:Velella|Velella]] Talk ''</sup>&nbsp;</span> 15:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
----

====Kudpung (CU)====

{{admin|Kudpung}} 

;Nomination statement
* I’m essentially offering my candidature in response to the to the call for CheckUsers and Oversighters among suitably qualified editors residing in Asia and with a knowledge and understanding of those cultures.  As the owner of a commercial web server and operator of CMS websites, blogs and forums, I probably have the required technical knowledge, and as a  linguist  I feel I adequately recognise what kind of material may need to be suppressed. I spend many hours a week on Wikipedia, more than is reflected in my edit count, and I would have no problem in shifting the focus of my work to accommodate some extra duties.

=====Standard questions for all candidates=====

#Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role. 
#:I am not able to provide details because I am bound by non-disclosure and confidentially  agreements but in the past I have, at  the special  request of the WMF, investigated and unraveled serious cases of complex cross-Wiki corporate spamming by  professional socks. Linguistic skills were essential in  achieving the result of the investigations. User:MDennis (WMF) can confirm this work.
#Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.
#: Not  knowing  what  these questions would be, this is already clearly  described in my nomination  statement. I'll just add that although I have no experience (obviously) with rhe MediaWiki CU tool, from what I hear, the standard online store and forum softwre packages I use for my work in RL already provide vastly more sophsticated user and visitor information  than the Wiki version, so I don't see that as a particular challenge. 
#Do you hold advanced permissions (checkuser, oversight, bureaucrat, steward) on this or other WMF projects? If s?
#:I am only  an admin, and on en.Wiki only. I was once an OTRS agent many  years ago but it was withdrawn for inactivity due to a shift in the focus of my work when I became an admin. My OTRS activity mainly concerned BLP problems, and issues concerning minors. Some of it was handling copyright  permissions.

=====Questions for this candidate=====
*How would you handle IPv6 differently from IPv4?--[[User:Jasper Deng|Jasper Deng]] [[User talk:Jasper Deng|(talk)]] 05:17, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

=====Comments=====
:''Comments may also be submitted to the Arbitration Committee privately by emailing {{NoSpam|arbcom-en-c|lists.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.''

*Kudpung has alienated some experienced content editors, but he is well-experienced as an administrator, and I think he would be a net positive in this role. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 17:46, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
*No concerns.  I've known Kudpung for some time and I trust he will comply with all the expectations of having the tool.  [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2&cent;</b>]] 17:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
*He doesn't seem to be active in any CU-related areas. -- [[User:Ajraddatz|Ajraddatz]] ([[User Talk:Ajraddatz|talk]]) 18:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
*:Legitimate concern, but I've seen him dealing with sockpuppets a fair amount over a number of years, not just at SPI.  [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2&cent;</b>]] 19:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' no concerns. --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rs]][[User talk:Rschen7754|chen]][[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|7754]]''' 00:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
*Asia is huge. [[User:SSTflyer|<span style="color:Black">SST</span>]][[User talk:SSTflyer|<span style="color:DarkRed">flyer</span>]] 01:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
*I've known Kudpung a long time too, and his dedication to the improvement of the project is beyond question. He clearly has the ability to handle CU and OS permissions, and easily has my trust. [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] ([[User talk:Boing! said Zebedee|talk]]) 09:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - I personally believe Kudpung will benefit from the additional user right - I assume he's only applying for CU, but if this is not the case I will edit this to state that he is more than capable of having both. [[User:Patient Zero|'''Patient Zero''']]<sup>[[User talk:Patient Zero|'''talk''']]</sup> 14:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
::Thank you  very  much  for your  kind support {{U|Patient Zero}}. I  would just point out  that I will not actually benefit  from  these additional rights. I'm just answering  a specific call  for CUs and Oversighters for  areas and perhaps also languages that are not well covered from the US or European time zones. Only the Wikipedia would probably benefit from  me having  these extra tools.  Personally I am not  concerned whether I get them or not -  as an admin, I consider myself to  be already  sufficiently  active. If I am accorded the use of these tools, I will of course use them as regularly  as needed, and with accuracy and integrity.[[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 06:39, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
:::Indeed {{u|Kudpung}}. I do hope you are granted the right. [[User:Patient Zero|'''Patient Zero''']]<sup>[[User talk:Patient Zero|'''talk''']]</sup> 12:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. [[User:Ms Sarah Welch|Ms Sarah Welch]] ([[User talk:Ms Sarah Welch|talk]]) 14:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
*Echoing the above, and having known Kudpung a little while, he has most of the nessesary qualities I believe we should look for in a CU --  [[User:Samtar|'''sam'''''tar'']] <sup><small>[[User_talk:Samtar|talk]] or [[Special:Contributions/Samtar|stalk]]</small></sup> 14:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' with respect, as I don't doubt Kudpung's dedication to the encyclopedia and I greatly appreciate his offer of help on this front (it is no small thing to put oneself up for comment like this). At the same time, making someone a CU entrusts them with very sensitive information about the community. Unfortunately my encounters with Kudpung have left me more than once with the impression of hastiness, impatience or even contempt for some members of the community. This has undercut my faith that he would handle CU circumspectly and with utmost concern for protecting contributors' privacy. I think the encyclopedia and in particular the community trust it depends on is best served if instead Kudpung continues his considerable work in other areas of the project. [[User:Innisfree987|Innisfree987]] ([[User talk:Innisfree987|talk]]) 17:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Very trustworthy, therefore I have no concerns. --[[User:I am One of Many|I am One of Many]] ([[User talk:I am One of Many|talk]]) 21:43, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' -- I have had good interactions with Kudpung in the past. User is trustworthy and suitable. — [[User talk:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington|<span style="color:black">Nearly Headless Nick</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington|<span style="color:black" title="Contributions">{c}</span>]] 21:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Kudpung has shown the commitment to the project and the overall responsibility to demonstrate that he can be trusted. I'm happy to support. [[User:Colonel Wilhelm Klink|Colonel Wilhelm Klink]] (<sup>[[User talk:Colonel Wilhelm Klink|Complaints]]</sup>&#124;<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Colonel_Wilhelm_Klink|Mistakes]]</sub>) 23:39, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' strongly. Long term trusted user who also fills some gaps in our coverage in this area. --[[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] ([[User talk:MelanieN|talk]]) 00:32, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. - <font face="Century Schoolbook">'''[[User:Julietdeltalima|<span style="color: green">Julietdeltalima</span>]]''' '' [[User talk:Julietdeltalima|<span style="color: green">(talk)</span>]]''</font> 20:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - Kudpung is not only dedicated but they're also committed to this entire project and they simply want the best for this place, its readers and editors overall, {{u|Kudpung}} is so trusted that I'd even trust him with my life and I don't think I've said that about anyone in my life!, Easy support. –[[User:Davey2010|<span style="color: blue;">'''Davey'''</span><span style="color: orange;">'''2010'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Davey2010|<span style="color: navy;">'''Talk'''</span>]]</sup> 21:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
*<s>'''Weak Support'''</s> '''Oppose''' I share some of {{U|Innisfree987}}'s concerns. [[User:ThePlatypusofDoom|ThePlatypusofDoom]]  [[User talk:ThePlatypusofDoom|(talk)]] 00:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' His bark is worse than his bite, and I do often wish he'd do a little less of both, if I'm honest, but I have no concern that this permission would be abused, and confidence that he would use it for the benefit of the project. --<span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#004d80;"> [[User talk:Begoon|Begoon]]</span> 06:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
*'''Strong support''' always has the project's best interests at heart and listens to different opinions. [[User:Ritchie333|<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b>]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)</sup>]] 09:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Kudpung isn't the calmest admin we have, sure. Still I think he is sufficiently trustworthy and we need skilled candidates for CheckUser. [[User:BethNaught|BethNaught]] ([[User talk:BethNaught|talk]]) 14:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Kudpung wears his heart on his sleeve sometimes (which is not a bad thing, we are all human!), however he is honest, and wants what is best for Wikipedia. This would be a positive to have him serve as a CU. [[User:RickinBaltimore|RickinBaltimore]] ([[User talk:RickinBaltimore|talk]]) 14:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' – Experienced administrator, and I'm particularly convinced by the need to fill a gap in functionaries residing in this geographic region. [[User:Mz7|Mz7]] ([[User talk:Mz7|talk]]) 14:24, 30 September 2016 (UTC) 
*'''Oppose''' Did not answer my question, and also lack of CU-related activities, per Ajraddatz.--[[User:Jasper Deng|Jasper Deng]] [[User talk:Jasper Deng|(talk)]] 19:42, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' – this user is an experienced admin who is dedicated to the project and willing to listed to opinions of others. His long-term demonstration of responsibility shows he is trustworthy enough for the CU tools. - '''[[User:Tucoxn|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#522C1B">t</span><span style="color:#522C1B">u</span><span style="color:#417DC1">coxn</span>]]'''\<sup>[[User_talk:Tucoxn|<span style="font-family:serif">talk</span>]]</sup> 11:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - I have a high regards for Kudpung's judgement and ability to react appropriately to situations. I am always greatly re-assured when I see Kudpung implement one of my reports on vandalism and elsewhere. I have seen nothing that would give me qualms. <span style="background-color:lightblue">'''''&nbsp;[[User:Velella|Velella]]&nbsp;'''''</span><span style="background-color:lightblue">&nbsp;<sup>''[[User talk:Velella|Velella]] Talk ''</sup>&nbsp;</span> 20:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' as I can see where {{U|Innisfree987}} is coming from, as I feel that in particular Kudpung needs to [[WP:AGF]] a little more sometimes, but overall this is definitely a [[WP:NETPOSITIVE]] as I wouldn't question his dedication to this project. '''[[User:Omni Flames|<span style="color:#68829E; font-family:Segoe UI; text-shadow:2px 2px 2px #C4DFE6">Omni Flames</span>]] ([[User_talk:Omni Flames|<span style="color:#A2C523;">talk</span>]])''' 07:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' All interactions positive, answers look good. Feel comfortable with him and using these tools. '''[[User:Lord Roem|Lord Roem]]''' ~ ([[User talk:Lord Roem|talk]]) 07:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Kudpung has a lot of experience dealing with all sorts of disruptive users. I myself knew nothing about the technical aspects of CU when I started using it, I am confident that he will easily be able to grasp how to properly employ this tool and will do so to good effect. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 23:26, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' one of the clearest thinkers we have. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 09:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
----

====MusikAnimal (CU)====

{{admin|MusikAnimal}} 

;Nomination statement
*I have been an admin for over two years now, with an expertise in counter-vandalism. In my early days I was quite active at [[WP:SPI]] and still find myself working there occasionally (100+ cases). However I am asking for checkuser rights primarily to aid my work with abuse filters, many of which are created solely to combat sockpuppetry. Being able to identify sleepers means we can be more pre-emptive about preventing disruption, improving the short-term effectiveness of the filter, if not eliminating the need for it altogether. The AbuseFilter and CheckUser extensions in tandem I believe offer a powerful way to deal with long-term abuse, and I have long been dedicated to this effort. My experience at AIV and RFPP has made me very familiar with ISPs, IP ranges, while as a web developer I'm quite acquainted with user agent strings. This technical and administrative background I believe is relevant to understanding when usage of the tool is appropriate and how to handle sensitive data judiciously.{{paragraph break}}Meanwhile, I was myself [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Thmc1/Archive|accused of sockpuppetry]] just as I was becoming a dedicated Wikipedian. It was a harrowing experience that almost led to me retire, and I have never forgotten this. To this day I'm hesitant even with [[WP:DUCK]] blocks. Running a check, given we have sufficient behavioural evidence, will lend me the reassurance that I'm in fact helping protect the integrity of the project, and not putting an end to an aspiring long-term contributor.

=====Standard questions for all candidates=====

#Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role. 
#:As I've outlined in my nomination, I am seeking this role to aid with work I'm already heavily involved with, namely abuse filters. I also have worked extensively at [[WP:SPI]], and through normal day to day patrolling I occasionally find myself requesting checkuser assistance. I am a regular at counter-vandalism noticeboards, performing WHOIS checks, and have made many range blocks when justified.
#Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.
#:I am a professional web developer, so I've become quite familiar with user agent strings, and the pain of decoding them for the purpose of browser detection (there are tools to assist with this, of course). I have also had access to private production data which involved non-disclosure agreements.
#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?
#:Bureaucrat on testwiki, but obviously that's only for testing purposes. I do not have any OTRS permissions but would not oppose to them, as I understand there is quite a backlog to work with. Whether or not checkuser assistance is of great need there I am unsure, but am happy to help once I become more comfortable with using the tool.

=====Questions for this candidate=====
*Will the fact that you were accused of sockpuppetry, and (by your own statement) the fact that you're "hesitant even with WP:DUCK blocks", make you be likely to be too quick to run a check when a DUCK block would be appropriate? [[User:Od Mishehu|עוד&nbsp;מישהו]] [[User talk:Od Mishehu|Od&nbsp;Mishehu]] 08:20, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
:*It's true my experience gives me pause in a DUCK situation when it may not for other admins, but I like to think I'd still be wise about the decision to perform a check. There are of course some situations where it is all too obvious, and I've carried out many DUCK blocks. If it helps, I can point out some cases where it was "borderline DUCK" in my book, and I requested CheckUser assistance just to be sure. Finding a balance between respecting privacy and ensuring you're blocking the right person isn't always that easy. Fortunately with most of my work I don't think use of CU will be questionable, but when it is I'm not afraid to defer to another checkuser or admin if I am unsure how to proceed <span style="font-family:sans-serif">&mdash; <span style="font-weight:bold">[[User:MusikAnimal|<span style="color:black; font-style:italic">MusikAnimal</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:MusikAnimal|<span style="color:green">talk</span>]]</sup></span></span> 17:34, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
*There are currently [https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T139810 discussions] to overhaul the CheckUser extension. Do you believe the current CheckUser functionality is enough to reliably link accounts, and if so, how much weight would you place in technical evidence over behavioral? --  [[User:Samtar|'''sam'''''tar'']] <sup><small>[[User_talk:Samtar|talk]] or [[Special:Contributions/Samtar|stalk]]</small></sup> 14:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
:*I'm only so familiar with the CheckUser tool (screenshots, etc), so should I be granted checkuser rights I would have a better answer for you. Based on what I do know, I think the current functionality should in many (most?) cases offer sufficient technical evidence, but for me anyway more weight is given to behavourial evidence, even if the technical evidence contradicts it. For instance, we may be dealing with a sock operating from multiple unique ranges while spoofing user agents. This surely is less common but it could happen, and in that case we have only behavioural evidence to go by. I'm not sure how much the planned overhaul would help in that scenario, but I believe we would still favour behavioural evidence given it is something we fundamentally need before doing checks <span style="font-family:sans-serif">&mdash; <span style="font-weight:bold">[[User:MusikAnimal|<span style="color:black; font-style:italic">MusikAnimal</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:MusikAnimal|<span style="color:green">talk</span>]]</sup></span></span> 15:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
*Describe how much expertise you have with IPv6, especially as it pertains to how you would determine collateral damage.--[[User:Jasper Deng|Jasper Deng]] [[User talk:Jasper Deng|(talk)]] 04:45, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
*:I've done a lot of reading about the advantages of IPv6 over IPv4, which I find very interesting, but for the purposes of range blocks I have a sufficient understanding. [[mw:Help:Range blocks/IPv6]] is of some help, showing /64 range blocks and others that would generally safely belong to one customer of an ISP, but I believe this may vary provider to provider. This seems to hold true with the major ones however, such as Comcast, AT&T/U-verse, etc. Let's assume this isn't the case, or that we are unsure; Then you really have no idea the extent of collateral damage that may occur, especially at the organizational level, as there is no easy way to check the contributions. Hopefully we will soon have a solution, see [[phab:T145912]]. Full disclosure: I'll likely be a primary author of this tool. Being able to compute IPv6 ranges, assert collateral damage is minimal, etc, are currently important skills but I don't believe this should be a prerequisite for admins to issue range blocks, given the increasing prominence of IPv6 means your day to day patrolling at AIV (or as a checkuser) might require one to be effective. I could blab on about how the new tool will make this process easy for everyone, but in short, you won't find me issuing any range blocks unless I'm certain only the target end user is being affected (broadly speaking). See also [[phab:T5233]] which means for your average end user a simple block will prevent further disruption without the need for a range block. In conjunction with the abuse filter we should be able to gauge how effective it is, but as you could imagine it will not work for our more prolific and tech-savvy LTAs <span style="font-family:sans-serif">&mdash; <span style="font-weight:bold">[[User:MusikAnimal|<span style="color:black; font-style:italic">MusikAnimal</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:MusikAnimal|<span style="color:green">talk</span>]]</sup></span></span> 18:12, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

=====Comments=====
:''Comments may also be submitted to the Arbitration Committee privately by emailing {{NoSpam|arbcom-en-c|lists.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.''

*MusikAnimal is trustworthy and skilled, I see no reason why he shouldn't become a checkuser. [[User:ThePlatypusofDoom|ThePlatypusofDoom]]  [[User talk:ThePlatypusofDoom|(talk)]] 15:58, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
*Yes, trustworthy and skilled. And the personal experience with having been on the "other side" of an investigation is a very strong positive. It's important for functionaries to understand the ways that they are dealing with real people, and not just carrying out algorithms. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 17:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
*Probably a good candidate. You'll quickly learn the limitations of the tool once you have access to it! -- [[User:Ajraddatz|Ajraddatz]] ([[User Talk:Ajraddatz|talk]]) 18:57, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
*As per response to my question, and his continued demonstration of technical ability and adhesion to policy, Musik would make a good addition to the CU team --  [[User:Samtar|'''sam'''''tar'']] <sup><small>[[User_talk:Samtar|talk]] or [[Special:Contributions/Samtar|stalk]]</small></sup> 20:25, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
*"Wait, wasn't he a CU already?" More than qualified for this role. Overqualified probably. [[User:Widr|Widr]] ([[User talk:Widr|talk]]) 22:24, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' not only no concerns, but he has good experience working with editors from other wikis, an important skill for a CU. --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rs]][[User talk:Rschen7754|chen]][[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|7754]]''' 00:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
*In line with others, I see no reason for any hesitation here. [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] ([[User talk:Boing! said Zebedee|talk]]) 09:20, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - a good candidate, whom I have known for some time; he will most definitely benefit from having the CU right. [[User:Patient Zero|'''Patient Zero''']]<sup>[[User talk:Patient Zero|'''talk''']]</sup> 14:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. [[User:Ms Sarah Welch|Ms Sarah Welch]] ([[User talk:Ms Sarah Welch|talk]]) 14:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC) 
*'''Support''' as a technically-capable candidate who has good judgment and good relationships in the community; I think we would all benefit from MA's work in this area. [[User:Innisfree987|Innisfree987]] ([[User talk:Innisfree987|talk]]) 15:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. A competent, responsible user who has shown they can be trusted with Checkuser abilities. [[User:Colonel Wilhelm Klink|Colonel Wilhelm Klink]] (<sup>[[User talk:Colonel Wilhelm Klink|Complaints]]</sup>&#124;<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Colonel_Wilhelm_Klink|Mistakes]]</sub>) 23:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Trusted long-term user with a record of valuable contributions here and a good attitude. --[[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] ([[User talk:MelanieN|talk]]) 00:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Excellent skills, no hesitation whatsoever in granting this kit. <span style="border:1px solid #FFFFFF">[[User:Aloha27|<span style="color:#2B65EC;background:#FFFFFF">'''&nbsp; Aloha27'''</span>]] [[User talk:Aloha27|<span style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#2B65EC">&nbsp;<small>talk</small>&nbsp;</span>]]</span> 11:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' I am satisfied with their answer to my question.--[[User:Jasper Deng|Jasper Deng]] [[User talk:Jasper Deng|(talk)]] 18:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - Trustworthy and extremely technical editor who knows more technical things than most!, No hesitation in supporting at all. –[[User:Davey2010|<span style="color: blue;">'''Davey'''</span><span style="color: orange;">'''2010'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Davey2010|<span style="color: navy;">'''Talk'''</span>]]</sup> 21:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Trustworthy and has a clue. --[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 00:43, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' --<span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#004d80;"> [[User talk:Begoon|Begoon]]</span> 06:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per above. [[User:KGirlTrucker81|KGirlTrucker81]]<sup> [[User talk:KGirlTrucker81|huh?]] [[Special:Contributions/KGirlTrucker81|what I'm been doing]]</sup>  06:41, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' [[User:BethNaught|BethNaught]] ([[User talk:BethNaught|talk]]) 14:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Excellent answers to the given questions, very professional, excellent skills and dispute handling. All qualities you would want for a CU. [[User:RickinBaltimore|RickinBaltimore]] ([[User talk:RickinBaltimore|talk]]) 14:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Excellent candidate.-- <font size="3%"><font color="578bc7">'''H'''<sup>[[User:HakanIST|<font color="578bc7">akan</font>]]·[[User talk:HakanIST|<font color="578bc7">IST</font>]]</sup></font></font>  18:50, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' – Fully qualified candidate. [[User:Mz7|Mz7]] ([[User talk:Mz7|talk]]) 22:24, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' – Good answers to questions and a trustworthy technical editor. - '''[[User:Tucoxn|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#522C1B">t</span><span style="color:#522C1B">u</span><span style="color:#417DC1">coxn</span>]]'''\<sup>[[User_talk:Tucoxn|<span style="font-family:serif">talk</span>]]</sup> 11:21, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Can clearly be trusted by the community. <span style="font-family:sans-serif; color:red">&mdash; <span style="font-weight:bold">[[User:Music1201|<span style="color:green"> Music1201</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Music1201|<span style="color:red">talk</span>]]</sup></span></span> 19:45, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
*:<s>'''Neutral'''</s>  for now. I am waiting for MusikAnimal to clarify his position as a WMF employee vis-à-vis his work as a volunteer. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 07:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
*:It's unclear what this has to do with my application, but I'll explain here since you brought it up: I work for [[meta:Community Tech]] as a software engineer. There is no overlap between professional and volunteer work. It's possible I'll be working on checkuser tools in the near future (since some requests made the [[meta:2015_Community_Wishlist_Survey/Moderation_and_admin_tools#Improve_MediaWiki.27s_blocking_tools|2015 wish list]]), but the timing with this is pure coincidence. For work I imagine I'll simply install and test the CheckUser extension on my local [[mw:Vagrant|devwiki instance]]. From there we ''might'' do testing on the [https://en.wikipedia.beta.wmflabs.org beta cluster], I'm not sure... but there definitely won't be any checks on real users, or anything that would otherwise breach privacy <span style="font-family:sans-serif">&mdash; <span style="font-weight:bold">[[User:MusikAnimal|<span style="color:black; font-style:italic">MusikAnimal</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:MusikAnimal|<span style="color:green">talk</span>]]</sup></span></span> 16:47, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
:::This had nothing to do with a level of trust. In fact I have worked well with MusikAnimal on several issues. I was merely concerned with the deployment of his time between his various foci of energy. I can safely say that those concerns have been addressed to my entire satisfaction.[[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 12:55, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per my comment above. [[User:ThePlatypusofDoom|ThePlatypusofDoom]]  [[User talk:ThePlatypusofDoom|(talk)]] 11:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' without any doubt. Seen him at work on the wiki, totally trustworthy. '''[[User_talk:Yintan|<span style="color:Black">Yinta</span><span style="color:DarkRed">n</span>]]'''&nbsp; 19:13, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' without thinking twice...[[User:TJH2018|<span style="color: orange">TJH2018</span>]][[User talk:TJH2018|<span style="color: blue"><small>talk</small></span>]] 01:02, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' [[User:Denisarona|Denisarona]] ([[User talk:Denisarona|talk]]) 05:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' I've worked with MA on a couple items and he is always open to suggestions and to helping others. [[User:MarnetteD|MarnetteD]]&#124;[[User talk:MarnetteD|Talk]] 19:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' obviously qualified, super helpful user, would be a great addition to the team. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 23:27, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - [[User:Euryalus|Euryalus]] ([[User talk:Euryalus|talk]]) 07:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
----

====Vanjagenije (CU)====

{{admin|Vanjagenije}} 

;Nomination statement
*I am applying for the CheckUser tool. I've been an [[WP:SPI Clerk]] since 19 July 2015 (trainee clerk since 20 January 2015) and an administrator since 13 November 2015. During my work as a clerk, I have reviewed thousands of sockpuppetry cases, collaborating with other clerks (unfortunately, for several months there were just two of us active) and CheckUsers. I also participated in training new clerks. Before being a clerk, I participated in SPI by filing cases (usually in connection to my New Pages Patrol work). During the SPI work I came to know about the CheckUser tool and its purpose. If granted this tool, I intend to use it for SPI investigations, so to help clean the backlog which is enormous most of the time. I promise not to cease clerking if granted the tool; I intend to continue reviewing the cases as before, but with this tool I would be able to do it faster and to help more. Another field in which I am fairly active is unblock requests (including [[WP:UTRS]]). This process is also often backlogged, and often needs the help of CheckUsers (for IP blocks). So, I think I would be able to help there too if granted the CU tool.

=====Standard questions for all candidates=====

#Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role. 
#:I have been participating in English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons since 2006 and 2007 respectively. In Wikipedia, I have participated in [[WP:SPI|sockpuppet investigations]] as a clerk since July 2015 (and as a trainee clerk since January 2015). I also have experience with [[WP:UTRS]]. I've been active on UTRS since June this year, and I have reviewed few dozen requests. '''[[User:Vanjagenije|<font color="008B8B">Vanjagenije</font>]] [[User talk:Vanjagenije|<font color="F4A460">(talk)</font>]]''' 08:32, 27 September 2016 (UTC) 
#Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.
#:I posses no special technical expertise for this role. '''[[User:Vanjagenije|<font color="008B8B">Vanjagenije</font>]] [[User talk:Vanjagenije|<font color="F4A460">(talk)</font>]]''' 08:32, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
#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 have never held any advanced permission in any project except for being English Wikipedia administrator. I don't have an OTRS permission. '''[[User:Vanjagenije|<font color="008B8B">Vanjagenije</font>]] [[User talk:Vanjagenije|<font color="F4A460">(talk)</font>]]''' 08:32, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

=====Questions for this candidate=====
*Describe how you would deal with IPv6 differently from IPv4.--[[User:Jasper Deng|Jasper Deng]] [[User talk:Jasper Deng|(talk)]] 05:12, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
*:{{ping|Jasper Deng}} Can you be more precise? I don't know what exactly you mean. Can you give some example? '''[[User:Vanjagenije|<font color="008B8B">Vanjagenije</font>]] [[User talk:Vanjagenije|<font color="F4A460">(talk)</font>]]''' 16:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
*::{{ping|Vanjagenije}} In terms of assessing collateral damage, doing rangeblocks, determining identicalness of users, and the like.--[[User:Jasper Deng|Jasper Deng]] [[User talk:Jasper Deng|(talk)]] 16:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
*:::I'm still not sure what exactly you mean, but I'll try to give an answer. As far as I know, IPv4 address has 32 bits, while IPv6 address has 128 bits. Address is made of two parts: first part identifies the network (range of addresses), while the second part identifies unique device. The range is denoted as, for example, "/24" which means that first 24 bits identify the network, while the rest identifies the host. Thus, in IPv4, a /24 network has 2<sup>8</sup> addresses, while in IPv6, a /24 network has 2<sup>104</sup> addresses available. In IPv6, whole /64 subnetwork is usually assigned to the same user (single person or an organization), while in IPv4 it depends. A single user often has only one address assigned to them all the time (in IPv4), but sometimes the user gets a new address from the same network assigned to them every time they connect. Thus, in IPv6, a "/64" range of addresses (2<sup>64</sup> addresses) usually belongs to the same person, while in IPv4, a "/24" range (2<sup>8</sup> addresses) may belong to hundreds of users who share them. So, greater attention should be paid when blocking IPv4 ranges because of potential collateral damage. Also, in IPv4 it is harder to identify unique user by their IP address because a small range or even a single address may be shared by several users, while in IPv6, it is easier as the whole /64 range is usually used by one person. '''[[User:Vanjagenije|<font color="008B8B">Vanjagenije</font>]] [[User talk:Vanjagenije|<font color="F4A460">(talk)</font>]]''' 17:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
*I'm afraid I'm going to have to discuss the [[elephant in the room]] which is this : at the start of this year a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin_Gorman&oldid=700515004#Checkuser_blocks_.28FOF.29 finding of fact] was passed by the Arbitration Committee during a case, in which you [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Limelightangel&diff=694142944&oldid=694060528 advised another administrator he could undo a checkuser-block] which later came in for criticism. How do you feel about that case now, and what have you learned since? [[User:Ritchie333|<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b>]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)</sup>]] 09:30, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
*:I have learned that I should always check whether a block is a {{tlx|checkuserblock}} and not to unblock without CheckUser consent if it is. '''[[User:Vanjagenije|<font color="008B8B">Vanjagenije</font>]] [[User talk:Vanjagenije|<font color="F4A460">(talk)</font>]]''' 13:48, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

=====Comments=====
:''Comments may also be submitted to the Arbitration Committee privately by emailing {{NoSpam|arbcom-en-c|lists.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.''

*A little less experienced than other candidates, but after a single early mistake has demonstrated a lot of understanding and commitment at SPI, so I support. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 17:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
*<s>I'm worried by comments like [[Special:Diff/741307336|this]]. Without prejudice to whether or not the accounts in question do belong to the owner, CheckUsers should be very open to false positives in results. Many accounts will share IPs with others due to editing from mobile devices, especially from the third world, and I don't think that "guilty until proven innocent" is an acceptable way to use the CU tool.</s> On the plus side, this candidate is more involved in actual areas of CU work than the others. -- [[User:Ajraddatz|Ajraddatz]] ([[User Talk:Ajraddatz|talk]]) 18:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)\
*:{{ping|Ajraddatz}} The user was blocked by {{U|Bbb23}} and I am not allowed to lift the block because it is a [[WP:CheckUser]] block. I pinged the CheckUser to come to the talk page and all he responded was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sthubbar&diff=741284584&oldid=741281282 this]. The user sent me several e-mails and I advised him to use [[WP:UTRS]] or to contact the [[WP:ARBCOM]]. What exactly do you think I should have done differently in that case? '''[[User:Vanjagenije|<font color="008B8B">Vanjagenije</font>]] [[User talk:Vanjagenije|<font color="F4A460">(talk)</font>]]''' 21:04, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
*::I am more concerned about the words you choose than your response there. Directing them to the appropriate person was of course acceptable, and I expect from the answer that the technical evidence was pretty damning. But still, CU isn't perfect, especially with mobile ranges and even just how IPs are assigned. It is possible to have false positives, and IMO CUs should be very receptive to giving the benefit of the doubt to accounts which claim to not be socks. So I'd prefer to see a more softly worded statement about giving some sort of context through the appropriate channel, rather than claiming that the burden of proof is on them - because there's really nothing they can do to "prove" they aren't a sock, in the same way that a CU will have no way to fully "prove" that they are one. I fully expect you to be appointed, or at least hope so because you're one of the few candidates very active in the area, but I've had to advocate for enough users checkuser-blocked here and elsewhere to hesitate when I see comments like that. -- [[User:Ajraddatz|Ajraddatz]] ([[User Talk:Ajraddatz|talk]]) 23:54, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
*:::I've looked over this again, and it's probably entirely unfair for me to be concerned with a sentence at the end of a comment which demonstrates helpfulness and useful engagement with a blocked user. People below are correct that Vanjagenije could have simply ignored the message, or curtly referred to UTRS. So this is a full '''support''' from me. -- [[User:Ajraddatz|Ajraddatz]] ([[User Talk:Ajraddatz|talk]]) 19:17, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' no concerns. --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rs]][[User talk:Rschen7754|chen]][[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|7754]]''' 01:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Vanjagenije has done a lot of SPI case than other non-CU admin mission, I determine it'll be excellence works by granted the CU tool for him. [[User:SA 13 Bro|SA 13 Bro]] ([[User talk:SA 13 Bro|talk]]) 02:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
*Ironic, but Ajraddatz's example is actually how to do it right.  He could have just ignored or send the guy to UTRS without explaining but he instead explained it well, even though the blocked editor was over the top dramatic.  I've seen a couple of errors over the last couple of years but I've also seen a willingness to own up and fix them, so I'm pretty comfortable giving him the tools.  [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2&cent;</b>]] 02:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
*:FWIW, I agree save a sentence at the end. And of course, I could be reading into it more than I should. -- [[User:Ajraddatz|Ajraddatz]] ([[User Talk:Ajraddatz|talk]]) 02:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
*Yep, no problems here. [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] ([[User talk:Boing! said Zebedee|talk]]) 09:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' I have interacted with Vanjagenije multiple times at SPI and I think they will be a useful addition to the CU team. They have been consistently active at SPI and (at least in my experience) I have not seen anything which would make me concerned. Enabling Vanjagenije to perform a CU lookup would also help reduce some of the backlog at SPI. --[[User:Lemongirl942|Lemongirl942]] ([[User talk:Lemongirl942|talk]]) 11:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. [[User:Ms Sarah Welch|Ms Sarah Welch]] ([[User talk:Ms Sarah Welch|talk]]) 14:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC) 
*'''Support,''' efficient and effective clerk with good judgment. It's difficult imagining SPI without Vanjagenije. [[User:GeneralizationsAreBad|GAB]]<sup>[[User talk:GeneralizationsAreBad|gab]]</sup> 18:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' This experienced SPI clerk should also be given the technical toolkit. [[User:De728631|De728631]] ([[User talk:De728631|talk]]) 18:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''': Does a great job at SPI. —[[User:MRD2014|<span style="color:#90224c"><b>MRD2014</b></span>]] <small>([[User talk:MRD2014|talk]]) ([[Special:Contribs/MRD2014|contribs]])</small> 22:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' An excellent candidate for the tools IMO. <span style="border:1px solid #FFFFFF">[[User:Aloha27|<span style="color:#2B65EC;background:#FFFFFF">'''&nbsp; Aloha27'''</span>]] [[User talk:Aloha27|<span style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#2B65EC">&nbsp;<small>talk</small>&nbsp;</span>]]</span> 11:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
*'''Neutral''' Experienced SPI clerk, but not impressed by the answer to my question. The answer to "is this one user?" in IPv6 is ''also'' "it depends", it just depends on ''different'' things from IPv4. Despite the recommendation that each enduser receive a /64, this must be taken with a grain of salt. For example, mobile hotspots may each use a single /64 despite there being many users in close proximity. Use of WHOIS to find out the ISP and their allocation policy is very important.--[[User:Jasper Deng|Jasper Deng]] [[User talk:Jasper Deng|(talk)]] 17:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. - <font face="Century Schoolbook">'''[[User:Julietdeltalima|<span style="color: green">Julietdeltalima</span>]]''' '' [[User talk:Julietdeltalima|<span style="color: green">(talk)</span>]]''</font> 20:24, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - They do an amazing job at SPI and IMHO deserve the tool. –[[User:Davey2010|<span style="color: blue;">'''Davey'''</span><span style="color: orange;">'''2010'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Davey2010|<span style="color: navy;">'''Talk'''</span>]]</sup> 21:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' --<span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#004d80;"> [[User talk:Begoon|Begoon]]</span> 06:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per above. [[User:KGirlTrucker81|KGirlTrucker81]]<sup> [[User talk:KGirlTrucker81|huh?]] [[Special:Contributions/KGirlTrucker81|what I'm been doing]]</sup>  06:43, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' obvious candidate, not convinced by Ajraddatz's critique. [[User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|<sub style="color:green;>'''Muffled'''</sub>]] '''''[[User talk:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|<sup style="color:red;">Pocketed</sup>]]''''' 09:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC) 
*'''Support''' I agree with Dennis Brown about Ajraddatz's comment. [[User:BethNaught|BethNaught]] ([[User talk:BethNaught|talk]]) 14:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
*<s>Leaning support, but waiting for a response on Ritchie333's question.</s> (looks like I had to purge the cache to see it) '''Support''' The issue raised in the recent ArbCom case was an honest mistake, and I'm sure that given the response, it won't happen again. [[User:Mz7|Mz7]] ([[User talk:Mz7|talk]]) 14:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Already does good work at SPI, this would be a huge help to the project. [[User:RickinBaltimore|RickinBaltimore]] ([[User talk:RickinBaltimore|talk]]) 14:11, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - an extremely hard -working and diligent SPI clerk, no reason to believe they won't be an extremely hard-working and diligent CU as well. -- [[User:Euryalus|Euryalus]] ([[User talk:Euryalus|talk]]) 23:11, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' as I've seen him clerking at SPI, and I think that this will help him further. [[User:Patient Zero|'''Patient Zero''']]<sup>[[User talk:Patient Zero|'''talk''']]</sup> 08:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' good SPI experience! -- [[User:Luk|<span style="color:#002BB8;">Luk</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Luk|<span style="color:#FF6633;">talk</span>]]</sup> 11:54, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Incredibly obvious. ~ [[User:BU Rob13|<b>Rob</b><small><sub>13</sub></small>]]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">[[User talk:BU Rob13|Talk]]</sup> 12:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' I've seen his work at SPI and UAA first-hand, and would be happy to give him the skillz to pay da billz :) [[User:TJH2018|<span style="color: orange">TJH2018</span>]][[User talk:TJH2018|<span style="color: blue"><small>talk</small></span>]] 01:10, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' V has taken the time to explain things at various SPI's as a clerk and I have no qualms about him as a CU
----

====Yamla (CU)====

{{admin|Yamla}}

;Nomination statement
*I wish to apply for checkuser permissions. I have been an administrator on en.wikipedia for more than ten years. Almost all of my time has been spent dealing with vandalism. More recently, I have spent a lot of time patroling [[CAT:RFU]]. In my life outside of Wikipedia, I am a senior software developer and security lead, giving me a good understanding of IPv4 and netblocks and whois information. I believe I could make effective and appropriate use of checkuser permission to help Wikipedia deal with sockpuppetry.

=====Standard questions for all candidates=====

#Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role. 
#:Apart from being an administrator for more than ten years, I recently find myself spending a lot of time patrolling [[WP:RFU]].  --[[User:Yamla|Yamla]] ([[User talk:Yamla|talk]]) 12:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
#Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.
#:I have a degree in computing science and more than a decade and a half as a software developer. I am the security lead at a company that makes software for lawyers, responsible for security inside our application. This involves, among other things, having a thorough knowledge of IP addresses, how to use whois information, the limitations of geolocation, the use of the http user agent, session handling, etc. Additionally, I have [http://www.giac.org/certification/security-essentials-gsec GSEC certification] which covered a number of topics including IPv4, IPv6, CIDR, and suchlike. Note that I am not claiming GSEC certification requires an advanced level of knowledge; the content covered in the course was fairly basic. --[[User:Yamla|Yamla]] ([[User talk:Yamla|talk]]) 12:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
#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. I believe people granted checkuser permission should help out on the UTRS queue and would happily do so if appointed. --[[User:Yamla|Yamla]] ([[User talk:Yamla|talk]]) 12:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

=====Questions for this candidate=====
*You mention having experience with IPv4, but how about IPv6, for which determining collateral damage is significantly more complex?--[[User:Jasper Deng|Jasper Deng]] [[User talk:Jasper Deng|(talk)]] 18:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
:*I can give you the technical description of the differences between IPv4 and IPv6 without having to look this up in the Wikipedia. This sort of thing was covered in my GSEC course (listed above). I can tell you, for example, that IPv6 addresses often contain the MAC address and that the MAC address is "guaranteed" to uniquely identify a network card (and therefore useful for checkuser investigations), though this guarantee is fairly easy to violate. I do want to be clear, though; my professional expertise with IPv4 is significantly stronger. IPv6 uptake in North America is significantly less than in other areas of the world, so I have not had to spend as much time with it. --[[User:Yamla|Yamla]] ([[User talk:Yamla|talk]]) 12:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

=====Comments=====
:''Comments may also be submitted to the Arbitration Committee privately by emailing {{NoSpam|arbcom-en-c|lists.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 a little concerned about there being less recent history. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 17:52, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
**Indeed, I was much more active earlier in my history. I used to monitor several thousand articles and patrol for vandalism. I stopped doing that several years ago. I now primarily help out with unblock reviews. A quick count of edits shows I have performed 1000 edits from 2016-07-10 to 2016-09-27. Special:Watchlist claims I have 1,223 pages on my watchlist, probably less than one tenth of what I used to monitor. That said, I typically spend time in the early morning and the early evening during workdays, I spend some time over the weekend, and during breaks at work. --[[User:Yamla|Yamla]] ([[User talk:Yamla|talk]]) 12:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
*Not being a name I'm used to seeing around at SPI or dealing with sockpuppets, I have concerns.  [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2&cent;</b>]] 18:24, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
**I do not regularly spend time there. I read a number of sockpuppet investigations when investigating unblock requests, but that's a read-only activity. I believe your concern here is that checkusers are asked to investigate sockpuppets and it is helpful to show a history of activity around sockpuppet investigations. If this is indeed your concern, I'll respond with two points. A history of activity around sockpuppet investigations would indeed provide positive evidence, and I don't have that. But I view the role of a checkuser as primarily that of a clerk; they are charged with applying technical expertise to an investigation in a manner that protects user privacy. It's less important that a checkuser is able to identify two accounts as likely sockpuppets based on their edits, but rather that they are able to use the checkuser information to confirm or deny the connection already strongly suspected based on these edits. --[[User:Yamla|Yamla]] ([[User talk:Yamla|talk]]) 12:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
***I strongly disagree.  I clerked at WP:SPI for over a year, have around 1500 SPI blocks and a background in computer networking, so have a pretty good grasp of the requirements.  The clerks do the clerking, and I don't see you having any experience at all there.  SPI is more or less managed by and under the control of the CUs, who do so on behalf of Arb.  They are Functionaries, with the same CU tools as an Arb.  It isn't clerking, it is management in many respects, including deciding who will be a clerk and who won't and establishing procedures in the walled garden that is SPI.  In addition to SPI, CUs are called upon to investigate many things in private, including IPs and extreme situations.  This requires a very solid understanding of our CU and sockpuppet policies, plus dealing with the legal ramifications (in some cases), the community, the accuser, the user and others.  The technical aspects aren't that difficult to grasp and can be learned by rote memory, the rest requires experience and judgement and I just don't see it. Your comments seem to indicate you see it as mainly a technical role, when that is only half of it and the easiest half to learn.  I just don't think you have the foundation at this time.  This can be overcome, but not in a few weeks.  Mistakes at the CU level have a higher price than at the Admin level, so I can't support someone who hasn't done a reasonable amount of work helping CUs.  That is the only way you can learn the job.  [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2&cent;</b>]] 13:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
****Thank you for your comments, Dennis Brown. I understand what you are saying. I will start helping out at WP:SPI. This will be much too late for this round of nominations, obviously, but perhaps will reflect positively on me for a future round, assuming I'm not appointed this time out. There's much I can do to be helpful at WP:SPI without checkuser permissions. --[[User:Yamla|Yamla]] ([[User talk:Yamla|talk]]) 13:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
*****I think that is the right attitude and I appreciate you understanding it isn't personal.  Truth be told, the bulk of the work is done by clerks, with some help from admin.  The CUs do less at SPI but it is very high value work and the clerks clean up and make the blocks, compare behavior, etc.  Most blocks are without CU.  I do think that clerking 2 or 3 days a week for 6 months would make a huge difference and give you a more rounded overview.  Regardless of outcome, I appreciate you sticking your neck out and volunteering.  [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2&cent;</b>]] 22:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
*Eyeballing the log of blocks you have made, I see:
*:16:55, 29 August 2016 Yamla (talk | contribs | block) blocked 196.154.0.0/16 (talk) with an expiration time of 1 month (anon. only, account creation blocked) (Block evasion: Moatassemakmal) (unblock | change block)
*::While I can certainly see administrators making such a block innocently (I probably have at some time or other) it worries me to see a CU doing something like this. --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rs]][[User talk:Rschen7754|chen]][[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|7754]]''' 00:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
*:::Rschen, while I see a concern, it may not be the same as yours, and even if it is the same, expressing your concern would do more benefit to the candidate (and to Arbs that don't understand CU well enough) to understand your underlying comment. -- [[User talk:DeltaQuad|<span style="color:white;background-color:#8A2DB8"><b>Amanda</b></span>]] <small>[[User:DeltaQuad|(aka DQ)]]</small> 09:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
*::::Rschen, that block of a /16 address range is rather large. Mitigating factors are that the user in question has issued a death threat (against another admin), has been a problematic editor for years before being blocked, and regularly hops IP addresses. They target a wide swath of articles. The block was anon-only. The netblock in question is a /11, so the block is large but doesn't even capture the entire netblock, which is a /11. I have been watching the unblock requests to see if there's been any collateral damage there and haven't seen or been informed of any. On the other hand, it didn't prove sufficient; the blocked editor has been able to find IP addresses outside of that range to continue editing. I'm at something of a loss here; I'm going to have to request further help from WP:ANI with regard to that editor. Wide-ranging blocks on that ISP aren't working and can't continue. Semi-protecting hundreds of articles about Canadian politics isn't helpful either. If this was a single IP address, we could just increase the duration, but this particular ISP is a primary ISP for an entire country. Anyway, rant aside, Rschen, if you have any specific ideas for dealing with this particular editor, please bring them up on my user talk page, I'd love to discuss it with you. I hope my comments here have mitigated the concern somewhat, but I certainly understand if you believe this range block was inappropriate. --[[User:Yamla|Yamla]] ([[User talk:Yamla|talk]]) 12:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
*:::::It would be better to consult with a CU before making such a rangeblock, considering the potential backlogs that this could create on [[WP:ACC]], and the requests I see all the time on Meta about people complaining about rangeblocks on enwiki (especially from non-English speaking countries). My concerns are about the rather large rangeblocks (there may be reasons to do that like a leaky webhost or open proxy farm, but that's not the case here, it's a mobile range - I would hate to see it {{tl|checkuserblock}}ed), and the relative lack of experience at SPI (I can think of one CU in the past who was appointed solely based on their IP blocks and had no SPI experience, and when they ran checks for SPI, it was difficult to work with them). With that being said, I would be happy to support in another round of appointments, with relevant experience (at SPI, or ACC, or cross-wiki countervandalism for example). --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rs]][[User talk:Rschen7754|chen]][[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|7754]]''' 06:06, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
*::::::Without wishing to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Materialscientist&diff=prev&oldid=741778769 blow my own trumpet], I agree entirely that you really should get a CU's opinion before performing any rangeblock above ''at least'' /24 as collateral damage is extremely harmful to the project and bites newbies for no reason without any evidence we've done it. [[User:Ritchie333|<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b>]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)</sup>]] 09:25, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
*It's very obvious my nomination is not going to succeed. I'd like to leave it open as an opportunity to collect any more constructive criticism people feel like leaving (and, of course, for anyone else to oppose, if they think it appropriate to do so). I very sincerely thank those who have done so already. I have read and understood your concerns and I very much appreciate the pointers for how my candidacy could have been stronger. I hope to help out around SPI without having checkuser permissions. --[[User:Yamla|Yamla]] ([[User talk:Yamla|talk]]) 20:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''', echoing the concerns above. [[User:SSTflyer|<span style="color:Black">SST</span>]][[User talk:SSTflyer|<span style="color:DarkRed">flyer</span>]] 01:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per the concerns of Rschen7754, and doesn't seem to have the deep understanding of IPv6 I'd like. First off, IPv6 uptake in North America, while not as great as in Europe, is actually rather high, especially in the USA, compared to e.g. Africa or most of South America. Also, IPv6 users invariably use operating systems that enable privacy extensions, so as far as I know, few of the addresses can be relied upon to be the exact MAC address, and CheckUsers probably wouldn't find it that useful.--[[User:Jasper Deng|Jasper Deng]] [[User talk:Jasper Deng|(talk)]] 15:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Too little wiki participation over the past 8.5 years [https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Yamla&project=en.wikipedia.org]. [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk:Softlavender|talk]]) 11:00, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Sorry. As you said, getting more experience at SPI and helping CUs would be good. Happy to support you when you've done more work there. '''[[User_talk:Yintan|<span style="color:Black">Yinta</span><span style="color:DarkRed">n</span>]]'''&nbsp; 19:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
----
{{archive bottom}}