Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/2020 CUOS appointments/OS

Cabayi

Cabayi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Nomination statement

I'm applying for Checkuser, and willing to serve as an Oversighter if wanted or needed. My experience includes having been an active reporter at SPI since 2014 which started from seeing "visited" links in my browser when viewing w:Special:NewPages. I've been an SPI clerk for 18 months (full ticket for 12 months), and an admin for 6 months. The SPI work has been the focus of my wiki-activity for a long while and I'd welcome the opportunity to build on that.

I've revdeleted, mostly for copyvio & personal attacks, and requested oversight, mostly for kids oversharing personal info. If I'm to keep IRC/email open for CU work I may as well offer to do so for OS work also.

I'm semi-active on OTRS (and signed the confidentiality agreement), active on UTRS, and usually have IRC running in the background.

Standard questions for all candidates (Cabayi)

Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
Since becoming an admin 6 months ago I've revdeleted (mostly copyvios) and requested oversight (mostly children's personal info).
Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.
I'm a former database administrator with experience of HR & payroll systems including a payroll migration project. I'm well used to respecting the confidentiality of personal data.
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'm a global renamer with access to OTRS queues info-en & renamers.

Questions for this candidate (Cabayi)

Editors may ask a maximum of two questions per candidate.

Sometimes the oversight and revision deletion policies appear to overlap. For example lots of BLP violations (RD2) are also potentially libelous (OS2), and really gross abuse is often deleted under RD3/OS5. As an oversighter, how would you evaluate such decisions? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:10, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The dividing line between RD & OS would vary according to a number of factors, the public figure vs private individual, personal info of underage individuals (under 16), the gross-ness of the abuse on the page, the criminality of any alleged behaviour which isn't supported by sources.
For example, on an article about (X) - "public figure (X) indulged in perversion (Y)", would be RD material as a commonplace slur, unless the description of perversion (Y) were graphic enough to push it over the line into OS. If it continued "...(Y) with individual (Z)" it would be oversightable if (Z) were a private individual being libelled, or an under-16. The cutoff may shift slightly but, in general, the wiki's strategy is to default to the lowest level of removal (and highest level of scrutiny) commensurate with the material being removed. Cabayi (talk) 15:38, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (Cabayi)

Comments may also be submitted to the Arbitration Committee privately by emailing arbcom-en-cwikimedia.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.

Anarchyte

Anarchyte (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Nomination statement

Hello, I’m Anarchyte, and I am applying for Oversight. Over the last few years I’ve had quite a few of my suppression requests accepted and having been an admin for three years, I believe I now understand the requirements. I am familiar with how RevDel works, having used it countless times over my tenure as admin. I hope that through editing in an Australian time zone I can decrease some of the strain currently placed on Oversighters. Please note that I will be away from my computer for the first four days of the community consolation period (until 1 Oct). I will still try to respond to any questions raised during this time.

Standard questions for all candidates (Anarchyte)

Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
Will answer in greater detail soon.
Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.
Will answer in greater detail soon.
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.

Questions for this candidate (Anarchyte)

Editors may ask a maximum of two questions per candidate.

Sometimes the oversight and revision deletion policies appear to overlap. For example lots of BLP violations (RD2) are also potentially libelous (OS2), and really gross abuse is often deleted under RD3/OS5. As an oversighter, how would you evaluate such decisions? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:10, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (Anarchyte)

Comments may also be submitted to the Arbitration Committee privately by emailing arbcom-en-cwikimedia.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.

JGHowes

JGHowes (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Nomination statement

I am applying for Oversight only, at this time. I began editing on en-Wikipedia in 2004 and became an admin in 2008 and a Commons admin a year later, in 2009. I've been an OTRS team member since 2017. Having been around for a long time in these roles, I am quite familiar with Wikipedia processes, policies, and guidelines. As an oversighter, I would use sensitivity and mature judgment to determine when suppression is warranted.

Standard questions for all candidates (JGHowes)

Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
Have changed visibility where a user has disclosed real-world name or phone numbers of themselves or others.
Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.
Having a professional career at an executive-level in the aviation industry, I have had considerable experience working with law enforcement data and background investigations for hiring decision-making. As a former Air Force officer, I had security clearances.
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 not previously requested those advanced permissions, but do have OTRS permissions (commons, info-en, photosubmissions, and permissions queues)

Questions for this candidate (JGHowes)

Editors may ask a maximum of two questions per candidate.

Should the oversight policy be interpreted broadly or narrowly, and what is your reasoning for this? TonyBallioni (talk) 06:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it, OS by its nature is to be narrowly applied. In most cases, revdel or normal editing suffices for run-of-the-mill copyvios or disruptive/insulting edits. OSPOL is very clear on the specific, limited instances when suppression is called for. JGHowes ^talk 13:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes the oversight and revision deletion policies appear to overlap. For example lots of BLP violations (RD2) are also potentially libelous (OS2), and really gross abuse is often deleted under RD3/OS5. As an oversighter, how would you evaluate such decisions? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:10, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Evaluating BLP violations for revdel or OS should consider: is the person a private or public figure? a minor? the severity of the calumny, e.g., unsourced allegation of a felony, etc. JGHowes ^talk 21:49, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (JGHowes)

Comments may also be submitted to the Arbitration Committee privately by emailing arbcom-en-cwikimedia.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.