Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/2019

[ShinkawaGirl]

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint additional editors to the CheckUser and Oversight teams.
linkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... s#Comments[/link]

[C&B]

L235 AKA Kevin = AGK-style "hat collecting moron".

How do we get that in a question

[Ritchie333]

I keep meaning to stand as a “none of the above” or “want to revert shit blocks by Bbb23” candidate, but always forget.

[Poetlister]

I keep meaning to stand as a “none of the above” or “want to revert shit blocks by Bbb23” candidate, but always forget.

Of course, you'd need to phrase it in a way that avoids accusations of violating WP:NPA.

[ZettaComposer]

Flashback to the 2015 Requests:

How willing are you to block a user unilaterally (CU block)? With the advent of "Wi-Fi" and shared IPs would you consider whether or not the IP address was shared before making a decision?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.116.185 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

My expectation is that initially I will be running CUs only pursuant to requests at WP:SPI. That's what I'm most familiar with now, and doing so will permit me to get used to the tools and how to use them properly. So, if by "unilaterally" you mean on my own, I don't expect to be doing it.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Amazing what a few years of power can do to a person.

[Eric Corbett]

Flashback to the 2015 Requests:

How willing are you to block a user unilaterally (CU block)? With the advent of "Wi-Fi" and shared IPs would you consider whether or not the IP address was shared before making a decision?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.116.185 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

My expectation is that initially I will be running CUs only pursuant to requests at WP:SPI. That's what I'm most familiar with now, and doing so will permit me to get used to the tools and how to use them properly. So, if by "unilaterally" you mean on my own, I don't expect to be doing it.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Amazing what a few years of power can do to a person.

It is indeed. What a power-crazed jerk he turned out to be.

[Beeblebrox]

This process is weird.

They take applications, and may reject some out of hand as obviously unqualified.
Then they give that preliminary list to the functionaries for our comments. Candidates may or may not be removed based on our feedback.
Then they let the community ask them questions for a while. (Expect them to stress this year that it really isn't a vote because people seemed to think it was last year.)
Then they appoint whomever they want

For those who weren't around or don't recall, previously this was a straight election using SecurePoll. So the only feedback the candidates got was number of votes, with no idea who opposed them or why. In 2010, when the functionaries team was significantly smaller, they needed more oversighters, held an election, and only got one. (I was an also-ran in that election) So a few months later the committee trotted out this new way of doing it, where everyone gets a say but in the end arbcom does what it wants.

[Eric Corbett]

This process is weird.

They take applications, and may reject some out of hand as obviously unqualified.
Then they give that preliminary list to the functionaries for our comments. Candidates may or may not be removed based on our feedback.
Then they let the community ask them questions for a while. (Expect them to stress this year that it really isn't a vote because people seemed to think it was last year.)
Then they appoint whomever they want

For those who weren't around or don't recall, previously this was a straight election using SecurePoll. So the only feedback the candidates got was number of votes, with no idea who opposed them or why. In 2010, when the functionaries team was significantly smaller, they needed more oversighters, held an election, and only got one. (I was an also-ran in that election) So a few months later the committee trotted out this new way of doing it, where everyone gets a say but in the end arbcom does what it wants.

The process is entirely consistent with the rest of WP's wierdness.

[Poetlister]

In the old days, that's how Arbcom was chosen. Jimbo did what he wanted. Then they had !votes, in the light of which Jimbo did what he wanted. We're slowly getting better there, though no doubt many here are dissatisfied with the resultant Arbcom.

[Vigilant]

In the old days, that's how Arbcom was chosen. Jimbo did what he wanted. Then they had !votes, in the light of which Jimbo did what he wanted. We're slowly getting better there, though no doubt many here are dissatisfied with the resultant Arbcom.

Are there any who aren't?

[Poetlister]

In the old days, that's how Arbcom was chosen. Jimbo did what he wanted. Then they had !votes, in the light of which Jimbo did what he wanted. We're slowly getting better there, though no doubt many here are dissatisfied with the resultant Arbcom.

Are there any who aren't?

I haven't heard Turnedworm (= Worm that turned on WP) complain.

[Beeblebrox]

I mean, I get why they changed the process becaue the last time it was done by straight election there were eight of us running and only one got elected, and they actually needed more people on board at that time. 300-something people voted, which for an secret ballot with no reason necessary to oppose, is not a great sample size. This process works better in that it results in people actually getting appointed, but sometimes I find the committee's decisions tone-deaf as regards community input. (but what else is new)

[Alex Shih]

Yeah, I don't get why anyone would want to input there, since the final decision will always be arbitrary. GW might make an attempt to explain, but the other one, I doubt she even reads that page as her mind are always already made up AFAIK.

[Poetlister]

A system by which you get who you want, and maybe as many as you want, regardless of what the peasants may say, is surely ideal for the ruling class. (I'd say the Cabal, but as we all know there is no Cabal.)

[ZettaComposer]

Results are in.

Everyone who applied for Oversight got it. Everyone except Oshwah and RoySmith got Checkuser. RoySmith not getting it is understandable given the questions and comments. As for Oshwah, I'd jokingly accuse Ritchie of pulling some strings but I imagine he's still not on great terms with Arbcom. Though in all seriousness, while I don't think Oshwah would become the next Bbb23, I do worry about his block happy nature so I think it was for the best.

[Beeblebrox]

I almost feel guilty about RoySmith. He seems like a stand-up guy in most regards but I have real concerns that he is too quick with the block button in certain situations.

[Ritchie333]

As for Oshwah, I'd jokingly accuse Ritchie of pulling some strings but I imagine he's still not on great terms with Arbcom.

I think the bragging about blocking the US House of Representatives on IRC (as documented by Dykslyver) as if it was some big joke probably rubbed somebody up the wrong way.

[Poetlister]

As for Oshwah, I'd jokingly accuse Ritchie of pulling some strings but I imagine he's still not on great terms with Arbcom.

I think the bragging about blocking the US House of Representatives on IRC (as documented by Dykslyver) as if it was some big joke probably rubbed somebody up the wrong way.

Given the way that many people on WP think, I'm surprised that it wasn't a point in his favour.

[Beeblebrox]

A fairly typical example of how this process functions.
Oshwah is already a functionary, got no negative feedback during the functionary consultation (although that would be awkward since he is on that list), got no negative comments during the public comment period, and then didn't get in. It is however possible that some objections were made privately by email.

[Alex Shih]

That's why the entire "process" is a farce, when minds are already made up in the first place. Oshwah most certainly made minor mistakes routinely with OS also, and the nature of OS would mean that it wouldn't be broadcasted. Then we have folks that simply will continue to think he is not 1) mature enough (which is ironic because some argued OS requires more maturity than CU) 2) too eager to please people 3) reckless 4) too quick with buttons.

[C&B]

Then we have folks that simply will continue to think he is not 1) mature enough (which is ironic because some argued OS requires more maturity than CU) 2) too eager to please people 3) reckless 4) too quick with buttons.

[Eric Corbett]

That's why the entire "process" is a farce, when minds are already made up in the first place.

But that's how every process works on Wikipedia.

[ShinkawaGirl]

That's why the entire "process" is a farce, when minds are already made up in the first place.

But that's how every process works on Wikipedia.

True an admin who clearly socked with an IP and edit warred is a functionary .

[Poetlister]

That's why the entire "process" is a farce, when minds are already made up in the first place.

But that's how every process works on Wikipedia.

True an admin who clearly socked with an IP and edit warred is a functionary .

As is pointed out ad nauseam on this site, admins get special treatment far too often. Someone may be along in a minute with a scene from Animal Farm.

[ShinkawaGirl]

A very interesting situation has arisen that a oversighter socked with his college IP and real name early in career and it been rev Del and oversighted.

[Eric Corbett]

A very interesting situation has arisen that a oversighter socked with his college IP and real name early in career and it been rev Del and oversighted.

Do you find that surprising?

[Beeblebrox]

A very interesting situation has arisen that a oversighter socked with his college IP and real name early in career and it been rev Del and oversighted.

Do you find that surprising?

Do you find it surprising that someone here is clearly out for revenge and will go to any lengths to gin up evidence to get said revenge?

[Vigilant]

A very interesting situation has arisen that a oversighter socked with his college IP and real name early in career and it been rev Del and oversighted.

Do you find that surprising?

Do you find it surprising that someone here is clearly out for revenge and will go to any lengths to gin up evidence to get said revenge?

Fram wants a word.

[Osborne]

Do you find it surprising that someone here is clearly out for revenge and will go to any lengths to gin up evidence to get said revenge?

There's no proof of that. But it's not surprising, that you present it as a fact "clearly".

Fram wants a word.

[Midsize Jake]

Do you find it surprising that someone here is clearly out for revenge and will go to any lengths to gin up evidence to get said revenge?

There's no proof of that. But it's not surprising, that you present it as a fact "clearly".

It depends on how you define "proof." I would imagine that to Mr. Beeblebrox, the fact that Ms. Shinkawagirl has consistently failed to address the counter-arguments directly (both in the private-forum thread about this and in this one) might be "proof enough" of a revenge motivation. In fact, I think it's fair to say she's ignored them.

Those counter-arguments basically consist of:

• It happened six years ago when Vanamonde93 (T-C-L) was still a fairly new user;
• All he really did was edit while not logged in, as opposed to "socking" involving a separate named account;
• The "edit warring" wasn't obsessive, as it involved fewer than five articles (that I could find, anyway) and one actual issue, namely, whether or not certain Noam Chomsky books should be treated as reliable sources.

Normally when allegations like this are brought up, we give them a fair hearing, as I think we've done in this case. But we do have to draw the line somewhere, because if we don't, we just end up looking like a bunch of nitpickers, right? What this guy did looks forgivable to me. Then again, maybe I'm just saying that because I like Noam Chomsky.

[MysteriousStranger]

Do you find it surprising that someone here is clearly out for revenge and will go to any lengths to gin up evidence to get said revenge?

There's no proof of that. But it's not surprising, that you present it as a fact "clearly".

It depends on how you define "proof." I would imagine that to Mr. Beeblebrox, the fact that Ms. Shinkawagirl has consistently failed to address the counter-arguments directly (both in the private-forum thread about this and in this one) might be "proof enough" of a revenge motivation. In fact, I think it's fair to say she's ignored them.

Those counter-arguments basically consist of:

• It happened six years ago when Vanamonde93 (T-C-L) was still a fairly new user;
• All he really did was edit while not logged in, as opposed to "socking" involving a separate named account;
• The "edit warring" wasn't obsessive, as it involved fewer than five articles (that I could find, anyway) and one actual issue, namely, whether or not certain Noam Chomsky books should be treated as reliable sources.

Normally when allegations like this are brought up, we give them a fair hearing, as I think we've done in this case. But we do have to draw the line somewhere, because if we don't, we just end up looking like a bunch of nitpickers, right? What this guy did looks forgivable to me. Then again, maybe I'm just saying that because I like Noam Chomsky.

I prefer Nim Chimpsky myself.

[Poetlister]

I prefer Nim Chimpsky myself.

Oh yes, seconded!

[ShinkawaGirl]

Do you find it surprising that someone here is clearly out for revenge and will go to any lengths to gin up evidence to get said revenge?

There's no proof of that. But it's not surprising, that you present it as a fact "clearly".

It depends on how you define "proof." I would imagine that to Mr. Beeblebrox, the fact that Ms. Shinkawagirl has consistently failed to address the counter-arguments directly (both in the private-forum thread about this and in this one) might be "proof enough" of a revenge motivation. In fact, I think it's fair to say she's ignored them.

Those counter-arguments basically consist of:

• It happened six years ago when Vanamonde93 (T-C-L) was still a fairly new user;
• All he really did was edit while not logged in, as opposed to "socking" involving a separate named account;
• The "edit warring" wasn't obsessive, as it involved fewer than five articles (that I could find, anyway) and one actual issue, namely, whether or not certain Noam Chomsky books should be treated as reliable sources.

Normally when allegations like this are brought up, we give them a fair hearing, as I think we've done in this case. But we do have to draw the line somewhere, because if we don't, we just end up looking like a bunch of nitpickers, right? What this guy did looks forgivable to me. Then again, maybe I'm just saying that because I like Noam Chomsky.

Midsize Jake
I have never personally interacted with Vanamonde93 (T-C-L) or E.M.Gregory (T-C-L) or WJBscribe (T-C-L) or with anyone about him I have commented here personally.
Further honestly I had never heard about José Napoleón Duarte (T-H-L) before rather never knew who he was I am not concerned how his article is written. I have never followed Central American Politics.

• Vanamonde93 (T-C-L) did sock even after being told clearly Also please remember to sign in every time you edit. Sometimes you edit as 137.22.171.215, sometimes as Vanamonde93. N.B. the policy on sockpuppetry: Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. (T-H-L) Accuracy88 (talk) on 29 September 2013‎
• Trust is most important for functionaries and they should come clean.
• He would not clear his RFA had his socking been known

• Some unsolicited advice: come clean. I don't know the details of the history here, but the community looks far more favorably upon folks who can admit and learn from past mis-steps, if any, than those who ignore them or dissemble instead. Vanamonde (talk) 17:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC

  Advice Given by users truly to Ms Sarah Welch (T-C-L) after she was blocked for socking.

[Beeblebrox]

YAWN