Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/August 2009 election/Oversight/Dweller

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dweller[edit]

Page links: (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

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

I'm Dweller.

I've been editing since 2005, an admin since 2007 and a Bureaucrat for just coming up to a year now.

My statemement really boils down to three things:

  1. Alongside my content work, I like helping people
  2. This tool would help me help people, especially when using my Crat tools
  3. I am trustworthy and can keep confidence with privacy (etc) issues

Fleshing that out a little, since becoming a Crat I have become involved in complex right to vanish issues. Unless my memory is playing tricks, these have become more frequent in recent months than they were. Sadly, it seems that stalking is an increasing problem and abuse of the username policy has also increased. Currently, I need to pass work to others who have OS to appropriately suppress log entries - I would like to be able to handle this myself.

And I just generally like helping people, so I'd like to be one of those who is available for helping with all OS cases, not just the username-related ones. As I've worked on a fair number of biographies, I've hit on a lot of privacy/BLP problems, which will be useful background for an Oversighter.

Whenever I've made a request in the past for OS, I've been impressed with the speed of response and I'm available by email and generally active most of the "working week". However, I've noticed that I edit most heavily while America is asleep. The manually-updated list of OSers is somewhat less developed than its Crat equivalent - inclusion of time zones might be useful for users - it's hard for me to tell whether my edit pattern would complement the existing OS group, but I suspect it would.

Finally, a word about trust. This is a tool that should be used selectively and with judgement. I am a very careful tool user, as my record as an admin and bureaucrat will attest. I can assure the community that if I'm granted this tool, I'll use it appropriately.

[Incidentally, the unpleasant RL issues that forced me to withdraw from the February election are, thank goodness, now all resolved. I still feel bad about the waste of people's time that occurred when the elections went live without my statement, and I take this opportunity to apologise again.]

Comments and questions for Dweller[edit]

  • Question from Aitias (added 00:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)): Obviously, you would not have nominated yourself if you did not believe that there is a realistic chance to be elected. Why do you feel that you of all people should be one of those which will be elected? Do you, for example, reckon that you are better qualified than the other candidates?[reply]
Response to Aitias
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Well, I'd respond by saying that I'm not sure I'll be elected, although I say so reluctantly - lack of bullish certainty of election cost me at least one oppose at my RfB!

I nominated myself because I like helping people and find doing so a refreshing complement to my content work. I've also been a little frustrated at not being able to handle some username change work myself (see my statement, above).

It's hard for me to say that I'm better qualified than anyone else, whether standing or not. But I would hope that the community has seen enough of my work to know that they can trust me to apply policy properly and use a sensitive tool with care and consideration. --Dweller (talk) 11:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Questions from Tony1: For such a reliable, trustworthy and thoroughly appropriate candidate, I was hoping for a more solid answer to that question. Perhaps more specific questions will bring out your qualities more:
    • (1) What do you think will be among the more challenging aspects of being an OS (more specific examples, even hypothetical, than you provide in your statement)?
    • (2) Can you provide examples of high-level administrative judgement in your role as a crat, or perhaps as an admin before that, which suggest you have the appropriate skill-base for OS?
    • (3) Do you think the current policy on alt accounts is too open? What is your view of the discussion that has been going on at Sock puppetry? Do OS have a potential role to play in developing a better system (sorry, it's such a loaded question: I'm more interested in your thinking abilities than the stance you take on this one). Tony (talk) 14:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Tony1
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hi Tony1, thanks for the compliments - and criticism! I must say I found Aitias' question awkward, as I felt it presupposed things that are not the case, which left the entire structure somewhat shaky.

Thanks also for the questions. I was hoping not to put off readers with masses of text, but now I'm boxed in! OK, I'll take your questions in turn:

1 There will be lots - I'm not signing up for an easy task. As usual with policy, difficulty will arise where individual circumstances can push the boundaries. But even more tricky is where a quick look makes a case look simple, when deeper consideration would be valuable.

For example, if a user inadvertently gave away personal information that would be considered by most to be of a trivial nature. Hypothetically, and deliberately using an extreme example, if user Z's cat's name were revealed in a way that would remain in a log that normal deletion could not address.

This is not something mentioned in #1 of the policy, nor is it something that seems to be in the spirit of that policy. It would be all too easy to deny the request.

However, there may be extenuating circumstances, and I'd be prepared to listen to the user's request sympathetically. Although I'd be looking for an exceptionally strong rationale, it is possible that there may be good reasons to suppress it - hypothetically again, a highly unusual pet's name combined with a Google-able news story linking editor/owner's RL identity with the animal's.

The challenge here is to ensure that the request is heard sympathetically, to ensure that any extenuating circumstances are heard before a decision is made.

Another example from the world of name suppression, which as a Crat, I'm very interested in. A user pleads a change with suppression, citing wikistalking, but no evidence of such stalking is clear. "Stalking" is sometimes very much in the eye of the beholder.

In such borderline cases, I'd use all my experience of talking with editors to work out the fine points of detail on which such things frequently depend. And I wouldn't be too proud to ask for advice from others - second opinions are often crucial. I did this recently for a request that came to me via email for help with an RTV issue - I was uncomfortable with making a call and received permission from the requester to discuss it confidentially with another Crat.

More answers to follow - I currently have a world-class headache. --Dweller (talk) 15:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. This is hard to answer. The best examples are unrepeatable because of combinations of BEANS and privacy issues. Perhaps this one will suffice. A former admin contacted me offwiki and asked me to restore their admin privileges for a brief period so that they could fish stuff out of their old userspace, now deleted. They claimed to have resigned in good standing. I looked into the detail behind their account and was uncomfortable - it did not seem clear to me that they restored in good standing. This, combined with their desire to keep everything off the record was a bad combination. I felt I had to decline the request. However, I dislike being unhelpful, so I offered to dig out the versions they wanted and paste them somewhere including an email. I also suggested that I tend to be one of the more conservative crats, so told the user I'd be fine with them "forum shopping" asking a different crat. Both offers were turned down. I hope that helps. --Dweller (talk) 20:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3. I have complex views and think that the discussion at Sock puppets may not be considering all the angles, which is fine, as it's in its early days. I for one can think of at least one circumstance where it may be appropriate for a user to have more than one account and am happy to discuss that elsewhere. I am also unconvinced that policy needs to change - the abusive sockers won't care a jot what policy says and the unabusive ones presumably are not harming the project, so why fix it? I'm not sure why people are suggesting Oversighters might be useful for giving green light for breaches - CU maybe and CU+OS yeeessss, but OS alone? Can't see the value, but perhaps that's a conversation for elsewhere and perhaps my creative thought is being blocked by this infernal headache. --Dweller (talk) 20:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Post headache thought - of course, the logical step missing in the third sentence ("I am also unconvinced...") is that abusive socking is already prohibited by policy. If that wasn't clear before, it is now, hopefully... --Dweller (talk) 08:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question from Mailer Diablo 04:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC): How would you deal with editors/vandals/requestors/lawyers who attempt to creatively stretch the Oversight/Suppression policy, be it making an edit or making a request for suppression?[reply]
Response to Mailer Diablo
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hello Mailer Diablo. What a thought-provoking question. It can be hard to spot people gaming the system - it's often highly subjective, as a trawl through any ANI archive will quickly reveal. I suppose it depends. A polite and explanatory decline is usually all that's needed, but those who are being thoroughly disruptive would need stronger action. This may be a block or even, following the appropriate channels, a ban, or possibly it may need collaboration with a CU or other OSers to see if something more deeply nefarious is going on - or to double-check that others concur, in borderline cases. One thing that is intolerable is if material is Oversighted and another user is clearly hell-bent on disruptively reposting that information. That might require intervention that is swift, as well as strong. --Dweller (talk) 10:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question from Mike.lifeguard 06:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC): Can I ask you to mention briefly the main purpose of oversight privileges from your point of view? You already mentioned one area relating to renames - is that the main purpose you would fulfill with these tools?[reply]
Belated response to Mike.lifeguard
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hello, sorry you've had to wait for an answer to this. I think what you're asking is the main thing I'd do with Oversight, rather than what I think Oversight is for...? Yes, I'd be using it with sensitive renames, but that's more the driver that brought me here, not what I'd expect to do with the tool. Such renames are still, thankfully, relatively uncommon, as far as I know (Crats with OS may well receive and deal with requests I'm unaware of). I'm intending to use the tool on a more usual basis in response to regular privacy of editor and gross BLP issue requests. As stated above, I believe I'm in a slightly unusual time zone compared to other users with the tool, so I'd be looking to respond quickly during my hours of activity to these general requests.

  • Endorsement Not allowed to vote, but this user does a lot of work and never gets tired, eg helping to copyedit my stuff. While some people apply for jobs and committees to collect more hats than North Korean generals plastering their torso full of medals, this candidate actually does the work and isn't like a politician who signs up to be the patron of 100s of clubs to get votes and only turns up once a year for a dinner and photo opportunity. A very apolitical gentlemen, will never do anything questionable YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 03:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes in support of Dweller[edit]

  2. Shappy talk 00:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. — Aitias // discussion 00:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. iMatthew talk at 00:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Majorly talk 00:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. (X! · talk)  · @062  ·  00:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Antandrus (talk) 00:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. --Aqwis (talk) 00:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Kingturtle (talk) 03:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. JavertI knit sweaters, yo! 04:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support' -- Tinu Cherian - 05:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. — Σxplicit 06:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. SoWhy 06:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. --Closedmouth (talk) 07:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. – B.hotep •talk• 07:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Euryalus (talk) 09:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Tony (talk) 10:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Goodmorningworld (talk) 11:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. AGK 13:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Jehochman Talk 14:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. LittleMountain5 15:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. MLauba (talk) 18:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Masonpatriot (talk) 19:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. — Ched :  ?  21:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Nev1 (talk) 22:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. chaser (talk) 23:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Daniel (talk) 00:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Priyanath talk 02:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Samir 04:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  37. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Calabraxthis (talk) 10:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  39. A helpful user and bureaucrat. ceranthor 12:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Camaron · Christopher · talk 13:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  41. iridescent 15:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Caspian blue 17:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  43. —Animum (talk) 17:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  44. PhilKnight (talk) 17:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Pmlineditor 17:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  46. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Jpeeling (talk) 22:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Woody (talk) 22:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  49. (reasoning) The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 02:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  50. FASTILY (TALK) 04:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  51. — Kralizec! (talk) 11:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  52. ϢereSpielChequers 12:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Aye ~~ Phoe talk ~~ 13:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Tryptofish (talk) 14:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  56. John Carter (talk) 15:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Ceoil (talk) 18:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  58. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  59. See here. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 23:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Ysangkok (talk) 11:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Abecedare (talk) 17:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  64. --Giants27 (c|s) 19:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  65. miranda 22:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Sceptre (talk) 14:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  68. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 14:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  69. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Aaroncrick (talk) 05:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Amalthea 11:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  72. - Dank (push to talk) 13:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  73. — CactusWriter | needles 14:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  74. -- Banjeboi 20:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Master&Expert (Talk) 09:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  76.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Andy Walsh (talk) 02:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  78. R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 14:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  79. snigbrook (talk) 22:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  80. –Megaboz (talk) 15:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  81. AlexiusHoratius 20:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  82. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 23:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Steven Walling (talk) 03:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  84. –Moondyne 05:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Heimstern Läufer (talk) (rationale) 18:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  86. – Johnlp (talk) 22:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  87. —DerHexer (Talk) 22:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  88. —Terrence and Phillip 15:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  89. - Ankimai (talk) 18:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  90. hmwitht 18:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Whitehorse1 21:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support --StaniStani  22:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  93. --Wehwalt (talk) 23:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes in opposition to Dweller[edit]

  2. Prodego talk 00:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Pzrmd (talk) 00:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. bibliomaniac15 05:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    --Fox1942 (talk) 11:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC) (Vote indented as user is ineligible to vote in this election - SoWhy 11:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  5. Davewild (talk) 19:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. BrianY (talk) 04:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Alexfusco5 19:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 01:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/CheckUser_and_Oversight/August_2009_election/Oversight/Dweller&oldid=1079526608"