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

Thatcher[edit]

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

I was granted Oversight permission as an inaugural member of the Audit subcommittee, which was formed in part as a response to my essay on the need for a method to review the Oversight and Checkuser positions. My appointment to the Audit Subcommittee is temporary, until the first elections are held, and I do not intend to run for election. I would like to retain the Oversight tool after my term on the Audit Subcommittee is over, so I seek a public confirmation.

While in the position to review and monitor Oversight requests and the Oversight mailing list, I have noticed occasional lapses in coverage, especially as it relates to complicated or unusual requests. It seems that simple requests are handled quickly, but complicated requests sometimes "fall through the cracks." I don't intend to be online all the time (although sometimes it seems like I am) or to respond to many routine requests (although I can't rule out that I will), but I would like to be able to attend to requests that go stale for one reason or another, as I notice them, rather than hoping someone will eventually see them and follow up.

I also reserve the right to comment from time to time on the appropriateness of requests and responses, not as an Auditor but as a party interested in responsible use of the tools. Thatcher 03:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and questions for Thatcher[edit]

A few questions:

Do you think your last-minute addition into the race undermines the election's integrity? Why or why not?
It's my understanding that at some point previously you were pretty much ready to leave Wikipedia and that you returned only to kick-start this Audit Subcommittee. What's changed (or have things changed) and why?

I think it's important to note that while the tone of these questions may project a particular attitude, I will not vote in this election; these questions are simply to satisfy my curiosity. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I emailed Arbcom about retaining oversight on the first day that nominations were being accepted. I think they were looking for a way to appoint me without making me go through the election process, and I assume that discussion stalled or got lost in the press of other business. When I returned from vacation and saw that the election process was underway, I offered to submit myself for formal election/reconfirmation. Anyone who is uncomfortable with that should certainly not vote for me, although I would confess to finding it strange that voluntarily submitting to a reconfirmation election would be held against me. Thatcher 12:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A few situations had occurred behind the scenes that really turned me off for a time. However, I find that I am still willing to perform services that make the project a better and more humane place for others to edit. Thatcher 12:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given your role in the audit subcommittee, do you think it is appropriate to use the oversight and checkuser tools for routine requests? "Not so routine" requests? I realize you clearly state that you would like to retain oversight rights after your tenure on the subcommittee, but what about until then? - Rjd0060 (talk) 13:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee might be a better place for this discussion.) When the Wikipedia:Review Board was under consideration, there was considerable discussion about whether reviewers should use the tools themselves or not, but when the Audit Subcommittee was established (as a direct delegation of Arbcom's authority in the area), no restrictions were placed on the members. I have acted on a number of stale requests for oversight, in some cases by taking direct action, and in some cases posting reminders to the mailing list. How long should an auditor wait on seeing a request; minutes? hours? days? In general, I think auditors should not become routine users of the tools, but I don't have a problem with occasional use, especially as it relates to the customer service and time-sensitive aspects of oversight. I don't think occasional use will impair someone's ability to be an impartial and fair auditor; if you are impartial and fair to begin with, running a few checks or oversights is not going to infect you suddenly with the "cabal virus." Thatcher 14:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the answer. I did ask here because I am not aware of any other members of the subcommittee using the tools (and in fact, I've heard from some who said explicitly that they would not use them unless there was an immediate need to do so) - where I did hear that you had used them (and of course, I do not know the details). I realize it isn't a matter of policy and there is no actual "rule" preventing you from doing it but I asked this question to gauge whether or not you found it appropriate, personally. Thanks again. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - There should be updated statistics here in a day or so. Thatcher 14:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - After reviewing the CU/Suppression statistics, I have a follow up question. To be completely open and honest, I'm not seeing how 389 checkusers and 34 suppression actions can constitute as acting on "stale requests". Was your comment above only in reference to use of oversight or do you share the same thoughts regarding the use of the checkuser tool? I know you held the checkuser rights before your appointment to AUSC but given that your "job" is essentially to monitor for abuse, I personally don't believe that you should be using the tools in a routine manner (again, I realize there is no rule prohibiting you from doing so - just a matter of personal judgment). Just interested to hear your thoughts on that. And on a final note, if this nomination does not succeed, would you refrain from any further use of oversight rights excluding those rights required to be used in your role as a member of the audit subcommittee? - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I was also surprised by the amount of checks I ran in June, for July, the total so far is about 190. A lot of the checks I ran in June were related to Arbitration Enforcement issues I was trying to manage; there were a lot of brand new editors on contentious articles, and I didn't want to be sanctioning one person if the other was a sockpuppet. Since I previously handled nearly all enforcement requests for a period of 9 months or so, I felt I would recognize the parties. There were also a number of checks related to Oversight issues, and related to requests for IP block exemptions on range blocks that I had previously placed. A few checks are related to the customer service aspect of CheckUser. Take for example this incident report from yesterday. If I see a situation like that, where CheckUser would potentially be very helpful in identifying additional disruptive and fraudulent edits, I could either refer the person to SPI, which is so complicated these days that I don't understand it myself; or mention the matter on the checkuser mailing list, which may or may not get action and which irritates the non-enwiki checkusers who like to use the list for cross-wiki coordination; or I can take 2 minutes and address the problem myself. If you go back to my RFA, the idea of customer service as always been one of my goals. I would have preferred to see a lower number, and I will watch my own use more carefully for the rest of my term on the audit subcommittee. (In particular, I have given up on WP:AE, having been reminded of why I dropped it from my watchlist in the first place.) However, I don't believe that checking for sockpuppets of Amorrow, or of editors who post libelous claims to BLPs, or of edit warring ethnic cliques, compromises my ability to fairly judge other checkusers. (Of course, if I was biased, I would be sure I wasn't, so you'll ultimately have to make your own judgement.) Thatcher 00:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks for the explanations. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(comment moved from vote section) Would really prefer someone who's more attentive to his emails. Durova²⁸⁵ 00:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(comment moved from vote section) Can I vote a second time using User:Jehochman2? You deserve two votes. Jehochman ^Talk 04:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even when we've disagreed, I've found Thatcher engaged and thoughtful. In fact, this discussion we engaged in at his talkpage was one of the things that really started changing my thinking on WP:BLP issues. While we initially disagreed, by the end of the discussion, I'd come around to his way of thinking, and that conversation -- and how responsive Thatcher was to my concerns -- developed a trust level (on my end, anyways), which makes my support below quite easy. Unitanode 14:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I've only seen you around, but what I've seen impressed me-and others too, apparently.ceranthor 12:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On balance, not supporting - even in the face of overwhelming approval - is not a viable option. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsement Not allowed to vote, but this user does a lot of work and never gets tired and has done 1000s of CUs by himself. 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. When he was a ArbCom clerk he was proactive and did a lot of analytical work, rather than just the bare mininnum of filling in the papers at the end.YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 03:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(comment moved from vote section) Judging by the stats we need you to continue in this role. 7 ^{talk | Δ |} 23:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes in support of Thatcher[edit]

Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shappy ^talk 00:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. — Aitias // discussion 00:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. --Caspian blue 00:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dabomb87 (talk) 00:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Majorly talk 00:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 00:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
iMatthew ^talk at 00:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Prodego ^talk 00:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(X! · talk) · @061 · 00:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
–Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Antandrus (talk) 00:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sk8er5000 (talk) 00:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rjd0060 (talk) 01:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 01:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Triplestop x3 01:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC) Sorry, not eligible , does not have 150 article edits before June 15. Risker (talk) 02:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
God yes. Viridae ^Talk 01:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
JayHenry (talk) 01:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Huldra (talk) 01:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
—Animum (talk) 01:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Them From Space 02:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Skinwalker (talk) 02:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Captain panda 02:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --B (talk) 02:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Noroton (talk) 03:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nathan^T 03:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jehochman ^Talk 04:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. MastCell ^Talk 04:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nevard (talk) 05:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unitanode 05:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
-- Tinu Cherian - 05:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Σxplicit 05:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cla68 (talk) 07:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Closedmouth (talk) 07:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Offliner (talk) 08:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~ AMorozov ^〈talk〉 08:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AdjustShift (talk) 09:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Euryalus (talk) 09:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 09:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aye ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 10:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cenarium (talk) 10:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tony (talk) 11:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wknight94 ^talk 13:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Folantin (talk) 13:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 14:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
EdJohnston (talk) 15:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Little Mountain 5 15:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Woody (talk) 15:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Davewild (talk) 19:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Masonpatriot (talk) 19:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Gavia immer (talk) 19:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Cybercobra (talk) 19:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Guettarda (talk) 20:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AniMate^draw 20:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Kanonkas : Talk 20:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Ched : ? 21:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recognizance (talk) 23:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bsimmons666 (talk) 23:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Kurdo777 (talk) 23:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel (talk) 00:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
chaser (talk) 00:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nepaheshgar (talk) --Nepaheshgar (talk) 01:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 01:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 04:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Samir 04:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
—Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Conti|✉ 09:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kusma (talk) 11:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Joopercoopers (talk) 12:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ceranthor 12:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Kralizec! (talk) 12:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Camaron · Christopher · talk 13:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 15:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tony Fox (arf!) 16:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PhilKnight (talk) 17:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*** Crotalus *** 18:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~ mazca ^talk 19:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
S B H arris 19:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alexfusco⁵ 19:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Satori Son 20:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Arakunem^Talk 22:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(reasoning) The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 02:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eluchil404 (talk) 02:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 04:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 06:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gazifikator (talk) 08:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So Why 08:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gwen Gale (talk) 12:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tryptofish (talk) 14:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pmlin editor 16:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil (talk) 18:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heimstern Läufer (talk) (rationale) 18:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
miranda 20:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 22:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly; see here. --Dylan 620 (contribs, logs) 01:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the wub "?!" 11:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ysangkok (talk) 11:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abecedare (talk) 17:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
—Mattisse (Talk) 17:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Will Beback talk 03:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
++Lar: t/c 06:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Go get 'em Margaret! Crafty (talk) 11:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC) (Vote indented as user is ineligible to vote in this election Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 17:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Charitwo ^(talk) 16:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WJBscribe (talk) 21:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fedayee (talk) 22:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. --Jayron32 03:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— madman bum and angel 04:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
x42bn6 Talk Mess 12:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sceptre ^(talk) 14:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
support JoshuaZ (talk) 17:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Grandmaster 05:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Amalthea 11:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7 ^{talk | Δ |} 23:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Graham87 01:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Poltair (talk) 10:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 14:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cbrown1023 talk 17:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
-- Banjeboi 20:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KevinOKeeffe (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
William M. Connolley (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I'm somewhat surprised Thatcher wasn't already an oversighter - I thought he was! -- ChrisO (talk) 07:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Master&Expert (Talk) 09:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tim Vickers (talk) 20:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 21:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
–Megaboz (talk) 15:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AlexiusHoratius 20:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 00:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Steven Walling (talk) 04:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
—DerHexer (Talk) 22:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--MONGO 05:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per the "I have seen this name throughout my career" clause. —harej (talk) 07:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alio The Fool 14:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
—Terrence and Phillip 16:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L•EM) 22:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can't imagine an objection. Good luck. / edg ☺ ☭ 11:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
-- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 16:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lara 17:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
hmwith t 18:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gyrofrog (talk) 18:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stani Stani 22:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes in opposition to Thatcher[edit]

Durova²⁸⁵ 00:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fox1942 (talk) 11:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC) (Vote indented as user is ineligible to vote in this election - So Why 11:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]
BrianY (talk) 04:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PuebloUnited (talk) 18:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)(Vote indented as user is ineligible to vote in this election - Unitanode 18:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Everyking (talk) 22:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
VЄСRUМВА ☎ 00:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
fish&karate 11:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 15:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whitehorse1 21:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]