Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/May 2010 election/Oversight/Someguy1221

Someguy1221

Someguy1221 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Hello.

I'm Someguy1221 (Bob Johnson), an active editor for the last three years, and an administrator for the last year. With regard to Wikipedia, I tend to focus on one area at a time. Over my three years, my point of focus has shifted between vandal patrol, gnome-like mass edits, articles for creation (AFC), newpage patrol, AFD, and the reference desk. I have at all times maintained a low level of ativity across AFC, reference desks, the help desk and related pages, and blocking users reported to AIV. I also monitor false positive reports for the abuse filter, and occasionally edit them.

Right now, and for some time, my most active area has been OTRS emails. Unfortunately, most Wikipedians cannot see them and thus cannot judge the bulk of my recent contributions to the project. Most OTRS matters that I handle merely require me to answer questions, but it also leads me to further matters of vandal fighting, dispute resolution, etc.

I believe I would be a good fit for oversight because responding to questions and complaints has long been what continues to draw me to Wikipedia - the desire to help out fellow editors. This is what keeps me active at the help desk, AFC, false-positive reports, and OTRS; I enjoy answering questions, handling complaints, and fixing problems.

Additionally, in answering OTRS questions and lurking over almost every noticeboard and Q/A forum, issues occasionally pop up that would be best handled by oversight. Indeed, it is through answering emails and lurking noticeboards that I was led to most of my recent administrative actions.

I live in Southern California, and am available on almost all days from 10pm - 2am pacific time. As an OTRS volunteer, I have already provided my age (above 18) and identity to the foundation.

Comments and questions for Someguy1221

• Questions from HJ Mitchell

1. If you are granted Oversight access, how do you think that will affect you as an editor and an administrator and do you think that will (or should) affect the way that other editors interact with you?

   Obviously, as an editor and an administrator, I would no longer have to email oversight for obvious cases. Otherwise, the only effect it should have on me is providing yet another compelling reason to go about editing in a way that retains the community's confidence in myself. All administrators are in a position of trust within the community, and must know that although they have earned their position through hard work, it is janitorial only, and that trust can be lost. Oversights and OTRS volunteers are entrusted even more greatly, specifically to maintain the confidentiality of private information.

   I sincerely hope that, should I receive oversight permissions, editors do not change how they interact with me, aside from feeling confortable sharing concerns about material that has been or should be oversighted. Neither administrators nor members of any other user access level have greater authority than others in the realm of content disputes. The only difference with regards to editing is that administrators and oversights are expected to be well versed in policy, and able to maintain their cool. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

2. Do you feel it's important for oversighters to reply to email requests to inform the requester of the action you've taken or not taken?

   Personally, I greatly appreciate when I receive a response, positive or otherwise, after requesting oversight. However, without personally knowing what volume of email the oversights face, I cannot pass judgement on their failure to respond to all requests. From my experience with OTRS, there are certainly some emails that are better to not respond to. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Question from Keegan

I know it is asked in the questionnaire:

1. Q. How well will you do saying no to a request, and will you actively do it?

   Between AFC, OTRS, help desk requests, abuse filter false-positive reports, and questions on my talk page regarding articles I have deleted, I am very used to having to say "no" to other editors. I would actively say no to requests to oversight material that does not require oversight, and be as courteous as possible about it. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Question from User:zzuuzz

1. Other than attempts at outing, what types of revisions should be hidden from administrators?

   Outing specifically refers to providing inappropriate private information about an editor, but oversight is also used to hide inappropriate private information about anyone, as well as certain extreme cases of copyright violations and BLP violations. And revision-delete can be used for hiding offensive usernames and edit summaries. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• Question from Happy-melon

1. All CheckUsers and Oversighters are members of the functionaries-en mailing list, a forum for discussion and co-ordination of privacy-related issues which affect any and all areas of Wikipedia. What qualities and perspectives would you bring to such discussions?

   I will bring the perspective of someone who firmly believes that all internet denizens are entitled to privacy, even those who do not respect the rights of others. I will all bring the quality of respect for the opinions of all existing functionaries. But largely, I expect to spend a lot of time simply watching what happens to the less cut-and-dry cases reported for oversight. Whenever I start to contribute to a new noticeboard, help desk, or OTRS mailing category, I normally spend a bit of time simply watching how others deal with sticky issues, before diving into them myself. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)