Bbb23 (CU)[edit]

Bbb23 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Nomination statement

• I am applying for both the checkuser and the oversight tools. My principal interest is in the checkuser tool. I don’t think I’ll use the oversight tool much, but that could change over time. Obviously, I would respond to an editor who makes a request to me for suppression.
• My interest in the CU tool stems from my experience as an SPI clerk and my overall interest in understanding how a checkuser is actually performed. I believe I have the requisite experience as an active clerk to use the tool and to use it prudently. CUs have discretion as to when to perform a checkuser, and I would approach the tool, as I do with any new tool, cautiously at the beginning as I learn the ropes,seeking guidance, as necessary, from more experienced checkusers.

Standard questions for all candidates[edit]

1. Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.

   I have been an SPI clerk since August 2013, first as a trainee, then as a full-fledged clerk starting in May 2014. This means not only that I analyze the evidence presented when an SPI case is filed, but I also have some understanding as to the checkuser's role in the process.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2. Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.

   I used to be a computer professional, which gives me foundational experience as to technical concepts. That said, my expertise was not in Internet addressing, so I have no direct off-wiki experience in that specific area.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3. 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 to all.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for this candidate[edit]

• Someone asks you if a CU has been done on them, because they believe another CU has violated their privacy. What do you do? --Rschen7754 06:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I would follow the direction of the policy, which says, "Other complaints or inquiries about potential misuse of the CheckUser tool should be referred to the Audit Subcommittee." That's slightly different from Callanecc's answer (I cheated and read it). My guess is he's right and I'm wrong, but I'll stick with answer except to qualify it with "I'll check with another CU first before taking any action" to see if my interpretation of the policy is correct and, even if it is, if the practice is different.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• When/why should CheckUser data be sent to the checkuser-l list? --Rschen7754 06:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll just quote policy: "The inter-project team is ideal for matters concerning prolific vandals or sock users, privacy-related incidents or harassment, and other global matters of interest beyond English Wikipedia."--Bbb23 (talk) 00:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• What is your experience with collaborating and coming to a consensus with editors of different opinions and philosophies? What have you learned from these experiences? --Rschen7754 06:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The answer to this question depends largely on the dispute at issue. For example, article content disputes are different from policy disputes, which are in turn different from disputes about technical issues (those are just some examples). I have less involvement in content disputes since I became an administrator, but I get involved in two ways. First, as an administrator, I find that I can often facilitate consensus building without directly participating in it. Second, as an editor, I usually try to resolve the dispute at the article talk page. However, if that fails, I don't generally take the next steps of dispute resolution. Instead, I either bow out (if I'm unwilling to see it through, it's not fair of me to "demand" anything) or I turn it over to the appropriate noticeboard, e.g., WP:BLPN if it involves a possible but not blatant WP:BLP violation.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• You are listed as a arbitration clerk trainee, but have not clerked in a while. Do you think this will affect your candidacy? --Rschen7754 04:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• To be precise, I'm an inactive arbitration clerk trainee. Regardless, the short answer is no. At one point I suggested I be removed completely, but I was advised to remain. I think the hope was that I would resume clerking because, at the time, more clerks were needed. New clerks have been brought on since then, so I don't think that's any longer the case. I don't anticipate going back to clerking for Arbcom. If I am appointed as a CU and/or an OS, that will take up a chunk of my time, and if I'm not, the clerking I do at SPI, which I enjoy, already takes up a lot of my "free" time now.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• How much faith do you have in the "Duck Test" theory? With millions of registered editors, how would you to assume a match if you discover 2 different editors share topic interests?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.116.185 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• As an SPI clerk, I block based on behavioral evidence frequently. Sometimes, there's no possibility of technical evidence. Sometimes, the technical evidence is not conclusive, which means that behavioral evidence is needed to block. That said, just because two users share a topic interest would unlikely be enough by itself to block them. If it were, there'd be a lot of socks on Wikkipedia. --Bbb23 (talk) 20:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• What is your stance on the tool "not being pixie dust" or "for fishing"? Many editors often question the tool's accuracy — what red flags do you look for?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.116.185 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Even CUs frequently say that the tools are not always perfect. However, the outcome of a CU, as I infer from CU comments, covers a spectrum of accuracy and confidence, and sometimes other issues besides just the CU results are noted after the CU does a check. Not yet being directly familiar with a CU's tools, I don't know what "red flags" I would look for. My assumption is that would become apparent to me the more experienced I become.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

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

• Support - Absolutely, with no qualms whatsoever, even though the last time I asked him to take care of something for me, he turned me down. That caused me, personally, a bit of hassle, but I don't hold it against it, and it doesn't in any way change my opinion about his trustworthiness or his judgment. In my opinion, Wikipedia needs more admins like Bbb23 and HJ Mitchell. BMK (talk) 04:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — Ched :  ?  17:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, great admin. (I'm assuming that anyone can comment here?) --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 19:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @AmaryllisGardener: Of course. Courcelles (talk) 20:20, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support will be net positive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support without hesitation. I've worked closely with Bbb23 on SPIs, and can attest to his diligence, caution, and good judgement. Having the CU bit seems only natural. — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Unequivocal support trustworthy admin. Go Phightins! 20:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support a long-term SPI clerk, and trustworthy and a hard worker. --Rschen7754 03:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• SupportActive and conscientious. Abecedare (talk) 05:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with pleasure. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 10:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--John Cline (talk) 22:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Can't think of a better candidate. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 07:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't see why not, so support. Jianhui67 ^T★C 11:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - A hard working Admin that is asking to do more! WP needs more like this person. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Bbb23 is active everywhere here and is probably the most trusted person here so how can I not :) –Davey2010^Talk 04:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support We have four good candidates here and I'm happy to support each of them.--Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:00, 14 March 2015
• Support 20K admin actions and admin since 2012 and good work in SPI and has shown good judgement and policy.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per MusikAnimal and Davey2010. petrarchan47tc 07:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per [1] Although I was tending towards support or neutral, per Mr X's "Bbb23 has demonstrated increasingly good judgement overall", unwilling to address relatively simple questions because they're "bad formatted" and he doesn't like the questioner indicates he's not there yet in terms of judgement. NE Ent 18:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good work in SPI. Hafspajen (talk) 01:59, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Cwobeel (talk) 17:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Always around at SPI and always helpful, even if I did get chastised once for insufficient evidence, that just made me a better submitter next time 'round! Already knows what the CU's will be looking for, so let's remove that one extra step from the process! Crow^Caw 22:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--MONGO 01:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, per answers to questions. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 10:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ///EuroCarGT 19:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Always around at SPI and always willing to help someone.--5 albert square (talk) 01:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I think the good answers to questions overwhelm the questionable answers that, in my opinion, are cherry picked by several above commenters.--Shibbolethink (talk) 14:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support knows the basic field and what those who use the tools look for, based on experience as a clerk, and presumably just as well what is insufficient to return a match, and that is more than good enough. John Carter (talk) 22:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - plenty of SPI experience. PhilKnight (talk) 23:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Active SPI clerk. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Callanecc (CU)[edit]

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

Nomination statement

• Hi all, I'm Callanecc and I'm applying for the CheckUser tool (that is, to retain it after my term on AUSC). I've been an admin for around a year and am currently serving as a community appointee on the Audit Subcommittee (so have used both CheckUser and Oversight) through which I've developed a reasonably in depth knowledge of the global and local policies governing the use of the tools. I've been active at SPI as a clerk and CheckUser so have gained experience in determining whether sockpuppetry is occurring based on behavioural and technical evidence, likewise I have gained a well rounded interpretation of the sock puppetry policy. I've built and developed knowledge of ISPs and the sockpuppeteers active in Asia and Eastern Europe as an SPI clerk and also since using CheckUser on accounts from those areas. I've been involved with the request an account process since 2012 and was "elected" as a tool administrator in 2013. Since having the CheckUser permission I have been one of the two most active CUs on the tool and intend to continue doing so if granted the permission after my AUSC term expires. I am also active in handling unblock requests on UTRS and am an OTRS agent.

Please feel free to ask questions here, on my talk page or via email. Kind regards, Callanecc.

Standard questions for all candidates[edit]

I've just given quick responses to these for now, I'll come back to them later and clean up my responses and provide more info as needed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.

   Summarising what I said in my nomination statement: I've been active with SPI since Jan 2014, ACC since Jul 2012 and UTRS since Dec 2013. So have developed good experience in these areas. Before and since having CU (on AUSC) I've made rangeblocks so am familiar with how that works (IPv4, still learning v6) and I've also been active in countering spam and spambots. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2. Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.

   I have some experience in networking and identifying users based on user agent and login details in real life. In real life, I'm been privy to personal and confidential information about people, including my peers, which I can't share with others or with them. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3. 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 both CU and OS on enwiki as a community member of AUSC, none of the other permissions on other projects. On OTRS, I have access to the Commons, Info-en (f), Permissions, Wikidata (and oversight-en-wp) queues. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for this candidate[edit]

I've just given quick responses to these for now, I'll come back to them later and clean up my responses and provide more info as needed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Someone asks you if a CU has been done on them, because they believe another CU has violated their privacy. What do you do? --Rschen7754 06:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Something which I've had experience with - I'd refer them to the AUSC (and not confirm whether there is a check or not). It's important that the same standard is applied regarding whether to disclose that a check has been carried out and that AUSC is in a position to investigate. Privately, I'd probably have a look at whether the account had been checked and if it had and I thought the grounds where iffy I'd refer it to the AUSC for investigation myself. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• When/why should CheckUser data be sent to the checkuser-l list? --Rschen7754 06:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• When there is reason to believe that there are crosswiki elements to the disruption (whether socking, vandalism or spam). Generally ranges from which there is a reasonable amount of spam and spambots should be referred so that they can be checked on other wikis and globally. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• What is your experience with collaborating and coming to a consensus with editors of different opinions and philosophies? What have you learned from these experiences? --Rschen7754 06:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I've probably been involved in less consensus building about article content since becoming an admin as I've focused more on trying to facilitate discussion, at Rupert Sheldrake and G. Edward Griffin for example. Given they are controversial topics it's been interesting to see how people with very strong views try to get to a consensus and when intervention is needed. Likewise at WP:AE while consensus isn't needed, generally you try and get other people to agree with your thinking before imposing a sanction, and there have been many times when I've been involved in quite extensive discussion about whether something is a violation or not and what sanction is appropriate.

  Some time ago (by wiki standards) I was involved in writing and developing consensus for guidelines for handling feedback through the Article Feedback Tool. Developing consensus for policy, I found, was quite different from developing consensus on articles as with articles it's usually the interpretation of policies/guidelines which are in dispute. Whereas when writing them it's a lot more about an overall vision which can be very different for different people so requires quite a bit more discussion and convincing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• When, if ever, do you think it's appropriate to take off-wiki activity into consideration in an SPI? GoldenRing (talk) 09:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm, sometimes. There are times (with paid editing for example) where off-wiki evidence makes the case for sock puppetry (or meat puppetry) much stronger. Having said that, in my opinion, there needs to be on-wiki evidence of socking or meat puppetry taking place, not just evidence of off-wiki activity, for sanctions to be considered. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

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

• Support - This seems so obvious that I'm surprised this process is even needed (although I understand why AUSC was setup this way). Callanecc has been amongst the most active an helpful CUs in supporting both the SPI and UTRS teams and I would not dream of seeing this ability to help be removed from him. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 06:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Callanecc once raised his voice to me (figuratively), but since I deserved it, I don't hold it against him. BMK (talk) 05:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support will be net positive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support From what I saw of him on checkuser-l he is a hard worker and it would be good to have him continue as a local CU. --Rschen7754 04:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per Salvidrim. Given the asset Callanecc has been to the SPI community as it stands now there's little concern that he'll be any bit less of an asset moving forward. — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Obviously. GoldenRing (talk) 23:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Callanecc is without a doubt an invaluable asset to this project. Mz7 (talk) 04:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Salvidrim. Proven track record, presumably with use of the tools already, and a tireless contributor to the project. -Kharkiv07^Talk 15:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Chris Troutman (talk) 23:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as a proven asset to Wikipedia. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 00:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with pleasure. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 10:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support awesome administrator. Jianhui67 ^T★C 14:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - already does good work with the tool right now at SPI. — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 00:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--John Cline (talk) 07:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I consider this person one of the most level-headed and clear-thinking Admins on the site. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Gamaliel (talk) 00:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support We have four good candidates here and I'm happy to support each one of them.--Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:01, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Scalhotrod. petrarchan47tc 07:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Scalhotrod and Jianhui67 and great commitment to the project and is already a member of Audit Subcommittee and already has both Checkuser and Oversight and great work in SPI with over 9900 admin actions .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support NE Ent 18:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Cwobeel (talk) 17:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Unquestionably! Crow^Caw 22:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--MONGO 02:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ///EuroCarGT 19:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Always helping out at SPI so it's a definite support from me.--5 albert square (talk) 01:42, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as basically one of the biggest no-brainer decisions I've ever made. John Carter (talk) 21:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support but with reservations of time constraints as he is barely able to handle customary admin chores, perhaps because he has too many. When will he sleep? Atsme☯^Consult 23:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HJ Mitchell (CU)[edit]

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

Nomination statement

• Hello, I'm Harry. I've been an administrator for coming up on five years. I'm far from infallible, but I like to think I do a reasonable job. My admin work is very much front-line – I deal mainly with vandalism and long-term/serious abuse; despite the tedium and the death threats, I enjoy it – I feel like I'm making a difference by keeping bored schoolchildren and deeply malicious editors away from the encyclopaedia and away from good editors, who shouldn't have to put up with such nonsense. I'm looking for a new challenge and a way to better serve the community, and taking on functionary tools looks to be sufficiently challenging while keeping me on the front line. I have tremendous respect for the current checkuser corps, but I've noticed that a small number have been shouldering a disproportionate burden; there could be many reasons for that, but many hands make light work. I'm very familiar with some of our longer-term sockpuppeteers and with SPI and the limitations of checkuser.

  I hope I've proven my discretion and trustworthiness over the years; in terms of technical ability, I'm familiar with IP addressing and useragents, and I've seen the screenshots on mediawiki.org, and I believe I know enough to be proficient. I've been consistently active as an admin for five years, logging 40,000 actions, and I would endeavour to be similarly active as functionary – it's very unlikely that I would burn out after a few months and go inactive.

Standard questions for all candidates[edit]

1. Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.

   I've been an active admin for almost five years, during which time I've participated in a lot of SPIs. Generally, I get involved at SPI when there's an overlap with my normal admin work (especially long-term abuse, and I watch SPIs for several long-term sockpuppeteers). I do sometimes muck in when there's a large backlog of cases that could benefit from an admin looking at them (the backlog can appear large at times, but sometimes there's little an admin can do, and a clerk or a checkuser is required or the filer needs to provide more information, for example), and sometimes I get a request on my talk page or by email to look at a particular case. I have lots of experience of comparing sets of contributions to assess the likelihood that two accounts are being used by the same person. I'm also used to comparing IP addresses to deal with block evasion, and I'm familiar enough with IP addressing to understand things like range blocking (IPv4 more than v6, but I'm getting to grips with the latter).

2. Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.

   Nothing that's obviously directly relevant, but one of my off-wiki interests is event management, which often involves a lot of compilation and comparison of data on spreadsheets. A lot of that information is sensitive (like addresses and phone numbers) and has to be handled in accordance with strict UK and EU data protection laws and some of it is also the subject of non-disclosure agreements so I can operate with the necessary level of discretion.

3. 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 advanced permissions but I'm an admin on Commons, in which capacity I occasionally deal with cross-wiki issues. I do have OTRS access: to WMUK, info-en (full), Commons, permissions, photosubmission, and Wiki Loves Monuments.

Questions for this candidate[edit]

• Someone asks you if a CU has been done on them, because they believe another CU has violated their privacy. What do you do? --Rschen7754 06:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would not be my place, especially not as a brand-new functionary, to be handling complaints or disclosing information from private logs. I would suggest they contact the enwiki Audit Subcommittee or the global Ombudsman Commission, who would then investigate if they saw fit.
• When/why should CheckUser data be sent to the checkuser-l list? --Rschen7754 06:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I gather checkuser-l is for coordination of issues with cross-wiki ramifications. Spambots are an obvious example—they tend not be such an issue on the English Wikipedia because we have lots of sophisticated methods for dealing with spam, but they can be a serious nuisance on smaller wikis, so when we come across them it can be well worth putting the information on the list so that CUs from other wikis can keep an eye out or share their experiences and the stewards can look into global (b)locking if appropriate. Another obvious case is cross-wiki abuse; for example there was recently a long-term sockmaster who was uploading junk images to Commons and using them for vandalism on enwiki—in a case like that it could be well worth enwiki CUs liaising with Commons CUs (or vice-versa) so that the response was consistent and to help each other prevent further abuse (for example the sockmaster might use a range or a proxy on one wiki that they hadn't used on the other).
• What is your experience with collaborating and coming to a consensus with editors of different opinions and philosophies? What have you learned from these experiences? --Rschen7754 06:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've of course collaborated with lots of editors on articles over the years (for example, I've written seven featured articles, all of which have gone through extensive review processes which are collaborations with other editors to make the article the best it can be). Administratively, I've done a lot of work in arbitration enforcement, where there are often complex cases that require extensive discussion between admins and between admins and parties to establish facts and (if necessary) impose appropriate remedies. My approach to disagreement is generally to seek a compromise (if I'm invested in something to such an extent that I feel the need to dig my heels in, I'm probably not objective). For example at AE there are often admins who prefer a more lenient approach and some who prefer a much stricter approach (advocating sanctions for relatively minor infringements, or advocating for sanctions at the more severe end of the spectrum); I like to think I'm somewhere in between, but there's a time and a place for both and sometimes I find myself advocating for "one last chance" or for more severe sanctions. The key is always discussion—if you can follow the other person's train of thought, you can sympathise a lot more with their conclusion (even if you disagree with it), and by softening your own position you can often get the other person to do the same and thus move closer to the middle ground.
• When, if ever, do you think it's appropriate to take off-wiki activity into consideration in an SPI? GoldenRing (talk) 09:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "off-wiki activity" covers an awful lot of things and I'm loathe to draw bright lines to the effect that 'this always acceptable' or 'that is never acceptable' because you can guarantee that as soon as you do, you'll be presented with a scenario you hadn't imagined but which requires an exception to your bright line. As a general rule, SPI should make determinations based on on-wiki behavioural evidence. You don't need checkuser or off-wiki evidence to compare two sets of contributions. But sometimes "maybe" or "probably" are as good as you can get based on comparison of contributions, in which case other evidence might be considered, but off-wiki activity should be used rarely and cautiously and if it involves personal information should not be posted on the wiki. A scenario that springs to mind would be one in which evidence came to light that a group of accounts had been recruited on a web forum but were technically unrelated, in which case that evidence might be taken into consideration by an admin in deciding how to handle the matter. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• You left the en.wikinews project in 2010 [2] due to concerns about how the project was functioning. Would this affect your ability to work with people from that project with cross-wiki issues? (Granted, their CUs don't really seem to be that active, but humor me ) --Rschen7754 06:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was during a turbulent period in that project's history, if memory serves. It seems they only have three CUs, of whom one is a friend of mine IRL (as are a couple of the admins there), so I can't imagine having any difficulty working with their CU team.

• Hello, HJ. I note that you are one of the most active administrators on Wikipedia right now, working in multiple challenging areas (including arbitration enforcement). Should you be granted checkuser permissions, it would be expected that you would focus a significant amount of your volunteer time in this area. The average SPI can take anywhere from 15 minutes to 3 hours, with more complex ones requiring even more time. With this in mind, what activities are you currently carrying out that you are most likely to curtail or reduce in order to carry out the new CU responsibilities? Risker (talk) 23:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Risker. Thanks for the question. It's something I'd thought about before putting my name forward (I've participated in a few complex SPIs); I don't have a firm answer but I'll share my train of thought. I don't do much deletion work; I've done some speedy deletion in the past, cleared out expired PRODs, closed AfDs but I don't do much of it these days. The areas I work in that tend to suffer from a lack of available admins are mainly UAA and RfPP; both can be quite time-consuming because they get backlogged easily. There's also AIV, which has plenty of admins watching but tends to be time-sensitive. I spend quite a bit of time patrolling my watchlist, which includes a lot of problem BLPs, targets for long-term sockpuppeteers, a few dozen SPIs, and other things. Then there's AE, which can be complex and time consuming, but there have been more admins willing to stick their heads above the parapet there in recent months and the fallout from gamergate is beginning to dissipate so the workload there isn't as immense; I've become sort of the resident uninvolved admin in the Arab-Israeli dispute because I've been enforcing sanctions there for a long time and I'm familiar with the editors there, including the prolific sockpuppeteers, so I would probably continue with that work if appointed a checkuser, but I might not get involved with other topic areas if I was short on time, especially those that have their own 'resident admins'.

    Essentially, functionary duties would come first because there are fewer people who can handle them; I do have the tenacity to continue an investigation to its conclusion and I'm not likely to abandon or avoid a complex SPI because of competing priorities. That might mean it takes a little bit longer for a vandal to be blocked or a page to be protected or an enforcement request to be handled, but there are hundreds of admins who can remedy that, whereas there are only a few dozen functionaries. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Given your very active role in frontline administration and the large value that many place on it below, why do you want to step back from that to take on CU and OS responsibilities? If it was just a matter of adding to those, I'd support this without a second thought; what gives me pause is what we might lose if you do less regular admining. Don't you think you're actually of more value to the community in your current role? GoldenRing (talk) 00:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, there are ostensibly ~1400 admins (though a hard core of about 100 do most of the work, and half the admin corps hasn't made a logged action in the last six months) so there are a lot more people who could deal with the common-au-garden vandalism than there are who can deal with things that require advanced permissions. My main interest is in long-term abuse and other things that are clearly well thought-out rather than just replacing an article with profanities for "lulz". That's where checkuser in particular would be useful—with just the admins tools, it's very difficult to deal effectively with things like this (a string of autoconfirmed accounts and IPs bouncing around a large range being used for obscene abuse; the SPI doesn't tell the whole story, but that's some of the worst abuse I've come across as an admin; not the worst, but certainly in the top 10), or this (mostly just trolling, but can be more sinister), or this (responsible for most of this, much of it which has been oversighted, and this, admin only I'm afraid, and similar abuse elsewhere), or even just coordinated spam attacks. Those are some of the longer-running examples, but there's no shortage of other cases like that where having checkuser would mean I could investigate these things myself and block underlying IP addresses or ranges to cut it off at the source rather than playing whack-a-mole for several hours while I wait for somebody else and they familiarise themselves with the context. Thankfully, that sort of thing doesn't come up every day, and when I wasn't dealing with that I'd be able to do other admin work as well as routine checkuser work like processing SPIs and advising on UTRS requests. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The idea of an admin – however experienced and well-intentioned – seeking to conduct checkuser investigations on-the-fly as you describe seems a bit risky. Would you be willing to suspend your admin activity entirely for a couple of months while you settle in to the CU role? - Pointillist (talk) 23:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn't be launching investigations on the fly. Basically, the most important use I'd have for CU would be that when one of these nutters pops up with a string of obscene usernames or throwaway accounts, usually bouncing around a range or using proxies to avoid the account creation throttle, I'd be able to block the underlying IP address and any sleeper accounts before things get out of hand. And by "out of hand", I mean good editors getting so much abuse so quickly that they be come overwhelmed, and we risk them leaving if they see that the abuse can't be dealt with effectively (I know at least one editor who would have left had it not been for my efforts in stemming abuse they were subjected to). But that kind of thing doesn't come up every day, so at other times I'd help with more routine things like SPI and UTRS. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

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

• Not Yet HJ is too quick with the block button. Functionaries need to be level headed. Jehochman ^Talk 10:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate your comments, Jonathan, but I don't think I'm too quick to block. I do make a lot of blocks, and inevitably I make mistakes, but I think that the overwhelming majority of my blocks (last time I looked, I think I'd more blocks than all but about 20 admins) are in line with policy and practice and consensus (the three aren't always the same thing). I'm aware that some of my blocks have been controversial, but the same could be said of any active admin—the only guaranteed way to do nothing controversial is to do nothing—and the controversy is not necessarily indicative of an error. Blocks of established editors are almost always controversial and often result in lengthy noticeboard threads, but that doesn't mean it's never appropriate to block established editors. For my part, I always explain myself as best I can, and with noticeboard threads my personal policy is to offer my rationale and then leave the discussion to reach a conclusion, and I always accept the conclusion and do what I can to learn from it—regardless of the outcome. As for level-headedness, I think I'm generally a calm and rational admin and I try not to act on impulse or emotion. I know there's one particular block to which you took exception recently, but as I explained to you at the time I was not aware that you had declined to block the editor (otherwise I would have respected your decision), and I believed that the block was necessary based on the information I had at the time, as they appeared to be part of a coordinated harassment campaign. It later emerged that the matter had been discussed on a forum elsewhere on the web, and that the editor probably had nothing to do with the harassment. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • CU and OS have the potential to really increase the drama around a dispute. What I'm objecting to is not your admin skills. You are really useful as an admin, but you are still a bit prone to hasty action. I'd like to see you wait a year or two before seeking these tools. If you are granted them, please remember what I've said here. Take it easy and be patient. The blow up over a faulty block is nothing compared to the blow up over an improper CU or OS action. Jehochman ^Talk 20:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Once again, without any qualms. What Jehochman sees as a lack of "level-headedness", I see as a surfeit of common sense, something all too lacking around here. I trust HJM, even if he sometimes is wrong, and disagrees with me. BMK (talk) 05:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - We don't always agree, but his judgment is beyond reproach, as is his sensibility. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - HJ Mitchell is probably one of the most level-headed admins of all amongst those who operate in the trenches. One has to be bold to work in the front line and attract all the flak it gets for just doing one's job. HJ's reserarch into complex issues of COI and SPI are exasperatingly thorough and accurate. HJ does not need the CU tool - the CU tool needs Harry. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: I have confidence in HJ Mitchell's integrity and good judgement, even if I sometimes don't agree with him. BethNaught (talk) 08:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — Ched :  ?  18:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support 39K admin actions with 13500 blocks ,14000 deletions and over 6500 protections his judgement and policy knowledge has been spoton and unquestionable shown over the large number of admin actions .User is one the most active admins in the project Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, Harry has my trust, I'm sure he'll use CU appropriately. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 19:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per Jehochman.--Catlemur (talk) 19:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support pragmatic, sensible and experienced. can see big picture and can be trusted. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support All around, good experience in many different areas, and well-grounded in what Wikipedia is. I fear he's going to get a lot of flak for being outspoken and saying the hard truth (just as I did in my elections), but we need people who are outspoken, yet able to work as a team player. If there's still some uncertainty, perhaps an option is giving out either CU or OS now and seeing how it goes, without prejudice towards granting the other tool. --Rschen7754 04:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose - Outspoken, saying the hard truth? Perhaps, but we don't need functionaries who call other users "you fucking morons" (this was directed at 28 experienced contributors, among them several admins and an ex-arb). Kraxler (talk) 18:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right, that was unacceptable, and I've apologised for it several times. I'm not going to try and justify it or pretend it didn't happen, but I can assure you it was an isolated incident—I was very upset because I felt a good editor was treated appallingly and that by valuing superficial politeness over getting the job done the community had done great harm to the project and driven away an editor who did valuable work. But that's about the only time I've been genuinely upset about something on Wikipedia, and it was because of the treatment of the other editor. I guess at the end of the day you know what you're getting with me—I'm efficient and I get the job done, and I think I'd do it well, but I'm not a machine, and I very occasionally do stupid things. But I promise I'll keep working on that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right, unacceptable. Please withdraw your candidacy. You aren't going to collect this hat this time. Jehochman ^Talk 23:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC) [reply]
• Support Harry is a model admin in my mind, and I've no concerns he'll misuse the tool. — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support - an excellent administrator; also per Kudpung. Go Phightins! 20:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – An excellent administrator and a trusted hardworking user. CT Cooper · talk 22:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, has overwhelmingly demonstrated the necessary trust for a role such as this. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, Stephen 00:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with no concerns, I believe HJ to be a trustworthy member of community. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 19:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Unfortunately as an IP I cannot vote, but I wanted to leave a note that I would be opposing if I could. I had previously thought that based on a variety of reasons, not the least of which was this outburst but the recent extremely poor decision to block ProtonK that caused them to turn in his tools. The bottom line for me is that HJ Mitchell doesn't have the demeanor to be an admin anymore, let alone a Checkuser or Oversighter. 96.255.237.170 (talk) 01:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Right on! The goal with experienced contributors is to help them come into compliance with policy, not to robotically kick them in the teeth (figuratively) block them for every "violation" until they quit in disgust. Of course, when one is a high volume admin, it is hard to spend the time necessary to do the patient work of mentoring. It's much quicker to just slap people around and demand compliance. Jehochman ^Talk 01:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Whenever you do a lot of something (for example, I had a quick look at WP:ADMINSTATS, I've made 13,620 blocks—more than all but 19 admins, two of whom are bots), you will inevitably make a mistake or a questionable judgement call. But the number of those blocks that have resulted in noticeboard threads is probably well under one per cent and I could probably count on my fingers and toes the number that have been overturned by consensus. The consensus on this one was that Protonk's comment was a BLP violation but that the block was somewhat disproportionate. At the end of the day, I make mistakes and sometimes I can be blunt, but I acknowledge my fallibility and—most importantly—I get the job done. I use the tools a lot and I make the right call in the overwhelming majority of cases. Judging from the stats, that's what the functionary corps urgently needs—the vast majority of the work seems to be being done by a very small number of functionaries, with a larger number of moderately active functionaries picking up the slack and around half the current functionaries are inactive. It seems to me that adding another active functionary into the mix would make everyone's life easier (except possibly mine), and that's the only reason I'm applying. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe you shouldn't do a lot of something if the result is to drive off longstanding contributors who you lump in with the throw away accounts. Maybe you should just slow down and be nicer to the volunteers here, and let some other admins pick up the slack. How's Protonk doing? What have you done to repair the damage from that incident? Jehochman ^Talk 23:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Jehochman I really think you have said enough here. You do enough slapping around and demanding compliance yourself (diffs available). CU is a purely technical role and this application is not the RfA re-run that you are trying to turn it into. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Kudpung, I will speak my mind, and remember that this discussion is about HJ Mitchell's fitness, not mine. Even if you have diffs about me, how is that relevant to the candidate? Please keep the discussion on topic. At least I have never called dozens of people "fucking morons". Jehochman ^Talk 11:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  You seem to be arguing that vested contributors should get a pass on BLP. Pardon me, but I think some context is in order: for all my flaws I've never flippantly remarked on somebody's sex life on Wikipedia, much less done so while advocating ignoring BLP. We can argue about whether my response was the right one, but the noticeboard thread was quite clear that Protonk's comment was a BLP violation, and I honestly don't think that asking him nicely not to repeat it would have worked. I certainly did not treat him like a throwaway account—plenty of editors have been indef'd by other admins for comments like that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I am arguing that experienced contributors are valuable, and that you need to apply more effort and nuance in dealing with them rather than just going - block - block - block all the time. You seem to get a kick out of blocking people. You should not get higher ops until you develop better methods. If you had admitted that your high transaction volume was a concern and said you'd consider a different approach, rather than insisting how excellent you are, my criticism would not be so persistent or so harsh. Jehochman ^Talk 11:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  That's nothing more than a personal attack, and it's completely inaccurate. If you think the best way to recognise the value of experienced contributors is to pour scorn on me while defending BLP violations or advocating on behalf of the likes of Wifione (and then make blocks like this) then I don't think this conversation is going to get us anywhere. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you're violating Rule 9, but anyways, I brought the arbitration case that resulted in Wifione losing administrator rights and being banned, so I'm not sure what kind of logic you are using to suggest that I was "advocating on behalf of the likes of Wifione". I'm also not sure where I was "defending BLP violations". Remember, this conversation is about you, not me. It's an old trick to try to deflect legitimate criticism by attacking the critic. Jehochman ^Talk 13:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, let's talk about me. But let's get specific, instead of generalised personal attacks. Let's have some diffs. Let's see if there are 40 logged actions (0.1% of the total) I've made that no reasonable admin would have made. If you can find 40 from the last 12 months, I'll resign my admin bit and go through an RfA if I want it back. I don't really care about functionary tools—I think I'd be an asset with them, but I'm not going to lose sleep because I had to wait a few hours for a checkuser or an oversighter—but I do take exception to your insinuations about the way I admin (especially given that I put more thought into blocking vandals than you put into the block I mentioned above), and I'd like you to supply evidence or retract them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't want you to resign. I just want you to be a little more thoughtful before moving up to the next level of access. As you climb the ladder here, you are going to face more stressful situations and more challenging situations. Don't be in a rush. The exasperated diff that's been cited already related to that failed RFA is an example that you need more experience before being promoted. Jehochman ^Talk 14:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree with Jehochman. I'd like to suggest that you reread the AN post for Protonk's block and topic ban, and the comments left on his talk page about it. You say above that the consensus was that the block was "somewhat disproportionate" when everyone is pretty much agreeing that the block was completely inappropriate (Two Examples). I appreciate that you're standing by your decision, but I hope that you are also considering the feedback that you were given. You blocked an admin in good standing with (as far as I can tell) no previous blocks, and he quit because of it. Did your block help improve the encyclopedia? Kaciemonster (talk) 00:46, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I could have taken a softer approach which might have produced a better result for all concerned, but that I couldn't have left the comment unchallenged—that seems to me to be consistent with the consensus at AN and with Risker's closing remarks. I'm not a robot, and I'm very sorry that it has had such a profound affect on Protonk's editing (it's one of the few things on Wikipedia I've lost sleep over). I met Protonk once and he struck me as a nice guy; if I meet him again, hopefully I'll buy him a pint and we'll look back at all this and laugh.

  More generally, we've established that I have a tendency to call a spade a spade (and yes, sometimes I call it a "fucking shovel"), that I cock up from time to time, and that some of my decisions are controversial (an occupational hazard in a topic area like gamergate or Israel-Palestine, though I'd be the first to admit that I don't always make the right call). I'll willingly concede that. On the other hand, I'm a very active admin and I like to think I do far more good than harm, I make the right call in the overwhelming majority of decisions, and I have the knowledge and ability to deal with really nasty people as well as to effectively get through the more routine stuff. I guess the question is what balance of thick skin and terseness, or of hard work and fallibility, we want in a functionary. That's up to ArbCom; I'm happy with whatever they decide, though obviously I wouldn't have put my hat in the ring if I didn't think I'd be effective. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  No matter what level of access people achieve here, it is always possible to improve skills to do better job. There's a wide space between letting an edit go unremarked and blocking the user. The edit can be disputed, the user can be warned, or a noticeboard thread can be started. When dealing with experienced users, I strongly recommend choosing the most patient, thoughful approach. Whenever I haven't, the result was poor. Jehochman ^Talk 17:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - While he certainly gets a lot of criticism for his work on the front lines, there are only one or two legitimate instances where he made a mistake, and out of these I don't think any of them detract from his ability or qualification to use the tool properly. -Kharkiv07^Talk 15:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant oppose This is too recent for my comfort. I have no concerns about Mitchell's knowledge, sincerity, or even considered judgment and I think he is a fine editor and admin (and would perhaps be even a fine OS). But I do fear his instantaneous reaction, which with CU tools in hand, can have real-life consequences for editors. Abecedare (talk) 05:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Kind of on the fence. While he has my full respect, I'm not sure I would feel comfortable with him as a functionary. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 10:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Grudging support, but be careful with the tools, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 00:54, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Support - No worries here. Carrite (talk) 15:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Absolutely not. This user is not fit to be a normal administrator, let alone a cu. Recent evidence includes an unbelievable ignorance of the difference between a suspected and a confirmed sockpuppet (unambiguously stated at the top of Template:Sockpuppet) as evidenced by his comment at the end of the "Question" section in this talkpage discussion. I have more examples if anyone needs them. Six.Mar (talk) 21:41, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User talk:Six.Mar was indef blocked on 13 March. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]

• Support--John Cline (talk) 07:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Sometimes "you fucking morons" just has to be said. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 07:53, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Utterly unconcerned by a couple minor lapses in judgement amonst plethora of highly positive actions, particularly for a technical function. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:31, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I have no reservations whatever in trusting HJ with either of these tools. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I've always had sound advice when questions have been asked, support offered and honest and helpful responses given to requests so should be able to deal with requests in an appropriate manner. Amortias (T)(C) 18:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - For essentially the same reasons as BMK as well as what I consider "open mindedness" and flexibility on the part of the candidate. HJ is IMO an excellent writer as well. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per this quote from Mr. Mitchell under Oppose #9 at the Thomas.W RFA: "if people think it's more important for editors to be nice to each other on talk pages than to write the encyclopaedia (or in this case defend it from socks, trolls, vandals, and spammers), we'll just have to agree to disagree." I can be a little abrasive myself sometimes, I've been told, but I strongly believe the people who write this project are more important than the project itself, and I think these priorities are very important. Since Mr. Mitchell disagrees, I do not believe he should hold positions of heightened responsibility here. Townlake (talk) 20:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm. I certainly agree they're more important than the project. Than the encyclopaedia? Not in my opinion. I don't know if this website will be around forever, but I certainly hope the content we've written and curated will be around for many, many years. Not that we should be deliberately hostile and contrary, but we shouldn't avoid doing something that is in the best interests of the encyclopaedia just to spare editors' feelings. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - checkusers need to be the most trusted of the most trusted and, with respect, that's not you. Some of the comments above give me pause. This situation where you were at least arguably much to quick to block a long-time user gives me pause. I'm not saying you're not a good admin or wouldn't do a good job - I'm just saying that checkusers really need to be people who are largely devoid of controversy and trusted by everyone and I don't think that's you. --B (talk) 22:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Everybody makes mistakes. The sheer amount of work he does here means that you're more likely to find a mistake, not that he is unsuitable. Gamaliel (talk) 00:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Sure Harry at times can lose his shit but hey don't we all .... I personally believe he can be trusted with the tool. –Davey2010^Talk 04:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - from my own observations. One outburst can be forgiven. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 09:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support a couple of lapses in judgment are insufficient to disqualify an otherwise qualified candidate. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Pointillist (talk) 18:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• NE Ent's comments:

  Summary: HJ's dedication to the project and willingness to take decisive action make him an overall asset to the project as admin. While these are necessary traits for a checkuser, they are not sufficient. The juxtaposition of policy and technology mean that checkusers operate outside of community scrutiny, false positives may occur, and falsely accused editors are likely to lash out angrily; therefore checkusers must also possess the humility and the ability to look beyond criticism to seriously reconsider whether they are mistaken after performing a checkuser action. has not demonstrated this qualities.
  

  Detailed rationale: Because of the inherent limitations of "checkuser" -- which doesn't actually check "users," but rather technical data associated with the communication between editors and Wikipedia's servers -- , and Wikimedia:Privacy_policy, checkuser is, as the page says, not "pixie dust." There is no policy requirement that different editors use different connections, devices, or logins on their local device. It is documented on wiki that there are multiple married editors; there is no policy against one logging out of Wikipedia on the browser and the other logging using the same browser process. As previously discussed at Wikipedia_talk:CheckUser/Archive_4#Checkuser_accuracy, checkuser accuracy is merely mythology. This is not to say it should abolished; that runs smack into another cherished Wikipedia mythology "Consensus is not voting!" (If we actually believed that we wouldn't care about socks, and we'd summarily delete every statement of the form "Support per Bob" or "Delete per nom."). Therefore we must balance damage due to both false negatives and false positives.

  The concern with HJ's documented actions isn't that he made a mistake, it's that he shows extreme reluctance to recognize that. He fails to recognize he put up a flawed candidate and blames others for that failure. While some editors were making good faith efforts to explain to the candidate on rfa talk page the shortcomings of their interaction, HJ did nothing to coach the candidate [3]. After the blowup [4] HJ took six days to return and apologize [5]. A week later he continued to blame the Rfa process. A brief review of the Protonk incident appears to show a similar pattern. The standard for admins is not perfect; this is appropriate as admining is mostly thankless scutwork and we're lucky to have volunteers to do it, and, importantly, admin action is subject to public scrutiny and misjudgements can be corrected. The lack of public oversight of checkuser activity means these safeguards are not in place, and therefore a much higher standard of conduct should be demonstrated before granting the checkuser WP:UAL. NE Ent 18:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Also: In the discussion above, some have argued HJ is responsible for Protonk's current withdraw from Wikipedia: this is not a fair criticism. Ultimately ever editor is responsible for their own behavior, and if Protonk has chosen to leave, that's on them, not HJ. There is an essay which I can't recall right now that points everyone eventually leaves and it's not a tragedy. NE Ent 18:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  You are right, leaving is the right of the individual and thus they have a responsibility for their actions. In some cases however, including this one, it is also a consequence of others that act as the catalyst for their departure. Your also right that someone departing the project is not in itself a tragedy, but leaving as a consequence of abusive and overzealousness of someone else's conduct is. The attitude that editors are expendable is a fallacy. Editors (and admins) are a resource and a limited and dwindling one at that. We shouldn't need to maintain vandals and trolls but we should make an effort to retain those in good standing and not allow them to be pushed out of the project because someone else has the ability to block them with no recourse. Giving HJ access to the checkuser tools will only be a catalyst for a lot more people leaving. He uses the block button with a vigilance, there is no question he will be just as aggressive with the use of the checkuser tool and as was put above there is no oversight nor checks and balances. Using that tool is more art than science and its notoriously unreliable. It should be eliminated as untrustworthy but it certainly should not be given to someone who has shown an extreme interpretation of policy. 96.255.237.170 (talk) 20:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  NE Ent and I are almost agreeing on a current AE thread, which I think may be a first! ;) I won't address this point by point because it would add greatly to the length of this page and ultimately my interest in checkuser is more "by the way" than a burning desire. I'm not entirely sure why NE Ent thinks I lack the humility to admit my mistakes, when I think I'm generally quite open to the possibility that I've screwed something up, as can be seen from the rare occasion that one of my actions ends up on a noticeboard—I generally say my piece and then butt out and wait for consensus, and if it goes against me I do what I can to learn from it. I would argue that checkusers are probably more accountable than admins—their actions aren't subject to public scrutiny, I believe auditors, arbitrators, and other CUs actively patrol the logs and query any unusual actions, and then editors who feel there has been (mis|ab)use of the tool can complain to AUSC/ArbCom or the Ombudsman Commission. That seems a much more rigorous process than whoever happens to turn up at ANI on a given day, adn those bodies have the power to recommend summary removal of access, whereas to get rid of a bad admin, even one who has been abusing Wikipedia for their own ends for years, takes a long and messy arbitration case. I'm certainly aware of the limitations of checkuser; it would be lovely if we could use something like XFF to identify individuals rather than IP addresses—which are trivially changed or obfuscated. The WMF might put some resources into that at some point, but until then we have to make the most of what we've got. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  In response to the IP, a high volume of actions is not evidence of a lack of care. There are, for example, lots of admins who focus on deletion and who have deleted tens, even hundreds, of thousands of pages. I'm sure I might have declined some of those CSDs, or spent longer researching the subject, or closed an AfD differently, but if those admins consistently made the wrong call, there would be a lot of complaints and a lot of drama and eventually noticeboard threads, RfCs, and probably an arbitration case. I don't do much deletion, there are plenty of admins handling that who are probably better at it than I would be anyway; I focus mainly on vandalism and long-term abuse, which means I make a lot of blocks. Of the ~13k, there are probably barely 100 that have attracted much attention and I'd estimate fewer than a dozen have been overturned at a noticeboard. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support absolutely. I do not support Jehochman. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I have studied this candidate greatly and I was leaning oppose based on Jehochman's summary, but I do not feel HJ will misuse this ability.--MONGO 02:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, maturity concerns, questionable blocks such as User:Markrandjoshi's (discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione/Proposed_decision#One_more_remedy, among other venues). --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 10:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know you and several other people disagree with that block, but nobody has presented me with a compelling case for unblocking, nor has anyone taken it to a noticeboard to get outside opinions, so "questionable" doesn't seem to be a fair description. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The block was uncalled for, insensitive, and unfounded, in the first place. I still wonder what was the real motive for blocking of this particular (four years inactive) account. There was no pressing need to block Makrand, you knew that actions surrounding Wifione's case are widely watched and yet you decided to undertake this controversial and unnecessary step. Was it some kind of signal sent to people from Wikipediocracy (a 'comedy' site), who have defended Makrand? ... There's another thing related to the 'maturity concerns' mentioned in my oppose rationale. On another external site (Facebook) you bragged that you "played a major part" in the Wifione's arbitration case. Please note that I don't hound you on Internet, this caught my attention because other people (on Wikipediocracy, by coincidence) noticed. It is not true that you played a major part in it. I know it because I was the only Wikipedian who followed the case (for years). I know who were the people who played "major part" in that case and it was not you. A side remark/question: Wifione was a Wikipedian you trusted and respected, according to your own words. I don't understand why do you feel the need to tell others off-wiki about how important you was in catching and convicting of such a person, but I consider it immature and tactless. WP:CHK is a user right demanding very high level of maturity and responsibility and I simply don't see it here. Sorry. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 09:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're entitled to your opinion on the block, but your speculation about my motives and "maturity" based on a remark on Facebook is a gratuitous personal attack, and is the sort of thing I'd expect of a tabloid newspaper, not a Wikipedia admin such as yourself. I know you're bitter that it took so long to get rid of Wifione, and as somebody who only realised the extent of his abuse several years too late to deal with it effectively, I sympathise. But it seems contradictory to accuse me of both having an itchy trigger finger and of enabling Wifione's abuse. I'll sign off by noting that you still haven't taken the block to a noticeboard, and by opining that one of the biggest problems with the Wikipedia community is that we allow (and even encourage) personal attacks like this on volunteers who offer to take on more responsibility to help the project. It's entirely possible to think somebody unsuitable for such a position without attacking them, and if everyone did that we'd have more people willing to stand at RfA, more candidates in the ArbCom elections, and more people willing to take on tasks like these. A certain thickness of skin is required to be effective in such roles, but Wikipedia would be a nicer place if these proceedings were more inquisitorial and less adversarial. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 10:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ///EuroCarGT 19:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose CU rights should go to those that actually need it, its not a damn feather in the cap. He hasn't done anything remotely in the sections such as SPI where the tools are needed, he has no need for the tools..--Stemoc 22:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pardon me, but a cursory glance at my contribs would disprove that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, just recently, I have been watching the SPI sections for over a year now, your name rarely popped up (if at all) ..--Stemoc 02:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I've worked with HJ on a number of pages now, never had any problems with him and he's always there for advice should I need it.--5 albert square (talk) 01:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I remember the fucking moron thing. When it happened, tt made me think about Howard Dean's scream. Sometimes passion can be awkward... Good luck! --Gaff (talk) 03:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support HJ is one of the more visible administrators we have and I've had a good impression of them each time I've seen their involvement in something. Mkdw^talk 16:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose False positives happen. Not often, but they happen. Users, especially well-established users, when accused of sock-puppetry based only on evidence they have no access to (CU evidence) often go BALLISTIC. Even after they're unblocked and apologized to, they will curse you, they will make open threats, they will swear revenge, they will post on multiple pages basically demanding your incompetent head on the platter. Editors with CU permissions must be able to de-escalate such situations (tip: that's not done by reblocking the user), apologize profusely and repeatedly, and basically take the beating. Ask DQ, he'll tell you. I don't think HJ Mitchell is capable of that, given his history of self-control issues and extreme reluctance to admit when he makes a mistake, as noted above. It wouldn't be in our best interest to give him CU, nor would it be in HJ Mitchell's best interest to receive CU. He's a good editor, don't do this to him. Don't give him CU. 78.22.109.8 (talk) 19:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Jehochman. Rider ranger47 ^Talk 19:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support while acknowledging the reservations of the above, and also that I am myself one of the editors who he has blocked over the years. I wonder if there have been any admins over the years who might not have made what some might call a bad block, which could have, at least theoretically, led to the retirement of a good editor. That isn't something we want, of course. At the same time, people too inclined to avoid that situation might, conceivably, not block a potentially bad editor, and thus possibly contribute to any bad actions they might take which could have been avoided. I personally think Harry is probably responsible enough to realize that in this role his actions will have a potentially bigger impact than his admin role does, and that he will think of that when announcing results. That's good enough for me. John Carter (talk) 21:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support HJ is one of few admins I trust to do the job and do it well. Atsme☯^Consult 23:42, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose per poor judgement and excessive blocking 72.89.122.88 (talk)
• Weak support Jianhui67 ^T★C 10:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• HJ has excellent judgment; I have no concerns whatsoever. Acalamari 20:35, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious support - No concerns here. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Far too willing to block first and ask questions later. Little indication that this practice will change in the future, given that the contemplative and remorseful comments from Mitchell about my block came before his equally hasty, ill advised and unnecessary block of another admin in good standing. Protonk (talk) 15:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mike V (CU)[edit]

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

Nomination statement

• Hello, I’m Mike V and I’m applying for the checkuser and oversight permissions. I’m active as a member of the OTRS team, a clerk for SPI, a member of the account creation team, as well as serving as an election commissioner for the 2014 arbitration election. In my role as a SPI clerk and as a commissioner, I’ve gained a strong familiarity with the duties of a checkuser and the responsibilities of handling the data appropriately. I’m requesting access to the checkuser permission so that I can assist further with the SPI case load, process checkuser requests for account creation, and lend a hand on UTRS. Through my on-wiki work and as an OTRS volunteer, I often encounter situations where having access to the oversight tools would be beneficial. I’m often readily available through IRC, which will allow me to respond to community requests quickly. Thank you for your consideration.

Standard questions for all candidates[edit]

1. Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.

   I am very active as an SPI clerk and work with a number of checkusers to handle the investigations. As a former election commissioner I feel very comfortable interpreting the technical data one would encounter as a checkuser.

2. Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.

   Professionally I have experience in collecting, interpreting, and presenting data.

3. 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 was an election commissioner for the 2014 Arbitration Committee elections on the English Wikipedia. Through this role I had access to checkuser-like data of the voters. I am a member of the OTRS team and currently have access to info-en (full), photosubmissions, permissions, and sister projects (Commons).

Questions for this candidate[edit]

• Someone asks you if a CU has been done on them, because they believe another CU has violated their privacy. What do you do? --Rschen7754 06:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would direct the individual to the Audit Subcommittee, whose remit includes investigating abuse of the checkuser tool.

• When/why should CheckUser data be sent to the checkuser-l list? --Rschen7754 06:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The checkuser-l list is often used to notify other checkusers about cross-wiki concerns that have been identified. This might include discovering a nest of spambots, cross-wiki vandalism, informing other checkusers about discovered accounts of a prolific sock user, etc.

• What is your experience with collaborating and coming to a consensus with editors of different opinions and philosophies? What have you learned from these experiences? --Rschen7754 06:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Like almost all users, there’s been a time where I have disagreed with someone either through my work as an editor or as an administrator. In those situations it’s important to keep a level head and talk things out to get a better understanding of their perspective. I try my best to be willing to reconsider your position and find some neutral ground where possible. One thing that I have learned is that it’s important to keep the broader picture in sight. It’s not worth picking at the finer details if the general issues have been resolved.

• 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? 66.87.116.185 (talk • contribs)

Well, the answer is it depends. :) I would evaluate the technical data available between the accounts and consider the amount of overlap. For example, if there’s only a small handful of edits at a public library, I would be more willing to attribute that to the users just living in the same area. However, if there are a vast amount of edits coming from the same ISP, with no overlapping edits, and a similar topic of interest, that’s something of concern. It’s important to remember that the checkuser results aren’t binary and involve a fair amount of interpretation. If I wasn't 100% confident I could give a likely or possible result or consult a more experienced checkuser for a second opinion.

• How much faith do you have in the "Duck Test" theory? With millions of registered editors, how would you to assume a match if you discover 2 different editors share topic interests? 66.87.116.185 (talk • contribs)

Personally, I reserve the “duck test” for only a few cases. This is usually for our most prolific sockpuppeteers whose actions are consistent and obvious. A rule of thumb I use, if I were to show these edits to someone who has never edited Wikipedia before, would they be willing to wager a bet that they are the same individual? If it’s not crystal clear, then it wouldn’t hurt to request for additional evidence and/or further explanation.

• What is your stance on the tool "not being pixie dust" or "for fishing"? Many editors often question the tool's accuracy — what red flags do you look for? 66.87.116.185 (talk • contribs)

I see “checkuser is not pixie dust” and “checkuser is not for fishing” as two distinct things. The former refers to the fact that checkuser evidence is not the be-all and end-all to closing a case. It’s just additional evidence that can be coupled with the behavioral evidence. The latter refers to how the checkuser tool cannot be used to investigate unsubstantiated hunches. I recognize that the technical data can be manipulated to make it look like multiple accounts are unrelated. An obvious cases would be if both accounts were using proxies, tor exit nodes, web hosts, etc. Depending on the circumstances I might call it inconclusive and encourage the closing clerk/admin to rely on the behavioral evidence, while noting the technical aspects involved. There are a number of other points to consider, but I would prefer not to provide an extensive list on how to defeat the checkuser tool.

Comments[edit]

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

• I saw Mike in action during the Arbitration Committee elections when there was (for a short time) a concern that some of the "CU-like" data had been lost. His actions and behaviours at that time proved to me that not only does he understand how to handle the tools but also that he can be completed trusted to use private data responsibly and in line with policy. QuiteUnusual (talk) 12:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support will be net positive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support For being a relatively new clerk, he's caught onto things pretty quickly and I see no reason why he cannot be trusted. --Rschen7754 04:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• As a member of the checkuser team, I personally encouraged MikeV to consider putting himself forward as a candidate. Risker (talk) 12:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Prolific at SPIs, calm-mannered, careful, the ideal checkuser candidate. — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support an under-the-radar administrator who gets things done. Go Phightins! 20:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support No concerns. A trustworthy, no drama admin, from what I have seen. Abecedare (talk) 05:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with pleasure. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 10:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--John Cline (talk) 22:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A wonderful editor, and a helpful and responsible admin. Always willing to respond to urgent requests on IRC, too. — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 00:41, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Without reservations. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 07:54, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support no problem. Jianhui67 ^T★C 11:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm surprised MikeV hasn't been appointed yet - but just as well I can add my support then. I have full confidence about the community benefit from his appointment, and I have no reservations that he would be an excellent fit for the functionaries team too. Hope he will be familiar with ISPs and typical editing patterns for Asia region particularly so he will be ready to assist with any issues that arise there (in future). Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:34, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Wholehearted support for this hard working Admin who "cuts through the BS" on a regular basis with surgical precision. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Gamaliel (talk) 00:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, helpful and level headed admin. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support As with the others. All good candidates. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support NE Ent 18:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, per answers to questions. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 10:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ///EuroCarGT 19:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A hard working SPI clerk who actually needs the tool--Stemoc 22:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support based on Risker's recommendation of the candidate above. John Carter (talk) 22:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]