KrakatoaKatie (CU)[edit]

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

Nomination statement

• I'm applying for both CheckUser and Oversight permissions. I've been an administrator since 2007, and I'm active on UTRS and ACC. I also pitch in as a patrolling admin at SPI.

• I'm interested in the CheckUser tool due to my work at UTRS and ACC, which often have CU queues that need attention. I'll also help at SPI. As an RN, I routinely handle sensitive and private information; I handle RevisionDeletion requests often and to my knowledge I've never had an Oversight request declined.
• Please feel free to ask any questions here. I'm traveling from September 21 to October 1, but I'll answer as quickly as I can. Thanks. :-) Katie^talk 03:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Standard questions for all candidates[edit]

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

   I am a fixture at AIV and RFPP, and I am a patrolling admin at SPI, which has been most educational and gives me a great appreciation for the clerks and CheckUsers who do yeoman work there. I'm familiar with network addressing protocols (had to teach myself years ago to get around BitTorrent restrictions from an old ISP); I routinely make both IPv4 and IPv6 rangeblocks.

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

   I'm an RN, so I've handled confidential health information and kept confidences throughout my career. I feel this prepares me well to keep the private information private, and to use the CheckUser tool judiciously. I've also edited a Mac technical journal, and I'm familiar with Unix and the command line. I'm a voracious reader and researcher; once I dig into something I like to learn all I can about it, and that's how I learned about network addressing and port forwarding.

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. I intend to apply at OTRS after my travel in October is over, regardless of the outcome of this process.

Questions for this candidate[edit]

• Describe how you would assess IPv6 collateral damage differently from IPv4.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure. We don't currently have an IPv6 range contribs tool, but it's really not that complex. This is a very basic, generalized statement so don't hammer me too hard on it, but the first hexadecimal block of an IPv6 address is a continent code (think ARIN or RIPE), the second is an ISP, and the third is an organization. If the /64 is the same (the first four blocks of hexadecimals), it's really, really, really, really likely we're dealing with one end user, even though there are still thousands of possible addresses in that /64 block. It can be broken down further into a /128, but that's not done very often and only under special circumstances. The CheckUser tool gives more information than just the IP address, though, and that will be very helpful in deciding when and how to place larger IPv6 rangeblocks. We don't have to do a lot of IPv6 rangeblocks larger than a /64 – I think I did a /47 once, which is an organization-level block, and I'm pretty sure that was the largest I've made.

As to the collateral damage question for IPv4 ranges, I usually take a look at the last 30 to 45 days, sometimes a little less. If I see that 80-85% of the edits from that range are disruptive, I'll place the block. There are other factors I consider, including the history of the problem (there's a particularly troublesome LTA case that drives MILHIST crazy, and I've made a pretty big block for a pretty long period for that guy), how big the range is, and what kind of disruption it is (LTA vs. simple annoying vandalism vs BLP violations vs something else). Katie^talk 13:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Given that checkuser only proves which IP addresses an edit comes from and with the advent of shared IPs, what red flags would you be willing to look before in issuing a CU block or rangeblock that is clearly a hotspot? SMBLakitu (talk) 05:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't want to sound evasive, but I don't know when exactly to place a {{Checkuser block}} yet, so I don't really want to go there. As I said above, the CheckUser tool gives the user agent string as well, and that's going to be quite helpful in determining how to deal with shared IPs and IPv6 blocks. Katie^talk 13:17, 29 September 2016 (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.

• I've crossed paths with Katie a number of times, and can attest to her commitment to both the project and the policies which guide it. She has demonstrated in a number of places the technical prowess which lends itself to CUing. I see no issues with this user being granted these much needed tools -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 14:32, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Very sensible and trustworthy, and has the needed background, so she has my strong support. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:44, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• No worries at all. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Seems to be a good candidate. A lot of contributions to ANI, but they all seem to be directed at resolving cases rather than contributing to the drama. Other than that, active in admin areas and could probably be trusted with the rights. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 18:54, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Looks good. SSTflyer 01:21, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support no concerns. --Rschen7754 05:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Very trustworthy and knowledgeable, and I see no problems at all with granting CU and OS permissions. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - no concerns whatsoever. I believe Katie will benefit from these tools. Patient Zero^talk 14:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support De728631 (talk) 18:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - experienced in the right areas (especially those pertinent to CU), a very solid candidate overall. GAB^gab 18:57, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. A competent and trustworthy user; no reason to oppose. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 23:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support strongly. --MelanieN (talk) 00:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support With no concerns at all. A good fit IMO.   Aloha27  talk  11:31, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral Overall a pretty strong candidate, but the answer to my question wasn't exactly what I was looking for. "/64 implies same user" is not true as often as one would think it is, because webhosts, offices, mobile networks, and schools may have large number of hosts under the same /64 prefix (due to physical proximity) - these have to be handled on a case by case basis by checking WHOIS. Also, not every organization receives their allocation from an ISP (the US Department of Defense has an aggregate equivalent to roughly one /13!) and one should be ready to make large rangeblocks (on the order of /32) for webhosts. The largest non-webhost IPv6 rangeblock I've seen is a /38 currently in place against some mobile ranges. CheckUsers are permitted to check up to /32 for a reason.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support strongly. Highly competent and trustworthy. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 20:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Katie having CU will definitely help the project. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:41, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Begoon 06:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: (edit conflict) No issues here. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I'm been doing} 06:39, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good admin Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The overriding quality required in this permission is, I think I am right in saying, trust, which KK demonstrably has off the community in spades. _Muffled ^Pocketed 09:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support BethNaught (talk) 14:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Fully qualified candidate. Mz7 (talk) 14:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Katie has shown that she can have the trust of the community. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Has proven to be trusted by the community. — Music1201 ^talk 19:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, I'm very satisfied with the answers and your background will be useful for CU and OS! -- Luk ^talk 11:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support She has done a lot of great work for enwiki, and would love to see even more of it! TJH2018talk 01:05, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - seems a strong and sensible candidate. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:20, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support KK is a valuable admin in dealing with vandals and socks. This will only increase that. MarnetteD|Talk 19:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Trusted, experienced, capable user, has CLUE, will benefit from this extra tool. Keri (talk) 20:47, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Is experienced and qualified enough to fight the socks. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 05:09, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - experienced and trustworthy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:25, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support this is an easy choice, Katie has been here forever and is obviously capable of using this tool. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - we're at the pile-on stage, but why not - an excellent candidate who can obviously be trusted with the CU tool. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:25, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - May I pile on too ? I remain only a minion, but my experiences of the candidate have all been very positive and helpful. I have neither seen nor experienced any actions or comments that would give me any qualms about assigning more responsibilities.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   15:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung (CU)[edit]

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

Nomination statement

• I’m essentially offering my candidature in response to the to the call for CheckUsers and Oversighters among suitably qualified editors residing in Asia and with a knowledge and understanding of those cultures. As the owner of a commercial web server and operator of CMS websites, blogs and forums, I probably have the required technical knowledge, and as a linguist I feel I adequately recognise what kind of material may need to be suppressed. I spend many hours a week on Wikipedia, more than is reflected in my edit count, and I would have no problem in shifting the focus of my work to accommodate some extra duties.

Standard questions for all candidates[edit]

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

   I am not able to provide details because I am bound by non-disclosure and confidentially agreements but in the past I have, at the special request of the WMF, investigated and unraveled serious cases of complex cross-Wiki corporate spamming by professional socks. Linguistic skills were essential in achieving the result of the investigations. User:MDennis (WMF) can confirm this work.

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

   Not knowing what these questions would be, this is already clearly described in my nomination statement. I'll just add that although I have no experience (obviously) with rhe MediaWiki CU tool, from what I hear, the standard online store and forum softwre packages I use for my work in RL already provide vastly more sophsticated user and visitor information than the Wiki version, so I don't see that as a particular challenge.

3. Do you hold advanced permissions (checkuser, oversight, bureaucrat, steward) on this or other WMF projects? If s?

   I am only an admin, and on en.Wiki only. I was once an OTRS agent many years ago but it was withdrawn for inactivity due to a shift in the focus of my work when I became an admin. My OTRS activity mainly concerned BLP problems, and issues concerning minors. Some of it was handling copyright permissions.

Questions for this candidate[edit]

• How would you handle IPv6 differently from IPv4?--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:17, 29 September 2016 (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.

• Kudpung has alienated some experienced content editors, but he is well-experienced as an administrator, and I think he would be a net positive in this role. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:46, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• No concerns. I've known Kudpung for some time and I trust he will comply with all the expectations of having the tool. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• He doesn't seem to be active in any CU-related areas. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 18:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Legitimate concern, but I've seen him dealing with sockpuppets a fair amount over a number of years, not just at SPI. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support no concerns. --Rschen7754 00:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Asia is huge. SSTflyer 01:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I've known Kudpung a long time too, and his dedication to the improvement of the project is beyond question. He clearly has the ability to handle CU and OS permissions, and easily has my trust. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I personally believe Kudpung will benefit from the additional user right - I assume he's only applying for CU, but if this is not the case I will edit this to state that he is more than capable of having both. Patient Zero^talk 14:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your kind support Patient Zero. I would just point out that I will not actually benefit from these additional rights. I'm just answering a specific call for CUs and Oversighters for areas and perhaps also languages that are not well covered from the US or European time zones. Only the Wikipedia would probably benefit from me having these extra tools. Personally I am not concerned whether I get them or not - as an admin, I consider myself to be already sufficiently active. If I am accorded the use of these tools, I will of course use them as regularly as needed, and with accuracy and integrity.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:39, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed Kudpung. I do hope you are granted the right. Patient Zero^talk 12:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Echoing the above, and having known Kudpung a little while, he has most of the nessesary qualities I believe we should look for in a CU -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 14:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose with respect, as I don't doubt Kudpung's dedication to the encyclopedia and I greatly appreciate his offer of help on this front (it is no small thing to put oneself up for comment like this). At the same time, making someone a CU entrusts them with very sensitive information about the community. Unfortunately my encounters with Kudpung have left me more than once with the impression of hastiness, impatience or even contempt for some members of the community. This has undercut my faith that he would handle CU circumspectly and with utmost concern for protecting contributors' privacy. I think the encyclopedia and in particular the community trust it depends on is best served if instead Kudpung continues his considerable work in other areas of the project. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very trustworthy, therefore I have no concerns. --I am One of Many (talk) 21:43, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- I have had good interactions with Kudpung in the past. User is trustworthy and suitable. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 21:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Kudpung has shown the commitment to the project and the overall responsibility to demonstrate that he can be trusted. I'm happy to support. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 23:39, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support strongly. Long term trusted user who also fills some gaps in our coverage in this area. --MelanieN (talk) 00:32, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 20:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Kudpung is not only dedicated but they're also committed to this entire project and they simply want the best for this place, its readers and editors overall, Kudpung is so trusted that I'd even trust him with my life and I don't think I've said that about anyone in my life!, Easy support. –Davey2010^Talk 21:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Oppose I share some of Innisfree987's concerns. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 00:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support His bark is worse than his bite, and I do often wish he'd do a little less of both, if I'm honest, but I have no concern that this permission would be abused, and confidence that he would use it for the benefit of the project. -- Begoon 06:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support always has the project's best interests at heart and listens to different opinions. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Kudpung isn't the calmest admin we have, sure. Still I think he is sufficiently trustworthy and we need skilled candidates for CheckUser. BethNaught (talk) 14:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Kudpung wears his heart on his sleeve sometimes (which is not a bad thing, we are all human!), however he is honest, and wants what is best for Wikipedia. This would be a positive to have him serve as a CU. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Experienced administrator, and I'm particularly convinced by the need to fill a gap in functionaries residing in this geographic region. Mz7 (talk) 14:24, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Did not answer my question, and also lack of CU-related activities, per Ajraddatz.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:42, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – this user is an experienced admin who is dedicated to the project and willing to listed to opinions of others. His long-term demonstration of responsibility shows he is trustworthy enough for the CU tools. - tucoxn\^talk 11:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I have a high regards for Kudpung's judgement and ability to react appropriately to situations. I am always greatly re-assured when I see Kudpung implement one of my reports on vandalism and elsewhere. I have seen nothing that would give me qualms.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   20:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as I can see where Innisfree987 is coming from, as I feel that in particular Kudpung needs to WP:AGF a little more sometimes, but overall this is definitely a WP:NETPOSITIVE as I wouldn't question his dedication to this project. Omni Flames (talk) 07:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support All interactions positive, answers look good. Feel comfortable with him and using these tools. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 07:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Kudpung has a lot of experience dealing with all sorts of disruptive users. I myself knew nothing about the technical aspects of CU when I started using it, I am confident that he will easily be able to grasp how to properly employ this tool and will do so to good effect. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:26, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support one of the clearest thinkers we have. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MusikAnimal (CU)[edit]

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

Nomination statement

• I have been an admin for over two years now, with an expertise in counter-vandalism. In my early days I was quite active at WP:SPI and still find myself working there occasionally (100+ cases). However I am asking for checkuser rights primarily to aid my work with abuse filters, many of which are created solely to combat sockpuppetry. Being able to identify sleepers means we can be more pre-emptive about preventing disruption, improving the short-term effectiveness of the filter, if not eliminating the need for it altogether. The AbuseFilter and CheckUser extensions in tandem I believe offer a powerful way to deal with long-term abuse, and I have long been dedicated to this effort. My experience at AIV and RFPP has made me very familiar with ISPs, IP ranges, while as a web developer I'm quite acquainted with user agent strings. This technical and administrative background I believe is relevant to understanding when usage of the tool is appropriate and how to handle sensitive data judiciously.
  Meanwhile, I was myself accused of sockpuppetry just as I was becoming a dedicated Wikipedian. It was a harrowing experience that almost led to me retire, and I have never forgotten this. To this day I'm hesitant even with WP:DUCK blocks. Running a check, given we have sufficient behavioural evidence, will lend me the reassurance that I'm in fact helping protect the integrity of the project, and not putting an end to an aspiring long-term contributor.

Standard questions for all candidates[edit]

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

   As I've outlined in my nomination, I am seeking this role to aid with work I'm already heavily involved with, namely abuse filters. I also have worked extensively at WP:SPI, and through normal day to day patrolling I occasionally find myself requesting checkuser assistance. I am a regular at counter-vandalism noticeboards, performing WHOIS checks, and have made many range blocks when justified.

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

   I am a professional web developer, so I've become quite familiar with user agent strings, and the pain of decoding them for the purpose of browser detection (there are tools to assist with this, of course). I have also had access to private production data which involved non-disclosure agreements.

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?

   Bureaucrat on testwiki, but obviously that's only for testing purposes. I do not have any OTRS permissions but would not oppose to them, as I understand there is quite a backlog to work with. Whether or not checkuser assistance is of great need there I am unsure, but am happy to help once I become more comfortable with using the tool.

Questions for this candidate[edit]

• Will the fact that you were accused of sockpuppetry, and (by your own statement) the fact that you're "hesitant even with WP:DUCK blocks", make you be likely to be too quick to run a check when a DUCK block would be appropriate? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:20, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It's true my experience gives me pause in a DUCK situation when it may not for other admins, but I like to think I'd still be wise about the decision to perform a check. There are of course some situations where it is all too obvious, and I've carried out many DUCK blocks. If it helps, I can point out some cases where it was "borderline DUCK" in my book, and I requested CheckUser assistance just to be sure. Finding a balance between respecting privacy and ensuring you're blocking the right person isn't always that easy. Fortunately with most of my work I don't think use of CU will be questionable, but when it is I'm not afraid to defer to another checkuser or admin if I am unsure how to proceed — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:34, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• There are currently discussions to overhaul the CheckUser extension. Do you believe the current CheckUser functionality is enough to reliably link accounts, and if so, how much weight would you place in technical evidence over behavioral? -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 14:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm only so familiar with the CheckUser tool (screenshots, etc), so should I be granted checkuser rights I would have a better answer for you. Based on what I do know, I think the current functionality should in many (most?) cases offer sufficient technical evidence, but for me anyway more weight is given to behavourial evidence, even if the technical evidence contradicts it. For instance, we may be dealing with a sock operating from multiple unique ranges while spoofing user agents. This surely is less common but it could happen, and in that case we have only behavioural evidence to go by. I'm not sure how much the planned overhaul would help in that scenario, but I believe we would still favour behavioural evidence given it is something we fundamentally need before doing checks — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Describe how much expertise you have with IPv6, especially as it pertains to how you would determine collateral damage.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:45, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  I've done a lot of reading about the advantages of IPv6 over IPv4, which I find very interesting, but for the purposes of range blocks I have a sufficient understanding. mw:Help:Range blocks/IPv6 is of some help, showing /64 range blocks and others that would generally safely belong to one customer of an ISP, but I believe this may vary provider to provider. This seems to hold true with the major ones however, such as Comcast, AT&T/U-verse, etc. Let's assume this isn't the case, or that we are unsure; Then you really have no idea the extent of collateral damage that may occur, especially at the organizational level, as there is no easy way to check the contributions. Hopefully we will soon have a solution, see phab:T145912. Full disclosure: I'll likely be a primary author of this tool. Being able to compute IPv6 ranges, assert collateral damage is minimal, etc, are currently important skills but I don't believe this should be a prerequisite for admins to issue range blocks, given the increasing prominence of IPv6 means your day to day patrolling at AIV (or as a checkuser) might require one to be effective. I could blab on about how the new tool will make this process easy for everyone, but in short, you won't find me issuing any range blocks unless I'm certain only the target end user is being affected (broadly speaking). See also phab:T5233 which means for your average end user a simple block will prevent further disruption without the need for a range block. In conjunction with the abuse filter we should be able to gauge how effective it is, but as you could imagine it will not work for our more prolific and tech-savvy LTAs — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:12, 29 September 2016 (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.

• MusikAnimal is trustworthy and skilled, I see no reason why he shouldn't become a checkuser. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 15:58, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, trustworthy and skilled. And the personal experience with having been on the "other side" of an investigation is a very strong positive. It's important for functionaries to understand the ways that they are dealing with real people, and not just carrying out algorithms. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Probably a good candidate. You'll quickly learn the limitations of the tool once you have access to it! -- Ajraddatz (talk) 18:57, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• As per response to my question, and his continued demonstration of technical ability and adhesion to policy, Musik would make a good addition to the CU team -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 20:25, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• "Wait, wasn't he a CU already?" More than qualified for this role. Overqualified probably. Widr (talk) 22:24, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support not only no concerns, but he has good experience working with editors from other wikis, an important skill for a CU. --Rschen7754 00:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• In line with others, I see no reason for any hesitation here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:20, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - a good candidate, whom I have known for some time; he will most definitely benefit from having the CU right. Patient Zero^talk 14:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as a technically-capable candidate who has good judgment and good relationships in the community; I think we would all benefit from MA's work in this area. Innisfree987 (talk) 15:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. A competent, responsible user who has shown they can be trusted with Checkuser abilities. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 23:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Trusted long-term user with a record of valuable contributions here and a good attitude. --MelanieN (talk) 00:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent skills, no hesitation whatsoever in granting this kit.   Aloha27  talk  11:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I am satisfied with their answer to my question.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Trustworthy and extremely technical editor who knows more technical things than most!, No hesitation in supporting at all. –Davey2010^Talk 21:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Trustworthy and has a clue. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:43, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Begoon 06:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I'm been doing} 06:41, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support BethNaught (talk) 14:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent answers to the given questions, very professional, excellent skills and dispute handling. All qualities you would want for a CU. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent candidate.-- H^akan·IST 18:50, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Fully qualified candidate. Mz7 (talk) 22:24, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Good answers to questions and a trustworthy technical editor. - tucoxn\^talk 11:21, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Can clearly be trusted by the community. — Music1201 ^talk 19:45, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Neutral for now. I am waiting for MusikAnimal to clarify his position as a WMF employee vis-à-vis his work as a volunteer. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  It's unclear what this has to do with my application, but I'll explain here since you brought it up: I work for meta:Community Tech as a software engineer. There is no overlap between professional and volunteer work. It's possible I'll be working on checkuser tools in the near future (since some requests made the 2015 wish list), but the timing with this is pure coincidence. For work I imagine I'll simply install and test the CheckUser extension on my local devwiki instance. From there we might do testing on the beta cluster, I'm not sure... but there definitely won't be any checks on real users, or anything that would otherwise breach privacy — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:47, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This had nothing to do with a level of trust. In fact I have worked well with MusikAnimal on several issues. I was merely concerned with the deployment of his time between his various foci of energy. I can safely say that those concerns have been addressed to my entire satisfaction.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:55, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per my comment above. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 11:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support without any doubt. Seen him at work on the wiki, totally trustworthy. Yintan  19:13, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support without thinking twice...TJH2018talk 01:02, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Denisarona (talk) 05:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I've worked with MA on a couple items and he is always open to suggestions and to helping others. MarnetteD|Talk 19:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support obviously qualified, super helpful user, would be a great addition to the team. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:27, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Euryalus (talk) 07:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vanjagenije (CU)[edit]

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

Nomination statement

• I am applying for the CheckUser tool. I've been an WP:SPI Clerk since 19 July 2015 (trainee clerk since 20 January 2015) and an administrator since 13 November 2015. During my work as a clerk, I have reviewed thousands of sockpuppetry cases, collaborating with other clerks (unfortunately, for several months there were just two of us active) and CheckUsers. I also participated in training new clerks. Before being a clerk, I participated in SPI by filing cases (usually in connection to my New Pages Patrol work). During the SPI work I came to know about the CheckUser tool and its purpose. If granted this tool, I intend to use it for SPI investigations, so to help clean the backlog which is enormous most of the time. I promise not to cease clerking if granted the tool; I intend to continue reviewing the cases as before, but with this tool I would be able to do it faster and to help more. Another field in which I am fairly active is unblock requests (including WP:UTRS). This process is also often backlogged, and often needs the help of CheckUsers (for IP blocks). So, I think I would be able to help there too if granted the CU tool.

Standard questions for all candidates[edit]

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

   I have been participating in English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons since 2006 and 2007 respectively. In Wikipedia, I have participated in sockpuppet investigations as a clerk since July 2015 (and as a trainee clerk since January 2015). I also have experience with WP:UTRS. I've been active on UTRS since June this year, and I have reviewed few dozen requests. Vanjagenije (talk) 08:32, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

   I posses no special technical expertise for this role. Vanjagenije (talk) 08:32, 27 September 2016 (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 never held any advanced permission in any project except for being English Wikipedia administrator. I don't have an OTRS permission. Vanjagenije (talk) 08:32, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for this candidate[edit]

• Describe how you would deal with IPv6 differently from IPv4.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:12, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jasper Deng: Can you be more precise? I don't know what exactly you mean. Can you give some example? Vanjagenije (talk) 16:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  @Vanjagenije: In terms of assessing collateral damage, doing rangeblocks, determining identicalness of users, and the like.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm still not sure what exactly you mean, but I'll try to give an answer. As far as I know, IPv4 address has 32 bits, while IPv6 address has 128 bits. Address is made of two parts: first part identifies the network (range of addresses), while the second part identifies unique device. The range is denoted as, for example, "/24" which means that first 24 bits identify the network, while the rest identifies the host. Thus, in IPv4, a /24 network has 2⁸ addresses, while in IPv6, a /24 network has 2¹⁰⁴ addresses available. In IPv6, whole /64 subnetwork is usually assigned to the same user (single person or an organization), while in IPv4 it depends. A single user often has only one address assigned to them all the time (in IPv4), but sometimes the user gets a new address from the same network assigned to them every time they connect. Thus, in IPv6, a "/64" range of addresses (2⁶⁴ addresses) usually belongs to the same person, while in IPv4, a "/24" range (2⁸ addresses) may belong to hundreds of users who share them. So, greater attention should be paid when blocking IPv4 ranges because of potential collateral damage. Also, in IPv4 it is harder to identify unique user by their IP address because a small range or even a single address may be shared by several users, while in IPv6, it is easier as the whole /64 range is usually used by one person. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm afraid I'm going to have to discuss the elephant in the room which is this : at the start of this year a finding of fact was passed by the Arbitration Committee during a case, in which you advised another administrator he could undo a checkuser-block which later came in for criticism. How do you feel about that case now, and what have you learned since? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:30, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  I have learned that I should always check whether a block is a {{checkuserblock}} and not to unblock without CheckUser consent if it is. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:48, 30 September 2016 (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.

• A little less experienced than other candidates, but after a single early mistake has demonstrated a lot of understanding and commitment at SPI, so I support. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm worried by comments like this. Without prejudice to whether or not the accounts in question do belong to the owner, CheckUsers should be very open to false positives in results. Many accounts will share IPs with others due to editing from mobile devices, especially from the third world, and I don't think that "guilty until proven innocent" is an acceptable way to use the CU tool. On the plus side, this candidate is more involved in actual areas of CU work than the others. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 18:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)\[reply]

  @Ajraddatz: The user was blocked by Bbb23 and I am not allowed to lift the block because it is a WP:CheckUser block. I pinged the CheckUser to come to the talk page and all he responded was this. The user sent me several e-mails and I advised him to use WP:UTRS or to contact the WP:ARBCOM. What exactly do you think I should have done differently in that case? Vanjagenije (talk) 21:04, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  I am more concerned about the words you choose than your response there. Directing them to the appropriate person was of course acceptable, and I expect from the answer that the technical evidence was pretty damning. But still, CU isn't perfect, especially with mobile ranges and even just how IPs are assigned. It is possible to have false positives, and IMO CUs should be very receptive to giving the benefit of the doubt to accounts which claim to not be socks. So I'd prefer to see a more softly worded statement about giving some sort of context through the appropriate channel, rather than claiming that the burden of proof is on them - because there's really nothing they can do to "prove" they aren't a sock, in the same way that a CU will have no way to fully "prove" that they are one. I fully expect you to be appointed, or at least hope so because you're one of the few candidates very active in the area, but I've had to advocate for enough users checkuser-blocked here and elsewhere to hesitate when I see comments like that. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 23:54, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  I've looked over this again, and it's probably entirely unfair for me to be concerned with a sentence at the end of a comment which demonstrates helpfulness and useful engagement with a blocked user. People below are correct that Vanjagenije could have simply ignored the message, or curtly referred to UTRS. So this is a full support from me. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 19:17, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support no concerns. --Rschen7754 01:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Vanjagenije has done a lot of SPI case than other non-CU admin mission, I determine it'll be excellence works by granted the CU tool for him. SA 13 Bro (talk) 02:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Ironic, but Ajraddatz's example is actually how to do it right. He could have just ignored or send the guy to UTRS without explaining but he instead explained it well, even though the blocked editor was over the top dramatic. I've seen a couple of errors over the last couple of years but I've also seen a willingness to own up and fix them, so I'm pretty comfortable giving him the tools. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  FWIW, I agree save a sentence at the end. And of course, I could be reading into it more than I should. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 02:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Yep, no problems here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I have interacted with Vanjagenije multiple times at SPI and I think they will be a useful addition to the CU team. They have been consistently active at SPI and (at least in my experience) I have not seen anything which would make me concerned. Enabling Vanjagenije to perform a CU lookup would also help reduce some of the backlog at SPI. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, efficient and effective clerk with good judgment. It's difficult imagining SPI without Vanjagenije. GAB^gab 18:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This experienced SPI clerk should also be given the technical toolkit. De728631 (talk) 18:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Does a great job at SPI. —MRD2014 (talk) (contribs) 22:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support An excellent candidate for the tools IMO.   Aloha27  talk  11:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral Experienced SPI clerk, but not impressed by the answer to my question. The answer to "is this one user?" in IPv6 is also "it depends", it just depends on different things from IPv4. Despite the recommendation that each enduser receive a /64, this must be taken with a grain of salt. For example, mobile hotspots may each use a single /64 despite there being many users in close proximity. Use of WHOIS to find out the ISP and their allocation policy is very important.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 20:24, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - They do an amazing job at SPI and IMHO deserve the tool. –Davey2010^Talk 21:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Begoon 06:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I'm been doing} 06:43, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support obvious candidate, not convinced by Ajraddatz's critique. _Muffled ^Pocketed 09:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I agree with Dennis Brown about Ajraddatz's comment. BethNaught (talk) 14:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning support, but waiting for a response on Ritchie333's question. (looks like I had to purge the cache to see it) Support The issue raised in the recent ArbCom case was an honest mistake, and I'm sure that given the response, it won't happen again. Mz7 (talk) 14:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Already does good work at SPI, this would be a huge help to the project. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:11, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - an extremely hard -working and diligent SPI clerk, no reason to believe they won't be an extremely hard-working and diligent CU as well. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:11, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as I've seen him clerking at SPI, and I think that this will help him further. Patient Zero^talk 08:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support good SPI experience! -- Luk ^talk 11:54, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Incredibly obvious. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 12:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I've seen his work at SPI and UAA first-hand, and would be happy to give him the skillz to pay da billz :) TJH2018talk 01:10, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support V has taken the time to explain things at various SPI's as a clerk and I have no qualms about him as a CU

Yamla (CU)[edit]

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

Nomination statement

• I wish to apply for checkuser permissions. I have been an administrator on en.wikipedia for more than ten years. Almost all of my time has been spent dealing with vandalism. More recently, I have spent a lot of time patroling CAT:RFU. In my life outside of Wikipedia, I am a senior software developer and security lead, giving me a good understanding of IPv4 and netblocks and whois information. I believe I could make effective and appropriate use of checkuser permission to help Wikipedia deal with sockpuppetry.

Standard questions for all candidates[edit]

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

   Apart from being an administrator for more than ten years, I recently find myself spending a lot of time patrolling WP:RFU. --Yamla (talk) 12:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

   I have a degree in computing science and more than a decade and a half as a software developer. I am the security lead at a company that makes software for lawyers, responsible for security inside our application. This involves, among other things, having a thorough knowledge of IP addresses, how to use whois information, the limitations of geolocation, the use of the http user agent, session handling, etc. Additionally, I have GSEC certification which covered a number of topics including IPv4, IPv6, CIDR, and suchlike. Note that I am not claiming GSEC certification requires an advanced level of knowledge; the content covered in the course was fairly basic. --Yamla (talk) 12:10, 28 September 2016 (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 do not. I believe people granted checkuser permission should help out on the UTRS queue and would happily do so if appointed. --Yamla (talk) 12:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for this candidate[edit]

• You mention having experience with IPv4, but how about IPv6, for which determining collateral damage is significantly more complex?--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I can give you the technical description of the differences between IPv4 and IPv6 without having to look this up in the Wikipedia. This sort of thing was covered in my GSEC course (listed above). I can tell you, for example, that IPv6 addresses often contain the MAC address and that the MAC address is "guaranteed" to uniquely identify a network card (and therefore useful for checkuser investigations), though this guarantee is fairly easy to violate. I do want to be clear, though; my professional expertise with IPv4 is significantly stronger. IPv6 uptake in North America is significantly less than in other areas of the world, so I have not had to spend as much time with it. --Yamla (talk) 12:10, 28 September 2016 (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.

• I'm a little concerned about there being less recent history. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:52, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, I was much more active earlier in my history. I used to monitor several thousand articles and patrol for vandalism. I stopped doing that several years ago. I now primarily help out with unblock reviews. A quick count of edits shows I have performed 1000 edits from 2016-07-10 to 2016-09-27. Special:Watchlist claims I have 1,223 pages on my watchlist, probably less than one tenth of what I used to monitor. That said, I typically spend time in the early morning and the early evening during workdays, I spend some time over the weekend, and during breaks at work. --Yamla (talk) 12:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Not being a name I'm used to seeing around at SPI or dealing with sockpuppets, I have concerns. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:24, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not regularly spend time there. I read a number of sockpuppet investigations when investigating unblock requests, but that's a read-only activity. I believe your concern here is that checkusers are asked to investigate sockpuppets and it is helpful to show a history of activity around sockpuppet investigations. If this is indeed your concern, I'll respond with two points. A history of activity around sockpuppet investigations would indeed provide positive evidence, and I don't have that. But I view the role of a checkuser as primarily that of a clerk; they are charged with applying technical expertise to an investigation in a manner that protects user privacy. It's less important that a checkuser is able to identify two accounts as likely sockpuppets based on their edits, but rather that they are able to use the checkuser information to confirm or deny the connection already strongly suspected based on these edits. --Yamla (talk) 12:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I strongly disagree. I clerked at WP:SPI for over a year, have around 1500 SPI blocks and a background in computer networking, so have a pretty good grasp of the requirements. The clerks do the clerking, and I don't see you having any experience at all there. SPI is more or less managed by and under the control of the CUs, who do so on behalf of Arb. They are Functionaries, with the same CU tools as an Arb. It isn't clerking, it is management in many respects, including deciding who will be a clerk and who won't and establishing procedures in the walled garden that is SPI. In addition to SPI, CUs are called upon to investigate many things in private, including IPs and extreme situations. This requires a very solid understanding of our CU and sockpuppet policies, plus dealing with the legal ramifications (in some cases), the community, the accuser, the user and others. The technical aspects aren't that difficult to grasp and can be learned by rote memory, the rest requires experience and judgement and I just don't see it. Your comments seem to indicate you see it as mainly a technical role, when that is only half of it and the easiest half to learn. I just don't think you have the foundation at this time. This can be overcome, but not in a few weeks. Mistakes at the CU level have a higher price than at the Admin level, so I can't support someone who hasn't done a reasonable amount of work helping CUs. That is the only way you can learn the job. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for your comments, Dennis Brown. I understand what you are saying. I will start helping out at WP:SPI. This will be much too late for this round of nominations, obviously, but perhaps will reflect positively on me for a future round, assuming I'm not appointed this time out. There's much I can do to be helpful at WP:SPI without checkuser permissions. --Yamla (talk) 13:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think that is the right attitude and I appreciate you understanding it isn't personal. Truth be told, the bulk of the work is done by clerks, with some help from admin. The CUs do less at SPI but it is very high value work and the clerks clean up and make the blocks, compare behavior, etc. Most blocks are without CU. I do think that clerking 2 or 3 days a week for 6 months would make a huge difference and give you a more rounded overview. Regardless of outcome, I appreciate you sticking your neck out and volunteering. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Eyeballing the log of blocks you have made, I see:

  16:55, 29 August 2016 Yamla (talk | contribs | block) blocked 196.154.0.0/16 (talk) with an expiration time of 1 month (anon. only, account creation blocked) (Block evasion: Moatassemakmal) (unblock | change block)

  While I can certainly see administrators making such a block innocently (I probably have at some time or other) it worries me to see a CU doing something like this. --Rschen7754 00:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Rschen, while I see a concern, it may not be the same as yours, and even if it is the same, expressing your concern would do more benefit to the candidate (and to Arbs that don't understand CU well enough) to understand your underlying comment. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Rschen, that block of a /16 address range is rather large. Mitigating factors are that the user in question has issued a death threat (against another admin), has been a problematic editor for years before being blocked, and regularly hops IP addresses. They target a wide swath of articles. The block was anon-only. The netblock in question is a /11, so the block is large but doesn't even capture the entire netblock, which is a /11. I have been watching the unblock requests to see if there's been any collateral damage there and haven't seen or been informed of any. On the other hand, it didn't prove sufficient; the blocked editor has been able to find IP addresses outside of that range to continue editing. I'm at something of a loss here; I'm going to have to request further help from WP:ANI with regard to that editor. Wide-ranging blocks on that ISP aren't working and can't continue. Semi-protecting hundreds of articles about Canadian politics isn't helpful either. If this was a single IP address, we could just increase the duration, but this particular ISP is a primary ISP for an entire country. Anyway, rant aside, Rschen, if you have any specific ideas for dealing with this particular editor, please bring them up on my user talk page, I'd love to discuss it with you. I hope my comments here have mitigated the concern somewhat, but I certainly understand if you believe this range block was inappropriate. --Yamla (talk) 12:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  It would be better to consult with a CU before making such a rangeblock, considering the potential backlogs that this could create on WP:ACC, and the requests I see all the time on Meta about people complaining about rangeblocks on enwiki (especially from non-English speaking countries). My concerns are about the rather large rangeblocks (there may be reasons to do that like a leaky webhost or open proxy farm, but that's not the case here, it's a mobile range - I would hate to see it {{checkuserblock}}ed), and the relative lack of experience at SPI (I can think of one CU in the past who was appointed solely based on their IP blocks and had no SPI experience, and when they ran checks for SPI, it was difficult to work with them). With that being said, I would be happy to support in another round of appointments, with relevant experience (at SPI, or ACC, or cross-wiki countervandalism for example). --Rschen7754 06:06, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Without wishing to blow my own trumpet, I agree entirely that you really should get a CU's opinion before performing any rangeblock above at least /24 as collateral damage is extremely harmful to the project and bites newbies for no reason without any evidence we've done it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:25, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It's very obvious my nomination is not going to succeed. I'd like to leave it open as an opportunity to collect any more constructive criticism people feel like leaving (and, of course, for anyone else to oppose, if they think it appropriate to do so). I very sincerely thank those who have done so already. I have read and understood your concerns and I very much appreciate the pointers for how my candidacy could have been stronger. I hope to help out around SPI without having checkuser permissions. --Yamla (talk) 20:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, echoing the concerns above. SSTflyer 01:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per the concerns of Rschen7754, and doesn't seem to have the deep understanding of IPv6 I'd like. First off, IPv6 uptake in North America, while not as great as in Europe, is actually rather high, especially in the USA, compared to e.g. Africa or most of South America. Also, IPv6 users invariably use operating systems that enable privacy extensions, so as far as I know, few of the addresses can be relied upon to be the exact MAC address, and CheckUsers probably wouldn't find it that useful.--Jasper Deng (talk) 15:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Too little wiki participation over the past 8.5 years [1]. Softlavender (talk) 11:00, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Sorry. As you said, getting more experience at SPI and helping CUs would be good. Happy to support you when you've done more work there. Yintan  19:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KrakatoaKatie (OS)[edit]

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

Nomination statement

• I'm applying for both CheckUser and Oversight permissions. I've been an administrator since 2007, and I'm active on UTRS and ACC. I also pitch in as a patrolling admin at SPI.

• I'm interested in the CheckUser tool due to my work at UTRS and ACC, which often have CU queues that need attention. I'll also help at SPI. As an RN, I routinely handle sensitive and private information; I handle RevisionDeletion requests often and to my knowledge I've never had an Oversight request declined.
• Please feel free to ask any questions here. I'm traveling from September 21 to October 1, but I'll answer as quickly as I can. Thanks. :-) Katie^talk 03:20, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Standard questions for all candidates[edit]

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

   I handle RevisionDeletion requests all the time, from requests at the administrative boards, CSD, and at my talk page. I have zero tolerance for harassment and serious BLP violations, and I hope my interactions with those who have asked me to hide diffs bears that out. There are real people behind these usernames, and we need to protect our editors.

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

   I'm an RN, so I've handled confidential health information and kept confidences throughout my career.

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. I intend to apply for OTRS access in late October regardless of the outcome of this appointment process.

Questions for this candidate[edit]

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 have frequently (i cant recall the number of times as communication was in the irc revdel channel, asked for something to be rev-deld that has after wards required OS, Katie has frequently dealt with the revdel requests as a stopgap measure and requested oversight where necessecary, leting her don both is definetly a net positive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amortias (talk • contribs)
• Support per my reasons at CU. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:54, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Took a gander at some (about a little more than a dozen) revision deletions which appear to be Oversight-related here. Most of them are suppressed now, and of the one or two which aren't none was made visible again. Not a big sample size but I am favourably inclined towards this nomination. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:54, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• As per my support at CU -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 20:29, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Clearly a good candidate. I can't think of a reason why she shouldn't get oversight. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 22:13, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I've come across many revdels handled by KrakatoaKatie without any concern. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:15, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support no issues. --Rschen7754 00:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• See CU comments. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:19, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, trustworthy, reliable, and experienced. GAB^gab 19:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, strongly, as above w/r/t CU. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 20:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per reasons at CU. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 20:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Euryalus (talk) 21:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Same rationale as my CU support. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:48, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Begoon 06:39, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per the CU comment. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I'm been doing} 06:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Fully qualified candidate. Mz7 (talk) 14:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Long term trusted user, no concerns. --MelanieN (talk) 18:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Per my comments at CU. Patient Zero^talk 08:45, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Trusted, experienced, capable user, has CLUE, will benefit from this extra tool. Keri (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:53, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Katie would be a welcome addition to the OS team. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:30, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung (OS)[edit]

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

Nomination statement

• I’m essentially offering my candidature in response to the to the call for CheckUsers and Oversighters among suitably qualified editors residing in Asia and with a knowledge and understanding of those cultures. As the owner of a commercial web server and operator of CMS websites, blogs and forums, I probably have the required technical knowledge, and as a linguist I feel I adequately recognise what kind of material may need to be suppressed. I spend many hours a week on Wikipedia, more than is reflected in my edit count, and I would have no problem in shifting the focus of my work to accommodate some extra duties.

Standard questions for all candidates[edit]

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

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

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?

Questions for this candidate[edit]

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 per my reasons at CU. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:54, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support no concerns. --Rschen7754 00:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• See CU comments. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:19, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 20:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per reasons at CU. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 20:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - See my CU comment. –Davey2010^Talk 21:06, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per reasons at CU. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 00:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per my reasons at CU. -- Begoon 06:39, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very long term, trusted user. --MelanieN (talk) 18:46, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I have confidence that Kudpung both understands when redaction is necessary and that he will hold the redacted information secret. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Right skills and good judgement. No red flags. Jim Carter 21:37, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Per my comments at CU. Patient Zero^talk 08:45, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Suppport Daniel Case (talk) 06:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• support I think this is something that is right up his alley and he would be a positive addition to the team. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:31, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support one of the clearest thinkers we have. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:01, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mkdw (OS)[edit]

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

Nomination statement

• I am putting myself forward for consideration to be granted the oversight permissions on the English Wikipedia. I have been editing Wikipedia since 2006 and was granted by the community the administrative tools in 2013. I occasionally work on articles. I worked to get Hee Seo to GA in March 2016 and assisted to get HMS Curacoa (D41) to GA in August 2016. As I stated at my RFA, I consider myself a below average writer and give back by helping out in the administrative areas of Wikipedia. I have worked mostly behind the scenes at AFD, AIV, SPI, OTRS, and occasionally at UTRS. I also make myself available on IRC in the en-help and en-helpers channel. During this time I have encountered instances where suppression is required, particularly when it comes to handling OTRS tickets. The most common cases I have come across have been the disclosure of private information or attacks made against an individual or organization. In many of these cases, only revdel is required. In more serious cases, suppression has been required and I've filed tickets to the OS team. I have noticed that OS tickets are responded to quickly and efficiently. As time moves on and we lose more and more admins to inactivity and other priorities, there's always a need for more volunteers. I think OS requires a timely response considering the damage that can be done by having sensitive information available to the public, even if for only a short period of time. Therefore, I'm happy to help out in this area.

• Please note I will be traveling on business between October 3 to 8. I should have access to the Internet but due to my itinerary, I may not be able to promptly respond. Thank you for your patience and understanding. Mkdw^talk 06:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Standard questions for all candidates[edit]

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

   As I mentioned in my nomination statement, the majority of my experience comes from working at AIV, SPI, and OTRS. I also regularly monitor Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as attack pages. In terms of other administrative custodial maintenance, I have recently been involved in some complex cases at ANI due to some of the work I've done at SPI such as ANI#Undisclosed Paid Editing Farm and ANI#Editor not here to build an encyclopedia.

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

   I am familiar with Canadian legal confidentiality, legal privilege, and duty-of-care. I professionally handle sensitive information on a day-to-day basis often in situations of signifiant consequence. I fully respect the responsibility entrusted by the community and guarantee to the utmost of my abilities to adhere to the requirements of the tools. I sincerely believe that the disclosure of private information on Wikipedia can have immediate and lasting consequences for an individual. I further believe that we as the community have an ethical and moral obligation to stop those that would use the English Wikipedia to harm others. Denying them that opportunity through OS is a necessary and effective process.

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 do not have any advanced permissions on this or other WMF projects. I have access to the info-en, permissions, and photo-submissions queues at OTRS.

Questions for this candidate[edit]

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.

• An experienced administrator with good judgment, and I think he would be very good in the role. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Similar considerations as I gave about KrakatoaKatie apply here as well - seems like they have a number of revision deletions subsequently converted into suppressed revisions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support no concerns. --Rschen7754 00:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Yep, a capable and experienced contributor, I see no problems. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Trusted user, no issues. Widr (talk) 06:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 20:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. A trustworthy, responsible user. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 20:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I don't see any issues here. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 00:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Begoon 06:39, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I'm been doing} 06:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Long time, trusted user with all the right skills. --MelanieN (talk) 18:48, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support No red flags. Jim Carter 21:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]