Applications to serve as a functionary are closed.
Community members are invited to comment on functionary candidates
until 23:59 UTC on October 5, 2022.
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
The Arbitration Committee is soliciting applications, primarily from those who wish to join the CheckUser team, but also from those who might be particularly beneficial to the Oversight team.
Prospective applicants must be familiar with (i) policies relevant to CU and/or OS and (ii) the global privacy policy and related documents. They must have good communication and team-working skills. CheckUser candidates must be familiar with basic networking topics and with SPI tools and techniques, and preferably are willing to volunteer at ACC and/or UTRS.
Applicants must also be:
- an administrator on the English Wikipedia;
- available to regularly assist with the workload;
- familiar with Wikipedia processes, policies, and guidelines;
- at least 18 years of age and have legal majority in their jurisdiction of residence;
- willing to disclose all other accounts they have operated to the committee;
- willing to agree to the WMF Access to Non-Public Information Policy (L37) and the VRT Users Confidentiality Agreement (L45).
We welcome all applicants with suitable interest to apply. We particularly encourage applicants who fit one or more of the following descriptions to volunteer:
- Interested in handling private evidence related to paid editing, including sockpuppetry investigations and reports submitted to the VRT paid editing queue.
- Active users of non-standard venues, such as IRC, the account creation interface, VRT, and/or the Unblock Ticket Request System.
- Familiar with identification of factors that may change a result or block, such as ISP, location, activity, or type of network.
- Experienced in analyzing behavioral evidence for sockpuppetry investigations.
- Interested in mentoring editors who wish to become SPI clerks.
- Experienced in detecting open and closed proxies. especially non-traditional proxies.
Applicants must be aware that they are likely to receive considerable internal and external scrutiny. External scrutiny may include attempts to investigate on- and off-wiki activities; previous candidates have had personal details revealed and unwanted contact made with employers and family. We are unable to prevent this and such risks will continue if you are successful.
Appointment process
- Dates are provisional and subject to change
- Applications: 5 September to 17 September
- Candidates self-nominate by email to arbcom-en-cwikimedia.org. Each candidate will receive an application questionnaire to be completed and returned to the arbcom-en-c mailing list before the nomination period ends. The questionnaire will include a nomination statement, to a maximum of 250 words, for inclusion on the candidate's public nomination sub-page(s).
- Review period: 18 September to 22 September
- The committee will review applications and ask the functionary team for their feedback.
- Notification of candidates: 22 September to 25 September
- The committee will notify candidates going forward for community consultation and create the candidate subpages containing the submitted nomination statements.
- Community consultation: 26 September to 5 October
- Nomination statements will be published and candidates invited to answer questions publicly. The community is invited to participate. Please note changes from previous consultation phases:
- Editors may ask a maximum of two questions per candidate;
- Editors may comment on each candidate with a limit of 500 words, including replies to other editors. Discussion will be sectioned and monitored by the Arbitration Committee and the clerks;
- Please refrain from bolded votes, as this is a consultation and not a community consensus.
- Comments may be posted on the candidates' subpages or submitted privately by email to arbcom-en-cwikimedia.org. Editors are encouraged to include a detailed rationale, supported by relevant links where appropriate.
- Appointments: by 16 October
- The committee will review community comments and other relevant factors, finalize an internal resolution, and publish the resulting appointments. Successful candidates are required to sign the Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information prior to receiving permissions. Oversighters and CheckUsers who intend to work the VRT paid editing queue must sign the VRT Users Confidentiality Agreement.
Candidates
To comment on candidates, please use section edit buttons to edit the appropriate candidate subpage(s).
CheckUser
Blablubbs
Blablubbs (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Nomination statement
- Hi, I am Blablubbs, and I am applying (only) for CheckUser access. I have been an SPI clerk for over a year, and have had the opportunity to learn a great deal about behavioural investigations over the course of my tenure. I have also had the pleasure of serving as a clerk trainer for Tamzin and Spicy. I have spent the majority of my time on Wikipedia tackling abuse that involves sockpuppetry, proxies, or undisclosed paid editing, and I believe that CheckUser would be a valuable tool to help me investigate such cases more effectively. While my primary use of the tools would likely be at SPI, I would also be happy to help out at ACC (where I am an active proxy checker), UTRS, and the paid-en and checkuser-en VRT queues.
Standard questions for all candidates (Blablubbs)
- Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
- I became a trainee SPI clerk in February 2021, and a full clerk in June of the same year. Since then, I've clerked a large number of cases, including some complex UPE investigations, and I am comfortable evaluating behavioural evidence. Along the way, I've picked up a fair bit of networking knowledge, especially with regard to proxies. I'm comfortable making rangeblocks, and do so frequently. I'm especially active in proxy detection and have made a large number (>8000) proxy- and webhostblocks. To facilitate these efforts, I've also written a tool that searches for IP ranges based on specific descriptors and presents the results in mediawiki table format, and worked with MarioGom to collect provider-specific proxy signatures.
- Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.
- I do not have a networking or computer science background. I do have some programming experience, and I have always been a bit of a "geek" with a strong interest in computers, networks, and online privacy issues. I do not routinely work with legally protected data, but my real life occupation does sometimes include considerations about the privacy of third parties.
- Do you hold advanced permissions (checkuser, oversight, bureaucrat, steward) on this or other WMF projects? If so, please list them. Also, do you have VRTS permissions? If so, to which queues?
- I have never held any of those permissions on any WMF project. I do have access to VRT's
info-en
queue.
- I have never held any of those permissions on any WMF project. I do have access to VRT's
Questions for this candidate (Blablubbs)
- Editors may ask a maximum of two questions per candidate.
- Would you be willing to help on requests in the CheckUser queue at the account creation interface? -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- Since you block a large number of proxies, colos, etc, I'm interested to know how you handle associated collateral. As a checkuser I'm certain you'll see a whole lot more. Can you provide some examples of potential collateral and how you've dealt with it? -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:21, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- Generally speaking, I do my best to limit potential collateral of webhostblocks by querying for underlying ranges that may not be assigned to the same provider (
whois -aM $RANGE
) and looking for specific indicators of hosting activity with Shodan range queries whenever I'm uncertain. I also frequently soften bot-proxyblocks when I see evidence of CGNAT use. A specific example of collateral mitigation that comes to mind is when a steward reached out because he had verified that 213.202.232.64/28, a subrange of the then-hardblocked hosting range 213.202.232.0/21, was being used by a school. I didn't want to lift the block entirely because the underlying range does have lots of hosting on it, so we worked out how to reblock the entire range in small increments and dropped the /28 down to a softblock. --Blablubbs (talk) 17:04, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- Generally speaking, I do my best to limit potential collateral of webhostblocks by querying for underlying ranges that may not be assigned to the same provider (
- You seem to be most active in blocking open proxies. I've looked through your block log. On 1 January 2022 you blocked two ranges 133.125.0.0/16 and 133.167.0.0/16 as colocation webhost SAKURA. Walk me through how you reached that conclusion. Then on 31 October 2021 (I've not looked further back) you blocked 85.255.237.99 with "Block evasion:VXFC." Amanda blocked this editor in 2017 as a sockpuppet of Flow234. This editor appears to edit botanical and medical articles. You blocked following a question about the subject matter of untitled paintings. The previous edit from the IP was a helpful correction in the spelling of Kordofan, Sudan, and the following edit provided information about U S politicians. Walk me through your reasoning. (Sorry this keyboard isn't equipped with a tilde). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.31.254.24 (talk) 20:49, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Comments (Blablubbs)
- Comments may also be submitted to the Arbitration Committee privately by emailing arbcom-en-cwikimedia.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.
- Perhaps I'm biased as his clerk trainee :)... but I believe that Blablubbs is an excellent candidate for the tools. It strikes me that the bullet points below
We particularly encourage applicants who fit one or more of the following descriptions to volunteer
are essentially a description of him. Spicy (talk) 11:04, 26 September 2022 (UTC) - As strong an endorsement as you can get from me. Blablubbs has everything we're looking for in a CU and would be a huge boon to the project. GeneralNotability (talk) 13:21, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- Clear endorse - Blablubbs is highly trusted and highly competent in the field. A major benefit to the project as CU Nosebagbear (talk) 13:34, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse. I do not have much to add that hasn't already said. -- ferret (talk) 13:52, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- I've worked with Blabbs extensively for over a year at SPI, and have absolutely no qualms about an enthusiastic endorsement. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:07, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- Zero reservations here. Blablubbs will do great as a CU. Katietalk 17:44, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- Full support from me. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 20:41, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
JJMC89
JJMC89 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Nomination statement
- I am volunteering to become a CheckUser. I have been editing here since 2015 and became an admin at the beginning of 2019. I am an ACC tool admin, SPI clerk, UTRS tool admin, VRT agent, and member of the Ombuds commission. Working in these areas, I am already familiar with the relevant policies and privacy considerations and have signed the relevant agreements. ACC, SPI, and UTRS are often (or always) in need of additional CheckUser assistance, which I can help with.
Standard questions for all candidates (JJMC89)
- Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
- Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.
- Do you hold advanced permissions (checkuser, oversight, bureaucrat, steward) on this or other WMF projects? If so, please list them. Also, do you have VRTS permissions? If so, to which queues?
Questions for this candidate (JJMC89)
- Editors may ask a maximum of two questions per candidate.
- As an admin, you're required by WP:ADMINACCT to "
respond promptly to queries
". This of course applies to CUs, and in my opinion, doubly so — often other checkusers will have time-sensitive questions about previous technical data you may have reviewed to make a particular block. Although taking breaks and being busy is a fact of life (and life should always come first), you've recently had bouts of inactivity and a noted lack of replies to important queries — in this case any administrator could have removed/modified the block, but this is not the case for checkuser blocks, and I believe most CUs would feel at least somewhat uncomfortable removing a block you'd made without first consulting you. Do you believe you can commit to remaining active enough to ensure queries are responded to promptly? — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 14:32, 26 September 2022 (UTC) - Would you be willing to help on requests in the CheckUser queue at the account creation interface? -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- What do you see as any conflicts of interest between being an active community checkuser and being on the Ombuds commission, and if selected how would you manage any such conflict? — xaosflux Talk 14:58, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- Since you block a large number of proxies, colos, etc, I'm interested to know how you handle associated collateral. As a checkuser I'm certain you'll see a whole lot more. Can you provide some examples of potential collateral and how you've dealt with it? -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:22, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- Your previous application in 2020 was unsuccessful: WP:CUOS2020. While I appreciate that often the rationale is not adequately shared with the candidates, did you have any insight from the previous time? --Rschen7754 18:15, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- This is much the same concern as TheresNoTime expressed above, but I'm specifically interested in User talk:JJMC89#More about your G5 restoration decline. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:20, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- As an admin, you're required by WP:ADMINACCT to "
Comments (JJMC89)
- Comments may also be submitted to the Arbitration Committee privately by emailing arbcom-en-cwikimedia.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.
- The questions I would have asked have been asked above, but I would like for the questions to be answered before providing some thoughts. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 20:38, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- I've worked with JJMC89 on various technical things, including Pywikibot, they're knowledgeable, collegial and in general, it's always a pleasure to work with them. Legoktm (talk) 00:12, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Firefly
Firefly (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Nomination statement
- Hello! I'm applying for the CheckUser permission. I am a regular patrolling administrator at Sockpuppet Investigations and have a solid base of experience in handling SPI cases. I am confident pursuing both behavioural investigations and assessing freely-available technical information (e.g. IP owner and geolocation, peer-to-peer proxy flags). I would put the CU tool to use mostly at SPI but would also assist with the email queues, specfically the paid editing queue, as I am aware the bus factor for this queue is extremely low and it is in desperate need of more attention - I have experience detecting and combating UPE, so feel I could make myself useful there. I am aware of the technical constraints of the CheckUser tool and would not consider it a "magic sock detector" - CU results must always be assessed alongside other evidence.
Standard questions for all candidates (Firefly)
- Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
- Much of my on-wiki work is in the field of SPI, and dealing with socking more generally; I have filed a number of SPIs, and investigated many more. I am comfortable reviewing even complex behavioural evidence to distinguish between actionable issues and "noise". Along the way I have made a fair few rangeblocks and have a solid understanding of IPv4 and v6, along with how to assess proxy flags and signatures. I am keenly aware that a growing portion of the work at SPI is dealing with sophisticated undisclosed paid editing organisations - I have solid experience detecting & combating such editing and would be keen to assist further by processing private evidence if selected as a CU.
- Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.
- I am a software engineer, and previously worked as an IT manager for various organisations - overseeing all aspects of small-to-medium sized networks. As such, I have long-term familiarity with networking concepts and Internet infrastructure (e.g. ASNs). In prior roles I was also often responsible for data protection, and so have experience handling sensitive data within tight regulatory requirements.
- Do you hold advanced permissions (checkuser, oversight, bureaucrat, steward) on this or other WMF projects? If so, please list them. Also, do you have VRTS permissions? If so, to which queues?
- No advanced permissions. I did hold VRT access (info-en and permissions), but my account was disabled for inactivity recently.
Questions for this candidate (Firefly)
- Editors may ask a maximum of two questions per candidate.
- Would you be willing to help on requests in the CheckUser queue at the account creation interface? -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the question! I did help out at ACC in the dim and distant past, but am not familiar with current processes and procedures there. If there is a need for additional CU capacity at ACC I would be entirely happy to learn what I need to know to help out, but this study would take time. I wouldn't be an immediate capacity boost, as I wouldn't want to go rushing in to something I don't have good familiarity with. firefly ( t · c ) 15:09, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- Would you consider re-enabling your VRT account to assist with the CU queues there? — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 20:56, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- Would you be willing to help on requests in the CheckUser queue at the account creation interface? -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Comments (Firefly)
- Comments may also be submitted to the Arbitration Committee privately by emailing arbcom-en-cwikimedia.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.
- As a clerk, I've interacted with Firefly many times at SPI and have been impressed by their work as a patrolling admin. I think they would be an asset to SPI with the CU tools. Spicy (talk) 10:53, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- Said it privately during funct consultation, will say it publicly too: Firefly has the temperament, technical knowledge, and willingness to learn that would make them an excellent addition to the functs. I acknowledge that they're a relatively new admin, but I trust them to stop and ask questions when needed. And then I will make them run the next check on this group in their first week. GeneralNotability (talk) 13:24, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse. Spicy and GN have already said it, I've no concerns at all. -- ferret (talk) 13:53, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- I've seen Firefly around on SPI. I haven't worked with them as much as I have with some other folks who help at SPI, but there's nothing I've seen which gives me any reason for concern. I understand some people are worried about him only being an admin for six months, but I'm totally fine with it. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:19, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- Like Roy, I have limited experience with Firefly, but the work I've seen is good and he has the right temperament. A lot of this work is being willing to change your mind, and I think he can do that without ego getting in the way. Katietalk 17:46, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- Similiar to GeneralNotability, but without the making them run a check . Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 20:36, 26 September 2022 (UTC)