Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/May 2010 election/Oversight/Arbitrarily0

Arbitrarily0

Arbitrarily0 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Greetings all! Call me anything! I've been volunteering here at Wikipedia for a couple of years now (as an administrator since 2009). I reside in the Eastern Time Zone and am an OTRS and ACC volunteer. Being a gnome-elf hybrid of sorts, I suppose I have few major wiki-achievements to make you aware of. Low elf-esteem and gnome-good puns aside, oversight is nothing to laugh at. The responsibilities involved in dealing with oversight requests are immense. Handling real-world personal information is an interminable responsibility, very different from regular editing. As a trustworthy, honest, and helpful Wikipedian, I would be honored to extend my services to Wikipedia by helping protect the personal information of others. Thank you for your consideration, but more importantly, best regards!

Comments and questions for Arbitrarily0

• Questions from HJ Mitchell

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

   With the exception of the extra time taken to handle suppression requests, I do not see that bearing the oversight responsibility would or should affect my regular editing. Oversight is simply an expansion of volunteering in Wikipedia's background, and therefore I would hope that other editors would still feel perfectly comfortable in their interactions with me, the same as if I was an anonymous user.

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

   Although not required, I do feel that it is important for oversighters to respond to their requesters in most cases. In addition to being a courtesy, a response can also help the requester learn why or why not their request was handled, allowing them to make more accurate requests in the future.

• Question from Keegan

I know it is asked in the questionnaire:

1. How will you be willing to respond to saying no to a request, and will you actively do it?

   Unfortunately, declining requests is something that almost every administrator is forced to be familiar with, so doing so kindly is evermore important. Much of my personal experience in this area comes from handling permission requests and requests for undeletion (for example, developing Template:Afdund), where roughly half of the requests are declined. As outlined in the question above, declined unsuited good-faith requests are often best accompanied by a reply to the requester both as a courtesy, and in order to help focus their future requests.

• Questions from Trackinfo

1. I just looked at your most recent 500 contributions. Almost all of them were red links from articles--other people's work--you deleted. I hope that was not done Arbitrarily, pun intended. How do you reconcile your work, which appears just to subtract from Wikipedia on a wholesale basis, vs all the other candidates who appear to make edits to try to improve Wikipedia? How will you being granted new, additional power serve to improve the Wikipedia project?

   Hiya! I think there might be a slight misunderstanding. Of my last 500 contributions, especially those throughout April, I've spent some time working on the daily articles for deletion backlog. I can assure you that none of my deletions (probably around 1/3 to 1/2 of my closures), if this is what you're referring to, were done arbitrarily. Rather, I hope that my work in this area helps show my dedication towards making accurate and policy-based decisions—the same dedication I would put forward to the responsibilities of oversight.

• Question from Zzuuzz

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

   While outing specifically refers only to the posting of another person's personal information, the scope of oversight is a bit larger. Revisions containing non-public personal information (including information accidentally self-published, such as an IP address), libelous/defamatory information (especially pertaining to living-person biographies), and logged attack names all fall under oversight's discretion.

• Question from JamieS93

1. How much experience with submitting oversight requests, discussing usage of the tool, etc., have you had? Because you've only been an admin for six months, I wanted to hear an overview (from you personally) of your OS-related experiences.

   This is a very good question, which I am glad was brought up. Whether by random chance or just plain bad/good luck, I've never witnessed an unhandled oversight situation. That said, I have kept an active interest in oversight developments and its related discussions since before my request for adminship. While I am certainly not a candidate who is most experienced in oversight requests, if you do consider me, please consider me for my passion to learn and help, and my trustworthiness which I hope my past work conveys.

• Question from Happy-melon

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

   Before starting active communication on the mailing list, I think I would spend some good time following the discussions between veteran members, in order to better learn the intricacies of the process. That said, I also think that fresh new perspectives can be very helpful, and that my collaborative experiences in real-life as well as throughout Wikimedia projects might make a good addition to the team.