Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/Rolling appointments/October 2024

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

TheresNoTime (CheckUser)

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

Nomination statement (TheresNoTime)

Hello,

I've been reflecting further on the incident which resulted in the loss of my CU/OS tools, and believe now that I am in a position to humbly request these tools the checkuser tool back.

As I mentioned in the public apology I made in May 2023, I made significant mistakes with both the tools and with how I handled the scrutiny. As a result of my reflections, I have committed to steering clear of using administrative tools in similar incidents. On a more personal level, I also resumed a long-overdue bout of therapy to help me handle situations where the "red mist" clouds my judgement, and more generally my situation has improved and my support network widened. I can now say to the community, unequivocally, that such an incident will not reoccur.

The loss of these permissions has of course impacted my activity—being able to effectively combat abuse, which I would hope you will agree is something I was fairly good at, is a task that I enjoy within the community. I've maintained a low-level of activity, and awareness of ongoing policy changes.

I appreciate that second chances for these sorts of things are rare, but hope that through my words and actions the community can consider re-granting me the checkuser permissions. Depending on ArbCom, I'd of course accept any sort of "probationary period" and/or being confined to using the tool on SPI reports only.

Thank you for the consideration.

Standard questions for all candidates (TheresNoTime)

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

   I previously held CU/OS between 2017 and 2022 (see above), was a steward for a number of years (2018-2020, 2022-2023), and have actively been involved in anti-abuse and anti-spam efforts.

2. Please list any advanced permissions (checkuser, oversight, bureaucrat, steward) you hold or previously held on any WMF project.

   Excluding test(2).wikipedia.org and mediawiki.org (where I am a bureaucrat), I do not currently hold any of these advanced permissions on any other WMF project.

3. Do you have VRT permissions? If so, to which queues?

   I do not currently have access to any VRT queues (though have done so in the past).

Questions for this candidate (TheresNoTime)

1. You state that you'd accept ... being confined to using the tool on SPI reports only. Would that restriction apply only to use of CU, or OS as well? If that restriction were not imposed, what else would you primarily intend to use the tools for? voorts (talk/contributions) 03:18, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

   Ah yes, perhaps I should have clarified that this request is for checkuser only — I have no intentions of requesting oversight. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 11:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

   Understood. To modify my question, then: if the restriction to SPI reports were not imposed, what do you primarily intend to use the CU tools for? voorts (talk/contributions) 13:59, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

   If no restrictions were placed, my primary intention would still be to use the CU tools to assist with the workload at SPI (i.e. performing policy-compliant checks on reported accounts to ascertain if sockpuppetry had taken place). The lack of restriction would enable so-called 'discretionary checks', which have some use in cases of non-reported sockpuppetry/UPE — there is a chance I would also help here, but this would not be a primary use of the tool nor something I'd likely consider for a long time. Many thanks for the question — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 14:25, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

2. I'm assuming from your nomination statement that your main interest is working SPI. Which is great, because we need all the help there we can get. But a little over a year ago, you asked to be made an SPI clerk and were appointed to that. You were very active at SPI for a while, but you haven't done any clerking (outside of two pro-forma filings) in 10 months. If working SPI cases as a clerk didn't hold your interest, why do you want to get back into it as a CU? RoySmith (talk) 14:52, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

   I applied to be a clerk in hopes that I could find some satisfaction from the elements of SPI which [admin] clerks help with, but unfortunately this was not the case. I appreciate any inactivity in this area is not ideal given the context of applying again for checkuser permissions, perhaps even less so when the reasoning is as simple as "clerking is not something I enjoy", and I can only attempt to offset this unease by making clear than my bouts of activity directly correlate to doing activities on Wikimedia projects that I find satisfying. I found CUing at SPI a rewarding task, and as such my activity would increase. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 14:59, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments (TheresNoTime)

• I was a very strong supporter of removing these permissions, but today I think TNT deserves another chance. We both fucked up, and we both paid the price, and we were both caught up to some extent in the web of lies from a person we now know was a troll in admin clothing. TNT has since shown honest self-reflection about what happened, and I believe they are sincere. Put them back on the team. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 03:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

  I also 100% believe TNT is sincere here as well, but I don't think a lack of sincerity is what caused the problems that got the permissions removed. I'd have preferred that chance come first in the form of something like COIVRT rather than jumping back to CU. But that's not what's on the table. So should the committee decide to grant CU back, I will look forward to the fine work I know they will do and cross my fingers that TNT's new supports will indeed be adequate when things get rough (as sometimes they do for all of us doing hard work). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

  You are correct in that it was not lack of sincerity that led to the revocation. It was adhering to a position that I and others strongly believed was...well.. bullshit. It's the self-reflection and honesty since then that has persuaded me. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 04:54, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• (Clerk note: originally in questions section) It doesn't appear to be stated anywhere on this page, but my understanding is that TNT is only requesting CU at this time, not OS. – Joe (talk) 05:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

  I've made it clearer by adding it to the section header, but it says so in the notice box and in the ACN announcement. Sdrqaz (talk) 14:33, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.