Happy-melon

Page links: (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Happy-melon (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

My background on Wikimedia is fairly unexciting, and can be found in a not-wordcount-limited form on my user page. I first started editing in February 2006; became a bot operator in December 2007, and an admin in February 2008. Recently I have developed an interest in the MediaWiki software itself; I have been involved with numerous discussions on bugzilla about the RevDeleted and Oversight functionality, and I have applied for SVN commit access, which will allow me to commit changes to MediaWiki directly. I am an administrator at mediawiki.org, the software's documentation site, and I have a few minor rights across a number of projects.

I see Oversight as a unique tool, and set of responsibilities, within Wikimedia. From my technical background, I probably have as much knowledge of how 'the system' works as any non-Oversighter: the interface itself is technically very simple and its principles remarkably clear. Unlike CheckUser, which is a mixture of forensic accountancy, fox-hunting and voodoo magic, Oversight does not require any specialist skillset, beyond the ability to implement Wikimedia policy with the judgement and common sense that is the mark of any good admin. What the project does require, however, is Oversighters in whose integrity they can have complete trust; users who can be impartial and discreet, and who can respond quickly, politely and sympathetically over as wide a time as possible. It is not for me to say, of course, whether I qualify as "impartial" or "discrete"; although the length of time that the 'about me' section on my userpage has been filled with lorem ipsum may testify to my discretion :D. Certainly the nature of my Real LifeTM means that I am available at short notice throughout the British daytime. And it has been a very long time indeed since I have been publicly angry at anyone in this community. As for integrity, well, again that's not mine to define. But I have only, to my recollection, lied outright once in my editing career – this is complete crap: they were sitting next to me as I wrote it, although I had no prior idea that they would vote for me and did not solicit it. My 'stats' in the usual places (ANI, RfArb, miscellaneous people's 'shit lists') may speak for themselves, but that, I think, is important. I don't believe that I have any skeletons hidden in my contributions, and while there are certainly some of which I am not proud, I can't remember any that I am scared of.

I am familiar with the Privacy and ANPD policies, with WP:BLP and WP:OS. I would not describe myself as a 'specialist' in BLP, but I see that as a strength, not a weakness. I am sure that the requests for Oversight will be wide-ranging and varied, and responses must be guided by the Oversight Policy rather than anything candidates may already be versed in; having the widest possible range of aims and interests within the Oversight body can only be a Good Thing. I am honoured to accept the Committee's nomination to take up the task of Oversight here, and add my skills to that pot.

For your consideration, Happy‑melon 12:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments and questions for Happy-melon

Answered questions

Q: Obviously, you would not have nominated yourself if you did not believe that there is a realistic chance to be elected. Why do you feel that you of all people should be one of those which will be elected? Do you, for example, reckon that you are better qualified than the other candidates? Aitias (added 00:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

A: I don't see this as a competition in any way. The role is a responsibility, not a perk. There are a number of editors here who have a "realistic chance of being elected", as you put it; some of those have stood for the role this time around and some of them have not. But I see this process as an evaluation in absolute terms, not relative; the issue is not whether X is better than Y, but whether X is good enough, full stop.
In 'absolute' terms, then, I believe that I have a lot to offer the Oversight community based on my background and situation. In addition to the points I made in my statement above (thanks for giving me this opportunity to circumvent the word limit :D), I believe that a combination of my MediaWiki development focus with Oversight would be a strong vector to improve the functionality and accuracy of the Oversight system. For instance, as I mentioned in my SVN commit access request, I have been intermittently working on an improvement to the Oversight extension that will allow old Oversighted revisions to be restored in the new RevDeleted format, which will significantly improve the transparency of the process. It would be wrong to use something like that as a threat/bribe – "elect me or I won't do the patch" – and I have no intention of acting that way. But at the moment my efforts are focused elsewhere (I'm currently working on an overhaul of DeleteQueue, that has crossover into normal admin work); I think it's axiomatic to say that I would be more likely to focus on that sort of work if I was involved with the group that would be using it. That's just one example of how my technical background could be useful in an Oversight role. Happy‑melon 10:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Q: I was impressed with the way you handled a tricky task that involved privacy at the ArbCom page a little while ago. Can you provide a few examples of awkward situations in which you've had to exercise very careful administrative judgement about personal matters? Tony (talk) 14:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A: For the benefit of those who didn't see the issue that Tony is referring to, it was this. Essentially, Tony obtained information in confidence that pointed to a lack of transparency in some of the votes in the Date Delinking case. I agreed to handle the data, confirmed its legitimacy, and resolved the situation with the Arbitrator in question. In my opinion, it was resolved with the minimum possible amount of drama.
I have had other instances where confidential information entered the fray. This discussion kicked off when an image I'd cropped jumped onto my watchlist after 18 months; I had a confidential discussion with the uploader about the identity of both the subject and the OP. Again, my priority was minimising drama: the situation that is quietly resolved is the situation where things are least likely to spiral out of control. Similarly here: it looked like common newbie editing/disruption, but I ended up talking to the subject by e-mail and doing a courteousy blank for a time (the timeframe requested was two weeks IIRC; they stopped responding to my e-mails so I eventually put it back up after a month, when I was sure it would be OK assuming what they'd told me was accurate). I'm not too keen to give more recent examples, obviously. Happy‑melon 16:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Q: How would you deal with editors/vandals/requestors/lawyers who attempt to creatively stretch the Oversight/Suppression policy, be it making an edit or making a request for suppression? Mailer Diablo 04:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A: The authoritative part of the meta:Hiding revisions#Policy is actually one of the hardest policies to game, because it is both crystal clear, and normative: it covers the entirety of cases where Oversight or Suppression may be performed. As such, it's pretty tricky for people to game it. And with the new RevDeleted functionality in place, the benefits of gaming the system are reduced even further, as there is little loss of transparency.
When dealing with Oversight requests, the motivation behind the request, and behind the edit itself, should be largely discounted, and the issue treated solely on its own merits. Either the edit contains information which should be Oversighted, or it does not. That said, it is important to take some account of past history if the edit is part of a wider problem; and I would be careful to use the institutional memory of the more experienced Oversighters in determining whether that was the case. I think the most likely way for someone to try to game the system in this area would be to make a number of edits which, in isolation, would not be elegible for Oversight, but which in conjunction form a legitimate violation. In that situation it would be important to take a more holistic approach to the problem. But I think that, once you have identified the scope of the problem, determining whether the issue is best resolved by Oversight is a fairly objective process; although still one that requires good judgement. Happy‑melon 09:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unanswered questions
Comments

Votes in support of Happy-melon

  2. Majorly talk 00:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. (X! · talk)  · @062  ·  00:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Aqwis (talk) 00:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. JayHenry (talk) 01:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Jehochman Talk 03:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. -- Tinu Cherian - 05:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. SoWhy 06:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Tony (talk) 11:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. AGK 13:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. LittleMountain5 15:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. --Jc3s5h (talk) 16:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. — Athaenara ✉ 16:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. -- Mentifisto 16:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Masonpatriot (talk) 19:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. FASTILY (TALK) 19:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Shappy talk 22:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. EdJohnston (talk) 01:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. BrianY (talk) 04:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Camaron · Christopher · talk 13:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Taxman Talk 15:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Ozob (talk) 15:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. ~ mazca talk 19:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Rettetast (talk) 19:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 20:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Ceoil (talk) 20:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. —--SPhilbrickT 23:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 23:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. (reasoning) The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 02:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Orderinchaos 03:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  36.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 06:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  37. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Tryptofish (talk) 14:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  39. John Carter (talk) 15:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  40. See here. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 23:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Ysangkok (talk) 11:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  42. WOSlinker (talk) 17:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Þjóðólfr (talk) 18:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Thincat (talk) 18:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  45. —EncMstr (talk) 06:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  46. x42bn6 Talk Mess 12:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Ruslik_Zero 12:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Sceptre (talk) 14:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Cxz111 (talk) 15:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Aye ~~ Phoe talk ~~ 23:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  52. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 03:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Amalthea 11:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  54. — CactusWriter | needles 14:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Graham87 01:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Emw2012 (talk) 04:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  57. GDonato (talk) 09:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Debresser (talk) 22:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  59. snigbrook (talk) 22:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Kaldari (talk) 02:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  62. –Megaboz (talk) 15:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  63. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 00:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Steven Walling (talk) 03:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  65. —DerHexer (Talk) 22:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  66. —Terrence and Phillip 15:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  67. - Kingpin13 (talk) 09:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Strong Support —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 16:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  70. hmwitht 18:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support --StaniStani  22:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes in opposition to Happy-melon

  2. Weak oppose. — Aitias // discussion 00:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Prodego talk 00:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. PeterSymonds (talk) 00:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Rjd0060 (talk) 01:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    --Fox1942 (talk) 11:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC) (Vote indented as user is ineligible to vote in this election - SoWhy 11:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  6. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Davewild (talk) 19:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Daniel (talk) 00:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. iMatthew talk at 00:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. --Caspian blue 16:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. PhilKnight (talk) 17:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Very weak oppose. Pmlineditor 17:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Alexfusco5 19:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Diderot's dreams (talk) 05:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Star Garnet (talk) 10:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. --Charitwo (talk) 16:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. -- TharsHammar Bits andPieces 23:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 14:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More