MBisanz

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

Hi, my name is Matt and I've been a Wikipedian since 2004/2005, an active contibutor since 2007, and an admin since Feb. 2008. I'm very active on-wiki, via email, IRC, and even Skype from time to time. In my time, I've requested Oversight, usually by email, for personal information I run across and have been very active in deleting private information in the File talk: namespace.

I understand that many times the people seeking oversight may not be familiar with Wikipedia or may be in under a significant amount of stress. Being able to kindly explain what information I need from them (page name, etc) and relate to their concerns is as important a part of the job as clicking the HideRev button.

I have a firm understanding of the oversight policy an its purpose on Wikipedia (to redact non-public personal information). I further pledge to not use oversight in situations I am involved in (such as an RFA I commented in or a content RFC I filed) and to report misuse of the tool to the appropriate people (Arbcom).

For those interested, I have OTRS access, have identified to the Wikimedia Foundation, and am an admin on Commons.

Thank you for taking the time to participate in this process, and feel free to talk page, email, or smoke signal me with any questions you prefer not to place on this page. MBisanz ^talk 17:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and questions for MBisanz

• For my reasoning, please see User:Tiptoety/CU-OV elections. Tiptoety ^talk 00:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• MBisanz is an highly active and helpful administrator. I trust him with oversight. Master&Expert (Talk) 02:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• One of a very few admins who seems to show up everywhere. A positive force on en.wiki, I see no reason for him not to get oversight. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 06:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose; I can not trust Matt with a tool this powerful. Giggy (talk) 10:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I like that some people are making an attempt to explain their opposition, since comments in the voting sections are restricted, but if you're going to comment up here can you try to provide something that other people would find useful? A simple "I don't trust him" doesn't help anyone understand your thinking. Avruch ^T 13:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not trying to make others understand my thinking, I'm just making a note on each case where I vote as to why this vote was made. In this case I opposed because I don't trust Matt. Giggy (talk) 14:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I say this with all the love in the world: Matt is a process wonk who I would trust to follow policy even if his mother's life hung in the balance. What more can you ask for in an oversighter? WilyD 14:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A bit of common sense as well would be good. Majorly talk 15:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you suggesting their are times to Oversight or Checkuser outside of their extremely strict policies (examples if so, because I can't imagine it)? Because I thought that's what everyone with common sense has been fighting to get stoppped, including the Committee itself... rootology (C)(T) 16:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Blindly following policy can lead to problems, as can ignoring policy totally. I have no doubt in my mind MBisanz will be too strict with usage of oversight. Some might say better to be safe than sorry, and not use it, but I disagree. Majorly talk 16:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I mean, I don't think he'll ever make a bad oversight. In those cases he's unwilling to make what might be sensible oversights that don't rigidly fit with policy, there're always other oversighters. I might be uncomfortable with him as the only oversighter, but that's not what we're talking about. WilyD 16:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose after participation at patently abusive sockpuppet request. Alansohn (talk) 19:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC) struck out by Alansohn (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link plx? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilyD (talk • contribs)
• Not ready for the job yet.--Caspian blue 00:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Has uncommonly good judgment. Is unfailingly civil. Is unfailingly dogged in seeking the right solution, on a case-by-case basis, according to policy. Perfection is impossible. Demonstrated excellence, over a broad swath of the wiki and in considerable depth, is exceedingly rare. It must be recognized and further empowered. David in DC (talk) 00:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Generic question: Under what circumstances, if any, would you oversight an edit at the request of the user who made the edit? — CharlotteWebb 15:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• There are only three I can think of off-hand. One, if a person was logged out and made an edit as an IP that was linked to their username, such as a comment in a threaded discussion (see the second sentence of point #1 at Wikipedia:Oversight#Policy). Two, if a minor posted personally identifiable information (such as their school, address, full name, etc) and later realized what a bad idea it was and asked for it to be oversighted. Three, if someone were to receive ((Uw-pinfo)) or ((Defwarn)) and notified me of the offending edits they made, I would oversight them not because they requested it, but because it was material that something that fell under the Oversight policy. Other than those cases, I would feel uncomfortable oversighting it myself and would ask the person to email the oversight mailing list for discussion among the other oversighters. I could see where an adult posts their name on say their userpage, later desires to be anonymous, and wishes it oversighted, but in my reading of Wikipedia:Oversight, I cannot clearly justify such a desire in line with policy, since the adult will have already made their identity public. Also, I should note that there is a discrepancy between ((Defwarn)) and the text at File:HideRevision.png as to when to remove libelous edits, and were such a situation to arise, I would defer to point 2b of the Wikipedia:Oversight#Policy, which is controlling IMO. MBisanz ^talk 16:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit I was unfamiliar with the cryptically-named templates above, but at first glance they appear directed primarily (if not entirely) toward edits which pertain to other people, not oneself. I would have figured a user who had made an edit vile enough to merit these templates would not have much say in the matter, it would be oversighted or at least deleted regardless. It concerns me that would not [N.B. this word is the product of a brain-to-keyboard error, I'm really bad about this] decline to remove carelessly divulged personal info (name, location, etc.) just because the user is an adult. Then again if the info did not include the user's age, and they want it erased badly enough they could tell you they are a minor, you'd be none the wiser and it would unquestionably be the path of least harm (I trust you would not gossip about to anyone by saying "User:X told me they are a minor", whether or not you believed it to be true).

You can revise or clarify your position if you want. I'm in no big hurry. Just don't tell me what you think I want to hear, especially when you might have little idea what I'm actually getting at. I just want to know what your actual principles are. As for how the policies and the templates and the interface instructions are written, well… now I know where to look . — CharlotteWebb 17:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well your question was about oversighting an edit at the request of the person who made the edit, so I included the unusual circumstance of someone (person X) making an edit about another person (person Y) and then person X realizing their error and emailing oversight.

As to your second point, a user asking for oversight of information they disclosed is fraught with gray areas. Why do they want it oversighted? Because it shows a conflict of interest to an article they edit? How long has it been public? Should an oversight oversight my name from my userpage, even though my public identity is well known? Is it part of an RTV that the community has opposed? Are there Arbcom restrictions at play that prevent a person from vanishing to a new account?

All of those are gray areas and if I were to encounter them, I would probably either kick it up to Arbcom to decide on or ask the oversight mailing list to discuss it, since there are so many degrees of permissibility. For instance, if I am doing my taxes and editing Wikipedia and accidentally past my social security number in the screen and click save, then yes I would agree another oversighter could oversight that edit. On the other hand, if my name is my username and I want an oversighter to remove it from my userpage, they probably shouldn't do it, since it isn't achieving the goal of protecting privacy. MBisanz ^talk 02:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well the SSN is an extreme case due to the potential for identity theft, which is a separate ball-game altogether. Impersonation and phony credit cards and whatnot are always a concern too, but they hadn't crossed my mind in this context, rather I was speaking of edits which reveal (or enable readers to ascertain) the user's real-life identity and/or location. In the event that a disgruntled (and I daresay unstable) fellow user has an online score they'd wish to settle in "meat-space", such information could continuously jeopardize a user's safety and livelihood the longer they remain visible. Actual examples have included crank calls aimed at getting people fired from their job, kicked out of their uni, divorced by their spouse, etc. plus various death threats and parking-lot stalking antics I'd rather not detail. People are generally more dangerous than we give them credit for (or than they give themselves) and I figure it's only a matter of time before somebody gets physically hurt or even killed due to a disagreement on Wikipedia. Such things have happened in other (comparatively trivial) online communities. I don't know whether the lack of truly grave incidents fresh in our minds stems from an incredible fluke or from a failure to report, but it really seems impossible when you do the math. This isn't about conflicts of interest or trying to hide that one is affiliated with the subjects they're editing (not that it should matter—all edits should be evaluated on their own merit "comment on content, not the contributor", etc. and let's forget that a user's self-disclosures could be bullshit, and might as well be ignored unless one's edits are truly disruptive). It's more about being able to sleep at night, even knowing there are people on the internet who hate you more than life itself. — CharlotteWebb 16:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no question that MBisanz is very intelligent and highly dedicated to Wikipedia. On the other hand he is still a rookie admin and needs to gain maturity and judgment. Someone noted that MBisanz is a "process wonk" and therefore suitable for the job. Well, yes and no. I get the impression that he views himself as some kind of "Special Counsel" like Kenneth Starr or Patrick Fitzgerald, a white-hat figure rooting out evil and corruption where he finds it. Except that no one appointed him to such a position. Examples of where he takes this approach too far can be found in the current "Date delinking" Arbcom proceeding. There, he vastly overstepped the bounds of the case, casting a net as wide as Lake Erie, dragging in wholly unrelated "civility violations" and accusing an editor in good standing of sockpuppeting when there were perfectly innocuous explanations for that editor's multiple accounts, that MBisanz could have found out easily by raising the issue in private with the editor beforehand.

I believe that MBisanz has the potential to become a fine admin one day and subsequently merit consideration for taking on additional responsibilities within Wikipedia, but not yet.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 14:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment that before I presented the evidence on the sockpuppetry accusation, I did seek, and was granted, permission from arbcom that a public presentation of the connecting evidence did not violate the privacy policy and was not an inappropriate addition of evidence. MBisanz ^talk 14:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Whilst I have not the slightest doubts about Matt's integrity or ability, I do believe that we would be better served if oversighters were people who were less active at AFD closure. Mayalld (talk) 16:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really don't understand this at all. --Deskana (talk) 19:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added a separator as I do not think this has anything to do with our dialogue above. I believe Mayalld's concern is that highly privileged users may add a new dimension to the "delete with extreme prejudice"/"salt the earth" memes of AFD. — CharlotteWebb 21:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The question has already been asked of me at my talk page. Charlotte sort of gets to the niggle that I had. Basically, I was questioning whether the person who effectively decides whether an article is deleted or not in a significant number of cases should also be deciding whether to very permanently delete some revisions. My thoughts were centred around a vague belief that we should avoid concentrating the deletion decision process in a single pair of hands, but my belief was tempered by a confidence that Matt would be a safe pair of hands if we did so. I suppose that when it boils down to it, I'm concerned in general about people who close a lot of AFDs oversighting, and wouldn't expect to see it often, but Matt is the exception to my concerns, and as such my vote may seem perverse. I promised to sleep on it, and have done so. My oppose isn't well founded, and I withdraw it. Mayalld (talk) 07:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Trust, good judgment, and temperament are paramount qualifications for any grant of power here, as well as in the real world. Without those, all the other qualifications, such as experience, policy knowledge, technical ability, language—all of which are learnable—matter not. I know Matt and have no problem trusting him to do the right thing, including in those issues with a potential or perceived COI. I also believe he has the ability and experience needed. As to the policy/process vs. content issue; we can't collaborate on a project this massive without process, leavened with common sense and judgment, as one means to facilitate good content. — Becksguy (talk) 17:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• See User:Acalamari/CU-OV February 2009#MBisanz. Acalamari 19:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes in support of MBisanz

2. Support--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 00:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Rjd0060 (talk) 00:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support Willking1979 (talk) 00:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support - Tiptoety ^talk 00:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Strong support –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support — Gavia immer (talk) 00:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support -- Euryalus (talk) 00:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. -- Avi (talk) 00:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support —Locke Cole • t • c 01:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. BJ^Talk 01:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 01:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Master&Expert (Talk) 02:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support - Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15. — neuro^(talk) 01:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
16. Mr.Z-man 01:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
17. Khoikhoi 01:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
18. Kuru ^talk 01:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
19. ^LeaveSleaves 02:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
20. rootology (C)(T) 02:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
21. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 02:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
22. Explodicle (T/C) 02:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
23. Bidgee (talk) 02:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
24. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 02:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
25. DGG (talk) 04:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 06:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
27. John Reaves 07:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
28. Orpheus (talk) 07:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support.AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 08:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support -- Tinu Cherian - 08:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
31. PeterSymonds (talk) 09:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
32. Strong support —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 09:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
33. Strongest Support Fritzpoll (talk) 09:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
34. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
35. Patton^t/c 12:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
36. Jack Merridew 12:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
37. — Jake Wartenberg 13:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
38. — Aitias // discussion 13:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
39. WilyD 14:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
40. Stifle (talk) 14:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
41. Guy (Help!) 15:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
42. لennavecia 15:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
43. Andre (talk) 15:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    -Support - Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 16:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

44. Support --·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 17:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
45. ++Lar: t/c 18:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support - Dreadstar † 20:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
47. Richard⁰⁶¹² 20:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
49. Húsönd 21:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
50. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
51. LittleMountain5 23:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs} 01:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
53. Synergy 02:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support Sarah 02:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    - Reallikeunreal (talk) 12:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm sorry, you lack suffrage for this election.--Tznkai (talk) 18:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

55. Support - Sumoeagle179 (talk) 12:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
56. Protonk (talk) 16:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
57. --Oxymoron⁸³ 18:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
58. arimareiji (talk) 19:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support. — Athaenara ✉ 21:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
60. The Helpful One 23:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
61. Agathoclea (talk) 00:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support Guest9999 (talk) 11:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
63. rʨanaɢ (formerly Politizer)^talk/_contribs 23:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
64. Support David in DC (talk) 00:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
65. Malinaccier (talk) 00:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
66. Dmcdevit·t 03:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
67. – wodup – 10:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
68. Support, per above. --BozMo talk 13:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
69. Sam ^Blab 17:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
70. Support Alansohn (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
71. Support Bearian (talk) 19:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
72. Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
73. Stephen 23:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
74. David Shankbone 18:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
75. Support Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
76. Dbiel ^(Talk) 01:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
77. Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
78. Support Mayalld (talk) 07:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
79. Kennedy ^(talk) 11:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
80. Support ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 04:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
81. Support Kingturtle (talk) 15:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
82. Support --J.Mundo (talk) 19:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
83. Support CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 20:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
84.  GARDEN  23:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
85. Support Full confidence. --Cerejota (talk) 06:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
86.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 19:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
87. Spencer^T♦C 20:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
88. Maxim_(talk) 01:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
89. Kralizec! (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
90. Support ((Nihiltres|talk|log)) 16:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
91. Support Becksguy (talk) 16:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
92. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
93. Support Graham87 23:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes in opposition to MBisanz

2. Gurch (talk) 01:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. RMHED. 01:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Chick Bowen 01:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. THE GROOVE 01:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Everyking (talk) 01:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Noroton (talk) 02:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Joe 03:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. JayHenry (talk) 04:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Grace Note (talk) 08:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Davewild (talk) 08:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Giggy (talk) 10:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. --Conti|✉ 14:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. Tex (talk) 15:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15. Majorly talk 15:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Strong oppose. Alansohn (talk) 19:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Alansohn (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

16. --Caspian blue 00:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
17. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
18. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
19. Sceptre ^(talk) 03:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
20. seresin ( ¡? )  20:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
21. Strongly Secret ^account 14:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
22. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
23. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Weak Oppose Mayalld (talk) 16:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC) changed to support Mayalld (talk) 07:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

24. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 13:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
25. Seraphim♥ 16:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
26. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 00:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
27. Oppose-Dureo (talk) 09:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
28. Sorry. — CharlotteWebb 14:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
29. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
30. RxS (talk) 17:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
31. Enigma^msg 22:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
32. Alio The Fool 23:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]