Stewards/Confirm/2023/TheresNoTime: Difference between revisions

logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights | translate: translation help, statement

• Keep Keep While I am concerned about the checkuser issues that occured on enwiki last year, that lead to them resigning their checkuser and oversight rights, that they have not posted in this nomination statement, I still trust them to use the steward tools responsibly. --Ferien (talk) 21:07, 5 February 2023 (UTC) [reply ]
• Remove Remove I find it pretty strange that you still have access to non-public information, after you were found out by enwiki Arbcom to have abused the checkuser tool and had both CU/OS rights removed, not to mention the diva exit during the case. This is not what I expect from a steward, especially one who works for the WMF . Since then, you have zero functionary roles outside of login, which they have due to their Steward privileges. What doesn't make this any better is you don't even speak about the incident in your statement. You didn't really think no one would bring up a major incident that just happened a few months ago, did you? To be frank, I assumed you'd have enough dignity left to address the elephant in the room like Rxy did, but instead you chose to hide it. Not a good look. 1989 (talk) 21:08, 5 February 2023 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep --Stïnger (会話) 21:10, 5 February 2023 (UTC).[reply ]
• Remove Remove for controversial reply with harsh follow up despite my sincerity to withdraw the case to somewhat forgive and forget.--Jusjih (talk) 21:11, 5 February 2023 (UTC) [reply ]
• Weak keep. The elephant in the room here is obviously their CheckUser and Oversight removal, otherwise this would be a no-brainer keep. I'm still willing to support based on two things: that the problem on enwiki was with their use of CheckUser, and not at all about their ability to keep data private (unlike a previous cases that popped up at SE), and that their misuse was not incompetence nor abuse but rather acting once while INVOLVED. In almost any other scenario involving CUOS removal, I would likely be opposing confirmation, but given the homewiki rule and extra impartiality (beyond that of functionaries) required of stewards, I can't really see a similar incident reoccurring, nor do I expect to from someone like TNT. Giraffer (talk) 21:23, 5 February 2023 (UTC) [reply ]
• Neutral Neutral ~~~~
  User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 22:09, 5 February 2023 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep - I am convinced that TNT is still fit for another term. The English Wikipedia removal, as highlighted by Giraffer above, is an involved issue and is not a breach of privacy. Thank you for your help.--*Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page ♮ 22:10, 5 February 2023 (UTC) [reply ]
  • But it was, TNT did view two users' IP addresses for a completely unjustifiable check of "compromise/collusion", a novel use of the CU tool. That this was their first instinct rather than supposing that someone else thought unblocking Athaenara was the right course of action related to the (completely inappropriate, by the way) controversial comments was disturbing. --Rs chen 7754 22:37, 5 February 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

  Of course "serious breaches of Wikipedia's administrative norms and of the CheckUser policy"^[1] includes a "breach of privacy". ToBeFree (talk) 23:14, 5 February 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

• Remove Remove with regret. To me it's not so much the misuse of CU but the complete lack of judgment surrounding the incident. I don't trust your ability to step away from the tools when you are upset, and being a steward can be quite stressful. Happy to have you retain admin-level permissions and I hope this doesn't discourage you from contributing elsewhere. --Rs chen 7754 22:21, 5 February 2023 (UTC) [reply ]
• Remove Remove: "TheresNoTime: CheckUser removed. TheresNoTime: Oversight removed. TheresNoTime: admonished". ToBeFree (talk) 23:11, 5 February 2023 (UTC) [reply ]
• Remove Remove: Sorry for jumping the gun and posting prematurely yesterday; in 16+ years of Wikipedia/Wikimedia work, this is the first time I've argued a steward should not be retained and I misunderstood the process. On en.wiki, INVOLVED applies to all admin actions, and to argue an INVOLVED local functionary action, breaching the privacy of two administrators, does not violate the meta privacy rules is discordant. There is plenty more bad behavior, some of which is articulated above, and others of which is publicly available on the en.wiki Arbcom case. Bottom line? TNT did something egregiously out of bounds, and then requested a public case for presumed exoneration, only to instead display such prolonged bad judgment and logically incompatible arguments that a deferential ArbCom--who should have removed the advanced tools pending a case--was forced to act in as limited a manner as this. The fact that TNT still has steward access in light of en.wiki Arbcom findings demonstrates that the Ombuds commission is incapable of executing its basic function, and the fact that TNT still feels standing for confirmation is appropriate demonstrates that we're still dealing with egregiously bad judgment. Jclemens (talk) 23:23, 5 February 2023 (UTC) [reply ]
• Remove Remove --ɱ 23:25, 5 February 2023 (UTC) [reply ]
• Remove Remove The loss of CUOS for being INVOLVED while not ideal, it is forgivable. However if I remember correctly, after the arbcom case they decided to blank their userpage, and turn it into a short incendiary paragraph on arbcom and specific members, which read as doubling down on their INVOLVED position at the time. While the "double down" approach is a great watch in tv and politics its just not appropriate for a steward. Terasail ^[✉️] 23:57, 5 February 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

• Steward confirmation statements 2023