Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Closing statement for RFC on Visual Editor

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

Nomination statement

Hello, I’m Giraffer, and I’m applying for functionary rights. I have spent the majority of my time dealing with sockpuppets, vandals, and spammers in many locations, including AIV, SPI, and UTRS. I am confident in my behavioral analysis skills, but I’ve been running into situations where I feel that being able to perform CheckUser would lessen the burden on others and make me more useful. Most of my tool use would probably happen at SPI and UTRS, but I like working in different places and would happily take requests from elsewhere.

I am also applying for Oversight. I have experience requesting suppression for a variety of reasons, including PII disclosure, doxxing, attack usernames, and libelous content. I am occasionally on IRC but much more accessible via Discord, where we are seeing a growing number of OS requests. I understand that there have been no new community-appointed Oversighters in four years, but I believe that I could be an effective member of the team if chosen.

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

   I have experience dealing with small and large sockpuppetry cases. My most notable work is probably the Sanketio31 case, which took months of preparation and involved comparing timecards, linguistic patterns, areas of interest, and modus operandi. In recent times I have also taken to handling unblocks at UTRS, which occasionally involves reassessing a sockpuppetry block.

   For Oversight, I have experience requesting suppression for a variety of reasons, as explained in my statement. To my knowledge I have never had a suppression request of mine denied, and on a few occasions I have also escalated issues arising from suppressible content to the WMF.

2. Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.

   I do not have any significant experience working with private data. I have some education in networking but no significant real-world experience.

3. Do you hold advanced permissions (checkuser, oversight, bureaucrat, steward) on this or other WMF projects? If so, please list them. Also, do you have VRT permissions? If so, to which queues?

   I do not hold any advanced permissions or VRT access, but I have signed both the ANPDP and the VRT confidentiality agreement.

Editors may ask a maximum of two questions per candidate.

Comments may also be submitted to the Arbitration Committee privately by emailing arbcom-en-cwikimedia.org. Please note that the candidate will be provided the opportunity to respond to a paraphrased version of any emailed comments; the sender's name will not be provided.

• I have nothing but positive things to say about Giraffer. He is calm and thoughtful, highly experienced with complex sockpuppet investigations and unblock requests, and well-versed in the details of policy and community norms. This application is long overdue. Toadspike [Talk] 07:55, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• As I wrote at the functionary consultation stage, I am very enthusiastic about Giraffer's application and strongly recommend that the Committee grant CUOS. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 16:59, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Blatantly overqualified. My only bugbear is that Giraffer should really have run for Arbcom, rather than settling for funct status. CoconutOctopus talk 17:30, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Considering the very qualified slate of candidates this year, I can understand why they didn't. (also nothing but good things to say about giraffer) All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 17:36, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Meh, running for Arbcom is just EFA for functionaries, with a whole lot of extra work. ;) – bradv 17:47, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Giraffer has been trusted around functionary circles for years and should do well with the tools. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:31, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Giraffer’s work in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sanketio31/Archive#06 September 2021 was instrumental in identifying an AfD collusion ring that was using a new and at-the-time unusual kind of proxy which made CU detection difficult. His experience in identifying these kinds of sockpuppet behavioral patterns in these kinds of cases will be indispensable to the checkuser team. On the oversight front, it has now been several years since we have appointed a non-arb community oversighter, and we have waited long enough that I do think we have a need for some fresh eyes. Giraffer has demonstrated solid judgment on this front in their OS requests. I had the benefit of working with Giraffer this year on the electoral commission for the ArbCom election, and I was really appreciative of his good judgment and diligence in that role. I am endorsing him without reservation. Mz7 (talk) 21:55, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Fuck yes. Sennecaster (Chat) 05:47, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I could rant all day about the many talents which Giraffer brings to the website, and I will attempt to keep this on the subject of his candidacies.

  Giraffer is the epitome of what I want to see in a functionary. Above everything else, he is cautious. He is the last person to go on a fishing expedition, while being a talented sock hunter. He is receptive to feedback no matter how hard it might be to hear, and he is just as willing to give gentle but necessary criticism when needed. He has been active in anti-abuse for longer than I've been on Wikipedia, so I am not in the least bit worried that he is somehow inexperienced when it comes to adminship.

  I'd love to have an army of Giraffer clones in the functionary team, but I'll settle with the one as a compromise. With due respect to my future colleagues, if you are looking for a defensible excuse to oppose Giraffer for CUOS, I wish you the best of luck in finding one—you'll need it. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 06:04, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Like those above, I frankly cannot find anything bad to say about Giraffer. The succinct version is that I trust Giraffer with access to my personal info, and I think that's the biggest thing for a CUOS applicant: whether people trust them with their information. The question to ask is whether, if someone had doxxed me, would I feel safe with Giraffer having access to that info. And the answer is an absolute yes. I have been repeatedly impressed with Giraffer's work, and completely support. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 20:21, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]