Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee/2014 appointments

< Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee | Audit Subcommittee

The committee has appointed three community auditors for 2014–2015, who are listed below, and this process has now closed. Thank you very much to everybody who participated.

Shortcuts


The Arbitration Committee is appointing three non-arbitrators to a term on its Audit Subcommittee ("AUSC"). AUSC audits and inspects all use of the CheckUser and Oversight privileges on the English Wikipedia. The outgoing AUSC members will depart on 27 August, and this process is to select their replacements. Their replacements will serve until 31 August 2015.

AUSC members must be trustworthy independent thinkers, and will be required to:

  • use the AUSC mailing list to discuss and decide complaints
  • attend to complaints and open business in a timely manner (serious inactivity will lead to removal)
  • comply with all policies governing their private CU and OS use

The subcommittee is made up of three arbitrators and three community auditors. You must be an administrator on this project, at least eighteen years of age, and willing to identify to the Wikimedia Foundation. Successful applicants will receive the full roster of access rights for CUOS holders for the duration of their term.

To apply, read on at #Appointment process.

Appointment process

edit
Dates are provisional and subject to change
  • Applications: 16 July – 29 July

    You may apply by submitting a nomination statement to arbcom-en-c lists.wikimedia.org. The statement should be 250 words in length and be suitable for inclusion in your public nomination. (Only administrators are eligible this year.)

  • Administration: 29 July – 01 August

    Your nomination page will be prepared; it will contain your statement, a Q&A section, and space for community comments on your nomination and suitability for the role.


  • Community comments: 01 August – 12 August

    Your nomination will be posted. Like RFA, there are several standard questions which you must answer. Community members may also pose additional questions; you may answer these too.

    At this stage, the community can comment on you and the other volunteers. Comments on the candidates' suitability (or unsuitability) can be posted in the relevant nomination page, or sent to arbcom-en-c lists.wikimedia.org.

  • Committee decision: 13 August →

    The committee will collate all community feedback. Arbitrators may pose follow-up questions to you by email, and we will vote privately on who to appoint.

  • Appointments: by 27 August 2014

    You will be notified of our decision. Successful candidates will identify, then receive their permissions and access rights.

The formal vetting phase and the lengthy questionnaire has been abolished.

Results

edit

Effective 27 August 2014, Callanecc (talk · contribs), Joe Decker (talk · contribs), and MBisanz (talk · contribs) are appointed as community representatives to the Audit Subcommittee, subject to their compliance with the provisions of the Access to nonpublic data policy. The period of appointment will be 27 August 2014 to 31 August 2015.

DeltaQuad (talk · contribs) is designated as an alternate member of the subcommittee and will become a full member should one of the appointees resign their role during the term.

The Arbitration Committee sincerely thanks all of the candidates, as well as the many members of the community who participated in the appointment process for these roles.

The Arbitration Committee also extends its thanks to Richwales (talk · contribs), Guerillero (talk · contribs), and MBisanz (talk · contribs) for agreeing to stay in office past the original length of their term; and to the outgoing auditors, Richwales and Guerillero, for their service to date.

For the Arbitration Committee,
AGK [•] 19:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates

edit

Avraham

edit

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

Nomination statement (250 words max.)

edit

I am volunteering to serve once again as a member of AUSC. As a checkuser and oversighter for the English Wikipedia project for a number of years, I believe that I have gained valuable experience in understanding the nature and limitations of the tools themselves, as well as the opportunities where they should, may, or should not be used; the types of information which may be released; and how privacy issues should be dealt with. Having served as a community member of AUSC (2012–2013), and as a current member of the Wikimedia foundation Ombudsman Commission, I have experience in dealing with situations of potential privacy violations and improper use of tools and understand the demands of the role. Thank you for your consideration.

Standard questions for all candidates

edit

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

A: I have experience with the tools, being a checkuser since 2008 and an oversighter since 2009. I have served on AUSC before (2012–2013) and am a currently sitting Ombudsman, so I have experience in investigating and responding to claims of tool misuse.

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

A: Having used the tools for over 5 years, I am comfortable with their abilities, limitations, and proper usage.

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

A: I serve the Wikimedia Foundation and all its projects as a steward and sitting Ombudsman; I serve the English Wikipedia project as an admin, bureaucrat, checkuser, and oversighter; I serve the Wikimedia Commons as an admin and oversighter; and I serve the Wikimedia Meta project as an admin. I am an OTRS volunteer with access to the following queues: info-en (f), Permissions, Commons, info-he (f), Stewards, Sister projects, and oversight-en-wp.

Questions for this candidate

edit
  • What are your views on whether evidence against a contributor subject to an Arbcom case ought to be shared with the contributor, so that they have the opportunity to add or refute the evidence? In particular I am concerned with check user details which may be both conducted in secret, and the results and deductions from it, withheld from the contributor. Fæ (talk) 12:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to both the Wikimedia Foundation Privacy Policy, and the English Wikipedia project privacy policy, the checkuser running the test is allowed to share the information with ArbCom as it relates to protecting the project and its users. To the best of my understanding, if ArbCom were to share the private metadata of a contributor with THAT contributor, it would not be a violation of the privacy policy as the policy is meant to protect this information from being used to deleteriously affect the user's privacy, and sharing with the user him/herself cannot do so. Therefore, I believe your question does not pertain to the proper functioning of the AUSC, and should more properly be addressed to those who volunteer to serve on the Arbitration Committee. If I may ask you to explain, why do you believe this question is pertinent to AUSC? -- Avi (talk) 16:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • The AUSC serves as a complaints body and the terms of the committee state "AUSC audits and inspects all use of the CheckUser and Oversight privileges on the English Wikipedia". Unnecessary secrecy may be as damaging to Wikipedia and degrade trust in the long term, as much as cases of privacy being compromised or flouted. --Fæ (talk) 03:41, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • That is not an issue that relates to improper use of the CU or OS tool; that is an issue with once the tool is properly used, what is done with the gathered information. As such, that is an issue regarding the possible existence of a particular culture regarding the English Wikipedia project in general and its Arbitration Committee in specific. If you believe information should be released more widely than it is now, that needs to be addressed with those who you feel are not releasing the information—not the AUSC. -- Avi (talk) 14:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you believe serving on both the Audit Subcommittee and the Ombudsman Commission reflects a conflict of interest? Please explain your answer. If yes, please explain how you intend to handle any conflicts that may arise. Thanks. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 19:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I do not believe that serving on both reflects a conflict of interest; both roles are intended to protect Wikimedia projects and members from improper use of specific tools. There are slight differences between the roles. The OC has a Wikimedia-wide purview, but its remit is solely on investigating alleged violations of the Wikimedia Privacy Policy. The AUSC has a much narrower purview, the English Wikipedia project, but a somewhat wider remit in that it reviews 1) usage of both CU and OS tools, and 2) is not constrained to potential violations of the privacy policy. However, I do not see where or how the two can come into conflict. If someone complains to the OC concurrent to an AUSC investigation, both the OC and the AUSC would have the same exact access to the necessary information: AUSC as local CUs and OC as global CUs. If a situation which would create a conflict would arise, I would recuse myself; just as I would have recused myself if the either the AUSC were to investigate me or the OC received a complaint about an action of mine. Is there some situation which you have in mind? A concrete example would be appreciated. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 21:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have, over time, accumulated a lot of roles, which include: Ombudsmen commission member, Steward, Wikimedia Commons admin, Wikimedia Commons oversighter as well as Administrator, Bureaucrat, Oversight and Checkuser here on the English Wikipedia. That's a lot of hats. It might well be considered among the highest workload commitment I have seen of any volunteer here. So I took the liberty of arranging a summary of your rights and your activity levels since the arbitrary date of March 2014 (just happens to be steward reconfirmations) before going to my question:
Steward Enwiki CU Enwiki OS Enwiki 'crat Enwiki sysop Commons OS Commons sysop
Logged actions between March and July (5 months) 2 6 10 0 0 6 2
So here comes my question, are you sure that as somebody with very low levels of activity in your current roles you're in a position to take over more responsibilities? Snowolf How can I help? 22:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is exactly why I am volunteering for this role again. I found myself with less time than I wanted to work on Wiki[p|m]edia-related activity, which is why I volunteered for the OC when I did. It is a role in which less activity is expected (OC members (and AUSC as well) are exempt from CU/OS quotas during their tenure), but experience is valued—I have run hundreds of checks and performed hundreds of suppressions. When the call for AUSC volunteers was made, I sent an e-mail to the English Wikipedia Arbcom stating pretty much the same thing, along the lines of now that I am less active and on OC, it would make sense for me to volunteer in this role as well, for which less activity is expected yet experience is valued. -- Avi (talk) 14:17, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are some of the criteria you would use to determine if a CU check was valid? --Rschen7754 03:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the English Wikipedia project, the checkuser tool is used to protect the project from disruptive editing and to investigate sockpuppetry and legitimate claims of bad faith editing; for simplicity, I will call all of these "project disruption." Therefore, to determine if a check was valid, one of the first tasks is to investigate what was the disruptive behavior. This would include looking at any relevant WP:SPI, WP:ANI, or other on-wiki pages; asking for the relevant e-mails if the check was made at the request of ArbCom, the functionaries, or to an individual CU; and contacting the CU in question. Another criterion would be the relationship between the checker and the checkee. While not outright forbidden, having a checker be someone who has a adversarial relationship with the checkee is going to raise the specter of impropriety, and would require extra care to ensure that the tool was not used to apply pressure. A third important criterion is how the information gleaned from the check was used: for example, to whom was it sent and where and how were the results posted. While all checks are unique, these are some of the criteria I use. -- Avi (talk) 05:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is your understanding of the need for cross-wiki coordination between local CheckUsers and stewards? --Rschen7754 03:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The main vehicles for EnWiki CU/Steward co-ordination are the CU mailing list and the CU wiki. Technically, stewards may check on any wiki, including a home wiki, when running cross-wiki checks. In practice, this is almost never done, and the stewards (you and I included) tend to e-mail the list or post on the wiki when they need results from EnWiki. Personally, I have found that response from EnWiki CUs on the list is rather quick. I also have it a bit easier than other stewards as I (and MBisanz for that matter) are local CUs as well, and we can support both the local and global requirements if necessary. -- Avi (talk) 05:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The global OS policy states that the oversight tool can be used for the "removal of potentially libelous information either: a) on the advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel or b) when the case is clear, and there is no editorial reason to keep the revision." What does this mean to you? --Rschen7754 03:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Advice of the WMF counsel is pretty clear. That would be Geoff, his team, and Phillipe/Maggie in their roles of Legal and Community Advocacy. The second criterion is broader, obviously. First and foremost, my view on the matter is colored by 1) the permanence of the internet, 2) the penetration of Wikipedia, and 3) the total reversibility of suppression, the fact that all suppressions are logged, and the ease with which suppression can be reversed. Therefore, channeling Justice Stewart, while it is impossible to list hard, bright-line rules as to what is "clear" and "unnecessary," I think it safe to say that if the revision in question is obviously harmful to the subject even if true, is itself dubious (thus potentially untrue), and isn't one of the main reasons why the subject is notable, then the OS may, actually should, suppress the the revision, and then e-mail the OS or functionaries list for review. This way, the subject is protected while the revision is being reviewed. If after consideration, the information is deemed to not be worthy of suppression, the OS should simply reverse it. If this is the behavior (backed up by e-mails to the OS/func list) of the OS, then even if the suppression was eventually replaced with revision deletion or completely reversed, I would not consider this to be abuse. Conversely (and let's make it obvious), in cases where the information is part and parcel of the subject's notability, and the OS has a history of editing the article from a specific point of view and uses the tool to further promote that point of view, that would be a clear violation. As there is a continuum, each case must be judged on its own merits, but I hope this addresses your question in the manner you intended. -- Avi (talk) 06:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a proposal to shift the enforcement of the CU/OS inactivity policy to AUSC. Whether that should be done is another question, but if that were to become reality, given the concerns above, do you believe that you would be able to do carry out this responsibility? --Rschen7754 05:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you mean how would I respond to AUSC members now being required to maintain minimal activity? On the one hand, as I described above, I am volunteering because I know my activity level is lower. On the other hand, the activity levels would technically still not apply to me, as I am on the OC as well. Were the proposal changed to no longer exempt OC members from activity requirements, my presence or absence on AUSC would still be irrelevant, as I would then have to comply as an existing native OC/CU on the English Wikipedia. -- Avi (talk) 06:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, the question is about being tasked with enforcing the activity policy on other enwiki functionaries. --Rschen7754 13:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, for many months (or was it over two years, I no longer remember), I was the person manually calculating the statistics until someone with better scripting skills wrote a semi-automated procedure, so I'm comfortable with the stats themselves. As of now, enforcement means reminding people when they are close to missing targets, trying twice to contact them prior to removal, and then asking stewards to remove the bit upon agreement or non-response of the CU/OS in question. If that becomes a duty of the AUSC, so be it. It does not take that much time. Well, as long as we still have an automated stats roll-ip process, that is. Manually copy-pasting thousands of entries into a spreadsheet and then using logic to count the names was a bit more time intensive  . -- Avi (talk) 15:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • What I'm trying to get at is that if Commons had the same rules for CU/OS, you would have most likely lost your Commons OS bit for inactivity... --Rschen7754 01:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Then say so instead of asking everything but that  ! Also, what is the relevance between Commons OS and the English Wikiepdia Audit Subcommittee? While this is completely irrelevant, you do know that there are fewer requests for suppression on the Commons than on EnWiki. Furthermore, in the most recent one in which I was involved in (last week), I decided—and the other OSers agreed—that suppression was not appropriate under the circumstances, so the lack of deleted images doth not inactivity mean. -- Avi (talk) 01:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • My concern is that if the proposal went through, you would be enforcing a standard of activity on enwiki that you are not maintaining yourself on other wikis. Before the month of July you had made 2 suppressions on Commons from July 1, 2013 to June 30, 2014, while other oversighters have made much more. [1][2] This isn't like Wikidata which may see 5 total requests in a 3 month period... --Rschen7754 01:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                • Firstly, as a sitting Ombudsman, I am going to be less active in CU and OS throughout all the projects. I am not certain, but I may currently be the only OC member with native CU or OS on multiple projects, so my activity is more curtailed. Moreover, please realize that the Commons and English Wikipedia are different projects with markedly different cultures. When on Commons, one need to act in line with its policies and guidelines, and similar for EnWiki, but the policies and guidelines of one do not, and should not apply to the other. If you wish to have the Commons implement an activity policy, by all means start the process—on the Commons. I continue to maintain that enforcing EnWiki policies is an EnWiki issue, one with which I have already stated I would have (and have had) no concerns. -- Avi (talk) 02:11, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

edit
Comments may also be submitted in confidence to the Arbitration Committee privately by emailing arbcom-en-c lists.wikimedia.org
  • I hate being the first one commenting on most of these, but here goes anyway, hoping others will follow... I think I and others have said enough regarding the large number of Wikimedia responsibilities here. Personally, I don't think that trust is the issue here, but rather the ability to perform well in all of these responsibilities entrusted by the community. --Rschen7754 01:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Callanecc

edit

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

Nomination statement (250 words max.)

edit

Hello everyone, I'd like to put myself forward as a candidate for the Audit Subcommittee. I am a newish (7-8 months) admin, an arbitration clerk and SPI clerk as well as an admin on the request an account tool and an OTRS agent.

As an SPI clerk I've seen and experienced the level of evidence various CUs expect before running a check. This experience is valuable, I believe, as it allows me a varied and independent insight into the current expectations of the CU team. Also regarding CU, I've used the tool on another (non-WMF) install so I know the type of information it provides and am confident that I can assess what it’s telling me, again due to experience in real life and on/off wiki.

As an ACC admin, OTRS agent and in my real life, I am privy to a large amount of personal, private information and am used to keeping information confidential and working out what can and can’t be disclosed.

I see the role of an auditor to be a 'watchdog', checking and investigating the use of CU/OS on their own initiative and in response to community concerns. This is vital in a system which by its nature is secretive to ensure the confidence of the community in the use of CU/OS and confidence in actions taken by users with CU/OS.

Please feel free to ask questions here, on my talk page or via email. Kind regards, Callanecc.

Standard questions for all candidates

edit

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

A: I believe I've summed this up in my nomination statement however just a quick summary and a bit more. As an SPI clerk I've a seen pretty large array of cases where CU has been requested for various purposes and where CUs have both checked and declined to check for various reasons. I've also had opportunities to see different ways CUs deal with blocking IPs and not inadvertently disclosing who those IPs are used by.
Being an arbitration clerk has given me a good idea of some of the inner workings of the Committee. I believe this is important in a role which works both in conjunction with (that is, having three arbs on AUSC and the Committee having the authority to action AUSC findings/decisions) and separate from (auditing the actions of arbitrators) ArbCom.
As part of my OTRS work, I've responded to emails from people who are very unhappy about how they believe they've been treated, so have had to communicate with them and try to solve the problem.
Based on the revision deletion statistics page I've made 213 logged revision deletions (more than that number of revisions deleted) since getting the tools, from memory I've also been asked to justify one of them which was oversighted after I'd revdel'd and request oversight.

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

A: I've worked for the IT department of a reasonably large institution. My work partly involved investigating the actions of people using the network, including identifying them through subnets, user agent and login details. Due to this and as part of other roles I've been privy to personal and confidential information about people, including my peers, which I can't share with others or with them.

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

A: I don't currently hold any advanced permissions on WMF projects. I currently have access to info-en, permissions and sister projects (Commons and Wikidata) on OTRS. I'm also an admin on the request an account tool.

Questions for this candidate

edit
  • What are your views on whether evidence against a contributor subject to an Arbcom case ought to be shared with the contributor, so that they have the opportunity to add or refute the evidence? In particular I am concerned with check user details which may be both conducted in secret, and the results and deductions from it, withheld from the contributor. Fæ (talk) 12:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's important to note that the AUSC wouldn't have jurisdiction here as it doesn't involve a possible breach of the privacy or CU policy (assuming there was adequate evidence to run the check in the first place). That is, it's not that too much information has been disclosed but that information hasn't been disclosed.
My personal opinion is that I share your concern regarding not enough information being disclosed for a user to be able to adequately defend themselves. How much information is disclosed depends a lot on how definite the link it. If a CU asks someone if they are related to another user they could very well be (depending on the size and use of the IP/range) breaching that user's privacy. I would expect that in most circumstances the user could be told that CU information was used in the decision to sanction, however it really depends. In a sense natural justice demands that the user be given adequate opportunity and to defend themselves (which is a principle I feel strongly about and will apply to AUSC investigations where possible), however in some cases allowing them this information could make it more difficult to detect socking in the future. The judgement call and accountability sits with the person issuing the sanction and of those who hear the appeal (assuming they do appeal) and in the system we have with the people CU combats sometimes that's what's needed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 15:08, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are some of the criteria you would use to determine if a CU check was valid? --Rschen7754 03:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • My primary criteria is whether the CU believed in good faith the check was in the best interests of the project and that they had seen evidence supporting a check I would likely say it’s a valid check. In terms of a criteria and things I'd look into:
a) The CheckUser
  1. Impartial
  2. Uninvolved
  3. Previous history of checks (have they got a record of contentious or poor checks?)
  4. Acting in good faith
b) The Check
  1. How strong was the behavioural evidence
  2. Was the check appropriate and necessary (WP:CHK#Guidance given to CheckUsers)
  3. Was the check within the grounds for checking and done in order to prevent or reduce potential or actual disruption, or to investigate credible, legitimate concerns of bad faith editing (WP:CHK#CheckUser and privacy policy)
  4. Did the CU initiate the check on their own initiative (no other input) or was it requested and/or endorsed on/off wiki – this mainly for my information rather than an indication that they did something wrong. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is your understanding of the need for cross-wiki coordination between local CheckUsers and stewards? --Rschen7754 03:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given the increase in SUL accounts and a number of sockuppeteers and socks who get blocked on mulitiple projects I believe it's very important that local CUs and stewards coordinate their activities. If for no other reason than we all have limited time and it makes little sense for a CU to be run on numerous projects, the accounts be blocked then locked when with some coordination and targeting of effort a steward can do the check once and lock the account(s). However it is important to note (as I've been told at meta:SRG before) that sockpuppetry by itself is doesn't warrant a lock and there needs to be cross-wiki abuse for the initial lock at least. In terms of the AUSC role in this, I see it as negligible to non-existent as CUs can share with stewards the same information which they can with any CU, hence no breach of privacy policy. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The global OS policy states that the oversight tool can be used for the "removal of potentially libelous information either: a) on the advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel or b) when the case is clear, and there is no editorial reason to keep the revision." What does this mean to you? --Rschen7754 03:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it's important to consider that the local WP:OS policy is slightly more restrictive as it asks OSers to consider whether RevDel is more appropriate rather than it just being approved for use. The first phrase (a) seems to be there to allow OSers to act on advice of the counsel (perhaps so they can do it themselves or request a community OS to do it for them). The second phrase (b) states that it must be clear that the information is (potentially) libelous and that there is no reason to keep the revision available to admins (since it would meet RevDel criteria). An example I could think of (regarding a reason to keep the edit just RevDel'd) would be if a sockpuppeteer continues to insert the same information which allows their socks to be easily identified. It makes sense to keep the master's edits viewable to admins (and non-OS CUs) so that they can identify socks. Another reason could be revisions on a widely used discussion board or talk page (where a large number of revisions would need to be hidden) where OS would disrupt editors' ability to follow discussions and look up past revisions. Regarding an AUSC investigation: if the OS can show me that in good faith they believed the OS was in the best interests of the project and that the reasons to OS outweight the reasons not to then I'd very likely (dependent on if there were other circumstances) not to support any sanctions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

edit
Comments may also be submitted in confidence to the Arbitration Committee privately by emailing arbcom-en-c lists.wikimedia.org

DeltaQuad

edit

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

Nomination statement (250 words max.)

edit

Hello, everyone. I’m DeltaQuad, currently an Administrator and CheckUser here on the English Wikipedia, which has always been my home. I’ve been active here for just over 4.5 years, about 4 years at sockpuppet investigations, about 3 as an administrator, and about 2 as a Checkuser. I also have a background in computer networking technology, which helps in my day to day operations of CheckUser. In my experience as a CheckUser, I have also become thoroughly immersed in the privacy policy. As a functionary, I’ve also seen the discussion in the functionaries-en mailing list about use of the oversight tool, and how Oversighters determine whether to remove something or not. While I haven’t extensively used revdel, I have some experience and have requested oversight on several occasions myself. I am here to offer my experience and expertise for the Audit subcommittee this year. If invited to join the subcommittee, I will serve a full term. I have multiple ways in which I can be contacted, and I appreciate any questions or comments anyone has.

Thank you for your consideration. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ)

Standard questions for all candidates

edit

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

A: My experience at SPI is probably the biggest experience (4 years) I bring to this role. As I mentioned in my nomination: While I haven’t extensively used revdel, I have some experience and have requested oversight on several occasions myself. For off-wiki experience, I have had experience with OTRS and dealing with high profile subjects of articles. Also, I assisted in the privacy development and policy aspect for UTRS and ACC. Furthermore, I'm an active participant in the Checkuser-l (help combating global abuse) and functionaries-en lists. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 23:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

A: I have 3 years of post secondary education in the area of computer networking, which has assisted in my role as a checkuser, especially in large complicated cases. I've also had to deal with sensitive information of people before, including access to a database with names, addresses, phone numbers, emails, people in that household, and more which was all regularly updated. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 23:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

A: I am a checkuser locally, and I have access to OTRS queues info-en (f), permissions, and photosubmission. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 23:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for this candidate

edit
  1. What are your views on whether evidence against a contributor subject to an Arbcom case ought to be shared with the contributor, so that they have the opportunity to add or refute the evidence? In particular I am concerned with check user details which may be both conducted in secret, and the results and deductions from it, withheld from the contributor. Fæ (talk) 12:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Speaking as a potential auditor, if you are wondering about the disclosure of the CU results to the editor being a violation of the CU or privacy policy, I would say no per wmf:Privacy_policy#With_Your_Permission. Otherwise is out of the scope and remit of the Audit Subcommittee.
    My individual view as a CU is that I do not disclose the actual checkuser data. My final conclusions (results) are always available to the user. I do not release how I deducted my result, as it could lead to publication of how checkusers are able to detect socks, and they could then better evade checkuser next time. With all that said though, I provide a fair alternative chance for people to defend themselves, especially for long term contributors. I normally ask them to first provide a statement of what happened, and I compare that against the technical information. If everything checks out, I will then ask 4 questions related to their statement and the results. If they line up, then I am open to amending my results or removing any action taken against them. I feel this gives a user an sufficient chance of defending themselves. I hope that answers your question. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 23:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. What are some of the criteria you would use to determine if a CU check was valid? --Rschen7754 03:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    By 'valid' I'm assuming you mean appropriate. If that is not the case, let me know. "Is there a reasonable suspicion that there could be abuse of multiple accounts or abuse of an IP address and an account in a manner to harm the wiki or edit against project policy? Is the person running the check uninvolved and unbiased in determining the results?" These are really the only two questions that needs to be asked to determine if a check is valid. Every other question that can be asked falls under this. A CU needs to be neutral and unbiased in running their check. This ensures the proper results given to the community, and that it's not influenced by disputes or pure speculation. While open to interpretation, 'reasonable suspicion' and unbiased results, are dependant on that not just checkusers would agree that its possible there is abuse, but anyone reviewing the evidence, with the proper technical knowledge (whether briefed or already known) would generally agree. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 21:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. What is your understanding of the need for cross-wiki coordination between local CheckUsers and stewards? --Rschen7754 03:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no direct need for coordination of local CheckUsers and Stewards. Each local wiki can often enough defend themselves (with the right number of advanced permission holders). That said, it is normally mutually beneficial to have such coordination, especially for smaller wikipedias. It prevents sockpuppetry, vandalism, or general damage from hopping from one project to another. Sometimes one wiki will be able to provide an IP range that another wiki does not have, which leads to the finding of new harm to the projects. That is the potential benefit gained from such coordination, which is common in major sockmasters going crosswiki to publish their edits (if they have been blocked on more than one wiki) or in spambot prevention. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 21:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The global OS policy states that the oversight tool can be used for the "removal of potentially libelous information either: a) on the advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel or b) when the case is clear, and there is no editorial reason to keep the revision." What does this mean to you? --Rschen7754 03:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Part A stands clearly by itself. If you look to WMF Legal for whether they say the edit of alleged libel, and they say yes, then it can be done. Part B, is different. Part B requires a obvious attempt at inserting a statement which is unfounded and could subject a person to harm of their reputation. If there is grounds to believe that it is not true, and no reliable source is claiming it's true, then I would yield it as an unfounded statement. Obvious, is a relative term, and in this case, it speaks to the fact that not just your peers (oversighters) recognize this as an attempt to engage in libel, but any person who was reviewing the case. If there is any doubt, it should be discussed first among oversighters and obtain a consensus before running the suppression. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 21:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. In April 2014 you resigned as a CU due to "time commitment issues" 1, and were reappointed in July 2014 2. Are you sure that you will be able to maintain enough activity for the role? --Rschen7754 03:46, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. There were two factors in stepping down of which neither apply right now. 1) I was in school for the past several months before my resignation which limited my time. If felt it wasn't fair to maintain the flag if I wasn't going to do the work. I am since finished school. 2) As 19 people can attest to, I sent a message to them at the time of my resignation as it was very likely I was going to have a major change in my life which would have extremely limited my time. That didn't happen as fast as I had thought (hence my request back for the permission) and i've moved on to a new track where that is no longer an issue. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 19:48, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

edit
Comments may also be submitted in confidence to the Arbitration Committee privately by emailing arbcom-en-c lists.wikimedia.org

Fluffernutter

edit

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

Nomination statement (250 words max.)

edit

Hello, I'm Fluffernutter. I've been an admin and an oversighter since 2011, and I'm applying for a slot on AUSC this year. I'm very active in functionary discussions about the finer points of how we do - and how we should - use our tools, and I'd like to take this a step further by helping supervise tool (mis)use. I haven't previously applied for AUSC because Arbcom prohibited AUSC members from using their bits in response to community requests for oversight/checkuser; now that Arbcom has lifted that rule and I can still do useful everyday work as well, I'm willing and able to do both my usual oversight work and help on AUSC's cases.

Standard questions for all candidates

edit

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

A: I have been an oversighter for three years (nearly), so I'm familiar with both the workflow of suppression and what is and isn't contentious about using oversight tools. With my oversight bits came access to privacy- and functionary-oriented mailing list and IRC channels; I am regularly active in those venues discussing oversight actions with other users, and I have had a chance to observe checkusers discussing some of their general challenges as well.

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

A: I have no particular real-life expertise that lends itself to either the checkuser or oversight tools, or to auditing; my experience inside the Wikimedia community is what leads me to believe that I could be useful here.

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

A: I currently have info-en-full access on OTRS and oversight rights on enwp. I do not work on other wikis except incidentally, and have no advanced permissions on any of them.

Questions for this candidate

edit
  • What are your views on whether evidence against a contributor subject to an Arbcom case ought to be shared with the contributor, so that they have the opportunity to add or refute the evidence? In particular I am concerned with check user details which may be both conducted in secret, and the results and deductions from it, withheld from the contributor. Fæ (talk) 12:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not entirely sure this issue falls under AUSC's purview. The question of whether arbcom should share privately-submitted or privately-found evidence with the user it is about is, obviously, not governed by AUSC; Arbcom and the community are in charge of what procedures Arbcom follows in their cases.

      As far as checkuser data, specifically, in Arbcom cases...that's tougher. I see the role of AUSC members as primarly preventing over-disclosure of private information (for instance, Arbcom giving CU evidence to an admin clerk to action) rather than under-disclosure. Generally speaking, however, the subjects of CU checks are not entitled to their own CU data, essentially because if everyone was entitled to their own CU data, it would be easier for them to evade CU in the future. Neither the privacy policy nor our local CU policy makes any specific mention of a "give me my data" sort of right, but the CU policy does specify that "CheckUser data cannot be correctly interpreted without technical knowledge and experience with the tool." Speaking from a position of not being experienced with CU data, then, I would say that my opinion is that while "a CU check connects you to user:blah; do you have an explanation or refutation for this" would certainly be fair during an Arbcom case, "You and user:blah share the same useragent and OS, and your IPs are on the same range" or "Is there a reason you're both on IP xx.xxx.xx.x?" should not be required or expected, both because of "beans" and because if the users aren't actually related, then each of their privacy was just violated to the other. At the end of the day, however, I remain unconvinced that someone not sharing private information is a problem that falls under AUSC's scope, as it is not a misuse of the CU tool or abuse of a user's privacy. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • (edit conflict) With the ideal of WP:INVOLVED in mind why do you feel that the community representatives on AUSC should be able to perform CU/OS? Furthermore, in cases where your judgement in using the tools is being called into question why do you think it would be appropriate for you to be part of the appeal committee? Finally if you were to recuse in cases where your judgement was being questioned, why do you feel that the quoroum size should be diminished for your involvement? Hasteur (talk) 12:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Hasteur. My feeling that AUSC members should be able to work with the CU and OS tools comes from two places. First, a more pragmatic one: CU and OS requests pour in and often backlog (I handled 46 suppressions in June 2014 alone, for instance, and a number of other OSers each handled just as many that month), while the most recent public AUSC statistics (at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee/Reports) show that AUSC might handle a dozen cases over the course of a year. If AUSC members can't do regular CU/OS tasks, then, we have a committee of dedicated, trusted volunteers that the community and arbcom believe have good judgment...who most of the time are sitting on their hands unable to do anything useful, while backlogs spin up around them. Second, being able to judge use of the tools means you need to understand the tools and how people use them. The best way to get to that point is to have experience using the tools. Previously, new AUSC members could, at best, play with a sandboxed version of their tools; this meant that when the time came to judge someone else's use, their knowledge was mostly conceptual, with little sense of the pitfalls or procedures involved in actual use. With Arbcom having lifted that prohibition, AUSC members can now experience actually using their tools in the real world, and I think that equips them to better understand their cases.

      In any case where my judgment using the tools were to be called into question, under no circumstances would I want to be, or be allowed to be, part of the group that evaluated that case. That's simply good sense.

      As far as why I feel quorum should be decreased if I were to recuse in a case that involved me, well...the answer to that is that that's how recusal works. I know that sounds glib, but recusal is something that's pretty standard on Wikipedia; it's used everywhere from Arbcom to admin actions (WP:INVOLVED). We're pretty used, as a community, to working around being down one or two arbs/admins/AUSCers in any given decision process. I happen to think that's a good thing, because I believe that the value we get from having someone doing the work 99% of the time more than counterbalances the 1% of the time we have to route around them. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • What are some of the criteria you would use to determine if a CU check was valid? --Rschen7754 03:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Local checkuser policy says that checks must only be made in order to prevent or reduce potential or actual disruption, or to investigate credible, legitimate concerns of bad faith editing. Global checkuser policy says that There must be a valid reason to check a user and It must be used only to prevent damage to any of Wikimedia projects. As with many of our policies, these are written in a manner that leans to the general side; there is expected to be some element of judgment involved in the decision process of when to use the tool and when not to use the tool, and while not all checkusers might take a particular line of action, it should be clear to any reasonable one that that line of action was not blatantly wrong. Correspondingly, an AUSC investigation would have to take into account not only "would I, personally, have done that check?" but also "is it within reason for that check to have been done by someone, given the context of the situation?"

      What that would mean for my purposes on AUSC is essentially this: taking into account the general policies that cover CU use, for any given check, would a(nother) reasonable checkuser have performed this check and/or reached these conclusions? The "reasonable person" heuristic encompasses a number of things, including whether the checkuser used good judgment in involving themselves in the issue (were they involved? was the check requested as retaliation or intimidation, rather than to prevent damage? was there evidence to indicate a check was even needed?), whether the check was conducted in a reasonable manner (did the checkuser inexplicably go down a rabbit hole of check after check of unrelated users? did they wander around telling people "I'm checking X, X is in trouuuuble"?), and whether any actions taken as a result of the check were reasonable given the previous two questions (was a resulting block unreasonably excessive? did the CU release private check data when it was not necessary? did the CU engage with checked user and/or check requester in a manner consistent with a trusted user?). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • What is your understanding of the need for cross-wiki coordination between local CheckUsers and stewards? --Rschen7754 03:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure exactly what information you're looking for here, so I'll just ramble a little. Stewards have the global ability to add checkuser bits to themselves on any of our projects. They generally use those rights on smaller wikis that lack their own checkuser corps, and they're the "point men/women" when it comes to coordinating investigation of cross-wiki abuse. There have been, and will be again, cases where stewards need to share information about cross-wiki abuse with local checkusers, either for investigation or as an advisory; there have been, and will be again, cases where local checkusers need to share information with stewards about potential cross-wiki abuse, either for investigation or as an advisory. In general, the two groups need to have a working relationship and open communication channels that allow information to be passed when it needs to be passed.A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The global OS policy states that the oversight tool can be used for the "removal of potentially libelous information either: a) on the advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel or b) when the case is clear, and there is no editorial reason to keep the revision." What does this mean to you? --Rschen7754 03:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I should point out before I go into depth about this that this is also in local policy (which also includes a number of other situations in which oversight is used). As far as what it means to me, it means that I'm going to once again break out my "would a reasonable person..." rule from the last question (Yayyyy...). If you're going to oversight something that's potentially libelous, it needs to be either so clear a case that a reasonable oversighter could look at it and go, "yeah, that was within our discretion given the edit in question and the context," or it needs to be a case in which the oversight action was recommended from on high, aka Legal. To paraphrase what I said in the CU question above, while not all oversighters might perform a particular suppression, if you're abiding by the policy it it should be clear to any reasonable one that your oversight action was not blatantly wrong or to the detriment of the article. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In February 2013 you were appointed as a SPI trainee clerk, but have been mostly inactive since then at SPI. Do you think that this affects your candidacy? --Rschen7754 03:50, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whether it affects my candidacy is something for those commenting on me to decide more than it is something for me to. I can, of course, give you my opinion, which is that one has little to do with the other; my toe-dipping into SPI clerking ended up being a wrong-time thing, as the user who was going to train me went semi-inactive shortly after I joined up and between that and distractions on my own end of things, I just never got up to speed. I eventually removed myself from the active clerks list when it became obvious that I wasn't comfortable trying to learn things there on the fly. Wanting to be sure I know what I'm doing before I try is sort of a theme when it comes to me; if I'm appointed to AUSC, it's fairly likely that I won't be touching SPI until I've made sure I'm stuffed to the gills with training, exactly because I don't think it's useful to try to administrate that area unless you know what you're doing. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

edit
Comments may also be submitted in confidence to the Arbitration Committee privately by emailing arbcom-en-c lists.wikimedia.org
  • All seven of the candidates this year appear quite qualified and I would be fine with any of them being appointed. With that said, I think Fluffernutter is among the strongest choices. Her comments both onwiki and on functionaries-en about activity and accountability have consistently impressed me, and I believe that she is very well-respected by other functionaries and community members alike. NW (Talk) 12:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Basically per NW; you could copy my rationale for DQ and substitute "CU" for "OS". Though I would advise you to tread carefully at SPI and with running CUs in the beginning. --Rschen7754 02:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fluff would be a net positive to the AUSC --Guerillero | My Talk 13:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure applicants are supposed to comment on each other, but I have to admit I also believe Fluff to be amongst the best candidates for this role. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:38, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Decker

edit

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

Nomination statement (250 words max.)

edit

I am a long-term, gnomish editor and administrator, I've worked and occasionally still work at OTRS in the Courtesy and Quality queues. I have some experience with revision deletion (mostly copyright and personal public information) and many of the latter I've sent along for suppression. Outside of Wikipedia, I served for five years on the board of directors at a non-profit working with survivors of domestic violence and sexual abuse, another position which required responsible handling of delicate information.

Community inclusion at AUSC provides accountability in situations where accountability is inherently challenging. It is not a role focused on wiki-lawyering, although knowledge of policy is, no doubt, important. It is a role that requires the trust of the community, an awareness of the potential dangers of the oversight and checkuser tools, and the independence required to look at alleged abuses in a responsible manner.

While my current career as a photographer offers little in the way of relevant technical expertise, my former career in software development gave me ample familiarity with IP address structure and software literacy in general. I see the role as being well inside of my technical capability.

Standard questions for all candidates

edit

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

A: I have quite a bit of experience in our deletion processes in general (AfD/DRV/BLPPROD/etc.) and revision deletion (e.g., RD1, personal information in AfC drafts, other personal information exposures reported to me via email). I have some experience requesting oversight, usually for IP exposure or exposure of private information. I don't have much SPI experience, I've reported a handful of socks to a couple investigations, but those have typically been cases of old hoaxes from long-dormant accounts, where a CU would of course be inappropriate.

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

A: Prior my second, photographic career I was a software developer for 20 years on projects such as a browser for set-top boxes, which also gave me a grounding in TCP/IP and HTTP basics. For five years, I volunteered at and was on the board of directors of an organization working primarily with survivors of domestic violence and rape, some of them minors, a position which included exposure to sensitive personal information and the corresponding responsibility to protect that information.

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

A: At OTRS I have access to Courtesy and Quality, otherwise no.

Questions for this candidate

edit
  • What are your views on whether evidence against a contributor subject to an Arbcom case ought to be shared with the contributor, so that they have the opportunity to add or refute the evidence? In particular I am concerned with check user details which may be both conducted in secret, and the results and deductions from it, withheld from the contributor. Fæ (talk) 12:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe that withholding such information falls within the remit of the subcommittee, as it wouldn't be a violation of the checkuser or privacy policies. In any case, I will still be happy to share my personal opinion.
    As a matter of general principle, I believe that contributors should generally have transparency as to the type of information being used against them or which, conversely, might support them. The issues get murkier when we extend this to technical specifics. I would imagine that CU investigations produce a fair bit of irrelevant data, and in the extreme, I speculate that in some (perhaps unlikely) situations detailed CU results might include information involving the privacy of other, uninvolved contributors. In the latter case, disclosure of information would likely be a policy violation and fall within AUSC's remit. --j⚛e deckertalk 16:08, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are some of the criteria you would use to determine if a CU check was valid? --Rschen7754 03:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Was the checkuser uninvolved? Was there a reasonable basis for believing that there was abuse to investigate with a check, e.g., behavioral evidence? Was there a reasonable basis to believe that the information from a CU might help prevent that abuse going forward? Was the information obtained by the check handled appropriately, e.g.., within the bounds of our privacy policy? --j⚛e deckertalk 16:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is your understanding of the need for cross-wiki coordination between local CheckUsers and stewards? --Rschen7754 03:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Investigations of cross-wiki abuse that require CUs for accounts on multiple systems are going to generally require a Steward for their cross-wiki CU toolset, in part because some wikis have no local CUs at all (e..g, Icelandic), some that do may still not have one available in a timely manner, and most of all because fo the practical impossibility of coordinating a broad set of checks only via local CUs across a wide range of Wikis. Similarly, taking action where necessary across a range of wikis (e.g,. blocks) would need to be coordinated if not acted on by a Steward. What actions were taken and why should flow back to the local CUs as well--local CUs are going to want to know about global socks and their behaviors in case they recur, and so on. --j⚛e deckertalk 16:14, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The global OS policy states that the oversight tool can be used for the "removal of potentially libelous information either: a) on the advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel or b) when the case is clear, and there is no editorial reason to keep the revision." What does this mean to you? --Rschen7754 03:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Essentially, negative, false statements about people which could damage to someone's reputation may be suppressed. "Joe stole money from Fred's bank" might be suppressible under this clause, but not "Joe's a (extremely nasty word)." Policy doesn't expect an oversighter to be a lawyer, and the Foundation has one at the ready if there is doubt, but in completely obvious cases, policy prefers that an oversighter act without that additional process step. --j⚛e deckertalk 16:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

edit
Comments may also be submitted in confidence to the Arbitration Committee privately by emailing arbcom-en-c lists.wikimedia.org

MBisanz

edit

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

Nomination statement (250 words max.)

edit

Hi, my name is Matt and I have been editing Wikipedia for several years now. In that time I have consistently pushed for greater accountability and participated in a wide range of activities in both content creation and policy debate. Further, I am mindful of the responsibility that comes with access to private data, have severed on AUSC previously and having access to OTRS, Steward-ship and Oversight.

While I have previously abided by the practice of avoiding use of advanced permissions while serving on AUSC, I am aware of the recent modification to policy permitting AUSC members to use the tools. If appointed to AUSC, I intend to resume moderate use of the Oversight tool, but am unlikely to be particularly active with the Checkuser tool. I am also aware that I have not been as active as I once was. I believe, however, that I have participated in most of the AUSC matters brought in the prior year, and even if I am not as active on the boards or articles, I continue to follow the various functionaries email threads and policy page discussion.

I am open to any questions individuals may have with regard to my editing and maintain a rather open policy as to my own personal information in the interest of informing others as to any factors they may find important to know with regard to my editing.

Standard questions for all candidates

edit

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

A: I am a current and former AUSC member and former SPI clerk with an advanced understanding of policy and historical context. I was a member of AUSC from July 2010 to March 2011 and again from January 2013 to present. Also, I helped write the global rights policy and have helped maintain the MediaWiki:Robots.txt file. And I am responsible for the creation of the Wikien-bureaucrats mailing list for privacy related renames.

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

A: See User:MBisanz/Infobox for more details. I serve on the WMF audit committee and I am a former accountant, so I have an understanding of the concepts of professional skepticism, confidentiality, and document review. I am also a lawyer (day job) and an accounting professor (adjunct), so I regularly engage in analyses that involve reviewing facts, judging credibility, and respecting individual rights.

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

A: En.Wiki Oversight, Admin, and Bureaucrat, Commons Admin, Steward, WMF-wiki access, Internal-wiki access, OTRS info-en(f), permissions, photosubmissions, Sisterprojects, Oversight-en-wp, steward and DAL queues. Already identified to the Foundation.

Questions for this candidate

edit
  • What are your views on whether evidence against a contributor subject to an Arbcom case ought to be shared with the contributor, so that they have the opportunity to add or refute the evidence? In particular I am concerned with check user details which may be both conducted in secret, and the results and deductions from it, withheld from the contributor. Fæ (talk) 12:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me first state that whether evidence against a contributor subject to an ArbCom case ought to be shared with the contributor is outside the scope of AUSC's jurisdiction, so you might find it more useful to re-pose that question to those who run in the ArbCom elections (to which I have no aspirations). Users can generally receive their own personal information, so, as my fellow candidates have stated, I do not see a privacy concern with anyone (ArbCom, AUSC, or the checkuser) sharing a user's own checkuser results with them.
Second, whether details about a user, such as checkuser details and results, and deductions therefrom, should be withheld from the user is a concern that reflects why AUSC and BASC were created (I am focusing on your more narrow question instead of your broader question because the narrow one is more immediately relevant to AUSC). If users had a general right to obtain checkuser details, results, and deductions, it would make it easier for such users to evade detection in the future.
However, there are two circumstances where the anti-evasion argument fails. The first is that there may be facts possessed solely by the user that contradict the checkuser. If the user is not told what information the checkuser relied upon, the user will not know that the checkuser's information is incomplete. It is my sense that most checkusers give enough information, even if only on request, and that other functionaries, BASC, and AUSC give enough information on appeal, to negate this concern. The second circumstance is that a checkuser may misstate details and results or form deductions based on bias and that without disclosure of that information, the user (and others) may be unable to show where the misstatements and wrong deductions are. Again, I think that checkusers generally do a good job not making errors and that historically, few, if any, have acted with wrongful intent in making deductions. Also, the ability for functionaries, AUSC, and BASC to review a checkuser's actions serves as a natural disincentive to acting with wrongful intent and an incentive to act with great care in interpreting details and results. While they may not disclose the specific information a checkuser relied upon, those other bodies tend to provide enough information to the user to give them the opportunity to add to or refute the checkuser's information. MBisanz talk 23:46, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see a great need for cross-wiki coordination. While Stewards may be limited in what they can share with a checkuser (i.e., the Steward can't always share things from other wikis), the Stewards can act as a clearinghouse to pick up instances where a person evaded detection on en.wiki, but left marks on another wiki. MBisanz talk 22:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The global OS policy states that the oversight tool can be used for the "removal of potentially libelous information either: a) on the advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel or b) when the case is clear, and there is no editorial reason to keep the revision." What does this mean to you? --Rschen7754 03:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This means to me that Oversight is permissible when there is an edit that could be plausibly viewed as disparaging or really harming a person and the removal of that edit will not disrupt the ongoing flow of editing or discussion. There are lots of reasons to discuss things that could be seen as harming a person (see WP:AN or WP:AN/3RR), but oversight is permissible for really harm a person and where there isn't a valid reason to keep it around. MBisanz talk 22:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • (AUSC member comment) @Rschen7754: To give credit where it is due, MBisanz has attended punctually to every AUSC case this year. I cannot speak to whether he would continue to do so, but as a current colleague of his I am probably qualified to attest that his activity is not a matter for concern. I hope this is helpful to you in reaching an opinion about his candidacy. AGK [•] 21:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You assume correct w.r.t. to oversight, but yes, I am sure I can maintain this additional work. As noted above, I have a fairly demanding day job, which I have balanced with my current AUSC duties for over a year. MBisanz talk 22:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

edit
Comments may also be submitted in confidence to the Arbitration Committee privately by emailing arbcom-en-c lists.wikimedia.org
  • I'm a bit torn on this one. On one hand, I get the impression that he did well on AUSC for the last year and a half. On the other, I miss him as a steward and wish we saw more of him there... --Rschen7754 02:10, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Salvidrim!

edit

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

Nomination statement (250 words max.)

edit

I have been an admin since Jan. 2013. I am very gnomish in nature, performing many maintenance tasks. I am not very involved in content creation. I often assist in closing discussions and assessing consensus, mostly RMs and AfDs, but occasionally elsewhere (MfD, ANRFC) when there is a backlog to work through. I also pitch in at RFPP, AIV, UAA when there is an urgent need to, and sometimes patrol Edit Requests or PROD/CSD. I, however, regularly file SPIs when the need for CU checks arise, and have requested OS once of twice for suppression of personal information posted by misguided editors. I have been considering applying for SPI Clerkship for a few months now and might go ahead later this autumn. I have the utmost respect for the privacy of others (even if I do not value my own privacy as highly), and I think transparency is primordial in all facets of a community; AUSC is a necessity.

I have not yet "identified" to the WMF but will gladly do so if/once required; all my personal information is available on my user page and I have no particular interest in my own so-called "anonymity". I am not an IRC user, but am open to becoming one if necessary. I have now identified to the WMF, and started poking around IRC. I've also inquired about volunteering at OTRS in the past, but didn't complete registration due to time constraints at that moment; it is also something I plan on possibly doing in the short-to-mid term future.

Standard questions for all candidates

edit

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

A: I didn't know in advance what the questions would be, so I kind of answered this in my nomination statement; although I have been an admin for about a year and a half, I can honestly say I have not become personally involved with ArbCom or any of its members. I only took part in two ArbCom cases that I can remember (and only made an opening statement in both), and both were pretty simple deals. I actually haven't had personal interactions with a whole lot of people on-wiki, thanks to my generally casual disposition, so it's easy for me not to "take sides" naturally. I also think the fact that I have not worked with advanced permissions, especially CU, is a positive thing, as it would allow me to view cases with the "fresh eyes" of an outsider. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉

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

A: As indicated before, I am not concerned about my own personal privacy (just see my userpage). I would not go as far as to say I have significant expertise, but my work with an ISP (first in sales and then as a coordinator) has helped me achieve a decent understanding of how IPs work. It also means I have been handling the confidential data (including credit card numbers) of my clients, and understand the sensitivity of private information. I also like to think that working in the customer service industry for all these years makes me better when dealing with people and their problems. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉

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

A: See my nom concerning OTRS. I hold no other advanced permission on any wiki, just adminship on enwiki. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉


Questions for this candidate

edit

What are your views on whether evidence against a contributor subject to an Arbcom case ought to be shared with the contributor, so that they have the opportunity to add or refute the evidence? In particular I am concerned with check user details which may be both conducted in secret, and the results and deductions from it, withheld from the contributor. Fæ (talk) 12:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A: I believe that, in the spirit of fairness and transparency, such "evidence" should be shared with the subject of the ArbCom case, as long as that evidence doesn't breach the privacy of anyone else, and that the communication of that evidence doesn't reasonably jeopardize the result of the investigation. On one hand, if the evidence, acquired via CheckUser or else, is made up of the contributor's own private information, then there should no breach of privacy sharing it with himself, right? And although ArbCom definitely isn't a judicial court, evidence is normally shared amongst both the accuser and the accused. On the other hand, Wikipedia, while a theoretically "open-project", is policed. It is not a "public space", it is regulated by ArbCom, which is generally approved by the WMF and generally chosen by the community. We, normal admins, regularly block and/or ban editors (either as administrative or community decisions), while providing them, or not doing so, with detailed reasonso. In practice, if ArbCom makes a decision to ban an editor, they are under no technical obligation to explain their reasons to that editor nor to the community. However, I do not think they are being deliberately opaque, and in most cases I have noticed a significant effort to maintain some amount of transparency. But this duality between the expectation of transparency and the fact ArbCom can generally work with non-negligible secrecy is the reason with AUSC is such a necessity. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What are some of the criteria you would use to determine if a CU check was valid? --Rschen7754 11:17 pm, Yesterday (UTC-4)

A: Was there a legitimate, reasonable concern that a policy was being violated?
Was the CU check done unambiguously with the intention of protecting the project and to prevent future disruption/vandalism/sockpuppetry?
Was the Checkuser performing the check unambiguously uninvolved in regards to the user(s) checked? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉

What is your understanding of the need for cross-wiki coordination between local CheckUsers and stewards? --Rschen7754 11:17 pm, Yesterday (UTC-4)

A: As I understand it, there is no "Global CheckUsers" user group; Stewards fulfill that role on wikis with no local CheckUsers. Ombudsmen and certain Staff accounts also have "Global CheckUser" access. When a need for a CU check on multiple local projects arise, Stewards generally coordinate with local CUs (normally on the closed mailing list or IRC channel) so that local CUs can perform local checks. Locals checks are generally preferred to ensure that they are locally logged and are subject to review by AUSC. Global CheckUser policy allows Stewards to perform local checks themselves in cases of emergency/cross-wiki vandalism. It is unclear to me from WP:AUSC whether checks performed locally by Stewards (or other non-local CheckUser) fall within the remit of AUSC, and thus will seek an answer on this point. AUSC states: "The subcommittee's remit is restricted to the use of checkuser on this Wikipedia" followed by a list of local CheckUsers; it could indicate that it includes only users with local checkuser access, or that it inclused all uses of CheckUser on English Wikipedia. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉

The global OS policy states that the oversight tool can be used for the "removal of potentially libelous information either: a) on the advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel or b) when the case is clear, and there is no editorial reason to keep the revision." What does this mean to you? --Rschen7754 11:17 pm, Yesterday (UTC-4)

A: The first point seems generally straightfoward: when recommended of WMF Legal, potentially libelous information can be OverSighted. The second point requires more of a judgement call on the part of the OverSigher; unambiguously vandalistic libel is a clear case, and there is indeed no reason to keep. Libel is a form of written defamation; defamation's definition is a harmful FALSE statement. OS policy allows suppression for potentially libellous material: in other words, when harmful material is potentially false; OS policy also indicates that there must be no editorial reason to keep the revision, which I would summarily interpret as "there is reasonable justification for believing this is false and will never be sourced reliably in-article". That requires a very good dose of judgement on the part of the OS, and I would generally agree that in cases like this, erring on the side of prudence may be advisable. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉

Comments

edit
Comments may also be submitted in confidence to the Arbitration Committee privately by emailing arbcom-en-c lists.wikimedia.org
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Audit_Subcommittee/2014_appointments&oldid=1137493278"