Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee/2013 appointments

The committee has appointed three community auditors for 2013–2014, who are listed below, and this process has now closed. Thank you very much to everybody who participated.

The candidates for appointment to AUSC are listed below. Thank you for your insightful comments on the candidates. The comment period is closed.

You can ask questions of the candidates on the pages below, and comments can be made below or by email to arbcom-en-clists.wikimedia.org.

Comments are being accepted until 23:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC). The current time and date is 07:08, 29 November 2024 (UTC) ().

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint three non-arbitrator members to the Audit Subcommittee ("AUSC"). The Committee is comprised of six members and is tasked with investigations concerning the use of CheckUser and Oversight privileges on the English Wikipedia. The AUSC also monitors CheckUser and Oversight activity and use of the applicable tools. The current non-arbitrator members are Avraham, MBisanz, and Ponyo, whose terms were to expire on February 28 but were extended with their agreement until April 30 by the Committee.

Matters brought before the subcommittee may be time-sensitive and subcommittee members should be prepared and available to discuss cases promptly so they may be resolved in a timely manner. Sitting subcommittee members are expected to actively participate in AUSC proceedings and may be replaced should they become inactive. All subcommittee members are subject to the relevant local and global policies and guidelines concerning CheckUser and Oversight.

The subcommittee is made up of three arbitrators (who typically serve six-month terms) and three at-large members appointed for one-year terms. Applicants must be at least eighteen years old and must identify to the Wikimedia Foundation. Active subcommittee members are given the CheckUser and Oversight permissions for the duration of their term, and have access to the Arbcom-audit-en, Functionaries-en, Checkuser-l, and Oversight-l mailing lists as well as the oversight-en-wp OTRS queue.

Details on the appointment process may be found below.

Appointment process

Dates are provisional and subject to change

• Applications: 16 March – 1 April

  Candidates self-nominate by email to arbcom-en-clists.wikimedia.org. Each candidate will receive an application questionnaire to be completed and returned to the arbcom-en-c mailing list. The completed application should include a nomination statement, to a maximum of 250 words, for inclusion on the candidate's nomination sub-page(s).

• Review period by the Arbitration Committee: 1–8 April

  During this period, the Arbitration Committee will review applications, notify the candidates going forward for community consultation, and create candidate sub-pages as necessary. The pages will be transcluded to the Candidates section below prior to the community consultation period.

• Community consultation: 9–17 April

  The nomination statements are published and the candidates invited to answer standard questions and any additional questions the community may pose. Simultaneously, the community is invited to comment on the suitability or unsuitability of each candidate. These comments may either be posted publicly on the candidates' pages or submitted privately by email to arbcom-en-clists.wikimedia.org. Editors are encouraged to include a detailed rationale, supported by relevant links where appropriate.

• Appointments: by 28 April

  The committee shall review all the comments submitted and other relevant factors before finalizing an internal resolution, at which point the appointments will be published. The successful candidates will be required to identify to the Wikimedia Foundation prior to receiving the permissions.

Appointments motion

Copied from the committee noticeboard:

Effective 1 May 2013, Guerillero (talk · contribs), MBisanz (talk · contribs), and Richwales (talk · contribs) are appointed as community representatives to the Audit Subcommittee (AUSC). The period of appointment will be 1 May 2013 to 30 June 2014. All three have properly identified to the Wikimedia Foundation.

No alternate member of the subcommittee has been designated for this term, but in the event that one of the appointees resigns from the subcommittee for any reason, we may (depending on how long is left of their term of office) appoint one of the other candidates from this round of appointments to the vacant seat, temporarily reduce the size of the subcommittee (to two arbitrators and two community members), or leave the seat vacant. 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 Avraham (talk · contribs) (Avi), Ponyo (talk · contribs), and MBisanz for agreeing to stay in office past the original length of their term; and to Avi and Ponyo for their service to date.

Support: AGK, Carcharoth, Courcelles, Newyorkbrad, NuclearWarfare, Risker, Salvio giuliano, Timotheus Canens, David Fuchs

Not voting: Kirill Lokshin, Roger Davies, SilkTork, Worm That Turned

For the Arbitration Committee, Risker (talk) 01:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Note to stewards: Appointment to the AUSC includes granting of CheckUser and Oversight permissions to its members, specifically Guerillero (talk · contribs) and Richwales (talk · contribs).

Discuss this

Candidates

Guerillero

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

Nomination statement (250 words max.)

• Greetings. I am Guerillero, also known as Tom in the real world. I am an newish admin and arbcom clerk. I ran for arbcom in December and came in three places behind the last arb to get a seat. I feel that I would be a good choice for the AUSC because I know the general idea behind the area yet I am not a functionary. If I am selected to the subcommittee, I will sit on it for my whole term. I am open to questions and concerns from the community. If there is anything that you would like to know my opinion on please ask here, on my talk page, via email, or find me in irc under the nickname Guerillero.

Standard questions for all candidates

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

A: As an admin I have RevDeleted information to protect the privacy of users and others. With my arbcom clerk hat on, I, rarely, have answered questions about who to send private information for arbcom cases to and other related questions.

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

A: In my real life, I am an anthropology and philosophy double major. For the anthropology side of my degree, I participate heavily in field work. I am used to handling ethnographic data that, if connected to the real world identities of informants, could result in my informants being removed from my college or sued. This information is properly stored and anonymised.

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 hold no advanced permissions on other active projects. I do, however, have OTRS access. I can see and reply to info-en (f), Permissions, and Sister projects (f).

Questions for this candidate

1. As a member of AUSC, you will be a member of the functionary team. Do you believe functionaries should be held to a higher standard of conduct on the English Wikipedia and all WMF sites than an ordinary admin or editor? Explain. (Note that the scope of AUSC is only to investigate violations of the CU/OS policies). --Rschen7754 04:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

   A: Yes. Due to the high level of trust needed to see private information, functionaries should be held to the highest standards of conduct in the community.

2. What are your views on how to handle underage editors sharing personal information? --Rschen7754 04:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

   A: I started out on the internet at a fairly young age and started out as a Wikipedia, in 2009, as a minor. Because of this, I have a slightly different perspective on how to deal with younger editors. Minors broadly fit into two classes. Minors who are under 13, need to be protected more than any other group. Nearly all personal information from this group needs to be removed and OSed. If people from this category continue to post personal information they should be blocked. Minors that are 13 and older should only have "high tear" information like SSNs, Phone numbers, and addresses should be removed.

3. What are some of the criteria you would use to determine if a CU check was valid? --Rschen7754 04:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

   A:

   • Who did the check?
     • Was the CU impartial?
     • Did they have a horse in the race?
     • Was the alleged sock puppeteer a [friend/enemy] of the CU?
   • Why was the check done?
     • How did the behavioral evidence stack up?
     • How sure was the CU that the accounts were related?
   • How was the check requested?
     • Was it at WP:SPI?
     • Was it through private channels?

Optional question(s) from Sven Manguard

4: To it's critics, at least, ArbCom has a reputation for keeping things secret when there is little or no valid reason to do so, and for making decisions (or, at the opposite end of the spectrum, not pursuing matters) with an eye towards the good of ArbCom's image first and the community's best interests second. Whether or not you agree with this assessment, it colors the way that members of the community would deal with you as an AUSC member. With this in mind, how do you balance the secrecy that AUSC work entails with the community's best interests, which may not always be best served by that secrecy? Is there ever a time for willfully ignoring the requirements that AUSC-related discussions be kept secret?

A: It would not be my job to make arbcom look good; trying to do that while acting as an auditor is unintelligible. In the same vein, using the AUSC as a bully pulpit for an individual's favorite set of reforms is incomparable with being an auditor. I can not see a time when it would be appropriate for private or confidential information to be posted in a public place.

5: Do you currently have any aspirations for running for Arb in the next election?

A: If appointed, no. If not, I will most likely not run. Writing articles has captured my attention lately and, I have to admit, if I am not trusted by the community to be on the AUSC the community will not trust me to be an arb. If the pool of people is small or I feel that I do not trust n+2 candidates, when n is the number of open seats, the chances of me running are higher.

6: Lately, certain segments of the community have repeatedly asked for more information regarding material that has been suppressed. If you were to receive a request from a community member asking for more information regarding a suppressed edit, i.e. who suppressed it, what the logged reason was, etc, what would be your response? Beeblebrox (talk) 17:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

A: It depends on what information the individual desires and the reason for wanting it. Specific information surch as the OSer who suppressed an edit should not be released but the broad category of information — personal information, defamation, or copyvios — can be released if a decent reason for wanting the information is provided.

Optional question(s) from Smacorder 7: Your talk page indicates that you are currently busy with college and that responses are delayed. How will that impact your ability to be an effective member of AUSC? Smacorder (talk) 17:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

A: It might take an extra few hours to a day for me to reply to a message than what many mediapedians are used to; a non-power user's idea of reasonable reply time for communication. I will be away for finals week in May and December due to my frenzied workload and maybe the day before a paper is due.

Question from B

8: In your RFA, those who opposed largely cited what they characterized as civility or attitude concerns. Do you believe that these concerns were warranted and if so, how have you addressed them? The nature of the position you seek involves responding to requests from people who believe (whether correctly or incorrectly) that they have been wronged and it is important to not make what might be a tense situation even more tense. Can you comment on how you would respond to (or have responded) to such requests? --B (talk) 15:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

A: Civility is a tricky area and because of this, I have held off on answering this question. As NE Ent likes to remind us, no two people have the same conception of what civility actually is. A person's definition varies depending on the social-cultural context that they have experienced throughout their life. Since Wikipedia has many leaders, no singular opinion of civility is enforced through either formal or informal social control. As for the concerns at my RfA, I half agree with them. I agree that the diff on Fastly's page was uncivil and did nothing to improve the situation. I strongly disagree that a non-functioning DR venue is above criticism. Was the statement of the criticism the best? No. But the concerns that people had over my statement, seem to show more of an issue with the fact that I dared to call WQA useless. With all of these concerns considered, recall criteria has special civility rules. As an admin and an arbcom clerk I have dealt with tense situations and a majority of them have ended in a place where all parties were happy with the final outcome.

Questions by -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ)

9a: Above, you mention that the venue (SPI or private) is a factor in determining the validity of a check. Could you please explain how it affects the validity, and if it would be the difference between an abuse of tools and proper use? -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 02:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

A: If the request happened in private, was there a reason that the request could not have happened in public? If the check was privately requested because it alleges that a high profile user was socking, it should be handled via SPI or ArbCom. If the check was a run-of-the-mill LTA case that would not raise an eyebrow, a private request is not optimal but fine.

9b: You also cite above that "Was the alleged sock puppeteer a [friend/enemy] of the CU?" contributes to the validity of a check. Several CUs often have a long history with fending off sockmasters, and therefore, because of the sockmaster's persistence, it could be considered that the sockmaster is an enemy of the CU by that assessment alone. How would this affect proper use of the tools? -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 02:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

A: I do not consider LTA cases or dealing with a sockmaster over the course of an extended period of time not to fall under the heading of being an enemy of the CU.

10a: One of the aspects in your role as an auditor would be to evaluate claims of CUs releasing IPs by blocking an IP or IP range after blocking accounts. Where do you draw the line between protection of the Wiki where the CU needs to block the IP to prevent the abuse, and a user's privacy? -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 08:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

A: It depends on how prolific the sockmaster is, how big the block is, and what information does the block give out. If a sockmaster is creating a large number of socks from the same area of IP space it makes sense to block the smallest block possible. If the IP block happens at the /25 level or higher and the geolocation data only returns a big ISP, I don't see a reason for the block. Per below, if a CU is blocking accounts and IPs at the same time, it is better to ask another person to perform the IP block if possible.

10b: Also, CUs at times will also ask another CU to block the IP or range for them. This allows for a users information not to be disclosed. If CU's can't find another CU easily to block it (especially at early morning hours) how would that affect a case coming through AUSC for that disclosure while blocking the IP? -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 08:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

A: If there are no SPI clerks on at that time, the socks don't qualify for a global block, and there seems to be a pressing need for the IPs to be blocked, I don't see a reason that a CU blocking an IP range to be an issue.

Question from Salvio giuliano

11:What is your opinion regarding the compatibility of the role of community auditor with that of arbitration clerk? Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 08:37, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

A: While I think that is is possible for a person to be both an auditor and a clerk, I will follow the the tradition of the clerk team and resign my clerkship if I am appointed to the AUSC.

Comments

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

• Oppose Auditors should be distinct from "inner working" roles such as ArbCom clerk. NE Ent 23:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Overall Guerillero has my trust as I've seen here and on Wikidata. I would prefer more experience, but this candidate has above average for this pool of candidates. I do have some concerns regarding the "private checks" as a criterion (basically for the same reasons as I wrote for Richwales below), but not enough to overrule my overall trust. --Rschen7754 11:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'm against lifting up election losers to other positions of trust, especially in the same department. Anyway, Guerrillero should have enough workload majoring in real life and arbcomclerking at wiki. Kraxler (talk) 14:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Huh? If you don't get elected to arbcom is that a permanent ban on any future position of trust in your opinion? --B (talk) 16:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
    • No, it's not a ban, and it's not permanent. But IMO it wouldn't make sense that half the candidates get elected, and the other half who were voted down, are then appointed to supervise those who were elected. Kraxler (talk) 22:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - I will leave my comments at that because I have very little good to say here. Kumioko (talk) 01:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Well this isn't a vote, so unless you provide a reason, I'm not going to take your comment into consideration. NW (Talk) 05:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Ok fair enough. I find this individual to be very block happy. He tends to favor extremes such as indefinate blocks when a limited duration is sufficient. They are impossible to reason with and refuses to listen. Additionally, the user attempted to get on Arbcom and was voted down. So I cannot see the point in appointing them to an Arbcom committee when the community already made it clear that the individual does not have the desired qualifications or demeanor to be on Arbcom. I also do not trust his judgement as a member of the Audit subcomittee and feel that they would go with whatever the popular vote is and not on what they think is right or wrong. With all that said, I do not think for a second my critique will be taken seriously anyway, but I wanted it known. Kumioko (talk) 13:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Has a clue, which is important in this regard. From what I've seen, trustworthy and competent.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support Guerillero has had and continues to have my trust. As Rschen said, some experience in the area would be nice, but that's 'perfect world' stuff. He obviously has a clue for the job, and with the explanations I am satisfied Guerillero would make a good auditor. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 10:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support User is experienced has been an arbclerk and is an ORTS volunteer and has experience of dealing with outsider queries with full discretion with issues which can be sensitive and involves privacy .As this involves dealing with Private information will prefer someone who has the experience of doing so and this user is trustworthy and competent .The user has been editing regularly without a break since August 2010 .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support in a relatively weak field of candidates, Guerillero in my personal opinion is the most qualified for this job. One of the most competent editors I encountered in this project within the last few years, he has more than enough experience with several characteristics for what this job requires. Secret ^account 03:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support largely per Secret and Rschen. Guerillero isn't the most experienced of the bunch, but I think he has one of the highest likelihoods of doing the job well, given what I've seen of his activity and use of sense in sense-requiring situations. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Jake Wartenberg

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

Nomination statement (250 words max.)

• I started editing in ernest in 2008. At the end of 2009, there was a lapse in my editing that lasted for several years, but I have begun editing again in the last few months. The conventional wisdom is that such a long stretch of inactivity would disqualify someone from such an important position as this one. I believe, however, that this break would prove to be to my advantage should I assume a seat on the AUSC. My recent absence would allow be to remain objective and detached from the social ties and conventions that usually lead to "groupthink" and prevent one from remaining impartial.

Standard questions for all candidates

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

A: I think that my experience as an SPI clerk would be helpful. It has provided me with the ability to recognize suspicious editing patterns and a familiarity with the conventions and policies which govern the use of Checkuser.

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

A: I have professional experience with networking which would enable me to understand Checkuser results.

• 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: No.

Questions for this candidate

1: As a member of AUSC, you will be a member of the functionary team. Do you believe functionaries should be held to a higher standard of conduct on the English Wikipedia and all WMF sites than an ordinary admin or editor? Explain. (Note that the scope of AUSC is only to investigate violations of the CU/OS policies). --Rschen7754 04:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

A: Administrators are required to observe a high standard of conduct because they are the ones who enforce our policies on user conduct. Functionary is a position that requires greater trust than administrator, because it involves confidential information. Functionaries must adhere strictly to our policies with regard to the handling of that information, but I don't that it is useful to attempt to draw a distinction between the standard of user conduct expected of them and that expected of administrators, because in each case the bar is set quite high.

2: What are your views on how to handle underage editors sharing personal information? --Rschen7754 04:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

A: We should do everything we can to protect underage editors. Minors who attempt share personal information should be prevented from doing by means of oversight and blocking if necessary.

3: What are some of the criteria you would use to determine if a CU check was valid? --Rschen7754 04:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

A: The checkuer who performed the action needs to be uninvolved, and have some reasonable basis for their suspicion before performing the check.

Optional question(s) from Sven Manguard

4: To it's critics, at least, ArbCom has a reputation for keeping things secret when there is little or no valid reason to do so, and for making decisions (or, at the opposite end of the spectrum, not pursuing matters) with an eye towards the good of ArbCom's image first and the community's best interests second. Whether or not you agree with this assessment, it colors the way that members of the community would deal with you as an AUSC member. With this in mind, how do you balance the secrecy that AUSC work entails with the community's best interests, which may not always be best served by that secrecy? Is there ever a time for willfully ignoring the requirements that AUSC-related discussions be kept secret?

A: I think that the recent resignations of arbitrators have highlighted the need for some manner of increased transparency in the Committee's affairs, but that is something this body has nothing to do with. I do think that the way in which AUSC reports are distributed makes sense. I would expect the Committee to make public the essential aspects of the report in the event that serious wrongdoing had occurred, such as would warrant the removal of flags from a functionary.

5: Do you currently have any aspirations for running for Arb in the next election?

A: No.

Question from PinkAmpersand

6: I see your point about the potential avantages of your time away from Wikipedia, and I've personally found that more often than not our returning admins are easily able to leap back in to things with only the occasional error (not knowing about a new software feature, for instance), and indeed are sometimes more approachable thanks to their relative neutrality. However, when it comes to functionary/Arbitration-related matters, there's a lot of personal history to be aware of. Do you feel that you would be able to keep up with your fellow AUSC members in a case related to a dispute that's occurred in your absence? For instance, if Jclemens were to perform a CheckUser on Floquenbeam (not that I think he'd ever do such a thing... just because it's a good example), I'd think you'd have to do a lot of reading to acquaint yourself with the full context there, where AUSC members who've been more active recently wouldn't. Do you think the benefits of your increased impartiality would still outweigh the drawbacks of your unfamiliarity with certain issues? — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 08:35, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

A: If Jclemens and Floquenbeam had a certain history (I'm not sure if the example you gave is in reference to something specific), I do not know what it is off the top of my head. It seems to me, though, that this sort of thing would be covered in the materials reviewed by the AUSC as part of its investigation, were it relevant. I would expect that all of the subcommittee members would need to review those materials. You are correct in that I might find myself reading ArbCom cases and the like in cases where events took place during my absence, but I can't say that I see a reasonable possibility of myself "falling behind." The worse case simply that I find myself putting in a bit more time than my peers once and a while. I do think that someone who has just recently read through a several year old ArbCom case will have a more accurate understanding of it than someone who is going off memory.

Optional question from ɐuɐʞsǝp

7: You cite your experience as an SPI clerk as having given you knowledge of the practices and standards of the checkusers. However, it appears to me that your last action on an SPI case was over three years ago. Speaking from my experience, standards and practices have changed since then, and it is clear that a member of the Audit Subcommittee should be versed in current standards and practices. How do you plan to address the issue that your knowledge from clerking SPI might be outdated when compared to the way things work nowadays?

A: I do think that I will need to bring myself up to speed a bit. I can't imagine a better way to do this than a position that requires me to review the actions of other CheckUsers. I will of course not be running checks myself per the new policy.

8: Lately, certain segments of the community have repeatedly asked for more information regarding material that has been suppressed. If you were to receive a request from a community member asking for more information regarding a suppressed edit, i.e. who suppressed it, what the logged reason was, etc, what would be your response? Beeblebrox (talk) 17:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

A: I think that the AUSC would be more likely to open an investigation than to grant such a request. The reason for the action could in some cases be paraphrased.

Optional question from User:Surturz

9: Under what circumstances would you use the CheckUser and Oversight tools granted to AUSC members? --Surturz (talk) 03:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

A:Only as part of AUSC business or in an emergency.

10a: One of the aspects in your role as an auditor would be to evaluate claims of CUs releasing IPs by blocking an IP or IP range after blocking accounts. Where do you draw the line between protection of the Wiki where the CU needs to block the IP to prevent the abuse, and a user's privacy? -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 08:20, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

A:If the level of disruption is significant enough to warrant that kind of action in the first place, I think it makes sense to place IP blocks in that manner. We protect user's privacy as best we can, but when the user is acting in bad faith the project has to come first.

10b: Also, CUs at times will also ask another CU to block the IP or range for them. This allows for a users information not to be disclosed. If CU's can't find another CU easily to block it (especially at early morning hours) how would that affect a case coming through AUSC for that disclosure while blocking the IP? -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 08:20, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

A:If there is genuine urgency, then I think it makes sense for the CU to perform the action themselves. Otherwise a request can be communicated through other channels such as the mailing list. The levels of disruption and bad faith on the part of the user being blocked are also quite relevant.

11: I started as an SPI clerk about 6 months into your break. I have felt that since I've started SPI and CU have changed significantly, so could you please explain your answer to question 3 a little more when you said that CUs need "some reasonable basis for their suspicion before performing the check"? -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 08:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

A:The standard of evidence required at SPI has always been higher than what is required of CUs. While a request made on-wiki might require a pretty convincing case to be made, we still allow CUs some discretion. As I have said before, my assuming this role would entail some further familiarization with current standards and practices.

Comments

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

• I'm a bit concerned that the candidate might not be up to speed on our latest policies regarding CU/OS, especially as I think the candidate went inactive right around the time RevDel and modern suppression was deployed on enwiki. --Rschen7754 09:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• I think it is unwise for functionaries deskana, DeltaQuad, and Beeblebrox to participate in the AUSC appointments process. They open the CUOS team to allegations of stacking AUSC with friendly auditors. --Surturz (talk) 04:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, all I have done is ask the same question of all the candidates, and I only did that because I think it is an important issue and both the community and the arbs should know where each of them stands on it. However i am not aware of any formal prohibition on functionaries participating in such processes, it does after all directly affect our work. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not a question of rules, it's a question of wisdom. If a significant number of functionaries start supporting or opposing candidates then it compromises the independence and impartiality of AUSC, especially considering the low participation rate in the nominations process. --Surturz (talk) 09:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• My personal comments will be sent in confidence to the Arbcom emailing arbcom-en-clists.wikimedia.org.   M aurice   Carbonaro  09:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't agree that SPI clerk qualifies as sufficient experience for this role, also not impressed with the rather lackluster responses to the questions. We need editors who are well-versed in policy for this role, and he been too inactive lately to catch up on some of the changes in regards to checkuser and oversight the past few years and specifically rev deletion. Secret ^account 03:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• While all the questions have been answered, I still feel fairly uneasy about the answers being quite short. It shows that Jake knows the relative theory behind the position, but it doesn't speak to the practical applications of the job. Also, personally, I would think that it would be better to review SPI policies before heading into this position rather than when it comes up, as you can miss something on one page because you checked another. Lastly, although it's nice to see someone return to Wikipedia, Jake does not have a stable reliable edit count beyond this past March, and we all know that life can take over at times. -- DQ on the road (ʞlɐʇ) 21:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• While I have confidence that Jake's absence and return wouldn't be a major hindrance to his participation in the hearing of complaints to the subcommittee (per his response to my question), I think it's important to note that the trole of auditors is also to actively monitor the CU/OS logs, and make sure that all such actions appear to be in the interests of the community. To that end, I think AUSC'ers need a certain degree of familiarity with the various current events on the project, one I doubt that Jake's gained in the month or so since his return. (God knows I still haven't figured it all out, and I've been here for 5 months now.) So, while I'm sure he'd be up to the job in a year or two, I think that community members of the subcommittee really need to have their fingers on the pulse of goings-on here (and to have had it on the pulse for an extended period of time). — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 01:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

MBisanz

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

Nomination statement (250 words max.)

• 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, being a two-time AUSC member and having access to OTRS, Steward-ship and Oversight. One principle I think that is paramount in AUSC members is that they avoid using CU/OV access in order to avoid the appearance of impropriety. If selected, I pledge to follow the new practice of AUSC members not using their oversight and checkuser permissions. 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

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

A: Former AUSC member and former SPI clerk, 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 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 do serve on the WMF audit committee and am a former accountant, so I have an understanding of the concepts of professional skepticism, confidentiality, and document review. I'm also a law student and have interned in an investigative capacity, so I have capabilities in 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

Optional question(s) from Rschen7754

1. As a member of AUSC, you will be a member of the functionary team. Do you believe functionaries should be held to a higher standard of conduct on the English Wikipedia and all WMF sites than an ordinary admin or editor? Explain. (Note that the scope of AUSC is only to investigate violations of the CU/OS policies). --Rschen7754 04:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

   A: Functionaries should be held to a higher standard of conduct, but are still humans. Functionaries should generally be expected to be more courteous, more willing to explain things, and more thoughtful in their actions, but should still be given the leeway to fail on a non-periodic basis in the same way any other person might.

2. What are your views on how to handle underage editors sharing personal information? --Rschen7754 04:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

   A: Oversight it, tell them to stop sharing it, block them if they won't stop sharing it.

3. What are some of the criteria you would use to determine if a CU check was valid? --Rschen7754 04:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

   A: I see a check as having three criteria behind it. First, was it performed in good-faith by an impartial checkuser. Second, was it based on a reasonable belief that it was in conformance with the checkuser policy. Third, did it advance a legitimate aim of the project.

Optional question(s) from Sven Manguard

4: To it's critics, at least, ArbCom has a reputation for keeping things secret when there is little or no valid reason to do so, and for making decisions (or, at the opposite end of the spectrum, not pursuing matters) with an eye towards the good of ArbCom's image first and the community's best interests second. Whether or not you agree with this assessment, it colors the way that members of the community would deal with you as an AUSC member. With this in mind, how do you balance the secrecy that AUSC work entails with the community's best interests, which may not always be best served by that secrecy? Is there ever a time for willfully ignoring the requirements that AUSC-related discussions be kept secret?

A: At the end of the day, AUSC is an extension of Arbcom and is limited in that regard, so it's not really up to me to balance the secrecy of matters. Arbcom, the community-elected representatives, already balanced it when they created AUSC and through their administration of the functionaries arrangement and my job is to follow the established process, not to substitute my own judgment for how things should work. I can't imagine a circumstance where it would be appropriate to ignore the requirements that AUSC-related discussions be kept secret. Possibly with the consent of the five other members and the complainant/functionary, but even that I'm not certain would permit full disclosure of all discussions related to a matter.

5: Do you currently have any aspirations for running for Arb in the next election?

A: No.

6: Having served in this role previously, and having amassed a sizable collection of advanced permissions, it would not be unreasonable to wonder whether or not you still have the 'outsider's point of view' and 'critical eye towards functionaries' that are in my and many other people's minds a good deal of the reason behind having non-Arb members of AUSC in the first place. How would you respond to such a concern?

A: I actually think that having served in this role previously and having advanced permissions provides a more independent position. I don't have to worry about running for more elections in the future and having userrights independent of Arbcom (steward/OTRS) makes it far less likely I'll restrain myself out of fear of their "wrath."

7. Lately, certain segments of the community have repeatedly asked for more information regarding material that has been suppressed. If you were to receive a request from a community member asking for more information regarding a suppressed edit, i.e. who suppressed it, what the logged reason was, etc, what would be your response? Beeblebrox (talk) 17:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

A: My general response would be to provide a blanket summary of the logged reason, such as "Oh, someone edited while logged out" or "Yes, someone put up personal information." I would generally avoid disclosing the identity of the oversighter unless they made it clear (such as reverting the suppressed edit) or unless I had a chance to contact them first. Given its effect on the logs, there should be some response to validate that the action was not the product of a misclicked mouse, but not enough to otherwise deter oversighters from taking action in conformance with policy.

Optional question(s) from Surturz

8 A recent decision by AUSC on a complaint I made stated "A Checkuser is not required to disclose alternate accounts they find to a blocked user nor are they required to disclose to the blocked user the precise evidence they used as the basis of the block". I, however, think that CheckUsers should always be required to name at least one other related account when declaring an account to be a sock; that is, there should be a minimum level of publicly available evidence that socking has occurred. What is your opinion?

A: My opinion is that the checkuser tools exists to "protect Wikipedia against disruption, abuse, or vandalism." If a block is made as a result of a checkuser action and the checkuser action was valid and accurate, the required disclosure of "at least one other related account" would not advance the goal of protecting Wikipedia against disruption, abuse, or vandalism. The key to reviewing checkuser blocks is ensuring that they are accurate and impartial, not providing a user with the evidence of why they were blocked. This is because to do so would aid those seeking evade detection through the use of socks.

Optional question from PinkAmpersand

9: It would be an understatement to say you take your AUSC objectivity seriously; even before ArbCom passed their recent motion on AUSC CU/OS usage you'd made it clear that you do not use your functionary tools while serving on the subcommittee, and your interpretation of the circumstances under which an AUSC member may use their tools is arguably more strict than ArbCom's. However, judging from this, it's clear that your abstinence from using them is not absolute: You've made use of your CheckUser tool on three occasions since (re-)joining the subcommittee, and your Oversight tool on 59. I'm sure that you had a good reason for all of these actions, and trust that you wouldn't have undertaken them unless they were unambiguously necessary. However, I'm curious as to where you see the line as falling. What's your personal threshold for when you use the tools or not? — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 10:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

A: Sure thing. Those three checks were re-running the checks made by the checkuser in the case Surturz mentioned above so that I could determine the evidence the checkuser obtained was a reasonable basis for the block. The 59 suppressions I'm also a little miffed on. I re-joined AUSC on January 1, 2013 (at 22:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)) to be exact) and the last two date entries for me in Special:Log/suppress are:

• 6:01, January 1, 2013
• 20:57, December 31, 2012

The 6:01 entry was a regular "minor outing himself incident" after which I remembered I was now on AUSC and I told the person who requested it that I could no longer do those requests. I can't rightly explain where the other nine logged entries come from, but maybe someone else can on my talk page. My threshold remains that AUSC members should not use the tools to perform checkuser and oversight requests, but they may need to perform them in the process of reviewing a complaint to see if the determination made by the checkuser or oversighter was reasonable.

By the way, I hereby trout myself for reading the stats wrong... yes, it's only 10 since January 1, not 59. The missing 9 are easily explainable by a typo in the stats, so I'll take your word for it. (I also re-trout myself for being the one whose inadvertent perpetuation of a minor's self-outing you were cleaning up at 6:01 on January 1, if IRC chat logs are to be believed. Quelle coincidence.) — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 12:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

10a: One of the aspects in your role as an auditor would be to evaluate claims of CUs releasing IPs by blocking an IP or IP range after blocking accounts. Where do you draw the line between protection of the Wiki where the CU needs to block the IP to prevent the abuse, and a user's privacy? -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 08:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

A: There are many factors that go into it. Such as, how much the user has already disclosed about themselves, how much an IP block will target the user (will it flag their tiny employer?), how certain the CU is of the abuse, and how serious/imminent the abuse is. I would generally say that CUs are fine blocking the IP/IP range after an account block if the IP block is reasonably unlikely to lead to specific identification of the individual (not "OMG he uses a major British ISP!") or if the individual's misconduct is of a sufficiently threatening nature that he could not reasonably expect maintenance of his privacy in the face of the threat he created (such as if he were running a spambot attack).

10b: Also, CUs at times will also ask another CU to block the IP or range for them. This allows for a users information not to be disclosed. If CU's can't find another CU easily to block it (especially at early morning hours) how would that affect a case coming through AUSC for that disclosure while blocking the IP? -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 08:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

A: That's a mitigating factor. I know it probably isn't a current practice, but back in my day as an SPI clerk, CUs would flag me to "block an IP and tell them if anyone complains" to achieve the same result, and I would cautiously countenance similar practices in the present (the CU doesn't need to disclose the account, but that the IP is a checkuser-block). If it occurred during the night, I would again look to the seriousness of the threat posed by the blocked user and if other options were available (like flagging down a steward on IRC to execute an global block) that would achieve the same results.

Comments

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

• Support. Based on what I've seen of Mbisanz's work in his current roles, I have confidence in his integrity, and I expect that he will find the time to carry out this responsibility. --Orlady (talk) 01:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose based on candidate's recent service as a community rep and answer to question 8. AUSC exists to ensure that innocent editors are not accidentally punished by CheckUsers and Oversighters. The retiring AUSC, of which MBisanz is a member, failed to do that for Int21h. I feel MBisanz' answer to question 8 infers that he wants to assist apologise for the CheckUser team, rather than provide scrutiny of their actions. We need community reps that are skeptical, not supportive, of the CheckUser and Oversight teams. --Surturz (talk) 04:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
  • So you think that CUs should always have to name a linked account? What if the sockmaster is open about their real identity, and they have a sock account that they use to edit controversial or "profane" topics? Surely they don't deserve to suddenly have their fondness for <insert fetish here> revealed to the entire world, simply because they also engaged in <insert illegitimate use of an alternate account here>? — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 10:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Yes, I believe there should be some minimum level of publicly visible evidence that abusive socking has occurred. Naming a linked account would seem obvious. Otherwise, as we saw in the Int21h case, it is extremely difficult for a falsely accused account to refute the socking claim. Your hypothetical is concerned with protecting a guilty sockmaster. I'm more worried about the CheckUser driftnets blocking innocent editors. Just to be clear my opinion on CU policy is not why I oppose this candidates nomination, rather that he was a member of the previous committee which failed in its duty, and he does not seem skeptical enough of the CheckUser team. --Surturz (talk) 12:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Also based on what I have seen of Mbisanz's work through the years (I have been in WP.EN for a long time), and as stated by Orlady. -- Alexf^(talk) 11:39, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
• I can think of few people more qualified for this position than MBisanz. I have no doubt he will serve the community well in this post, as he has in the past. 28bytes (talk) 18:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
• Pretty much what 28bytes says above. I have on occasion been in need of assistance, and Matt's help has always been impeccable and timely. — Ched :  ?  11:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• In a perfect world, I'd prefer to avoid editors becoming entrenched on committees like AUSC. Then again, in a perfect world, there would be tons of good candidates to pick from, making it easy to say "thanks for your service, now take a break" to the multi-termers. In this real world, however, there aren't tons of candidates, and MBisanz is a very good choice despite how familiar he is with the furniture. We know he can do the job and do it well; we should probably let him do it some more. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support As per Orlady,28bbytes and Alexf.Long them user ,very active ,experienced in various has been editing without a break since August 2007 and has been in this role as a AUSC member twice in addition to working in OTRS, being Steward and having Oversight permission .His track in all these roles has been outstanding.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support highly trusted, and I find the argument that he can call ArbCom members out pretty convincing. --Rschen7754 09:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support—superbly skilled; you couldn't find a better candidate. Tony (talk) 09:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support - I agree with Fluffernutter. He does the role well, I see no reason not to allow him to continue. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 12:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support for all the reasons given by other supports, above. He is very well-versed in these things, and I trust him to do the job right. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support - per longstanding commitment and success in the project, plus the support above. Go Phightins! 19:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support - I agree with Fluffernutter as well. United States Man (talk) 00:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support Very qualified to resume the job. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:08, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support - In the few chances I've gotten to interact with MBisanz, I find him to be a great, responsible, and confident guy. MBisanz has dedicated himself to this project many times and his continued commitment shows his suitability to continue to stand in this role. Although Fluffernutter's comment about new auditors would be nice, this is not a perfect world, and those concerns that I have are dismissed by knowing that MBisanz will be a great contribution to the team. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 10:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• Follow-up: Thanks for the answers. While i'm not sure if I would agree with the escalation to global block idea, I feel we are thinking on the same line, and your answers completely affirm my support. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 10:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• I've commented on another candidate for saying the same thing, and to be fair, I need to say the same thing here too - global blocks where there is no demonstrated crosswiki abuse is questionable at best. --Rschen7754 00:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support - My76Strat (talk) 07:09, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support, has served Wikipedia well in all offices held. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 19:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support Kumioko (talk) 02:00, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Penwhale

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

Nomination statement (250 words max.)

• I believe that a delicate balance between transparency and privacy needs to be struck. This hinges on proper usage of the tools that come with the advanced permissions.. Sometimes a fresh set of eyes is needed to ensure this is occuring, and I believe I can be that set of eyes

Standard questions for all candidates

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

A: I work as Arbitration Committee Clerk to assist in certain situational calls. I also occasionally submit SPI requests while investigating certain editorial behaviors.

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

A: I do not have special technical expertise for this role.

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 used to have OTRS permission, until I let it lapse.

Questions for this candidate

1. As a member of AUSC, you will be a member of the functionary team. Do you believe functionaries should be held to a higher standard of conduct on the English Wikipedia and all WMF sites than an ordinary admin or editor? Explain. (Note that the scope of AUSC is only to investigate violations of the CU/OS policies). --Rschen7754 04:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

   A: Functionaries should be held to a higher standard of conduct on involved projects; however, because someone holds an advanced permission on one project does not mean they should be treated differently on another. This is especially the case because each wikimedia project governs itself, and only in rare cases do status on one affect another.

2. What are your views on how to handle underage editors sharing personal information? --Rschen7754 04:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

   A: It is rather difficult to balance this. The initial approach that I would take is "tell the editor that it may not be their best interest to have that information out there". But common sense should prevail here.

3. What are some of the criteria you would use to determine if a CU check was valid? --Rschen7754 04:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

   A: Whether there were sufficient reasons to initiate the CU would be the most important one. Otherwise, need to look at situations surrounding the CU - as each case may be different, it is hard for me to say "this is always the way I'd go".

Optional question(s) from Sven Manguard

4: To it's critics, at least, ArbCom has a reputation for keeping things secret when there is little or no valid reason to do so, and for making decisions (or, at the opposite end of the spectrum, not pursuing matters) with an eye towards the good of ArbCom's image first and the community's best interests second. Whether or not you agree with this assessment, it colors the way that members of the community would deal with you as an AUSC member. With this in mind, how do you balance the secrecy that AUSC work entails with the community's best interests, which may not always be best served by that secrecy? Is there ever a time for willfully ignoring the requirements that AUSC-related discussions be kept secret?

A: Even as an arbitration clerk, I'm generally not privy to information only available to ArbCom - the only exception would be when a case party wish to send the clerks something for forwarding (because of arbcom-l's filter setup). Thus, I don't actually think I would need to "balance" the secrecy as I do not need to keep secrecy for the ArbCom side (can't do that when I am not privy to that info). Thus, I don't think there'd be a reason for me to "ignore" requirements for secrecy.

5: Do you currently have any aspirations for running for Arb in the next election?

A: No - I do not foresee myself running for ArbCom anytime soon.

6. Lately, certain segments of the community have repeatedly asked for more information regarding material that has been suppressed. If you were to receive a request from a community member asking for more information regarding a suppressed edit, i.e. who suppressed it, what the logged reason was, etc, what would be your response? Beeblebrox (talk) 17:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

A If I get chosen to the position, I wouldn't be in a position to give the community member what they ask for, because the reason why I was given the tool is to make sure OS/CU were done properly. Thus, divulging such info would actually be a violation of the rules set forth on the AUSC members.

7: You're currently an arbitration clerk. Clerks essentially do as the're told by ArbCom. Since your statement is very brief, could you tell us what experience you have of 'thinking outside the box' or 'dynamic problem solving'? Also, do you think it would be appropriate to continue serving as a clerk while also serving in a role which might require you to audit the actions of an arbitrator and even find against them? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

A My experience of 'thinking outside the box' would come from my field of study (mathematics) - it isn't really what I could explain in detail here (and I'm pretty bad with words too). As for Clerk - while I don't believe it is necessary for me to resign as Clerk, I would if enough people believe that it creates a conflict of interest. Then again, though, clerks' job is to make ArbCom's life easier on specific pages, so how people view that would depend, obviously.

8a: In question 3, you stated that "sufficient reasons" are required for a check. Can you explain or give several examples of what would or wouldn't be a sufficient reason? -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 06:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

A Repeated checks on a certain editor normally should not be done in a short period of time, unless evidence supports that (massive sock farm, for example). It wouldn't be sufficient to go fishing just hoping to get results - but that goes without saying. Otherwise, it still falls to the "is this punitive or preventive" argument in the WP:BLOCK policy - but the fact that CU data can only go back so much make it so that it should never get to that point where CU would be doing checks due to punitive reasoning.

8b: In question 3, you stated that you would also look at the "situations surrounding the CU". Can you explain what exactly you mean by 'situations' and how this would affect proper use of the tool? -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 06:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

A The behaviors that caused the CU to be requested. Who requested it; on what grounds was it requested; was the reasoning sufficient; was the check done; if check was done, was it done in a timely manner; does the CU result match the resulting actions - all these are aspects that can affect whether proper usage of the tool was done or not. Of course, common sense would apply in certain cases (for example, editor requesting CU on another user which mutual IBAN is in place may not be done but would be okay if other editors would have done so as well).

9a: One of the aspects in your role as an auditor would be to evaluate claims of CUs releasing IPs by blocking an IP or IP range after blocking accounts. Where do you draw the line between protection of the Wiki where the CU needs to block the IP to prevent the abuse, and a user's privacy? -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 08:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

A: I would look at it based on how many times the individual has committed a violation. But I think that if there is not a large number of IP address affected (say, if they'd fall under a /24 range), then it probably shouldn't be revealed fully. Of course, if said editor would fall under LTA, then protection of wiki would be more prioritized - I think of this as a sliding rule where the more violations an editor has committed, the more we have to emphasize on protection.

9b: Also, CUs at times will also ask another CU to block the IP or range for them. This allows for a users information not to be disclosed. If CU's can't find another CU easily to block it (especially at early morning hours) how would that affect a case coming through AUSC for that disclosure while blocking the IP? -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 08:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

A: It is hard - I think it comes down, again, to common sense that if there's an urgent situation, then it should be done. If the level of the violation isn't too out there, then it is okay to be on the safe side and wait for another CU to come on.

Comments

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

• Oppose I have concerns about this candidate's level of activity being too low. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• I appreciate the concern - just want to let it be known that I have been on, but it took me a while to get back to this. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 13:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC0)

• My concern was regarding activity level in general, not just this page. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• I have a very high opinion of you (despite your munching on various unaware admins) but I am a bit concerned that you haven't answered the questions in a few days. --Rschen7754 09:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Looking back through the questions, I haven't found anything really bad on the CU side (though I would nitpick at the "how close was it to the request" and possibly on a few other things). The answer to my question 2 doesn't reflect current OS practice, at least from the outcomes of the OS requests that I've made. But that's not as high of a hurdle to overcome as it would be on the CU side, at least in my opinion. Those and the activity issue would be the concerns, in my opinion - are they insurmountable, probably not. --Rschen7754 10:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
• I am concerned about your general activity level as it seems to jump quite frequently and sometimes remain very low for an extended period of time. You also have only had 2 months since late 2011 where your edit count was over 100. Besides that, reading through your answers above, I am also concerned about your knowledge of the areas. Your answer in 8a was quite vague (so was 8b, but i'm talking about a for now) and mentioned only what would not qualify as valid for a check, but did not mention what would qualify. Furthermore, requested CU checks can have a preventative reason behind them, but still very much be inappropriate to run. Several people come to SPI /suspicious/ that two users are the same person, but they aren't acting out of bad faith to be punitive. It then depends on the level of evidence to support that claim to know if the check is appropriate. Also the time that CU data is retained has nothing to do with a checking being punitive. A CU could have received a nasty comment from an editor, but the retention length won't stop the bad check. (Although, God help us if we ever get to that point where a CU does that, I would trust that no CU would do that) In 8b, you also mention that "in a timely manner", which honestly has nothing to do with a check being appropriate or misconduct by a CU. We've had requests sit for 2 weeks before (obviously not optimal, but not abusive either) and probably longer. With question 9a, you mention that the size of the range is a indicator of if the range should be reviled in a block, when it's more likely how static or dynamic the IP/range is will be the determining factor in whether it will reveal information or not. In some countries it could only reveal a city or metropolitan area, but in other countries it could go to a specific business or person. My apologies if it sounds like this might just be from my knowledge of how CU works and has worked in the past, or even technical knowledge, but I feel that some of these are important factors for AUSC members to know. If you have any questions or would like me to explain anything, feel free to stop by my talk and I will gladly do so. At this time though I am concerned about you being elected to AUSC, but it's nothing directed towards you as a person. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 11:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Richwales

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

Nomination statement (250 words max.)

• I am offering myself as a candidate to support the English Wikipedia as a community member of the Audit Subcommittee. I have been involved with Wikipedia for eight years (including 1-1/2 years as an administrator), and I have significant experience with Internet networks and firewalls (giving me an understanding of the concepts a CheckUser needs to know). My "day job" has given me lots of experience dealing with confidential personal data (so I believe I have a fair understanding of what an Oversighter needs to know).

Standard questions for all candidates

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

A: I have been an administrator on the English Wikipedia for 1-1/2 years (since September 2011). I have been an SPI clerk on the English Wikipedia for the past two months (since mid-February 2013). Additionally, I ran unsuccessfully in the December 2012 ArbCom election (see my candidacy page here).

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

A: I have about 30 years of experience managing Internet networks and firewalls, so I understand the underlying concepts behind IP addresses, subnets, the WHOIS command, VPNs, open proxies, etc. I believe I have the necessary skill set to be able to function as a CheckUser (which means, in the context of the AUSC, that I think I have a good understanding of what is involved in doing their job). I have lots of experience working with confidential personal data (e.g., the past 15+ years during which I have worked for a major university's student housing office and have ready access to students' housing assignment information but am required to keep this information strictly private).

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 do not hold (and never have held) any of the above permissions on any WMF project. I do understand that if I am selected for the AUSC, I will need to identify myself to the WMF — something which I have never had to do up till now, but I have no qualms about doing this.

Questions for this candidate

Optional question(s) from Rschen7754

1. As a member of AUSC, you will be a member of the functionary team. Do you believe functionaries should be held to a higher standard of conduct on the English Wikipedia and all WMF sites than an ordinary admin or editor? Explain. (Note that the scope of AUSC is only to investigate violations of the CU/OS policies). --Rschen7754 04:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

   A: Yes and no, but more "yes" than "no". As an AUSC member, I would have access to confidential information that is not available to an "ordinary admin or editor" — and the adverse consequences to others (as well as to myself) of misusing this access or leaking information obtained through these tools could be considerable. On the other hand, we already acknowledge that administrators are to "lead by example", and I would like to think that admins in general are expected to behave themselves (though, sadly, this doesn't always happen).

2. What are your views on how to handle underage editors sharing personal information? --Rschen7754 04:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

   A: No one should be using Wikipedia to share personal information that isn't relevant to editing the encyclopedia (see WP:NOTBLOG). While this applies to everyone, it definitely applies to underage editors, who may be vulnerable to online stalking, and who are more likely than other editors to lack the necessary maturity to understand what is or is not appropriate to share about themselves in a public forum. Inappropriate personal information should generally be RevDel'ed and Oversighted, and this applies "in spades" when minors are involved. As an admin, I was recently involved in a case where someone asked me to help him expunge information that he had unwisely incorporated into the WP article about his high school; I identified the relevant edits, RevDel'ed what needed to be deleted in order to hide the inappropriate material, and then asked the Oversight team to expunge the revisions I had deleted (and they did so).

3. What are some of the criteria you would use to determine if a CU check was valid? --Rschen7754 04:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

   A: There needs to have been a proper reason for the CU (such as in a sockpuppetry investigation), and the editor requesting CU action must have been able to articulate a plausible reason why this information would significantly help an investigation. The CU tool must never, ever be abused for personal advantage. And great care must be taken to make sure the results of a CU check are not disclosed in a way that could result in "outing" someone. In general, I would be suspicious of any situation where a CheckUser performed a check on his own initiative, or if there is any connection between the CheckUser and the user(s) being checked or the article or topic area in which the user(s) being checked have been working.

   • The reason I said I would be suspicious of a case where a CU performed a check on his own initiative is that when a sensitive and abuse-prone tool like CU is involved, it's best (or, at least, better) if two people (e.g., an SPI clerk and a CU) have independently agreed that a check is reasonable in a given situation. This concern probably wouldn't apply if a case obviously calls for a CU — and I'm not by any means proposing a witch hunt that would cause CU's to be afraid to exercise their own judgment for fear of incurring my wrath. If I'm still out of step here with the generally accepted view on CU use, I'm certainly willing to moderate my position to conform to what is needed. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 17:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Optional question(s) from Sven Manguard

4: To it's critics, at least, ArbCom has a reputation for keeping things secret when there is little or no valid reason to do so, and for making decisions (or, at the opposite end of the spectrum, not pursuing matters) with an eye towards the good of ArbCom's image first and the community's best interests second. Whether or not you agree with this assessment, it colors the way that members of the community would deal with you as an AUSC member. With this in mind, how do you balance the secrecy that AUSC work entails with the community's best interests, which may not always be best served by that secrecy? Is there ever a time for willfully ignoring the requirements that AUSC-related discussions be kept secret?

A: The Audit Subcommittee is responsible for making sure that the CheckUser and Oversight functions are used in ways that conform to our privacy policy (a policy which comes from Wikipedia's parent organization, the Wikimedia Foundation). It has not been set up to be a watchdog think tank, nor is it supposed to be a soapbox for debate or civil disobedience regarding the appropriateness of the WMF privacy policy. Of necessity, most details regarding a given case are going to have to remain confidential, or else the privacy of the people involved would be compromised. I'm very much in favour of open, public deliberating and reporting of issues to the extent that they can be made public, but I expect that most details of what I would do on the AUSC would remain confidential. If there were a valid question of whether some particular issue could or should be opened up, I would expect that such a determination would (for better or for worse) need to be made by ArbCom, and not by the AUSC or its individual members.

5: Do you currently have any aspirations for running for Arb in the next election?

A: I'm not sure. I did run (unsuccessfully) in last December's ArbCom election, and I'm not opposed to the idea of doing it again sometime, but it's too early for me to decide whether that "sometime" might be this coming December, or if I might wait an additional year and run again in December 2014.

Optional question(s) from Beeblebrox

6. Lately, certain segments of the community have repeatedly asked for more information regarding material that has been suppressed. If you were to receive a request from a community member asking for more information regarding a suppressed edit, i.e. who suppressed it, what the logged reason was, etc, what would be your response? Beeblebrox (talk) 17:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

A: As a member of the AUSC, I would not consider myself at liberty to go beyond the specified remit of the subcommittee or the bounds of the WMF privacy policy. If members of the community want our policy on access to and release of personally identifiable information to be changed, they will need to bring this up with the legal muckamucks of the Wikimedia Foundation. So if I were presented with a request of the type you describe, I would unhesitatingly decline and would refer the requestor to the WMF and its privacy policy.

Optional question(s) from DeltaQuad

7a: One of the aspects in your role as an auditor would be to evaluate claims of CUs releasing IPs by blocking an IP or IP range after blocking accounts. Where do you draw the line between protection of the Wiki where the CU needs to block the IP to prevent the abuse, and a user's privacy? -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 08:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

A: While we are supposed to make every reasonable effort to avoid outing an editor — even a disruptive editor — the harassment / outing policy is not a suicide pact, and if a user is being so seriously disruptive that the only really effective way to stop them from harming Wikipedia is to block them and then follow up with a range block, I would support the range block even if a side effect was that it might become easier to identify the location or workplace of the disruptive user. The same principle, in my view, would apply as well to a block of an individual IP address done together with blocking an account — though I wouldn't expect this scenario to happen nearly as often, since most such IP blocks would presumably be taken care of by the autoblock mechanism. It would be different, though, if the IP/range block clearly was not necessary. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 01:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

7b: Also, CUs at times will also ask another CU to block the IP or range for them. This allows for a users information not to be disclosed. If CU's can't find another CU easily to block it (especially at early morning hours) how would that affect a case coming through AUSC for that disclosure while blocking the IP? -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 08:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

A: If reasonable people would agree that the situation was urgent and extreme measures needed to be taken right away, then I don't think I would see a problem here (see my answer to 7a above). If the IP/range block pretty clearly could have waited a few hours — or if the IP/range block clearly was not necessary — that would be a different matter. When I'm saying "clearly", though, I'm not trying to suggest I would advocate getting down hard on a CU over a judgment call on which reasonable people could reasonably have disagreed. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 01:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

8: In your answer to question 3, you said "If I'm still out of step here with the generally accepted view on CU use, I'm certainly willing to moderate my position to conform to what is needed." If you are still learning what is the usual norm for use of the tools, how can the functionary being audited and the community depending on you to audit be sure that they are getting an independent review? -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 09:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

A: No one here is perfect — not even functionaries. We all need to recognize that we are capable of making mistakes (though hopefully fewer and fewer as time goes on) and improving our performance. And since you specifically asked about "independent" reviews involving me, I'll add that although I'm certainly prepared to learn and improve, respond to reasoned arguments, and even sometimes to back down if a particular dispute doesn't really seem worth fighting, I am still able to stick to my opinions when necessary, even if the result would be that a decision failed to be unanimous because I wouldn't agree with everyone else. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 01:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

9: In your answer to question 3, you talked about CUs running checks out of their own initiative would be suspicious, as two heads are better than one. Can you explain where the balance should be struck between CUs consulting each other to see if someone agrees with a check vs. checking on their own as it takes a lot of time sometimes to find another CU to review, especially late at night? -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 09:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

A: Without a specific case to discuss, I can only deal here in generalities. In general, if a CU can articulate reasonable grounds for doing a check ASAP, I would probably be inclined to support the check, even if the CU did it on his own initiative and without consulting with anyone else. In my view, "going solo" is one of many factors which might cause a CU action to be questioned. I'm sorry if I didn't explain this well enough and some people got the mistaken idea that I was saying every CU action done without recommendation from, or consultation with, someone else is to be presumed to be a horrible thing; instead of saying I would be "suspicious" of such a situation, a better way of expressing myself might be that I would definitely want to understand what was going on, and if no reasonable-sounding explanation were forthcoming, then my curiosity might very likely drift over into the domain of skepticism or suspicion. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 01:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments

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

• Overall Rich has been helpful at SPI as a trainee clerk, but I don't get the feeling that they have all the procedures down yet. The comment about checks of own initiative also give me pause - that would mean that CUs would be reluctant to CU the next _ on wheels or Nipponese Dog Calvero or Mangoeater1000 or other LTA account out of risk of getting in trouble. --Rschen7754 10:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I've taken another look and while the candidate could use more experience, I haven't noticed anything extremely inappropriate, and Richwales does have more experience in the relevant areas than some of the other candidates. So after thinking it over a bit, my position's more of a weak support. --Rschen7754 10:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - I'm against lifting up election losers to other positions of trust, especially in the same department. This candidate had even a negative election result (more opposers than supporters)... Kraxler (talk) 14:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Good real-life background for the position in addition to Wikipedia experience; seems like he has the understanding of the importance of handling private/sensitive material with uttermost care under his skin. Iselilja (talk) 11:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support - My76Strat (talk) 07:11, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
• Thank you Rich for your answers, especially number 8, which was a hard question to ask, and probably a difficult one to answer. Your answer to question 8 specifically and the rest of the questions are good answers, and shows that you would add value to AUSC. Also your work at SPI shows that you have a understanding of how CU works. After further review, I don't see anything that would cause concern, and I have no doubt that you would be a good Auditor if elected. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 09:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support As per Iselilja and DeltaQuad the user is a SPI trainee clerk and is a long term user and is trustworthy and competent and has been editing regularly without a break for years going back to 2005.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

TParis

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

Nomination statement (250 words max.)

• Greetings. I believe I would make a suitable if not desirable addition to the Audit Subcommittee because of my commitment to trust, justice, and transparency. I meet the technical qualifications for the checkuser right and I have already demonstrated trust as a developer of the Unblock Ticket Request System which I have access to the private data of users who submit unblock appeals (I have been identified to the foundation prior to the launch of this tool). My goal as an AUSC member would be to strengthen the trust between Arbcom, the functionaries, administrators, and ultimately the users. Realistically, each of these entities requires some level of trust and also another level of transparency to be effective and honest. I would like to use this opportunity to develop strategies that encourage an acceptable and transparent flow of information that is committed to the WMF privacy policy and the protection of the identities of Wikipedians and all users. I believe that Wikipedia needs a process that primarily focuses on privacy, followed by protection of the encyclopedia against those who would grossly abuse it, and also with a firm level of communication and transparency. If selected, I will do my utmost to leave this position in a better condition within the community than when I accept it.

Standard questions for all candidates

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

A: Before I became a sysop, even before Wikipedia had Wikipedia:Child protection, I was already aware of the issue of protecting the identities of children. I wrote this essay on the subject. As experience on-wiki grew, I came to respect the right of editors to edit behind a pseudo-name. As an administrator, I've revdel'd and deleted personally identifiable information (pending an OS). Not exactly "on-wiki" but I also developed the WP:UTRS tool with Hersfold, DeltaQuad, and Thehelpfulone (and others after the launch). As a developer, I have access to the same data that CUs see (I was identified before the launch).

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

A: I'm not CCNP or Net+ certified, but I have networking experience when I was a Web server and Database administrator for my job. I've also played with the CU tool on my own Mediawiki installs.

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: No, I do not.

Questions for this candidate

1. As a member of AUSC, you will be a member of the functionary team. Do you believe functionaries should be held to a higher standard of conduct on the English Wikipedia and all WMF sites than an ordinary admin or editor? Explain. (Note that the scope of AUSC is only to investigate violations of the CU/OS policies). --Rschen7754 04:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

   A: "Yes, but..." The civility policy does not change depending on if someone is an Administrator, 'Crat, OS, CU, or none of the above. It holds editors to a professional standard of conduct that allows for a collaborative environment. In short, we are all equal. However, because of the difficulty in removing advanced tools from Administrators ect., the community has generally expected that those granted the tools behave in a stricter sense to the letter of the policy. If I were to judge myself here and now, I'd say that I've failed many times to live up to the community's expectations of behavior for an administrator. Just today I've been arguing with Animate on WP:ANI and I've been less than pleasant. I've likely put a very sour taste in Animate's mouth when it comes to seeing my initials around the 'pedia. All I can say is that I will remain accountable to the community and if it sees fit to forgive me of the occasional outburst, I'll continue to try my best to contain them. When the community decides it's had enough, I'll graciously step away.

2. What are your views on how to handle underage editors sharing personal information? --Rschen7754 04:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

   A: I think my views are adequately explained on User:TParis/Protecting_Children, but as someone who started using the internet at a very young age and when there was less law enforcement and oversight on the internet, I have experience to lean back on about how it feels to use the internet while underage. Sometimes it's necessary to protect kids from themselves. I'd like to keep Wikipedia welcoming to children, but I do not think identifying their age is needed and we should continue to suppress that information and block if it continues to be posted. Further, under all circumstances should we block editors who try to out children especially.

3. What are some of the criteria you would use to determine if a CU check was valid? --Rschen7754 04:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

   A: It's simple, the checkuser must have had legitimate reason to suspect abusive behavior that links two or more accounts together before using the tool, the checkuser should not be involved with the user, and the information should not be available by other means. I would investigate what information led the checkuser to conclude that tool use was necessary. The result may not have led me or another checkuser to perform the same action, but if it is within reasonable to come to the decision already made and there are no reasons to assume the checkuser is doing so out of bad faith and it adheres to the WMF privacy policy, then we've has a successful use of the tool.

Optional question(s) from Sven Manguard

4: To it's critics, at least, ArbCom has a reputation for keeping things secret when there is little or no valid reason to do so, and for making decisions (or, at the opposite end of the spectrum, not pursuing matters) with an eye towards the good of ArbCom's image first and the community's best interests second. Whether or not you agree with this assessment, it colors the way that members of the community would deal with you as an AUSC member. With this in mind, how do you balance the secrecy that AUSC work entails with the community's best interests, which may not always be best served by that secrecy? Is there ever a time for willfully ignoring the requirements that AUSC-related discussions be kept secret?

A: I think that a real serious discussion should be held community-wide on the amount of secrecy Arbcom should operate under. It's undeniable certain that some level is required. Anyone who makes a counter-argument to that just isn't seriously looking to make an objective point but rather trying to force their own version of idealism. But it's also the case that Arbcom has made it's own rules about secrecy and those rules have led to a situation that is ideal for them. We need a good faith, no pitchforks, talk about what is necessary to perform the role that Arbcom does and part of that role is dealing with stuff that is private. I don't know what the answers are, I suspect that Arbs have been pondering the same thing and haven't come up with answers themselves. My hope is that we might have a community discussion where someone comes up with a good idea, Arbcom likes it, and the WMF gives it their stamp of approval.

5: Do you currently have any aspirations for running for Arb in the next election?

A: I wouldn't run for Arb if it was a six figure job. (Ok, maybe I would, but I'd need my arm bent). No, the fact of the matter is that I barely forced myself to volunteer for the AUSC. I've zero interest in solving other people's disputes. I just do not have the calm and well reasoned demeanor of NYB. I admire the courage of and appreciate the amount of time that the Arbs give up even if I do not always support their decisions. I believe I was quite vocal on Kevin's desysop. Whatever my opinions, the Arbs had to make a tough decision and they made it. I don't fault them for that. You can be critical of their decisions all you like, but that they stay up late at night in an effort to fix Wikipedia's trenched-in conflicts is something to thank them for.

6. Lately, certain segments of the community have repeatedly asked for more information regarding material that has been suppressed. If you were to receive a request from a community member asking for more information regarding a suppressed edit, i.e. who suppressed it, what the logged reason was, etc, what would be your response? Beeblebrox (talk) 17:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

A Right now, my opinion is that too much secrecy is given to the actions of CUs and OSs. However, in my discussion with the OSers, they hinted that they had a reason that was, itself, secret. I believe that privacy is utmost important in their role but that privacy has finite edges. If elected to AUSC, I would like to discuss with Arbcom and the OSes what those edges are. Until we had a firm proposal and community endorsement, I would continue to obey the status quo. As far as I am concerned, at this time, they are the experts at what they do and barring additional insight, I must defer to their judgement. I would hope that as I come to understand what they do a little better, I can bridge a discussion between the OSers and the community about this topic. I participated in this discussion, which I think you're aware of, in which I described my feelings on the subject.

7: In question 3 you state that a "checkuser must have had legitimate reason to suspect abusive behavior that links two or more accounts together before using the tool". I've personally ran many CUs without this aspect. The nature of CU requests are not black and white, it just might appear that way through SPI. I've personally gotten requests from people to disclose the IP to a suicidal user to notify authorities (though I don't handle these, but that's a different story that people can use my talk to ask about). I've gotten many request where there is no master account to suspect, but very suspicious returning user behavior. Sometimes I don't even have an account, but have been given an IP address which shows someone possibly evading scrutiny. These are just a few examples. Your work as an auditor will bring cases like this up. How would your decisions as an auditor be affected by these situations that are not black and white textbook cases? -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 07:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

A Yes, I'm aware there are emergency circumstances and I'm aware that when there is evidence of sock puppetry that the tool can be used to discover what those accounts out. The question remains, did the checkuser make a reasonable decision, in good faith, that abides by the privacy policy, and protects the WMF? The circumstances will change, but that's why we are people are auditors and not machines. We use conscience, logic, compassion, and discretion in determining what was reasonable which allows for grey areas to be treated with care and diligence. I would treat exceptional cases for what they are.

8: Last year around this time, you thought that SPI work wasn't for you. Since one of the main CU areas is SPI, do you think this would affect your work as an auditor or your motivation to do this work? -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 07:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

A I'm not ignoring these, I just haven't decided how I feel about the issue you've brought up. Giving it more thought.--v/r - TP 23:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The truth is that I hated working as an SPI. I volunteered, I was assigned a mentor, and then it felt like I got lost. At the time, I had little experience with socks as I rarely touched controversial topics (still avoid them), and I felt unqualified and awkward about the WP:DUCK test. That insecurity and discomfort has been tempered with experience.

9a: One of the aspects in your role as an auditor would be to evaluate claims of CUs releasing IPs by blocking an IP or IP range after blocking accounts. Where do you draw the line between protection of the Wiki where the CU needs to block the IP to prevent the abuse, and a user's privacy? -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 08:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

A: Until a technical solution is provided, the IP's privacy is actually protected by those blocks because they are prevented from drawing more attention to themselves. Also, blocking an IP range does not give personally identifiable information about the user. At most, depending on the ISP, it gives a general geography. A dedicated stalker person could theoretically use this information with other public information to perhaps build a clearer picture about the user, and that is a concern, though. The WMF also holds that personally identifiable information may be released when it "reasonably necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the public." If it is reasonable to conclude that a user will abusively sock puppet, a block of their range (which does not identify them by itself but could be used to build a picture) is acceptable to protect WMF property (the servers, the foundation) and the public (living people). It really depends on the individual case: how abusive the user is and how likely they are to sock.

9b: Also, CUs at times will also ask another CU to block the IP or range for them. This allows for a users information not to be disclosed. If CU's can't find another CU easily to block it (especially at early morning hours) how would that affect a case coming through AUSC for that disclosure while blocking the IP? -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 08:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

A: I'm sorry, but I am having trouble understanding the question. I've read the other candidates answers and they do not seem to address the question. Can you clarify, if the original CU were to perform the block themselves, would that action reveal the identity of another user or subject another user to harassment? If so, and if the situation were an emergency, than I think it would be perfectly acceptable to involve a steward. Many stewards are bi-lingual with English being their second language because they are from non-English speaking countries, which equates to different time zones, and means that they may be online and available to help out in that emergency situation. If it was not an emergency, then the mailing list or waiting personal contact with another CU would be acceptable. I see no conflict with a CU passing the buck to another user with the access to the same material so long as the CU that accepts responsibility can personally justify their actions.

Comments

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

• I'm afraid I find it an awkward mismatch to appoint an AUSC member who intends to use their position to push for our privacy policies to change. An auditor's job is to evaluate whether functionaries have violated policy as it stands, not to use their position as a platform for policy change or even just to lead discussions about whether policy should change. This isn't to say that it isn't appropriate, if you think policy needs to change, for you to pursue or even spearhead discussions that would help the policy change, but I do think that you have to choose wanting to pursue those changes in policy or being a neutral party charged with evaluating whether people's actions were appropriate in relation to what policy actually is. Otherwise it would be far too easy to, entirely inadvertently, slant committee decisions in ways that unilaterally edge policy toward your preferred changes. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, my discussion with you gave me the impression that one had to be 'on the inside' to even approach the topic. Not that this led to my self-nomination, but it was a contributing factor. If the community shares your concerns, then I would accept that my volunteer-ship is declined. There are other worthy candidates and I'm certainly nothing special in that regard. If I am elected, however, I would consider the responsibility of an AUSC member, responsibilities I volunteered for and take seriously, to have precedence. I did link to where we discussed this topic, though, so I am open to fully transparency of my intentions.--v/r - TP 02:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Right but you're not really applying to be "on the inside". You're applying to be an auditor of the "inside", which implies a level of neutrality with regard to policy. Applying to be an oversighter or checkuser while saying "I think the privacy policy needs to be revamped and I'll probably push for that" wouldn't be a problem in my mind; it's just applying to be someone who is supposed to neutrally judge policy adherence but who is also saying "I don't think this policy should necessarily be adhered to and I intend to push for that" that I find problematic.

At any rate, if I gave the impression that you can't discuss privacy policy unless you're a functionary, I gave a wrong impression; that is not at all the case, and you don't need to apply for AUSC just to be allowed to speak on the topic. If you want to start an RfC on privacy or something, I encourage you just go ahead and do that. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support based on the answer to question 6. I disagree with oversighter Fluffernutter. IMO "community representatives" on AUSC should not only be selected from the community, but also represent community concerns over CUOS transparency. --Surturz (talk) 03:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Even though this isn't a !vote, I would also be very supportive of TParis in any duties he was willing to offer his services to. If I have ever disagreed with him on anything, I'm sure it was a productive discussion. — Ched :  ?  11:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Not just no, but heck no, won't this take time away from babysitting the ever-popular MRM article probation? Oh you can do both? Nevermind, then, forget I said anything, changing to Support on the understanding that I won't get left all alone there again. KillerChihuahua 15:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support Good admin who is outside of the "insider" CU/OS circles -- exactly what we want for an auditor. NE Ent 23:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• I'm still a bit ambivalent about this, after thinking for a few days. On one hand, I'd have to agree that sometimes the best critics of ArbCom are the better arbs, and to an extent that may be true with AUSC. On the other, it is not the role of ArbCom or AUSC to make policy, and TParis has indicated that he wants to make policy. Yet, they have indicated that they will attempt to keep the roles separate. But then there's Fluffernutter's concerns regarding being able to keep the two separate. What also concerns me a bit is TParis' interpretation of Fluffernutter's stance - having monitored the related discussion, I think it's partially a matter of TParis not having the data of what actually gets oversighted, and I don't think there would be such a wide difference of opinion. I think that were TParis to be on AUSC it would provide him with this data. But that's not the purpose of AUSC. So overall, I'm leaning oppose, but pretty weakly. --Rschen7754 10:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Upon further reflection, moving to full oppose because the advocacy stance of the candidate is just something I'm not comfortable with. Also, the answer to question 9b really misses the mark - if a CU comments on a SPI saying IP blocked and then blocks an IP, without extra precautions that does give away the IP of the user. I'm not also exactly sure what a steward should be doing in the matter - the only option a steward can perform is a global block, which is not entirely appropriate if there is no global disruption, or a local block, which violates our global rights policy if the steward is not also an enwiki admin. --Rschen7754 19:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
    • The question said nothing about commenting at an SPI. That sort of context would've made the question a lot clearer.--v/r - TP 19:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Well it's not just at SPI - talk page requested check, privately-requested check, accounts and IPs being blocked at the same time could fall in this category too. --Rschen7754 20:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
        • Your reply is just so far from accurate. I said "if the situation were an emergency, than I think it would be perfectly acceptable to involve a steward" and the global rights policy says "In emergency situations where local users are unable or unavailable to act, stewards are asked to use their global rights to protect the best interests of Wikipedia." The question didn't make mention that the issue was publicly connecting the IP on-wiki in an SPI, or otherwise, which contributed to my confusion when I said "I'm sorry, but I am having trouble understanding the question." So I had no idea to know the context of the question. If the question is "Does a CU blocking an IP and an account in roughly a close timetable because no other CU is available violate the privacy policy" then the answer would be that it depends on the severity of the user's actions and the likelihood that it would continue before another CU is available. The private policy states that revealing private information is acceptable "Where it is reasonably necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the public." Given the context you've supplied, I'd have been able to answer that. Perhaps you've seen DeltaQuad's question before, or discussed the matter elsewhere, but I was not privy to information that would've been helpful in answering the question.--v/r - TP 23:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
          • You're forgetting that stewards have global policies as well that they have to abide by, and not just those on the English Wikipedia - a global block where there is no clear evidence of crosswiki abuse is questionable at best. Furthermore, while stewards have the technical power to locally block any account on any WMF wiki on the SUL system, they will not do so on any of the large wikis (enwiki, dewiki) because it can easily be construed as a violation of our policies (that section refers to the complete absence of admins in the case of blocking, which is very unlikely to happen) and unquestionably is not in line with steward practices (many of the non-enwiki stewards that I have interacted with have said that they stay far from enwiki and dewiki out of concerns of alienating an independent community that can reasonably run itself). If it was truly enough of an emergency for a steward to act, then it would be enough of an emergency to allow the original CU to block in the first place. So overall this thing about "the stewards can do it" is largely incorrect, and concerns me greatly. --Rschen7754 00:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
            • Rschen7754 is wrong here. The 9b question clearly states that another CU is unavailable to block the IP, with the implication that it is an emergency (otherwise the question is pointless). So we are talking about a hypothetical corner case with insufficient details for the candidate to answer "correctly". DQ should have provided details in his hypothetical situation - why an immediate block was required and could not wait - for 9b to be a fair question. --Surturz (talk) 03:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• Strong support - I am inclined to support TParis in just about any on-wiki endeavor. I fully trust his judgment and he obviously is someone dedicated to the project and well-versed in our policies. Go Phightins! 19:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support Knowledgeable about what the use of CU/OS entails, all-around competent admin. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:07, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support - My76Strat (talk) 07:12, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support - I think he is devoted and especially well-meaning. My only hesitation is that to me he appears sometimes to lean extra-hard to strive to be impartial--when it is clear there is a position to be taken, and I presume he has one. But I don't expect that to be an issue here, and overall I think he is extremely responsible and has the interests of the project at heart.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support TParis is conscientious, thoughtful, humble, and honorable, and he would be an excellent member of this committee. I frequently disagree with his positions, but when I do his is the best of a bad bunch; I think that others would agree with me that even in disagreement he has our respect. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - I had to think hard on this one and I hate to be the lone oppose but unfortunately after some discussions I have seen over the last week or so at ANI and at the Village pump I cannot support this. Some comments were made by you that give the impression that you would likely go along with a popular vote even if you disagreed with it. This isn't the type of position that needs another go along with the crowd mentality. With that said I think that most of our interactions have been positive and I don't have anything really negative to say. I just don't think you are well suited for this position. Kumioko (talk) 13:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • You're certainly not the lone oppose, but I hate to see yours for that reason. Not bringing this up as a plea as any sort of a quid pro quo, but I flowed against the current when I tried standing up for you while you were blocked over at WP:BON, if you can recall our conversation, where I was told to just ignore you as a troll but I tried to engage with you to help you come back. Recently, though, my unblock of Kiefer Wolfowitz was strongly criticized and widely unpopular. Not that you don't have plenty of reason to suspect I could be a crowd pleaser, but in my opinion I follow my own path and sometimes that coincides with the crowd and sometimes it doesn't. The thread you and I most recently interacted on, the thread on the village pump about Malleus, shows an opinion that matches that of a large portion of the community but it's my own opinion. Fluffernutter up above seems to take the opposite direction in her oppose. She is saying that I am currently opposed to the community/crowd opinion of the blocking policy and that my position in this conversation is not the right mentality for AUSC because it's different than the standard model and she feels that AUSC isn't the appropriate place for advocating a community change in mindset on what level of secrecy is needed in these roles.--v/r - TP 13:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm sure it won't affect your getting elected anyway espcially given how most editors here feel about my opinions anyway. That's just how I feel at the moment. Kumioko (talk) 14:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• Personally I disagree with the notion that TParis will go with the flow, I would say it's the opposite, that he will go against the flow if he feels it's needed. I do feel that the advocacy stance is a little forward for an AUSC candidate, but I think it would be a good refresher and allow us to get a clearer picture on what OSers OS. I know there have been discussions before to clear up what OS can do, I don't feel they have been fruitful enough, or that they are widely adopted. Regarding the confusion regarding the CU blocking the IP question, don't stress it. Like I said to another candidate, I think we were thinking along the same line. It's also not the only option available to a CU in this situation, i've many times found workarounds that don't reveal private info at all. All around, I'm confident TParis is a good candidate, and relatively confident he would make a good auditor. Thank you for your answers to my questions especially the SPI one which required a fair amount of thought. -- DQ on the road (ʞlɐʇ) 21:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Followup: I also note that TParis said he would follow currently accepted practice till the consensus changes which is what calmed my concerns about the privacy standpoint. -- DQ on the road (ʞlɐʇ) 21:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)