Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard +  Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics ( Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks +  Talk Clerk procedures
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint at least three non-arbitrator members to the Audit Subcommittee.

The Audit Subcommittee (AUSC) was established by the Arbitration Committee to investigate complaints concerning the use of CheckUser and Oversight privileges on the English Wikipedia, and to provide better monitoring and oversight of the CheckUser and Oversight positions, and use of the applicable tools.

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 willing to identify to the Wikimedia Foundation. Active subcommittee members are given the CheckUser and Oversight permissions, 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.

Dates are provisional and subject to change

• Applications: 19–31 January

  Candidates self-nominate by email to arbcom-en-blists.wikimedia.org. Each candidate will receive an application questionnaire to be completed and returned to the arbcom-en-b 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: 1–7 February

  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 February–19 February

  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-blists.wikimedia.org. Editors are encouraged to include a detailed rationale, supported by relevant links where appropriate.

• Appointments: by 29 February

  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.

Appointment motion

Effective 1 March 2012, Avraham ( talk · contribs), Ponyo ( talk · contribs), and Salvio giuliano ( talk · contribs) are appointed as community representatives to the Audit Subcommittee. The period of appointment will be 1 March 2012 to 28 February 2013. MBisanz ( talk · contribs) is designated as an alternate member of the subcommittee and will become a full member should one of the appointees resign their role during the term. The Arbitration Committee 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 Keegan ( talk · contribs) who is expected to remain in office until 31 March 2012.

Support motion

AGK, Casliber, Courcelles, Elen of the Roads, Hersfold, Jclemens, Kirill Lokshin, PhilKnight, Risker, Roger Davies, Xeno.

Not voting

David Fuchs, Newyorkbrad, SilkTork, SirFozzie.

For the Arbitration Committee, – xeno ^talk 17:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Discuss this

Avraham

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

Nomination statement (250 words max.)

With the current lack of non-arbitrator members of the AUSC, I would like to support the continued smooth running of the English Wikipedia project by volunteering for AUSC. I am an experienced checkuser and oversighter on the English Wikipedia project, with three and two years of experience respectively using those tools. Having been subject to the regulations governing OS and CU for years, and to the AUSC for as long as it has been in existence, I am comfortable with both the tools and the situations in which they should be used.

Standard questions for all candidates

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

A: I have been a checkuser since August of 2008 and was elected to be oversight-enabled in August of 2009. I have performed hundreds of suppressions and thousands of checks over this time. I am comfortable with both tools, their use, and their limitation. I have been approached by ArbCom to review complaints prior to the formation of the AUSC, I have been subject to the AUSC since its creation, and I cannot recall ever being found to be in non-compliance with any checks I have done. -- Avi ( talk) 05:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC) reply

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

A: If by off-Wiki the intention is outside the English Wikipedia project in specific, then I believe my experience as having native oversight abilities on the Wikimedia Commons and being a Wikimedia steward has afforded me even further expertise in using the tools that are shared by all projects. If by off-wiki experience the intent is outside of Wikimedia space, I have in the past served as both a moderator and an administrator of various on-line forums which required an understanding of IP addresses and the like for moderation. However, especially as the latter is now a number of years in the past, I do believe that having a number of years of direct, on-wiki, on English Wikipedia experience with both tools is more relevant to the community to help judge my ability in, and usefulness for, this role. -- Avi ( talk) 05:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC) reply

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

A: Yes. I am a bureaucrat, checkuser, and am oversight-enabled on this (the English Wikipedia) project, I am oversight-enabled on the Wikimedia Commons, and I serve all Wikimedia projects as a steward. I am also an OTRS volunteer with access to the following queues: info-en (full), Permissions, Sister projects, info-he (full), Stewards, and oversight-en-wp. -- Avi ( talk) 05:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Questions for this candidate

1. Do you think AUSC members should actively use the CheckUser or Oversight tool? Amalthea 08:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC) reply

A: I believe that is up to the individual, but I do not believe that there is an inherent need for inactivity. I believe that familiarity with the tools, their utility and their shortcomings, and in the processes CUs and OSs use on the English Wikipedia as a matter of course is helpful in understanding why given actions were done in given cases. Furthermore, specifically regarding my own case, I believe I am of more use and service to the Wikipedia project as the active checkuser and oversighter which I already am. For what it is worth, I do not stand to gain any privileges or access over that which I already have; only more responsibility and more calls on my time. When the call for volunteers was released, prior to submitting my name for consideration, I specifically asked of ArbCom if I would need to refrain from using both sets of tools were I to be selected for the committee. I was told that there is no necessity to refrain from using the tools, and thus I do not intend to slow down my activity level solely because I am on the AUSC. Obviously, I would recuse myself from any case in which I would be named by a complainant, but, thankfully, that has not occurred to my knowledge over the past 3.5+ years. -- Avi ( talk) 15:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC) reply

2. Why do you think it is important to keep AUSC investigations private? Whenaxis talk · contribs 22:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC) reply

A: What do you mean by private? If you mean releasing all the details of the investigation, that is almost certainly impossible. AUSC investigations deal with information that is covered by the Wikimedia foundation privacy policy, which supersedes anything any one project may decide. Furthermore, there may be local policies even more stringent than the foundation's policy. On the other hand, the fact that the AUSC performed an investigation is something that can be released, and I believe it is already done so now on the report page. Perhaps it would be better if you could specify more clearly what you had in mind? -- Avi ( talk) 23:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Sorry for being unclear. For example, other investigations that deal with abuse on Wikipedia such as sockpuppet investigations and requests for de-adminship are public during the course of the investigation. So, why do you think AUSC investigations are kept private? Whenaxis talk · contribs 23:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Almost certainly due to the fact that AUSC investigations are dealing solely with how and why private information was accessed, suppressed, or otherwise handled. For general sockpuppet discussions, there is no privacy issue. Even when a CU is run, the results are allowed to be published and the bulk of the process still relates to regular, on-wiki information. The AUSC is called in to investigate use of tools that only deal with privacy issues. That alone is reason to take extra care. Also, in the investigation, there will be need for the party being investigated to explain their actions. Once again, this will be dealing almost totally with information that should not be released. For example, the question may be asked of a checkuser: why did you run checks on account a and b and IP c? That right then and there would be indentifying some kind of relationship if that were posted on-wiki. The responses of the CU operator as well almost certainly contain information covered by the WMF and local privacy rules. An OS investigation would be similar. Even in the (hopefully very rare) case where the tool user was incorrect, the salient facts of the case are likely unable to be posted (Something like "You should not have checked User:Avraham and IP 127.0.0.1" is something I hope no AUSC member says on wiki ); pretty much the only safe things we can say are the fact that there was an investigation, there was a finding of issue/non-issue, and if there was an issue, these are the steps taken to ensure such issues no longer occur; which is pretty much the process now. In general, parties to the complaint get a summarized report of the results--with some exception. For example, someone not IDd to the foundation should not receive any data not about themselves, and we shouldn't go out of our way to allow known sockpuppeteers to get information that will help them vandalize the project further . -- Avi ( talk)

3, 4, and 5. Part of the rationale for having non-Arb members on this committee, at least as I see it, is to give more voice to the 'common editor'. People who have had advanced permissions for long periods of time might view the use of those permissions differently from those that didn't have access to those rights before joining the committee. With this in mind, I note that several candidates have advanced permissions, including not only CU and OS but also permissions are more powerful and more exclusive that CU and OS. Firstly, do you consider my 'common editor' rationale to be accurate? If not, what is the reason that the committee contains non-Arbs? Secondly, do you believe that having advanced and ultra-advanced permissions for significant periods of time would alter how a user (not any specific user) would approach the position of AUSC member? Finally, do you believe that this 'overqualified' concern might reasonably apply to you, and if so, how would you go about handling such a concern and mitigating its impact? Sven Manguard Wha? 16:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Hello Sven, and thank you for the questions. My understanding is that the non-arbitrator members are there to serve as a check on ArbCom. ArbCom is the body authorized by the foundation to grant and remove the permissions, and having non-ArbCom members on the AUSC serves to add a level of "non-involvedness." Realistically, ArbCom also appoints the AUSC, but having people who are separate from the authorizing body is not a bad idea. I am unsure as to your directions by using the term "common editor." If you mean someone without access to the tools, then that is an inherent contradiction; all AUSC members will be granted the rights if they do not already have them. If you mean someone who has never used the tools prior to joining the AUSC, there are pros and cons. I can speak only for myself, but I certainly understand that using the tools on a regular basis to support this project does lead one to have certain trains of thought. People develop a familiarity with certain patterns of vandalism, certain editing styles, certain technical data, which may lead them to use the tools in a certain manner. Someone without that familiarity may have a different view, and an open mind is always a good thing. On the other hand, that very familiarity is very important in understanding why certain checks were done or such and such data was suppressed. Someone who has not spent the time doing the work does not always understand the work, and that can lead to an improper conclusion. As an analogy, while I might want a second opinion from a different doctor about a medical condition, I may not want it from an accountant who is changing careers and is in her first year of medical school. As an aside, I prefer not to use the term "common user" in that, when it comes to opinions and consensus, all users in good standing should be treated equally. While it may sometimes not seem that way in the "Wiki-Wild", personally, I try to view the toolsets to which some of us have access as just that, tools. They are not badges of authority or accomplishment. The only thing that they may indicate outside of someone who does more back-room cleanup is that the user who has the tools needed to, at least at one point, demonstrate enough good judgment and wisdom to have earned the trust of either the active English Wikipedia community or its ArbCom. OK, I think I got a tad off-topic there. Back to the matter at hand, to answer concisely:

3. I think that the intent of ArbCom was to have specifically non-arbcom people, not people unfamiliar with any of our toolsets (CU, OS, admin, etc.)

4. Yes, I think that having the advanced tools would alter how a user would approach AUSC, if only because they are more familiar with both the tools and the (sometimes hours and hours long) processes in which they are used, so they would be able to recognize appropriate and non-appropriate uses more quickly. I think it also is human nature to feel some sort of kinship with people with whom you work, especially if you see them attacked by vandals and trolls as a result of their good work (there is a reason that many of us need our user and talk pages semi or fully protected, sadly). Such a kinship can lead to an initial inclination to defend the user from attacks. Speaking for myself, I would like to believe that I would be both just and fair as a member of the committee tasked to review one of my fellow editors (and the time(s) I was asked by ArbCom prior to the formation of the AUSC, I think I was), but that is for ArbCom to decide, and about which you, and the entire Wikipedia community, should provide your input to ArbCom.

5. To answer the first part of the question, yes. For better or for worse, I am one of the more haberdashery-equipped members of both Wikimedia and Wikipedia . As such, I have been considered by some to be a "hat-collector," and if you check the various RfXs and elections I have undergone, you will see that. I like to delude myself into thinking that the permission to perform the maintenance work I do is a reflection on how my inter-personal behavior, editorial contributions, conflict-handling, and overall service has been viewed by Wikipedians and Wikimedians throughout the projects , but the facts are as they are. However, I believe that I respectfully disagree with you in the potential need for there to be some form of "mitigation." As I have addressed above, I think familiarity with not only the tools but the processes that our CUs and OSs use on a daily basis helps to more quickly separate the cases where tool use was appropriate from those where it does not. As for the inherent benefit of the doubt that may be granted to people in a similar situation, I hope that ArbCom can look at my behavior over the past 6.5 years, 5.5 as an admin, and 3.5+ as someone with access to more restricted maintenance tools, and determine for themselves, together with the opinions and contributions of involved editors such as yourself, if they believe I can demonstrate the appropriate impartiality as necessary.

Thank you for your questions, and I hope you don't mind the length responses (I have been accused of suffering from tl;dr-itis in the past ). -- Avi ( talk) 17:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC) reply

6. While I have no issue with editors wearing multiple hats across the project and across Wikimedia, because of the number of positions you hold, and the advanced levels of access you have, I'm curious to hear if you think that there might be a conflict between any of them. For example, if appointed, do you think you could devote sufficient time to both your steward work and your AUSC work? Or do you think that you could continue to be an active functionary and maintain sufficient detachment that you could impartially evaluate your fellow functionaries, or that your own actions were unlikely to come before the AUSC? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:10, 13 February 2012‎ (UTC) reply

A: Your question has two parts. As to the first part, it too has two parts. Firstly, I do not beleieve there is any inherent conflict between any of the roles I hold. If anything, there are synergies that can be had by being both a steward and a native user of tools on projects, as it eases the ability to do cross-wiki vandalism checks. Secondly, yes, I believe I will be able to devote sufficient time. Prior to submitting my name for review, I asked current members of AUSC for the expected time demands, and did not find them excessive. I am also already an active CU and OS here on EnWiki notwithstanding my responsibilities in other projects, and intend to maintain the same level of activity even if appointed to the AUSC. As I wrote above, I do not intend to refrain from regular tool use as I believe I am of more service to the project as an active user of the tools. As for the second part, I believe I can. I have been asked to review activity in the past and believe I was impartial then, and I believe I can approach future requests with similar detachment when necessary. However, the previous statement is merely an affirmation in my belief in myself; if there are concerns about my ability to be impartial, then I would suggest that a review of my history here on EnWiki (or any other Wikimedia project) would be helpful in making a determination as to my ability to be impartial, and if I am found wanting, please let ArbCom know. I completely agree with and support the need for just and fair people reviewing use of the tools, and the public commentary timeframe is the opportunity to inform ArbCom if I am guilty of all-too-human self-delusion as to my abilities in that regard . Lastly, I do not believe my actions have ever been brought before AUSC. If my actions were submitted to AUSC I would obviously recuse myself from reviewing my own actions. Thank you for the questions. -- Avi ( talk) 04:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Comments

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

Avi's response to my question allays any concerns I might have had. The number and type of positions he holds across various projects is an indication that he is held in high esteem and can be trusted to make good use of tools for their intended purpose. He assures us that he has time to fulfil this role in addition to the others, and that none of the others will conflict with his AUSC role. I think somebody who has made prolific use of functionary tools (especially across multiple wikis) on AUSC will bring a useful set of skills and perspectives, and since at least one of the appointees (assuming ArbCom appoints three from these seven) will be somebody who has never used functionary tools, there will be a nice balance on the subcommittee. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC) reply

In relation only to the question about the time demands of auditing, it certainly was my experience that the work of the subcommittee is not demanding. Thankfully, in almost every case where advanced permissions is used, there is no need to open an investigation. AGK [•] 22:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC) reply

DeltaQuad

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

Nomination statement (250 words max.)

Hello everyone, I am DeltaQuad, and I've been an administrator for several months now, and have been an SPI clerk for about a year and a half now. I've seen many forms of anything from vandals to meatpuppets to right out sockpuppets themselves and how they disrupt the community. This trust to investigate potential sockpuppets in a neutral view is similar, but multiplies significantly when we talk about the Audit Subcommittee. The trust of Functionaries group is only something that is earned from a community and this subcommittee is what helps maintain that trust. With leaving close to no trace behind, these tools need to be used carefully and why it has guidelines for usage. The community in general should already trust the Functionaries team, but it does not remove the necessity that some sort of oversight or auditing to occur since a user's privacy is at stake when these tools are used. I'm not saying I don't trust the functionaries team, I do trust them, but trust has to be maintained, as anyone would know with friendship. If you are willing to have me, I would like to assist in maintaining this trust between the community and the Functionaries team. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ)

Standard questions for all candidates

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

A: I have been through several projects on Wikipedia since my start of time. OTRS deals with a lot of complaints, and some of them your able to help, others you just simply have to say no to. But at the end of the day this is a job that takes professionalism over speed, but still keeping the time reasonable. This is a role that I've taken at times with Unblock-en-l and closing RfCs at backlog levels. I also have been at SPI and have been dealing with open proxies as the job of a checkuser entails. This job is not all that different from the role of an editor as previous members of the committee have stated, but it does carry a completely different scope. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 19:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC) reply

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

A: I am currently in the Bachelor of Information Technology Program ( Computer Networking specification) which deals inside and out with things that are dealt with in regards to the role of checkuser and for me to assist with open proxy checking. As for Oversight, I have about 126 revision deletes, and I know the O/S part is just one more very important bold text box. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 19:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC) reply

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

A: I do not hold advanced permissions on any WMF projects. I do have OTRS access for info-en (full), permissions, and photosubmission. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 19:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Questions for this candidate

1. Do you think AUSC members should actively use the CheckUser or Oversight tool? Amalthea 08:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC) reply

A: That would depend on your definition of actively. I do think it is important for Auditors to remain neutral, but also members should have experience in the field, there is a balance that needs to be struck. Just like the new recently appointed RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson, he's had experience in the force before the job. Auditors should know the experience because we can't just apply an external pressure to our functionaries. We need to understand why they gave one result over another, why they took one action over another, why intuition said one thing and not the other, and sometimes that is not explicable in words. Am I saying that we should be plowing through like a normal checkuser? Absolutely not. That would eliminate the point of the Audit subcommittee and make a member "one of them". -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 19:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC) reply

2. Why do you think it is important to keep AUSC investigations private? Whenaxis talk · contribs 22:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC) reply

A: The privacy policy only on very rare occasions allow us to share information obtained via checkuser or oversighted revisions. Releasing of such information onwiki violates the checkuser, privacy, and oversight policies at the core, and is not at an individual functionaries' discretion to release, but instead a legal obligation. Emails sent in confidence are kept private also because of the potential to flame a functionary, or the reverse - the user filing the report gets flamed by protectors of said functionary, then making the filer feel like they should have kept this information to themselves instead of reporting. Having investigations in a public setting would mess with the ability of the Audit Subcommittee to perform, because there would be too many questions asked left and right about policy and actions taken. Furthermore, a user's private personal data is not something that should be posted on wiki, due to possible stalking or death threats. I found this question to be very vague so I have answered it in the best scope that I understood your question to be asking. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 06:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Part of the rationale for having non-Arb members on this committee, at least as I see it, is to give more voice to the 'common editor'. People who have had advanced permissions for long periods of time might view the use of those permissions differently from those that didn't have access to those rights before joining the committee. With this in mind, I note that several candidates have advanced permissions, including not only CU and OS but also permissions are more powerful and more exclusive that CU and OS.

3. Firstly, do you consider my 'common editor' rationale to be accurate? If not, what is the reason that the committee contains non-Arbs?

A: I have to disagree with you in principle because it's not for the common editor to have a "voice" in the operations of this committee, but it is for the community as a whole to send people they trust to look into the data that they can not see. So I would say it's a community voice, not a individual editor having their 'say' in this. It is always good to have a fresh set of eyes with the Audit subcommittee, because then you get the question that may not occur to everyone else asked, and could lead to a solution to whatever issue is at hand. That being said, at the same time, it could be a functionary that has had the flags for a while that brings a solution to the problem, so whoever the community trusts to be a impartial fresh view to the committee (which could be from an active CU or OSer), is the best solution. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 09:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC) reply

4. Secondly, do you believe that having advanced and ultra-advanced permissions for significant periods of time would alter how a user (not any specific user) would approach the position of AUSC member?

A: I'm sorry but I don't understand the question in general, could you please clarify the "advanced and ultra-advanced permissions" part? -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 09:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC) reply

If a user has had an advanced permission for a sufficiently long period of time that they've become used to having it, would that change how they thought of the tool itself? If so, how would that change affect people's said user's ability to judge other people's actions related to that tool? Sven Manguard Wha? 14:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC) reply

A: A long period of time using the tools does create an experience, or a "norm" among the checkuser and oversight body. Standard practices are going to be seen in any group, whether corporate or onwiki. With a long term functionary, this could create a potential issue (less of an issue for those who are less active) of viewing the tool differently from when they started. If this occurred it would cause an issue between what the community has intended AUSC to be (to hold functionaries accountable without looking over there shoulders 24/7) and what is being done. Am I saying this will create an issue? No. This is up for the community to decide if the person is suitable for the candidacy, but I can see the issue individuals could have with it. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 09:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC) reply

5. Finally, do you believe that this 'overqualified' concern might reasonably apply to you, and if so, how would you go about handling such a concern and mitigating its impact? Sven Manguard Wha? 16:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC) reply

A: I do not feel overqualified at all for this position at this time. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 09:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Comments

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

• I've watched DeltaQuad's career (for want of a better word) with interest for quite a while. I think he would make a brilliant checkuser and/or oversighter. He has the knowledge of policy, the technical skill, and the trust of the community. However, I hesitate to recommend him for this role. His writing often gives the impression of being hasty, often sloppy, as though he hasn't read it through, and consequently, one can struggle to make complete sense of what he's saying. While the intended meaning is usually clear, I think it is imperative that somebody in a role like this be able to explain themselves clearly and without rambling. This was something that was mentioned in passing in the oppose sections of both DQ's RfAs, and he's certainly come a very long way since his first RfA, but given the importance of the matters AUSC deals with, I can't comfortably support DQ for the role, much as I would like to. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC) reply

• HJ certainly has a point about how I have made my posts. It's something that should be considered when reviewing my nomination. I do admit that English is not my best strong point, although it is my native language. I had about 2 years of my life where my language of instruction for education was not English, and I did have to relearn a fair amount of the English, though that was several years ago. As for my language giving the impression of being hasty, I partly disagree with this, but as I look back over some posts that I have made and they do seem hasty, and also can see how it could have occurred. This is something I will be looking to improve upon. Thank you HJ for coming out and showing me where I can improve, we can all use constructive criticism every once in a while. :) -- DQ on the road (ʞlɐʇ) 22:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC) reply

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 former AUSC member and having access to OTRS 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 avoid using the tools in non-emergency situations in general and in emergency situations when another user or steward can be found who can perform the task. 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. 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, WMF-wiki access, Internal-wiki access, OTRS info-en(f), permissions, photosubmissions, Sisterprojects, Oversight-en-wp, and DAL queues. Already identified to the Foundation.

Questions for this candidate

1. Do you think AUSC members should actively use the CheckUser or Oversight tool? Amalthea 08:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC) reply

A: No. I recognize that it is permitted by policy and practice, but I would not do it, did not do it during my prior term on AUSC and would counsel against it in future policy discussions. Using the tools while on AUSC creates the inappropriate appearance that the AUSC member is "one of them" or more importantly to the complainant "just like the guy I reported." As AUSC's mission is mostly based on its appearance as an independent reviewer of usage of the tools, it is critical that it take all steps to avoid the taint of bias, even if only by reputational association. MBisanz ^talk 13:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC) reply

2. Why do you think it is important to keep AUSC investigations private? Whenaxis talk · contribs 22:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC) reply

A: For two reasons. First, an AUSC complaint may involve non-public information such that it would do further harm to the complainant if the investigation was made public. Second, the precise details that exonerate a functionary might also serve as an aid as to how to evade scrutiny in the future. For the first case, a user might file a complaint of an import checkuser because they had already filed notice of an alternate account with Arbcom. If we were to disclose our investigation, that would serve to out their approved alternate account. For the second case, if a checkuser was not fishing when they ran a check, but rather had noticed a banned user used a certain odd misspelling when editing a specific topic, it would only aid that banned user's efforts if we disclosed our investigation. MBisanz ^talk 00:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC) reply

3, 4, and 5. Part of the rationale for having non-Arb members on this committee, at least as I see it, is to give more voice to the 'common editor'. People who have had advanced permissions for long periods of time might view the use of those permissions differently from those that didn't have access to those rights before joining the committee. With this in mind, I note that several candidates have advanced permissions, including not only CU and OS but also permissions are more powerful and more exclusive that CU and OS. Firstly, do you consider my 'common editor' rationale to be accurate? If not, what is the reason that the committee contains non-Arbs? Secondly, do you believe that having advanced and ultra-advanced permissions for significant periods of time would alter how a user (not any specific user) would approach the position of AUSC member? Finally, do you believe that this 'overqualified' concern might reasonably apply to you, and if so, how would you go about handling such a concern and mitigating its impact? Sven Manguard Wha? 16:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC) reply

A3: I can see where you are coming from and may have said as much at another time, but I believe the rationale is best explained as not a voice of a "common editor," but rather as an "independent voice." I see the general rationale behind AUSC is that as the Arbs grant the tools and use them themselves, they cannot fairly review allegations of misuse as they have a bias to not contradict their own earlier decision to grant and have a bias of association as active users of the tools. Therefore, some group that is independent of appointments and associational bias is needed. MBisanz ^talk 19:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC) reply

A4: I believe that it is possible that prolonged use of the tools could result in the above mentioned associational bias. In the same way police officers are less likely to see police abuse and drug users are less likely to see the harms of addiction, users of the tools will begin with the assumption that the use was proper as to infer otherwise would indicate a limitation or narrowing of their powers. This is bad as AUSC exists to overcome the inherent bias in being a user of the tools. I also recognize though that there are limited numbers of trusted users on a project like Wikipedia and that some re-use of individuals may be necessary. That is why I generally believe that members of AUSC should refrain from regular use of the tools, as the distinction, both reputationally and operationally, will serve to differentiate them and set them on a different mindset than a regular tool user. MBisanz ^talk 19:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC) reply

A5: Yes, I believe this overqualified concern would reasonably apply to me in my roles as an oversighter and former arbcom clerk. I would mitigate such a concern by refraining from use of the tools while serving on AUSC and handle it by emphasizing my non-involvement in day-to-day functionary affairs. MBisanz ^talk 19:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC) reply

6. You are currently running as a candidate in the 2012 steward elections. Being a steward is a time demanding job as there is an almost endless number of requests for blocks, permission changes etc. Whilst it is true that there are a number of stewards, if you were elected as a steward and an AUSC member, do you believe that you would be able to adequately manage the work load such that you are an active and fully engaged member of both roles within the Wikimedia community? The Helpful One 07:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC) reply

A6: Thank you for asking this question THO. I am seeking out Stewardship because I feel that I've gotten renames and bot approvals at en.wiki fairly under control and would like to expand that expertise to those functions (as well as the other things you mention) in the Steward-sphere and believe I can do so based on my mid-term time commitments. I believe I will still be engaged for AUSC because of my personal policy of not using my existing oversight rights while on AUSC. From my prior term on AUSC, it is not an intensive job like crat or arb or steward and would basically replace the minimal commitment to oversight in my schedule of overall editing time. So, in short, yes, I could do both and remain fully engaged to both communities. MBisanz ^talk 17:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC) reply

7 You have been around Wikipedia for a very long time and hold many advanced level permissions. It can be said that you are among a minority of Wikipedians in that you are very involved in the internal workings. Your work up to date has generally been solid and strong. Do you think, however, that it might be time to let new blood flow into this internal mechanism of the English Wikipedia? 140.247.141.165 ( talk) 23:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC) reply

A7: Thank you for the complimentary comments and the question. I would agree that we need to involve newer editors in all processes as they mature to maintain the vitality of the community. Among my four colleagues running, one is from 2009, two are from 2007, one from 2005, and I'm from 2004 and I believe all of us are experienced enough to take on this task. Also, I would want to point out that when I applied for this role, I did not know who else had already expressed interest, so I based my application solely on my own belief in my competence and ability to execute the duties of the office. While I still hope I am selected, as I feel I am competent for the task and as you note, focused on the internal processes of the project, I would not feel bad to see some of my younger colleagues given a chance to gain new experience in the role. New blood is always needed and I do not think I am irreplaceable in my ability to perform this role. MBisanz ^talk 19:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Comments

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

• I trust MBisanz -- Guerillero | My Talk 23:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC) reply
• Ditto, strong candidate who I trust for this job. Secret ^account 16:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC) reply
• Matt knows what he's doing and has demonstrated competence in the various tasks he's done on Wikipedia in the past few years. I am confident he would do a good job here. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 03:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC) reply
• Previous experience on AUSC is a plus, as is experience as a functionary, and having at least one member of the subcommittee who doesn't use the tools for day-to-day matters is advantageous. Matt is also a long-term editor with a high edit count, which shows his commitment to the project and experience of many of its different corners, which suggests that he would be likely to complete his term (and stability on a subcommittee like this can inly be a good thing). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC) reply
• Don't you think it's time to move over and allow new blood to flow? 140.247.141.165 ( talk) 02:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC) reply
• Ideal candidate. Grab him if he's willing to do it. Tony (talk) 12:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Ponyo

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

Nomination statement (250 words max.)

I have decided to submit my application for AUSC candidacy as I believe that I have the necessary mix of technical and temperamental qualifications suited to the role. Regarding my Wikipedia background, I have been a member of the Wikipedia community since March 2007 and have found it to be an incredibly rewarding experience. I am approaching my first anniversary as an admin (February 2, 2012) and I am also active on OTRS where I work mainly with BLP subjects via the quality queue.

The technical skills I believe I would bring to the AUSC role include a real life background in data interpretation and forensics; in addition I have a natural disposition for thoroughness and attention to detail. If I were to be appointed to the 2012 AUSC I would ensure that complaints were reviewed with the utmost respect for all individuals involved – my work with OTRS requires the utmost discretion and will certainly extend to this role as well. Trust is an immutable requirement for AUSC members; I hope that my nearly five years of interactions with the Wikipedia community show that I am indeed trustworthy and able to respond with discretion, promptness, and clarity to any complaints raised during my potential tenure on the committee.

Standard questions for all candidates

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

A: As an administrator I am used to having to evaluate situations in terms of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, not by who is shouting the loudest or making the most demands. This requires the ability to remain calm and review all arguments being made, as well as the ability to provide resolutions to conflicts that may not be satisfactory to all of the parties involved. My OTRS experience, especially my work on the Quality (BLP) queue, requires clear communication, constant respect in responses, and the utmost protection of privacy. I believe all of these skills will be an asset in the AUSC role.

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

A: In the “real world” my career involves a significant amount of data analysis and data interpretation. Essentially I spend my days teasing apart large amounts of information in order to identify significant patterns or anomalies. There is a degree of computer literacy required, and it also significant attention to detail and the ability to keep an open mind. If I approach a problem with a set expectation of the result, my analysis is flawed from the get-go.

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 advanced permissions on any Foundation projects, however I am active on OTRS and have access to the info-en queues including Permissions and Quality/BLP.

Questions for this candidate

1. Do you think AUSC members should actively use the CheckUser or Oversight tool? Amalthea 08:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC) reply

A: I don’t believe that being an AUSC member provides carte blanche to use the associated OS and CU tools as part of one’s everyday Wikipedia activities; there is a yearly election for these two permissions if one is inclined to add the tools as part of their regular repertoire. With that in mind, I do think it’s important that members of the AUSC familiarize themselves with the CU and OS tools in order to understand how they work, what their limitations are, and how they can be misused. I can’t see how you could fully investigate any complaints raised if you don’t understand how the tools work.

2. Why do you think it is important to keep AUSC investigations private? Whenaxis talk · contribs 23:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC) reply

My understanding of the process is that it is not entirely private in that the individual who initiates the complaint as well as the subject of the complaint are both aware of the process and are presented with a "final report" of the committee's findings. Additionally, the community can view these reports here. What does need to remain private is any data presented or compiled during the investigation covered under the Foundation's Privacy Policy. -- Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 23:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC) reply

3, 4, and 5. Part of the rationale for having non-Arb members on this committee, at least as I see it, is to give more voice to the 'common editor'. People who have had advanced permissions for long periods of time might view the use of those permissions differently from those that didn't have access to those rights before joining the committee. With this in mind, I note that several candidates have advanced permissions, including not only CU and OS but also permissions are more powerful and more exclusive that CU and OS. Firstly, do you consider my 'common editor' rationale to be accurate? If not, what is the reason that the committee contains non-Arbs? Secondly, do you believe that having advanced and ultra-advanced permissions for significant periods of time would alter how a user (not any specific user) would approach the position of AUSC member? Finally, do you believe that this 'overqualified' concern might reasonably apply to you, and if so, how would you go about handling such a concern and mitigating its impact? Sven Manguard Wha? 16:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC) reply

I’m hesitant to respond to this question as it consists of conjecture on the motivations behind the structure of the AUSC. I suppose your rationale could be accurate, although I would use the term “editor independent of Arbcom” as opposed to “common editor”. Alternatively, the role may have initially been proposed as a means of taking some of the burden off of Arbcom by assigning a specific set of activities to vetted individuals. I don’t believe that having previous experience with the CU or OS permissions should be seen as a negative with regard to AUSC participation; what is required is the ability to review the evidence presented in any investigation to ensure that there was no improper use of the CU and OS tools. One should not automatically infer that having experience with said permissions means that the sub-committee member will allow bias to enter their decisions. That being said, the possible dilemma you propose does not apply to me as I have never held advanced permissions such as CU or OS on any Wikimedia projects.

Comments

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

• I've seen some of Ponyo's work on OTRS and it's top-notch. She handles sensitive tickets that require patience and discretion—skills that are very much transferable and would be very relevant to AUSC in my opinion. She is very approachable, and highly trusted by all parts of the community from what I've seen. I think she'd do an excellent job, and I think she'd be an excellent choice for AUSC. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Salvio giuliano

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

Nomination statement (250 words max.)

I would like to put my name forward to serve as a member of the Audit Subcommittee. I am Salvio giuliano, an editor, an administrator and an ArbCom clerk. I have been active for a while and I believe I am in good standing with the community.

There is very little I can add about myself: I consider myself to be an experienced and dedicated metapedian and I deem it my responsibility as a sysop to always try to assist as much as I can in making things run smoothly on Wikipedia for those who create content. And in this spirit I would approach my role as a member of AUSC, if I were chosen. I consider the Subcommittee to be one of the most important bodies in Wikipedia's current structure, as checkuser and oversight actions share common elements which distinguish them from any other on-wiki activity: first of all, they can seriously impinge on the privacy of all users and, furthermore, their logs can only be consulted by a very limited number of Wikipedians. This makes abuse insidious and hard to detect, thus limiting these users' accountability, which is why diligent supervision is crucial.

Standard questions for all candidates

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

A: As an administrator, I have to be experienced in data analysis to decide whether to use my tools. It can be something trivial – such as examining a newcomer’s short list of contributions to determine if they are a vandalism-only account. It can be something a bit more complex – examining an article’s edit history to determine whether it needs protection. And finally, it can be something complicated – such as examining a user’s track record, stretching back months or even years, to determine whether he is a POV-pusher in order to impose sanctions or examining the behavioural patterns of an editor, to determine whether he is a sockpuppet. More specifically, I have been involved in various SPIs in the past, both as filer and as reviewing admin and I have also blocked many more obvious ducks without filing SPIs when their quacking was particularly deafening. Furthermore, as many experienced users, I’ve become proficient at spotting certain repeat sockpuppeteers almost instantly. And I’ve made a couple of requests that edits be suppressed and they have all been oversighted.

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

A: My technical expertise is somewhat limited, though I think I’m fairly computer literate. I can read and understand a WHOIS, geolocate an IP and identify user agents; I am, furthermore, good at analysing and comparing data, which can be useful both to examine editing patterns and to compile statistics regarding CU and OS use. Due to my studies, finally, I’m also moderately versed in technology, media and telecommunications law – though I’m referring to Italian law, so I am persuaded this is pretty useless...

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 don't.

Questions for this candidate

1. Do you think AUSC members should actively use the CheckUser or Oversight tool? Amalthea 08:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC) reply

A: Though I am unaware of any formal prohibition, I personally believe that, as a general rule, it is inappropriate. Since the members of the Subcommittee are the ones tasked with dealing with complaints regarding the use of the CheckUser and Oversight tool, whose logs are not public, they don't just have to be neutral, they also must appear neutral. This means that all AUSC members should clearly differentiate themselves from the people they oversee, which implies that they should not use the tools themselves. Not to mention that to use the tools can lead to problems when the actions of a member of the AUSC are brought before the rest of Subcommittee. That said, I wish to emphasise once again that this is just my personal opinion – and that I recognise there may be cases where, due to a serious emergency, the use of the tools on the part of a member of AUSC may be warranted.

2. Why do you think it is important to keep AUSC investigations private? Whenaxis talk · contribs 23:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC) reply

A: AUSC investigations are not kept private, most of the evidence pertaining to them is because the Foundation's privacy policy so mandates or because commonsense so suggests. In the first case, just as much as all other Functionaries, Subcommittee members are subject to the Privacy, CheckUser and Oversight Policies and, therefore, forbidden to divulge non-public items of information, which of course implies that all the evidence gathered by the Subcommittee which falls into this category may not be discussed with non-members; in the second, reason suggests that to precisely explain to a blocked sockpuppeteer how he was caught is rather unwise, as it allows him to improve his skills and to possibly avoid detection in the future. For these reasons, most if not all evidence gathered during an AUSC investigation must be kept confidential; however, the existence of the investigation itself is not kept private and a summary of the Subcommittee's findings and of their conclusions or sanctions, if any, is published on-wiki.

3, 4, and 5. Part of the rationale for having non-Arb members on this committee, at least as I see it, is to give more voice to the 'common editor'. People who have had advanced permissions for long periods of time might view the use of those permissions differently from those that didn't have access to those rights before joining the committee. With this in mind, I note that several candidates have advanced permissions, including not only CU and OS but also permissions are more powerful and more exclusive that CU and OS. Firstly, do you consider my 'common editor' rationale to be accurate? If not, what is the reason that the committee contains non-Arbs? Secondly, do you believe that having advanced and ultra-advanced permissions for significant periods of time would alter how a user (not any specific user) would approach the position of AUSC member? Finally, do you believe that this 'overqualified' concern might reasonably apply to you, and if so, how would you go about handling such a concern and mitigating its impact? Sven Manguard Wha? 16:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC) reply

A: I think that the reason non-arbitrators are part of the Subcommittee is to make sure that the members of the community get to have a say in how the Functionaries are held accountable. Oversighters and CheckUsers are nominated by the Arbitration Committee and, due to privacy (and legal) issues, their actions cannot be reviewed by the community; the decision to have non-arbitrators in the AUSC is a good compromise which allows the ones you refer to as common editors – though I do not really like this definition – to exercise, at least indirectly, oversight over the various Functionaries. That said, I believe that holding advanced permissions may influence one's approach to his role as a member of the Subcommittee; on the one hand, a functionary is more familiar with the problems and issues generally faced by his fellow functionaries when using the tools and with the possible consequences of their involvement in those areas; however, on the other, this familiarity may lead to bias – or even just the perception of bias, which, when it comes to the members of a supervising body, is just as bad. That is why, to be honest, I am in two minds about the "overqualification concerns" you mention, though, as far as I am concerned those concerns do not apply, as I do not hold any advanced permission.

Comments

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

• I can't make my mind up here, but I thought I'd leave a note to that effect here, rather than comment on all the candidates but one. From what I've seen of him, Salvio seems to be a sensible, level-headed admin. But he seems to keep out of the way a bit, and very rarely crosses my watchlist, which is unusual for an admin with ~30k edits, so all I have to go on is my general impression. I can't judge if he's well-suited to the role, but from my general impression, I think serious fuck-ups would be unlikely. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC) reply