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.
Comments are being accepted until 23:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC). The current time and date is 16:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC) (
).Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
![]() |
|
Track related changes |
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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).
Guerillero ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have 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?
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?
5: Do you currently have any aspirations for running for Arb in the next election?
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Jake Wartenberg ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
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). -- Rs chen 7754 04:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
2: What are your views on how to handle underage editors sharing personal information? -- Rs chen 7754 04:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
3: What are some of the criteria you would use to determine if a CU check was valid? -- Rs chen 7754 04:51, 9 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?
5: Do you currently have any aspirations for running for Arb in the next election?
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)
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?
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
MBisanz ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have 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?
Optional question(s) from Rschen7754
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?
5: Do you currently have any aspirations for running for Arb in the next election?
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?
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)
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?
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)
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)
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)
Penwhale ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have 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?
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?
5: Do you currently have any aspirations for running for Arb in the next election?
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Richwales ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have 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?
Optional question(s) from Rschen7754
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?
5: Do you currently have any aspirations for running for Arb in the next election?
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
TParis ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have 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?
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?
5: Do you currently have any aspirations for running for Arb in the next election?
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
Comments are being accepted until 23:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC). The current time and date is 16:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC) (
).Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
![]() |
|
Track related changes |
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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).
Guerillero ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have 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?
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?
5: Do you currently have any aspirations for running for Arb in the next election?
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Jake Wartenberg ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
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). -- Rs chen 7754 04:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
2: What are your views on how to handle underage editors sharing personal information? -- Rs chen 7754 04:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
3: What are some of the criteria you would use to determine if a CU check was valid? -- Rs chen 7754 04:51, 9 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?
5: Do you currently have any aspirations for running for Arb in the next election?
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)
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?
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
MBisanz ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have 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?
Optional question(s) from Rschen7754
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?
5: Do you currently have any aspirations for running for Arb in the next election?
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?
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)
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?
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)
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)
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)
Penwhale ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have 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?
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?
5: Do you currently have any aspirations for running for Arb in the next election?
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Richwales ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have 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?
Optional question(s) from Rschen7754
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?
5: Do you currently have any aspirations for running for Arb in the next election?
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
TParis ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have 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?
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?
5: Do you currently have any aspirations for running for Arb in the next election?
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)