Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee/2011 appointments

WP:AUSC/2011

The appointment process is now concluded, and the appointment motion has been published below.

The current time and date is 08:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC).

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.

Appointment process

Applications: 21 February–7 March
Candidates self-nominate by email to arbcom-en-b lists.wikimedia.org. They will receive an application questionnaire which should be completed and returned by email to the Arbitration Committee at the same email address. This should include a nomination statement, to a maximum of 250 words, for inclusion on the candidate's nomination sub-page.

Review period by the Arbitration Committee: 7–14 March
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 on the eve of the community consultation period to the Candidates section below.

Community consultation: 14–21 March
Along with their nomination statement, candidates will answer a few standard questions and the community may pose additional questions. While there will be no formal voting, comments will be invited publicly, or privately by email to arbcom-en-b lists.wikimedia.org. Ideally, community members will outline in detail their rationale for supporting or opposing a candidate in either case.

Appointments: by 31 March
The appointments will be published. Should a sufficient number of suitably qualified candidates apply, the committee will appoint three "primary members" along with a number of "standby members" who may (subject to the appointment motions) also receive the CheckUser and Oversight privileges,^[1] and would stand in should a primary member become inactive or be unable to hear a particular case. The successful candidates will be required to identify to the Wikimedia Foundation prior to receiving the permissions.

^ For this round of appointments, the Arbitration Committee elected to closely mirror the 2009 appointment round by designating a single alternate member who would only receive the advanced privileges if they were appointed as a full member.

Appointment motion

Effective 1 April 2011, Bahamut0013 (talk · contribs), Courcelles (talk · contribs), and Keegan (talk · contribs) are appointed as community representatives to the Audit Subcommittee. The period of appointment will be 1 April 2011 to 31 March 2012. AGK (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 Dominic (talk · contribs), Jredmond (talk · contribs), and MBisanz (talk · contribs), whose terms in office were extended so that an orderly transfer of responsibility could occur. Dominic will return to his previous role as a CheckUser and Oversighter; MBisanz will assume his role as an Oversighter. The Committee also thanks former subcommittee member Tznkai (talk · contribs), who was one of the original appointees to the Committee in 2009, and resigned in August 2010.

Support: David Fuchs, Elen of the Roads, PhilKnight, Jclemens, John Vandenberg, Mailer diablo, Newyorkbrad, Kirill Lokshin, Risker, Roger Davies, Shell Kinney, Xeno

Oppose: None

Abstain: None

Not voting: Casliber, Cool Hand Luke, Coren, Iridescent

Inactive: Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, Sir Fozzie

For the Arbitration Committee, –xeno^talk 16:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

Candidates

AGK

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

Nomination statement (250 words max.): I am pleased to volunteer to serve on the Audit Subcommittee this term. The role of a subcommittee member is to scrutinise the use by functionaries of the checkuser and oversight tools. That role requires an auditor to 1. work independently and 2. devote sufficient time to their work. On both counts, I think I am a suitable candidate.

Having never used CU or OS, and having never worked especially closely with the non-arbitrator editors with CU/OS access, I am largely independent of that group. Such independence is essential if an auditor is to work impartially.
As well as being an active content contributor, I have been an arbitration clerk (for three years), an administrator, mostly active at Arbitration Enforcement (for four years this May), and, as Chairman of the Mediation Committee (since April 2010), the sole active processor of requests for mediation. This record in my view demonstrates my committment to being active on all duties I undertake or am drafted to.

If appointed, my approach would be to: be available enough to investigate all complaints referred to the AUSC; ensure that all complaints are responded to promptly and exhaustively, with clear findings and recommendations; routinely examine the CU and OS logs for irregularities; and ensure that statistics on CU and OS use are regularly made available to the community. I have made my ArbCom questionnaire available at User:AGK/AUSC and am happy to answer any other questions.

Standard questions for all candidates

A: Most of these answers were covered by the questionnaire that ArbCom asked all potential candidates to complete, so forgive me for posting derivatives of my earlier answers. If expansion on any point is desired, I am of course happy to oblige. AGK [•] 09:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've extended my answers to Q1 and Q2, as upon re-reading I didn't feel that I had answered in enough depth. AGK [•] 21:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

A: For about three months, I maintained statistics on the requests for mediation process—at User:AGK/rfm. I did this to understand how many requests we accept and turn away in the month I studied, and why we did so. As a result of the statistics, I rewrote the guides and the MedCom policy and made some modifications to the requests process. This kind of tracking of the specifics of processes in order to help with the formation of general strategy is, I think, the kind of work that is suited to somebody who is looking to work on the audit subcommittee.

As a Committee clerk, I have a working relationship with most of the current arbitrators; working alongside the three arbitrators who sit on the subcommittee would be natural to me. As a mediator, my experience is in handling disputes and problems in a balanced and detached way; in my view, this is precisely what an auditor should do. Formal mediation (that is, mediation provided by the Mediation Committee) handles the most complicated content disputes, and so, very often, the most frustrated parties. Just as the mediator is the uninvolved party in a heated disagreement, so too is the auditor the source of neutral scrutiny in disputes or complaints relating to checkuser/oversight users and members of the community; my experience as a mediator has accorded me an outlook that I hope would be of benefit to me should I be appointed as an auditor. As an administrator frequently active in arbitration enforcement, I have experience in establishing the basic facts and best remedial action to take in complicated or contested situations. Finally, as an editor who has been an active contributor to Wikipedia for over five years, I've been around for much of the evolution in community practice and policy that has led to Wikipedia working the way it does today; and the complicated and delicate matter of use of the CU and OS tools makes experience in many diverse issues, in my view, very valuable. AGK [•] 21:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

A: Though not trained as a programmer, I'm probably more computer-literate than most, and I am familiar enough with layer protocols and network addressing and most of the other technical concepts that appertain to the CU tool. I'm probably something of a secret geek (though which Wikipedian isn't?), which is probably evidenced by one of my favourite jokes being this:

An IPv4 address goes into the pub: "A strong CIDR please, barman, I'm exhausted".

I copied this answer from my ArbCom questionnaire; by the time I was writing this, I had been writing up my answers for over an hour, so please forgive my joke :). As I think have many Wikipedians, I've installed MediaWiki quite a few times—including the CheckUser extension. I know the output returned by the tool, the myriad different factors at play when pulling server data on user accounts, and the value and limitations on both CU and OS. AGK [•] 21:05, 17 March 2011 (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'm not very active on other WMF projects and I don't assist with OTRS. AGK [•] 09:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for this candidate

Question from Chzz

In your nomination, you state that your inexperience in CU/OS is a plus-factor. Other candidates have extensive experience. Do you therefore think that their prior involvement is a negative factor in evaluating them as candidates? Chzz ► 03:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A: Not at all. I think that the perspective is valuable, just as technical experience is also valuable. What I meant was that I have not been involved much in the day-to-day use of CU and OS (aside from when I clerked the old RFCU process a few years ago, when there was a mostly-different group of active checkusers), so what I was saying was that my detachment from CU and OS use and from its users was a good thing. That, I think, also applies to some of the other candidates in this election; and indeed, only one has ever actually used CU/OS. All of the candidacies in this appointments process are strong, and I would like to make it quite clear that I was portraying my strengths—not trying to portray the others as somehow incapable of auditing. AGK [•] 09:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Chzz

(As you said you have no experience of CU) - Please explain what a 'useragent string' is. Chzz ► 03:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A: In the context of CU, the user-agent string is a sequence of information about the user browser, system language and operating system version, and other system information that is stored as part of checkuser data. It can be used in an evaluation of the probability that two accounts are related, but, as with other CU data, has finite value because of spoofing. It can be especially useful to a checkuser who is using the tool in response to misbehaving web-crawalers and in relation to users (who make up the majority of people who edit Wikipedia) without the technical know-how to hide or change their user-agent. As private information accessible by the CU tool, it would be material to an AUSC investigation of use of checkuser. AGK [•] 09:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

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

Wow, nobody has commented here in all this time? Not sure what that means but AGK is exactly the type of consistently level headed, good faith assuming user I want checking my work and telling me if I screwed up. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bahamut0013

Bahamut0013 (talk · contribs · logs)

Nomination statement (250 words max.)

I have submitted my candidacy because I believe that the oversight of the most sensitive aspects of the project and its volunteers requires editors of the utmost trustworthiness and judgment. I am well-equipped to handle that level of trust with wisdom and discretion, while upholding the policies and guidelines established by the community. The faith the government has in my ability to handle security and privacy matters should demonstrate to the community that they would be correct to trust in my talents & abilities, which also include as my demonstrated maturity, sense of justice, effective communication and collaboration skills, and diplomacy. I am in good standing with the community, and have a working professional rapport with many members of the Arbitration Committee, allowing me to be so bold as to predict few hurdles in Wikipedia relationships. I firmly believe that amongst what are sure to be many excellent candidates, I could stand out as among the best.

I'd also like to thank the committee for letting me get to this stage. I'm familiar with three of the other candidates, and personally feel that being lumped into such good company is a compliment in and of itself.

Standard questions for all candidates

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

My experience dates back to my first anon edit in 2005, and the registration of my account in early 2007. I've grown tremendously as an editor since then, and the recent changes in my personal life have made me tend to take a more gnomish approach to article work, while I've broadened my participation in the behind-the-scenes aspects of editing on Wikipedia more in the last two years. Like any other editor, I've had my share of conflicts with others, and while I'm certainly imperfect, I believe that I've learned how to handle them with grace and discretion.

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

I've proudly displayed my military affiliation (as well as my real name for transparency) on my user page for almost as long as I've had an account. I have an active security clearance, which should prove the level of trust endowed into my integrity. My occuaption also requires me to "endure" annual training on privacy, security, OPSEC, information awareness (the so-called e-security that entails things like passwords, phishing, etc.), and other mundane but important concepts, such as suicide prevention. Despite the stereotype of military guys (especially Marines) as dumb and aggressive, I believe my service has allowed me to become a more eloquent person, capable of handling conflict, displaying initiative, creative thinking, and leadership skills that would hurt my principals of modesty to expand upon. I also have significant skills with computers, data manipulation, and analysis, as this is generally the core of my duties. And, I should note, that I'm writing this after getting off of a 36-hour sentry shift (with two hours of nap time), which I believe proves that even lack of sleep doesn't impair my contributions or dedication to the project.

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?

I currently only have user rights for rollback, autopatrol, IP block exemption (due to the high rate of vandalism from my work computer), and reviwer )I don't think I've ever used this recent changes permission, as it remains controversial as to implementation). I did consider volunteering for OTRS, but was discouraged by another volunteer. I generally don't edit on other projects much except Commons, where I have no special permissions.

Questions for this candidate

Question from NuclearWarfare

If I am not mistaken, you are friends with User:Jennavecia, who was desysopped some months (years?) ago for knowing that Law was a sockpuppet of a blocked user and failing to report it (Gross oversimplification, but I imagine you are familiar with the situation). Did you also know that Law was a sockpuppet of The undertow? NW (Talk) 01:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat. I met Lara during the Wikipedia:Meetup/Raleigh about this time last year, which was several months after the sock scandal (and I was only very vaguely familiar with it until I looked it up just now). Our friendship is probably better described as "acquantainceship" anyway; she's not very active on-wiki, and I haven't checked my Facebook account in months (the only off-wiki venue of communication for us). I don't think I've ever met The undertow under any of his various names. Were you merely asking my involvement (which was zero), or did you also want to know my thoughts on the scandal?

This question makes me a tad nervous that there might be guilt by association feelings (not saying that was your intent). I know that the BRC has a few members that are less than wholly savory to many other editors, and that the Raleigh Meetup put me in contact with a few other folks who are held in less than the highest esteem by the community. However, I'd like to make it clear that simply because I know or am friendly with some individuals that have made mistakes in the past, that doesn't impugn my ability to maintain integrity. Most of my on-wiki "friends" have gone more or less inactive, so I try to keep a professional distance with other editors now. bahamut0013^words _deeds 14:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fine. I had thought that you also knew The_undertow, but I guess I was mistaken. Thanks for the response.

So far as guilt-by-association goes; don't worry. My "vote", as it were, would really not have been affected by your response so long as you gave a truthful answer, though of course I can't speak for the rest of the community. I was just wondering what your involvement with the situation was. NW (Talk) 14:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can back up what he was saying here. In fact, Jennavecia doesn't even like him. We spent the entire weekend bitching about his haircut in Australian Sign Language while informing him we were engaging in interpretative dance. Also, less than savoury? Thanks! Ironholds (talk) 08:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I could be less polite about you, Ollie, but then I lose brownie points at the polls. :'( Besides, you never submitted a photo for the BRC, so I guess that "unsavory" bit doesn't really apply to you by default (though I can single you out if you like). bahamut0013^words _deeds 11:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

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

Support appointment, I don’t always agree with Bahamut0013, but I do respect his point of view, his commitment to Wikipedia & his trustworthiness as an editor. I have worked around him for a few years now & believe this candidate will show fairness in arbitrating disputes. Most importantly, as a Sergeant of Marines, he lives by core values of honor, courage & commitment. Semper Fi, FieldMarine (talk) 18:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Trustworthy, hardworking, reasonable. Gets my approval. Ironholds (talk) 15:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support if for no other reason than his decision not to work anonymously. That speaks volumes about accepting personal responsibility for one's own actions, which is enough to inspire confidence in its own right. I did some checking of his activities and see nothing to make me doubt his worthiness. I'm not a military man, but Semper Fidelis to you, Yank. Peter S Strempel Page | Talk 10:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Courcelles

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

Nomination statement (250 words max.)

Hello, folks, I'm Courcelles. I've been an active editors and administrator here for a while now, and I think I would be an asset to the Audit Subcommittee, if you will have me. I've said before that a prompt that boils down to "talk about yourself" without specifics is one of my worst fears; I'd rather discuss the weather in Kathmandu! I consider the audit subcommittee one of the more important functions in the governance of Wikipedia as currently structured, as checkuser and oversight are the only things on-wiki that can leave no trace they were ever done, even to a sysop, and that makes confidence in their use a difficult thing to establish. I have no reason to distrust any of the CU/OS operators, let me be clear, but that lessens by not a bit the necessity of a "watchdog" like the AUSC to investigate community concerns and maintain community confidence. I'll be more than happy to answer any questions you have.

Standard questions for all candidates

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

(Oh, great, a "talk about yourself" prompt. My least favourite thing.) I seem to go through cycles on Wikipedia- which is another way of saying I've dabbled in a little bit of everything. In general the skills of the auditor and the administrator or editor aren't all that different. They all require you to put your nose to the grindstone and get stuff done, and get it done right. I never have as much time to write as I'd like, but I don't think I'm deficient in that area. I've done quite a bit of work as an admin, which means a few honest screw-ups here and there. I've gone four floors underground to find a single number in shelves that hadn't been dusted since the Clinton Administration. I've communicated with people who were not happy with us on OTRS. (And trust me, I hate talk about yourself prompts. The right answer to this one will come to me... next Monday. Got questions? I've likely got answers.) Courcelles 10:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

I could bore you and tell you how I studied math and statistics for a few years in college; I did, but that's not what I consider the AUSC to be be about. I'm familiar with binary arithmetic and statistics... but I'm not that much of a computer guy. I understand the basics, and I can almost always figure out what I need to learn without bugging the IT guy, but you won't catch me programming a gadget more complicated than an Excel spreadsheet anytime soon! Courcelles 10:16, 14 March 2011 (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?

No to the advanced flags. I do have OTRS access, to info-en, permissions-en, permissions-commons. Courcelles 10:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for this candidate

Question from {Example}

Comments

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

I have found this user to be one of the most consistently helpful, clueful, levelheaded, and active users on the project. I think he would help increase the efficiency of the AUSC. /ƒETCH COMMS / 01:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As Fetchcomms well points out. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A lot (perhaps most) of the interactions I've had with this user (usually at wp:FLC) have rarely been constructive. He has displayed an unusual amount of stubbornness and I have found him to display little interest in really working towards finding a compromise. I don't know if this position fits well for a person that tends to display an attitude along the lines "I know better than other reviewers". Nergaal (talk) 00:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've had Courcelles' talk page watchlisted since long before he was sysopped and have never found him anything short of polite, proactive and extremely sensible. Admittedly, I have very little contact with the featured content processes and haven't observed his work there, but my interactions with him outside of that are more than enough to convince me that he'd be a responsible and effective member of the AUSC. I can't think of an editor I'd endorse more. sonia♫ 09:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HJ Mitchell

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

Nomination statement (250 words max.)

I consider myself to be an experienced and dedicated editor. By no stretch of the imagination am I the most prolific or the most experienced and certainly not the best, but I've been editing for very nearly two years and I've been serving as an administrator for about 10 months.

I've always seen my role as an administrator as something of a two-pronged fork: I try to make life (on Wikipedia, at least) easier for the many editors who are here to improve Wikipedia and as hard as possible for those who seek to disrupt the project and I would continue to take this approach on the AUSC. I've encountered everything from petty vandals to the much more sophisticated, coordinated abuse.

The non-arbitrator members of the AUSC have a unique role on Wikipedia in ensuring the accountability of actions which the community cannot review. For obvious reasons, the role requires considerable discretion. I would like to think that I’ve proven myself capable of exercising such discretion, having handled many potentially sensitive situations by email in my capacity as an admin.

The AUSC has had problems in the past with its members being unavailable, hampering its work. I lead a fairly uneventful life and my editing levels have been stable for the best part of a year. It is quite rare that I’m totally unreachable, even if I’m not editing, and absences of more than a few days are rare, so I think I can provide the regular availability that the AUSC needs.

Standard questions for all candidates

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

Well, after nearly 11 months as an admin, there's not much that surprises me any more. I spent the first 9 of those months as one of the most active admins on the project. After finding some articles that needed writing, I've rediscovered my passion for writing articles on interesting people and so spent more time in the mainspace, but I've clocked up just over 20,000 admin actions, including about 10,000 deletions; 4,000 blocks (mostly vandals and inappropriate usernames); 4,000 protections (I'm also the third-most prolific admin at WP:RfPP); and a little over 1,000 user rights changes. I've also used RevDel about 500 times, many arising from email requests (I'm in Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests) and spent time at SPI, mainly poking my head round the door to handle some of the blatant cases when it's backlogged so that clerks and CUs can focus on the more complex cases (on which I comment when I have something pertinent to add). With that in mind, I think I have a pretty good idea if what checkusers and oversighters do and the challenges they face.

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

Not much, really, but I do have basic qualification in maths and IT and I can handle the kind of data processing that CU, OS and auditing require, whether it's comparing accounts' editing patterns or compiling statistics on CU and OS use from the private logs for the community.

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?

No. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for this candidate

Question from HJ Mitchell

I'll anticipate this one: Have you ever edited from any other account?
- I have a handful of alternate accounts used for a variety of purposes, all of which are listed on this page along with known impostors, both for transparency and security. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question from NuclearWarfare

Why do you claim FA credit for your work on Brad Pitt? NW (Talk) 01:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't. The star is there for sentimental reasons. It's the first FA I had anything to do with and I like to keep the star on my userpage as a way of remembering the collaborative effort that went into getting it to FA. The last thing in the world I would want to do is detract any credit from ThinkBlue (talk · contribs)—if it hadn't been for her amazing dedication, the article would probably be a fancrufty mess and there wouldn't have been anything much to copy edit, which (for the record) was the extent of my involvement with the article, apart from a little babysitting of the FAC. The only reason I have any of those pretty icons there (likewise, the barnstars at the very bottom) is to remember the collaborations I've been involved in and the editors I've worked with. Besides that, what matters is not who gets the star on their userpage, but that Wikipedia has one of (if not the) most comprehensive and neutral biographies of the man on the web. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Chzz

I am concerned that RevDel has become "Oversight-lite" – in some cases used excessively, in others when OS would be more appropriate; and that users trusted as SysOp may not have the necessary experience to judge whether specific revisions require RevDel or OS. What is your opinion? Chzz ► 04:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When the only tool one has is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail? ;) I can see where you're coming from, but, in my experience, the stuff that needs to be suppressed (outing/privacy issues in particular) still is, though it might be RevDel'd and then referred up the line to Oversight. Most admins, and certainly those who use RevDel a lot, are smart enough to work out when something shouldn't be visible even to admins, but there is plenty of stuff (mostly RD2 and RD3) that isn't serious enough for oversight but would benefit from being removed. I find it useful for instances where "old-fashioned" deletion isn't practical, such as for high-traffic pages and those with large edit histories, and especially for edit summaries and log entries. The advantage of RevDel is that it's very easily "policed", because it produces entries in the deletion log and there is a relatively large number of admins and so actions made with it can be scrutinised by the community where appropriate, rather than by ArbCom. I myself probably request oversight probably only slightly less frequently than I did before RevDel was made available to admins—I still kick the really serious stuff like outing, privacy (especially the odd 13-year-old's userpage that contains way too much information), libel etc up to oversight, but now I can handle the less serious stuff (like page moves to offensive titles or nasty edit summaries) myself and it's easier for anyone to see what I've done and what rationale I gave for doing it.

TL;DR? Privacy issues, libel and other really unpleasant stuff is still, in my experienced, referred to Oversight (sometimes having been RevDel'd first, which can be an advantage if all the oversighters seem to be asleep [not that they don't do a great job!]), but some of the less nasty stuff, but which is disruptive and of no value in keeping, can be dealt with and the process for dealing with it is as transparent as it's possible to be. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 05:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

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

I have seen HJ Mitchell's work as an admin and it appears that he would work very well in this position. I have never once seen him show partiality towards other users, and his conduct is always fair. His level of clue is very high. He also appears willing to "step on some toes" when it is necessary, and in a job like this, being willing to "step on toes" will be crucial. For these reasons, I believe that HJ Mitchell is a great candidate. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that my "endorsement" will really mean much to the selection committee, but I thought I'd add my 2¢... In my dealings with HJ Mitchell, I've really been impressed by his good judgement. I'm also impressed by his insightful and positive comments on the current Dreadstar/Sandstein arbitration case. I think he'd do a great job as a member of the Audit Subcommittee. Mojoworker (talk) 09:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support because I know this contributor doesn't hide behind a silly alias, therefore accepting responsibility for his actions, and expecting to be held accountable. Good on you. Peter S Strempel Page | Talk 10:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He has always been fair and neutral in my dealings with him --Guerillero | My Talk 01:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
HJ is an even handed and honest administrator, I'm sure he would apply those same qualities to the subcommittee. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keegan

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

Nomination statement (250 words max.)

I am an experienced contributor with a great interest in the Wikipedia and Wikimedia Privacy Policies. I have served as an oversighter since August of 2009, with a hiatus from August 2010 to January 2011 while I was employed by the Wikimedia Foundation. I am the primary author of the English Wikipedia Oversight manual. As an oversighter and Volunteer response team leader (OTRS admin), most of my work for Wikipedia deals with privacy related issues that occur out of the public eye, or aim to resolve issues that are in the public eye. Either path requires discretion and diligence to protect the privacy rights of all.

On the Audit Subcommittee, I will serve as one of our representatives to uphold regular communication with the community about the use of Checkuser and Oversight. I believe the purpose of the committee is to properly document how the tools are being used and review reports of anomalous activity and maintain scrutiny over the privacy of usage. I believe the AUSC requires non-partisan analysis, and I will render my services to the best of my ability.

Standard questions for all candidates

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

By the nature of a wiki, all editors serve as auditors of the contributions of others. As editors we are constantly reviewing submissions; as administrators we are constantly reviewing the action of other administrators, and as oversighters we are subject to review of the AUSC and the Arbitration Committee. Internal reporting is something that I have embraced in my 5+ years as a community member and I feel qualifies me to review the use of advanced permissions.

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

Auditing the results of business reports in a managerial capacity in my professional career and in other off-wiki voluntary commitments has taught me how to organize the puzzle pieces of scrutinized review. Breaking down the numbers comes easily to me.

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?

I am a community elected oversighter on the English Wikipedia and a bureaucrat on Ten Wiki (that wiki is now a tad obsolete). I am an OTRS administrator of nearly a year- thus I have permission to almost all queues- and an OTRS volunteer for two years.

Questions for this candidate

Question from Sven Manguard Wha?

Do you feel that your extensive dealings with WMF staff, including being part of the WMF staff for a time,) and with oversighters makes you too closely aligned either of those two groups?

I do not believe that my experience with the Wikimedia Foundation nor amongst oversighters aligns me in any political way. The WMF staff work to support Wikipedia and Wikimedia; it is us, the community, that builds and shapes the projects. The experience of the WMF is unrelatable to being a community member. I would note that I worked part-time, from home 2,300 miles away from the office. As far as oversighters go, most of our work is solitary. Checkuser requires much more collaborations between users with that permission. So no, I do not believe my ability to be impartial has been compromised by these relationships.

Do you have friends within those groups, and if so, if it came to it, how would you respond to a blatant abuse of CU or OS by one of your friends?

First, we need to differentiate something. The AUSC handles use/misuse of the tools and assures that the system remains impartial and active. Abuse of the tools should be handled by the Ombudsman committee and if I were to discover abuse either as a run-of-the-mill editor or any other hat I would report to them with diligence. Yes, I have friends amongst the staff and oversighters. That does not temper my response to possible misuse of the tools. Friendship does not except responsibility. Keegan (talk) 19:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not obvious to me what distinction you are drawing between handling "use/misuse" and handling "abuse." Could you clarify? Dominic·t 21:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I certainly can. Bear in mind, this is an outside prospective from not having experience on the committee.

Use/misuse, as I construe it, means the bounds of what is considered unacceptable use of oversight and checkuser on the English Wikipedia not by privacy policy de facto, but de jure of the community. Requests to investigate use/misuse are processed and the results are submitted to the Arbitration Committee, and it goes on from there. It is a local matter; the same sort of reason functionaries have been removed before not necessarily because of a direct violation of the global policy, but because of our community standards. Abuse, on the other hand, is reported to the AC, who then pass that along to the Ombudsman Commission. So I draw a distinction in what the question was asking as I read it: we have local governance and we have global governance with the monitoring of advanced permissions. Keegan (talk) 06:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question from {Example}

Comments

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

Almost all of Keegan's comments at a discussion enlighten me. He is one of the few Wikipedians I strongly trust and I think his current experience with the OS tools would let him be a valuable member of the AUSC. /ƒETCH COMMS / 01:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keegan is the ideal candidate for this position. -- œ ^™ 14:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not that these supports really count for much, but I'm going to chime in with one anyways. Keegan is the strongest candidate in the field today, and seems like he has all the right stuff for the job. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Timestamp difference is due to me having posting the comment, then removing the comment when I posted the question. I never disagreed with the initial sentiment, but I don't make a practice of casting votes before I read the answers to questions I pose, it isn't good practice. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support because, you guessed it, I like a person who does not hide behind an alias, but also for the indefinable understanding of the power of administrators in Keegan's essay on that topic. I guess that understanding comes from having some liberal arts education. Far too many nerds with the scientists' penchant for absolutism, paternalism and authoritarianism here on Wikipedia (perhaps including me). I've read a few times now that some other contributors don't have any confidence their opinions count for anything in this matter. That would be a shame, and a poignant reminder about the poor perception so many people have of faceless admins who appear to mystify what they do by resort to impenetrable jargon and coldly mathematical reasoning, which is not rational at all when it comes to dealing with people and encyclopaedic topics. I see in Keegan a glimmer of a humanism that would be an invaluable addition to any dispute resolution oversight and process in the encyclopaedic endeavour. Peter S Strempel Page | Talk 11:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It could only be a good thing to have someone with such a thorough understanding of what functionaries really do on a day-to-day basis on the subcommittee. Balance that out with some others that have no clue at all about such things and we should be fine. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ucucha

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

Nomination statement (250 words max.)

I have been involved in Wikimedia projects since 2004 and during that period, I have worked on content, administration, and some technical matters. While I was never directly involved in CheckUser or Oversight matters, I've gained a broad knowledge of Wikipedia policies and practices. I am confident that as a member of the Audit Subcommittee I will be able to put that experience into practice while reviewing disputed uses of the Oversight and CheckUser tools.

On the English Wikipedia, I have mostly been involved in content creation, and have written over 30 featured articles, over 50 good articles, and over 100 "Did you know?" articles. As such, I will bring to the Subcommittee the perspective and views of a content creator, which is essential in evaluating disputes on a website built on content.

Standard questions for all candidates

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

I have been active in Wikipedia since 2004 and have been an admin on the Dutch Wikipedia since 2005 and here since late 2009. I have mainly focused on content creation, but have some experience in dispute resolution and have always been interested in the more technical aspects of Wikipedia. Ucucha 06:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

I have some experience doing statistical analysis (mainly involving biogeography and biometrics) and some experience in programming, so I know something about the technical side of CU and OS data. Ucucha 06:04, 21 March 2011 (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?

Bureaucrat on Wikispecies; no OTRS access. Ucucha 06:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for this candidate

Question from Sven Manguard

It's been three days and the "Standard questions for all candidates" have not been answered yet. I would hope this is a case of "I didn't know, I'll get right on it." Sven Manguard Wha? 07:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, according to his user talk page, he is "abroad with limited internet access from March 12 to March 20, and probably won't be checking in on Wikipedia". That explains it. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The candidates were all (unless I was different) notified on March 13 that they were being nominated, so he may not even know that this page exists because of the timing of his break! AGK [•] 20:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I got mine around 2300 UTC on 13 March. It is entirely reasonable that Ucucha has never even seen that e-mail or this thread. Courcelles 15:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I got mine at about the same time, I think (I remember that it was late where I am when I received the e-mail, as in near-ish midnight). I think the Committee should give serious thought to extending the 'nominations' process, to allow Ucucha time to publish his answers. Whilst I don't think a candidate is as disadvantaged by unanswered questions as in a straight election, I still think it will negatively affect the opinion that those submitting comments will have of him. But I am of course a candidate, so my opinion doesn't count for much :). AGK [•] 21:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure ArbCom won't (consciously at least) hold it against him, if the shoe were on t'other foot, and I was away from WP for the week that happened to be that week, I'd be gutted that I didn't manage to say something for myself. I think extending it by a couple of days might be a good idea. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back now, and have answered the questions above. I don't think there's a need to extend the question time. Ucucha 06:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

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

Ucucha has my full support in being a part of the Audit Subcommittee, I have worked with this user over a number of areas on wikipedia and I consider this users actions and opinions to be a great asset to the project, Ucucha is as neutral as Switzerland. I am sure Ucucha will answer those questions shortly. ZooPro 07:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[1] For this round of appointments, the Arbitration Committee elected to closely mirror the 2009 appointment round by designating a single alternate member who would only receive the advanced privileges if they were appointed as a full member.

[1]