Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee/2012 appointments/Avraham

Avraham

 * Nomination statement (250 words max.)

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

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

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


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

Do you hold advanced permissions (checkuser, oversight, bureaucrat, steward) on this or other WMF projects? If so, please list them. Also, do you have OTRS permissions? If so, to which queues?
 * A: Yes. I am a bureaucrat, checkuser, and am oversight-enabled on this (the English Wikipedia) project, I am oversight-enabled on the Wikimedia Commons, and I serve all Wikimedia projects as a steward. I am also an OTRS volunteer with access to the following queues: info-en (full), Permissions, Sister projects, info-he (full), Stewards, and oversight-en-wp. -- Avi (talk) 05:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Questions for this candidate
1. Do you think AUSC members should actively use the CheckUser or Oversight tool? Amalthea 08:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * A: I believe that is up to the individual, but I do not believe that there is an inherent need for inactivity. I believe that familiarity with the tools, their utility and their shortcomings, and in the processes CUs and OSs use on the English Wikipedia as a matter of course is helpful in understanding why given actions were done in given cases. Furthermore, specifically regarding my own case, I believe I am of more use and service to the Wikipedia project as the active checkuser and oversighter which I already am. For what it is worth, I do not stand to gain any privileges or access over that which I already have; only more responsibility and more calls on my time. When the call for volunteers was released, prior to submitting my name for consideration, I specifically asked of ArbCom if I would need to refrain from using both sets of tools were I to be selected for the committee. I was told that there is no necessity to refrain from using the tools, and thus I do not intend to slow down my activity level solely because I am on the AUSC. Obviously, I would recuse myself from any case in which I would be named by a complainant, but, thankfully, that has not occurred to my knowledge over the past 3.5+ years. -- Avi (talk) 15:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

2. Why do you think it is important to keep AUSC investigations private?  Whenaxis  talk &middot; &#32;contribs 22:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * A: What do you mean by private? If you mean releasing all the details of the investigation, that is almost certainly impossible. AUSC investigations deal with information that is covered by the Wikimedia foundation privacy policy, which supersedes anything any one project may decide. Furthermore, there may be local policies even more stringent than the foundation's policy. On the other hand, the fact that the AUSC performed an investigation is something that can be released, and I believe it is already done so now on the report page. Perhaps it would be better if you could specify more clearly what you had in mind? -- Avi (talk) 23:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry for being unclear. For example, other investigations that deal with abuse on Wikipedia such as sockpuppet investigations and requests for de-adminship are public during the course of the investigation. So, why do you think AUSC investigations are kept private?  Whenaxis  talk &middot; &#32;contribs  23:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Almost certainly due to the fact that AUSC investigations are dealing solely with how and why private information was accessed, suppressed, or otherwise handled. For general sockpuppet discussions, there is no privacy issue. Even when a CU is run, the results are allowed to be published and the bulk of the process still relates to regular, on-wiki information. The AUSC is called in to investigate use of tools that only deal with privacy issues. That alone is reason to take extra care. Also, in the investigation, there will be need for the party being investigated to explain their actions. Once again, this will be dealing almost totally with information that should not be released. For example, the question may be asked of a checkuser: why did you run checks on account a and b and IP c? That right then and there would be indentifying some kind of relationship if that were posted on-wiki. The responses of the CU operator as well almost certainly contain information covered by the WMF and local privacy rules. An OS investigation would be similar. Even in the (hopefully very rare) case where the tool user was incorrect, the salient facts of the case are likely unable to be posted (Something like "You should not have checked User:Avraham and IP 127.0.0.1" is something I hope no AUSC member says on wiki [[file:face-smile.svg|28px]]); pretty much the only safe things we can say are the fact that there was an investigation, there was a finding of issue/non-issue, and if there was an issue, these are the steps taken to ensure such issues no longer occur; which is pretty much the process now. In general, parties to the complaint get a summarized report of the results--with some exception. For example, someone not IDd to the foundation should not receive any data not about themselves, and we shouldn't go out of our way to allow known sockpuppeteers to get information that will help them vandalize the project further [[file:face-smile.svg|28px]].  -- Avi (talk)

3, 4, and 5. Part of the rationale for having non-Arb members on this committee, at least as I see it, is to give more voice to the 'common editor'. People who have had advanced permissions for long periods of time might view the use of those permissions differently from those that didn't have access to those rights before joining the committee. With this in mind, I note that several candidates have advanced permissions, including not only CU and OS but also permissions are more powerful and more exclusive that CU and OS. Firstly, do you consider my 'common editor' rationale to be accurate? If not, what is the reason that the committee contains non-Arbs? Secondly, do you believe that having advanced and ultra-advanced permissions for significant periods of time would alter how a user (not any specific user) would approach the position of AUSC member? Finally, do you believe that this 'overqualified' concern might reasonably apply to you, and if so, how would you go about handling such a concern and mitigating its impact?  S ven M anguard  Wha?  16:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello Sven, and thank you for the questions. My understanding is that the non-arbitrator members are there to serve as a check on ArbCom. ArbCom is the body authorized by the foundation to grant and remove the permissions, and having non-ArbCom members on the AUSC serves to add a level of "non-involvedness." Realistically, ArbCom also appoints the AUSC, but having people who are separate from the authorizing body is not a bad idea. I am unsure as to your directions by using the term "common editor." If you mean someone without access to the tools, then that is an inherent contradiction; all AUSC members will be granted the rights if they do not already have them. If you mean someone who has never used the tools prior to joining the AUSC, there are pros and cons. I can speak only for myself, but I certainly understand that using the tools on a regular basis to support this project does lead one to have certain trains of thought. People develop a familiarity with certain patterns of vandalism, certain editing styles, certain technical data, which may lead them to use the tools in a certain manner. Someone without that familiarity may have a different view, and an open mind is always a good thing. On the other hand, that very familiarity is very important in understanding why certain checks were done or such and such data was suppressed. Someone who has not spent the time doing the work does not always understand the work, and that can lead to an improper conclusion. As an analogy, while I might want a second opinion from a different doctor about a medical condition, I may not want it from an accountant who is changing careers and is in her first year of medical school. As an aside, I prefer not to use the term "common user" in that, when it comes to opinions and consensus, all users in good standing should be treated equally. While it may sometimes not seem that way in the "Wiki-Wild", personally, I try to view the toolsets to which some of us have access as just that, tools. They are not badges of authority or accomplishment. The only thing that they may indicate outside of someone who does more back-room cleanup is that the user who has the tools needed to, at least at one point, demonstrate enough good judgment and wisdom to have earned the trust of either the active English Wikipedia community or its ArbCom. OK, I think I got a tad off-topic there. Back to the matter at hand, to answer concisely:
 * 3. I think that the intent of ArbCom was to have specifically non-arbcom people, not people unfamiliar with any of our toolsets (CU, OS, admin, etc.)
 * 4. Yes, I think that having the advanced tools would alter how a user would approach AUSC, if only because they are more familiar with both the tools and the (sometimes hours and hours long) processes in which they are used, so they would be able to recognize appropriate and non-appropriate uses more quickly. I think it also is human nature to feel some sort of kinship with people with whom you work, especially if you see them attacked by vandals and trolls as a result of their good work (there is a reason that many of us need our user and talk pages semi or fully protected, sadly). Such a kinship can lead to an initial inclination to defend the user from attacks. Speaking for myself, I would like to believe that I would be both just and fair as a member of the committee tasked to review one of my fellow editors (and the time(s) I was asked by ArbCom prior to the formation of the AUSC, I think I was), but that is for ArbCom to decide, and about which you, and the entire Wikipedia community, should provide your input to ArbCom.
 * 5. To answer the first part of the question, yes. For better or for worse, I am one of the more haberdashery-equipped members of both Wikimedia and Wikipedia [[file:face-smile.svg|28px]]. As such, I have been considered by some to be a "hat-collector," and if you check the various RfXs and elections I have undergone, you will see that. I like to delude myself into thinking that the permission to perform the maintenance work I do is a reflection on how my inter-personal behavior, editorial contributions, conflict-handling, and overall service has been viewed by Wikipedians and Wikimedians throughout the projects Face-glasses.svg, but the facts are as they are. However, I believe that I respectfully disagree with you in the potential need for there to be some form of "mitigation." As I have addressed above, I think familiarity with not only the tools but the processes that our CUs and OSs use on a daily basis helps to more quickly separate the cases where tool use was appropriate from those where it does not. As for the inherent benefit of the doubt that may be granted to people in a similar situation, I hope that ArbCom can look at my behavior over the past 6.5 years, 5.5 as an admin, and 3.5+ as someone with access to more restricted maintenance tools, and determine for themselves, together with the opinions and contributions of involved editors such as yourself, if they believe I can demonstrate the appropriate impartiality as necessary.
 * Thank you for your questions, and I hope you don't mind the length responses (I have been accused of suffering from tl;dr-itis in the past Face-blush.svg ). -- Avi (talk) 17:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

6. While I have no issue with editors wearing multiple hats across the project and across Wikimedia, because of the number of positions you hold, and the advanced levels of access you have, I'm curious to hear if you think that there might be a conflict between any of them. For example, if appointed, do you think you could devote sufficient time to both your steward work and your AUSC work? Or do you think that you could continue to be an active functionary and maintain sufficient detachment that you could impartially evaluate your fellow functionaries, or that your own actions were unlikely to come before the AUSC? HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  09:10, 13 February 2012‎ (UTC)
 * A: Your question has two parts. As to the first part, it too has two parts. Firstly, I do not beleieve there is any inherent conflict between any of the roles I hold. If anything, there are synergies that can be had by being both a steward and a native user of tools on projects, as it eases the ability to do cross-wiki vandalism checks. Secondly, yes, I believe I will be able to devote sufficient time. Prior to submitting my name for review, I asked current members of AUSC for the expected time demands, and did not find them excessive. I am also already an active CU and OS here on EnWiki notwithstanding my responsibilities in other projects, and intend to maintain the same level of activity even if appointed to the AUSC. As I wrote above, I do not intend to refrain from regular tool use as I believe I am of more service to the project as an active user of the tools. As for the second part, I believe I can. I have been asked to review activity in the past and believe I was impartial then, and I believe I can approach future requests with similar detachment when necessary. However, the previous statement is merely an affirmation in my belief in myself; if there are concerns about my ability to be impartial, then I would suggest that a review of my history here on EnWiki (or any other Wikimedia project) would be helpful in making a determination as to my ability to be impartial, and if I am found wanting, please let ArbCom know. I completely agree with and support the need for just and fair people reviewing use of the tools, and the public commentary timeframe is the opportunity to inform ArbCom if I am guilty of all-too-human self-delusion as to my abilities in that regard [[file:face-smile.svg|28px]]. Lastly, I do not believe my actions have ever been brought before AUSC. If my actions were submitted to AUSC I would obviously recuse myself from reviewing my own actions. Thank you for the questions. -- Avi (talk) 04:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments

 * Comments may also be submitted in confidence to the Arbitration Committee privately by emailing 

Avi's response to my question allays any concerns I might have had. The number and type of positions he holds across various projects is an indication that he is held in high esteem and can be trusted to make good use of tools for their intended purpose. He assures us that he has time to fulfil this role in addition to the others, and that none of the others will conflict with his AUSC role. I think somebody who has made prolific use of functionary tools (especially across multiple wikis) on AUSC will bring a useful set of skills and perspectives, and since at least one of the appointees (assuming ArbCom appoints three from these seven) will be somebody who has never used functionary tools, there will be a nice balance on the subcommittee. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  17:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


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