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

DeltaQuad

 * Nomination statement (250 words max.)

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

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

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


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

Do you hold advanced permissions (checkuser, oversight, bureaucrat, steward) on this or other WMF projects? If so, please list them. Also, do you have OTRS permissions? If so, to which queues?
 * A: I do not hold advanced permissions on any WMF projects. I do have OTRS access for info-en (full), permissions, and photosubmission. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  19:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

4. Secondly, do you believe that having advanced and ultra-advanced permissions for significant periods of time would alter how a user (not any specific user) would approach the position of AUSC member?
 * A: I'm sorry but I don't understand the question in general, could you please clarify the "advanced and ultra-advanced permissions" part? -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  09:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If a user has had an advanced permission for a sufficiently long period of time that they've become used to having it, would that change how they thought of the tool itself? If so, how would that change affect people's said user's ability to judge other people's actions related to that tool?  S ven M anguard   Wha?  14:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * A: A long period of time using the tools does create an experience, or a "norm" among the checkuser and oversight body. Standard practices are going to be seen in any group, whether corporate or onwiki. With a long term functionary, this could create a potential issue (less of an issue for those who are less active) of viewing the tool differently from when they started. If this occurred it would cause an issue between what the community has intended AUSC to be (to hold functionaries accountable without looking over there shoulders 24/7) and what is being done. Am I saying this will create an issue? No. This is up for the community to decide if the person is suitable for the candidacy, but I can see the issue individuals could have with it. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  09:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

5. Finally, do you believe that this 'overqualified' concern might reasonably apply to you, and if so, how would you go about handling such a concern and mitigating its impact?  S ven M anguard  Wha?  16:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * A: I do not feel overqualified at all for this position at this time. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  09:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments

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


 * I've watched DeltaQuad's career (for want of a better word) with interest for quite a while. I think he would make a brilliant checkuser and/or oversighter. He has the knowledge of policy, the technical skill, and the trust of the community. However, I hesitate to recommend him for this role. His writing often gives the impression of being hasty, often sloppy, as though he hasn't read it through, and consequently, one can struggle to make complete sense of what he's saying. While the intended meaning is usually clear, I think it is imperative that somebody in a role like this be able to explain themselves clearly and without rambling. This was something that was mentioned in passing in the oppose sections of both DQ's RfAs, and he's certainly come a very long way since his first RfA, but given the importance of the matters AUSC deals with, I can't comfortably support DQ for the role, much as I would like to. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  19:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * HJ certainly has a point about how I have made my posts. It's something that should be considered when reviewing my nomination. I do admit that English is not my best strong point, although it is my native language. I had about 2 years of my life where my language of instruction for education was not English, and I did have to relearn a fair amount of the English, though that was several years ago. As for my language giving the impression of being hasty, I partly disagree with this, but as I look back over some posts that I have made and they do seem hasty, and also can see how it could have occurred. This is something I will be looking to improve upon. Thank you HJ for coming out and showing me where I can improve, we can all use constructive criticism every once in a while. :) -- DQ on the road   (ʞlɐʇ)  22:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)