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

MBisanz

 * Nomination statement (250 words max.)

Hi, my name is Matt and I have been editing Wikipedia for several years now. In that time I have consistently pushed for greater accountability and participated in a wide range of activities in both content creation and policy debate. Further, I am mindful of the responsibility that comes with access to private data, being a former AUSC member and having access to OTRS and Oversight. One principle I think that is paramount in AUSC members is that they avoid using CU/OV access in order to avoid the appearance of impropriety. If selected, I pledge to avoid using the tools in non-emergency situations in general and in emergency situations when another user or steward can be found who can perform the task. I am open to any questions individuals may have with regard to my editing and maintain a rather open policy as to my own personal information in the interest of informing others as to any factors they may find important to know with regard to my editing.

Standard questions for all candidates
Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
 * A: :*Former AUSC member and former SPI clerk, advanced understanding of policy and historical context. I was a member of AUSC from July 2010 to March 2011.  Also helped write the global rights policy and have helped maintain the MediaWiki:Robots.txt file.  And I am responsible for the creation of the Wikien-bureaucrats mailing list for privacy related renames.

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


 * A: See User:MBisanz/Infobox for more details. I do serve on the WMF audit committee and am a former accountant, so I have an understanding of the concepts of professional skepticism, confidentiality, and document review. I'm also a law student and have interned in an investigative capacity, so I have capabilities in reviewing facts, judging credibility, and respecting individual rights.

Do you hold advanced permissions (checkuser, oversight, bureaucrat, steward) on this or other WMF projects? If so, please list them. Also, do you have OTRS permissions? If so, to which queues?
 * A:En.Wiki Oversight, Admin, and Bureaucrat, Commons Admin, WMF-wiki access, Internal-wiki access, OTRS info-en(f), permissions, photosubmissions, Sisterprojects, Oversight-en-wp, and DAL queues. Already identified to the Foundation.

Questions for this candidate
1. Do you think AUSC members should actively use the CheckUser or Oversight tool? Amalthea 08:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * A: No. I recognize that it is permitted by policy and practice, but I would not do it, did not do it during my prior term on AUSC and would counsel against it in future policy discussions. Using the tools while on AUSC creates the inappropriate appearance that the AUSC member is "one of them" or more importantly to the complainant "just like the guy I reported." As AUSC's mission is mostly based on its appearance as an independent reviewer of usage of the tools, it is critical that it take all steps to avoid the taint of bias, even if only by reputational association.  MBisanz  talk 13:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

2. Why do you think it is important to keep AUSC investigations private?  Whenaxis  talk &middot; &#32;contribs 22:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * A: For two reasons. First, an AUSC complaint may involve non-public information such that it would do further harm to the complainant if the investigation was made public. Second, the precise details that exonerate a functionary might also serve as an aid as to how to evade scrutiny in the future. For the first case, a user might file a complaint of an import checkuser because they had already filed notice of an alternate account with Arbcom. If we were to disclose our investigation, that would serve to out their approved alternate account. For the second case, if a checkuser was not fishing when they ran a check, but rather had noticed a banned user used a certain odd misspelling when editing a specific topic, it would only aid that banned user's efforts if we disclosed our investigation.  MBisanz  talk 00:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

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?  16:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


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


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


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

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


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

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


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

Comments

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


 * I trust MBisanz --Guerillero &#124; My Talk  23:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ditto, strong candidate who I trust for this job. Secret account 16:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Matt knows what he's doing and has demonstrated competence in the various tasks he's done on Wikipedia in the past few years. I am confident he would do a good job here. Steven   Zhang  Join the DR army! 03:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Previous experience on AUSC is a plus, as is experience as a functionary, and having at least one member of the subcommittee who doesn't use the tools for day-to-day matters is advantageous. Matt is also a long-term editor with a high edit count, which shows his commitment to the project and experience of many of its different corners, which suggests that he would be likely to complete his term (and stability on a subcommittee like this can inly be a good thing). HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  19:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't you think it's time to move over and allow new blood to flow? 140.247.141.165 (talk) 02:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ideal candidate. Grab him if he's willing to do it.  Tony   (talk)   12:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)