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

Ponyo

 * Nomination statement (250 words max.)

I have decided to submit my application for AUSC candidacy as I believe that I have the necessary mix of technical and temperamental qualifications suited to the role. Regarding my Wikipedia background, I have been a member of the Wikipedia community since March 2007 and have found it to be an incredibly rewarding experience. I am approaching my first anniversary as an admin (February 2, 2012) and I am also active on OTRS where I work mainly with BLP subjects via the quality queue.

The technical skills I believe I would bring to the AUSC role include a real life background in data interpretation and forensics; in addition I have a natural disposition for thoroughness and attention to detail. If I were to be appointed to the 2012 AUSC I would ensure that complaints were reviewed with the utmost respect for all individuals involved – my work with OTRS requires the utmost discretion and will certainly extend to this role as well. Trust is an immutable requirement for AUSC members; I hope that my nearly five years of interactions with the Wikipedia community show that I am indeed trustworthy and able to respond with discretion, promptness, and clarity to any complaints raised during my potential tenure on the committee.

Standard questions for all candidates
Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
 * A: As an administrator I am used to having to evaluate situations in terms of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, not by who is shouting the loudest or making the most demands. This requires the ability to remain calm and review all arguments being made, as well as the ability to provide resolutions to conflicts that may not be satisfactory to all of the parties involved. My OTRS experience, especially my work on the Quality (BLP) queue, requires clear communication, constant respect in responses, and the utmost protection of privacy. I believe all of these skills will be an asset in the AUSC role.

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


 * A: In the “real world” my career involves a significant amount of data analysis and data interpretation. Essentially I spend my days teasing apart large amounts of information in order to identify significant patterns or anomalies. There is a degree of computer literacy required, and it also significant attention to detail and the ability to keep an open mind. If I approach a problem with a set expectation of the result, my analysis is flawed from the get-go.

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 Foundation projects, however I am active on OTRS and have access to the info-en queues including Permissions and Quality/BLP.

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 don’t believe that being an AUSC member provides carte blanche to use the associated OS and CU tools as part of one’s everyday Wikipedia activities; there is a yearly election for these two permissions if one is inclined to add the tools as part of their regular repertoire. With that in mind, I do think it’s important that members of the AUSC familiarize themselves with the CU and OS tools in order to understand how they work, what their limitations are, and how they can be misused. I can’t see how you could fully investigate any complaints raised if you don’t understand how the tools work.

2. Why do you think it is important to keep AUSC investigations private?  Whenaxis  talk &middot; &#32;contribs 23:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * My understanding of the process is that it is not entirely private in that the individual who initiates the complaint as well as the subject of the complaint are both aware of the process and are presented with a "final report" of the committee's findings. Additionally, the community can view these reports here. What does need to remain private is any data presented or compiled during the investigation covered under the Foundation's Privacy Policy. -- Jezebel's  Ponyo bons mots 23:40, 9 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?  16:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I’m hesitant to respond to this question as it consists of conjecture on the motivations behind the structure of the AUSC. I suppose your rationale could be accurate, although I would use the term “editor independent of Arbcom” as opposed to “common editor”. Alternatively, the role may have initially been proposed as a means of taking some of the burden off of Arbcom by assigning a specific set of activities to vetted individuals. I don’t believe that having previous experience with the CU or OS permissions should be seen as a negative with regard to AUSC participation; what is required is the ability to review the evidence presented in any investigation to ensure that there was no improper use of the CU and OS tools. One should not automatically infer that having experience with said permissions means that the sub-committee member will allow bias to enter their decisions. That being said, the possible dilemma you propose does not apply to me as I have never held advanced permissions such as CU or OS on any Wikimedia projects.

Comments

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


 * I've seen some of Ponyo's work on OTRS and it's top-notch. She handles sensitive tickets that require patience and discretion—skills that are very much transferable and would be very relevant to AUSC in my opinion. She is very approachable, and highly trusted by all parts of the community from what I've seen. I think she'd do an excellent job, and I think she'd be an excellent choice for AUSC. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  08:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)